Thread: 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer

YT clip

For those of you that want to skip the video (not recommended) and go straight to the questions, here they are:

#1 Why won't god heal amputees?
#2 Why are there so many starving people in our world?
#3 Why does god demand the death of so many innocent people in the bible?
#4 Why does the bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?
#5 Why is god such a huge proponent of slavery in the bible?
#6 Why do bad things happen to good people?
#7 Why didn't any of jesus' miracles in the bible leave behind any evidence?
#8 How do we explain the fact that jesus has never appeared to you?
#9 Why would jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?
#10 Why do christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians?

Again, please don't skip the video.

I am in no way a theist, but most of those questions have been substantially debated a great deal by theologists. #7 and #8 bring to mind a great parable from Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov.

http://www.beezone.com/Dostoevsky/th...inquisitor.htm

The text itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Inquisitor

A brief synopsis if you're too lazy to read it, it is quite long.

It is an interesting question to ask whether it really would be better for God to prove his existence to humanity if he did exist.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

YT clip

For those of you that want to skip the video (not recommended) and go straight to the questions, here they are:


Again, please don't skip the video.

I'm not Christian, so I skipped the video:


#1 Why won't god heal amputees?

Amputation builds patience.

#2 Why are there so many starving people in our world?

Poor food distribution. Theres actually over 3 pounds of food per day per person in the world.

#3 Why does god demand the death of so many innocent people in the bible?

He wanted a do-over. Ver 1.0 had too many bugs


#4 Why does the bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?

To give atheists something to talk about.

#5 Why is god such a huge proponent of slavery in the bible?

How else would people recognise their inalienable rights?

#6 Why do bad things happen to good people?

Randomness

#7 Why didn't any of jesus' miracles in the bible leave behind any evidence?

They did, you need a miracle to see the evidence.

#8 How do we explain the fact that jesus has never appeared to you?

You don't. Its not yet time for the show.

#9 Why would jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?

Transmogrification

#10 Why do christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians?

Its a miracle.

That was fun. You have any more?

So far we've heard from two non-theists.

hehe... sam said she was a non-Christian... she's anything but a non-theist

I think Phoenix was implying that Sam's post (in his opinion) was a load of bullcock and should not be recognized. Of course, you were probably already know that and this post is meaningless example of ignorance as well

...

I'll go hide under my rock again.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer.

This is of course total nonsense. Creationists make up similar lists of questions that scientists must answer in order for evolution to be "acceptable". But of course, there is no reason why anyone should have any such answers in either case and not having the answers to any of these questions proves absolutely NOTHING.

Now some Christians just might have explored the questions similar to some of these, and I have certainly have my own speculations in regards to those which I have contemplated.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

#1 Why won't god heal amputees?
#2 Why are there so many starving people in our world?

If our actions don't have consequences then our choices are meaningless.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

#3 Why does god demand the death of so many innocent people in the bible?

Good question. Difficult question. I don't see that an answer to this question could be simple or easy and so I will leave speculations on this one to another time.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

#4 Why does the bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?

It doesn't. There is not a single mention of science in the Bible.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

#5 Why is god such a huge proponent of slavery in the bible?

Nowhere in the Bible is slavery advocated or endorsed. It and a great many other social inequities are simply accepted as the cultural conditions of the times in which it was written, but it does advocate incremental limitations and reforms regarding these practices. The Bible has actually been an inspiration for many people seeking to change these conditions.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

#6 Why do bad things happen to good people?

What is the logical connection here? If someone trips over a stone does that make them bad? Why should what happens when someone trips over a stone depend on their moral character?

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

#7 Why didn't any of jesus' miracles in the bible leave behind any evidence?

This question is nonsensical on so many levels it is quite absurd. It reminds me of the similarly irrationational demand for fossil missing links. The answer is only this question: why should there be?

Much better to cut the real heart of the issue. Surely God could provide a great deal more evidence of a many things like His own existence. For example, some writing in big letters on the moon or in the arrangements of the stars for all too see, would go a very long way towards convincing many skeptics. So why does He not do something like this? Well either He does not exist or He does not think that such evidence serves His interests, which I think is identical with our best interests. I frankly would not want to live in such a world for I do not think it would be a better world, not by a long long way. Or to put it another way, if God exists then I am not so sure that He would so greatly disapprove of atheists that He would go such great efforts to make sure there aren't any.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

#8 How do we explain the fact that jesus has never appeared to you?

I don't generally look for explanations for non-events. LOL

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

#9 Why would jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?

This is just one example of many symbolic observances with a spiritual significance. The beginning of this particular observance is described in the gospel of John chapter 6, where the people became so excited about the miracle of feeding His audience of 5000 people that they sought to take Him by force and make Him king. It is in direct response to this that Jesus started talking about Himself being the bread of life, and in response to this many of these followers abandoned Him. In this way, Jesus makes it clear that His purpose is spiritual development and not to provide for our physical comfort.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

#10 Why do christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians?

Why should the rate of divorse be any different? If those calling themselves "christians" think they are somehow better than other people then their understanding of Christianity is so poor as to raise significant doubts as to whether they should really be called Christian.




Now I am sure that Phoenix and Q are not going to like these answers and so they will respond with their typical barage of meaningless abuse. But I will only find that quite amusing, for it will only go to show that they just don't want anyone to have answers to these questions, any more than the Creationists want science to have any explanation for the existence of life and the species. Such is the delusional willfullness of those who are intolerant of the diversity of human thought.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

hehe... sam said she was a non-Christian... she's anything but a non-theist

Doh! Thanks for the correction.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

This is of course total nonsense. Creationists make up similar lists of questions that scientists must answer in order for evolution to be "acceptable".

So? I don't see how that has anything to do with anything.

If the questions are truely "nonsense" then I expect that you will either have answers for them or will otherwise be able to demonstrate why the questions aren't good ones.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

But of course, there is no reason why anyone should have any such answers in either case and not having the answers to any of these questions proves absolutely NOTHING.

Oh I see.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

#1 Why won't god heal amputees?
#2 Why are there so many starving people in our world?

If our actions don't have consequences then our choices are meaningless.

How is this related? People choose to be amputees? Children born into extremely impoverished parts of Africa, etc, choose to be hungry?

Lots of people claim that god sent their cancer into remission, etc. Why don't these people have to "face the consequense of their choices"?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

#3 Why does god demand the death of so many innocent people in the bible?

Good question. Difficult question. I don't see that an answer to this question could be simple or easy and so I will leave speculations on this one to another time.

aka "I don't know".

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

#4 Why does the bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?

It doesn't. There is not a single mention of science in the Bible.

Huh?

The bible mentions nothing about geology or cosmology (the creation myth, noah's flood, flat earth, etc)?

Or biology (virgin birth, resurrection)?

Or chemistry (water into wine)?

Or physics (jesus walks on water)?

My copy must have pages that yours doesn't or something.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

#5 Why is god such a huge proponent of slavery in the bible?

Nowhere in the Bible is slavery advocated or endorsed. It and a great many other social inequities are simply accepted as the cultural conditions of the times in which it was written, but it does advocate incremental limitations and reforms regarding these practices. The Bible has actually been an inspiration for many people seeking to change these conditions.

If anyone here would like to do their own research on this, I highly recommend this site as a jumping off point.

Needless to say something along the lines of "Thou shalt not take or keep slaves" would've been pretty sustinct, no?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

#6 Why do bad things happen to good people?

What is the logical connection here? If someone trips over a stone does that make them bad? Why should what happens when someone trips over a stone depend on their moral character?

Nice job tackling that extreme there, MM. How about other examples of bad things such as car accidents, death of child, losing your job, etc? Remember that the question asks why do these things happen to good people.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

#7 Why didn't any of jesus' miracles in the bible leave behind any evidence?

This question is nonsensical on so many levels it is quite absurd.

What is absurd about it?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

It reminds me of the similarly irrationational demand for fossil missing links.

That's great to hear, but that doesn't mean the questions are similar.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

The answer is only this question: why should there be?

But this isn't an answer. It's another question.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Much better to cut the real heart of the issue. Surely God could provide a great deal more evidence of a many things like His own existence. For example, some writing in big letters on the moon or in the arrangements of the stars for all too see, would go a very long way towards convincing many skeptics. So why does He not do something like this? Well either He does not exist or He does not think that such evidence serves His interests, which I think is identical with our best interests. I frankly would not want to live in such a world for I do not think it would be a better world, not by a long long way. Or to put it another way, if God exists then I am not so sure that He would so greatly disapprove of atheists that He would go such great efforts to make sure there aren't any.

While I'm sure we all appreciate you sharing your views on what you would or would not want, nothing you've said here answer the question.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

#8 How do we explain the fact that jesus has never appeared to you?

I don't generally look for explanations for non-events. LOL

But you will accept claims without any evidence? LOL

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

#9 Why would jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?

This is just one example of many symbolic observances with a spiritual significance. The beginning of this particular observance is described in the gospel of John chapter 6, where the people became so excited about the miracle of feeding His audience of 5000 people that they sought to take Him by force and make Him king. It is in direct response to this that Jesus started talking about Himself being the bread of life, and in response to this many of these followers abandoned Him. In this way, Jesus makes it clear that His purpose is spiritual development and not to provide for our physical comfort.

You are certainly welcome to your interpretation. However it neither answers the question nor invalidates the interpretations of others.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

#10 Why do christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians?

Why should the rate of divorse be any different? If those calling themselves "christians" think they are somehow better than other people then their understanding of Christianity is so poor as to raise significant doubts as to whether they should really be called Christian.

Because christians that get divorced aren't real christians. Okay, got it.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Now I am sure that Phoenix and Q are not going to like these answers and so they will respond with their typical barage of meaningless abuse. But I will only find that quite amusing, for it will only go to show that they just don't want anyone to have answers to these questions, any more than the Creationists want science to have any explanation for the existence of life and the species. Such is the delusional willfullness of those who are intolerant of the diversity of human thought.

But you only answered like 2 of them. And you didn't even do a very good job on those.

P.S. you didn't watch the video

Originally Posted by KomradRed

I think Phoenix was implying that Sam's post (in his opinion) was a load of bullcock and should not be recognized.

And, you'll find Sam's answers do not agree with her cult's doctrines, despite her agenda.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Now I am sure that Phoenix and Q are not going to like these answers and so they will respond with their typical barage of meaningless abuse. But I will only find that quite amusing, for it will only go to show that they just don't want anyone to have answers to these questions, any more than the Creationists want science to have any explanation for the existence of life and the species. Such is the delusional willfullness of those who are intolerant of the diversity of human thought.

Meaningless abuse? That would be the responses to the questions you are unable or refuse to answer?

Got it.

i do not see why any of these questions matter.

Oh the irony. I posted the same thing once upon a time here. As a theist, now atheist I'm really going to enjoy this

#1 Why won't god heal amputees?

Because God doesn't exist.

#2 Why are there so many starving people in our world?

Because corrupt governments and people in so called power care about themselves and could not care less who starves.

#3 Why does god demand the death of so many innocent people in the bible?

Because God (actually LORD God as he is reffered to in the Bible) is a creation of a human mind and wanted an exuse to get rid of people he didnt like.

#4 Why does the bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?

Because the last thing God wanted when he wrote the bible was for them to realise how much he screwed up by giving the dinosaurs all the technical details.

#5 Why is god such a huge proponent of slavery in the bible?

Because the law of free trade in our modern world; the bible was a similar way of enforcing slavery.

#6 Why do bad things happen to good people?

Bad things don't happen at all. They only become bad if you look on them as bad. Look on them as being great in helping you excel.

#7 Why didn't any of jesus' miracles in the bible leave behind any evidence?

They did; On my counter strike source server every time a guy named jesus dies; he respawns...

#8 How do we explain the fact that jesus has never appeared to you?

He's too busy playing counter strike source?

#9 Why would jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?

Maybe he gets off on that sort of stuff.

#10 Why do christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians?

Because people are just as corrupt, non compromising, useless and totally selfish beings with no sense of direction in their lives. Just because they believe what some tiny book says doesn't make them divine, they are still human and so are the ones who dont believe in the book.


Anyway there are my answers to the questions. If you want my serious answer (and theist) go back to the orignal version of this thread .

Protein.

Would the moderator please explain why my posts in this thread were deleted?

I reiterated the ten questions, but rephrased from a different perspective. For example I asked why science had produced the technology that generates many hundreds, or thousands of amputees each year.

I believe this was a valid approach, demonstrating that the original questions were in large measure illogical, or inapplicable. Or certainly no more applicable to Christians than to scientists, or any other human grouping.

At the very least I think I could have been advised by pm or within this thread as to why the posts were deleted, why they were thought to be irrelevant. So what's the deal. If I'm breaking some rule at least someone should tell me what rule I broke.

Disgruntled of Minnesota.

moderator: The moderator of this forum section did not delete any of your posts and cannot find any evidence of posts which were deleted, for usually when posts are deleted a copy is sent to the deleted or trash section. If you like you can send me a copy of them in a personal message and I can tell you if I see any reason why they would be deleted, but I would just suggest trying again. But you know how working with computers can be ... it is always a good idea to keep a backup of what you write just in case (write it in a text editor first and paste it to the forum, or you can usually highlight push control-c and then go to another program and push control-v to paste a copy there).

#1 Why won't god heal amputees?
Do you mean "why won't God replace lost limbs?" because I'm pretty sure that amputees heal just like anyone else. Maybe it breeds humility in the amputee and compassion in those who help them.

#2 Why are there so many starving people in our world?
Because of an inefficient international infrastructure. Maybe God wants us to learn to work together better. Then again, maybe He just wants us to forsake the world.

#3 Why does god demand the death of so many innocent people in the bible?
Death primers make you more conservative in your views, and thus more focuses on your goals. Maybe God is trying to teach people how to be in more control of their life, simply by being willing to sacrifice it.

#4 Why does the bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?
The bible, like most literature, is trying to convey ideas of the writer, and not specific mechanisms of cause and effect.

#5 Why is god such a huge proponent of slavery in the bible?
I thought He seemed rather indifferent, IE not especially supportive. Although slavery is bad "in and of itself," nothing is purely "in and of itself," but have effects outside of itself. For example- the plentiful resources that have allowed so many today to break free from predominantly religious social responsibilities, were developed in part by slavery. So maybe God, more than you or me, is capable of seeing the effects of things rather than being distracted by how they seem. Many Christians believe in slavery, so this question might not be fitting. Ant's enslave aphids. Are mutually beneficial relationships slavery? what about a cycle of slavery, where A enslaves B, B enslaves C and C enslaves A, and all 3 are equal. Is this slavery or mutual? Now stretch it over a period of time. If for a period of time A enslaves B, and then B enslaves A, and they continue taking equal turns. Is this slavery or is this mutual?

#6 Why do bad things happen to good people?
Some Christians see bad things as challenges that when overcome they make a person stronger. So it may be that bad things are not seeking out good people, but that good people are seeking out bad things. It is also possible that our definitions of "good" and "bad" are wrongly defined as "divine" and "infernal." I liken 'bad things happening to good people,' and 'bad things happening to good people,' simply as 'regression to the mean.'

#7 Why didn't any of jesus' miracles in the bible leave behind any evidence?
I could be wrong, I'm no biblical scholar, but I don't think His miracles were of any sort that evidence would last longer than the effects. Healing someone of a disease, walking on water, calming storms, multiplying bread and fish, being resurrected. These things don't leave behind evidence. Many Christians don't value the Bible as 'historical fact,' so this question is not relevant for them.

#8 How do we explain the fact that jesus has never appeared to you?
I didn't know he was supposed to. This is rather ridiculous because many Christians don't believe in this sort of presence. Christ, is the spirit of Jesus. Jesus is the body of Christ. You don't feel the presence of a body when the only thing that exists is the spirit. People experience what they consider to be the presence of the spirit of Christ. I personally don't know if such a thing exists, or what it feels like, but I have experienced amazing things during meditations and prayer. I can see why people would consider such feelings to be divine, even though they can probably be defined empirically.

#9 Why would jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?
Do you know what "communion" means?
Main Entry: alliance
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: friendly association, agreement
Synonyms: accord, affiliation, affinity, betrothal, bond, coalition, coherence, collaboration, collusion, combination, communion, compact, concord, concurrence, confederacy, congruity, conjunction, connection, consanguinity, cooperation, engagement, entente, federation, friendship, kinship, league, marriage, matrimony, membership, pact, participation, partnership, relation, support, tie, treaty, union, confederation, fraternization, interrelation, mutuality
Antonyms: antagonism, discord, divorce, estrangement, hostility, rebellion, separation, war, disunion

What about the word "symbolic?"
Main Entry: metaphorical
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: figurative
Synonyms: allegorical, descriptive, illustrative, representative, symbolic, denotative, emblematic, metaphoric, tropological

Does that answer your question?

#10 Why do christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians?
Because the local family and church are becoming less important parts of the much larger popular culture.
The Christian community being so divided as it is, makes it very clear that the intentions of the majority are not community, which finds it's roots in the family; but individual expression, which finds it's roots in fleeting passions.
I'm curious to see more comprehensive statistical analysis that takes into account more than just divorce rates. Such as duration of marriage, marriage rates, age of average marriage, number of marriages in a life time, domestic abuse(and other problems) in marriage that lead to divorce, and willingness to put up with domestic abuse(without a divorce)
There is more about one's attitude towards marriage than how often one gets divorced.

about the amputees, new research has revealed that our ability to regrow limbs isn't gone, its just dormant. one of the main reasons for why limbs won't regrow is scar tissue generation.
not sure why its like that, but its a common trait with a lot of the more modern vertebrates.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ng-human-limbs

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Do you mean "why won't God replace lost limbs?" because I'm pretty sure that amputees heal just like anyone else. Maybe it breeds humility in the amputee and compassion in those who help them.

Ok. But while heal other types of illness and not this kind? The danger in this thinking is that it's easy to go from "god doesn't replace missing limbs to teach humility" to "oh, that poor man is missing a leg. He must have really needed to be humbled". Someone else was ranting earlier about blaming the victim, and I see no better mechanism for that than religion.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Because of an inefficient international infrastructure. Maybe God wants us to learn to work together better.

So god is limited by man's ability to organize? How do you ignore the fact that in the mean time, children are dying of starvation? Is this a loving, caring god?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Then again, maybe He just wants us to forsake the world.

Ok then, why do some parts of the world have food then? Are you comfortable with the opposing ideas that loves us all and at the same time that he plays favorites?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Death primers make you more conservative in your views, and thus more focuses on your goals. Maybe God is trying to teach people how to be in more control of their life, simply by being willing to sacrifice it.

That's great for those still alive but what about the dead innocent? Why does god say "go over here and murder all the women and children" if he's a loving, caring being?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

The bible, like most literature, is trying to convey ideas of the writer, and not specific mechanisms of cause and effect.

Ok, then why should we take any of it seriously?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

I thought He seemed rather indifferent, IE not especially supportive.

Nope. There are specific instuctions as to the taking and maintenance of slaves, etc. While some will argue that he's not advocating it, he's clearly not opposed to it either. And if slavery is true as immoral as we believe it to be today, then either god was asleep at the wheel or we're completely wrong to oppose it.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Some Christians see bad things as challenges that when overcome they make a person stronger. So it may be that bad things are not seeking out good people, but that good people are seeking out bad things. It is also possible that our definitions of "good" and "bad" are wrongly defined as "divine" and "infernal." I liken 'bad things happening to good people,' and 'bad things happening to good people,' simply as 'regression to the mean.'

No one said anything about "seeking out". The question was why do they happen? If I'm a good person, why do the same bad things happen to me as happens to "bad people"?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

I could be wrong, I'm no biblical scholar, but I don't think His miracles were of any sort that evidence would last longer than the effects. Healing someone of a disease, walking on water, calming storms, multiplying bread and fish, being resurrected. These things don't leave behind evidence. Many Christians don't value the Bible as 'historical fact,' so this question is not relevant for them.

This doesn't answer the question. If jesus performed miracles, how come we don't have any evidence for them now? Miracles by their very definition defy the laws of nature (in order for something to a miracle, it can't have a naturalistic explanation). Therefore the argument falls flat. If it was miraculous then there is no limit on how long it could have been sustained.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

I didn't know he was supposed to.

Again, this is an attempt to avoid the question rather than answer it. "Should" or "supposed to" have absolutely nothing to do with anything. The question is "why hasn't he"?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Does that answer your question?

It does not. You ignore the fact that some sects of christianity (catholics specifically), believe that the wafers and wine literally become the flesh and blood of christ. You assume that the ceremony is symbolic. Not everyone shares this viewpoint

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Because the local family and church are becoming less important parts of the much larger popular culture.

But this doesn't explain the divorce rate for the people for which the church is still an important part of their lives. Please try again (within the contraints of the question ).

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Nope. There are specific instuctions as to the taking and maintenance of slaves, etc. While some will argue that he's not advocating it, he's clearly not opposed to it either. And if slavery is true as immoral as we believe it to be today, then either god was asleep at the wheel or we're completely wrong to oppose it.
.

this also goes smack bang into the view that "god loves us all".
god loves us all, except slaves?

reading the bible makes me think: its not us who needs gods forgiveness, its god who need our forgiveness. hence the theme in the bible about forgiveness.

"Ok. But while heal other types of illness and not this kind?"

Why? I don't know, but motivation is not proof of action, lack of motivation is not proof of non-action.

"Someone else was ranting earlier about blaming the victim, and I see no better mechanism for that than religion. "

Indeed, some religions probably do, but for the most part religions preach forgiveness. There are many religious charities as well.

"So god is limited by man's ability to organize?"

A teacher is limited by a students ability to learn, and in that exact same sense, yes. Humanity is limited by humanity's abilities to do anything, known and otherwise.

"How do you ignore the fact that in the mean time, children are dying of starvation?"

Logical fallacy. I do not ignore this, and did not imply that it's a prerequisite of faith in God that one must ignore human suffering, that is your false conclusion. If I said something to make you think this please point it out.

"Is this a loving, caring god?"

do you mean "Is this the work of a loving, caring God?"

If God is loving and caring, then yes. In my opinion that's an appeal to the popular sentiment of what God is. God may or may not be loving and caring, I don't know and I don't decide, and I'm faithful. So neither should you, who does not want to know, but only wants to decide that which suits your argument at any given time.

Anyway, whether or not God is loving and caring doesn't mean that humanities responsibilities to itself are null and void.

"Ok then, why do some parts of the world have food then?"
Same answer to #2

"Are you comfortable with the opposing ideas that loves us all and at the same time that he plays favorites?"
(side note: Please type more clearly. So far it hasn't been hard to deduce what your trying to say, but unclear communication is ripe breeding grounds for misunderstandings)

I'm not comfortable with any ideas about what God does or doesn't do.

"That's great for those still alive but what about the dead innocent?"
What about them?

"Why does god say "go over here and murder all the women and children" if he's a loving, caring being?"
I'm not sure, but I don't think God has ever said anything like that. Again, I don't know if God is a loving, caring being.

This all reeks of sentimentality. Let me ask you, is "Because I don't like what I think He does," a good reason to believe "He doesn't exist."


The bible, like most literature, is trying to convey ideas of the writer, and not specific mechanisms of cause and effect.

"Ok, then why should we take any of it seriously?"

I don't know if we should. I don't, but it doesn't mean I'm not faithful. There is more to religion than scripture, it's just one big part of many pop-religions. I personally like to write my books. I'm sure that constitutes not taking it seriously. I sometimes wonder if seriousness isn't the greatest barrier between pop-religions and total world enlightenment.

"There are specific instuctions as to the taking and maintenance of slaves"

Where are these specific instructions? I'd like to read them in context before commenting.

Here is a good resource for religious and philosophical research if you don't yet have one.

"While some will argue that he's not advocating it, he's clearly not opposed to it either."
Non advocating + non opposing = non difference, IE, indifference

"if slavery is true as immoral as we believe it to be today, then either god was asleep at the wheel or we're completely wrong to oppose it."
Or we have flawed sense of morality... or God wants us to learn on our own... or times have changed and with the times our social ethics, or maybe any combination of these and other possibilities. I don't know and I don't decide. God being asleep at the wheel, like any statement about God, says more about the person speaking than the nature of God.

"No one said anything about "seeking out"."
No one had said anything about anyone saying that. I was using that example to describe what people commonly mean when they say "bad things happen to good people" as though "good people are magnets and attract bad things."

"The question was why do they happen?"
The question took the form of a parable that has a meaning other than it's literal one. I'm pretty sure that I explained it in such a way that made that difference clear.

"If I'm a good person, why do the same bad things happen to me as happens to "bad people"

Logical fallacy:
1st: clearly define good person, bad person, good event and bad event
2nd: determine the frequency and scale of good and bad events and compare them as they happen to good and bad people.

From a philosophical point of view. If bad things didn't happen to good people, then you would have to wonder what sort of people would want to be good, since there would be less to loose and thus more to gain. This is not an explanation, but just something to think about.

I've always said "If bad people didn't do good, who would?"
and a recent study(I'd post it but can't find it so feel free to ignore this) was mentioned in sciencedaily suggesting that those with the most moral self esteem were the least morale, while those with the least moral self esteem were the most. It sort of implied that a "morale mean" may exist, at least within a culture, and the laboratory conditions, of course.

"This doesn't answer the question."
Yes it does, and I'll answer it again if you failed to understand it.

"If jesus performed miracles, how come we don't have any evidence for them now?"
If I conjured a great wind that blew all the leaves off the trees for 10 miles around one early fall day. A: what would the evidence be? B: would it be significant and peculiar enough to be considered "evidence of a miracle" a few years later? a hundred years later? a thousand years later?

"Miracles by their very definition defy the laws of nature (in order for something to a miracle, it can't have a naturalistic explanation)."

Miracle by definition "an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."

Ascribed to be caused by the supernatural is not proof that it was caused by the supernatural. For all we know healing powers and controlling the weather are perfectly natural. If you lost a limb one day and years later grew it back miraculously, long after the lost limb was disposed of, what evidence would there be a thousand of year later?

Again, the miracles ascribed to Jesus were of no effect that would leave behind evidence other than the experience of those present. Unless you can prove that miracles have the peculiar trait to always leave behind lasting effects, then your argument defeats itself.

"Therefore the argument falls flat."
Yours maybe.

"If it was miraculous then there is no limit on how long it could have been sustained."
Nor a limit to how short it could be.

"Again, this is an attempt to avoid the question rather than answer it."
No it's not, it's a cynical remark to an imaginative suggestion.

"The question is "why hasn't he"? "
as in, "why hasn't Jesus appeared to you?"

Which is a suggestion that someone thinks he should

While I wont contest that some think Jesus appears in body, I am forced to assume that most people are slightly more rational than that and only think that Christ appears in spirit. Most believe that Jesus and Christ are the same, but there are some who do not. The origins of "Jesus Christ" are "Jesus the Christ." "Christ" is a title of sorts, and Jesus is a character/person the title was bestowed upon. The Gnostic denomination considers Jesus and the Christ to be very different things. Some people think that "Jesus" is the opposing half of "Christ," that is that they believe Jesus is the body of Christ, and that the body is the opposite of the spirit. So the body of the Christ is thought, by some, to be the anti Christ, that would be Jesus.

I'm just pointing out that there are many religions, not just the popular one's that you may have had experience with, heard about, or studied.

Not all Christians expect Jesus to appear to them, so the fact that He doesn't is not reason to question one's faith.

"It does not. You ignore the fact that some sects of christianity (catholics specifically), believe that the wafers and wine literally become the flesh and blood of christ."
I'm not ignoring that fact. I'm just not aware of it. Is there a way to know what people believe or are you assuming that what they say is true? Some people lie, did you ever know that? I don't expect you to take my word for it, but I suggest that you do.

"You assume that the ceremony is symbolic. Not everyone shares this viewpoint "
No I'm not. Your generalizing, I'm speaking about particulars. I know that for many the ceremony is symbolic. I know that "symbolic" can be taken in a variety of ways, and that the human mind is capable of amazing feets of abstract thought and self deception. What is symbolic can seem to be literal, but this is not to say that what makes it seem literal is not merely it's symbolism.

Since you brought up Catholicism, I want to mention that virtually all of the non-catholic Christian community doesn't agree with many Catholic rituals and beliefs. Some nonetheless practice communion, in a purely symbolic sense. Including the belief that it's Jesus' blood and flesh, it's all symbolic, although some may be more convinced than others.

"this doesn't explain the divorce rate for the people for which the church is still an important part of their lives."

But, as I said, a more comprehensive analysis of statistics comparing duration of marriage, marriage rates, age of average marriage, number of marriages in a life time, domestic abuse(and other problems) in marriage that lead to divorce, and willingness to put up with domestic abuse(without a divorce), plus some more things I'm not aware of, would help us understand things more completely. There is more to marriage than divorce rates. No church is an island, no matter how things may seem.

Please cite where you got your information about divorce rates, I'm interested.

"Please try again (within the contraints of the question Smile)."
Please try to spell, use punctuation, and sentence structure properly.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"Ok. But while heal other types of illness and not this kind?"

Why? I don't know, but motivation is not proof of action, lack of motivation is not proof of non-action.

This isn't answer. You earlier statement was that god doesn't restore limbs to teach humility and compassion. Why does he send cancer into remission, etc but refuses to restore limbs? Doesn't this imply that gods mechanism for teaching humility and compassion is to take limbs away?

Since your last two attempts at responding contained mostly uncertainty, perhaps the problem is that you've never really thought about the question before. Maybe now would be a good time to do that.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"Someone else was ranting earlier about blaming the victim, and I see no better mechanism for that than religion. "

Indeed, some religions probably do, but for the most part religions preach forgiveness. There are many religious charities as well.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the question we were discussing here. Per my comment above (and my earlier post), your suggestion makes it pretty easy for us to assume that if we see someone with a missing limb, they clearly did something to deserve losing it. All part of god's divine plan right? Because the idea that accidents happen and that god doesn't restore limbs because he doesn't exist is just too far out there, huh?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"So god is limited by man's ability to organize?"

A teacher is limited by a students ability to learn, and in that exact same sense, yes. Humanity is limited by humanity's abilities to do anything, known and otherwise.

I'm sorry bu this is a cop-out. God is all-powerful right? If he didn't want those children to starve he make food fall from the sky. At the very least, he could conjure up some seeds and make it rain occasionally.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"How do you ignore the fact that in the mean time, children are dying of starvation?"

Logical fallacy. I do not ignore this, and did not imply that it's a prerequisite of faith in God that one must ignore human suffering, that is your false conclusion. If I said something to make you think this please point it out.

"Logical fallacy"? Okay, marcus. Which one?

Your suggestion was that god is letting these people starve to death so that people will learn to work together better. God could intervene at any time and feed these people. But he doesn't. They continue to die every day. And not just in far off countries divided by conflict and drought (there goes your "inefficent international infrastructure" argument). So the question again is this, "how do you ignore the fact that in the mean time, children are dying of starvation?". How do you not hold god accountable for all this death which he is allegedly capable of preventing?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"Is this a loving, caring god?"

do you mean "Is this the work of a loving, caring God?"

If God is loving and caring, then yes. In my opinion that's an appeal to the popular sentiment of what God is. God may or may not be loving and caring, I don't know and I don't decide, and I'm faithful.

Well that's good. At least you're admitting that you don't think for yourself and instead opt to worship whom every your told without much thought as to whether you should. Honesty is good.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

So neither should you, who does not want to know, but only wants to decide that which suits your argument at any given time.

Any time you find my arguments to be inconsistent, you're more than welcome to point it out. In the mean time, failure to comprehend what I'm saying doesn't automatically imply that there is something wrong with what I've said.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Anyway, whether or not God is loving and caring doesn't mean that humanities responsibilities to itself are null and void.

If god was loving and caring, then those people wouldn't be starving. And if we're all on our own to fix the world's problems, then we should probably acknowledge that and stop wasting all that time at church and in prayer trying to convince and indifferent god to intervene.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"Ok then, why do some parts of the world have food then?"
Same answer to #2

You're being terribly inconsistent. If god wants us to forsake the world, then he should take all the food away.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"Are you comfortable with the opposing ideas that loves us all and at the same time that he plays favorites?"
(side note: Please type more clearly. So far it hasn't been hard to deduce what your trying to say, but unclear communication is ripe breeding grounds for misunderstandings)

I'm sorry to hear about your poor reading comprehension skills, marcus. Perhaps reading aloud might help.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

I'm not comfortable with any ideas about what God does or doesn't do.

That's interesting, because your posts are full of ideas about what god does or doesn't do. In fact, you seem rather comfortable assigning attributes to him or taking them away as needed.

Some people have food and some people do not. An omnipotent god could fix this discrepancy, couldn't he? And an omnibenevolent god would intervene, wouldn't he? So either god doesn't care or god is powerless to fix the problem. Which option are you voting for?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"That's great for those still alive but what about the dead innocent?"
What about them?

Your statement was "god kills the innocent to make you conservative and goal oriented". So who is learning these valuable lessons? The dead innocent? Or those left behind?

Just so I can be sure I'm following along:

God takes away your limbs to teach you humility and compassion.
God allows women and children to be killed to teach you conservatism and goal setting.

This god sounds like a real swell guy.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"Why does god say "go over here and murder all the women and children" if he's a loving, caring being?"
I'm not sure, but I don't think God has ever said anything like that.

Try reading the bible. You might learn something.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Again, I don't know if God is a loving, caring being.

I don't get the impression that he is, marcus.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

This all reeks of sentimentality. Let me ask you, is "Because I don't like what I think He does," a good reason to believe "He doesn't exist."

No, not necessarily. I do think you should watch the video though.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"Ok, then why should we take any of it seriously?"

I don't know if we should. I don't, but it doesn't mean I'm not faithful. There is more to religion than scripture, it's just one big part of many pop-religions. I personally like to write my books. I'm sure that constitutes not taking it seriously. I sometimes wonder if seriousness isn't the greatest barrier between pop-religions and total world enlightenment.

I find it interesting that you align your faith with a specific god, yet you haven't read the only book that tells us about him and you question whether or not we should. Why not worship a milk carton or a box of rocks instead?

Clearly you came to your faith after much thought and consideration, marcus. There's much to respect in that.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"There are specific instuctions as to the taking and maintenance of slaves"

Where are these specific instructions? I'd like to read them in context before commenting.

I owe you an apology, marcus. When debating with christians, I tend to assume that they've actually read the bible. Why I do this I'm not sure (because so many of them clearly haven't).

This link should get you started. I'm also think very highly of this site however I have not read their page on slavery in the bible.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"While some will argue that he's not advocating it, he's clearly not opposed to it either."
Non advocating + non opposing = non difference, IE, indifference

I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense. If he doesn't care, then why go to such lengths to provide instruction? Clearly god was anything but indifferent, and clearly he was not opposed to the practice.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"if slavery is true as immoral as we believe it to be today, then either god was asleep at the wheel or we're completely wrong to oppose it."
Or we have flawed sense of morality...

Great job saying the same thing I am, marcus.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

or God wants us to learn on our own...

Then why provide instruction? You're not being very consistent.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

or times have changed and with the times our social ethics,

Then it seems pretty unlikely that our morality is (or could be) derived from god. If we have the power to decide what is moral, then what does god do? And why is slavery in his book if his morality is superior to ours?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

or maybe any combination of these and other possibilities.

Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god and when we die we go to Pastafarian hell because we worshipped false idols and refused the loving embrace of His noodly appendage.

Indeed there are a lot of other possibilities.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

I don't know and I don't decide. God being asleep at the wheel, like any statement about God, says more about the person speaking than the nature of God.

Wow, that was really profound man. I'm going to meditate on that later.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"No one said anything about "seeking out"."

No one had said anything about anyone saying that. I was using that example to describe what people commonly mean when they say "bad things happen to good people" as though "good people are magnets and attract bad things."

This part of your post makes me laugh.

"No one said this. When I said it, I was..."

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"The question was why do they happen?"
The question took the form of a parable that has a meaning other than it's literal one. I'm pretty sure that I explained it in such a way that made that difference clear.

I'm sorry, since you were not the author of the question, I don't think this is your decision.

The question was, "Why do bad things happen to good people?".

Please try to keep up.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"If I'm a good person, why do the same bad things happen to me as happens to "bad people"

Logical fallacy:

Please stop using words you don't understand. Go read some resources on logical fallacies before you continue. Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

1st: clearly define good person, bad person, good event and bad event

*sigh*

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

2nd: determine the frequency and scale of good and bad events and compare them as they happen to good and bad people.

Irrelevant. No one said anything about frequency.

Nice try though

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

From a philosophical point of view. If bad things didn't happen to good people, then you would have to wonder what sort of people would want to be good, since there would be less to loose and thus more to gain. This is not an explanation, but just something to think about.

Indeed, I will have to put some time into figuring out how that makes sense later.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

I've always said "If bad people didn't do good, who would?"

Err...good people?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

and a recent study(I'd post it but can't find it so feel free to ignore this) was mentioned in sciencedaily suggesting that those with the most moral self esteem were the least morale, while those with the least moral self esteem were the most. It sort of implied that a "morale mean" may exist, at least within a culture, and the laboratory conditions, of course.

Sounds fascinating. But with your lack of a source and admittedly poor reading skill, I'm going to have to take your advice and ignore this part. If you do find the link later, please feel free to post it. I would be very interested in taking a look.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"This doesn't answer the question."
Yes it does, and I'll answer it again if you failed to understand it.

"If jesus performed miracles, how come we don't have any evidence for them now?"
If I conjured a great wind that blew all the leaves off the trees for 10 miles around one early fall day. A: what would the evidence be? B: would it be significant and peculiar enough to be considered "evidence of a miracle" a few years later? a hundred years later? a thousand years later?

If it's a miracle, it can do anything. It's not bound by the laws of nature. It could be wind that blows in one spot for eternity. So coming up with all the reasons why there shouldn't be one or arguing that jesus doesn't owe us anything does not answer the question. It's merely an attempt to avoid having to answer it.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"Miracles by their very definition defy the laws of nature (in order for something to a miracle, it can't have a naturalistic explanation)."

Miracle by definition "an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."

Ascribed to be caused by the supernatural is not proof that it was caused by the supernatural. For all we know healing powers and controlling the weather are perfectly natural.

Indeed, but then they would no longer be miracles. You can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

If you lost a limb one day and years later grew it back miraculously, long after the lost limb was disposed of, what evidence would there be a thousand of year later?

I suppose the same amount of evidence to show that the limb was lost in the first place.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Again, the miracles ascribed to Jesus were of no effect that would leave behind evidence other than the experience of those present.

And again, this doesn't answer the question. You're limiting yourself to the "miracles" he is alleged to have performed. If he was capable of performing miracles, he could have performed one that would not have been limited to those on hand. So why didn't he?

You'll say, "I don't know". To which I'll reply, "Well then why should we accept that he performed any miracles in the first place?".

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Unless you can prove that miracles have the peculiar trait to always leave behind lasting effects, then your argument defeats itself.

I don't need to because all I have to do is point out that "miracles" are limited at all. Jesus could have plopped down a pillar of fire in the center of Jerusalem that would burn for all time. But he didn't. The question is why and either you have an answer or you don't.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"Again, this is an attempt to avoid the question rather than answer it."
No it's not, it's a cynical remark to an imaginative suggestion.

"The question is "why hasn't he"? "
as in, "why hasn't Jesus appeared to you?"

Which is a suggestion that someone thinks he should

I repeat: "Should" or "supposed to" have absolutely nothing to do with anything. The question is "why hasn't he"?

"should" is baggage that you've introduced.

"Why don't apples grow on rocks instead of trees?"
"Who says they should grow on rocks instead of trees?"

See how the first one is an open inquiry that doesn't say anything about where apples should or should not grow?

See the second question is a red herring?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

While I wont contest that some think Jesus appears in body, I am forced to assume that most people are slightly more rational than that and only think that Christ appears in spirit.

Why is that? Because of all the evidence?

I want to live in your world.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Most believe that Jesus and Christ are the same, but there are some who do not.

They're called "Jews".

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

The origins of "Jesus Christ" are "Jesus the Christ." "Christ" is a title of sorts, and Jesus is a character/person the title was bestowed upon. The Gnostic denomination considers Jesus and the Christ to be very different things. Some people think that "Jesus" is the opposing half of "Christ," that is that they believe Jesus is the body of Christ, and that the body is the opposite of the spirit. So the body of the Christ is thought, by some, to be the anti Christ, that would be Jesus.

I can't wait until you get the point.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

I'm just pointing out that there are many religions, not just the popular one's that you may have had experience with, heard about, or studied.

Indeed. Thanks.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Not all Christians expect Jesus to appear to them, so the fact that He doesn't is not reason to question one's faith.

This still has nothing to do with the question.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"It does not. You ignore the fact that some sects of christianity (catholics specifically), believe that the wafers and wine literally become the flesh and blood of christ."
I'm not ignoring that fact. I'm just not aware of it.

Fair enough. Now you know.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Is there a way to know what people believe or are you assuming that what they say is true? Some people lie, did you ever know that? I don't expect you to take my word for it, but I suggest that you do.

So if you tell me something about your belief that I find "difficult", I should assume that you're lying rather than accept that you really do believe it? What kind of test should I devise to help me distinguish between beliefs that are lies and beliefs that are held with sincerity?

I look forward to your response.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"You assume that the ceremony is symbolic. Not everyone shares this viewpoint "
No I'm not. Your generalizing, I'm speaking about particulars.

It's "you're" (as in "you are"), not "your". Since you've decided that we're going to play cutesy little nit-pick games like this, I thought I should point that out.

Oh, and there should be a comma between "No" and "I'm not". I hope that helps.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

I know that for many the ceremony is symbolic. I know that "symbolic" can be taken in a variety of ways, and that the human mind is capable of amazing feets of abstract thought and self deception. What is symbolic can seem to be literal, but this is not to say that what makes it seem literal is not merely it's symbolism.

Wow, you know a lot of things, marcus. You even know what other people think and consider to literal vs. symbolic. Very impressive.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Since you brought up Catholicism, I want to mention that virtually all of the non-catholic Christian community doesn't agree with many Catholic rituals and beliefs. Some nonetheless practice communion, in a purely symbolic sense. Including the belief that it's Jesus' blood and flesh, it's all symbolic, although some may be more convinced than others.

So? What does one group's set of beliefs have to do with another's? Again, you're not answering the question.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"this doesn't explain the divorce rate for the people for which the church is still an important part of their lives."

But, as I said, a more comprehensive analysis of statistics comparing duration of marriage, marriage rates, age of average marriage, number of marriages in a life time, domestic abuse(and other problems) in marriage that lead to divorce, and willingness to put up with domestic abuse(without a divorce), plus some more things I'm not aware of, would help us understand things more completely. There is more to marriage than divorce rates. No church is an island, no matter how things may seem.

I see a lot of good stuff in there, but no answer to the question.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Please cite where you got your information about divorce rates, I'm interested.

I'm pretty sure the video has a link. Do your own homework.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

"Please try again (within the contraints of the question Smile)."
Please try to spell, use punctuation, and sentence structure properly.

That's great advice, marcus. I'll be sure to take that into consideration.

"You earlier statement was that god doesn't restore limbs to teach humility and compassion."

Do you realize that the way you've phrased this, it means the opposite of what your trying to say?

Call this a means of avoiding the topic, but I asked you to proofread your posts, and I'm not going to decipher what your trying to say. This is a breeding grounds for misunderstanding, and it shows that you don't really care about the discussion, for the sake of the discussion, you just want to shoot your mouth off. That's fine I suppose, but I'm here to learn.

I didn't say that anyway, go back and read what I said. There is a slight difference between what I said and what you are saying that I am suggesting.

"your suggestion makes it pretty easy for us to assume that if we see someone with a missing limb, they clearly did something to deserve losing it."

Again, if it's easy to jump to conclusions, is that a good reason to do so? I don't think so.

"I'm not sure what this has to do with the question we were discussing here."
You mentioned that religion is a good mechanism for blaming the disabled. I said that lots of religions preach forgiveness, which is usually what people practice when they stop blaming. I mentioned that there are lots of religious organized charities, as support for my claim, that they are not blaming people for their difficulties, but trying to help them.

"All part of god's divine plan right?"
I don't know, is it?

"God is all-powerful right?"
I don't know, is He?

"Because the idea that accidents happen and that god doesn't restore limbs because he doesn't exist is just too far out there, huh? "

Not at all. This phrase of yours could use two more commas.

"If he didn't want"

It's funny when atheists think they know more about god than theists who claim they know nothing. I don't know but I've heard that God is not motivated by desire, hence the preachings of altruism and selflessness, to be more Godly. If the first world shared with the third world, there would be plenty of everything to go around.

'"Logical fallacy"? Okay, marcus. Which one? "
You assumed that I was ignoring something because I didn't mention it. I think it's a form of induction, and in the sense that you used it, a logical fallacy.

"God could intervene at any time and feed these people. But he doesn't. They continue to die every day."

And the numbers go up, oddly enough. The developing world is growing faster than the first world.

" And not just in far off countries divided by conflict and drought (there goes your "inefficent international infrastructure" argument)."

Well, there are inefficient socio-economic infrastructures within nations, as well as between nations.

"So the question again is this, "how do you ignore the fact that in the mean time, children are dying of starvation?". How do you not hold god accountable for all this death which he is allegedly capable of preventing? "

I'm accountable, so I do what I can about it. Your accountable too, I hope you(if applicable) and others would stop trying to find someone else to blame for our own suffering and instead do something about it.

"Honesty is good."

Honesty to others is no excuse to lie to yourself. "Speak to a drunkard as a drunkard." -Pythagoras

"If god was loving and caring, then those people wouldn't be starving."
Tough love. "God is dead. He died because of his pity for man."

"...if we're all on our...we should...stop wasting...time...trying to convince...god to intervene. " (edited due to unnecessary embellishment)

There are some religions that don't go to church, some religions that don't pray, and some that don't try to convince God to intervene. I'm pretty sure that your principle point of all of this is not any of this but that we should stop believing in God because you don't like the things He does, there not being any evidence for His existence is just seasoning on the meat.


"Some people have food and some people do not. An omnipotent god could fix this discrepancy, couldn't he?"

Walmart could fix this too, but I'm not going to expect them to any time soon. I'd rather accept my responsibility to do what I can, and hope that you do too. God will do what God will do, whether or not I ask Him too.

"And an omnibenevolent god would intervene, wouldn't he?"
By definition yes, but I don't know if God is omnibenevolent.

"Your statement was "god kills the innocent to make you conservative and goal oriented"."

That wasn't exactly what I wrote. I can't find it, but I beg anyone to read what I wrote and not take G's biased framing for face value.

"Try reading the bible. You might learn something. "

Actually, your the one with the claim, that means that the burden of proof is on you. I'm not saying "God said this, God said that," you are. Please provide some links for the scripture where God says the things you say that he has said, and the prove that the scripture is meant to be taken for historical fact and not symbolically. I'm sure you'd rather have the freedom to make up whatever you want, so I doubt you will.

"I don't get the impression that he is, marcus. "

Well, you have also said that you don't believe He exists. Because of this, I'm not going to take your word for it when you attempt to describe Him.

"you align your faith with a specific god,"
Which one? Yahweh or Yahshua? I'm not aligned with symbols, but they can be useful tools.

"yet you haven't read the only book that tells us about him"
The Bible is actually a compilation of many books. There are other books that were not put into the Bible. There are other scriptures and stories from other religions as well. The Talmud for the Jews, the Vedas, Upanishads, and Puranas, of Hinduism, The pyramid texts, metamorphosis and the greek legends, the norse sagas, stories of unkulunkulu and the amatongo passed down by the zulu, and my personal favorite, the taoist texts.

To say that God is defined by a book is silly, especially coming from someone who rests assured that there is not such thing as God.

"Why not worship a milk carton or a box of rocks instead? "
Have you ever heard of Wicca? A box of rocks is a practical altar. And have you heard of Hindus? A carton of milk can thus be sacred.

If your suggesting that we shouldn't worship anything, I disagree. I think we should worship everything.

"I owe you an apology, marcus. When debating with christians, I tend to assume that they've actually read the bible."

You owe me another apology too than for assuming that I'm a Christian.

I will look into the scriptures that your link provides to better understand their context. That will be the topic of another thread though, and might take a couple days.

"If he doesn't care, then why go to such lengths to provide instruction?"

Again, I'm not sure he provided these instructions. I don't take people's or book's words for it.

"Then why provide instruction?"
Why instruct your students, when it is up to them to learn on their own? Because you are showing them how to learn on their own, whether or not they do is up to them.

"Then it seems pretty unlikely that our morality is (or could be) derived from god."

Indeed, I agree with Kant that our morality does not need justification, that religion should be built around morality, not the other way around. I don't know what God is, and neither do you, and until someone does, what is likely to derive from It is equally unknown.

"If we have the power to decide what is moral, then what does god do?"
Contemplate eternity, maybe.

"And why is slavery in his book if his morality is superior to ours?"
Maybe the book is ours and not his.

"I'm sorry, since you were not the author of the question, I don't think this is your decision.

The question was, "Why do bad things happen to good people?".

Please try to keep up. "

My bad, parable is the wrong word. Please stop trying to insult my intelligence, if I'm as dumb as you make me out to be, then it should show well enough on it's own.

"marcusclayman wrote:
1st: clearly define good person, bad person, good event and bad event


*sigh*

marcusclayman wrote:
2nd: determine the frequency and scale of good and bad events and compare them as they happen to good and bad people.


Irrelevant. No one said anything about frequency.

Nice try though Smile"

Well, to determine the answer to "why bad things happen to goos people," it might help to first determine these things. First you need to determine who is "bad people" and what is "good things." Why do talented thieves get caught? Being talented is good, getting caught is bad. Why does a healthy person get sick? Being healthy is good, getting sick is bad. I'm assuming that your talking moral "good and bad" in which case what is a morally "bad thing?"


If you lost a limb one day and years later grew it back miraculously, long after the lost limb was disposed of, what evidence would there be a thousand of year later?

"I suppose the same amount of evidence to show that the limb was lost in the first place. "

In other words none. Unless of course both you and the amputated limb were fossilized, or otherwise preserved for a thousand years, and then both recovered, tested and confirmed to be of the same body.


"this doesn't answer the question." it answered the question you asked, now that your asking a different one, maybe the one that you originally intended to ask I can answer more to your liking... for some reason I doubt it though.

"If he was capable of performing miracles, he could have performed one that would not have been limited to those on hand. So why didn't he? "
I don't know. This is not proof that he didn't though.

If bad people didn't do good, who would?
"Err...good people?"
Well it makes sense so it must be true, right? Well, not when what we consider to be good and bad have more to do with cultural social and political nuances. In today's world, and for all we know day's past as well, the "worst" of people tend to be the most humane and open minded, while the "best" of people are too good for everything.

"Jesus could have plopped down a pillar of fire in the center of Jerusalem that would burn for all time. But he didn't. The question is why and either you have an answer or you don't."

What does this prove? Just because He didn't doesn't prove that He can't, and it doesn't prove that there would be any evidence left behind from walking on water, healing the blind, etc.

Are you just having a hard time understanding why a God wouldn't leave behind proof? That I can only speculate. But the best answer I can think of is that it's a filter of sorts. The flaming blade guarding Eden or the threaten of death by eating from the tree of knowledge, to me these are symbols, not of punishment, but of temperance and determination. One has to be willing to sacrifice everything they are to get the things that are really great in this world, and, if there is such a thing, beyond. I know that probably doesn't mean much to you.

"You'll say, "I don't know". To which I'll reply, "Well then why should we accept that he performed any miracles in the first place?". "

And I won't say that there is any reason for you to accept anything scripture has to offer as fact. I don't although much of it may be. I'm not going to waste my time trying to find out what is fact and what is allegorical because in the end, the whole thing, facts and all, is one big allegory. I admit though that I could be wrong.

"Why is that? Because of all the evidence?

I want to live in your world. "

Because the spirit of Christ is probably a feeling considered sacred. Wheras the body of Jesus is an actual living breathing entity. I doubt too many people have had the body of Jesus appear to them, I don't have my doubts that many people feel curtain feelings that they consider sacred.

"They're called "Jews". "
There are others as well who don't think Jesus and Christ are the same. For example, me, and I'm not a Jew. I am forced to assume that living in a world of 6.75 billion, I am the only non Jew who believes that Jesus is a person and that Christ is a spirit. I think the Gnostic Christians have a similar belief, but I don't know much about them.

"Fair enough. Now you know."
Maybe if I were to take your word for it, but you seem rather partial towards one side. Basic research theory warns against taking one side's word for face value. I'll talk to my catholic friends and ask what they think, and get back to you.

"It's "you're" (as in "you are"), not "your". Since you've decided that we're going to play cutesy little nit-pick games like this, I thought I should point that out.

Oh, and there should be a comma between "No" and "I'm not". I hope that helps. "

Thank you. Punctuation is definitely my weakest link when it comes to writing. I appreciate the help.

I don't mean to be a nit-picker, but sometimes you say things in such a way that it is hard to know what you mean. For example, the first quote of your on this post, it means the opposite of what your trying to say. If I was as dumb as you make me out to be, I might not have been able to figure that out. I am pretty dumb though, I guess, it did take me a few times rereading to get it.

"Wow, you know a lot of things, marcus. You even know what other people think and consider to literal vs. symbolic. Very impressive. "

No I'm assuming that psychology and neurology have some basis in fact. That our ideas are symbols, and that even if you consider something to be literal, it's just a symbol that's better established. Like if I said "cat" compared to "011000110110000101110100" you know that "cat" means "cat" but you don't know what the binary means, you might be able to translate and/or assume that it means "cat" as well, but you aren't going to say "cat" means "011000110110000101110100."

"cat" is perceived literally
"011000110110000101110100" is perceived(unless your a supra-geek) symbolically

they are both symbols, and they are both literal, but the word is better established than the binary.

I guess it's just a theory, so it's open to critiquing. I wouldn't claim to know though. There are those who can read binary fluently, and so it develops a literal meaning to them, as it becomes well established.

I should probably start a thread about this, and see what others think.

"I'm pretty sure the video has a link. Do your own homework."
Your making claims, burden of proof is on you. You can do all the homework you want, but saying "I did my homework" is not proof of it.

3 hours later... goodnight

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

This is of course total nonsense. Creationists make up similar lists of questions that scientists must answer in order for evolution to be "acceptable".

So? I don't see how that has anything to do with anything.

If the questions are truely "nonsense" then I expect that you will either have answers for them or will otherwise be able to demonstrate why the questions aren't good ones.

The questions are good. However the fact they are questions makes them poor arguments. I think it expresses an ad ignorantium fallacy, or argument from ignorance. I don't know why God would do this, so I will cease to believe in him. It's like saying there can be know cure for AIDS since scientists have not yet discovered it.

Originally Posted by Golkarian

The questions are good. However the fact they are questions makes them poor arguments. I think it expresses an ad ignorantium fallacy, or argument from ignorance. I don't know why God would do this, so I will cease to believe in him. It's like saying there can be know cure for AIDS since scientists have not yet discovered it.

Most of the questions are posed to claims made by christians with regards to the judeo-christian god, which demonstrates inconsistencies. They might be guilty of the ad ignorantum fallacy (and argueably the strawman fallacy), but the questions aren't worth much for one reason; because of the concept of God being the ultimate observer (absolute). In the way he/she/it is defined, any claim made about what is right or wrong can easily differ through the eyes of the supposed omnipotent being, making the questions invalid. They're simply not the right questions to ask in regards to the concept.

Huh... I'm arguing for theism. Interesting.

Anyhow, because of the vagueness in regards to omnibenevolence; because God is an absolute being; any questions posed to reveal inconsistencies in matters which are mostly relative becomes irrelevant.

lol, I started out this post arguing for the questions, but ended up editing and thinking it over to the point where I started arguing against them. Totally unexpected.

No they don't. They illustrate the paradoxes of logic that prove any god is nothing more than a fantasy derived from some people's deep psychological needs.

If your god is good, then why does he kill so many people?

This is a statement of paradox framed as a question to make the religious realize the ludicrousy.
But then somewhat more educated religious take it and, like a politician, hem and haw and lay the bullcrap on, so that it winds up seeming okay that you (in this case the human species) gets screwed over.

This is what religious people do. While Atheists have learned all of the lessons they claim requires a god. Atheists are perfectly moral without one - even more so than the religious, because Atheists can't remove any decision from themselves and give it to a bronze-age text instead.

Last of all science does not allow religion in it at all, which is faith and belief. Someone who is religious should not call themselves a scientist: shutting down science to practice your religion is like a man saying he is most definitely straight - and only gay for a few hours a week.

well, it is written that

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.

and

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"


so i guess that we should realise that God works differently from how humans would think logical or appropriate and with our level of intelligence we would find it hard to understand why God does this or that.

us trying to figure out the reasons for God doing stuff could be like a group of grasshoppers trying to understand the physics of spaceflight. its on a different level altogether, probably beyond what we can comprehend.




there. i think that answers a few of your questions.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

This is what religious people do. While Atheists have learned all of the lessons they claim requires a god. Atheists are perfectly moral without one - even more so than the religious, because Atheists can't remove any decision from themselves and give it to a bronze-age text instead.

Last of all science does not allow religion in it at all, which is faith and belief. Someone who is religious should not call themselves a scientist: shutting down science to practice your religion is like a man saying he is most definitely straight - and only gay for a few hours a week.

You confuse methodology with ideology and thus PROVE that you haven't a clue as to what science is all about. Science is not a belief system or a life commitment, it is a tool. You use it, and thus you believe in it in the same way you believe in a hammer. Thus it is absolutely and utterly absurd to say that you don't believe in a hammer if you ever put it down. This is therefore the completely stupid BS of an atheist that thinks that his religious faith entitles him to call himself a scientist. Nothing could be further from the truth. You can make your own atheist religion and call your high priests of your great TRUTH "scientists" but all you get from that is dishonest rhetoric that does not mean a thing.

"If your god is good, then why does he kill so many people?

This is a statement of paradox framed as a question to make the religious realize the ludicrousy. "

If humans have the capacity to recognize goodness, then why do they kill each other?


"shutting down science to practice your religion is like a man saying he is most definitely straight - and only gay for a few hours a week."

You fail to show why science and religion are contradictory. Implying that someone is a liar, does not prove that they don't know the truth.

my my mitchell sure is ticked off, isn't he?

Science does not allow religion. It does not allow belief. It is indeed a tool. The findings of science have nothing to do with belief. You try to instill YOUR operational mechanism: belief, upon the tool and its findings so that you can drag it down to your level.

You try to make it into a religion when it is not. The findings of science have nothing at all to do with any religion.

Why do the religious continually try to corrupt it into an equal basis with their fantasies of afterlife? Because the findings of the great tool and protocols we call science keeps proving them wrong, again and again?

And btw - any science report is independently verifiable. It has nothing at all to do with belief, anywhere. You say I don't know what science is?

lol....

#1 Why won't god heal amputees?

Because the the actions of a human being can not be forgiven in the blink of an eye. If the foolish actions of one person harms another, why is it "Gods" problem.

#2 Why are there so many starving people in our world?

Oh yeah somone is starving, what are you going to do about it, if the whole world knows theres a problem why are they not doing somthing about it. "God" is the person listening in on the radio and rolling his eyes to the absurd news.

#3 Why does god demand the death of so many innocent people in the bible?

I really do apologize beacause truely, i never read the bible if you want me to try and answer this question, give examples.

#4 Why does the bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?

Cant a book which has such a great significance in the lives of so many people have a little magic to make it interesting.

#5 Why is god such a huge proponent of slavery in the bible?

from a muslims point of veiw this question is a no brainer but for me the answer is that the bible contains some of the history of man, including slavery. All the great empires of the past had slavery so why not the bible which "tracks back" to the past.

#6 Why do bad things happen to good people?

It's beacause of the "bad" people around them which take advantage of them and people tend to notice them more as well, and if your going to ask why "God" doesn't fix their problems well guess what, if "God" created the world in "seven days" and you can't fix your little bump in the road why does he have to go to more than enough trouble to fix evey persons little problem. Fix it yourself.

#7 Why didn't any of jesus' miracles in the bible leave behind any evidence? Look up to question #4.

#8 How do we explain the fact that jesus has never appeared to you?

Why would i care if some great philosopher/saint/doctor of the past came to me. I guess i never asked him...

#9 Why would jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?

in the bible he passes the bread and wine declareing it his flesh and blood. SYMBOLISM.

#10 Why do christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians?
(I'm just going to leave this blank.)


Please take respectable note that i do not believe in The one and only "God" hence the quotaions. which obiously mean i'm not christian. but i only answered theses question like this beacause i am not athiest.[/i]

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

You confuse methodology with ideology and thus PROVE that you haven't a clue as to what science is all about. You use it, and thus you believe in it in the same way you believe in a hammer. Thus it is absolutely and utterly absurd to say that you don't believe in a hammer if you ever put it down.

Ah, as usual, theists confuse 'belief' with evidence, just as they confuse 'faith' with predictions.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

Someone who is religious should not call themselves a scientist: shutting down science to practice your religion is like a man saying he is most definitely straight - and only gay for a few hours a week.

Beautiful.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

Someone who is religious should not call themselves a scientist: shutting down science to practice your religion is like a man saying he is most definitely straight - and only gay for a few hours a week.

Beautiful.

It's perfectly fine to be religious and do science. Ones motivation or for doing science or ones personal convictions are insignificant as long as it doesn't interfere with the methodology of science.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

No they don't. They illustrate the paradoxes of logic that prove any god is nothing more than a fantasy derived from some people's deep psychological needs.

If your god is good, then why does he kill so many people?

This is a statement of paradox framed as a question to make the religious realize the ludicrousy.

This is actually not any different from what I said, but it doesn't change the fact that the questions are bad ones.

Better questions would include "what's the point of life if God exists and there's an afterlife?" or "how can God be omnibenevolent and still send people to hell for all eternity?"

Questions like the ones in this thread doesn't really tackle the core issues. They're actually kinda weak. From the perspective of an omnibenevolent being, things concerning life is supposedly just a preparation for the afterlife, which is exactly the kinds of things we should be questioning instead.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Questions like the ones in this thread doesn't really tackle the core issues. They're actually kinda weak.

Yes of course. On the other hand, isn't that almost always the case? A great many of the developments in science is not in just answering questions but in learning what questions really should be asked in the first place.

Originally Posted by Obviously

From the perspective of an omnibenevolent being, things concerning life is supposedly just a preparation for the afterlife, which is exactly the kinds of things we should be questioning instead.

From the perspective of any religion that believes in an afterlife you mean?

The problem is in the "just". For those going to college, high school is indeed a preparation for college, but that is hardly all that it is, and there is no just about it, for college really is more of the same. Both are about learning and if you think to wait and do your learning in college then you are seriously messed up. In the same way life and afterlife is about life and if you think to wait and do your living in the afterlife then your religion is pathological, psychologically speaking. Religion that is all about future rewards is a tool of manipulation and power. Religion that is meaningful and of value is one that helps you live life better and more effectively now.

Originally Posted by Obviously

It's perfectly fine to be religious and do science. Ones motivation or for doing science or ones personal convictions are insignificant as long as it doesn't interfere with the methodology of science.

Yes, I hear that a lot. However, if the cult one belongs to does in fact have a negative effect on society (and what religion doesn't) then it isn't perfectly fine at all. And, for one to be a scientist and a theist, one hasn't taken the time to understand that.

"However, if the cult one belongs to does in fact have a negative effect on society (and what religion doesn't) then it isn't perfectly fine at all."

"negative effect" is subjective. Please prove that religious causes something, and that this "something" is negative to society.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by Obviously

It's perfectly fine to be religious and do science. Ones motivation or for doing science or ones personal convictions are insignificant as long as it doesn't interfere with the methodology of science.

Yes, I hear that a lot. However, if the cult one belongs to does in fact have a negative effect on society (and what religion doesn't) then it isn't perfectly fine at all. And, for one to be a scientist and a theist, one hasn't taken the time to understand that.

The arrogance of the intolerant is truly astounding. This is of course just another version of: "Those who do not come to my conclusions are obviously ignorant, mentally/morally deficient or just plain lazy."

Now this causes me to consider whether this attitude is justifiable in regards to intolerance itself, because tolerance cannot be tolerant of intolerance. My conclusion is NO it is not. This is because there is always a choice of whether one wants to live in a free society or in a theocracy or totalitarian society. Thus I disdain from making the irrational judgement that Q believes as he does because he "hasn't taken time to understand" for I acknowledge that his choices are quite likely to be different from mine.

A lot of the intolerant only care about freedom as long as it is freedom to do what they want at the moment -- blind not only to everyone else but also to how they themselves may change their minds in the future. Thus their choice will be to live in a theocratic or totalitarian society with themselves as the dictator to decide for everyone else what is the right way to think and live. I am all for such people induging their fantasy and suffering the consequences of their own thinking, but of course I will oppose their willingness to condemn everyone else to the same misery.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

The arrogance of the intolerant is truly astounding. This is of course just another version of: "Those who do not come to my conclusions are obviously ignorant, mentally/morally deficient or just plain lazy."

Are we talking about the conclusions of Christianity, Mitchianity, or reality? Three distinct topics.

Now this causes me to consider whether this attitude is justifiable in regards to intolerance itself, because tolerance cannot be tolerant of intolerance. My conclusion is NO it is not. This is because there is always a choice of whether one wants to live in a free society or in a theocracy or totalitarian society. Thus I disdain from making the irrational judgement that Q believes as he does because he "hasn't taken time to understand" for I acknowledge that his choices are quite likely to be different from mine.

Of course, I chose to live in a free society, not the theocracy your intolerant cult would have us enslaved. A free society would clearly be intolerant of your cult.

A lot of the intolerant only care about freedom as long as it is freedom to do what they want at the moment -- blind not only to everyone else but also to how they themselves may change their minds in the future. Thus their choice will be to live in a theocratic or totalitarian society with themselves as the dictator to decide for everyone else what is the right way to think and live. I am all for such people induging their fantasy and suffering the consequences of their own thinking, but of course I will oppose their willingness to condemn everyone else to the same misery.

Wow, the kettle lectures to the pot.

It's perfectly fine to be religious and do science. Ones motivation or for doing science or ones personal convictions are insignificant as long as it doesn't interfere with the methodology of science.

No, it isn't fine at all. What is to stop the religious from fudging the data and screwing around with the protocol so that their 'god' or any tenant of their doctrine appears more realistic/possible?

YOUR TWO OPERATIONAL PARADIGMS ARE IN CONFLICT.

If you are religious, you will very likely choose the one that makes you feel better.

I have zero confidence in any report or experiment done by anyone even remotely religious. Those results need replicating for veracity. You cannot be a true scientist if you are religious. You are only a religious man doing science. We all know how corrupted science gets by Scientologists.

* * * * * *

Please prove that religious causes something, and that this "something" is negative to society.

Where to start?
- Loss of freedom to choose:
- sexuality
- mates
- lifestyle
- opinions about issues:you are told what they should be by your group
- Loss of critical thinking (obviously if you are religious)
- Loss of self-determination
- Loss of truth: there is no afterlife, and you will not get rewarded for living as your 'god' commands you nor by losing your life in warring with the 'evil' enemy. (Isn't it amazing how the other side is always the 'evil' one?)

You gain the following:
- Mindless repitition = brainwashing
- Wasting time
- Credulity; whatever your religious leader proclaims, you believe without question of whether it is actually a good policy/decision/action.

I could go on, but I'm tired of repeating the same thing - the religious will never give up their fantasy; it is too frightening for them to live in a reality where their existence will end quite soon.

* * * * *

The arrogance of the intolerant is truly astounding

Why should anyone tolerate stupidity, credulity and ignorance???

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

Why should anyone tolerate stupidity, credulity and ignorance???

If you add bigotry to that list, yes indeed, why should anyone tolerate what you just said?

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

Why should anyone tolerate stupidity, credulity and ignorance???

The problem is the people who think that they have the right to say what is stupid and ignorant - defining it as anything that disagrees with what they think is the case. That is intolerance, and intolerance by contrast to these has quite a natural definition in the absolute minimum of imposition on other people. Yes we must impose the limits of liberty and tolerance upon people in a free society and that means refusing to allow them liberties which deprive other people of the same.

Originally Posted by KomradRed

If you add bigotry to that list, yes indeed, why should anyone tolerate what you just said?

Thus bigotry and intolerance does not belong on that list at all, for that is a list of excuses for bigotry and intolerance.

And lets just suppose instead of listening to inane name calling based on these daydreams of being smarter and more knowledgable, we went for some more objective measure of stupidity and ignorance in standardized tests and found out who on this forum are the ones that are really stupid and ignorant, eh? What do you think they will show?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

The problem is in the "just". For those going to college, high school is indeed a preparation for college, but that is hardly all that it is, and there is no just about it, for college really is more of the same. Both are about learning and if you think to wait and do your learning in college then you are seriously messed up. In the same way life and afterlife is about life and if you think to wait and do your living in the afterlife then your religion is pathological, psychologically speaking. Religion that is all about future rewards is a tool of manipulation and power. Religion that is meaningful and of value is one that helps you live life better and more effectively now.

How do you suppose this is meaningful, or rather, more meaningful? And is it really necessary to do it in this way? The latter could supposedly only be answered by God. But isn't it the same? It all seems to be about the future, which is supposedly neverending. How can that be any more meaningful? What makes the belief that this is it so much less meaningful? Or is it equivalent with the former belief?

An even more important question would seem to be "what is the correct one?" or "Is there a correct one?". What makes the most sense? How do you suppose a gradeur purpose of things when you're not even sure there is a purpose, or if this purpose entails meaning? If there was an intention behind the universe, what was the intention behind the intention, etc? Or is intention simply an illusion?

I made quite an elaborate post on meaning and purpose on the Philosophorum not too long ago trying to give a clear definition of the terms here which you might or might not find interesting. I'm not sure if I reached any conclusion, but there seemed to be something ambiguous in the core definition.

Anyhow, disregarding meaning and otherwise ambiguous stuff, what about logic? Turning back to the question "what makes the most sense?"; if something doesn't fit reality, can it then be called real?

Now that's a great question. :wink:

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

No, it isn't fine at all. What is to stop the religious from fudging the data and screwing around with the protocol so that their 'god' or any tenant of their doctrine appears more realistic/possible?

My first guess would be the consequences of those actions. Not every religious person is a zelot or scared/insecure to the point of abandoning their science because it might disagree with some of their beliefs, which it mostly does not. Most religious scientists don't let their religion stand in the way of their science, which would be equivalent to giving up their career as a scientist.

I mean, the freaking head of the human genome project is religious for crying out loud! Does that invalidate all the research in that project? Grow up.

Originally Posted by Obviously

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

No, it isn't fine at all. What is to stop the religious from fudging the data and screwing around with the protocol so that their 'god' or any tenant of their doctrine appears more realistic/possible?

My first guess would be the consequences of those actions. Not every religious person is a zelot or scared/insecure to the point of abandoning their science because it might disagree with some of their beliefs, which it mostly does not. Most religious scientists don't let their religion stand in the way of their science, which would be equivalent to giving up their career as a scientist.

I think science may pander, when a large group of scientists find something chiming with personal belief. But the time when most were religious, and would work hard to corroberate a religion-friendly theory is past. I guess the best example in recent history is Big Bang, suggested by a Catholic priest, to show the universe Created (by some unstated primal mover). At the time most of us were Christian and no doubt privately frusterated by bible-contradicting cosmologies. Now today theories that so blatently accomodate religion win few supporters. It would be something else we gush over.

Originally Posted by Pong

I think science may pander, when a large group of scientists find something chiming with personal belief. But the time when most were religious, and would work hard to corroberate a religion-friendly theory is past. I guess the best example in recent history is Big Bang, suggested by a Catholic priest, to show the universe Created (by some unstated primal mover). At the time most of us were Christian and no doubt privately frusterated by bible-contradicting cosmologies. Now today theories that so blatently accomodate religion win few supporters. It would be something else we gush over.

Thank God for rationalizations!

So what would today's scientists privately love to see accepted? The health benefits of internet porn?

Please prove that religious causes something, and that this "something" is negative to society.


"- Loss of freedom to choose:
- sexuality
- mates
- lifestyle
- opinions about issues:you are told what they should be by your group
- Loss of critical thinking (obviously if you are religious)
- Loss of self-determination
- Loss of truth: there is no afterlife, and you will not get rewarded for living as your 'god' commands you nor by losing your life in warring with the 'evil' enemy. (Isn't it amazing how the other side is always the 'evil' one?)" -C_Sensei

Please prove that religion causes all of this. Simply saying "A causes (B,C,D...)" doesn't make the statement true. It's the equivalent of Newton accepting the adage "What goes up must come down" instead of discovering the principles of gravity.

The definition of proof is not "a likely statement."

You failed to answer my question. First I asked for proof that religion causes "something." I suggest proving that religion causes one thing, and then when one thing is proven, prove a second and so on. Second I asked to prove that the things caused by religion are negative to society. In order to do this you will first need to clarify exactly what is negative to society and why, and then prove that things caused by religion are to blame for the presence of these things.

Since I do not think it is possible to discern whether religion causes something or whether individuals cause something and use religion as an excuse. Without you providing any proof for your theory, it is chalked up as a non-scientific belief.

I would have to design an experiment proving that the test group (the religious) are much more credulous than the control group (athiests), for actual scientific proof. I do not know of such an experiment.

However, your bullcrap of "give proof" is the in the same nature of the dodge the smoking companies used to give. "There is Nooooo scientific proof that smoking causes cancer - it's only a correlation!"

Tell me which group is credible and which is not:

some more objective measure of stupidity and ignorance in standardized tests and found out who on this forum are the ones that are really stupid and ignorant, eh? What do you think they will show?

I hold that the religious and credulous will prove to be:

a) far more stupid, in that they deliberately adhere to fantasies of an non-proven nor even scientifically supported afterlife, AND creator that is merely an added
step to the origin of this universe - what are they doing, therefore, in forums dedicated to science and not religion

b) far more ignorant, in that they (at best) act as if they have never learned the proofs of cosmology, biology and geology. If they haven't learned them, then they actually are ignorant. If they merely act as if they haven't learned them (in upholding a god despite having learned better) then they are not only being deliberately ignorant, they are being hypocrites as well.

You proceed once again from a false assumption - that all religious doctrines are equal with what science has proven, and therefore all deserve equal status with the science proofs of how the universe started and what that means to us as humans. If I happen to have learned the correct history, it doesn't make me 'right' - that's a view that plagues the religious. I simply put forth the correct version of what actually happened and what is the actual current state of the universe...as PROVEN. The religious who learned but then deny that are in a state of fantasy/denial.


Who wants those types of people doing the science we all depend on?
Their work needs thorough verification at the very least.

"I would have to design an experiment proving that the test group (the religious) are much more credulous than the control group (athiests), for actual scientific proof. I do not know of such an experiment."

This sounds like an interesting experiment, although it's flawed in a very vital way. Also, it wouldn't support your claims.

You claimed "religion causes [x, y, z...]" and "[x, y, z...] has negative effects on society"

These are very ambiguous statements you are making, and nothing like the very defined lies as claimed by big tobacco.

slightly off the topic

Please keep in mind that the representatives from big tobacco had done experiments, and they were speaking generally about the results of these experiments. Their generalizations however were paradoxically specific in meaning "No harmful effects" but this didn't mean "There are no harmful effects" it means "In our experiments, we have yet to find evidence of any harmful effects." There is a slight difference, one that shows why politics and science DON"T MIX.

So please, feel free to start somewhere easy.

First define what "negative effects on society" consist of, because I'm pretty sure that science is not capable of proving that murdering your neighbor is detrimental to society. Science is a measure of cause and effect, not good and bad. If murder is more common, maybe people become more individualistic, maybe people strive for success so they can leave their dangerous homes, the effects of something that is seemingly "bad" may be very "good" indeed.

Nonetheless, there should be plenty of studies that you can use, don't cop out by saying that you'd have to do your own experiment. Your not the first to think of this crap, and there are plenty of unrelated studies that can be used to support your claims. For example in the US where religion is so common, and so is murder, assuming that religion causes these high murder rates, find some evidence that murder is detrimental to society.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

I would have to design an experiment proving that the test group (the religious) are much more credulous than the control group (athiests), for actual scientific proof. I do not know of such an experiment.

However, your bullcrap of "give proof" is the in the same nature of the dodge the smoking companies used to give. "There is Nooooo scientific proof that smoking causes cancer - it's only a correlation!"

Tell me which group is credible and which is not:

I think it is abundantly obvious that some individuals here are more credible and stupid than other individuals. The simple fact is that belonging to a group does not make one less credible or more intellegent, though which group one is might tell us what sort of thing that person might more readily believe without proof or evidence.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

some more objective measure of stupidity and ignorance in standardized tests and found out who on this forum are the ones that are really stupid and ignorant, eh? What do you think they will show?

I hold that the religious and credulous will prove to be:

a) far more stupid, in that they deliberately adhere to fantasies of an non-proven nor even scientifically supported afterlife, AND creator that is merely an added
step to the origin of this universe - what are they doing, therefore, in forums dedicated to science and not religion

b) far more ignorant, in that they (at best) act as if they have never learned the proofs of cosmology, biology and geology. If they haven't learned them, then they actually are ignorant. If they merely act as if they haven't learned them (in upholding a god despite having learned better) then they are not only being deliberately ignorant, they are being hypocrites as well.

I hold that a few of the atheists here will prove to be:

a)... far more stupid and credulous, in that they deliberately adhere to fantasies and dogmas of their ideology even when they are obviously things for which contrary evidence is readily available, insisting that people are only religious when they have been indoctrinated by their parents and that there are no scientists who are religious. In the general population I do think it is likely that what you say is true as a generalization, but this forum is quite different, for the stupid and credulous have a tendency to avoid places where their inadequacies are likely to be shown up.

b)... far more ignorant, in that even though they have never had any formal training in the science they will act like they should be considered a scientist because they act and talk like science is a world view rather than a methodology. Thus even though their understanding of that methodology is vague at best, because they have adopted the philosophical naturalist premise that only what science studies is real they think they are the ones that should be called scientists and that anyone who disagrees with them and their world view should not.

c)... delusional in upholding the preposterous belief that science has proved their their belief that there is no God and with deliberate ignorance have made themselves mentally incapable of learning otherwise.

d)... hypocrites in their insistence that they only believe that for which they have proof and evidence when in fact this is nothing more than empty rhetoric in support of their dogmas and that they routinely make claims and statements which they claim are undeniable facts not only when they have no proof or evidence but when proof and evidence to the contrary is staring them in the face.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

You proceed once again from a false assumption - that all religious doctrines are equal with what science has proven, and therefore all deserve equal status with the science proofs of how the universe started and what that means to us as humans.

I don't know who you are throwing these unfounded accusations at but I certainly have made more posts to the contrary than you have made posts at all. Religious doctrines of ANY type and that includes the dogmas of your fundamentalist relgious atheism are most certainly NOT equal with what science has accumulated objective observations and evidence for. So neither my religious beliefs NOR your atheist beliefs deserve any equal status with scientific theory.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

If I happen to have learned the correct history, it doesn't make me 'right' - that's a view that plagues the religious. I simply put forth the correct version of what actually happened and what is the actual current state of the universe...as PROVEN. The religious who learned but then deny that are in a state of fantasy/denial.

Quite correct, as long as you stop there. But if you go from there, jumping to conclusions that just be being religious, people are automatically contradicting what science has evidence for (strike the PROVEN in your statement as unwaranted), then all you do is prove that you have very little understanding about what is proven and that you are the one who is operating under a number of delusions yourself.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

Who wants those types of people doing the science we all depend on?
Their work needs thorough verification at the very least.

Since scientists are not the high priests of your religion and their personal beliefs are irrelevant I have no objection to people with your sort of delusions from getting the same kind of training in the methodology of science that I have for I know that if you publish your work in peer reviewed journal then anything that is a result of your delusions rather than a meticulous adherence to scientific methodology will not be accepted by the journal.

Ya whatever, dude.

Go on spouting that Atheism is a religion all you like. You've brainwashed nobody but yourself. You won't be satisfied by anything I've put forth, so...I'm not staying here to argue with the abysmally blind in an internet forum!

If you think you've dragged Atheism down into your level of delusions, then go practice your judgementalism on aaallll the sinners! Might as well bring back the witch hunt too - for 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live!' Proof right there that religion is grrrreeat for society!

Am I to assume that you concede our debate sensei?

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

Go on spouting that Atheism is a religion all you like. You've brainwashed nobody but yourself. You won't be satisfied by anything I've put forth, so...I'm not staying here to argue with the abysmally blind in an internet forum!

I have done nothing of the kind. There are plenty of rational atheists here where I would very much agree that their atheism is no kind of religion at all. But people can turn ANYTHING into a religion. And when their approach to something whether it be science, atheism or football is to act like it some kind of dogmatic TRUTH, worldview, ideology or theory of everything, pronouncing opinions as facts without any evidence, then what are we conclude but they have turned these things into some kind of wierd religion. So I will criticize the posts of people based on the irrationality of what they say regardless of whether they are theist, atheist or agnostic, or whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, exitentialist, naturalist or marxist.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

If you think you've dragged Atheism down into your level of delusions, then go practice your judgementalism on aaallll the sinners! Might as well bring back the witch hunt too - for 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live!' Proof right there that religion is grrrreeat for society!

Sounds to me that you are the one with all the judgementalism and a desire bringing back the witch hunts, for it is you who are trying to make your opinions the standard of TRUTH that everyone must live by. I've got no problem with atheism. I've just got a problem with people who think that everyone has to agree with their opinions in order to be ethical or rational or whatever.

No, you're just pissed that I refuse to be pigeonholed into your definition of our universe. I do NOT look on atheism as a religion in any way, because religion is the most moronic thing a man in the modern age who has been educated can cling to! The principles of atheism are proven. Why add a god to the equation of the universe? It only adds a step and begs the same question of the god - where did the god come from, then? The christian god is furthermoredisproven by not only proving his 'facts' as ludicrous, but also in disproving most of the utter crap found in his bronze-age text.

I've got a degree, bub. I've done the Biology, Geology, Physics, and Chemistry equivalent of a minor degree. Don't try and lecture me about what I know and don't know, and what I adhere to as a religion or not. You have no clue. If I'm too lazy to go hunt down references, tough. You don't decide what the methodologies called science means for athiests - scientists by definition are athiests. Religious people like yourselves may do science and do it exceptionally well, but you're still not scientists, even when you get paid for doing science - you're HYPOCRITES. You suspend the protocols and findings of science that you should know well. Heh - maybe you never studied psychology, so you mightn't know what denial and brainwashing really is.

You think the world revolves around your definition of

when proof and evidence to the contrary is staring them in the face.

their belief that there is no God and with deliberate ignorance have made themselves mentally incapable of learning otherwise

There is no "proof and evidence to the contrary" - that's why science is held way above religion. Except for people like you religious guys. You're almost scientologists. You claim science upholds religion when it never has.

So NO, I am most definitely NOT conceding your 'points' as you loosely call them.
I'm not wasting time on anyone like you. I left dolt forums for this science forum to avoid your type.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

I've got a degree, bub. I've done the Biology, Geology, Physics, and Chemistry equivalent of a minor degree. Don't try and lecture me about what I know and don't know, and what I adhere to as a religion or not. You have no clue. If I'm too lazy to go hunt down references, tough. You don't decide what the methodologies called science means for athiests - scientists by definition are athiests. Religious people like yourselves may do science and do it exceptionally well, but you're still not scientists, even when you get paid for doing science - you're HYPOCRITES. You suspend the protocols and findings of science that you should know well. Heh - maybe you never studied psychology, so you mightn't know what denial and brainwashing really is.

Thank you for the demonstration that everything I said was absolutely correct.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

You think the world revolves around your definition of

when proof and evidence to the contrary is staring them in the face.

their belief that there is no God and with deliberate ignorance have made themselves mentally incapable of learning otherwise

There is no "proof and evidence to the contrary" - that's why science is held way above religion. Except for people like you religious guys. You're almost scientologists. You claim science upholds religion when it never has.

Incorrect. Science does not uphold religion. Science does not make any religious claims at all. Science does not make a single comment about the existence of God or any kind of non-physical entities of any kind. Science does not uphold your religious views in any way whatsoever.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

So NO, I am most definitely NOT conceding your 'points' as you loosely call them.

That's ok, your proof by demostration is quite satisfactory.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

I'm not wasting time on anyone like you. I left dolt forums for this science forum to avoid your type.

Sounds like a plan. I think you should follow your interests. If you have no tolerance for people who think differently than you do then it is a good idea to stay away from the the "scientific study of religion" section. On scientific topics there a consensus of the scientific community but there is little means to find such a consensus on topics like religion. In any case, since I am the moderator of this section, I am kind of hard to avoid if you want to post here.

I had stated science does not uphold religion. So why are you claiming I did say it?

Insist on what you want. Your view of what atheism is is wrong. The findings of science (which we may therefore call 'science') proves that there is no god. If you want to go on insisting on your weak atheism defamation strategy, go ahead. I think very few people with education in here are convinced by you, and alot more know that what I put forth is true - they learned it long ago without me enlightening them!

Your little games of trying to make me angry won't work either. You take my points and invert them into somehow supporting your position as correct??? LOL.

"proves that there is no god"

Where, how?

"I've got a degree, bub. I've done the Biology, Geology, Physics, and Chemistry equivalent of a minor degree. Don't try and lecture me about what I know and don't know, and what I adhere to as a religion or not. You have no clue. If I'm too lazy to go hunt down references, tough. You don't decide what the methodologies called science means for athiests - scientists by definition are athiests. Religious people like yourselves may do science and do it exceptionally well, but you're still not scientists, even when you get paid for doing science - you're HYPOCRITES. You suspend the protocols and findings of science that you should know well. Heh - maybe you never studied psychology, so you mightn't know what denial and brainwashing really is. "

But I thought you just did the equivalent of biology, geology, physics, and chemistry in a minor degree? Are you saying you also have the equivalent of a minor in psychology too? If so, why not just claim you know everything?

To sensei:

"Except for people like you religious guys."

If you're including me in this, then please point out what I have said that makes you think I'm religious.

I am still unsure of whether or not you concede your previous argument that "religion hurts society." I have yet to see any attempts at proving this statement. Since it is your claim, the burden of proof is on you.

I'm a little confused about who you are talking to. It's obvious that most of your focus is on Mitch, but am I to assume that you are ignoring my points and thus conceding the argument between you and I?

In the future, it may help to clarify who you are talking to.

In the off chance that you are talking to me, what is wrong with being a Scientologist? It may be founded on lies, but again, please prove that it is wrong to lie.

Geez, what's with all the hostility?

Originally Posted by Golkarian

The questions are good. However the fact they are questions makes them poor arguments.

If they are questions, then they aren't arguments.

Originally Posted by Golkarian

I think it expresses an ad ignorantium fallacy, or argument from ignorance.

Not applicable considering that they aren't arguments at all.

Originally Posted by Golkarian

I don't know why God would do this, so I will cease to believe in him.

That's up to the individual.

Originally Posted by Golkarian

It's like saying there can be know cure for AIDS since scientists have not yet discovered it.

I guess I'm not seeing how this is in any way related.

Perhaps it would be better to say, "since we have no evidence that this particular treatment cures AIDS, we should stop accepting the arguement that it is a cure for AIDS".

I've got a Bach degree, bub. Majoring in Psyc. So I have put in the time and the work. Have you? You might yet know what you're talking about if you haven't, but the odds are alot less that you do. I don't go spewing my mouth off about stuff I don't know; (you will never hear me argue firmly about Integrals). Only about what I do know.

I've proven in a previous post the bad effects religion has on society. Check the point form reply - the one where it was immediately attempted to be flip flopped right after.

Want a much better answer with references? Crack open Carl Sagan: the Demon Haunted World. You'll get alot of detrimental effects that religion gives to society in it.

Deism and/OR Theism are both beliefs - since they have no evidence.

Atheism and Science cannot be beliefs - they are based on evidence.

What the moderator is so pissed at is that I don't speak with any patience or respect for his belief, and indeed, question his science accomplishments on the basis that they are compromised by beliefs. Which they are; re: my degree. Furthermore, those who are scientists and understand the requirements of proof, by default must erroneously ascribe 'belief' to atheists, otherwise, they know they themselves are hypocrites.

So we have 'scientists' claiming that the BB is not proven. Claiming that the beginning of the universe is still shrouded in mystery, and that therefore they must add a god to it. They then ignore begging the same questions of the gods origin. How can they then be called 'scientists'???

This is all covered by Carl Sagan, guys; I am not putting forth something I thought up myself. I checked the evidence given, and drew a conclusion for myself, I was not TOLD what to believe in.

But there are those who will ignore this last paragraph, and continue as a broken record. I have seen it in every religious type, every brain-washed subject, every brain-damaged patient with a repetitive 'fixation' and every O/C patient.

So what's the point in repeating myself? Only if I leave here, the Deists/Theists/Absolute Morons will claim they won and drove me off! Like whatever twit who claims I'm conceding their point when I clearly never did.

C-Sensie, you have yet to link us to the extraordinary scientific experiment that refutes the existence of God.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

I've got a Bach degree, bub. Majoring in Psyc. So I have put in the time and the work. Have you?

Cool! Both my parents majored in Psych. But... no, I do not have a Bach degree majoring in Psych, I've only got a masters in physics. So you have taken classes. Good. Any time and work spent in doing scientific research?

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

You might yet know what you're talking about if you haven't, but the odds are alot less that you do.

Yep, a bachlor's degree in science is a good start.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

I don't go spewing my mouth off about stuff I don't know; (you will never hear me argue firmly about Integrals). Only about what I do know.

If only that were true... sigh... but the real issue here is your confusion about the difference between scientific fact and your religious opinions.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

I've proven in a previous post the bad effects religion has on society. Check the point form reply - the one where it was immediately attempted to be flip flopped right after.

No you have not. If you want to argue that a specific relgion has had a bad effect then I think you could succeed because I think that is correct. I can think of some examples of that myself. I think you could argue that some religions have become part of the problems which mankind face. On that I would agree. Since you know a little psychology I will also add that I will gladly stipulate that religion, and even the belief in God is quite often part of the psychopathology of many individuals. But, no you have not only failed to prove what you claim here, but the claim itself is entirely lacking the clarity that would be expected of a scientific claim. What you you have here instead is an example of the same kind of pseudoscientific rhetoric that is typically used by Creationists grasping at scientific studies and facts vaguely connected with the points they seek to make in order to make preposterous claims that science supports their religious opinions.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

Deism and/OR Theism are both beliefs - since they have no evidence.

Atheism and Science cannot be beliefs - they are based on evidence.\

...load of hogwash. These are all based on beliefs and their proponents all base these beliefs on all sorts of evidence. However the religions opinions of Deism, theism, and atheism are based on subjective evidence only. The arguments and evidence put forward in support of these opinions convince no one except those who already believe in them for they cannot stand up to skeptical examination or demands for objective evidence.

Science however is something quite different. It is a methodology. That methodology was founded and continues to be based on various beliefs that cannot be proven in any way but that is really irrelevant. The point is that the methodology defines science and if you want to do science then you have to follow the method. Now a lot of the softer sciences like Psychology often adopts unprovable theories or paradigms in order to guide its research which leads to what Thomas Kuhn describes in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". But at the real ground floor of science there is the data composed of objective observations that every new theory must still explain and this data does not go away and thus it is by the accumulation of such data that even the softer sciences continue to progress.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

What the moderator is so pissed at is that I don't speak with any patience or respect for his belief,

Who is pissed? Examine the language used.

...sigh... You have no idea what I believe, so your claim that I am in any way "disturbed" by your so called lack of respect is ludicrous. I called you out on your BS just as I call out every religious wacko that comes here on their nonsense and I will continue to do so. I grant no one the kind of "respect" for their religious opinions that affords them any immunity to rational criticism of their posts, beliefs or the organizations they support. I criticize the religion I am associated with, as most religious people do, but unlike most I will not refrain from such criticism in order to present some kind of hypocritical united front.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

and indeed, question his science accomplishments on the basis that they are compromised by beliefs. Which they are; re: my degree. Furthermore, those who are scientists and understand the requirements of proof, by default must erroneously ascribe 'belief' to atheists, otherwise, they know they themselves are hypocrites.

LOL LOL Thus you prove that you have absolutely no understanding of science whatsoever. You think it is some kind of religious/ideological life commitment. That is hilarious. And the hypocrisy of your continual claims that you base your religious opinions on evidence while spouting nonsense for which there is only contrary evidence where any evidence is possible at all, makes you into quite a joke that I will enjoy sharing with others.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

So we have 'scientists' claiming that the BB is not proven. Claiming that the beginning of the universe is still shrouded in mystery, and that therefore they must add a god to it. They then ignore begging the same questions of the gods origin. How can they then be called 'scientists'???

I certainly think that the Big Bang is a very well established theory and a well established theory like this is nothing like any mere hypothesis but just like the theories of evolution and relativity has become one of the tools of further scientific inquiry and at that point we must call such a theory scientific fact. No scientist talks about God in a scientific paper because the word simply has no meaning in the context of scientific inquiry. But same could be said of the word "love" in study of cosmology or the word "morality" in the study of chemical reactions or the word "isospin" in the study of biology or the word "halogen" in the study of psychology. But does this mean that a cosmologist "betrays" (I could not even say this with a straight face it is so incredibly absurd) his scientific field if he believes that love is real and talks to someone about it? Does it mean that a chemist can have no views on morality? Does it mean that Biologist is a "traitor" (LOL LOL LOL) if he has an interest in particle physics and studies isospin? Does it mean that psychologist must be banned from the subject of chemistry? LOL

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

This is all covered by Carl Sagan, guys; I am not putting forth something I thought up myself. I checked the evidence given, and drew a conclusion for myself, I was not TOLD what to believe in.

LOL Oh I can well believe that you are just repeating what you have been told. The claims about checking the evidence is something we hear from the religious nuts everyday, so I hope you understand that such assurances do not impress anyone. So.... all respects to your guru, sonny, but just because he says something does not make it true, not matter how fantastic you think it is. LOL

If you really would have us take you seriously as an independent thinker then what you need to do is impress us with your own ideas and thinking about things, and not expect us all to bow down to what authority you imagine that your guru has given you.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

But there are those who will ignore this last paragraph, and continue as a broken record. I have seen it in every religious type, every brain-washed subject, every brain-damaged patient with a repetitive 'fixation' and every O/C patient.

Sorry but I don't think you have seen anything of the kind, because I know what real scientific inquiry consists of and what those doing real scientific research sound like and so I am very sorry but, even though I have nothing to do with the field of psychology, the difference between objective scientific observation and the slurs of a bigot are nevertheless clear as day to someone like me.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

So what's the point in repeating myself? Only if I leave here, the Deists/Theists/Absolute Morons will claim they won and drove me off! Like whatever twit who claims I'm conceding their point when I clearly never did.

There is no point in repeating these opinions and your incessant name calling. None whatsoever.

...load of hogwash. These are all based on beliefs and their proponents all base these beliefs on all sorts of evidence. However the religions opinions of Deism, theism, and atheism are based on subjective evidence only. The arguments and evidence put forward in support of these opinions convince no one except those who already believe in them for they cannot stand up to skeptical examination or demands for objective evidence.

The ONLY evidence worthwhile is objective evidence. If the evidence CANNOT stand up in the court of law then it is not evidence and cannot be seen as evidence. Atheism is not a belief simply because they say that it is justifiable to simply not believe someones claims if they do not present the appropriate evidence for said beliefs. They are JUSTIFIED in doing so. It doesn't mean it automatically turns into a belief. Atheism, like science, both work the same way. If a claim in science is made and there is no evidence for such a claim then that claim can be dismissed... correct? With religion, if there is no evidence for a claim, that claim can be dismissed, correct? Otherwise, if it cant simply be dismissed, how do you know if its real or not? If you are basing your beliefs on what is real, then you will most likely follow the path with the most evidence. If you are simply guessing or using a bit of "wishful thinking" then religion might be for you. Those who demand evidence for their ideas and those who CARE if their ideas are correct no matter where it leads them are JUSTIFIED in denying your claims. Both science and Atheism work the same way.
How religion works is that they have a belief or conjecture and they keep that belief or conjecture no matter what the evidence says. These are two separate idea's. One is based on the evidence and the other is not. So why believe in something that isn't based on the evidence? You wouldnt believe a "scientific claim" if that claim didnt have evidence in the first place, would you?

PhoenixG,

#1 Why won't god heal amputees?

Why assume that an amputee is ill?

#2 Why are there so many starving people in our world?

Because there are some really greedy people in our world.

#3 Why does god demand the death of so many innocent people in the bible?

What makes you think they are innocent from Gods' perspective?

#4 Why does the bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?

Because you don't understand what is written you call it nonsense.

#5 Why is god such a huge proponent of slavery in the bible?

We are all slaves in some way or other.
And the use of the word "slave" had a different connotation in those days, to now.

#6 Why do bad things happen to good people?

Why should bad things not happen to good people?

#7 Why didn't any of jesus' miracles in the bible leave behind any evidence?

Such as?

#8 How do we explain the fact that jesus has never appeared to you?

We say "Jesus never appeared to you?"

#9 Why would jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?

I doubt he meant it in a literal sense.

#10 Why do christians get divorced at the same rate as non-christians?

Because saying you are a follerwer of Jesus is different from actually being a follower of Jesus?

jan.

Thank you verz.
I never did have the patience for the brainwashed / O/C.
mitch is an aggressive shit-disturber; he tries to incite anger by poking at any athiest with flipping his exact religion aspects onto them. He has no grounds to stand on otherwise; while this insistence of his is nothing more than an error. He knows subconsciously that he is a huge hypocrite, (his two views are in conflict with one another) although consciously he denies it, just look at the above posts.


mitch, Guru's are listened to. That is YOUR field. Not mine. Don't go accusing me of actions YOU take. YOU are the one who listens to what others tell you. I hunt down references (and Sagan give alot of them); I was required to in Uni, and I was known for not listening to teachers outright AND questioning them. And while you might have more experience in physics than I, it hardly means you know what science is and I don't. BA degree has HALF electives. I took 95% of those in science courses, getting special permission from department chairs to do so; and that is aside form the science courses included in my BA of Psyc., one double of which was getting research papers published in science journals. So your allegations are without merit.
Master's degrees are centered around a thesis anyway, aren't they? How is that so much amazingly more than a Bach? Do you think Bach.s STOP following study on their own as soon as they graduate??? LOL You attempt to play tit-for-tat as if your assumed slightly higher level of science accomplishments make you entirely right and me entirely wrong! LOL! Publishing or paid work is not necessarily more accomplished in any event! The best guidebook in my hobby of Astronomy was written by an amateur!

If I'm such a pseudoscientist then what are you? Go ahead and claim you have given your PROOF of a god!! Go ahead and "repeat" your evidence for your god's existence. Nothing to repeat? Then write it down here since you claim I need so much proof; it should be no different for you! You claim I'm the same thing as you, anyway - believing (just atheism, not in god) without proof! LLLLLOLLLLL!!!!!


There is no valid basis to compare belief in a god to love. "The Scientific Proof of Love" is a perfectly valid paper subject. "The Scientific Proof of GAHD" is NOT. Since you cannot prove your god, why don't you take a crack at atheism for a few months, only approach it from the angle of requiring absolute proof, and not from the angle of it being another religion like yours.


And here's a proof for the other guy: ISBN 0-393-30583-X
Hunt down all the references that he gives, too.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Sorry but I don't think you have seen anything of the kind, because I know what real scientific inquiry consists of and what those doing real scientific research sound like and so I am very sorry but, even though I have nothing to do with the field of psychology, the difference between objective scientific observation and the slurs of a bigot are nevertheless clear as day to someone like me.

You may "know" of "real scientific inquiry," but you certainly have demonstrated beyond a doubt that you certainly don't apply it. In fact, you largely ignore it.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

I never did have the patience for the brainwashed / O/C.
mitch is an aggressive shit-disturber; he tries to incite anger by poking at any athiest with flipping his exact religion aspects onto them. He has no grounds to stand on otherwise; while this insistence of his is nothing more than an error. He knows subconsciously that he is a huge hypocrite, (his two views are in conflict with one another) although consciously he denies it, just look at the above posts.

LOL

Shall we believe that this atheist is a psychic that he can speak with authority on what are the intentions and emotions of other people and what they "know subconsciously"? The words we speak is the only evidence of what is in our heads. If someone claims only to believe that for which they have evidence, what are we to believe of claims like these? I say we must look at the words of posts as the evidence of the habits of thought from which they come. Let us ignore the imagined hypocrisy and look at the real hypocrisy that is there for all see in the words of the posts and the beliefs which they claims for themselves and not in those manifactured from forcing others to fit into the reality that you believe in and certainly not in imagined abilities to see subconscious thoughts.

LOL

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

mitch, Guru's are listened to. That is YOUR field. Not mine. Don't go accusing me of actions YOU take. YOU are the one who listens to what others tell you.

Oh? And who might that be? LOL

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

I hunt down references (and Sagan give alot of them); I was required to in Uni, and I was known for not listening to teachers outright AND questioning them. And while you might have more experience in physics than I, it hardly means you know what science is and I don't. BA degree has HALF electives. I took 95% of those in science courses, getting special permission from department chairs to do so; and that is aside form the science courses included in my BA of Psyc., one double of which was getting research papers published in science journals. So your allegations are without merit.

AH! It is not a bachelor's of science that you have but a bachelor's of arts. My mistake. I assumed too much. At the university where I graduated (both undergraduate and graduate) the only difference that I could see at the time between a BS and a BA seemed to be that the BA had a language requirement, so I thank you for pointing out the other differences in that the BA is less specialized and for less technichal fields of study, with about only 36 hours in the major as opposed to 54 for a BS. In my case I was extremely specialized with over 90% of my classes in math and physics alone. I took a lot of graduate courses and seminars in pursuit of my particular interest in numerical analysis.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

Master's degrees are centered around a thesis anyway, aren't they? How is that so much amazingly more than a Bach? Do you think Bach.s STOP following study on their own as soon as they graduate???

Ah! questions! Asking questions is the key to wisdom, especially when the questions seek answers rather than being rhetorical and defensive.

Master's degrees are of two kinds. Those with a thesis and those without. I have both kinds. My masters in physics is one without a thesis. My research projects were a summer job and a couple which I hoped would pan out as PHD work. But after ten years I grew tired of these and decided to pursue my own projects such as my relativistic space simulator.

A piece of paper means very little for it is skills you learn that are really important. LOL I asked from genuine interest what work you have done in scientific research. I would be happy to learn about whatever work you have done after getting your bachelor's degree.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

LOL You attempt to play tit-for-tat as if your assumed slightly higher level of science accomplishments make you entirely right and me entirely wrong! LOL!

That depends on what we are talking about. In regards to our religious opinions absolutely not! But in regards what is science, absolute yes!

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

Publishing or paid work is not necessarily more accomplished in any event! The best guidebook in my hobby of Astronomy was written by an amateur!

Of course not. I am not the one deluded into thinking that science is some kind of religion/world view and holy calling requiring absolute loyalty like some kind of religion LOL. It is just a human activity much like the game of chess. If you don't play by the rules then simply is not chess, but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether what you are doing has any value.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

If I'm such a pseudoscientist then what are you?

What I am is VERY clear about what the methodology of science is and the nature of the subjects for which that methodology is effective, and thus I am extremely clear about difference between my scientific knowledge and my opinions on other matters. Perhaps some think it is unreasonable that I expect such clarity in others but I think that expectations like this are part of being an educator.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

Go ahead and claim you have given your PROOF of a god!!

I do not believe in any such proof. I do not believe that the proofs and evidence that people have for their religious opinions have any objective validity and I very much support the secular conduct of government and a court of law that cannot consider such evidence in its decisions. But that goes for the beliefs of both the theist and the atheist. The beliefs of the atheist can be no more justification for his actions when they trespass on the rights of others than can the beliefs of the theist, and the that of course goes for the conduct of those in the justice system and the government as well.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

Nothing to repeat? Then write it down here since you claim I need so much proof; it should be no different for you! You claim I'm the same thing as you, anyway - believing (just atheism, not in god) without proof! LLLLLOLLLLL!!!!!

Oh I am sorry to have given you such an impression because I certainly do not claim you are the same as me. I don't think you are very rational at all.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

There is no valid basis to compare belief in a god to love. "The Scientific Proof of Love" is a perfectly valid paper subject. "The Scientific Proof of GAHD" is NOT.

Well... while I certainly agree that the latter is not a valid topic for a scientific paper not for any meaning of the "God" that I would accept, I am highly dubious of your claim that "The Scientific Proof of Love" is a valid topic for a scientific paper but certainly open to hearing evidence for this being the case. But then the fact that you think this could have a great deal to do with what your views are on the nature of love.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

Since you cannot prove your god, why don't you take a crack at atheism for a few months, only approach it from the angle of requiring absolute proof, and not from the angle of it being another religion like yours.

My projects are not likely to be inspired by your needs to defend yourself. Atheism is not a religion. But that does not seem to keep many atheists from acting a great deal like fundamentialist evangelical christian wackos.

And the use of the word "slave" had a different connotation in those days, to now.

Uh what? The bible says that we can beat slaves as long as we dont kill them! The bible says that they are our property! How is that a "different connotation" ??

Originally Posted by verzen

Uh what? The bible says that we can beat slaves as long as we dont kill them! The bible says that they are our property! How is that a "different connotation" ??

Actually, it's okay to kill them, so long as they suffer for a couple of days first. It only wrong to beat them to death if they die right away.

Yay biblical-based morality!

Fine, mitch - you think I'm religiously devoted to atheism, then I'll flip your quote on you. How can you know what I think or 'believe'?

You're pissed that I charge you as not being a true scientist because you stop the process of science when you contemplate your god, and this is what has you so offended.

SO why don't you go and show us how your process of science continues when you contemplate your god. For that matter, why don't YOU instruct us all about how your particular universe started, then, since you're such a better instructor than I am. You have belief, belief requires no proof nor evidence (otherwise it ceases to be belief). Try to reconcile that one.

As for your tit-for-tat game, most of what I say comes from Carl Sagan, and Richard Dawkins, and others to a lesser extent, but take Carl Sagan alone. You think you have more credentials in Physics or even Math than he did?
And no, I don't 'listen' to them for 'guidance'. I went out and followed the references and required proofs, some of which I had to do as coursework. So no, I don't have 'belief', because belief requires faith and NOT proof.

You don't like that I'm acerbic and have no respect for the religious? Too bad.
I didn't come up with the answer of what the universe is. Science did that. I simply say anyone who refuses the proofs it gives are holding onto their beliefs and are basically enemies of humankind's progress.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

Fine, mitch - you think I'm religiously devoted to atheism, then I'll flip your quote on you. How can you know what I think or 'believe'?

I don't, I only know what you have written in your posts. I've learned a great deal of caution at this sort of thing and I thus I have never commented on anything about you directly but only what you have said. But mostly I have simply made general comments and it is you who has seen the applicability in your case based on your own knowledge of what you think and believe. Though pretty much everyone who reads what you have written in your posts can see the applicability as well.

But hey this is all completely besides the point, because if you think that some belief or thougt has incorrectly been attributed to you, all you have to do is simply explain what you do think and believe just as I do every time you try to attribute things to me which are incorrect. So just set the record straight. It is that simple. You are obviously the expert when it comes to what you think and feel and so if you explain such things then it is only rational that people will believe your word on such things.

But the fact of the matter is that I have said nothing about what you think and feel. Instead I have shown what are only the logical structure and logical consequences of the things you have said. I have explained it numerous times. You talk like science is some kind of religion, ideology or philosophy of life that requires a life commitment and loyalty. LOL You talk about "true scientists" in the same way that the moonies talk about "true parents". From an objective perspective your talk is a bunch of baloney for your "requirements" have absolutely NOTHING to do with the standards of the scientific community. So the question is, where does all this nonsense come from, and how is it any different from the complete crap of the creationist wackos with all their blather about being the real scientists? Sounds like religion and pseudoscience to me, because there simply is no methodological difference.

Science is a tool and methodology which is ONLY applicable to what is measurable and objectively observable. You can choose to believe that what is measurable and objectively observable is ALL that exists (that is the metaphysical naturalist premise), but for that belief, proof and evidence is impossible. Thus that is at best philosophy NOT science. And without such proof and evidence talking like it is some sort of TRUTH by which you can judge the world is relgious/ideological behavior.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

You're pissed that I charge you as not being a true scientist because you stop the process of science when you contemplate your god, and this is what has you so offended.

Incorrect the only emotion I feel reading your words are amusement and hilarity. God is not a meaningful concept in science. So the fact of the matter is that when you imagine that you are using some "process of science" to contemplate your ideas of god, it is you who have transformed science into a pseudoscience tool for your religious rhetoric and atheist evangelism.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

SO why don't you go and show us how your process of science continues when you contemplate your god.

Science is not a religion and way of life. Certainly as physicist, this methodology of science has absolutely nothing to do with what I do with my wife in bed, the process by which I prepare a meal, drive a car, or play a board game. You are certainly welcome to derive comfort from some identification you imagine between how you live your daily life and what you call "process of science", but THAT is an example of what I would call religion.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

For that matter, why don't YOU instruct us all about how your particular universe started, then, since you're such a better instructor than I am.

Why should I? You are already familiar with the rudiments of Big Bang theory apparently. This is not Physics or Astronomy&Cosmology section. That is not my paricular expertise. AND, I get paid for such work.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

You have belief, belief requires no proof nor evidence (otherwise it ceases to be belief). Try to reconcile that one.

So no, I don't have 'belief', because belief requires faith and NOT proof.

Everyone has beliefs and very few of them can be proven. One of the very few things that can be proven is that it is not possible to prove that mathematics is consistent. Consistency is the minimal logical requirement for a thing to be meaningful and thus like most scientists I do believe that mathematics is consistent and meaningful regardless of fact that such a proof is impossible.

Yes people have to simply decide what to believe even where there is insufficient proof or evidence because life just doesn't wait for such proofs and evidence.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

You don't like that I'm acerbic and have no respect for the religious?

Nope. I could care less.

You don't like it that I call you out on the nonsense you spout? Too bad. I will continue to do so whether you like it or not.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

I didn't come up with the answer of what the universe is. Science did that. I simply say anyone who refuses the proofs it gives are holding onto their beliefs and are basically enemies of humankind's progress.

More of your beliefs?

So because of my studies in physics, do you think that I have an even better understanding of what the universe is, than you do? That is a topic of physics not psychology, right? And do you think that I have a better understanding of what science has proven with regards to these physics topics - a better understanding of what science has actually done and how?

I am just trying to get on a handle on what you mean when you say science has given you "the answer of what the universe is". Is science what you study at university or just what your gurus, Sagan and Dawkins have said in their books? Will you quote them like scripture to establish your claims that science has given you the answer of what the universe is? If the writings and words of Sagan and Dawkins in advocating atheism and denouncing religion is what you think science is then that would certainly explain a lot of things, for that is a great misunderstanding. These popular writings and productions are NOT what the scientific community would call science at all. These are in fact the relgious opinions of these two people who happen to be scientists.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by verzen

Uh what? The bible says that we can beat slaves as long as we dont kill them! The bible says that they are our property! How is that a "different connotation" ??

Actually, it's okay to kill them, so long as they suffer for a couple of days first. It only wrong to beat them to death if they die right away.

Yay biblical-based morality!

Can you provide a source?

jan.

I've already asked him to support his views, and although I do not doubt his capabilities, I doubt that his religion allows him to provide evidence for his beliefs in the face of critical analysis.

Originally Posted by jan ardena

We are all slaves in some way or other.
And the use of the word "slave" had a different connotation in those days, to now.

Really? A slave is someone who is owned and forced to labor by another against their will. What other connotations are there?

Originally Posted by jan ardena

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by verzen

Uh what? The bible says that we can beat slaves as long as we dont kill them! The bible says that they are our property! How is that a "different connotation" ??

Actually, it's okay to kill them, so long as they suffer for a couple of days first. It only wrong to beat them to death if they die right away.

Yay biblical-based morality!

Can you provide a source?

jan.

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]."

Exodus 21:26-27 "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

You religious people with science education and credentials are really difficult to expose as frauds. It's because you know the system so well that you take advantage of every little distraction and trick you can.

#1 - you know full well that providing proof takes the form of hours of back hunting references. And ya, I am a little too lazy to devote the time for that. Nevertheless, it would be references a physicist would already know, about studies proving Big Bang. (Of course, a RELIGIOUS physicist, will insist on the technicality that it is 'only a theory'. See tobacco companies.) It doesn't require a god, so you can drop your god out of it rather than adding him. Nice dodge, btw, when I challenged you to state your lunacy. It's because you know that stating "gahd made the big bang" you'll show what a hypocrite you are - and in truth, NOT a scientist after all, DESPITE being paid to teach it and holding a master's.

#2 - you know full well that coming to conclusions that there is NO GOD takes years and years of education, if it is to be arrived at due to evidence and critical thinking, without listening to a Guru. A baseless charge you like to make of me, because I'm alot less of a threat to your belief system when you reduce me to YOUR level.

#3 - you are deliberately being provocative in ascribing to me the qualities of religion - what you yourself follow; when you know full well that science is incompatible with religion. Yet you hypocritically claim that there is no conflict between them so that you can continue to worship your god.
A man claiming to be a scientist who worships a god. How utterly ridiculous!

Sine you're a broken record and incapable of using your critical thinking facilities when it flies in the face of your religion, I see no point in continuing, aside from the fact that I'm an onery fucker who likes to fight when challenged.

So I'm getting bored of this low level of arguing, and hope others can take over to continue to make my point rather than watching form the sidelines, thanx to Q for the above part. Can someone else explain better than I to this hypocrite that atheism as the actual case for our universe is hardly a belief system?

Then again, it won't matter - he is too frightened of a universe without his 'daddy' god to save him from the big nasty death monster and tell him everything is OK, to ever allow the correct answer to even enter his head.

I think that Ex21:20-21 is a law against undue retrobution.

That is, it says to give your servant a chance to change his ways, if he does not then he is yours to do with as you please. It doesn't say it very clearly, but I do not think the intention is to "beat your servant for days straight" it is "If you beat your servant one day, and he continues to act wrongfully, and you beat him again, and he continues to act wrongfully, then it is just to kill him" it states "one or two days" which seems like a short period of time, but those days were different than our own.

Do you know how you would come into possession of a slave in those days?

You save someone's life, either by having mercy and not killing them, or otherwise by protecting them from danger.

Maybe your slave went "bankrupt" and so they now work for you until they get their property back the next Jubilee(which occures every 49/50 years... if you sell your property, you get the value which is based on how many years are left until the jubilee, because your going to get it back then)

This is voluntary, but once they volunteer, they are stuck unless you set them free.

Every Jubilee, the slaves are set free and the land goes back to it's original owner(s). Of course, we don't hear much about it because the tradition didn't last long. It was only ever done 3 times or so, from what I've heard.

The only other way to get a slave is if someone committed a crime against you, is in debt to you, and cannot pay, they then work an equivalent of the value they owe you(as described in the bible, i think it's twice as much as they stole, damaged or owed.. I'm sure each day has it's value somewhere, other than sabbath of course)

Slavery wasn't something that was done like in modern days. The Jews didnt' go around making big business out of slave trading. It was done for pitty and compassion, to people who would otherwise die. There are only surtain cases that slavery would be life long. The average of usual cases is about 25 years(because the Jubilee is the longest duration which is 49 or 50)

slavery is slavery, and I'm not justifying it, but no one can rightfully compare the Jews slave trade to the US/Jamaican slave trade, we don't know enough about how the Jews operated, and scripture is undoubtedly missing key facts to serve as a historical reference. You can assume that laws exist to prohibit curtain things, because those certain things are a problem, but this doesn't tell us how big of a problem these things are.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Slavery wasn't something that was done like in modern days. The Jews didnt' go around making big business out of slave trading. It was done for pitty and compassion, to people who would otherwise die.

Slavery for pity and compassion? There's an interesting twist of hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by C_Sensei

So I'm getting bored of this low level of arguing, and hope others can take over to continue to make my point rather than watching form the sidelines, thanx to Q for the above part. Can someone else explain better than I to this hypocrite that atheism as the actual case for our universe is hardly a belief system?

Then again, it won't matter - he is too frightened of a universe without his 'daddy' god to save him from the big nasty death monster and tell him everything is OK, to ever allow the correct answer to even enter his head.

Yeah I am so frightened by C_Sensei's high "level of arguing" that I run to my daddy Sagan and daddy Dawkins to save me from the big bad scientists that won't let me pretend that my religions opinions are science. I can't think of names to call them fast enough to keep my beliefs from collapsing under the weight of their own irrationality, oh no! Fellow atheists help me!

LOL

Why do you feel so threatened by the reality that there are other people out there that think differently than you do and disagree with you on a few things, that you have to pretend that there is something wrong with them? Why is it so neccessary that you believe that religious people cannot be scientists? I would not ask you turn around and go back to the superstitions of your childhood, but to keep going to develop this wonderful and powerful tool of logic and skepticism that you have learned and to apply it even more to the things you have been taught. I would not ask you believe anything or accept my answers but to find your own answers.

You have such a hard time with pinning me down like one of your old debating opponents because I am a pluralist, and this has nothing to do with my being religious because you are going to encounter atheists who are the same way. As a pluralist, I don't believe in singular truth and a black and white world of the correct thinkers versus the incorrect thinkers. People of all types and beliefs are clearly right about some things and wrong about other things but mostly they just think differently and for a lot of it, demanding that they must be either right or wrong is like insisting that some species of beetle is the right or true beetle and that the rest are all wrong or false beetles, LOL.

Thus if anything, I would hope that you eventually understand that that is not a productive way of thinking. Then I hope you will find that the real value in discussion is not some pleasure in destroying the big bad enemies who dare to disagree with your opinions, but because it helps you to dig out the assumptions and premises that you have accepted without much thought and to examine them more carefully. This is not because I assume your conclusions are wrong but because the more you do so the better you will be able to make intellegent choices about what you believe.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Why do you feel so threatened by the reality that there are other people out there that think differently than you do and disagree with you on a few things, that you have to pretend that there is something wrong with them?

The past 2000 years of bloodshed due to religious zealotry isn't evidence enough, Mitch? This isn't about thinking differently or disagreeing. This is about the delusions of those who believe in magic and mystery as reality, Mitch.

"Threatening" is a mild term in this regard.

You have such a hard time with pinning me down like one of your old debating opponents because I am a pluralist, and this has nothing to do with my being religious because you are going to encounter atheists who are the same way.

Bullocks! You are a hypocrite of the highest order. Atheists can't be hypocrites if they don't accept your delusions.

Thus if anything, I would hope that you eventually understand that that is not a productive way of thinking. This is not because I assume your conclusions are wrong but because the more you do so the better you will be able to make intellegent choices about what you believe.

What a load of crap! Imaginary sky daddies are "intelligent choices," Mitch? LOL.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Bullocks! You are a hypocrite of the highest order. Atheists can't be hypocrites if they don't accept your delusions.

Another of Q's typical redefinitions. You cannot be a hypocrite if you agree with Q. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Hypocrisy: "the practice of claiming to have standards or beliefs that are contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour"

For example, it is hypocrisy to claim the standard that you only believe that which you have proof and evidence for, but then constantly state as fact, things for which you cannot possibly have proof or evidence. Q does this a lot, because he constantly insists that reality fits his dogmas and so when the facts contradict them he quite often declares that you are lying. I will point it out when he does that or exhibits this type of hypocrisy again -- oh look don't have to look very far at all LOL.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Thus if anything, I would hope that you eventually understand that that is not a productive way of thinking. Then I hope you will find that the real value in discussion is not some pleasure in destroying the big bad enemies who dare to disagree with your opinions, but because it helps you to dig out the assumptions and premises that you have accepted without much thought and to examine them more carefully. This is not because I assume your conclusions are wrong but because the more you do so the better you will be able to make intellegent choices about what you believe.

What a load of crap! Imaginary sky daddies are "intelligent choices," Mitch? LOL.

What is it in what I said that Q is calling crap? He edited out the key part in italics before quoting so perhaps that is not what he objects to. But all that the other statements say is about what I hope, what I do not assume and what are my reasons. So what are his objections? Is he denying that these are in fact what I hope, don't assume or are my reasons. If so the example I promised is found in the very same post. What other alternative is there then? Is it crap to hope that other go beyond "us and them", black and white thinking? Yeah it is quite possible that Q thinks this way. Is it crap to avoid assuming that another person's conclusions are wrong? Don't see much in Q that contradict the idea that he might believe that. Is it crap that learning to examine your assumptions and premises carefully and critically will enable you to make intellegent choices about what you believe? I guess it is quite possible that Q thinks that also.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Imaginary sky daddies are "intelligent choices," Mitch? LOL.

Is this a question? Not very clear question if so. Is he seriously asking if it is an intellegent choice to believe that we have daddies up in the sky? Or is he asking if it is intellegent to believe that any daddies up in the sky are only imaginary? ...sigh... I suppose we could extend some benefit of the doubt and imagine that this could be a rather colorful way of asking if I think that choosing to believe in God can be an intellegent choice? But then I would have thought that my answer to that question is so obvious that this must then be rhetorical question only, and thus we conclude that what Q is really doing is stating one of those dogmas of his that he insists that the world must comply to - namely that anyone who believes in God cannot be intellegent, which means that Q has again done us the favor of providing us with an convenient example of his incessant hypocrisy of believing things in contradiction to the evidence.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Such a happy fellow. Always laughing.

For example claiming to have the standard that you only believe that which you have proof and evidence for, but then constantly stating as fact things for which you cannot possibly have proof or evidence. Q does this a lot, because he constantly insists that reality fits his dogmas and so when the facts contradict them he declares that you are lying. I will point it out when he does it again.

Please do, as you have yet to point it out.

Reality is reality, Mitch. It doesn't require dogma, just the ability to recognize it as such, something you seriously lack.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Hypocrisy: "the practice of claiming to have standards or beliefs that are contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour"

For instance, claiming to value science, critical thinking, and having an open mind when you actually prefer superstition and dogma.

Question: does being the author of the posting standards for this forum and the worst offender count as hypocrisy too?

the two are not a dichotomy

It doesn't strike you as "do as I say, not as I do"? Interesting.

mitchellmckain is just not as narrow minded and uneducated as others on this forum who follow dogmas and scientific mythology

There must be two people posting under the alias "mitchellmckain".

The mitchellmckain I am familiar with is incredibly dogmatic and rarely opts to utilize whatever scientific training he claims to have (except when he's playing one-upsmanship in an attempt to argue from authority. Then he's all about it).

Perhaps you could help me understand where you're coming from by point out some examples of where you think MM has exemplified critical thinking.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Hypocrisy: "the practice of claiming to have standards or beliefs that are contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour"

For instance, claiming to value science, critical thinking, and having an open mind when you actually prefer superstition and dogma.

Question: does being the author of the posting standards for this forum and the worst offender count as hypocrisy too?

LOL

PhoenixG's proof for his claims will never be anthing other than the fact that I do not agree with his religious opinions. I talk about what he says and he talks about what I am. LOL It is intolerable to him that scientists which he identifies with the priests of his imaginary relgion, can possibly disagree with his religious opinions and therefore he is forced to find some way of discounting any that do so. The desperation is so great that he begins to imagine me doing all sorts of things in order to supply his need to discredit me. I of course cannot know what he imagines but it is the only alternative to concluding that he is telling conscious lies.

This is so so typical of the kind of irrationality that we see in religious fundamentalists, that it is difficult to understand why he cannot see this. Archie did the same thing imagining or lying for at the end he kept babbling about the sins and life of debauchery that I was trying to defend by supporting the theory of evolution. ...sigh... I am afraid that another typical affectation of such fundamentalists is that they redefine such things as rationality and morality as an agreement with their religious views, and so in this way they have made themselves incapable of seeing the hilarious irony, irrationality and hypocrisy of what they do.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

The desperation is so great that he begins to imagine me doing all sorts of things in order to supply his need to discredit me.

No sir, you proudly display your intellectual dishonesty for all to see. No imagination on my part required.

Originally Posted by PhoenixG

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

The desperation is so great that he begins to imagine me doing all sorts of things in order to supply his need to discredit me.

No sir, you proudly display your intellectual dishonesty for all to see. No imagination on my part required.

LOL And he does it again. What does this intellectual dishonesty consist of other than the fact that I do not agree with your religious opinions?

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

LOL And he does it again. What does this intellectual dishonesty consist of other than the fact that I do not agree with your religious opinions?

"the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context."

care to cite where you got that from?

it's too ambiguous to be a measure of something as precise as intellectual honesty.

Something that we believe to be true can be questioned and proven to be wrong, if we do not allow such activity then we are not very intellectually honest.

It's amazing how harmonic some anti-theological tones are with those of hypocritical preachers.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

care to cite where you got that from?

Sure.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

it's too ambiguous to be a measure of something as precise as intellectual honesty.

Huh? Is this a reading comprehension thing?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Something that we believe to be true can be questioned and proven to be wrong, if we do not allow such activity then we are not very intellectually honest.

Well indeed, however I don't see how the first part of that sentence has much to do with the latter part. Intellectual (dis)honesty has to do with what people pick and choose what to accept or reject, not whether or not things can be empirically investigated/factually argued.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

It's amazing how harmonic some anti-theological tones are with those of hypocritical preachers.

Far out, man.