The American Spectator : Merry Christmas, Richard Dawkins

Brian Westley| 12.25.10 @ 1:49PM

"It will be a great day when we can all celebrate our faith (or lack thereof) during the holiday season without being harassed by those with whom we disagree."

If billboards constitute harassment, I don't recall you ever commenting on the thousands of religious billboards across the US. Or is this yet another case where atheists are supposed to keep quiet while religious folks are free to promote their beliefs?

Johnny V| 12.25.10 @ 4:39PM

The difference is that atheist billboards invariably attack, demean, or mock Christianity ("You know it's a myth . . . "). You do not see religious billboards mention atheism let alone attacking atheistic belief. You are free to promote your belief just do it with a little more integrity. Those atheistic billboards remind me of a little snotty nose kid throwing a rock then running away. Debate the issue, don't snipe.

Michael| 12.25.10 @ 5:39PM

"just do it with a little more integrity"!?!?

You don't understand "integrity". Speaking the blunt truth when the vast majority don't want to see or hear it IS integrity.

Demanding that atheists not point out that you are an adult human being who believes in an imaginary magical buddy is enabling the swindle, not integrity.

Your turn slugger: how does a sane human being believe that pile of rubbish?

Brubaker| 12.25.10 @ 6:18PM

You believe that God does not exist. Okay hotshot, prove it!

Michael| 12.25.10 @ 6:57PM

Okay, I will.

First, it's your burden of proof, not mine. I don't believe in the existence of entities for which there is neither evidence or a good reason to believe. I disbelieve in the existence of entites which are unlikely given the evidence. That's why I don't believe in the existence of the Ether of late 19th century physics, the existence of the Firmament of late stone age Mesopotamia and 21st century Christian fundamentalism, and in ESP. You agree with me here: you believe the very tiny blue gremlin sitting behind you right now who will fire his skullerizer raygun in the next few days, vaporizing your head, unless you start hopping up and down yelling "I don't think things through!" repeatedly does not exist. I know that because I have just forced an intentional stance and since you are not jumping and yelling, you believe that the gremlin does not exist. That makes you sane and it proves my first point.

Second, I am a model-dependent realist. I think you are too. Neither of us think that Thor or Zeus or Set exist because theories of weather that rely on Weather Gods are obviously silly given the evidence and contemporary understandings of weather. Yahweh isn't needed for any theory which explains the data and so doesn't exist any more than do Samantabhadra, Huitzilopochotli, or Lemminkainen.

This is Hawking and Mlodinow's argument and it crushes theism. Special Relativity means that a God who moves or causes mass to move faster than C cannot be, Quantum Mechanics means that a God who knows botht he position and momentum of a single particle is not, and Biology concludes that a God who created Man along with all other species a few thousand years ago is not. Model-dependent realism does the rest of the work: No God.

Third, Yahweh, the God of Judaism and Christianity created the Universe in 7 days about 6,500 years ago in the order : light/day/night, firmament/sky, land/earth/sea/plants/fruit trees, lights in the firmament/Sun/Moon/stars, birds/fish, land animals/man, day of rest. Yahweh created all species intact at once, he created the Noachian Deluge about 5,500 years ago, and he murdered every firstborn child and animal of Egypt not within a marked doorpost. The evidence is overwhelming that none of these happened: that means Yahweh does not exist. And we both know if you disassociate the act from the actor in this instance, you are just being intellectually dirty.

Fourth, a simple, personal, philosophical argument. You and I both share a long list of worshipped Gods that we don't believe in. That long long list includes Loki, Baiame, Huitzilopochatli, Marduk, and Sekhmet. We also share an open-ended list of Gods that we disbelieve in that no one has worshipped yet, like PepsiCokeTab and BillyGoatGruff the Deity of Bridges and Cazic Thule. That's because we are sane and require evidence before believing. You, on the other hand, decide to go all stupid when it comes to one item on that long long long mutual list. For the imaginary magical buddy your parents and neighborhood believe in, you suddenly throw away any good sense you might have. I don't.

How is that, slugger? Your turn.

ejp| 12.25.10 @ 7:16PM

The above is a an amusing reminder to me of how militant atheists who try to come off as all-powerful superior know0-it-alls are inveitably the dumbest people in the world when it comes to their basic grasp of Christianity 101. Not to mention how they are so perpetually stupid on the matter of what mainstream Chrisitanity has always believed on the age of the Earth (not even William Jennings Bryan believed in the "young Earth" concept!).

As Paul Johnson, a scholar of integrity has noted, it is the fact that the Judeo-Christian tradition draws from actual HISTORY, and in fact holds up very well when one applies the basic critical methodological standards of historical scholarship that one finds a much greater explanation for its long-term endurance since the other gods he mentions do NOT have a historical pedigree that one can find.

Oh, but I can imagine that old Michael will then come back and say in that breathtaking know-it-all snot-nosed tone typical of the atheist militant that Jesus never existed. This of course requires being ignorance of the writings of Tacitus and Josephus, not to mention that by the standards of historical scholarship in which we can confirm the existence of secular figures of antiquity, Christ has MORE evidence in His favor.

So you see Michael, I'm afraid that when it comes to using the gift of "reason", the believer has a lot more going for him than do atheists like you who to paraphrase Ronald Reagan from 1964 when he spoke of liberals, "know a lot that just isn't so." :)

Shaun| 12.26.10 @ 3:52PM

"...breathtaking know-it-all snot-nosed tone typical of the atheist militant..." Did you hear that, Michael? You took ejp's breath away! Nice work.

George| 12.26.10 @ 8:04PM

All you're confirming is that whoever wrote the Bible did better than previous religions because they inserted bits of truth into it to make it more "credible", not unlike Stephen Glass' journalism.

Yeay?

ejp| 12.26.10 @ 9:26PM

Tsk, tsk, and your standards of "scientific" evidence to prove that assertion beyond your blind faith that they must have been liars? :)

How amusing to see how the atheist is so often reduced to revealing his own unshakable faith in certain things in the *absence* of proof to justify his stances and then insists his irrational approach is rooted in a "scientific" approach!

David Pirtle| 12.27.10 @ 7:56PM

I think its hard to make the case that young earth nonsense isn't mainstream when 40 percent of americans believe it (50 percent if you only ask republicans).

bozak| 1.1.11 @ 12:46PM

Michael crushed you with evidence and you proceeded to have a tantrum.

Nice.

Bugalugs| 1.5.11 @ 5:39AM

Actually, one would expect a document written by man (as opposed to a omnipotent being) started some 50 years after the events took place to have some truths and errors - and the Bible fits this perfectly. There are massive contradictions and errors both scientifically and historically and if you don't know this then you have no attempted (or are not capable) of critically appraising this topic.

There is doubt that Jesus did exist as he is not written of in other texts of the time, but let's assume he does exist and ALL his miracles are true (which I do not believe - if you actually read the Bible you'll see his "miracle" become bigger and bigger as later apostles write about Him - as you would expect of any legend). Anyway, assume he existed and ALL his miracles were true.... Drum roll please.... It still does not mean he is the son of any God or Gods.

So the onus of evidence is still upon you - some general pre-determined prejudiced belief in an omnipotent disembodied mind that takes an interest in your sexual proclivities amongst many other things) is something you need to prove - we are waiting....

Alex B. Berezow | 12.25.10 @ 8:36PM

Michael,

You come carrying the banner of science and irreverently question my scientific credentials. (You did notice my biography line, right?) Yet, you say things like this:

"First, it's your burden of proof, not mine."

Oh, my! Such a statement would get you kicked out of graduate school. If you were to say, "There is no evidence of X," then YOU had better be prepared to back it up with substantial evidence. You cannot make a sweeping universal claim of truth (such as, "There is no God") and then say, "Prove me wrong." Sorry, it doesn't work that way... neither in science nor in philosophy.

"Second, I am a model-dependent realist."

No, you're not. You're an extreme positivist, and extreme positivism is not even remotely realistic. In fact, it's just as unreasonable as religious fundamentalism.

"This is Hawking and Mlodinow's argument and it crushes theism."

Your understanding of quantum mechanics and evolution, I must report, is sadly incomplete. Understanding the laws which govern our universe in no way precludes the existence of a Creator. Contrary to your claim of being a "realist," you're constructing a false dichotomy that is typical of extreme positivists. People do not have to choose between science and philosophy. They can accept both. Science provides empirical truth about the nature of the universe, while philosophy (or religion) provides metaphysical truth about the nature of existence.

"Third, Yahweh, the God of Judaism and Christianity created the Universe in 7 days about 6,500 years ago"

Huh? Most Christians and Jews don't interpret that literally, and the literary style of Genesis 1 strongly suggests a poetic, metaphorical interpretation.

There are some things worth believing (or at least talking about) that are ultimately unknowable or unprovable. The existence of God, human morality, the purpose of life, and the existence of life after death all fall into this category. They are all outside the reach of science, yet within the realm of philosophy. You, however, reject all of this in the name of "realism".

If your primary philosophical belief rejects all philosophical belief.... well, that doesn't sound like a very good philosophy, to me.

Liz Litterello | 12.25.10 @ 8:57PM

Thank you Mr. Berezow...that was eloquent.

Michael| 12.25.10 @ 9:44PM

That was gibberish and you know it. It was posing and primping for the Church-Lady, but you had her from the beginning. Will you even attempt an honest answer to any of those arguments?

1. Burden of Proof. This post had nothing to do with you and no mention of your scientific credentials is made by me. That's the exchange you ran away from below.

My argument is simple: you don't believe in the existence of entities for which there is no evidence. Right? The tiny blue gremlin and jumping up and down? Remember? Any try at an answer to it at all?

2. model-dependent realism. You have no idea what I amn talking about and you clearly haven't read The Grand Design. So you label me incorrectly as being something you heard about once in some philosophy class. You are incorrect, but I don't care, because you made no attempt to answer the ARGUMENT.

Weather Gods... remember them? Thor? Zeus? Set? They aren't part of the correct way to understand weather, we don't need them, so they don't exist. Right? Same thing with Yahweh... not a part of string theory so doesn't exist. That is Hawking and Mlodinow's argument and it annihilates your sparse thinking on the matter. But they must be "radical positivists" too and that means they are wrong... posing for the Church Ladies.

3. The God described in the Bible didn't do the things ascribed to him because they didn't happen. THAT God does not exist. You attempt to sidestep by writing that lots of people don't believe in THAT God anyway. Pray tell, which God DO you believe in, if not Yahweh, then?

Was Jesus born of a virgin? (Where did his Y chromosome come from?)
Did Jesus cure blindness, epilepsy, muteness, and leprosy by exorcising out the demons which cause those maladies? (Benny Hinn takes those words literally, as do tens of millions of others.)
Did Jesus feed 5,000 and then 4,000 by replicating a few fishes and loaves of bread? (Or are these just more words not to be taken literally?)

In any case, which God do you think DOES exist if not the Yahweh and Jesus described in the Bible?

4. You made no atempt to answer this argument at all. Even the Church Ladies are concerned about this one. It is, after all, THE argument among atheists these days. You don't believe in an open-ended list of deities for very good reasons... there are thousands upon thousands of GOds that you and I agree do not exist, and for the same basic reasons. But then you get all silly and suspend your critical thinking abilities for the God that your parents and neighbors lied to you about. And... you make NO attempt at an answer to this argument. Continued FAIL.

Alex B. Berezow | 12.25.10 @ 9:51PM

"Tiny blue gremlins?" "FAIL?"

This is the best you can do?

Merry Christmas, Michael.

Brad S| 12.27.10 @ 2:44AM

Is that all you can respond with? Point after point after point Michael makes and you give nothing back. Instead, either 1) quit the debate or 2) engage the debate. You, my friend, are casting stones and running away.

Johnny V| 12.25.10 @ 11:34PM

You believe that a vacuum along with a great deal of time, and a whole lot of chance and luck created man and bread. So you do belive in fairy tales. Time plus chance and you can go from a frog to a prince. And you mock others. The question for now is not which god but is there God. Einstein did not believe in the Christian God. He did recognize some transcending power as the first cause. Guess he was an idiot.

Pastafarian| 12.26.10 @ 8:24AM

You're working it, Michael, good for you. But you know that you cannot reason a man out of something he was not reasoned into in the first place. These fundie kooks will rationalize and nitpick any argument you make, in defense of their Sky Fairy.

But it's amusing to watch. Keep it up!

scrooge| 12.26.10 @ 12:37PM

Use your real name Michael, you have been here before, posting the same gibberish. Get a life.

Stanford Grad| 12.26.10 @ 1:07PM

Alas, the truly sad thing about atheism is one can never be proven right. If you are right, you'll never know; if you're wrong, you'll find out eventually.

Jim| 12.26.10 @ 7:48PM

Michael- I can tell by your writing there is no changing your mind. I think down deep you are just an ugly person. Just look at your use of words like "Fail". You're lost.

Thomas| 12.27.10 @ 8:47PM

Now there, I must agree.

There is an extreme, enraged tone to his writing. isn't there? There is no reason to vomit hatred all over someone who has different beliefs than he does.

Whatever he is attempting to "prove," one point shines clearly through: His beliefs are making him excrutiatingly sad.

I am sorry for you.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 3:37AM

Berezow says, "Most Christians and Jews don't interpret that literally, and the literary style of Genesis 1 strongly suggests a poetic, metaphorical interpretation.

Well put. All fundamentalist Christians will, I think, disagree unfortunately.

What else in the Bible is poetic only? What about salvation? Hell? Heaven? Noah's ark?

Christine Helrigel| 12.26.10 @ 2:19PM

As to the belief that God created the heavens and the earth that is in the earth, us included, in six days, I do believe it. One day the preacher told the congregation that he believed in 'theistic evolution' and that God did make the world, just through the process of evolution. It made me curious. Had God just offhandedly claimed to have called all that we see into being in six days, and could it possibly be that we had taken him TOO seriously? So I got out my Bible and looked it up. It appears in only two places: the book of Genesis, and in the tablets of the ten commandments, which God wrote with his own finger in stone. It appears in the seventh commandment, where the people were commanded to rest on the seventh day because God had rested on the seventh day. It is the very symbol of God's covenant with his people, and their covenant with him. So any Christian who blythely decides it doesn't matter all that much is basically calling God a liar, not only in his telling of how he made this world and put us in it, but in the very commandments and the heart of the Biblical religion itself. Some Christians would like to have it that the world still respects us, while blatantly gutting the reputation of God's Word, the ten commandments themselves, and the Covenant. Or we could side with him. Evening and morning, the first day. Rested on the seventh. He didn't leave any wiggle room for a reason. Death entered the world through sin, or it entered through a ragged process of bad experiments.

Kevin in Appalachia| 12.27.10 @ 10:15AM

Actually "rested" is a bad interpretation. The word is "shabath" and it means to:
1) to cease
2) desist (from labor)
God does not rest.

Bugalugs| 1.5.11 @ 8:22PM

You may be a very "nice" person who means well, but you are wrong. It is this sort of nonsense that demonstrates why it is so important Christianity stays outside of the classroom and life in general.

Your Bible has so many errors and contradictions it is sheer lunacy to believe in the unerring word of the Bible and your claims demonstrate how little you actually know about your own religion.

Take the commandments - according to the Bible Moses took a month to bash out the first ones (the final ones are in Exodus 34) which is odd as if it was written by the “finger of God” why did it take him so long? A digression, anyway, Moses comes down in Exodus 32:19 and sees the followers dancing naked around a golden calf, drops and breaks them (the real ten commandments are in Exodus 34) and (amongst other things) calls for those who are on the “Lord’s side” to gather around and the sons of Levi gather (32:26) gather. Then Moses tells them to go and MURDER every other man and his brother, companion and neighbour! What about the 6th Commandment?!?! OK, OK, it was number 6 after all, the important ones (like worshiping the jealous God) are far more important obviously. The Bible clearly states about 3,000 people were butchered (32:28)! And you think this is a just and kind God – it’s utter nonsense.

But my favourite is the one about Lot and how when he leaves Soddom his daughters get him drunk and rape him- too funny! And Lot is considered one of the greatest men in the Bible of all times!

So the reality is that Moses broke the commandments (32:19) and God calls him back up to write the final ones… which are in fact the following...

Where did Moses receive the Ten Commandments (and in return he will obliterate the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hitites and the Perizzites (34:11)?

34:17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
34:18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
34:19 All that openeth the matrix is mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male.
34:20 But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck. All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty

34:21 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest: in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.
34:22 And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
34:23 Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel.
34:24 For I will cast out the nations before thee, and enlarge thy borders: neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the LORD thy God thrice in the year.
34:25 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
34:26 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

And if there was any doubt:

34:27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

This is just a specific routing of your specific proposition and there are many many more examples of the sheer fantasy and lunacy of your position. Please read your own document in full and try not to pick and choose those bits you like and forget the ones you don’t.

By the way, if you actually believe this nonsense AND the Ten Commandments as is generally misunderstood then the 10th commandment makes you basically a chattel- the CORRECT and FULL Commandment states:

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

That is you are a piece of property like an ox!

Apologies if I sound harsh - just reiterating what your unerring book says - I hope you are smarter than this.

NMG| 12.26.10 @ 7:37PM

Alex, answer me this. If Bob believes X and Steve believes Y, and X and Y are mutually exclusive and cannot coexist, than objective reality is either X or Y, or neither -- but it cannot be both. Correct?

Therefore, the question is not whether science and philosophy can coexist simultaneously. They obviously do. The issue is, does science end up answering questions empirically that philosophy can only pontificate on? And the answer is yes, it can, and does, and continues to do so.

Biblical scripture claims to be the commandants from the creator of the universe. Think about the magnitude of that claim for a moment. It is either true or untrue. It cannot be partially true. It cannot be true for you and false for me. If you do not believe that scientific discoveries provide better answers -- to the 'How' and the 'Why' -- than relying on various interpretations of ancient text, then it doesn't matter what kind of scientific credentials you have. You're on the wrong side of the future's trajectory.

The Truth| 12.26.10 @ 9:07PM

Well put, That is probably the single best statement I have heard up to this point. Mathematically, you are absolutely right. If there is anything I have learned in my life, it is that math doesnt lie.

David Pirtle| 12.27.10 @ 7:59PM

How does one give substantial evidence that there is no evidence for X? Surely its incumbent on those promoting X to provide evidence, and if they cannot, then the rest of us are free to dismiss it.

Philosoraptor| 12.30.10 @ 11:59AM

If any graduate school permitted me to make the statement, "There are some things worth believing (or at least talking about) that are ultimately unknowable or unprovable" with your level of earnestness, then I think I'd be begging to be kicked out!

You've moved the goalposts by creating a scenario where beautiful, anodyne lies - ones you want to believe, and that have been handed down to you by people you trust and respect - are unassailable because they reside in some liminal space that's off limits to reason and science. Your whole spiel is a Jenga tower of flimsy arguments, each one easy to pick out while the foundation gets shakier and shakier.

As far as burden of proof: you either need a refresher on what that entails, or you're being willfully opaque. Saying, "There is no convincing reason to believe in X" is decidedly different from saying, "X does not exist." It's never wise to argue from a standpoint that forces you to prove a negative, and I think I'd have to purposefully twist Michael's words in order to believe that the latter statement is what he intended to say. For the sake of comparison, try "proving" that Santa Claus doesn't exist. That's a fool's errand.

It is, however, entirely possible to construct a persuasive argument that demonstrates the sheer implausibility of Santa Claus. Saying, "We can never know that Santa is a myth and therefore must reach some unsatisfying Scotch verdict where we accept his existence in the absence of overwhelming proof" is misguided - and you should know better than that. You're engaging in extreme question begging, folding your premises into your conclusions by saying that God exists, and the reason we know that God exists is that some things are unknowable and unprovable.

Is there any other entity, material or immaterial, whose case for existence is made stronger through the absence of definitive proof? That's only partially rhetorical; I'm also just curious, because you seem to throw all of your critical thinking out the window when it comes to this topic, so I'm trying to relate this to less emotionally-charged issues. Having to fall back on recondite abstractions is never a sign of a strong argument, in any case. I figured they would have mentioned that in grad school at some point, too, but I guess not.

Bringing up the amorphous "purpose of life" is just obfuscatory as well. Why does there have to be a purpose? Why does religion have a monopoly on understanding that purpose. Seems to me to be a lot like the old "drunk man and a streetlight" scenario. A lost set of keys could be anywhere, but it's a lot easier to restrict our search to the places illuminated by street lights. Just because it's easier to find meaning in ancient "inspired" texts doesn't necessarily mean that those texts are where meaning resides.

Keep in mind that the writers of the Gospels, to say nothing of the ancient Hebrews who wrote the Old Testament, believed they lived on a tiny disc-shaped world with a dome above the sky. The fact that they got a few things correct (and let's not even get into the numerous contradictions and falsehoods that The Reason Project has uncovered) does not mean that the whole thing is true. The composition fallacy would apply to the Lord of the Rings, by the same token. I'm sure that some of the ideas that Tolkien advanced are correct in some sense; does that mean we also must credulously accept that Gandalf is a powerful wizard simply because it's been written down?

When the Bible was being written (to say nothing of the Bhagavad Gita and other holy writ) the fields of genentics, ecology, and physics hadn't even begun to be imagined yet. They were as remote and distant as the things people had only recently realized were planets and stars. What's more likely - that the laws of the universe were regularly suspended in our favor two millenia ago, or that simple desert people were fooled by the false prophets and charlatans who still operate in the present day? Now that we'd advanced the scientific method, the miracles haven't lasted (if you can prove one, though, James Randi has a million dollars for you), but the religious snake oil salesmen persist. Makes you think, doesn't it?

How I wish there were some kind of global information system we could all use to explore not just what our parents told us to think or what we want to believe is true or what we imagine in our heads, but instead discover objective truths without making presumptions or engaging in compartmentalization by holding different sets of beliefs to different levels of logic or evidence.

Ah, just a pipe dream.

A.M. Mallett| 12.26.10 @ 12:26AM

This is a nonsensical argument. Absolutism demands the same manner of "proof" that you demand of theists. Your only logical escape is to claim the mantle of agnostic and to do so would require you to sit still and remain an observer. Otherwise, you have a burden of proof to support the claim that there is absolutely no deity.

How about it, slugger?

mr c| 12.26.10 @ 7:10AM

A fool and his mind is soon separated. Faith is the bedrock of what it means to be human. Faith is what sustains us as we travel this lonesome road called life. You have a faith that you don't realize but yet you exercise. Let your hate for the faith of others be kept to yourself, and let their faith be valued for what it is ----faith

mames| 12.26.10 @ 4:32PM

AH, but faith must take an object and faith is only as good as the object it takes. For we Christians we find reasonable evidence in the life of Christ in relation to his foretelling in the OT and the myriad of witnesses including the NT writers. He is either God, liar or lunatic. Faith is never enough when placed in the wrong person. "I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE. NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME" Jesus THE Christ.

David Pirtle| 12.27.10 @ 8:01PM

Or he could be mistaken...or misquoted...

The truth| 12.26.10 @ 9:11PM

yeah when that "faith" you speak of kills millions upon millions of people, I think us non believers have a right to step up and speak our minds. Oh dont even mention how you people of "faith" have been trying to brainwash people for thousands of years. Knocking on peoples doors, invading there privacy. What ever happened to live and let live.

Mark| 12.27.10 @ 9:06AM

It certainly is true that those claiming to be of "faith" or acting upon their religious beliefs have facilitated the killing of millions. It is also true that those who deny the existence of God have facilitated the killing of millions. (e.g. Stalin, Mao, etc. etc.) Tolerance, my friends, and a little respect for diversity of beliefs is appreciated. While I have no doubt that I have been graced by God, for those who think that I'm nor using my reasoning capabilities, we'll all find out who is correct soon enough. Merry Christmas.

H Ribbens| 12.27.10 @ 11:35AM

Faith has killed no one....neither has religion. People kill people. People of religion and non-religion alike kill millions yearly in the unborn. Blaming faith or religion is like blaming the gun.

Mark L| 12.27.10 @ 12:18PM

Dylan Klebold, Erik Harris, James von Brunn, James Jay Lee...

all peaceful athiests

Nobammy Bin Lyin| 12.31.10 @ 10:49AM

Yes, and those disciplined, enlightened atheists have nurt no one at all because they are intellectually superior and obviously know what's best for humanity. Just ask Hitler or Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chaves, etc, etc. You really don't even have to go that far to find your 'truth', just go down to your local community clinic and ask the people who abort their own babies inside of their own bodies. There's compassion and humanity for you and I guarantee that God or faith has nothing to do with it. And since I'm ranting and believing fairy tales and all that, How is it that at the time of our 'coming into existence', atheists believe that a big bang spontaneously occured and from absoulutely NOTHING came absoulutely EVERYTHING? Now there's a fairytale of the highest order! I should be believing that one with all my heart given my proclivities. One last thing, if you still doubt there is God, ask one of our returning combat vets if there isn't. He will set you straight because as those of us ignorant simpletons who are lacking your supra- intelligence and real world experience but who have walked hand in hand with death will affirm to you with no hesitation, there are no atheists on the battlefield. Maybe you should shoulder a pack, pick up a weapon and make yourself useful in a desert somewhere and do a scientific experiment on the existence of God while facing an enemy while under heavy fire. Now, I don't claim to know everything like you do but I do know what I know. od bless you anyway and Merry CHRISTmas!

Skavau| 12.31.10 @ 11:23AM

"Yes, and those disciplined, enlightened atheists have nurt no one at all because they are intellectually superior and obviously know what's best for humanity. Just ask Hitler or Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chaves, etc, etc."
Hitler likely was not an atheist. In any case what do they have to do with atheism? Atheism is not and cannot be a motive for genocide, torture, murder, rape etc. They were and those that remain motivated by their own political and social viewpoints entirely unrelated to atheism. Atheism is merely an explanation for what one does not believe, not what one does. Do not try and smear people and claim that they are fascists when they are not.

"There's compassion and humanity for you and I guarantee that God or faith has nothing to do with it. And since I'm ranting and believing fairy tales and all that, How is it that at the time of our 'coming into existence', atheists believe that a big bang spontaneously occured and from absoulutely NOTHING came absoulutely EVERYTHING?"
They don't (or at least most do not). Creationists lied to you. Most Atheists either concede they don't know what happened prior to the Big Bang or contend that the universe has always existed.

"One last thing, if you still doubt there is God, ask one of our returning combat vets if there isn't. He will set you straight because as those of us ignorant simpletons who are lacking your supra- intelligence and real world experience but who have walked hand in hand with death will affirm to you with no hesitation, there are no atheists on the battlefield. "
http://www.maaf.info/

You have no way of knowing what atheists in the military think and neither does any religious combat veteran. It is absolute arrogance to just assume that there are no sincere atheists in the battlefield. Shame on you.

"Maybe you should shoulder a pack, pick up a weapon and make yourself useful in a desert somewhere and do a scientific experiment on the existence of God while facing an enemy while under heavy fire. Now, I don't claim to know everything like you do but I do know what I know. od bless you anyway and Merry CHRISTmas!"
Oh, but you do claim to know without hesitation or question that there are and can be no atheists in a military capacity? What a charlatan.

Bugalugs| 1.5.11 @ 5:28AM

You fall into that endless creationist trap of logical confundity. Hitler was a Catholic for a start and all the others you refer to didn't commit their crimes because they were Atheists, they did it despite being so. If you want to get into comparisons then far more atrocities have been committed in THE NAME of religion. In short, Atheists have no crimes against them and religion has endless ones.

Your self described ranting belies your prejudice to your belief system. there are tens of thousands of religions that differ from your chosen supernatural fantasy - why are you right?

Neither Atheists nor agnostics belive necessarily that the big bang came from "nothing", we don't know (although there are some good ideas) whereas you believe the universe came from some disembodied omnipotent mind - where did "He" come from - haha - you can't answer that! That's right, your fantasy is ridiculous!

You claim some of the worst atrocities in recent history were committed because people were Atheists then you claim there are no Atheists on the battlefield? Symptomatic of two key things, first, a person who believes garbage and then tries to twist it to fit their fantasy and, second, someone who has no evidence to suggest what they claim is true yet claim it as fact - sounds like religion!

Obviously you think you know everything to think you know a divine evil omnipotent being exists for your personal gratification.

CharlieEcho| 12.26.10 @ 9:06AM

The Bible has been around for a long time. Where is your book "slugger", I'd like to read it.

By the way. God is in your heart. Open your heart.

mames| 12.26.10 @ 4:35PM

NO, God is objective, real, outside of you. Trusting in Christ for your salvation is not trusting your heart but His heart for you! Sorry to quibble:)

The truth| 12.26.10 @ 9:14PM

In hour heart? Please man....the only thing in our hearts is blood and tissue, there is nothing in our heart, but what we tell ourselves is there. If someone pinches you, and you feel it, its because your brain tells you that you got pinched. Its simply a matter of electrical signals that your brain sends.

H Ribbens| 12.27.10 @ 11:32AM

That makes us no more than animals....that doesn't work...we are far more than instinct.

Joe| 12.27.10 @ 8:58PM

My, those who know it all are going to be very surprised when all that they "know" is revealed as wrong. Two hundred years ago, man knew there was no such thing as a radio wave. There could not be: There was no evidence of it. Or of quantum mechanics. No evidence of other galaxies.

The idea that what our human brains have figured out thus far is the entire story is limited in the extreme. Maybe on your 75th birthday, an alien ship will land and tell you this was all a virtual reality experiement and that you exist only in the aliens' minds. Or maybe an angel will visit you. Maybe you will be dead forever, and maybe you will be reborn in another reality.

There is an immature arrogance to assuming because our little minds cannot wrap themselves around a concept, that it can not be true.

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 9:17AM

Although you are trying to put forward a cogent argument against the existence of God, you can't argue against faith that didn't arise from actual proof. What you take on faith simply requires no proof.
How do you know a woman loves you? You see evidence by her deeds and her words, but do you really know? No, you don't. You take her love on faith and yours for her she takes on faith as well. Her deeds are akin to historical events providing some evidence of God's existence. Her words are akin to the Bible. Between the two, words and deeds, your faith may be strengthened, but it is faith nonetheless.
If you live your life expecting proof for you to believe in anything, then I feel sorry for you. I suspect you take a lot of things on faith alone, but then I don't know you.
Have you ever seen an atom? Has anyone?
I also might add the science doesn't "prove" anything - it simply takes the preponderance of evidence and constructs a theory of why something is the way it is, and until more evidence refutes that theory, the theory is accepted as fact. Evolution is in that category. You can actually track primitive life evolving over time. Evidence mounts toward the existence of Evolution, but there is no final "proof" of Evolution. Before the Theory of Evolution, there was the theory of Spontaneous Generation. Evidence mounted that disproved Spontaneous Generation, and that theory fell by the wayside.

mames| 12.26.10 @ 4:41PM

The faith you describe is a blind faith; not the faith in Christ the bible presents. His life and acts are the reasonable evidence as to why we trust in him. There is more evidence for Christ than for macro evolution which requires greater blind faith to fill the "gaps" and "holes" in its "progress".

W| 12.27.10 @ 6:45PM

Purple, this is your first sensible post. i agree with it. Merry Christmas

lscott| 12.26.10 @ 9:26AM

It always amazes me that the so called superior intellect of the atheist still claims that Christians believe that the earth was created 6,500 years ago in seven literal days. Do you want integrity? Start by getting rid of the strawman.

Christine Helrigel| 12.26.10 @ 2:30PM

I do believe it. If that makes me sound , so be it. foolish to the world, so be it. Ecosystems only survive when they are intact. There is a complicated balance in all of nature, and within the human body: imcremental development works for the construction of a building, but not for a completely functioning world. So the argument that a sound biblical faith does not mean believing in a six day creation followed by a one day rest, isn't necessarily true. I personally believe that coherence falls apart if we give away the belief that death entered the world through sin, and let evolutionary belief in fossils and millions of years of missing links explain all those bodies buried in the rock and tar pits. It is the Biblical flood of Noah that explains all the fossils, and all the bones of animals piled in some place a mile deep and tens of miles wide. And the islands of ice and mammoth and sabre tooth tiger carcasses up above Alaska near the arctic circle.

The Truth| 12.26.10 @ 9:21PM

um sorry dude. I hate to tell you this, I really do. Actually give me your address so I can mail you an apologetic letter enclosed with a gift card to Borders so you can go catch up on some history because those fossil you speak of were proved to be several thousand and even millions of years old. Yet the bible claimed that Noah's era was somewhere within 6500 years ago. Explain the huge time lapse.

Christine Helrigel| 12.27.10 @ 2:53PM

I have read, recently, that geologists use the fossils to date the rocks, and the rocks to date the fossils. All based on the biologists opinion on how many 'mutations' would be required to allow an amoeba to evolve into the complexities of the human species. Of course, millions of years, they surmise. The dating is based on their beliefs, rather than the belief being based on some ability to give the age of rock strata. Billions of dollars are spent each year attempting to 'prove' evolution, when the same funds and minds turned loose to actually study what the earth contains might have meant we would be far ahead in the fields of science. As long as men are prejudiced toward proving that their pet theory is the only one that makes sense, they will ignore information that works agaisnt them. Such as the human fossilized legs found in coal seams supposedly millions of years old. Or the dinosaur bones that still contain tissue and blood cells when broken open. Scientists who make such discoveries find that the theory will not change when they bring forth new data such as this, but they lose their crediblity and often their livelihood. Man's willingness to believe anything if it makes him think it disproves God's creation of the earth is costing us a great deal of forward progress.

Shaun Lamont| 12.28.10 @ 4:37PM

Human legs in coal seams...din bones that contain flesh and blood cells....pls ... Delusional
There has never been a fossil found out of place..ever ever..not once in >70 million samples..not once
There was also not "flesh and blood cells" found in fossils...you mean the bacteria sludge that was found in a bone cavity..
Facts...sometimes you need them, otherwise you sound stupid

mames| 12.26.10 @ 4:46PM

There is no reason NOT to believe the literal reading of creation. As to 6,500...more likely 10,000 but certainly not millions of years which is only necessary for macro evolution because it needs so badly to fill in its progressive gaps and holes.

Stanford Grad| 12.26.10 @ 11:00AM

The conclusions you reach from the 'data' are simply unsupportable, as are the erroneous conclusions of Dawkins and his ilk. First, biology does not prove God does not exist. Have scientists been able to demonstrate that life can generate spontaneously from non-living chemicals? No. Indeed, if you took the time to read current textbooks you would notice a preponderance of anthropomorhological explanations, such as "chemicals began to compete with each other". Really? Non-living chemicals do not 'compete' for anything, and there is no reason they ever would have. Why would they 'organize' at all? Second, how do does science reconcile the big bang with the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy increases in natural processes? How did matter begin at minimum entropy and now it is constantly increasing until it reaches a maximum and the universe burns out? It can't. And by the way, why would the Big Bang ever occur. If all the matter in the universe was gathered in a volume 0ne-millionth the size of a proton, as modern physics states, what would ever cause it to explode? There was supposedly nothing outside of this matter. What was the first cause? Science has no explanation for this, or for where the matter came from, and so on. As the great historian Will Durant says, (paraphrase) "We cannot know origins. So your church of Science is not so all knowing as you suppose.

The Truth| 12.26.10 @ 9:27PM

Science may not be 100% true, but science along with the education and understanding of many different religions, reasoning, logic, math, and other forms of thought and problem solving, can and may determine that religion sounds like poppy cock. It really is poppy cock. All you theists have done is point the finger at the atheists while simultaneously leaving no evidence of religion behind. Whats your point and why are you wasting your time?

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 1:16PM

Michael:

Please tell me one secular humanist state that is breeding at replacement rates. No cheating on this: The US is NOT one, nor is Israel.

Russia counts, so does all of Western Europe, Ozzie, New Zealand.

My point is simply this: secular humanism will lead to the death of the human species.

Keep this in mind as you discuss. Incidentally, having studied the human brain and behavior for over 20 years now, and realizing its outrageous complexity, I cannot subscribe to the monkey typewriter theory of its creation. There had to be a guiding hand.

By the way, blogging like you did, Michael, on Dec. 25th demonstrates your asshattery, if nothing else. I'm Jewish, by the way. Not my dog in this fight. Still, you could have done it on the 26th.

Enjoy your reason as you condemn the human race to extinction.

Shaun| 12.26.10 @ 3:32PM

This is hilarious. All arguments for god start with incredulity. So, you read an article about the brain, realized how complicated it was and then decided that because you don't understand it, there must be a god. Good luck with that: snowflakes are pretty; there must be a god. Also, I wouldn't "subscribe" to monkeys either, their magazines are full of bananas!

The Truth| 12.26.10 @ 9:37PM

Condemn the human race to extinction? What about Hitler, and all of your ancestors? Was that not a religion fueled war? Havent 99% off all wars been religion based or fueled? Yes, the prime impetus of most wars has been either the disagreement of religious beliefs(some religions say to kill anyone who doesnt believe or bad mouths their religion), or radical fanatical religious teaching. Im not saying that their is no possibility of a god, but that all the gods that have been tought to any man in the history of man has been imaginary. If god is real, he or she is not who any many has ever said he or she was. Religion and the belief of a god was created for the sole perpose of man being self aware and wanting to know how we came about and why. Also created to to control weak minds through fear, hope, and other things. Why do you think there is a new testiment? The world changed and people got tired of hearing about the selfish, scary, racist, bloodthirsty god of the old testiment. Really, think about it man. You dont really need a crap load of proof againts religion, just common sense.

Gran Torino| 12.26.10 @ 5:08PM

The absence of proof is not proof of absence, so the atheist's denial of life after death or the existence of God, is ultimately a faith-based position. It takes faith to believe in God. It takes faith to believe tht He doesn't exist. If it turns out that He DOESN'T exist, well, I had a good life (no STD's, no AIDS, no addictions to drugs, etc.). If it turns out that He DOES exist, then you're in trouble, Mr. Atheist.

Rev. Jesse Jackson| 12.26.10 @ 5:12PM

Everywhere, small bands of "atheists" gather to discuss the mysteries of unbelief and warm their hands at the chill fires of their religious doubts.

chai| 12.26.10 @ 5:25PM

Michael: You have proved absolutely nothing. How do you think life began? Some tiny organism that just materialized out of ether???? Hmmmmm....

Dave | 12.26.10 @ 8:14PM

That's essentially the paradox of atheism.

Negro X| 12.26.10 @ 9:26PM

Michael troll,
In short, you can't disprove it, your buffoonish attempt to hide behind science is laughable and deserves nothing more than sport.

Nancy Cohen| 12.26.10 @ 11:59PM

You poor thing! You have no idea that atheism is your religion similar to paganism. Why can't you admit that to yourself and stop prostelytizing it to the rest of us who have a different religion than yours.

You sound like a Muslim who thinks that anyone who is not a Muslim is an infidel. Try reading "Genesis and The Big Bang" and "The Science of God" by Gerald L. Schroeder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Schroeder

I will pray for you, and you do not have to pray for me. Feel better now?

Steven| 12.28.10 @ 4:36PM

Wow. You are one angry man.
Have you ever loved anyone?
Your wife? Kids? Parents? Friends?

If so, could you please scientifically describe how and why love takes place? What is the exact biochemical process taking place in the brain and what initiates it? What keeps it going? What is the scientific evidence that it even exists?

Could you please scientifically explain why some people give their lives for others? Why do some do it and other don't? What is the exact scientific process that leads to the behavior we call bravery?

It seems like you have one belief and one belief only: if science doesn't explain/support it, then it's not true. But the fact is, that there are many things that science will never be able to figure out-- such as the exact nature of the universe 5 years before the Big Bang. Or even the cause and effect relationship that made the Big Bang happen.

The way I read your post, it seems as if you only believe in things that can be proven by science or have quantifiable evidence. I not only find that astounding, I find it to be the sign of a limited mind. You've denigrated the work of some of the greatest minds in the past and in the present.

Given your stated belief system, it seems to me that people have a choice: Believe that men will never know everything or else believe that someday humans will know everything.

If you believe that men will never know everything, then it follows that things exist which you will never understand and for which science has no explanation.

If you believe that someday man will know everything then you believe men will eventually become all-knowing Gods-- able to reproduce anything in existence among other things.

No need to respond-- I wasn't trying to convert or convince you. This was written for the benefit other people who read your post.

And I know that you boost your self-esteem by debating people about this, so I won't respond to you any further. It seems you like making/trying to make people feel stupid. Good luck with that.

MattZ| 12.30.10 @ 2:05PM

Awesome!
MZ

Toni| 12.30.10 @ 3:38PM

'cos I don't believe in god, therefore he don't exist' is not proof He doesn't exist.

David| 1.1.11 @ 1:15AM

Just brilliant!

No God| 12.26.10 @ 3:27AM

Just for fun: how do you prove that there is no fairy dancing at the tip of my finger?

Simple: there is no testable evidence of this assertion! The same thing applies to the Christian god. If one keeps on insisting without reason, one treads into the territory of psychology, not reasoning.

mames| 12.26.10 @ 4:53PM

There is plenty of reasonable evidence to support faith in Christ. Try CS Lewis, Muggeridge, McDowell, Strobel, Guiness.....

da monk| 12.27.10 @ 6:43PM

Back to you...prove he does exist

Johnny V| 12.25.10 @ 7:24PM

Well Biff, let me just start with your belief that everything came from absolute nothingness. That's logical in your mind, right? In your mind, it is logical to put your faith in the theory that no one took nothing and created everything. Good one. Second, let's consider the scientific principle of observation and observe that all information ever communicated comes from an intelligence. Every living cell on this plant is encoded with DNA which contains the most complex coding for instruction known to man. I choose to study the matter and use science to support my point of view. Furthermore, I'm not fearful of examining my view. Can you say the same? Now, could I be wrong? Posiblly. I choose to study the matter since it holds intrinsic significance. You choose to consume your nihilism.

Johnny V| 12.25.10 @ 9:34PM

Michael . . . where are you? Did you run away? Can you please respond to the above? Also I don't believe you responded to the issue of is there good/bad.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 3:30AM

Johnny V really should pick up a philosophical book on ethics. There are numerous ways to construct an morality/ethics system: Utilitarianism, universalism, etc.

Even if there is a transcendent standard, one still has to answer whether it is moral or immoral to follow this alleged transcendent standard. Correct?

The bottom line: many theists are too simplistic in their arguments.

MarkR| 12.26.10 @ 12:03PM

"Even if there is a transcendent standard, one still has to answer whether it is moral or immoral to follow this alleged transcendent standard. Correct?"---- Well if it is outside the system we are in and created this system we have little choice about its inherent morality.And just how do you as a finite being determine what is moral and immoral- you would need a lever from OUTSIDE the universe in other words a CREATOR of that universe to determine that morality. Living within it and being a being that is finite within it and ultimately NOT THE CAPTAIN OF YOUR SHIP IN THE LITERAL SENSE AS YOU WILL PHYSICALLY DIE BECAUSE YOU ARE FINITE gives you NO god-given power to determine morality vs. immorality- all is relative for an atheist and a Hitler is as acceptable as a Mother Theresa- whats the point if all we are is decomposed chemicals after death? You can claim utilitarianism but it is just a claim without ultimate authority and a claim from a fininte being to another finite being becomes coertion as then ultimately might means right as no other criterion exists. Without God or a God system one is doomed to this- a fact all totalitarians have utilized. THE FACT IS A FINITE BEING CLAIMING ATHEISM IS A god in his/her own mind. NO WAY AROUND IT.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 1:12PM

"THE FACT IS A FINITE BEING CLAIMING ATHEISM IS A god in his/her own mind. NO WAY AROUND IT."

Wrong. You just don't listen. Instead of no way around for atheists, I think you who have been brainwashed have no way out of this circular reasoning, at least for now.

Learn some critical thinking; it will do you some good.

Kodiak48| 12.26.10 @ 8:59PM

Please tell me sciences explanation of how the first live cell mysteriously converted from inorganic matter. My God is alive! Sorry about yours

Steven| 12.28.10 @ 4:40PM

"The bottom line: many theists are too simplistic in their arguments."

That is true. It's also true that there are many bad accoutants. But that doesn't mean math is bad science.

There are many bad doctors. But that doesn't mean that we can't trust medical science.

Just because some people don't practice a discipline well, does not make the discipline invalid or poorly contructed.

Michael| 12.25.10 @ 9:59PM

Hold on there, slugger, I can't be everywhere at once. Your turn.

These are 2 miserably bad arguments, you make. But please don't make the mistake that they are, in any way, answers to MY arguments above. You haven't made ANY attempt to answer those. If I wasn't in such a generous mood this fine Christmas Day, I would INSIST that you attempt to answer my arguments before I do you the favor of pointing out how plain gawdawful yours are. But since I am feeling downright Santa tonight...

1. You don't know nothing. That isn't bad grammar, that is a claim that you don't know what you mean by "nothing." You write "absolute nothingness" but I never claimed that anything came from "absolute nothingness" and you make no attempt to show that "absolute nothingness" ever was. Quantum Theory, ala Feynman, shows particles come out of and annihilate back into the quantum vacuum continuously. Is "the quantum vacuum" what you mean by "absolute nothingness?" No? If you mean nuthin, nuthin, nuthin, but NUTHIN then you have a huge problem, Johnny V. Because if you mean "ABSOLUTE nothing" then NO GOD. None. You lose. So you don't mean "absolute nothing," you mean "mostly nothing." And once ytou figure that out, you get why your problem is no problem at all. Because stuff comes from "mostly nothing" all the time. In fact, the Big Bang likely came from the "mostly nothing" that is "the quantum vacuum" or out of something even "more nothing" than that.

Second, your Intelligent Design argument is nonsense on stilts. Johnny V, you are an IDiot? How precious! Your information-content argument is specious and has been answered many times over by biologists. HEY! I know, we have a bona-fide newly-minted PhD in microbiology in the house! Hey Berezow, you KNOW you could score major integrity and credibility points by answering Johnny V yourself. How about it?

Johnny V| 12.25.10 @ 11:20PM

Well, there you go again. I'm trying to let you convince me that nihilism is the way to go. I'd like nothing more than to pounce around with no boundaries and myself as a god.
You mention that it is my 'burdon of proof not yours.' Hold on. When I say nothing, I mean absolutely nothing. No God. Now, from that point of view are you telling me that this is not possible, that there is an infinite force you call a quantum vacuum? Is that your creator? Everything came from a quantum vacuum? How did that come into existence? Did it create itself? Did some other force create it? You cannot get away with saying that it popped into being without a first cause. Either it existed forever or it was created by another force. The burdon of proof is in your court. What is the primary cause? On the other hand if it existed forever then you are starting to get uncomfortably close to the concept of God, aren't you?
Now, please do answer the 'information' delimma. Normal people recognize information for what it is . . . instructions for communicating. Information is specific and irregular. Our genetic code is just that. And as Bill Gates has stated, the information in DNA is far more complex than our most sophisticated computer programs. He is just stating a fact. You have a burdon of proof to show that the scientific method of observation, which in this case has been 100% accurate (all known information comes from an intelligence) is not accurate with information in DNA. If you can proove this, go at it, slugger. But please don't cop out with, 'That has been answered many times over . . . ' I need to see why you 'believe' in nihilism before you can convince me. Surely, you can do that cogently. And yes, I called you surely.

Jimbob| 12.26.10 @ 9:00PM

Michael, you are a pseudo-intellectual crank. Your interpretation and application of Hawking's new book is stunningly poor, your arguments are rehashed bullshit from contemporary atheist writings that lacked logical soundness to begin with, and your writing exposes the fact that you lack the rudimentary philosophical skills required to engage in an intelligent conversation. Go argue with some disaffected, emo teenager at a coffee shop. You're out of your league if you're talking to just about anyone else.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 3:54AM

Johnny V says, "Well Biff, let me just start with your belief that everything came from absolute nothingness. That's logical in your mind, right? In your mind, it is logical to put your faith in the theory that no one took nothing and created everything."

This argument is laughable: if everything must have a cause, how can the Christian god be the answer? Where did this god come from? Well, you cannot reasonably say: it came from nowhere or have no cause because it would contradict the initial assumption: everything must have a cause.

Johnny V| 12.26.10 @ 9:25AM

Let me get this straight . . . you believe in an eternal god of disorganized chance that created everything which you call a quantum vacuum and I believe in an eternal God that is organized and created everything. We are both theists.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 11:30AM

Johnny V:

I don't think you understood what I said. I was pointing out the logical inconsistency of your argument. That was my point.

Really, you should take Critical Thinking 101 or Introduction to Philosophy 101.

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 12:38PM

"No God" is the god of condescension and mockery, eh?

No God| 12.26.10 @ 1:25PM

Margie says, ""No God" is the god of condescension and mockery, eh?"

Wrong.

majac3356| 12.26.10 @ 12:20AM

i'm always amazed at the arrogance of atheists; i believe, you don't. i could, but would not, ask, "how does a sane human being believe that pile of rubbish about there not being a God?"

when was the last time you saw a billboard reading, "atheists are idiots?" Or "celebrate your happy holiday if you're not bright enough to know it's Christmas?"

your "debate" begins with, "ok, you're an insane human being; now lets talk."

why not say, "you believe; i don't. now let's talk." unless there is something deep inside you that's afraid you're wrong, so you pretend to be sure by name-calling?

if i said, "i believe 2 +2 is 3;" would you start calling me names" i think you'd just walk away shaking your head thinking i was stupid and not worth the argument... but if you're not sure, there is a need to fight it out with derogatory billboards and name-calling.

GavInTucson| 12.26.10 @ 4:58AM

Michael, ninety-five percent of the population believe in a supreme being of some kind. They have no proof (that's why it's called faith).

Even Stephen Hawking believes in God (I doubt that you're smarter than him). Almost all renowned scientists do.

I submit that five percent of the population are defective.

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 12:35PM

Actually there is plenty of proof of God. As it is written:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "He who through faith is righteous shall live." For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His invisible Nature, namely, his Eternal Power and Deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Rom. 1:16-20.

I like to tell Atheists how in denial they are. They need to just look around. They already know that God exists, they are denying it. They are denying what's before their very own eyes.

I always say at least they're honest. An Atheist you can talk to. If they really choose to be reasonable they eventually have to admit what they already know.

Like Pascal exclaimed,
“There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus”.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 1:31PM

Margie says, "Actually there is plenty of proof of God."

I would say there are plenty of arguments, no proof. We don't even talk about "proof" in natural science. Instead we talk about confirmations or falsifications of testable theories.

Is the god hypothesis a testable theory? I don't think so.

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 2:50PM

God gave you the ability to reason. Now, be a reasonable Atheist, and use it!

"Ever since the creation of the world His invisible Nature, namely, his Eternal Power and Deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Rom. 1:20.

Jim| 12.26.10 @ 9:15PM

@No God, I agree with you on exactly that point. The construct that we think of as Newtonian, Cartesian science -- hypothesis, testable null hypothesis that can be disproved within a known degree of accuracy, etc. -- is rational within its own boundaries. Faith does not reside within those boundaries. It might be possible to use science to answer the question whether a person has faith or not, but it is an inapposite use of both science and faith to attempt to use the framework of science to prove or disprove whether faith is grounded. Of course faith is not rational, under the rules of neoclassical science.

But then again, neither is science. The laptop upon which I am writing appears to be made of solid elements, and the table upon which it rests does too, but we now know that both of them are comprised far more of empty space than of anything solid, and that they occupy the relative positions that they occupy because of electromagnetism. When you speak of natural science, I trust that you treat such objects as solids. Yet knowing that they are not solids does not render the science you are doing false; it is simply a different frame of reference.

Trying to measure faith with science -- either to prove it or to disprove it -- is like trying to measure velocity with a graduated cylinder. They are simply different.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 2:40PM

Margie: Merry Christmas (a day late) and remember: Secular Humanism is insufficient to maintain a society. The lights of Europe are winking off.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 2:40PM

Margie: Merry Christmas (a day late) and remember: Secular Humanism is insufficient to maintain a society. The lights of Europe are winking off.

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 2:55PM

OT,

I despise secular humanism. To the Atheists, it's "what's for dinner."

Claiming morality apart from God, yet they deny the God who created them and put this ability within them. Yet they fail still, because without Him, they still sin!

They preach "Reason", yet God calls us to reason"

"Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool." Is. 1:18.

Shaun Gilligan| 12.26.10 @ 3:39PM

Margie's "proof" for god: "It says so in my book."

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 5:46PM

Hi Shaun,

The proof is all around you, in what He created. The Bible simply points to that. And since He is the Author, doesn't it make sense to go to His own words?

Nothing has ever proven false that is is in the Bible, and no matter how hard anyone tries to, they cannot disprove it.

He gave us the Bible, it is from Him, and if you're smart, you'll read it.

Jesus says, "..the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Jn. 6:63.

The Truth| 12.26.10 @ 10:06PM

"The proof is all around you, in what He created. The Bible simply points to that. And since He is the Author, doesn't it make sense to go to His own words?

Did your god actually right the bible? No he didnt, several different men did.

The proof is all around you, in what He created. "The Bible simply points to that. And since He is the Author, doesn't it make sense to go to His own words?

Did your god actually hand you the bible? No he didnt, either your parents or a neighbor did. Hey margie, if I told you I had an imaginary friend who could make you rich, and give you infinite happiness after you and and all that other stuff that you believe your god gives you(hypethetically), and I am the only one that believe it, I would look like a fool wouldnt I? But if I brought you to a building with 100 or more other people who believed in the same imaginary friend, it would seem more feasible wouldnt it? Exactly. Come on, you dont really believe that god is real do you? Remember when you found out santa clause was fake? You accepted it, why is it so hard to accept that your parents lied about jesus too. Its heartbreaking, I know, I went through it, but reality hurts sometimes. Look, I understand the words in the bible can be inspirational, but he isnt real. nobody has seen him. You can still be a good person. For instance, even though santa clause doesnt exist, you still get gifts from people on christmas dont you? There you go

Steven| 12.28.10 @ 4:45PM

@The Truth

Your grasp of grammar is so poor I find it difficult to even consider your arguments. It's around the level of a 4th grader.

If you want people to take you seriously or even read your posts, you should at least have a good grasp of such things.

David| 12.29.10 @ 3:12PM

Margie: "Nothing has ever proven false that is is in the Bible, and no matter how hard anyone tries to, they cannot disprove it."

Nothing in the Bible has ever been proven false? What kind of crack have you been smoking?

Religious devotion to a book is one thing, but unyielding belief in something that's plainly untrue is another.

Talking donkeys? Ice being formed by the breath of God? The earth being fixed and unmoving? Stars falling to earth? You believe all of these things to be true? We can't prove them wrong?

Why does the Bible not mention China, or Australia, or North America? An all-knowing God would certainly know about these places, right? But men, who wrote the books of the bible, knew only the areas they were familiar with, and that's what they wrote about, exclusively.

The bible can't even keep from contradicting itself. The book of Matthew says Jesus, Mary, and Joseph fled to Egypt just after Jesus was born. Luke says they immediately went to Jerusalem and then on to live in Nazareth.

One book says the veil in the temple was torn after Jesus died on the cross. Another says it was torn before Jesus spoke his last words.

I don't get how some people can suspend all reason to defend a book and a belief that is plainly mythology, just like all other ancient mythologies that no one believes in or takes literally today. It's sad.

Margie| 12.29.10 @ 7:34PM

I love how the Atheist thinks he is an authority on God!
You read what you want to read, and that is from darkness. You're spiritually blind and wanting to see only what you want to see.

The Apostle Paul used to persecute Christians and had a hand in the martyred Stephen's death.
Yet God removed the scales from his eyes so that he could see he was wrong, and the rest is history.

I could explain to you how each and every statement you've made is untrue but you don't care.. do you? Because you see what you want to see.
I hope the mercy of God will save you soon, before it's too late. It really is the truth, that if you die in your sins, Hell awaits.. us all. Apart from the Grace of God, which is Christ Jesus Himself.

"Every word of God proves true; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him." Prov. 30:5.

David| 1.3.11 @ 1:40PM

Well, believe it or not Margie, I am sort of an authority on God. Or at least the bible and the Christian religion. And I'm certain I know the bible much better than you, although I'm sure you believe you know it backwards and forwards.

See, up until age 30 or so I was a Christian myself. I attended seminary. I've read the bible cover to cover three times. I've memorized entire books of the bible.

Ironically, it's this intense study of the bible that lead me to the inevitable conclusion that it was written by men, not by god. That man created god, not the other way around.

The more I tried to use the bible to answer question, the more questions I had. One day I realized if I stop trying to defend the bible as this divinely written, inerrant and literal Word of God, all the questions are answered.

For instance:

Why doesn't the bible mention China, Australia, or North America? In my defend-the-bible days, I would have given you some nonsensical ad hoc reasoning that these areas weren't populated at the time and that God didn't write about them because he was writing to his people, who were mainly in the middle east.

But throw out the idea that the bible is written by god and you get a much more plausible answer, and one that can be taken seriously. The simple fact is the bible was written by men, who didn't know their writing would end up being cobbled together with other books and that some future Christians would make the audacious claim that this was God's Word. These men didn't write about China, Australia, and North America for the simple fact that they didn't know of their existence. They wrote about the places they knew of, and didn't write about places they had no way of knowing about.

Pretty simple.

Doug| 12.26.10 @ 4:11PM

Please tell me where I can find proof of your statements regarding Stephen Hawking and "all renowned scientists".

Paul| 12.26.10 @ 11:39AM

Uh, Michael, neither the article's author, nor anyone commenting hear is "demanding" anything from the athiests. All that's being said is it would pleasanter world if this debate were carried on more rationally. No doubt some will say it's impossible for non-athiests to be rational but in reality, without a designer of the universe, there can be no such thing as universal rationality.

Bill Sundling| 12.26.10 @ 6:47PM

Athiests know that God exists but they refuse to acknowledge God because they hate God and they hate Christians. The New Testament is eyewitness testimony about Jesus. Most of the books were written within 30 years of the death and resurrection of Christ. There's no doubt whatsoever that Jesus rose from the dead. Therefore, there's no doubt that God exists.

David| 12.29.10 @ 3:23PM

If I were to say to you, "Bill Sundling knows that Vishnu (or Allah, or Buddha, or Mithra) exists, he just hates them", you'd scoff and laugh and tell me how ridiculous the mere thought of that is.

So why do you think the default state of being is that everyone believes (or ought to believe) in "God"?

You are almost as much of an atheist as I am. I simply believe in one fewer god than you do.

Has it not occurred to you that your religion is an accident of your birth? Or do you happen to believe you were fortunate enough to be born in a place that believes in the one true god? If you had been born in Japan, you'd likely be a Shinto. If you had been born in Syria, you would likely be a Muslim. If you had been born in India, you would likely be a Hindu.

If Emperor Constantine had declared any other religion the official religion of the Roman Empire, it's likely you would have been that religion. But since the Roman Empire, and thus Europe, and thus European immigrants to America, were Christian, you were born into a Christian home and therefore believe in Christianity.

Thomas| 12.26.10 @ 10:40PM

Or to rephrase your statement "Merry Christmas, you religious foke aren't as smart as me, and you are insane and have poor intergrity!"

That's how you demonstrate that atheists aren't douchebags?

Bill| 12.27.10 @ 6:41PM

You mean like the belief in atoms? Or 11 dimensions? Or string theory? Quantum physics? Like that?

Barbara| 12.27.10 @ 9:30PM

We Christian crazies love you no matter how much you hate us. We're praying for you.
Think of us as the people who brought you the hospital, the university, Gothic cathedrals, countless gorgeous religious works of art and on and on. You world would cetainly be uglier if it weren't for Christianity, now wouldn't it? In appreciation for a number of significant contributions to Western civilization, couldn't you try to be a little tolerant.
Furthermore, since people of faith vastly outnumber you, ask yourself, in the interest of your own mental health - if not ours - whether it's all that healthy to get so very, very, very peeved.

Jimbone| 1.29.11 @ 11:04AM

The clinical definition of sane, I presume, involves at least a minimal demonstration of normative human behavior. 9 of 10 human beings believe in a transcendent being.

Perhaps you're asking the wrong question.

Further, perhaps you're asking the right question about the wrong person.

Brian Westley| 12.25.10 @ 6:28PM

"You do not see religious billboards mention atheism let alone attacking atheistic belief."

Yes, I do:

http://c3.ac-images.myspacecdn.....ced186.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QQqO.....01-gun.jpg

YOU do not see it. I certainly see it.

Brian Westley| 12.25.10 @ 11:51PM

Hey Johnny V, where are you? Did you run away? Can you please respond to the above?

majac3356| 12.26.10 @ 12:25AM

you're much too easy... this billboard like the atheist's billboard betrays an uncertainty about one's belief that requires some derogatory response instead of a reasoned argument.

belief requires/calls for/offers a reasoned argument; doubt can only call the other side names...

Brian Westley| 12.26.10 @ 2:23AM

Your comment is entirely unrelated.

Johnny V originally claimed "You do not see religious billboards mention atheism let alone attacking atheistic belief."

I provided counterexamples to this claim.

Johnny V has yet to respond.

Johnny V| 12.26.10 @ 9:34AM

Here is your response. The fact is, I have never seen one . . . but as you point out they do exist. But your example is a very small exception to the rule. My experience comes from watching atheists file lawsuit after lawsuit to stop all kinds of faith related issues. Not the other way around.

Brian Westly| 12.26.10 @ 1:10PM

Lawsuits? We were talking about billboards. And I'll point out that there haven't been that many atheist billboards, either.

As for lawsuits, is there something wrong with having the courts decide if something is legal or not? Do you think city councils and school boards should have the power to do absolutely anything they like without being subject to judicial review to see if their actions are legal? And if they aren't, do you have a problem with the courts stepping in and halting their unlawful actions?

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 12:25PM

"Atheistic belief."
An oxymoron, eh?

Great billboards, by the way.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 3:46AM

Johnny V says, "The difference is that atheist billboards invariably attack, demean, or mock Christianity ("You know it's a myth . . . "). You do not see religious billboards mention atheism let alone attacking atheistic belief."

Oh, come on. Religious messages have been around for centuries telling people who do not believe (i.e. atheists/agnostics) this deity will be condemned to hell. That threat is way beyond attack, demean or mock.

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 1:12PM

You're right. God does warn us. He's a very merciful and loving God. He sent Christ to die in your place for your sins. You were bought with a price, "No God." Therefore YOU don't get to call the shots!

That's why you're in BIG trouble right now, and you know it. You know God exists yet you spend all this time trying to believe a lie. Time is running short and you need to quit.

You are so right about God's warning to us all. Let me refresh His words for you:

"For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than Light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the Light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God." Jn. 3:17-21.

You're not your own, "No God." You're not the boss, you don't get to tell anybody anything. You don't even know whether or not you will have the breath of life in you by tomorrow morning.

For as it is written:

"And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with Sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him." Heb. 9:27 & 28.

"But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you; and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?'" Lk. 12:20.

You have just heard the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It isn't a threat, but a promise: those who quit rebelling and decide to believe in Him will have Eternal Life. That's the other side of the coin.

Isn't it about time you came to your right mind?

Finishing up with the Good News (that's what gospel means) again, because the Good News really DOES outweigh the bad news about us~ )that being that we are all ruined sinners)~

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have Eternal Life." Jn. 3:16.

So, "No God", remember what God says:

"For I have no pleasure in the death of any one, says the Lord GOD; so turn, and live." Ez. 18:32.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 1:35PM

Margie says, " God does warn us. He's a very merciful and loving God."

Wrong again, Margie. In that sense, you god is an egoistic pervert who loves to use violence against those who have a different opinion.

LOL.

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 2:19PM

Question: If you were God and saw YOU coming, what would YOU say?

No God| 12.26.10 @ 6:40PM

If I were god, I definitely do not want to be an egoistic pervert, like the god you believe in.

Margie: think please. Why would a kind god be so violent towards those who just hold a different opinion? It does not even make sense.

Mark L| 12.27.10 @ 12:44PM

No God, you demean others in nearly every post. I do not take you seriously.

Brian Westly, I would like to exhibit No God as an example of atheistic hubris similar to that shown on billboards. Christians certainly can also behave the same way, however, Christians will at least acknowledge their sins.

Brian Westley| 12.27.10 @ 2:49PM

"Brian Westly, I would like to exhibit No God as an example of atheistic hubris similar to that shown on billboards."

Uh, why? I don't really care.

"Christians certainly can also behave the same way, however, Christians will at least acknowledge their sins."

Certainly not all Christians. See if Fred Phelps will admit to hubris.

Margie| 12.29.10 @ 7:38PM

You call God a pervert.
Does a Son speak that way to a Father?
Does the clay say to its maker, "why have you made me this way?" (Is. 45:9).

Joseph| 12.27.10 @ 12:00AM

Atheist billboards invariably "attack, demean, or mock Christianity"? What about these:

"Don't believe in god? You are not alone."
"Imagine no religion"
"Please don't label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself."
"Millions are good without god."
"You can be good without god."
"No god? No problem. Just be good for goodness' sake."

None of those attacks or demeans anything, except those who think they have a monopoly on truth and morality.

Alex B. Berezow | 12.26.10 @ 5:56AM

Why would I comment on religious billboards that promote faith? There's nothing disrespectful about promoting faith.

If atheists want to celebrate reason, fine. But if they want to call Jesus a "myth," out of respect, they should keep quiet on Christmas. It's a simple matter of decency. I realize that being respectful of others is a lesson most people never learned in kindergarten or Sunday school, but I still believe that people can and should treat others as they would like to be treated. Mocking their faith during a holy season isn't respectful. And that applies to all faiths.

I think it's curious that atheists mostly pick on Christians during Christmas. I've yet to see any atheists make fun of Jews during Hanukkah or Muslims during Ramadan. But, I suppose that wouldn't be politically correct.

Maryland Lady| 12.26.10 @ 10:37AM

"I've yet to see any atheists make fun of Jews during Hanukkah or Muslims during Ramadan. But, I suppose that wouldn't be politically correct."

I agree. I wonder why atheists don't post billboards that state they think Allah is a myth? Why is that?

(another) Michael| 12.26.10 @ 12:38PM

Religion frequently evokes unreasonable passion, Islam and some christian sects can (and frequently do) take their religious passion to violent ends very quickly. The deluded, if threatened, answer the only way they can against reason, with destructive vehemence.

jim| 12.26.10 @ 7:51PM

I know like those guys Mao and Stalin. Crazy religious freaks.

Jim| 12.26.10 @ 9:18PM

Good one. (different Jim)

The Truth| 12.26.10 @ 10:19PM

Not really, Mao was athiestm, sure, but what about hitler, osama, sadam, alexander the great, and other religious leaders in history, religion, or not, it is in our nature to fight and kill for power, women, and land. Religion makes people feel as if their reason was just, which is scary. If the muslims had it their way, everyone that is non muslim would die. same for christian and hindu religions, if in the wrong hands, which is the problem. I was never an english whiz, my grammer and spelling sucks, I know that, bhut that doesnt mean Im wrong.

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 3:50PM

Mao, who was nothing but an opportunist, killed more than all of them put together. Did Alexander act from relgion? What religion was Hitler? And Lenin/Stalin/Trostky were fanatical atheists. But atheism, unlike agnosticism, is a religion, and the most fanatical one ever devised.

(another) Michael| 12.28.10 @ 8:12AM

they killed because of their atheism? gratuitous assumption. Now how is atheism a religion? You (I am fairly sure) don't believe in Wandjina (origin: Australian Aborigine) .. and that would make you a "awandjinsist"? (just try to pronounce that!) anyway.. how does not believing or practicing a cult based upon metaphysical beliefs make you something?

mzk1| 12.28.10 @ 3:32PM

Marxism, Soviet style, a branch of atheism, had all the hallmarks of a parody of religion. It had dogmas you could not question, it had saints, it distorted science for its beliefs, it killed people who would not believe. Yeshiva students, Hebrew teachers were sent to Siberia. You want to split hairs? Go ahead. But the fact is that the Jewish religion WAS systematically destroyed by atheists. Listening to some of you here, I can just see you participating.

(Also another Michael)

(another) Michael| 12.28.10 @ 5:16PM

and you see us participating?

you have some dangerous issues that go well beyond a deluded religious belief. end of conversation.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 1:20PM

Alex: on the Jew picking on subject you are dead wrong. Hanukkah is a minor holiday. New Zealand is banning kosher killing; Israel's right to exist is always attacked from a religious perspective. We get picked on plenty. An apology is demanded.

Johnny V| 12.26.10 @ 10:39PM

Go back and read his comment accurately . . .Alex said ATHEISTS making fun of Jews and Muslims. Please don't twist a perverted meaning into what was actually said. Everyone knows of the Holocaust and the current threat that Israel has not only from the middle east. That is not what was stated or remotely implied. You need to apologize for your aggressive stupidity. You are sounding about as rational as most of these atheistic posts. By the way, I am a Jew.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 1:20PM

Alex: on the Jew picking on subject you are dead wrong. Hanukkah is a minor holiday. New Zealand is banning kosher killing; Israel's right to exist is always attacked from a religious perspective. We get picked on plenty. An apology is demanded.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 1:41PM

Berezow says, "Why would I comment on religious billboards that promote faith? There's nothing disrespectful about promoting faith."

I don't know what you believe, Berezow, as you don't think the creation story in the bible should be literally interpreted. Right?

Let let me ask you this question: does your faith include the condemnation or punishment of those who do not believe in your god? If no, that's great; I am happy for you. If yes, does it then constitute an ultimate disrespect towards those who have a different opinion?

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 2:44PM

Hanukkah is a minor holiday, and Jews are 2% of the US population. What would be the point?

But don't worry. In New Zealand (except for a hard-won battle over chicken) and Sweden and Norway Kashrut is illegal, and Israel is threatened every day of its existence from Radical Muslims allied with atheists. But I guess that doesn't count to you. What an asshat statement you just made. An apology is owed, muzhik boy. Maryland Lady is just a moron. But I expected better from you.

Maryland Lady| 12.26.10 @ 8:20PM

A moron? Moi? Why would you say that?

I guess you missed my attempt at a humorous question. (Since I know why atheists aren't critical to Muslims).

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 3:55PM

No, I think he is correct; he is talking about a particular issue, although in the whole atheists do attack Judaism and Islam also.

So the most left-wing country in the world is taking up Hitler's crusade and banning Kosher slaughter? Figures. And don't tell me this isn't relevant; this was the first effect fascism had on Jews outside Germany, and Hitler used animal rights as part of the holocaust; see Pearl Benisch, To Vanquish the Dragon.

marilyne| 12.27.10 @ 8:05AM

"There's nothing disrespectful about promoting faith."
What about the faith of Mohammed Atta et al? That was some serious faith! There are Imams and religious schools all over Pakistan promoting just that faith.

Sandy| 12.27.10 @ 2:37PM

Greetings, atheists and pseudo-scientists;
Evolution question: If life evolved from some chemical reaction, from where were those chemicals and electron exchanges necessary to form an electric charge made available? If life evolved from the creature from the primordial ooze, what did it eat? If those primordial beings evolved to land creatures, how did the plants get there to support their breath (CO2/O2 exchange), and life; food specific to this evolved creature? If survival of the fittest is the law of evolutionary survival, why then, with no predators, did those creatures not continue to survive or need to evolve? Can some creature evolve into its own predator except by free will? If by free will, then “will,” an act of reasoning must exist. If reasoning exists, then judgment exists. If judgment exists, then beliefs, by which choices are judged, must also exist. If beliefs exist, then principles, convictions, and confidence in those beliefs must also exist. If confidence in beliefs exist, then so does faith.
I remember talking with an atheist professor of astrophysics, reminding him that I can learn everything he knows about astrophysics but that would only be 50% of my knowledge; I know the spiritual dimensions of God and his creation, a dimension in which the professor was sorrowfully lacking. He was speechless.

Sandy| 12.27.10 @ 2:38PM

Greetings, atheists and pseudo-scientists;
Evolution question: If life evolved from some chemical reaction, from where were those chemicals and electron exchanges necessary to form an electric charge made available? If life evolved from the creature from the primordial ooze, what did it eat? If those primordial beings evolved to land creatures, how did the plants get there to support their breath (CO2/O2 exchange), and life; food specific to this evolved creature? If survival of the fittest is the law of evolutionary survival, why then, with no predators, did those creatures not continue to survive or need to evolve? Can some creature evolve into its own predator except by free will? If by free will, then “will,” an act of reasoning must exist. If reasoning exists, then judgment exists. If judgment exists, then beliefs, by which choices are judged, must also exist. If beliefs exist, then principles, convictions, and confidence in those beliefs must also exist. If confidence in beliefs exist, then so does faith.
I remember talking with an atheist professor of astrophysics, reminding him that I can learn everything he knows about astrophysics but that would only be 50% of my knowledge; I know the spiritual dimensions of God and his creation, a dimension in which the professor was sorrowfully lacking. He was speechless.

KyMouse| 12.27.10 @ 3:22PM

"New Atheism is really the hijacking of science...all the foolish people who buy into the concept of God are ignorant simpletons. Evolution and the Big Bang constitute everything important you need to know about the universe, morality, and life itself."

As I said in a comment earlier this week, our society as a whole now says, especially in classrooms, that:

1. Science can answer certain kinds of questions, and religion can answer other kinds of questions.

2. Only the questions that science can answer should be asked.

The first point pays lip service to religion, while the second point denigrates it.

Augusta| 12.27.10 @ 6:37PM

Everyone in this country is free to promote their beliefs. Theists, Deists, Atheists - all are free to proselytize, debate, argue, disagree, ignore or flip the bird. But when you Atheists single out Christianity for scrutiny, [and you always do] it reveals hostility with a supremacist vibe, not an attempt to 'spread reason'. Put up a Billboard calling Muhammad's story a myth during Ramadan - and maybe then we won't think you so smug and disingenuous.

Adam| 12.27.10 @ 11:15PM

Amen. Let's see it. Just one atheist publically denigrating islam. Why IS it always Christianity?

If atheists were really against the idea of God, they'd do most of their work in countries where sharia/islamic law that must be followed or the punishment is death. Why waste time in a country that lets you chose whether to believe or not? islamic countries are clearly the bigger worry, yet atheists only attack Christianity.

Strange. Explanation?

Banjo| 12.27.10 @ 7:36PM

It is easy to understand the anger and bitterness of atheists. They think they are smarter than ordinary people and this gives them a duty, moral perhaps, to rip the blindfold of superstition from our eyes. That we persist in our beliefs provokes them into aggression. They are liberal in their politics, generally speaking. This is another reason for the cauldrons to boil. Unless they are in one another's company, polite silence greets their attempts to turn the subject to what interests them the most, their own atheism. This indifference is another source of anger and frustration. Lately, their cosmology has taken wing into ever greater fantasy, such as the chic concept of parallel universes. Tell them that it is easier and more rewarding to believe in God and their wrath is redoubled. That's why I do it.

Brian| 1.18.11 @ 9:39PM

I would think that any self proclaimed intellectual would realize they are free to celebrate anything they want to. You do not have to be a Christian to celebrate, and you may celebrate anything your heart desires. What is ironic is that those who chose to belief they came from nothing, and will return to a state of nothingness, while the world will be populated by others who came from nothing, take offense that many of us have a spiritual insight and belief that we came from a greater being and we worship him, and celebrate his coming to his own creation on Christmas day. In any society where people are free to think for themselves there will be many views, however not all of the views can be correct, but in any case all are free to believe anything they chose. If our Christmas Holiday, faith, belief in a greater being doesn't make sense to you that is certainly your business and we acknowledge your freedom to chose this view. We do not demand you agree with our faith, nor desire to force it on you, nor do we ridicule your faith in a science that says everything comes from something, and yet a universe came into being without anything creating it. In my opinion any mature person who has nothing to prove isn't insulted by those who do not share his/ her belief, but rather accepts the fact that this is their right. We Christians are not attacking your faith in "science" or should I say "the perception of man", so believe what you will, but be mature enough to allow others to do so also.

P.S. If we "believers" are wrong we have lost nohting, if you do not believe in God and we are right you have lost everything.

axbucxdu| 12.25.10 @ 2:11PM

Alex B. Berezow wrote: "Sadly, this posture betrays a breathtaking ignorance of philosophy and theology".

Oh, while they may whistle past the graveyard of the transcendent, their primary betrayal is against science itself.

I don't agree, but the modern view classifies mathematics as a science. Hence, Kurt Godel would be a scientist. Poor Richard does not seem to have considered the fine print contained in Godel's (scientific) theories.

Vegar | 12.25.10 @ 3:39PM

Wow, I haven't read an article with so many fallacies at once. I dont even know WHERE to begin.

" Religion explains why we are here and what we are supposed to do about it."

WTF? Religion does NO such thing. I can go on and on....

Jebus

No God| 12.26.10 @ 4:01AM

Yes, even a cult leader will attempt to "explains why we are here and what we are supposed to do about it."

Whether the explanations and directions suggested make sense is another matter.

Johnny V| 12.26.10 @ 9:42AM

There are no cult leaders, there is no right or wrong. There is only meaningless. You atheists can't keep your own philosophy straight.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 1:07PM

Johnny V says, "There are no cult leaders, there is no right or wrong. There is only meaningless. You atheists can't keep your own philosophy straight."

Can this Johnny V theist reason instead of insult people who think differently?

Wait up from your dogmatic slumber!

GavInTucson| 12.26.10 @ 5:03AM

Vegar, you could go on and on? Please do, since you didn't go anywhere with that post.

Then I'll respond with some less-than-politically-correct answers (starting with Islam, in which has some clearly stated goals and purposes).

Margie| 12.25.10 @ 3:48PM

Jesus is still Lord.

Ignore them!

Isn't it interesting though, how the Atheists try and co-opt reason as one of their false legs to try and stand on?

In truth, without reason one cannot come to know God. He gave it to us so that we could use it.. to seek Him out, and to find Him.

For as it is written:

"Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool." Is. 1:18.

KeepingUpTheChristianFacade| 12.25.10 @ 4:15PM

EVERYBODY KNOW, NOBODY TELL

Merry Christmas,
Jingle Bells,
Christ is born,
The devil's in hell,
Hearts, they shrink,
Pockets swell,
Everybody know,
Nobody tell.

Searching for a Good Christian| 12.25.10 @ 4:28PM

I wish I knew some kind, compassionate, generous Christians.

If I could only meet some kind, gentle, generous Christians, I might find the religion more inviting.

Fundamentalist Christians, I regret to say, have become as hateful as radical Islamists. The Fundamentalist Christians are not planning any suicide bombings that I know of. Not yet, at least.
But their hatreds are pretty fierce, and there are lots of wild-eyed zealots in the fundamentalist movement.

Love seems to have gone out of the world, its light extinguished. We are all living in darkness.

Go Tell It On The Mountain| 12.25.10 @ 4:33PM

Fundametalist Christians = Radical Muslims

Seems at first a wild exaggeration. On second thought, however, it makes sense in many ways. Think about it.

Think about it long and hard, and I think you will see the connections.

David W| 12.25.10 @ 5:27PM

Really? Perhaps you are mistaking behavior of some adherents versus the underlying meaning and philosophy of their religion. Do your fundamentalist Christians do what they do because of Jesus' teachings or in spite of (besides, can you give examples of what fundamentalist Christians do that make them like radical Muslims - and please don't use Jim Jones or David Koresh or Timothy McVeigh as your examples of Fundamentalist Christians. If you do then you automatically lose the argument).

Go Tell It On The Mountain| 12.25.10 @ 6:11PM

I am not one to participate in argument. I will, however, state my beliefs, but I will not continue the dialogue because it is futile.

There are many scary fundamentalists in the world. There are people who hold views every bit as extreme as Al Qaeda; people who will amaze you with their intolerance and hatred. Fundamentalism is defined by the Oxford dictionary as "A movement that asserts the primacy of religious values in social and political life and calls for a return to a ´fundamental´ or pure form of religion."

This leads to a situation where religion faces off against science, fundamentalists are by their very nature intolerant of other views and seek to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. The problem is their beliefs are dangerously illogical and often incite violence.

Fundamentalist Christians, Jews and Muslims often believe in the literal truths of their ancient tomes; the bible, torah and the koran respectively.

When science challenges these views they seek to reject science. The fundamentalists' views are not based on evidence or research but rather blind faith which leaves no room for debate. None, whatsoever.

And most of the damage is done by religious leaders who preach intolerance instead of espousing what is positive about their own faith. Too many of them concentrate on the perceived evils of others and their pernicious views are used to indoctrinate new generations ensuring that the battle continues.

Fundamentalists are overly concerned with what other people do, having the right to their beliefs is not enough for them they want to enforce those beliefs on the rest of us and so you get people flying planes into buildings, murdering doctors who perform abortions, strapping bombs to themselves, persecuting homosexuals and condemning women to second class status.

However, I must point out that even within these faiths you will find compassionate and reasonable people--progressive worshippers who interpret religious works metaphorically and figuratively--not literally-- and who consider fundamentalist actions to be morally repugnant.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 4:06AM

"even within these faiths you will find compassionate and reasonable people--progressive worshippers who interpret religious works metaphorically and figuratively--not literally-- and who consider fundamentalist actions to be morally repugnant."

I certainly hope this is true.

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 1:20PM

Hahaha,~ you WOULD!

"Morally repugnant" to an Atheist (or a Leftist liar)~ another oxymoron!

No God| 12.26.10 @ 6:34PM

We all can see Margie is not one of those progressive worshipers.

You see, those blind faith church leaders can blind a person like Margie to such a horrible extent. That's exactly why rationality should be promoted very openly these days; irrational myths should be criticized.

Go Tell It On The Mountain| 12.26.10 @ 8:39PM

Yes, irrational beliefs should be challeneged.

And the hateful, immoral texts that advocate bigotry and violence should be expunged from the Bible, Torah, and Koran.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 9:38PM

Well said.

Mark L| 12.27.10 @ 2:39PM

Should the Holocaust be expunged from history books? Or slavery? Perhaps instead of selectively editing history to our liking we should just burn books? Is that how it should be?

Renaissance Nerd | 12.27.10 @ 3:25PM

Hateful, immoral, bigotry and violence being bad things? These things all have deep philosophical and religious roots, but no scientific meaning of any kind. They cannot be measured or defined by any scientific test. They are merely individual value judgements that are subject to change without notice. There is no objective meter for any of them. Without the philosophy or religion to bolster them, who's to say what is hateful? And immoral is merely 'against current custom,' so it changes rapidly over time. Bigotry is in the eye of the beholder more than anything in the universe, because it is a relative word. And violence cannot be bad in a Godless Universe because too many beasts get their living through violence and even cruelty. That's why we call it 'brutality.' Oh, right, I understand. You were just using non-nihilistic words to attack those that must be hated by those with a cosmic nihilist perspective. Righty-oh, carry on.

Margie| 12.27.10 @ 4:46PM

Mr. Rebel against God aka No God,

The Enemy of God, aka the Devil has you just where he wants you. Blind as a bat and liking it.

No church leaders for me, but the Grace of God, yes.

My purpose is to tell you that. Hell is real. Reject Him at your own peril. I do hope you change your mind, though. You will have joined the ranks of the millions of other Atheists who quit their rebellion. That's what you're doing, you know? Rebelling against your Creator. You already know that He exists, you choose to thumb your nose at Him.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 9:56PM

Let's try this and see if you can see your ridiculous claim, Margie.

"Mr. Rebel against the fairy at my finger tip aka Margie,

The Enemy of God, aka the Devil has you just where he wants you. Blind as a bat and liking it.

No church leaders for me, but the Grace of the fairy at my finger tip, yes.

My purpose is to tell you that. Hell is real. Reject Him at your own peril. I do hope you change your mind, though. You will have joined the ranks of the millions of other theists who quit their rebellion. That's what you're doing, you know? Rebelling against your the fairy at my finger tip. You already know that He exists, you choose to thumb your nose at Him."

God| 12.27.10 @ 11:27PM

Spoken like a true fundamentalist athesist.

You won't convince anyone until you can provide links for all the murders by Christians.

Why is it so important that Christianity be maligned? You could be writing about muslims only, since they're clearly the ones who refuse to live with non-believers.

But you don't. You have to throw Christianity in. What is it about Christianity that so enrages you? (

No God| 12.28.10 @ 5:03PM

"What is it about Christianity that so enrages you?"

I don't dislike all versions of Christianity. But I really disagree the version represented by fundamentalists/evangelicals because that version is an unreasonable blind faith, dogmatic without acknowledging it, violent in nature, has a stupid view on science ....

Margie| 12.29.10 @ 7:20PM

Atheists really do despise evangelical Christians. They do because we preach the pure gospel of Jesus Christ.
They cannot stand to hear that they are sinners like the rest of us and on the path to Hell unless they repent of their unbelief.
That is why Christians (Biblical) are hated.
There is a God.
He has sent His only Son to suffer and die on the cross for our sins, therefore we are not our own.
You're either a slave to Sin, or a slave of God.. which isn't slavery at all, it is true freedom.

"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." Gal. 5:1.

"And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve,.." Jos. 24:15.

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 3:57PM

As a religious Jew, I can tell you this is nonsense. Right-wing Christians are the most religiously tolerant group in America. It's the religious left who want to ban any theology but their own.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 2:15PM

Well, Searching, get in your car and drive to Tennessee. Fundamentalist Christians, you ignorant doofus, have nothing to do with radical Moslems. I'm a Yankee Jewboy. I went to undergrad at TCU, Med School at UTMB, practiced 7 years in rural Alabama. I doubt you know any Conservative Christians, whereas I DO.

Another man desperately needing a hot cup of STFU.

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 2:23PM

Love you, OT.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 2:46PM

And you, Margie. Pissed off at Alex for side reason, but secular humanism is a dead letter. And you are a wonderful lady.

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 2:59PM

OT,

See my post, above. I hope you don't think I am in agreement with secular humanism!

And I do hope Alex responds to you. :^)

Adam| 12.27.10 @ 11:20PM

Could we see links or evidence of these "fundamentalist" Christians? I always thought they were purely a media creation. I've grown up around Christians and lived with them all my life; none of 'em ever got near as nasty as an athesist on Christmas. I think you're dealing in stereotypes rather than people.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 4:04AM

Let the blind faith chantings begin ...

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 1:24PM

And he said, "Go, and say to this people: 'Hear and hear, but do not understand; see and see, but do not perceive. Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed." Is. 6:9 & 10.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 1:45PM

Margie,

Your repeated blind faith chanting is a sign of brainwashed. Please seek help of de-programming.

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 4:10PM

Turn and be healed, "No God".

No God| 12.26.10 @ 6:30PM

As Thatcher says, "U turn if U want."

At least I am reasoning; you are just chanting your religious dogma.

Margie| 12.27.10 @ 7:29PM

God calls you to reason and you reject Him.
That is no reasoning on your part.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 9:52PM

God calls me to reason? Margie, you're seeing things again.

LOL.

Margie| 12.27.10 @ 11:18PM

He does, but you aren't listening:

"Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool." Is. 1:18.

Christian| 12.27.10 @ 11:30PM

YOUR repeated blind faith is a sign of brainwashing. Please seek help.

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 3:58PM

I assume you are referring to the blind faith of atheists, who used their faith to murder over 100 million people?

Jon| 12.25.10 @ 3:51PM

@Vegar let me help...

1) If you pick on Nietzsche nihilism why not spend Christmas discussing exactly how to put blasphemers to death? Leviticus 24:10-16

2) Science does not disprove the existence of God. It simply says that there is no evidence for God. It no more disproves the existence of God than it does disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. But it suggests we should believe in things there are evidence for.

3) Science never claims to speak for morality. The big bang and evolution say nothing about ethics. But surely a world where people lead a good life because they think it's the right thing to do, rather than being scared of an evil, sadistic ultimate punisher in the sky is a better world to aim for.

4) " Religion explains why we are here and what we are supposed to do about it." I agree... it's hard to know what to do with this... if you actually follow the rules in the Bible/Torah/Koran you end up with a nasty world...

Publius| 12.25.10 @ 9:13PM

Really? Is this meant to be serious?

"2) Science does not disprove the existence of God. It simply says that there is no evidence for God. It no more disproves the existence of God than it does disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. But it suggests we should believe in things there are evidence for."

Funny, when shown the red shift, Einstein - no wild-eyed believer, he - was shocked.

Is the expanding universe not evidence for Genesis, evidence that is at least as strong as the "arguments" you advance?

(Nice work with the whole spaghetti monster thing - the perfect strawman argument that is not worthy of serious discussion, but I'll try. You're not here to defend your argument and it's entirely possible that noise on an internet appliance posted the article. Since you're not here, I can safely assume that no one made any sentient argument).

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 4:04PM

No, not if you follow the Torah as per the tradition. There is basically no criminal law, which is why it would only work on religious Jews. Capital blasphemy is extremely hard to accomplish, kind of like treason in American law; you really have to try hard to pull it off - and then a court of 23 jusdges site and tries to find you a loophole. Actually, any criminal penalty is next to impossible to apply. (Luckily the courts can go beyond the law when necessary.)

For that matter, I have no problem with Shiria per se. The problems are the people who don't follow it, but kill people without proper witesses, ignore the men, rape women, practice the Arab (NOT Muslim) custom of honor killings, etc. Excuse the political incorrectness, but Saudi Arabia is still in a state of savagery, de facto.

teacher| 12.27.10 @ 11:32PM

You should read up on Somalia or Sudan.

mzk1| 12.28.10 @ 2:42PM

Yes, that's my point. I don't think what they are doing there is Shiria, it's just plain savagery. Nigeria is perhaps actual Shiria.

WRJonas| 12.25.10 @ 4:22PM

Tell me Jon. Where do people lead a good life because THEY think it's the right thing to do ?

Jon| 12.25.10 @ 4:55PM

Where physically? Almost everywhere. Not sure I understand the question...

Are you suggesting people are incapable of leading the good life without some external agency/threat forcing them to do so?

Johnny V| 12.25.10 @ 5:17PM

Jon, would you please explain to me what is 'good'? And if there is good, then I must posit that you would agree that there is such a thing as 'bad'. Am I correct?

No God| 12.25.10 @ 7:43PM

Those who brainwashed others so that they become a non-thinking fundamentalist/evangelical believers are bad.

Johnny V| 12.25.10 @ 7:58PM

So there is good and bad?! Who makes that determination? Is there a rule book? Is there a moral code? And if there is a moral code then it has no intrinsic value unless it has a transcendent standard that does not change. Otherwise we all have to agree that Hitler, Stalin, etc. were good in their own eyes and Mother Teresa was a monster to you. So where do you stand? Moral Code or sliding scale?

No God| 12.26.10 @ 3:12AM

Johnny V says, "So there is good and bad?! Who makes that determination? Is there a rule book? Is there a moral code? And if there is a moral code then it has no intrinsic value unless it has a transcendent standard that does not change."

Johnny V really should pick up a philosophical book on ethics. There are numerous ways to construct an morality/ethics system: Utilitarianism, universalism, etc.

Even if there is a transcendent standard, one still has to answer whether it is moral or immoral to follow this alleged transcendent standard. Correct?

The bottom line: many theists are too simplistic in their arguments.

Gilliganism| 12.27.10 @ 1:02AM

Johnny: You're making a pretty basic argument here and one worth talking through. You want us to agree that there's no moral compass, really. If we can't agree on what "good" is, then there is only total moral relativism. Until you put God into the equation.

There are explanations for how "goodness" evolved in early man and primates. Group behaviors and even altruism have been given plausible theories from science. I recommend reading up on some of these theories to see how they sit with you. Dawkins (the impetus of this article) collates a number of them in "The Blind Watchmaker." Though, many others have tackled the subject.

GavInTucson| 12.26.10 @ 5:18AM

Seems most slaves (sorry... people) in North Korea are brainwashed, fundamentalist, evangelical believers in the State (the State being the religion).

Many university students are brainwashed too. They're not told how to think, but what to think.

I guess by your definition, there's evil everywhere.

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 1:27PM

"No God" has been brain-washed by the Father of lies. The Devil and ruler of this world.

As it is written:

"We know that we are of God, and the whole world is in the power of the Evil one." 1 Jn. 5:19.

It's either Biblical truth or you're being deceived.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 1:49PM

Margie says, "It's either Biblical truth or you're being deceived."

I suppose even Jesus cannot successfully persuade Margie that she is wrong. In New Testament times, they call this type of people Pharisees.

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 4:08PM

Now there's a reasonable statement!

Don't you see the need to ask yourself why Jesus would want to convince me not to believe in Him?

And the Pharisees were a Jewish sect, some of whom believed in Him upon seeing the miracles He performed.. and some refused to believe, like you. You not only don't know the Bible~which makes you completely unqualified to argue it, but you make no sense or reasonable refutations!

No God| 12.26.10 @ 6:27PM

Margie says, "Why Jesus would want to convince me not to believe in Him?"

Simple: because you are brainwashed severely. Who can stand this craziness? Not even Jesus, I would think.

Margie| 12.27.10 @ 7:45PM

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction." Ps. 1:7.

"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." Ps. 14:1.

We're all basing our lives on either a lie or the truth.
Lotsa luck with the path you're on.

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 4:06PM

But atheists killing Jews for practicing their religion are good? Gotcha.

David| 12.29.10 @ 4:33PM

Your comment indicates you believe we live in a society that bases its morals on the bible. I would argue we already live in a society of post-biblical morals.

For one, the bible condones slavery and the practice was defended for over 150 years in America based on the bible. In modern America, it is universally seen as wrong.

The bible says nothing about a father engaging in sex with his own daughter. In modern America, even the thought of it is abhorrent and punished criminally. Why is the bible silent about such immorality? And if it is, why would we WANT to base our morals on the bible?

T1Brit| 12.25.10 @ 4:32PM

The writer sits at his keyboard, looking into his hi-def LCD widescreen, writing on his wordprocessor, on his personal computer, powered by electricity, in his light, safe, comfortable modern home, with all it's technological marvels....

and says naughty things about science

Time for bed naughtyboots.

GavInTucson| 12.26.10 @ 5:21AM

Says naughty things about science? Where? Are you and I reading the same article?

Disparaging Atheists does not equal disparaging science. Flush out the head gear.

Aquanomics| 12.25.10 @ 4:38PM

I wish believers and non-believers would all just shut up. Zip it. Ferme ta gul.

My faith is mine alone. Yours, yours alone.

These "is not, is too" arguments reflect childish insecurities and nothing good ever comes from them.

Michael| 12.25.10 @ 6:14PM

That strategy has resulted in 85% of Americans believing in an imaginary magical buddy. The latest Gallup poll shows that 40%, that's 120 million Americans, think Yahweh created the Universe less than 10,000 years ago in its present form, including human beings and 20% of Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth. That is because they are taught dirt-stupid by the religious hustlers.

These catastrophic failures of critical thinking impact me and my family: the xombies use the same insane cognitive processes to make choices that impact me. That's why it matters.

Publius| 12.25.10 @ 9:16PM

Ok, Michael, please explain the creation and existence of the universe. Please correct those poor, stupid souls for whom you have nothing but contempt.

Specifically:
1. The date of creation.
2. The means of creation.
3. The ultimate dispostion of the universe.

Go ahead, slugger, enlighten us.

SPaquet| 12.25.10 @ 11:29PM

Why are you here? And God will say that to you also when you want in. The last paragraph says it all---insane family members----should rather be in a rubber room for blaming religion for you and your's deficit. That's a better argument when your being tried for murder and a high-priced lawyer needs to be paid and gets you off for reason of insanity. Merry Christmas. Little Sh#$ head.

No God| 12.25.10 @ 7:40PM

No.

Although your faith is yours, it does not mean that it cannot be criticized.

Aquanomics| 12.25.10 @ 8:56PM

1) Must call baloney on the Gallup poll. 120 million Americans? Strains credulity.

2) Criticize my faith? My faith is red hot, your faith is doodely squat....

I stand by my statement(s). The world would be a better place if we all just shut the frack up.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 3:17AM

It is a fact that a truth cannot be established because many people believe in it. In medieval times, people were told by the church that the sun resolved around the earth. And most of them believed it. It turned out to be dead wrong. Correct?

See? I have already criticized your blind faith. Although your faith may be red hot, it can also be red hot for the wrong reason.

RobertGordon| 12.27.10 @ 11:38PM

Thanks for the song reference.

SPaquet| 12.25.10 @ 11:33PM

Why do you need to criticize it at all? And criticize a muslim in a muslim country and see if those folks show the same restraint a Christian shows here in the states. Just stop the criticism period and this would be a non-issue. One can hope!

No God| 12.26.10 @ 3:19AM

Christians also burned witches in the past when they had the power. Just check European history and you will know.

Bottom line: Christianity is a violent organized religion in nature.

Just stop the criticism? NO.

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 12:16PM

People who commit murder aren't Christians. They're liars.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 1:51PM

Margie says, "People who commit murder aren't Christians. They're liars."

Margie: wake up please. Can you see you are lying for your god?

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 2:50PM

No, understand this---murderers cannot be Christians, because they misunderstand their faith. On the other hand, Islamists understand their faith if they perform murder, because Muhammed WAS a murderer. And a child rapist. Capisce?

In other words, the Crusaders who murdered the Jews in Jerusalem were not truly representing their faith, because men fall short of G-d. It's a simple argument, "No God," one even a Jewish kid can understand. And margie gets her tail kicked on this forum for advancing it every day. Her faith (and that of her husband, Victor) is solid and consistent and decent. I respect that. And I wish them the Merriest of Christmases, and, well, Boxing Days.

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 3:58PM

"My God"?

No Michael, there is only one God, and He created you as well whether you like it or not.

Every human being on the face of the earth either accepts Him or rejects Him.

Those who commit murder in His Name are no more "Christian" than Atheists are.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 6:24PM

Don't be ridiculous, Margie. Your mother and father created Micheal. Everybody knows that and you didn't?

LOL

Joe| 12.27.10 @ 11:40PM

There ya go again -- comparing past to present. Please provide links to modern day Christianity. And why do you keep standing up for islam?

Jon| 12.25.10 @ 4:52PM

But genuine debate is highly useful (and enjoyable) and is the only way to mature your own point of view.

Unfortunately you rarely find that on the internet...

No God| 12.26.10 @ 3:22AM

That is quite true. Genuine debates have to rely on rationality which may not be a strong point for people with blind faiths.

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 12:19PM

Rationality? You mean like saying this: "Christianity is a violent organized religion in nature."
?

No God| 12.26.10 @ 1:53PM

"Christianity is a violent organized religion in nature."

It is a fact, Margie. Check your history please.

Joe| 12.27.10 @ 11:44PM

Didn't you say "Christianity IS," not WAS? Then how can you follow that with "Check your history"? Non-sequitor.

Rodger| 12.25.10 @ 5:00PM

If you cannot even contemplate this world as a designed place we cannot begin to have a discussion on this.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 1:54PM

Why not? There is no logical contradiction here, I suppose.

Skeptic| 12.25.10 @ 5:22PM

>>>>The Big Bang and evolution explain how we got here, but that is about it. Religion explains why we are here and what we are supposed to do about it.

True! We all know the purpose of life is to kill all infidels and establish sharia all over the world. God revealed himself to some 7th century Arab and told him that.

H'm -- religion apparently doesn't "explain why we are here and what we are supposed to do" that well, does it? I think it just makes stuff up, calls it "the philosophical and religious purpose of life", and asks you to obey without evidence.

Margie| 12.25.10 @ 6:04PM

There are no "good" Christians, only repentant sinners who realize they are nothing apart from Christ.

If you are looking for your idea of a good Christian who says what you want to hear as opposed to the truth you may find plenty of them.

If they truly love you they will tell you that you need His forgiveness, just like they do, and that the reason we are ALL separated from God is because of our own sin.

Once you acknowledge this (to Him), He promises (and does it) takes away all of your sins and gives you a clean heart and a renewed conscience.

Sure, there's the bad news (that we're all sinners), but the Good News (that is what the word gospel means), is that Christ did ACTUALLY die on the cross for the sins of the whole world, that He was raised from the dead (by God), and that He is alive right now and hears your prayer to Him.

This is what the Bible really tells us!
I know for a fact that it's true because He saved me, as in John 3:3. You can look this up in the Bible.. you may not have ever read it before, so you may not know, but His words are really in there.. they are true, and He IS the Lord.

He doesn't want you to be Religious, He just wants a relationship with you. It is all about relationship with God, through His Son, Jesus.

When in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve used to walk and talk with God. Then they disobeyed Him and sinned. Since then Sin has made a separation between us and God. It says this in the Bible. All of what I'm saying here is in there. You can look it up for your selves.

This is why Jesus had to die on the cross, because of that sin which got passed along to us because of Adam. Jesus became the sacrificial Lamb who took away the sin of the world.

He calls to you, you know?
Do you "hear"
His voice?

For this is the Good News that outweighs the bad:

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." Jn. 3:16.

This is the purpose of the Christian.. to pass along what we have learned. That Christ died for the sins of the ungodly.. and that would be us, all of us.

Mark Seydel | 12.25.10 @ 10:37PM

This is why Jesus had to die on the cross, because of that sin which got passed along to us because of Adam. >>>>>>> Wow!

Margie| 12.25.10 @ 11:25PM

"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Cor. 15:22.

Wow indeed.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 1:55PM

Wow indeed brainwashed. Margie: see help please.

Mimi| 12.27.10 @ 9:49AM

Merry Christmas late Margie... You have done an amazing job...serving the LORD in your reply to the many athiest who have come out of the : WOODWORK to this sight on this Christmas time to do the Devils work! Wow indeed Margie!!! Their is great intellect out their, great writings and the marvelous writing ability both pro and con.
To me it is ...faith and belief from the HEART. In everyone their is a soul... their very own..and free to choose God or nothing. By living LIFE we experience the help and evidence of GOD. As my husband lay dying, I at his side, Beads in his hands...A glow of never seen kind of light appeared behind his head...as a halo....I have experienced many such occassions of Gods helping hands..on good times and bad. Recently..I had my first...HEART attack...15 minutes after the Ambulance hit the front door of St. Petes Hospital ....I recieved a STENT....NO heart damage....another blessing. Believe people... as C.S. Lewis said...What if you die and then find out it is all TRUE. God Bless!!!!!

Margie| 12.27.10 @ 4:17PM

I love you, Mimi!

"My times are in Thy Hand: deliver me from the hand of mine enemies, and from them that persecute me.: Ps. 31:15.

"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of My Hand." Jn. 10:27 & 28.

Isn't it so good to know that no matter what, we are in His Hands?

"As it is written, "For Thy sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom. 8:36-39.

Mimi,

Even death can't separate us from God, and we'll see our loved ones in Heaven, by the Grace of God, for eternity!
You're such a beautiful sister in Christ.. and I can't wait to one day meet you, if not in this life, then in the next. Till then, you're in my prayers.
love,
Margie

Michael| 12.25.10 @ 6:06PM

Berezov, you need to rethink whether science matters to you or not. Your hypothesis, that science does not work against religious nonsense is just false.

Start by understanding that the vast majority of scientists have concluded that your imaginary magical buddy does not exist. The National Academy of Sciences poll of the most accomplished scientists in America reveals that 93% of them are atheist or agnostic. That reveals a stunning multiplier: in a population where 85% of Americans are religious, the percentage drops to 7% among eminent scientists. Surveys of the broader scientific community reveal similar conclusions about how science and religion compete. Real, actual, accomplished scientists conclude that your religious beliefs are silly.

The reasons are obvious: examining the actual evidence, developing models, theories, and explanations of the evidence, testing those theories against further observations, and revising appropriately, the stuff of science, destroys religious belief. Religious swindles rely on belief despite the evidence, belief in the absence of evidence, and certainty despite overwhelming disconfirmation. That's why you need to decide if you really care about science or whether you are just a science tourist.

Here are a few obvious examples:

1) The Bible says that Yahweh created the Universe about 6,500 years ago in 7 days in a particular order: : light/day/night, firmament/sky, land/earth/sea/plants/fruit trees, lights in the firmament/Sun/Moon/stars, birds/fish, land animals/man, day to rest.
2) The Bible says there was a Global Deluge about 5,500 years ago that lasted 40 days and 40 nights that covered the highest mountains and destroyed all terrestrial life on Earth that wasn't on Noah's Ark at the time.
3) Yahweh stopped the Sun and Moon in their orbit around the Earth for an entire day so that Joshua could win a battel at Gibeon.
4) Jesus fed 5,000 and then 4,000 by replicating a few fishes and breead.
5) Jesus was born of a virgin and was resurrected after he died.
6) Jesus cured blindness, muteness, epilepsy, and leprosy by exorcising out the demons which cause those maladies.

Look, we both know that if you actually believe the gibberish in the Bible that your "science" is a mockery of science. There are ways for you to evade and re-interpret the plain text of the Bible to make it mean something else, but that makes "intellectual integrity" a joke for the purpose of defending an obvious grift.

Choose, Berezow.

Alex B. Berezow | 12.25.10 @ 7:45PM

Science tourism? I hold a Ph.D. in microbiology. That would make me a "real, actual, accomplished scientist," as you put it.

Francis Collins, the current director of the National Institutes of Health (and former director of the Human Genome Project) is a Christian. I believe he, too, is a "real, actual, accomplished scientist."

The national academies poll you cite is such a skewed representation of science, that it's practically worthless. The scientific community is much larger and very different. In fact, about 2/3 of scientists believe in God:
http://www.livescience.com/str.....s_god.html

Here's a (very) incomplete list of other scientists who were either Christians or otherwise fervently believed in God:

Johannes Kepler (astronomy)
Blaise Pascal (math)
Isaac Newton (you're probably familiar with him)
Louis Pasteur (microbiology)
Robert Boyle (chemistry gas law)
Theodosius Dobzhansky (evolutionary biologist)
Max Planck (founder of quantum mechanics)
Michael Faraday (electromagnetism law)
Gregor Mendel ("Father of Genetics")
James Clark Maxwell (Maxwell's equations)

And those are just the big, big names in science. There are plenty more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....in_science

But, what do they know? They're just "science tourists," as you put it.

Michael| 12.25.10 @ 8:13PM

Yeah, I hope you do microbiology better than you argue. You didn't make any serious attempt to answer any argument except the first one. And you did a lousy job at that one. Fail response.

Look, that 7% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are believers means there ae still many accomplished scientists who are Christians. Collins, for example. I have listened to several of his half-hearted and miserable attempts to justify his religious views. He does only marginally better than you do.

You claim to be a real, practicing, accomplished scientist. We both know the "accomplished" part is a lie. You got your PhD what, a year ago or not even that? Not close to being named to the National Academy of Sciences. No one credible has claimed that the poll of the members of the NAS, the most accomplished scientists in America, was inaccurate. You assert, without proof, that it was. Well, more accurately, you don't even do that. You merely claim that it looked a non-representative sample of scientists. Yeah... the best scientists in the country... the ones who have done good enough science to be named to the National Academy of Sciences. Some day, maybe, well... no.

Your counter-evidence is a study that adds
"social scientists" into the mix and concludes that most "scientists" are believers. First, the actual statistics in that study don't support Ecklund's conclusion. Here is how a PhD in Mathematics explains that Ecklund can't add: http://scienceblogs.com/evolut....._accom.php . She is clearly grinding an axe. In case you don't wanna click the link, here is an excerpt:

" There has been a lot of discussion of this question recently, since the publication of Elaine Ecklund's book on the subject. Let us recall that her data shows that 72% of scientists do not believe in God (64% are atheists or agnostics, while an additional 8% believe in a higher power that is not God.”) It was a mere 23% who claimed a clear belief in God. (An additional 5% said they believe in God sometimes.) More than half, 53%, do not even claim a religious affiliation. An additional 16% are Jewish, and 75% of them are atheists. These numbers are stark. Moreover, evangelical Christianity, the preference of 28% of the population, is all but nonexistent among scientists. Theological liberalism is ubiquitous among those scientists who view themselves as religious. Anyone who worries that science and religion are in conflict would see his fears confirmed by this data."

Second, Ecklund gets even these numbers by including economists, political scientists, psychologists, and other "soft" sciences into the mix. Among "natural scientists" the picture is what the NAS says it is. Really? That most "political scientists" believe in God is your answer to "only 7% of the most eminent scinetists in America are believers?"

Your list of eminent scientists who were believers is a joke. Nearly all of them were scientists before Darwin and before atheism. Do you have any doubt that nearly all of them, were they to be confronted with contemporary scientific understanding of the Universe, wouldn't be atheists? Nobel physicist Steven Weinberg put it nicely: "I can hope that this long sad story, this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas, will come to an end. I hope this is something to which science can contribute ... it may be the most important contribution that we can make."

And that is it. You make no attempt to answer the other, direct arguments why science and your religious beliefs are in conflict. Fail.

Johnny V| 12.25.10 @ 8:29PM

Michael, I'm interested in your credentials? What are they? But if you are going to answer this please be sure to make a way for me to verify what you say. Seems Dr. Berezow is standing at the debate table while you are hiding behind your mother's skirt. Come on out, Biff.

Michael| 12.25.10 @ 8:55PM

Hilarious post! Just before Berezow comes up with a cheap excuse to storm off. Nope... no one at that end of the "debate table" any more. I guess the arguments just won't get answered at all.

And no... Johnny V. (if that is your real name) you don't get to know who I am in real life.

Publius| 12.25.10 @ 9:28PM

Michael - you're seriously claiming that *others* are not answering the arguments?

You have a future in comedy, slugger. Why don't you sit down and let the adults debate?

No God| 12.26.10 @ 2:02PM

I wonder why people want to dwell on credential. Personally I think this topic is irrelevant. If somebody has a point, please say it. The point won't be correct or incorrect because the speaker is a scientist.

After all, if credential is at stake, Christians are in a very disadvantageous position, I think. Who is more authoritative than Stephen Hawking in physics currently? And he argues that no god is necessary to explain the existence of the universe.

Alex B. Berezow | 12.25.10 @ 8:47PM

"Nearly all of them were scientists before Darwin and before atheism."

They existed before atheism? What does that even mean? Could you provide me a date on which atheism was invented?

I refuse to debate people who take cheap, personal shots. You've done so with me twice and also at the very brilliant Dr. Francis Collins. Hence, we're done.

Hope you enjoyed your Christmas... or whatever it is you did today.

Michael| 12.25.10 @ 9:02PM

Yeah, that's why you are walking away.

Atheism was nearly nonexistent before the mid 18th century. It really was the Enlightenment and Darwin that allowed persons to think past theism. Deism is how proto-atheists idenitfied themselves in the late 18th century. Really, you might want to think things through a little before making these arguments publicly.

victor| 12.26.10 @ 2:51AM

Michael:
"Atheism was nearly nonexistent before the mid 18th century."

Really?

How do you explain Hindu or Vedic philosophy of 1000BC, which either did not accept God or reject the idea of God?

The word itself was coined in France in 1571 by Philippe de Mornay.

Disbelief or rejection of God is as old as man himself.

Ecc 1:9-10
"What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is said, "See, this is new"? It has been already, in the ages before us."

Solomon wrote these words 3000 years ago and it was old as the hills when he wrote them.

"Really, you might want to think things through a little"

Really?

Alex B. Berezow | 12.26.10 @ 3:57AM

The sad reality is that you actually don't know who those scientists were, do you? How embarrassing.

Darwin wrote "On the Origin of the Species" in 1859. Let's see which of those scientists would have known about Darwin:

Michael Faraday (died 1867)
James Clark Maxwell (died 1879)
Louis Pasteur (died 1895)
Max Planck (died 1947)
Theodosius Dobzhansky (died 1975)

Wow. You have demonstrated ZERO knowledge of science history, and I'm still stunned that you don't know who these people were. Amazing.

Behold! The atheist emperor has no clothes!

Stanford Grad| 12.26.10 @ 11:46AM

Thanks to Victor for setting the record straight. Really, Michael, read some history. Atheism is as old as history, with strains found in ancient China, India, Judea and anywhere else that man lived. Further, your denigration of the author's scientific pedigree is astounding. A Ph.D. in microbiology clearly establishes him as a true scientist. Do you have a Ph.D. ? If you did, you would understand that obtaining one requires original research and exposure to a panoply of groundbreaking ideas.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 2:05PM

I wonder why people want to dwell on credential. Personally I think this topic is irrelevant. If somebody has a point, please say it. The point won't be correct or incorrect because the speaker is a scientist.

After all, if credential is at stake, Christians are in a very disadvantageous position, I think. Who is more authoritative than Stephen Hawking in physics currently? And he argues that no god is necessary to explain the existence of the universe.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 10:23PM

Dr. Weinberg is ignorant of the scholastic tradition that made him INTO a Nobel Prize winner.

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 4:11PM

How could one possibly poll all scientists? How would you find all of them?

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 1:23PM

I agree with you on that issue, Michael. But your breathtaking stupidity in asserting "Jews don't get picked on" demands an apology. Israel is under attack, Kashrut is being banned, where the hell do you get off?

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 1:25PM

Not Michael, Alex. owes Jews an apol0gy. By the way, I hold an MD. I don't have a problem with a Designer. I do have a problem with a smarmy bastard who minimizes the war against Jews. That's Alex, by the way. Michael's just a run of the mill atheist. I expect better from ALEX.l

Christine Helrigel| 12.26.10 @ 3:14PM

Hello, Doctor Occam who was educated in my now home state of Tennessee. You have pointed out quite rightly that the Jews are equal recipients of cultural abuse, just as Christians are, though of a different sort. We Christians are mocked as uneducated fundamentalist morons, while the Jews are attacked as greedy, conniving, country grabbing thugs. that the God of Israel calls that tiny nation 'his own possession' isn't regarded as worth much at the moment. I thank you for your defense of us Tennessee Christian believers; let me return the favor by telling you that when I pray for the descendants of Abraham, and the peace of Jerusalem, that God does bless me, just as He promised Abe he would do. And your self-deprecating humor is something I respect. 'Yankee Jew boy?' 'Yankee Bible thumper' here. Us'ns will inherit the earth: The Hebrew and Christian Scriptures seem to indicate that when our two groups combine, and out of Israel comes the cry: "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord".....the world will be redeemed. So let 'em rail. The God who led your people out of Egypt between two walls of water 900 feet high has something even more amazing planned when all the nations of the world decide they have tiny Israel whupped. Much more amazing that what he did for Moshe in front of all Egypt.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 10:26PM

My Dear Christine:

I was educated in Texas, but the prettiest women are located in Northern Alabama and Tennessee, that's for sure. I met my wife in the area betwwen B'ham and Nashville, and spent many lovely weekends in Nashville.

I lived for 7 years with Evangelicals in that area. A nicer group of people cannot be found on this planet.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 10:26PM

My Dear Christine:

I was educated in Texas, but the prettiest women are located in Northern Alabama and Tennessee, that's for sure. I met my wife in the area betwwen B'ham and Nashville, and spent many lovely weekends in Nashville.

I lived for 7 years with Evangelicals in that area. A nicer group of people cannot be found on this planet.

Johnny V| 12.26.10 @ 10:53PM

I believe Alex is the one that should be waiting for your apology to him. Why did you pervert what he said? He was talking about ATHEISTS making fun of one group while not making fun of two other groups. This has nothing to do with the Holocaust or current affairs in the middle east. This is the third apology I've seen you demand. You sound like on of these atheist.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 1:23PM

I agree with you on that issue, Michael. But your breathtaking stupidity in asserting "Jews don't get picked on" demands an apology. Israel is under attack, Kashrut is being banned, where the hell do you get off?

Publius| 12.25.10 @ 9:20PM

I have to wonder if Michael is a teenager, recently exposed to comparitive religion.

That you find the miracles of Christianity unlikely (or worse) does not constitute - by a long shot - an argument against a Supreme Being.

I've said it before: Explain the existence of the universe, along with all its traits. You'll be up against Spinoza, among others, but I'll be an easy grader.

Go ahead, slugger, give it a shot.

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 10:02AM

Comparative religion.. how quaint! (and you had to drag out 17th century philosophers).. of the hundreds of gods available to discuss where should we start? Let's start with the most recent African contributions (order or popularity):

1st : BUMBA
2nd : SHANGO
3rd : YEMAYA
4th : ELEGUA

join in with the list when you like! This could be fun it it were not so absurd.. go ahead slugger, give it a shot. (from another Michael) atb!

Stanford Grad| 12.26.10 @ 11:53AM

While your assertion that there have been numerous gods throughout history is correct - the Hindus and Greeks alone could fill a tome - they have often had relatively short life spans with regular variations in their attributes and 'histories'. The story of the true God, as told in the Bible, dates back some 4000 years to the time of Abraham. And the only variation in that story has been the appearance of our Lord and Savior some 2000 years ago. For that modification, many of us will be eternally grateful - literally.

Johnny V| 12.26.10 @ 12:52PM

Stanford grad--we are on the same page but I must wonder how loved you were at Stanford ? :-)
I'll have to be more supportive of the Cardinal even though I support a different Pac 10 team.

(another) Michael| 12.26.10 @ 1:07PM

Literally, your abrahamic god is the patriarch of three religions which, in order of appearance, are; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Now each one of those has begat (I love to use biblical terms) countless variations of dogma and definitions of "god". The abrahamic god list should in some way include demigods i.e. the at least 10,000 Catholic saints or “beati” – (those beatified but not canonized). But of course that number includes ancient saints, Roman martyrs and Orthodox saints... and throw in a number of Virgins..

Now even your "true god" gets lost in the crowd.. it is more as if you will be eternally sorting out which god to be grateful to - literally

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 4:15PM

Sorry, although you can have fun misunderstanding Hebrew and distorting the Bible, Judaism has only one God. Our descendents will have to defend themselves; I'm sure they can.

"Begat", BTW, was a word created because a man can "give birth" in Biblical Hebrew, but not in English. (Also a Michael.)

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 4:17PM

By "our descendents", of course, I meant Christinanity, Islam, the Druze religion, etc.

(another) Michael| 12.28.10 @ 9:24AM

I stand corrected.. Judaism only has one god..

but there still are many abrahamic and other deities to catalog... or just ignore... why is it so hard for christians to understand that their god in particular has to be categorized like the rest?

Regarding beget.. you are (probably right there too)

Now the reformist Martin Luther was into begat in a big way.. as in; The Devil begat darkness; darkness begat ignorance; ignorance begat error and his brethren; error begat free- will and presumption; free-will begat works; works begat forgetfulness of God; forgetfulness begat transgression; ....

I would guess from your "biblia sacra" that begeting or lineage is extraordinarily important.. a kind of historical obsession to demonstrate validity..

mzk1| 12.28.10 @ 2:47PM

That's one reason, but there is a more important one.

You see, this is why we permitted polygamy but not polyandry. You always know who the mother is; but knowing your father (also) is the basis of all civilization - something we see quite clearly in the breakdown of parts of American society.

SPaquet| 12.25.10 @ 11:41PM

I wish you would not type Jesus' name, That my enemy is insulting to Him and us believers, and I wish the bible would burn your useless hands from your equally useless body and soul.

bozak| 1.1.11 @ 1:34PM

That's the KKKristian way SPaquet... :-)

Joe| 12.27.10 @ 11:48PM

One thing we can certainly tell from comments--

Those who get their morality from God are kind and even-tempered.

Those who think they are their own God are angry and ridiculing.

Kinda proves which system's best, doesn't it?

Lee| 12.25.10 @ 6:29PM

Atheists at Christmas time all seem to be determined to be the proverbial wet blanket. They don't celebrate the season. so they insist that the rest of us follow their example. They remind me of my mother, who, when she disliked a food, would try to make sure that everyone else, even those who had never tasted it, disliked it as well, by telling stories about all the disgusting things that went into it.

This is childish, to say the least. It epitomizes the view that "My way is the right one, and no one else should be allowed to do anything different, because he is obviously wrong, and wrong shouldn't be allowed.

Killjoys.

Michael| 12.25.10 @ 7:03PM

I know, we're awful. It's like those Mothers Against Drunk Driving people! Wet blankets and killjoys, just like your mother! This is the season to drink ourselves stupid, duh!

Or those darn Parents who get mad at Catholic Priests just wanting to have a little fun with those little boys! No fun at all!

Publius| 12.25.10 @ 9:21PM

And now, the true Michael. Not a considered argument against a Supreme Being but a petulant child. How disappointing.

Michael| 12.25.10 @ 9:28PM

Are you blind? I have a number of in-depth and considered arguments above and below.

I just don't want you to think of me as being a one-dimensional argumentative superhero. I can also do one-liner petulant ripostes. You are welcome.

Dean from Ohio| 12.26.10 @ 11:39AM

Repeated ad hominem arguments - fail
Repeated use of 6-day creation strawman - fail

How's your moral life? How is/was your relationship with your father? Most atheists are that way because of a distant or abusive father, and immorality.

Not trying to make an ad hominem or even conclusive argument here, just stating what I perceive to be the truth, and trying to get down to the bottom of things.

Thomas| 12.27.10 @ 11:49PM

Why would someone want to be petulant?

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 4:19PM

Let's see, an organization that has got way out of control, and a outright lie regarding a scandal (it wasn't little boys).

Kind of makes our point for us.

No God| 12.25.10 @ 7:38PM

Christmas is a pagan season, admit it Lee. It should be celebrated as such.

Merry X'mas, not merry christmas!

Johnny V| 12.25.10 @ 8:19PM

Hey genius, the 'X' in X-Mas is the letter 'chi' in the Greek alphabet. And 'X'/chi is the first letter of the word Christ in Greek. 'Xpiotos'.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 6:21PM

Merry No-X'mas then ... LOL

Thomas| 12.27.10 @ 11:51PM

"should be celebrated..."?

Those fundamenralist atheists, always trying to tell other people what to do!

Mark Seydel | 12.25.10 @ 10:44PM

Your statement(s) is a huge generalization if not false. I am an Atheist and had a great Christmas celebration with my family and friends. This morning was great Christmas brunch and this evening dinner at my best friend's son's home. Great food, gifts were exchanged and, yes, I wished them all a Merry Christmas.

Do I believe in gods or saviors? No, but they do and it makes them happy. When I do hang out with my friends who are atheists we have a great time. Your post is insulting.

Steve B | 12.25.10 @ 7:11PM

As a Cheerful Agnostic I'm "beautifully equipped" to address the question.

The militant atheists say religion is a crutch.

So what do you call someone who goes around kicking crutches out from under people - a fearless seeker of the Truth, or a bloody sadist?

At this time of year it's quite evident that the spoilsports don't disbelieve in God - they're mad at him.

And by the way, about those pederastic priests, hasn't it become evident by now there is a more-or-less organized effort by pederasts to infiltrate and take over Catholic seminaries?

Publius| 12.25.10 @ 9:23PM

At some seminaries, your argument could have been made but not in the last 10+ years.

That Christians are not perfect - and in fact, some are evil - is not an argument against Christianity. If anything, it is entirely predictable.

Steve B | 12.26.10 @ 8:44AM

Publius,

It wasn't meant to be an argument against Christianity. It was in fact making the point you just stated in your last paragraph.

You and Michael are stuck in argument mode, and I'm not interested in the argument. He by the way, strikes me as being one of those people who are mad at God.

My point, stated more specifically, is I love life and find it good on balance. But someday I'm going to lose it all: my lovely wife, my delightful children, and my beloved friends (two down within the last month.)

If I or anyone want to believe it will all be made right in the fullness of time, and the belief system doesn't hamper anyone's ability to deal with the world as we see it (and some are definitely better than others at this) - then what kind of sadist would go about trying to convince everyone that life is hopeless and their loved ones are lost forever?

bozak| 1.1.11 @ 1:37PM

How does one become mad at something they believe not to exist?

Steve B | 12.25.10 @ 7:13PM

"The opposite of the fanatical religious is not the fanatical atheist, but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not."
- Eric Hoffer

No God| 12.25.10 @ 7:33PM

"This year, all I want for Christmas is for atheists to stop sullying the good name of science by associating it with anti-religious bigotry masquerading as reason."

All those closed-mind and shallow people cannot stand scientific and logical reasoning and criticism. Is the sun still revolving around the earth?

In this day and age, all irrational faith believers can wish for the end of reasoning and criticism. It is not going to happen!

ejp| 12.25.10 @ 7:51PM

Now here we have yet another example of how the arrogant know-it-all attitude of militant atheists so often reveals a good deal of ignorance regarding Theology 101. No doubt, the above gent thinks the heliocentric view of the universe was based on Scripture when it isn't. It was based on the writings of an ancient GREEK named Ptolemy, and the embrace of his view was in keeping with the all-around embrace of Greco-Roman knowledge by early Christianity, which gee, if I remember right is part of how the spreading of the faith was rooted in an approach that *depended* on "scientific and logical reasoning and criticism"! Of course, Greek thinkers, being fallible beings, were not always right including good old Claudius Ptolemy, so gee, let's by the reasonings of logic and critical thinking by which militant atheists apply to the Judeo-Christian tradition toss out ALL of Greco-Roman thought since we can see where they were wrong!

That little exercise of sarcasm on my part is to simply call attention to how the lofty pretensions of the atheist mind reveal ultimately the narrowest set of bigoted vices known to man. At the top of which rests the strange presumption of the issue of God's existence being a finite question in which an *absolute* standard of truth can be discerned through the scientific method with NO allowances for any other critical approaches to the subject, which in short makes them the modern day defenders of Claudius Ptolemy's helicoentrism while the faithful find themselves in the role of Copernicus (a man of faith himself I would note!)

Michael| 12.25.10 @ 8:21PM

Your argument is just absurd. So the whole Galileo thing... never happened? Your terrible revisionism attempts to go after 1 small part of an obvious problem of scientific illiteracy occasioned by Fundamentalist Christianity.

Why do you think that 20%, about 65 million Americans, think the Sun revolves around the Earth? The answer is obvious: their faith tells them so.

Here are some references in the Bible:

Psalms 93:1 "Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved."
1 Samuel 2:8 "For the pillars of the Earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world."
Joshua 10:12-14 “Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, ‘Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon.’ And the Sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The Sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord hearkened to the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.”

Now, before you begin arguing how that plain text doesn't really mean what it says, pause and understand how those words were interpreted by EVERYONE before Copernicus and Galileo proved them false. Doctor of the Church Robert Cardinal Bellarmine wrote on April 12, 1615 that:

“To affirm that the Sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens...and the Earth... revolves with great speed around the Sun, is a very dangerous thing… by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false... And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining (ad litteram) that the Sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the Earth, and that the Earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators... I add the words ‘the Sun also riseth and the Sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.’ were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.”

And it wasn't just the Cardinal that convinced the Church to imprison Galileo for claiming that the Earth revolved around the Sun. The Holy Father himself, Pope Urban VIII, decreed in condemnation of Galileo Galilei on June 22, 1633 that:

“We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo...have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine which is false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures, that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world...after it has been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture...From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that...you abjure, curse, and detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.”

The idea that the Earth moved was so obviously contrary to the text of the Bible that the Church BANNED any mention of the idea. Pope Alexander VII in his 1665 revisions to his Bull, the Speculatores Dominus Israel, banned

"all books and any booklets, periodicals, compositions, consultations, letters, glosses, opuscula, speeches, replies, treatises, whether printed or in manuscript, containing and treating the following subjects or about the following subjects…the mobility of the Earth and the immobility of the Sun."

So... what a miserably bad try to answer 1 part of the last bit of my challenge. The big-ticket items are still out there...
Adult persons who believe in an imaginary magical buddy shouldn't be in charge of decisions with a substantial impact on the lives of others. Those who participate in the religious grift as either a vulnerable, gullible or stupid victim or as a vicious swindler can do a lot of harm.

Margie| 12.25.10 @ 11:43PM

The Catholic church isn't the authority on God.
God is the Authority, and His words are in the Bible.
Do not mistake the one for the other.
Religions denominations have their own doctrines that may not agree with what the Bible says.
If you really care about the truth, stick with the Bible.

"Every word of God proves true; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him." Prov. 30:5.

God does reveal Himself to anyone, ANYONE who seeks Him honestly. It isn't a matter of Religion, or "being religious".

Jesus says,

"And I tell you, Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you." Lk. 11:9.

If you aren't really interested then you don't care, and this will be (or is, now) true about you:

"When a man's folly brings his way to ruin, his heart rages against the LORD." Prov. 19:3.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 1:28PM

Dear Michael: about 22% of the Nobels overall (a higher percentage in the Sciences) have been won by a group which calls itself G-d's Chosen People, and who have a total population of 13 million out of 6 billion. Explain, without using eugenics, how this is possible. Bye!!!

And Alex, you still owe Jews an apology. Big time, asshole.

Johnny V| 12.26.10 @ 3:34PM

OT--Alex didn't say that Jews are never attacked. He implied he has not seen an attack on Jews in this country during Hannika or Muslims during Ramadon. Your name calling is really classy.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 9:12PM

This year, Induianu University during Hannukah, to name one example, asshat Johnny. Plenty of synagogue attacks. Where did the overseas packages that were intercepted heading for Chicago get sent? You, too, Johnny, can have a nice cup of STFU.

If Alex hasn't seen, it is because he, like you, are blind.

Johnny V| 12.26.10 @ 11:07PM

Your comments are about as stupid as they come. The discussion is about atheists make fun of . . . not Arabs killing . . . even the atheists go about their goals legally through the court system or through "making fun of." You are trying to inject antisemetism into a discussion where there is none. You owe Alex an apology. As I mentioned earlier, I am a Jew. You owe me an apology also.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 10:57PM

A simple search, Alex: Atheist assaults on Hannukah---brought up this one:

"The Teapot Atheist

Monday, December 6, 2010
The Hanukkah Story

While the Christmas season churns onward and the Catholics are busy celebrating a feast in honor of one of their most beloved anti-Semites, we mustn't forget God's Chosen in this season of Christian consumerism. Hanukkah, too, is in full swing, and its story bears a retelling.

Unlike Christmas, which is little more than a bizarre myth cooked up by ancient apologists, Hanukkah at least partially tracks reality in its description of the triumph of one set of petty superstitions triumphing over another.

The various sources we have for Hanukkah tell us about the intrepid servants of the defeated Jerusalem theocracy who fought valiantly to prevent interlocutors from inflicting a slightly better-educated theocracy upon them and their neighbors. Our story begins when Judea becomes a client state of Syria, about 200 years before the Christmas fiction picks up. Eager to impress the backwards natives, the Syrians permit the Jews to carry out with their bizarre customs without government interference. They allow traditionalist Jews to establish a puppet government, which promptly expels the entire class of educated, slightly-less-superstitious Hellenized Jews, Jews who had actually learned a thing or two from Greek culture and had learned to take their cultural myths less seriously. (The elimination of intellectuals from society en masse is commonplace when new dictatorships comes to power.) The expelled intellectuals resettle in Syria.

A later king of Syria invades Judea, probably to intervene in a civil war between traditionalist Jews and allies of the modernist Hellenized Jews. He looted the seat of Jewish superstition, the Temple of Solomon, outlawed the mutilation of infants' genitals, ordered pigs (rather than kosher animals) to be slaughtered in the temple, and put an idol of his own patron superstition into the temple instead. Not ones to let their superstitions be suppressed by other, equally strange but less foreskin-obsessed ones, the people of Judea revolted en masse, retook the city of Jerusalem and its temple, and re-instituted burnt sacrifices, child genital mutilation, and compulsory obedience to Jewish religious law.

Then, according to legend, some oil they burned in the temple lasted longer than they thought that it would. Whoop-dee-shit, that's the miracle of Hanukkah.

So tell your Jewish friends "happy Hanukkah," and ask them which part of the story they're most proud of: the one where the Jewish religion shows its superiority to another religion by its greater propensity to violence, the part where so many Jews fought and died for the right to cut up their infant boys' foreskins, the part where the best God could do after years of unmitigated bloodbath was to make some candles last for a week, or the part where the whole thing started because the superstitious Jews wanted to destroy the well-educated ones out of fear of losing the political power represented by barbaric Jewish law. Happy fucking Hanukkah, I'm glad we never had to go through the motions of this one in my household."

Not only are you wrong, Alex, you are lazy. Still waiting for that apology.

mzk1| 12.28.10 @ 2:51PM

Well, at least that jerk you are quoting understand that Chanukah has nothing to do with religious freedom. But why type in all of that anti-semitic garbage?

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 4:26PM

Actually, the problem wasn't that the Church rejected science, but that they accepted "settled science" and made it part of their religion. That is how they got into trouble with Galileo. Remember that the geocentric theory comes from a monk, Copernicus.

While I note that Maimonides had mathematical issues with Ptolmey and questionaed the whgole theory, but as he wrote about it in general, we Jews really have to think those who burned some of Maimonides' books for keeping us from falling into that trap and accepting "settled science" as part of our religion.

mzk1| 12.28.10 @ 2:52PM

thank.

John| 12.27.10 @ 11:56PM

Who is attempting to do harm here? I see lots of loving, caring comments interposed with ranting, hostile taunting.

ejp| 12.25.10 @ 8:29PM

In not one of those Scriptural quotations does it say the Sun goes around the Earth. That is just a nice little job of you demonstrating the Felix Unger definition of the word assume though it is only you who make an ass of yourself. :)

That Galileo ran afoul of some corrupt members of an established Church alas, proves nothing about the reliability of Scripture. Martin Luther was condemned by the same Establishment a century before because he challenged their authority in other areas resorting in large part to his own exercises of critical methodological study. And then you're left with the problem that Galileo was not an atheist, nor was Kepler, Copernicus, Newton etc. which I guess means you have to regard them as dumb by your own standards! :)

Michael| 12.25.10 @ 8:48PM

Come on, what is wrong with you?

NO ONE before Copernicus and Galileo proved that the Earth moves around the Sun thought the obvious words in the Bible meant anything else.

Bellarmine was no more corrupt than Martin Luther: both understood the Bible as saying what it plainly says: the Earth is fixed and unmoving while the Sun moves in the sky from east to west.

You are being intellectually dishonest, trying to twist that language so it doesn't contradict the undeniable facts any more. That 20% of Americans, in the 21st century, 500 years after Galileo, still refuse to understand that the Earth moves around the Sun is damning. Do you doubt that 90% of those 65 million are fundamentalist Christians?

Yeah... invoking scientists from 500 years ago, at the dawn of science, as believers in religious nonsense means you just don't get it. There were essentially no atheists at the time: it took Darwin and Geology to put the dagger into Christianity's Creation story. Before that, the closest folks got to atheism were Deists like Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin. After Darwin, men and women who thought finally began to wake up from the long sleep of reason and atheist began to flourish. A man or woman of sufficient intellect who believes in that load of rubbish these days is just an embarassment.

Publius| 12.25.10 @ 9:34PM

hmm. As an astromoner that believes in a Christian God, I have to ask: What about Aristarchus of Samos?

I hate to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed man but I also can't let the idiocy of his arguments go unaddressed.

Alex B. Berezow | 12.25.10 @ 9:53PM

You'll need some patience with Michael. I'm afraid he got coal in his stocking again this year.

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 10:31AM

Dr Alex B. Berezow, so your best folksy comeback is that Michael "got coal in his stocking" .. staying in the folksy mode (your style) it seems as though you, and the rest of the faithful who are here present, got a Michael in your collective craw.. and a very able one at that. He almost single-handedly and very effectively fended off the hordes of the indignant and self-righteous christians.Very Impressive! Folk Hero Status! Kudos to you Michael! (from another Michael)

ejp| 12.26.10 @ 11:05AM

Michael #1 was about as "effective" in "fending off" the dissection of his rather empty-headed assertions as the Republican Guard was effective in fending off the Coaltion Forces in 1991. :)

(another) Michael| 12.26.10 @ 1:26PM

he kept you pious and devoted christians busy over your christmas holiday.. that was pretty good!

btw, your analogy was well contained i.e. cutting the losses at 1991..

ejp| 12.26.10 @ 9:29PM

Actually it takes almost no time in the world to dispense with the silliness of Michael #1 or #2. :)

Want me to include Cornwallis fending off the Americans at Yorktown? ;)

(another) Michael| 12.27.10 @ 2:33AM

actually.. it did take time... your time.

dispense with silliness? right.. unfortunately there is indeed silliness related to a waste of time with the Americans.

The US (sadly) is the last bastion of religious silliness in the civilized world... entrenched belief in fundamental christianity is holding back the education and technical development, the future capacity to "fend off" foreign competition (using economic means versus arms).

I am not too worried though.. science will eventually eat religion's lunch.

reason will eventually prevail, but then again. the americans might miss the opportunity to join the civilized world

Margie| 12.27.10 @ 11:12PM

Science simply means knowledge, (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge").

If so called scientists were more honest and didn't try and make things up in order to suit their personal leanings, there would be a lot more of them in agreement with God.

You do not have to separate Science from Religion, or more to the point, Science from God and reality.

Honest knowledge (science) speaks to the existence of God.

(another) Michael| 12.28.10 @ 8:40AM

Margie.. which god is that? Do you honestly think that your particular god is universal? Do scientists from India "make things up" to perturb this knowledge base you speak of? The religious throughout the ages have tried to control knowledge.. Religion was (and is) used to suppress and control .."ipsa scientia potestas est" . Your god is only how you perceive it/her/him to be..

Margie| 12.29.10 @ 1:13PM

(another god),

There is only one God. He is the Creator of the universe, and of Mankind. There are lots of so called gods but none of them are true. You would have to read the Bible to find out more about Him. That's where His words are to be found. Not one word has ever been disproven, even though plenty of people have tried to do that, and many Atheists when trying to do that have ended up being converted to Christ when they honestly sought the truth.

When I said if Scientists were more honest, I meant those that consciously state things they know aren't proven true in order to try and prove things like Evolution. Or guessing at the age of fossils in order to make the world believe that the earth is millions and billions of years old. It is a very sad thing that they do.

As for Religion always using knowledge to suppress and control~ you're right. But God is NOT Religion, and Religion is NOT God.

Te Bible tells us that God is Love. he is the Truth. He is our Creator. Religion is what Mankind creates, and there are thousands upon thousands of Religions.. how can they all be true? They are not. Since there is only one God, and His words are in the Bible, why is it that Man wants to create his own Religion? It is easier and more comfortable that way.

God says in the Bible that what He wants isn't a bunch of rules and regulations from us, but He wants a relationship.

Read Isaiah chapter one. He cannot stand solemn assemblies and incense burning.. not in place of loving Him. He's a living God and He wants a relationship with us.

The Bible also says that the reason we are don't know Him or think He isn't real is because we are in spiritual darkness and cannot "see", and the reason for that is because of Sin.
Sin separates us from God, and it darkens our minds.
God sent His Son to die for the sins of the whole world and He took that burden upon His body, on the cross. God loved Mankind so much that He did that.
Do, our ideas about God are usually not His own. This is what Christians know, because we choose to submit not to Religion, but to the living God. He loves you so much and as it says in the Bible, He "waits to be gracious to you."

Here is what the Bible says:

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the Name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the lLght has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than Light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the Light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God." Jn. 3:16-21.

If God were only how I perceived Him there would be no hope, but there is plenty of hope in the God who created you, and in His Son who died for you.

This is a very long thread and I hope you came back to read this, I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner to your question.
God bless you for honestly asking your questions.. may you come to know Him, or rather be known by Him like millions upon millions of people have.. we call ourselves simply.. Christians.

John| 12.27.10 @ 11:59PM

This is what Christians love to do -- let God 's love shine through them when responding to those crying out in pain from their confusion and disbelief. (and pray for them)

(another) Michael| 12.28.10 @ 8:31AM

Now, please... who exactly is crying out in pain from confusion (wait a second..painful confusion, I googled that syndrome and couldn't find it!).

Praying is ok, like talking to yourself (harmless really, it never really has shown to do much good re: MANTRA study, run from Duke University Medical Center.. try meditation!) .. just please don't sacrifice some poor goat or some other type of Abrahamic blood letting..

The only this I would ask of the "christians" is to leave the young and innocent alone.. let them develop a notion of reality based upon reasoning and not some made up deity with human faults.. your god is no more creditable (as in proof) then any of the other myths that man made up to seek solace from a confusing and difficult existence.

mzk1| 12.28.10 @ 2:59PM

Now that intolerance comes in! You want to keep us from teaching our religion to our children? Well, we Jews have put up with thousands of years of people like you. We withstood them at the cost of much blood and unbelievable suffering, and we will survive you too.

Religiously intolerant people like you don't belong in America. I'm willing to start a fund to send you to Europe. You are the true heir of the inquisition, not the Chrsitians here.

Margie| 12.29.10 @ 12:38PM

"The only this I would ask of the "christians" is to leave the young and innocent alone.."

No, we will protect them from the ungodly.
For as it is written:

"But Jesus called them to Him, saying, "Let the children come to Me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the Kingdom of God." Lk. 18:16.

(another) Michael| 12.29.10 @ 1:51PM

For it is written (in another holy book):

“Your riches and your children may be but a trial:
whereas Allah, with Him is the highest Reward.”
[Qur'an 64:15]

and who protects children from the righteous ?

Why you and other religious zealots of all beliefs would deny children the right to all knowledge and scientific reasoning is beyond my ability to fathom your need to be deceitful.

for you to begin to understand the "godless", put down your bible a second and try this very old test and give it some thought;

Epicurus, Greek philosopher, BC 341-270:

“Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him god?”

Margie| 12.29.10 @ 7:53PM

God is willing, but Man is not.
Greek philosophers have no meaning to me when they lie, nor does the Atheist.
And you quote the Koran?
Last but not least, there is no need to "protect" children from the righteous, except in your world.
If you have children, they are a blessing from God and you will be accountable for how you teach them.
If you lie to them and tell them God does not exist, you are hurting them.
Yet God is in control, and His will will be done, in spite of you!

"Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." Prov. 22:6.

(another) Michael| 12.30.10 @ 8:05AM

The greek philosopher proceeded your jesus of nazareth by 200 years! How could he lie about something that had not happened? (did you actually read that?)

Why is your bible any better than the Qur'an? I quoted it as an example of religious dogma (like yours) . You quote your bible as if it were a universal truth (universal as meant for everyone in all cultures, all countries, everywhere). There is no such thing as a holy book that is universally accepted (you don't accept the Qur'an and 1.5 billion in islam don't accept the bible). Further, billions of of others have not yet even heard of your bronze age text and yet you believe that they should burn in hell for there ignorance..

anyway,

Now I guess that you are now mindful that non-believers are out there and will fight religious dogma of every type (evangelical christian, catholic, orthodox christian, Latter Day Saint, Islam..) at every turn..

we may not convert the religious that have been brainwashed but we will provide enlightenment and support for those who want to live by reason.

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes" Gene Roddenberry

Margie| 12.30.10 @ 6:19PM

"The greek philosopher proceeded your jesus of nazareth by 200 years! How could he lie about something that had not happened? (did you actually read that?)"

Answer: "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." Jn. 8:58.

"Why is your bible any better than the Qur'an?"

Answer: "Every word of God proves true; He is a Shield to those who take refuge in Him." Prov. 30:5.

"..a universal truth (universal as meant for everyone in all cultures, all countries, everywhere)."

Yes, it is! "O taste and see that the LORD is good! Happy is the man who takes refuge in Him!" Ps. 34:8.

"Further, billions of of others have not yet even heard of your bronze age text and yet you believe that they should burn in hell for there ignorance.."

No I do not, and did not say that.
God sent His Son to suffer and die for the sins of the whole world. His gospel is being preached throught the world, according to the Bible so that every soul will have the chance to hear it before He returns. It is God's plan for the fulness of time.

As it is written:

"The Lord is not slow about His promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." 2 Pe. 3:9.

Now, you and Gene Roddenberry forget one very, very important thing:

God is stronger than you.

"For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." 1 Cor. 1:25.

You, nor I are in control of ANYTHING! He is.

(another) Michael| 12.31.10 @ 7:31AM

It has been interesting sparing with you Margie, given you can't (because of denial?) see beyond the extraordinarily limited lens of your holy book, any engagement based upon reason is impossible.

so, given the fact that there is no hope for you ever being reasonable, I would like to dedicate two quotes to you:

"The need to believe in phony wonders sometimes exceeds not only logic but, seemingly, even sanity". --The Rev. Canon William V. Rauscher

"The true-believer syndrome merits study by science. What is it that compels a person, past all reason, to believe the unbelievable. How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it's exposed in the bright light of day he still clings to it--indeed, clings to it all the harder?" --M. Lamar Keene

...you are not alone in your fanatical beliefs and that indeed is very sad.

Margie| 12.31.10 @ 6:37PM

Well Michael,

I love sparring.. for Christ. I wish you a Happy New Year that is filled with the love of God.
I know for a fact that He is real, alive and loves you.
How is that?
He revealed Himself to me by changing my heart from one of stone to one of flesh. Only then will you know He is real.
I asked Him to do that, humbly, on my knees one night back in 1975.
And He's NEVER failed me yet.
That's how I know. And I know that every word of His proves true.. because He is true to His word.

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." Ez. 36:26.

I've never seen you nor met you but here and yet we know each other exists. God left us His words in the Bible. His Creation is all around us as evidence of His mighty handiwork.

And wise men still seek Him. I hope you will, too.
God bless.

(another) Michael| 1.1.11 @ 8:32AM

likewise, I hope that you can find reason in the secular world.

Steve B | 12.26.10 @ 8:53AM

Hmmm, I stated above I'm not interested in the religious argument, but this is historical.

If I remember correctly, heliocentric models have been around for longer than Christianity. The problem with them was not the relative positions of the earth and sun, but that they were fixated on circular orbits before Kepler' insight that planets' orbits are eliptical. Before this the Ptolemaic theory was actually a somewhat better predictor of the motion of celestial bodies.

And as for Galileo, he had enemies in the church but also supporters, among them the Pope!

One account I've read has it his ultimate downfall was publishing a satire of the hierarchy, which had nothing to do with any scientific issue.

Anybody have more on this?

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 1:52PM

I found this:

http://www.colsoncenter.org/bp.....y/13/11039

And this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1033960/posts

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 4:30PM

Please! If the Bible had described the world as geocentric, no-one would have believed it. And Copernicus was Christian monk - how did he get it?

The Rabbis said, "the Bible talks in the language of Man". People see the sun going around, so it's described in those terms; everything is relative anyway. The Rabbis of theTalmud, way before all of this, had some rather varied interpretations of Genesis. I suppose you would called them heretics. :-)

axbucxdu| 12.25.10 @ 8:59PM

Some who have risked stating what should be obvious, to scientists anyway:

Elliot Sober, philosopher:

"...statements about what our values ought to be are not something that science describes.
Science can tell you that doing X will get you Y, but it doesn't tell you that you ought to strive to obtain Y. I agree with this. This isn't anti-scientism or postmodernism, but a recognition that the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy.”

David Sloan Wilson, biologist:

“Another example of the need to fight for the middle ground concerns the recent atheist attacks on religion by Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens and others. In this case the problem is not a denial of natural selection but other departures from responsible scholarship to portray religion as bad, bad, bad in every respect. This includes not only poor scholarship with respect to theology, which Jack (Maze, botanist) might appreciate given his comment about creationism, but extremely poor scholarship with respect to scientific understanding of religion, from an evolutionary or any other perspective. It doesn't matter that these authors have distinguished reputations, any more than a creationist with a PhD. They need to be roundly criticized on the basis of their current effort. . . .

This is not repression. It is fighting to prevent responsible scholarship and scientific inquiry from becoming a carnival".

Jerry Seinfeld as Jerry Seinfeld:

"I'm afraid Dr. Watley converted over to Judaism purely for the jokes!"
"And this offends you as Jewish person?"
"No, it offends me as a comedian!

Michael| 12.25.10 @ 9:16PM

I am SO in the right place on Christmas Day.

The most recent survey of North American philosophers asked them numerous questions about where they stood on the divisive issues in ethics, ontology, epistemology, and so on. The single issue on which there was MOST agreement was... the existence of God. 73% of the philosophers answered that they did not believe in the existence of God.

David Sloan Wilson is in the minority of biologists on this issue. His arguments for the "middle way" are pretty bad, but nbo one really cares. He takes the position he does because Dawkins goes after 'Group Selection" as unsupported by the data. So Wilson makes it personal. Too bad.

Oh! And is it a coincidence you chose Elliot Sober, Wilson's co-author, for the other quote? Is that you, Dr. Wilson? Yeesh, give it up.

Publius| 12.25.10 @ 9:38PM

"The most recent survey of North American philosophers asked them numerous questions about where they stood on the divisive issues in ethics, ontology, epistemology, and so on. "

So questions of scientific fact are settled by majority vote? Michael's strawmen arguments are collapsing under their own weight.

Nine out of ten people I've spoken with think Michael has his head up his a**. Ergo, he does.

axbucxdu| 12.25.10 @ 10:49PM

Current philosophical opinion regarding the existence of a deity has nothing to do with the existence of real limits in science. As you know, these are easily demonstrated. I quoted Wilson because he understands that attempting to stretch science beyond these limits by acting on domains that it is ill equipped to address will ultimately corrupt it.

Again, Wilson's personal motivation for making these comments is irrelevant to the fact that science will indeed become a carnival. It can't venture into transcendent territory and not expect some of it to rub off.

Model based reality is great as long as you understand that uncertainty and indeterminacy into the system leads invariably to chaos out. If you don't want to take my word for it, look up a paper on complexity by E. Attlee Jackson at the Santa Fe Institute. As a scientist(?), this should concern you. You've been warned.

Alex B. Berezow | 12.26.10 @ 4:01AM

Michael's not a scientist, but he plays one on the internet.

(another) Michael| 12.26.10 @ 1:37PM

Just did a quick search for Berezow in the www.nasonline.org (National Academy of Sciences) and came up with "No members were found in the directory to match your request". Are you a internet scientist too? I guess that the newer Phd's are a a bit defensive..

Jim| 12.26.10 @ 9:36PM

Again, a red herring. I have no doubt that 73% of astrologers do not believe in the existence of free will. So what? If a discipline describes the world in its own self-referential terms, then the adherents of that discipline are having a different conversation than the rest of us. Not a surprise, Michael, and it proves exactly nothing.

Mark L| 12.27.10 @ 12:50PM

I think that only shows that people who are taught humanist-secularist principles are apt to exhibit them in their own lives.

ejp| 12.25.10 @ 9:04PM

Oh, I see, those great scientists who were men of deep faith were just stupid! They should have been emulating the example of smarter people like.....Robespierre, Lenin, Chairman Mao and other atheists who believed in the forced imposition of state sponsored atheism and murdered quite a few million in the process. More ultimately in fact than in all the so-called "wars of religion" put together! (another inconvenient truth atheists like to ignore to justify their own bigotry)

The notion that those are the "obvious words" in the Bible is again your nice demonstration of Felix Unger "assume" thought in action. The Scientific Establishment of the day simply chose to be too trusting of the ancient Greek scientists who came up with the heliocentric model and then wrongly chose to assume themselves that Scripture backed up the Greeks when the Scripture said no such thing. As a Christian who believes in the fallibility of man, I can easily take note of those who make such mistakes given the limits of knowledge in those areas, in contrast to the very explicit revealed knowledge of the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ (of whom, you no doubt, would deny the existence of as a real person, revealing your own ignorance of basic historical methodology).

The silliness of your comment on how many believe the sun goes around the Earth and who they are speaks for itself. That's just the prattling of a bigot who knows he's in trouble and thus throws out phony numbers combined with his bigoted insights to come off as a voice of authority he can only dream of being. :)

But hey, Merry CHRISTMAS just the same. :D

Michael| 12.25.10 @ 9:23PM

All of this is an obvious and transparent and inept attempt to rewrite history. When EVERY Biblical scholar before Galileo reads those words the same way, you have no argument. Instead of admitting that you and the Bible are full of it, you start to do a grotesquery of twisted reading and history. Par for the course.

Do you need a reference for "20% of Americans believe the Sun revolves around the Earth?" Or for "Christian fundamentalists are most likely to reject heliocentrism and evolution?" How about we just cover it all by pointing to the consensus of research that shows a strong inverse relationship between IQ and religiosity?

I hope you enjoy the season as well.

ejp| 12.25.10 @ 9:40PM

Gee whiz, "every" Biblical scholar of note prior to Luther didn't reason certain things of Christian doctrine I hold dear today, but it doesn't mean I regard all the Christian theologians before Luther as evil men who don't give me valuable insights in other areas that do stand the test of time. I might also note that belief in the heliocentric model also applied to ALL non-Christian scientists as well since after all it was a non-Christian Greek who first came up with the concept, which is the damned spot for you that is just not going to out. I would note that all scientists used to believe a good deal of what Aristotle had to say in the sciences that have been proved wrong too. But that again, proves absolutely nothing with regard to the existence of God and the reliability of the Judeo-Christian tradition and its HISTORICAL roots which is the fundamental point you keep ignoring.

As for the relationship between IQ and religiosity I'm afraid that since you've got Bill Maher in your corner, that automatically proves that a negative IQ is more apt to be found among the non-religious. :)

Publuis| 12.25.10 @ 9:40PM

" How about we just cover it all by pointing to the consensus of research that shows a strong inverse relationship between IQ and religiosity?"

How about you just cite that "research," slugger?

Michael| 12.25.10 @ 10:40PM

Glad to do your homework for you. (No more then 2 links... sigh...)

1. IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Lynn & Vanhanen. In fact, one can predict how atheist a country is by that country's average IQ. Here is that study:

http://dailycow.org/system/files/article_0.pdf

2. It isn't just countries, though. Pythress (1975) concluded after examining SATs and religiosity among US college students that:

"Literally-oriented religious Believers did not differ significantly from Mythologically-oriented Believers on measures of intelligence, authoritarianism, or racial prejudice. Religious Believers as a group were found to be significantly less intelligent and more authoritarian than religious Skeptics."

Nyborg found similar results just looking at North American adolescents. Here is that study:

3. The recent Kanazawa Study is clear on the matter as well. You can get the pdf on asanet and its titled "Why Liberals and Atheists are More Intelligent"

Here is a quote from that study: "The analyses of
the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Study 1) and the General Social Surveys
(Study 2) show that adolescent and adult intelligence significantly increases adult liberalism, atheism, and men’s (but not women’s) value on sexual exclusivity."

4. And of course, the grand-daddy of them all is Burnham Beckwith's review of ALL of the studies done before 1985 on IQ and religiosity from Free Inquiry Spring 1986. One link to a summary is here:
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/iq_relig.htm

This was Beckwith's conclusion: "In this essay I have reviewed: (1)sixteen studies of the correlation between individual measures of student intelligence and religiosity, all but three of which reported an inverse correlation. (2) five studies reporting that student bodies with high average IQ and/or SAT scores are much less religious than inferior student bodies; (3) three studies reporting that geniuses (IQ 150+) are much less religious than the general public (Average IQ, 100), and one dubious study, (4) seven studies reporting that highly successful persons are much less religious in belief than are others; and (5) eight old and four new Gallup polls revealing that college alumni (average IQ about 115) are much less religious in belief than are grade-school pollees.
I have also noted that many studies have shown that students become less religious as they proceed through college, probably in part because average IQ rises.

All but four of the forty-three polls I have reviewed support the conclusion that native intelligence varies inversely with degree of religious faith; i.e., that, other factors being equal, the more intelligent a person is, the less religious he is. It is easy to find fault with the studies I have reviewed, for all were imperfect. But the fact that all but four of them supported the general conclusion provides overwhelming evidence that, among American students and adults, the amount of religious faith tends to vary inversely and appreciably with intelligence. "

You are welcome and may reason be with you!

Alex B. Berezow | 12.25.10 @ 11:37PM

Well, I said I was done with you, but I can't let garbage science stand unchallenged.

First of all, your hero here, Helmuth Nyborg, also believes men are smarter than women and whites are smarter than blacks. (That latter point, in particular, has been thoroughly debunked.) His conclusions are dubious, and thus, his methodology likely is, as well. Ridiculous results usually come from ridiculous methodology.

The first IQ paper by Nyborg is pathetically bad. That's an ecological study. If you studied epidemiology (which you clearly haven't), then you would know that these kinds of studies are notoriously unreliable. Ecological studies measure the characteristics of entire populations, not individuals. Because of that HUGE problem, nothing can ever be definitively stated from an ecological study.

There are other explanations for this correlation. For instance, higher IQ's occur in countries that are also wealthier. Wealthy people often aren't religious. Was that confounding factor taken into consideration? No. What about technological advancement? Was that factor controlled? No. Did the study examine belief in God within the same nation? No.

What does Nyborg's study mean? Nothing. Just like his study showing whites and males being smarter than everyone else. Pure garbage.

The Poythress study is also garbage. Who ever said that SATs were a good proxy for intelligence? Foreign-exchange students who take the SAT often don't do very well. Why? Because they don't always speak English. Even IQ tests themselves are controversial in their ability to measure intelligence. Basically, there is very little agreement on what constitutes a good measure of intelligence.

Your statement that IQ increases with increasing education is factually incorrect. On the contrary, IQ is generally stable once a person reaches adulthood, regardless of the level of education.

And of course, you conveniently skip over the research which shows that as people attain higher levels of education, they also more frequently attend religious services.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/772.....gious.aspx

My recommendation for you would be to acquire a basic understanding of science and research methodology before copying and pasting data you clearly don't understand. Then you can pop off.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 1:37PM

Dear Alex: I am a board certified psychiatrist. You are a microbiologist. STFU. Your knowledge of psychology (and psychiatry) is non-existent by your training.

In an appropriate sample (white, upper middle class, private schooled, for example) the SATs are a fine surrogate for an IQ test. Obviously, the test has to be standardized on the appropriate population. But MENSA accepts it as a substitute for the WAIS.

That being said, "IQ" is fairly meaningless unless accompanied by drive and desire.

Now, to go to the main point, Ne Kulturniy. You still owe the Jews an apology. Billboards are nothing compared to constant bombings and threats of annihilation. Your muzhik ancestry does not excuse you; you're an American now. In case you can't tell, yes, I'm a Conservative, and yes, I'm pissed at you personally for something which has nothing to do with the main thread. Jews did nothing to deserve your gratuitous kick in the nuts; certainly, I did not.

Johnny V| 12.26.10 @ 3:44PM

What a complete disconnect to what Dr. Berezow actually said. Shame on you.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 9:15PM

"Whoever said the SATs were a good proxy for intelligence?" Dr. Berezow.

Johnny, learn to read.

Johnny V| 12.26.10 @ 11:17PM

You are a Shrink!? Great, now I understand. You are an embarrassment to yourself. Drool on.

Mark L| 12.27.10 @ 12:56PM

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 1:37PM

"Dear Alex: I am a board certified psychiatrist. You are a microbiologist. STFU."

That is quite humorous, and enough to summarily dismiss and further posts from Occam's Tool.

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 4:43PM

Could you please explain why psychiatry qualifies as a real science? A social psychology professor I know (religious Jew, Milgrim expert) pretty much convinced me that his field is, but could you explain how yours is?

I doubt you experienced 10% of the anti-semitism I did growing up, and I tell you you are over-sensitive. I would repeat your expression back to you, but Judaism prohibits obscenity, and that is too close for me.

And I doubt IQ's or SAT's can really measure intelligence. I did quite well in both, but that's just because I have a good facility for language and standardized test. I could not imagine joining MENSA, whether or not I qualify.

ds80| 12.25.10 @ 9:19PM

Despite their mocking, venom, and condescension, I still pray for the invincibly ignorant. Hmmm ... I do believe Dawkins', Hitchens', *Michael's* (who posts above) general judgement will be a public event ... Now won't that be enlightening.

marilyne| 12.26.10 @ 11:57AM

So, you're looking forward to the um, "judgement" of these men? How lovely! Will there be fire and pain and agony? What a fabulous public spectacle! The christians are gonna LOVE it! I guess that's what you get when you condescend and mock eh?
Lovely sentiment ds80.

ds80| 12.27.10 @ 12:14PM

Did I say "looking forward to" ? No. All I stated was what my Catholic faith informs me; it's called a *general judgement* for a reason. We'll all come to the certain knowledge of justice meted out for what we have done or failed to do. You assume WAY to much, marilyne. But your offense illustrates my point.

(another) Michael| 12.26.10 @ 12:10PM

To a non-beliver of the mystical, magical or otherwise unreal (yours or others) it is hard to fathom this offering of "prayer".. it would be like for me to offer to sacrifice a goat to the sky god for you (re:Nepal).. naw, make that a chicken, can't afford a goat. We invincibly ignorant are really poor in material wealth but we make up for it with true grit...

Osamas Pajamas| 12.25.10 @ 9:19PM

Understandably, Alex Berezow wishes to set aside reason and science when discussing religion. And it is true that not all atheists are champions of reason --- many of them just enjoy whizzing in Christian soup, for the pure joy of annoying people. Ignore them.

Alex can take heart in the fact that mankind will never become substantially atheistic --- and I say this even though I am a [right-wing] atheist.

The communists have demonstrated the insanity of replacing "God" with "government" --- not that American Democrats ever learned that lesson.

I replaced "God" with the Sunday morning fishing pole, down at the creek, sitting around with Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn. Mankind has done worse than this, century after century.

And --- superficial though I may be --- I still enjoy Christmas, and I say Merry Christmas to my Christian friends and Happy Hannukah to my Jewish friends.

Beware the left-wing atheist --- but be aware that the right-wing atheist has more fun --- and sees no prospect and no possibility for "changing the world."

Uh, by the way, this atheist says that "evolution" and the "big bang theory" are no more intellectually respectable than "creationism."

A scientist might posit a theory to explain a phenomenon, but Occam's razor does not require the scientist to posit a theory when it would be more "reasonable" to say that he does not know the origin of species and / or the origin of the universe --- assuming that there is evidence that the universe "did not exist" at some point in "time" --- and "later" came into being --- chronology being a strange concept, absent a universe within which it might be said to exist.

Alex B. Berezow | 12.25.10 @ 10:42PM

"I replaced 'God' with the Sunday morning fishing pole, down at the creek, sitting around with Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn."

That's an ironic statement, considering Mark Twain, despite his frequent irreverent shots at Christianity, most certainly believed in God.

If I set aside reason to discuss religion, I suppose you would be doing the same in your discussion of atheism? A belief in God or a belief in no God are equally unprovable.

Brian Westley| 12.25.10 @ 11:37PM

"Mark Twain, despite his frequent irreverent shots at Christianity, most certainly believed in God."

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

Alex B. Berezow | 12.25.10 @ 11:49PM

Yes.

"In the essay 'Three Statements of the Eighties' in the 1880s, Twain stated that he believed in an almighty God, but not in any messages, revelations, holy scriptures such as the Bible, Providence, or retribution in the afterlife."

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

He's made a lot of contradictory statements about his belief in God. However, he most likely did believe, but he probably wasn't a Christian.

Brian Westley| 12.26.10 @ 2:39AM

Well, you've already shifted from "most certainly believed in God" to "most likely did believe" in a god that isn't "God", that is, not the same as your particular god. And when Twain received a letter from his friend Charles Warren Stoddard describing how he (Stoddard) had become a Catholic and achieved peace of mind, Twain wrote back that he had perfect peace in absolute unbelief.

That's the tricky thing about belief, it isn't always static.

Alex B. Berezow | 12.26.10 @ 5:20AM

This discussion isn't about me or any perceived "shift"; this discussion is about the historical facts surrounding Mark Twain. Only a person in the legal system, when confronted with facts they don't like, would fall back on some triviality (my "shift") that has nothing to do with the original argument. It's an easily identifiable rhetorical trick used to divert attention from the relevant matter at hand. Law students are easy to pick out on internet forums. You're a law student; am I right? I'll remind you that your Jedi-mind tricks only work on the weak-minded. :)

Now, to the matter at hand. If it makes me more consistent, then I'll "shift" back: Mark Twain most certainly believed in God.

You correctly point out that faith is not always static. However, that does not mean that faith was absent or that the person lacked faith. Doubt, in fact, is something experienced by every person who has ever had faith (in anything, not just God). Going through periods of doubt, and even publicly admitting it, is rather meaningless in the grand scheme of things. To truly know what a person believes, one needs to examine the entire body of a person's work.

The balance of the evidence rests with the conclusion that Mark Twain believed in God. For instance, he practically idolized Joan of Arc. That would be pretty strange for an atheist, would it not? Then, there's this, from the Wikipedia article on Mark Twain:

"Those who knew Twain well late in life recount that he dwelt on the subject of the afterlife, his daughter Clara saying: 'Sometimes he believed death ended everything, but most of the time he felt sure of a life beyond.'"

So, again, you are correct: Faith is not static. But Twain most certainly believed in God, even if he didn't believe in God every day. This is not ideal, but it can be typical of religious faith for some people.

Also, like I said before, he did not appear to be a Christian, as his views on God (and Christianity) were quite hostile. In summarizing his views, I believe it could be stated that Mark Twain believed in God, but didn't like Him very much.

Brian Westley| 12.26.10 @ 1:12PM

Sorry, I'm not a law student. As for this statement of yours:
"Twain most certainly believed in God, even if he didn't believe in God every day."

The above is sheer nonsense. On the days Twain didn't believe in god, he was an atheist, he didn't "certainly" believe in gods on those days.

Steve B | 12.26.10 @ 9:00AM

OK, I've definitely got too much time on my hands to be engaged in this the day after Christmas.

When we say "so-and-so believed" this we're taking a snapshot of a person's life and calling it the whole movie.

(Is there a name for this among historians' fallacies? Paging David Hacket Fischer.)

Arguing about Twain's belief or non belief, like arguments about Jefferson or Lincoln's view of black people, ignores the fact that men change their minds, sometimes frequently, over the course of long intellectually-active lives.

marilyne| 12.26.10 @ 11:53AM

"belief in God or a belief in no God are equally unprovable"
That is so not true. First, you would have to define God.-not some vague, airy fairy 'god is love', but an actual tangible definition. I can't wait for that, by the way. I predict the disproving of its existence merely by the improbability of it would be easy.

Johnny V| 12.26.10 @ 1:11PM

Do you really want to get into probability? If we start talking about the probability of amino acids coming together to form proteins, the probability of DNA containing complex instructions for cell function happening by chance, the probability of irreducibly complex motors forming within each cell by chance, etc. But I suppose you have thought about the improbability of those items comng into existence by chance? Or do you just ignore it? Keep whistling.

(another) Michael| 12.26.10 @ 1:46PM

actually it is not chance but natural selection, works wonders.. oh, did you want to talk statistics and probability? .. (you do have to get the theory right)

btw: ignoring what?

still whistling..

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 4:56PM

"Works wonders". Blind faith, I guess.

We know now that those countless eons needed by evolution never existed; that life appeared too quickly. My uncle's brother is a physicist who studied evolution on a John's Hopkins fellowship AFTER getting his Ph.D. and studying information theory. NEver made sense to him; the math wasn't there; later Biologists did come around somewhat to his way of thinking, but I've lost track of the latest theory; I'm pretty sure Natural selection died out as an explanation a century ago with the advent of the "synthetic theory". (I am interested - how do they pull it off now.)

When my Dad (A physical chemist, research and academic) asked a True Believer about statistical problems with evolution, he said "there is more than one type of statistics". Whistling past the graveyard, indeed!

From a religious perspective I would prefer evolution be proven to make sense (it would help explain the real issue - the age of the earth); it's from a scientific percepctive that I have trouble with it.

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 5:08PM

Johns' Hopkins. The other misspellings I will leave, but as a former Baltimorean, writing John's Hopkins is close to heresey!

(another) Michael| 12.28.10 @ 10:01AM

Faith.. oh dear.. that word again.. creditability can be built up through reasoning and scientific method... so let's try to lose the the word "faith" as it is tainted..

There are tons of literature on this.. even at Johns Hopkins, e.g. Interpretations of Probability, first published Oct 21, 2002..

evolution makes great sense! just have to give up the religious baggage.. drop your bronze age collection of fables (i.e. bible) and study some real non-fiction.. the real world is a lot more interesting!

mzk1| 12.28.10 @ 3:11PM

You aren't listening, are you? It's your religion (atheism) the requires evolution; I can take it or leave it. From a religious viewpoint, I would prefer to take it. I just don't think that 4 billion years is enough time for it to occur by itself.

By the way, as I said, in the year I was born, "science" said that the world was created, while my "Bronze age" (thank you for getting the period correct, BTW) beliefs told be it had a beginning. Who was proven right in the end?

Oh, science is self-correcting? Perhaps. But I don't live in the future; who know what science will say two hundred years from now?

Evolution has shown itself notoriously immune to disproof; not a mark of the scientific method. And how can you prove in the laboratory something that happened in the far distant past? How can you make a disprovable experiment for that?

mzk1| 12.28.10 @ 3:13PM

Sorry - "said that it had no beginning"

Margie| 12.28.10 @ 6:57PM

I like you, mzk1!

Just wanted to say that. :^)

And you are so right about Evolution being the Religion of the Atheist, and sadly of some so called Christians.. to the same end though. It gives much opportunity to the flesh, and good excuses to allow sin in one's own life.

It is much like the so called Christians who lie about the Apostle Paul, and reject his words.. a very convenient excuse to feel justified to do whatever they wish.

For the Atheist, after all, if we evolved from animals it then ok to behave as animals.

For the so called Christian it is the same.. if Paul is not speaking from God's Spirit (according to them), they can then create their own gospel to follow.

I always like to remind when in these types of conversations~ we don't get to make up our own rules. There is Religion and then there is what the Bible actually says. It's up to each person to make sure just who and what they are listening to.

Jen| 12.28.10 @ 12:09AM

If you think God can be "defined," "explained," or "proven," you do not know what God is.

(another) Michael| 12.28.10 @ 9:36AM

Exactly, precisely!

You do not know what god is. Your deity has to be dealt with in terms that demonstrate something.. if not .. anyone can (and many people have) made up an imaginary friend that can not be proven to exist.. there are more than 3,000 gods (deities, spirits, ghosts and the like) cataloged and described by their deluded followers... and yours is special.. the invention of gods is a human trait.. superstition exists due to uncertainty, less uncertainty less superstition and religion..

mzk1| 12.28.10 @ 3:15PM

Science has been moving us in the direction of less certainty not more. Since quantum theory, the universe no longer makes any sense.

So you are bound to continue in your superstition, I'm afraid.

Osamas Pajamas| 12.26.10 @ 9:16PM

Hi, there, Alex.]

I chose Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn simply for the innocence of their fictional characters. They're the sort of of inventions who do not threaten to cast me into "hell," even if they believe that it exists.

I don't have to prove the non-existence of anything --- including a "god" or a "devil" or a "heaven" or a "hell."

The proponents of these concepts must prove their existence in physical reality, or fall back on the faith that they exist.

I was born an atheist, had my brain whizzed-upon by the faithful adults around me, and eventually I broke free of their influence.

I have no evangelistic impulse to convert them to atheism. I'm not interested in their dire warnings of the fate which awaits infidels such as myself.

But a man must believe in something, and I believe that I'll go fishin'. Have a nice life, Alex, and don't let the boogeyman get you.

Mark L| 12.27.10 @ 1:21PM

To Osamas Pajamas,

I find it very refreshing to hear your attitude about atheism and religion. I have always wondered why atheists spend so much time 'converting', and don't simply throw up their hands and enjoy their own lives. I would agree with you that this is an impulse of the left, that is to 'evangelize' their atheist beliefs.

Just as an aside you said, "The proponents of these concepts must prove their existence in physical reality, or fall back on the faith that they exist."

I have spent the last year or so reading about faith, and grace. In one of my readings the questions was asked, (paraphrase) "Why did Jesus come to the Earth such a long time ago? Would it not have been easier to spread 'the message' across the globe today with all of our wonderful communications technologies? Surely, an all-knowing God would know that the era of instant messaging was not 2000 years ago, but today, right?"

I thought it was an interesting question. And I think it shows what a loving God might have wanted from us: Love.

Purpleguy said (12.26.10@9:17AM) How do you know a woman loves you? You see evidence by her deeds and words, but do you really know?

I'd suspect that a 30-minute TV spot in primetime would engender within us the same amount of love that any other 30-minute TV spot would.

I think the point that it can't be proven is the point. Love is something that can't be proven, but it can be understood, discussed, and given to others. And to 'prove' love would diminish it, as it would to 'prove' one's faith. With proof, there is no faith. Without faith, there is no love.

Osamas Pajamas| 12.27.10 @ 3:19PM

Hi, there, Mark L.

Because I don't accept such assumptions as "Jesus came to earth" and others of similar apocryphal provenance, I'm in no position to discuss them. Probably Jesus existed and was a good man, and that alone was enough to make enemies among the powerful in his day.

As for "love," it is another word for "valuation" and we value those things which we act to gain and / or keep. Love is provable indeed, much to the distress of those who try to fake it. Faith is not a tool of cognition, and thus we must examine human actions in order to know their intent and the values pursued [loved].

mzk1| 12.28.10 @ 3:18PM

I hope most atheists are like you, and not like the other guys writing here.

Personally, I have no interest in converting you to anything. I just want to be left alone.

(another) Michael| 12.26.10 @ 2:14PM

WHAT? you would take away the enjoyment of whizzing in christian (abrahamic broth) soup? Why? They have been whizzing in everyone else's soup since.. well ever since Genesis 25:34..

Kingofthenet| 12.25.10 @ 10:18PM

Alex, you call it Harassment, when Atheists 'call out' your non-existing 'Sky God', What should I call it when you Religious Zealots aggressively proselytize your idiotic beliefs to try and 'save' me? LEARN start here:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Johnny V| 12.26.10 @ 12:55AM

Hey King, As a nihilist, why wouldn't you consider all statements as meaningless? Including your own. And since everything is meaningless, what you just posted has no meaning. In effect you have said nothing. So what is your point? You believe there is no good, there is no bad, there is no truth, opinions are only relevant to those who make them. You are the one that believes in whatever goes, goes. You are the one who should be tolerant of whatever a person believes, let him believe, it's all meaningless. So why are your panties all in a knot? I don't see you following your god very faithfully. Frederick Nietzsche spent the last 14 years of his life in a insane asylem breaking long periods of silence by shouting out Bible verses he learned as a child.

Kingofthenet| 12.26.10 @ 4:32AM

Because I don't believe in your 'Sky God' I don't believe Humans have Worth and instead believe everything is meaningless?

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 5:01PM

Well, as a religious Jew, I don't like missionaries on either side. But it's from Atheists that I hear things like, "it should be illegal to teach religion to children" (the law in the U.S.S.R, BTW, except there is technically did not apply to parents).

And it's from the Christian/Jewish Left (there's a difference?) that I hear people trying to censor theology. When I hear a preacher attacked for saying Jews will go to Hell, I know my Rabbi will be the next target.

r williams| 12.25.10 @ 10:41PM

The piece that started all of this is really pretty stupid. Atheists, in my experience, keep silent for the most part because they don't want to have arguments like this. The arguments are futile and generally deteriorate into name-calling. The reality is that atheists occasionally speak up and, when they do, they're accused of a "war on Christmas" or being attackers or any number of things. What escapes the offended is that atheists (in this country anyway) put up with religion a thousand times more than religion puts up with atheism. It amazes me how Christians -- SOME Christians -- go ape sh-t over a billboard that should mean nothing to a believer. The only people that billboard can reach are people who are on the fence. And it gives atheists a good chuckle knowing the Christians will freak out over it.

Alex B. Berezow | 12.25.10 @ 10:47PM

"The arguments are futile and generally deteriorate into name-calling."

Right. Like when you called my post 'stupid.'

Do tell me, why did you read and respond to my post if you thought it was a waste of time? You're certainly more than welcome to not participate.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 1:46PM

No, I would call one of your posts antisemitic. You're not stupid, except when you discuss psychology and psychiatry. I generally shy away from discussions of microbiology with a microbiologist.

Incidentally, I agree with your main philosophical point. I am outraged at your kick at Jews for no good reason. That deserves a call out, and an apology.

Let me refresh your memory: "I've yet to see any atheists make fun of Jews during Hanukkah or Muslims during Ramadan. But, I suppose that wouldn't be politically correct."

During this hannukah season, Jews have had to put up with threats of massive retaliation from Hamas, threats of extinction from Iran, and had to put up a considerable amount of money in order to maintain kosher killing of chickens in New Zealand. On this, Alex, you are an ignoprant ignoramus, and Jews are owed an apology.

Understand, I don't disagree with your main points; in fact, I agree with them. But Jews are not your cheap shot receptacle, asshole. Got it?

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 1:49PM

"Ignorant ignoramus." Sorry, Alex. And, yes, you are owed a personal insult. You have Conservative Jewish readers, and I was enjoying the discussion and supporting you right until the gratuitous slap.

Johnny V| 12.26.10 @ 11:37PM

I am a conservative Jew. So you call someone antisemitic when he is not, throw it and hope it sticks? My friend, that is what Jews have had to put up with for thousands of years. I would hope you would be man enough to go back and read the original comment you are so offend of. I did. You have evolved it into something that it isn't. Please don't use false accusations against another. That just hits too close to home. When you do that, you are the one kicking your fellow Jews in the ball.

r williams| 12.26.10 @ 3:21PM

I read it because I admire Richard Dawkins (even though he is perhaps too aggressive sometimes for my taste) and I wanted to see what, if anything, was new in the piece. There was nothing new and I called it stupid because the main point seemed to be that atheists "harass" Christians. As I have often said, Christians are upset because instead of getting everything they want, nowadays they only get almost everything they want.

American atheists, on the other hand, live in a land where they are a minority (supposedly) and are confronted with religion everywhere they look. And that's fine, especially because it demonstrates how little it matters. For the most part, atheists say, "go ahead, believe whatever you want; as long as you don't ask me to do the same."

Some atheists, but very few, are a bit more vocal and want to answer that constant barrage of religion they receive every day. When they do -- as with the billboard (which was apparently meant to make atheists more comfortable at Christmas time, not to make Christians uncomfortable) -- they are attacked by Christians who have billboards up and down the highways.

Atheists say the pledge to the flag, sing the Christmas carols, use "In God We Trust" currency, stop for the cop letting people out of the church parking lot on Sundays, etc. And they do these things without resentment for the most part even though they know that it is all based on a man-made concept of some supernatural overseer or some savior or some such nonsense. Religion is a tradition here and very few, if any, atheists spend much time trying to "convert" the religious.

Every once in a while, Christians need to be reigned in a bit (when they display their commandments in a school or court house) and instead of saying, "OK, we'll keep that to ourselves; not everyone is a Christian," some Christians go ballistic.

When my child is old enough to go to a public school, I do not want anyone teaching her any religious concepts (except in an appropriate class). I will teach her not to murder, lie, steal, etc. I will not tolerate someone telling her to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

Jerilyn| 12.28.10 @ 12:19AM

How silly! Atheists took religion (well, Christianity and Judaism) out of public schools long ago. What you have to worry about now is your child learning the shahada and which way to bow to mecca.

jstwndring| 12.25.10 @ 11:53PM

"What escapes the offended is that atheists (in this country anyway) put up with religion a thousand times more than religion puts up with atheism."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Really? You sure about that? What specific law in this country outlaws, or, attempts to outlaw atheism? I can point out several that have attempted to outlaw Christianity. The outlawing of the 10 Commandments in public schools. The outlawing of prayer in public schools. Hate Crimes Legislation, which violates our First Amendment rights of Free Speech and Freedom of Religion, and on it's face violates the 14th Amendment of Equal Protection Under the Law. It is being actively used throughout the country to threaten Christians with jail time, fines ($10,000), and community service. Don't believe me? Check out the cases in California, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to name three. I'm sure there are more.

Yeah, those atheists sure are "tolerant". About as tolerant as communists in China currently are. Or, as tolerant as the communists in the U.S.S.R. were. Hmmm. Notice the pattern? The atheists in this country share a kinship with the brutal, murderous collectivists throughout the rest of the world.

victor| 12.26.10 @ 2:02AM

jstwndring:
"Yeah, those atheists sure are "tolerant". About as tolerant as communists in China currently are. Or, as tolerant as the communists in the U.S.S.R. were. Hmmm. Notice the pattern? The atheists in this country share a kinship with the brutal, murderous collectivists throughout the rest of the world."

Sure would like some of these athiests to go here:
http://www.persecution.com/

and then tell me all about atheist "tolerance" that you all speak about, eh?

jstwndring| 12.26.10 @ 2:38AM

Very sad indeed.

(another) Michael| 12.30.10 @ 8:33AM

"About as tolerant as communists in China currently are" or in Belgium, Finland, Bulgaria, Iceland, United Kingdom, Latvia, Slovenia, France, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Czech Republic, and Estonia... each of which have a majority of non-belivers..

Go with the idiocy of the boogyman defense.. atheists are all communist! (what about the non-believers that are western european conservatives)

Brian Westley| 12.26.10 @ 2:50AM

"I can point out several that have attempted to outlaw Christianity. The outlawing of the 10 Commandments in public schools."

Sorry, that's not an attempt to outlaw Christianity, it's a requirement that government-run schools can't promote religion because the government is prohibited from doing so by the constitution. You'll notice that private religious schools can display the 10 commandments.

"...The outlawing of prayer in public schools..."

Sorry, children can pray in public schools; it's illegal for public school employees to TELL children to pray, of course, because that would be a violation of the students' religious rights.

"Hate Crimes Legislation, which violates our First Amendment rights of Free Speech and Freedom of Religion, and on it's face violates the 14th Amendment of Equal Protection Under the Law."

You are certainly free to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of these laws.

"It is being actively used throughout the country to threaten Christians with jail time, fines ($10,000), and community service. Don't believe me? "

No, given that way you consider religious neutrality in government-run public schools to be an attempt to "outlaw Christianity," I think your judgement is extremely slanted.

"Check out the cases in California, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to name three."

Post specific links of what you are referring to, not the names of 3 states with 55 million people.

jstwndring| 12.26.10 @ 2:15PM

"Sorry, that's not an attempt to outlaw Christianity, it's a requirement that government-run schools can't promote religion because the government is prohibited from doing so by the constitution."

Where? The government didn't create the 10 Commandments, so, they weren't establishing a religion.

"You'll notice that private religious schools can display the 10 commandments."

Excellent! I assume you support vouchers for those of us that don't want our money going to schools that preach atheism. Thank you.

"You are certainly free to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of these laws."

No. Not unless I'm directly brought up under Hate Crimes charges. Plus, I'm not exactly swimming in money, so, I couldn't afford it. My hope is that they pursue someone with money who is up for a fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

"Post specific links of what you are referring to, not the names of 3 states with 55 million people."

Wisconsin man: David Ott:

http://www.quizlaw.com/blog/hate_crimes_get_a_makeover.php

I tried to find one of the major news sites covering it, but, oddly enough, they didn't (shocking). You'll notice, the above reference is not from a right-wing website, although a majority of the sites I found were. At least the guy acknowledges it's happening. Abuse of an un-needed law.

Here's a link to the actual court filing/judgment:

http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseD.....de=charges

So, it actually happened. He got 50 hours community service for pleading guilty. This was a mere arguement, not a physical confrontation. The guy later apologised to the gay-man, but, he was sufficiently pissed off that he didn't accept his apology. That's fine. I understand not wanting to listen to someone else's world view, however, you do not have the right to not be offended in the United States. He should have complained to the establishment's owner, and got the Christian removed from the premises. That would be o.k. with me since he was being confrontational with the other guy. But, so much for free speech.

Regarding the other two, I'm having trouble finding them. Not to worry, there are, as I suspected, more cases out there referenced for your enjoyment in the first link--three more to be exact listed immediately after the David Ott case. One in Florida involving five people. Another in New York involving seven, and yet another in Illinois involving two girls. I leave you to the details. I'm sure you could find more if you wanted to.

Brian Westley| 12.26.10 @ 2:46PM

"Where? The government didn't create the 10 Commandments, so, they weren't establishing a religion."

The first amendment refers to "establishment of religion", not "a religion". Look up Stone v. Graham (1980) .

In any case, not being able to post your religious tenets in public schools in no way inhibits your free exercise; nobody else gets to put their religious tenets in public schools either.

" I assume you support vouchers for those of us that don't want our money going to schools that preach atheism."

No, but I don't know of any public schools that "preach atheism." Please note that to "preach atheism," teachers would have to teach that gods don't exist, which wouldn't be legal in any case. Sorry, teaching evolution isn't teaching atheism.

""You are certainly free to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of these laws."

No. Not unless I'm directly brought up under Hate Crimes charges."

You need to have standing, of course, because you need to have some stake in the law.

As for the David Ott case:
"This was a mere arguement, not a physical confrontation."

You'll notice he had to be charged with a crime first (disorderly conduct). That's not a mere argument.

Jim| 12.26.10 @ 9:52PM

At the time the First Amendment was ratified, at least three states had organized religions and the Bill of Rights was understood not to apply to the states (that didn't come until after the 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War). The prohibition against Congress establishing religion was to prevent the formation of a national religion like the Church of England. That was the clear understanding of the people who actually ratified the Constitution. The Supreme Court started incorporating the prohibition against establishment of religion against the State to prevent Seventh-Day Adventists in West Virginia who wanted to enjoy a Sabbath on Saturday; that is, to protect a minority religion against oppression by the majority, not to protect atheist individuals from any public religious observance. The morass that it has devolved into, especially since the Lemon case, is itself arguably an excessive entanglement with religion.

Brian Westley| 12.27.10 @ 12:00AM

"The prohibition against Congress establishing religion was to prevent the formation of a national religion like the Church of England. That was the clear understanding of the people who actually ratified the Constitution. "

Sorry, but James Madison, the guy who actually WROTE the first amendment, disagrees. He wrote in his detached memoranda:
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes."

And for more of what the first amendment is considered to cover, see e.g. Everson v. Board of Education (1947):
"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State.""

Quite a bit more than just prohibiting a national religion there.

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 5:11PM

But they did appoint a Chaplain.

At any rate, this does not have anything to do with incorporation (applying the issue to the States).

Mark L| 12.27.10 @ 1:34PM

"Look up Stone v. Graham (1980) ."

Because courts now legislate.

Brian Westley| 12.27.10 @ 2:53PM

No, because courts prevent legislatures from passing laws that are unconstitutional. I don't want an omnipotent legislature.

Osamas Pajamas| 12.27.10 @ 3:42PM

By the way, let's get rid of public schools altogether. I am an atheist --- but I note with interest that out local Catholic schools turn out MUCH better students than the public schools do --- and for very significantly less cost. And the Catholic school kids seem more motivated and less polluted than the public school kids do.

I have no theory which explain this --- but nuns have a certain latitude in disciplining wiseguys and the parents who pay for this schooling appear to be much more involved in their children's education.

I expect that Protestant and Jewish private schools are also far better than public schools. To the left-wing, government-loving atheists I say --- "Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!"

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 5:17PM

I wish. Do you know how hard it is to pay out of your own pocket for religious AND state-mandated secular education? In the Jewish community, this drives families to - and sometimes past - the breaking point. People's lives are consumed by the need to tuition; marriages even break up. Some just can't do it any longer, and are forced to put the kids in Public schools. (Some just ignore the law and don't give a secular education.)

This is not "avoiding entanglement with religion"; it is religious persecution. So says the Catholic Church, and on this I agree with them. (We do get help for special ed, which today is a large percent of the school budget.)

I would think that the parochial schools are better, though.

r williams| 12.26.10 @ 3:24PM

OMG, you are delusional and your last paragraph is such a softball, I won't even bother with the obvious retort.

James| 12.28.10 @ 12:13AM

I think you just gave away the temperament of atheists -- and it ain't very nice.

WRJonas | 12.25.10 @ 11:01PM

Jon, thank you for responding.I have been busy and time on the keyboard is scarce. My question was intended to find the source of this collective moral behavior you allude to . In general , people naturally degenerate into ((sinful) immoral behavior without some guidelines . The Law, or fear of punishment keep most of us on the right track ,and society itself passes on certain recognized protocols . So where does this code of good behavior come from.? Is there more to it than just trying to be a good neighbor? Or is there something inside of us which compels us to understand the difference between right and wrong?

Mark L| 12.27.10 @ 1:37PM

Interesting post WRJonas.

I was watching my cats the other day when one of them came in from the field with a mouse. Another cat ran up to her and stole the mouse. What is it that keeps us from acting in a similar way?

Osamas Pajamas| 12.27.10 @ 3:43PM

I assume you are speaking of libertarian mice, not socialist mice. ~:

jstwndring| 12.25.10 @ 11:32PM

"The Big Bang and evolution explain how we got here, but that is about it..........."
---------------------------------------------------------------
Not true. They contradict one another. In fact, the Big Bang theory is more closely aligned with what the Bible claims happened. The Big Bang asserts that time, space, matter and energy came into existence all of a sudden, and out of nowhere. In other words, in the beginning there was nothing, which exploded. More and more scientists are describing it as being put into motion by a "transcendent causal agent". That sounds suspiciously like God to me, but, what do I know, I wasn't there. Anyway, the longer this ridiculous arguement goes on, the less plausible evolution sounds. Legitimate science is taking us closer and closer to God. It's just not advertised by the establishment that controls who gets published and who does not. If you are a Darwinian, you get published, if you are a christian, or, if you are agnostic and asking hard questions challenging the validity of evolution, you do not. And, of course, if you don't get published, you don't get to work for an acredited school, and so the lie that is evolution continues to be taught by the propagandists at these so-called institutions of "higher education". Sad, but true kids. Ironic isn't it? The political left of this country that tried to build its reputation on being anti-establishment, and on questioning authority, is itself, the establishment. Try questioning them and watch what happens. History has taught us that those in authority always move to protect their own power and influence.

Kingofthenet| 12.26.10 @ 12:06AM

The ONLY lie is Creationism, THINK! Learn:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Creationism.htm

victor| 12.26.10 @ 12:45AM

Is that why you believe that your ancestors were monkeys?

Learn the Truth:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Johnny V| 12.26.10 @ 1:02AM

Victor--After reading posts from our atheist friends, I'm sure we came from monkeys.

victor| 12.26.10 @ 1:13AM

Johnny V:
"I'm sure we came from monkeys."

Yes, yes, that explains why Banana Bread is such a perennial favorite.

Just like mother used to make.

That is, if she were a Gibbon.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 8:36PM

I am quite sure Johnny V came from his father and mother. Not god nor monkey. If you don't believe me, Johnny V, you should ask your father and mother.

jstwndring| 12.26.10 @ 2:17AM

I appreciate the effort, but, sadly, the link you provided makes a rather large, unsubstantiated assumption that evolution is true. However, there is not one shred of evidence in the fossil record confirming Darwin's theory of evolution (macro). And no, you can't justifiably argue about micro evolution, or, adaptation, which is confined to a specific species, and then make the enormous leap of faith and apply it to macro evolution without any transitory species. There is no missing link because all species came from their own kind. All so-called evolution is really just simple adaptation neatly contained within a given species.

Does this automatically mean there is a God? No. But, it certainly calls into question the validity of a theory that has no supporting evidence. Before those of you that require evidence mock us Christians for failing to prove to you that God exists, you might want to seriously question your own belief in a theory that was disproven over 100 years ago. After all, if you are indeed after the truth, then seek it. Don't go around defending the indefensible. Go where the evidence takes you. Let's see the evidence you claim you need to validate your beliefs. It does not exist.

Kingofthenet| 12.26.10 @ 4:02AM

There is NO difference between so called Micro and Macro evolution, they are EXACTLY the same thing. The term itself ONLY floats in Creationist circles.

jstwndring| 12.26.10 @ 2:30PM

"There is NO difference between so called Micro and Macro evolution, they are EXACTLY the same thing."
------------------------------------------------------------
Yes there is. I don't know where the terms micro and macro came from, but, it doesn't matter since they describe the slight-of-hand trick used by Darwinians. They go on at length about adaptation and then say "See! I proved it (evolution) is true!" No, all you did is prove that adaptation contained within the same species is true. Birds have a common ansestor. Yeah, called a bird. Dogs have a common ansestor. Yes, called a canine. Cats--a feline. Again, I'm looking for evidence that all the men of science and reason are always demanding that others produce to proove their own world view. There is none.

Osamas Pajamas| 12.27.10 @ 3:50PM

Geez, King Udda Net --- I'm not a "creationist" --- but "evolution" is a theory shot full of holes and "missing links" and the "Big Bang theory" hits the wall in the same place that the creationists do.

Would I like to know the origin of species? Yes --- assuming that there was a time when they did not exist. Keep in mind that the planet has been hit with very destructive events which could have [nearly] wiped out one civilization after another, and even destroyed evidence of their existence.

And as you can't get something out of nothing --- I don't believe in magic --- then there is no reason to seek the "origin" of the universe. It exists. Existence exists.

victor| 12.26.10 @ 1:47AM

jstwndring:
"Anyway, the longer this ridiculous arguement goes on, the less plausible evolution sounds."

Just one or two evolutionary "truths":

Claims of transitional forms.

Even Darwin himself said that
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record". Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species, chapter X.

After 150 years or so, the situation has not changed much. There are no transitional forms.
I remember being taught this in the 60's with the example of the Giraffe.
They started with short necks and gradually became longer over time in order to reach tall leaves.
This, however, did not explain why giraffes eat low growing shrubs during dry seasons. Long necks apparently are not required.
Fossils that were found, were found to be okapi, not giraffes.

Even the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said in 1977:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

jstwndring| 12.26.10 @ 2:25AM

Haha. Yeah. I've read about the absolute ludicrous nature of the giraffe's existence when thought about in evolutionary terms. It should not exist. At all. It would not survive any transitory states. In fact, the variety of life here on earth does not make much sense in evolutionary terms. Most of the oddities we see out there should have been weeded out long ago. Someone up there (you know Who) has a sense of humor. ;)

Kingofthenet| 12.26.10 @ 4:06AM

I will not be happy until ALL of the 'Believers' are Mocked and ridiculed, for your False Beliefs, like us Atheists are NOW. I truly believe there will be a day that believers have to 'closet' themselves or appear to mentally unbalanced, that day cannot come soon enough.

jstwndring| 12.26.10 @ 2:43PM

We already are. This isn't a left-wing website that we've come to to ridicule people who disagree with us. I don't mind hearing evolutionists points. For one thing, it makes me think more critically about what I believe. That's fine. It's just that I grew up going to schools that taught evolution. I've heard both sides. I just never fully accepted Darwin's point of view. For a relatively short time, I thought it sounded plausible, but, there are too many glaring problems with it. Oh well, everyone has to make their own minds up one way or another. Darwin, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad. Who is right? They can't all be. I believe Jesus is who he said he was. You believe Darwin. It doesn't bother me that you and I differ. What bothers me is that many on the evolutionist side don't hold themselves up to the same standard of proof they demand of Christians, Buddhaists, or, whoever else.

Mark L| 12.27.10 @ 1:44PM

I have always suspected that this was the true cause of the rift between atheists and believers. Simple tribalism. Kingofthenet just wants his team to win, that's all. How unfortunate.

Osamas Pajamas| 12.27.10 @ 3:53PM

King Udda Net --- you're just a Stalinist --- and Stalin is old hat. Right-wing atheists need no help from you.

Merlin| 12.26.10 @ 5:33AM

For all you athiest, humor me. Maybe we can test this to your satisfaction.

Pray something like the following to the god who does not exist.

God, I don't believe you exist and I don't believe you are the Christian God, but if you are, I want to know you. Give me the wisdom to see the truth.

What can it hurt? Let us know what happens.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 8:37PM

Why waste the time to pray for a non-existing being? I rather enjoy some red wine.

TennesseeVolunteer| 12.26.10 @ 7:29AM

How do I know there is a God? Easy.
The song "Amazing Grace" was written in the hold of a slave ship during a terrible storm that one slave never thought he would survive. During that storm, he wrote a song that will live forever and that gives people of all religions, cultures and races a balm for their souls that could have only been divinely inspired.

Christine Helrigel| 12.26.10 @ 11:39AM

'Amazing Grace' was not written by a slave, but by the slave trader John Newton. He was blown overboard in the storm, and to save his life, his ship mates speared him with a harpoon and dragged him back to safety. This experience caused him to rethink his whole life, coming to faith in the Messiah who was also speared on Calvary, to save our lives. The song reflects how Newton came to see himself, a wretch, saved by grace. He truly had been a wretch. Even the men who served under him on that ship had feared and hated him, and saved him by harpoon despite their feelings toward him.

edgard| 12.26.10 @ 8:45AM

And then the non existing one farthed loudly, and it was called the "big bang" Which strewed around all those "black holes" from which nothing could escape. and it sucked up all the "unbelievers" That is why they to this day can not escape from their unbelief.
I find it strange that our denyers are quite adept at quoting scripture. Even the devil himself quoted scripture and made use of it. ed

Mark II| 12.26.10 @ 8:46AM

What a read. Just about every known argument has surfaced here (some presented better than others, of course) and it's fair to assume ... nobody has changed his mind about anything.

But, what the hey, I'll get an oar in the water too. I want to talk about dogma, meaning a list of particulars, things that must be believed and/or performed. All the big religions of course have their own versions.

Can anything be clearer in history and in reason than this? Dogma is among the most destructive of all influences on mankind. So long as people believe that their particular sacred texts -- and theirs alone -- were authored by (the one true) God there will be trouble, big trouble. We start with the division of people into us (believers, doers of God's will) and them (everybody else) and inevitably things get ugly after that.

Belief in God is fine with me. I used to be a believer, now I would have to say "probably not", but who knows what I'll think down the road. None of that makes me want to convert anyone, or inflict pain on him, or take his land or his property or his freedom or his life.

God (if you're listening) please save us from dogma, and the purveyors thereof. Or, even better, please clear all of this up for us once and for all (noting that if communicated through a human, that would constitute more dogma).

axbucxdu| 12.26.10 @ 6:32PM

I notice your examples of dogma are light on the scientific variety. Well I'll help out with one Jerome R. Ravetz:

" …the puzzle-solving approach of ‘normal science’ is obsolete. This is a drastic cultural change for science, which many scientists will find difficult to accept. But there is no turning back; we can understand post-normal science as the extension of democracy appropriate to the conditions of our age.

For us, quality is a replacement for truth in our methodology. We argue that this is quite enough for doing science, and that truth is a category with symbolic importance, which itself is historically and culturally conditioned."

There's going to be trouble alright, but I fully expect it to come from scientific evangelists like Ravetz and fellow travelers like Dawkins. There you have it, Mark: Science will be any damn thing that Ravetz and company say it is.

But Ravetz's proposal is hardly surprising given the arrogance that is all too present in modern science. I mean, how else are these know-it-alls supposed to react when nuisances like insoluble non-linear dynamics and Godelian incompleteness intrude on their beloved arguments and spoil all the fun?

Well, surprise, surprise, they pull rank and become dogmatic and political, not at all unlike the religionist. It's a rather obvious example of pot, kettle, black, so in the future please be sure to include both in your criticism.

mzk1| 12.26.10 @ 8:51AM

Why is it that the most religiously intolerant attacks always come from atheists? I'm sure that there are some atheists that respect the American concept of religious tolerance, but one doesn't seem to run into them so much. Maybe they should go back to intolerant Europe (before it beocmes Moslem).

BTW, note the contrast. Religious people (including "fundamentalists") can take evolution or leave it. Atheists MUST believe in it. Thus the distortion of science. There are a number of ways a "literal" interpretation of Genesis can be reconciled with evolution, but I'm not sure evolution can be reconciled with science.

P.S. To MARKII - The Decalogue was not given through a human. Of course, it only applies to Jews.

marilyne| 12.26.10 @ 11:44AM

"Why is it that the most religiously intolerant attacks always come from atheists?"
You mean, like suicide bombings and 911?
Damn those atheists! We need to do something about them.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 2:11PM

You mean, like telling Orthodox Jews in Holland that they have no future and banning Kashrut in NZ? Both done by atheists.

No, radical Muslims are worse than atheists AT THIS MOMENT, but that's not saying much. Hitler and Staslin were atheists.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 2:54PM

Sorry, "Stalin."

marilyne| 12.27.10 @ 8:40AM

Hitler and Stalin were both men. Hitler and Stalin both had weird moustaches. So there! Most Nazi's were not atheist, Hitler did not wage war in the name of atheism, nor did Stalin. But please, don't take my word for it! Look it up yourself.
Christianity is explicitly intolerant of other religions-the bible exhorts believers to preach the gospel in order to convert non-christians. The ultimate goal is that all humans be "followers of Christ". Likewise with Islam. Most atheists don't even bother identifying themselves as such, let alone "attacking" religion. Personally, I've just had enough of people trying to convert me.

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 5:19PM

Wage war? The U.S.S.R. basically banned Judaism!

David| 12.30.10 @ 11:09AM

"Hitler and Staslin were atheists."

Stalin was an atheist. Hitler definitely was not. There are numerous speeches, even passages from his famous book Mein Kampf, that clearly demonstrate Hitler's own religious beliefs and the belief that National Socialism was aligned with Christianity. Where do you learn your history?

Hitler quotes:

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” (Mein Kampf)

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement..." (speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933)

"National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity. The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement..." (speech in Koblenz, August 26, 1934)

Margie| 12.30.10 @ 5:55PM

"You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder." James 2"19.

Mark L| 12.27.10 @ 2:06PM

I'm pretty sure the writer was not writing about terrorist attacks, but since you brought it up:

James von Brunn, Dylan Klebold & Erik Harris, James Jay Lee

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 3:34PM

I am referring to Americans, and my experience. I'm Jewish; I have been attacked plenty by Christians, including a friend murdered in front of Madison Square Garden. But they did so in the name of anti-semitism, not Christianity. (And a kid in my grade was killed in the Towers.)

But if you want to get to that, I know my history. Life under Islam was horrible, under Chrisitianity even worse. The Pagans were no treat either. But NOTHING equals the atheists. The Communists made everyone else look like pikers.

Jen| 12.28.10 @ 12:33AM

I believe you are confusing religous faith and political ideology. islam is a system of laws covering everything from how to go to the bathroom (wipe with hand you don't eat with) to what to do to adulturers (bury women to neck, men to waist, stone both).

Now, please provide links for the Christian bombings. Or do y0u hate Christians because Mohammed was a murdering pedophile and rapist?

Christine Helrigel| 12.26.10 @ 2:07PM

You are correct that the Decalogue was not given through a human, it was engraved by the finger of God himself into the stone of the tablets. The same tablets that rested in the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holys in Jerusalem even to the day when Jeremiah hid it in a cave a few steps ahead of the encroaching Babylonian army. Of course, it would be news to Jesus that these ten commandments apply only to the Jews. Jesus explained to the thousands on the mountain side that the law against adultery does not just mean 'Don't commit adultery.' but that it requires a respect toward women from the heart, so that a man will not even give in to lust toward her. And having said that, he told his disciples to 'teach all nations' everything he had taught them. So, 'it applies only to Jews?' in whose opinion?

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 3:42PM

We do, the Jews. It's our book, not yours. God gave it to us, not you. The Talmud discusses whether the misappropriation of the Bible by Gentiles constitutes Adultery or Theft. The Sabbath is a treaty between God and Israel, you have no right to it. (Of course, you don't really observe it anyway, so never mind.)

That being said, much of the Law does apply to everyone. The character traits of the patriarchs. Helping the less fortunate (sensibly, of course). Not killing innocent people, including the unborn. Being faithful. Honesty in business. Not paying a debt being a form of theft. Being fair to both one's workers (your doctor is also your worker, even if he has more money) and to one's employer. And so on.

I'm apologize to the rest of you, I am very much a fan of religious Christians. I just get frustrated sometimes.

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 3:45PM

No, kind Josiah (also Jerimiah's day) hid it under the Temple. I don't know where you get the other bit from, but at least you know there was no Ark in the Second Temple.

Bob1| 12.26.10 @ 8:53AM

Actually John Newton, an Englishman and slave trader, who was onthat ship wrote "Amazing Grace" stemming mainly from guilt of his profession, and the death that occurred during that storm. see...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace

Christine Helrigel| 12.26.10 @ 12:17PM

A master harpoonsman was trained to hit the side of a whale in relatively calm seas, and yet often missed. Imagine one being able to strike the tiny body of John Newton in wild seas from the side of a heaving ship. Imagine that he was willing to attempt to do so. He must have been tied to the mast himself, this harpoonsman, for the same ship-swallowwing waves that knocked Newton over the side could take him as well. Imagine the harpoon, designed with a tip and shaft large enough to penetrate the hide of the whale. Imagine its weight and girth. Imagine the power of the bow that drives it into a whales side. Imagine the aim required as the ship rose and fell, as did John in the waves, for this harpoon to connect, and when it did so, not tear any vital organs. Imagine John in the boiling sea, aware of the hatred of these men for him, let alone of how impossible it would be to reach him with a rope of any kind to pull him back aboard. Yet the harpoonsman stands, shoots, and John is saved. Amazing grace, that anyone cared, amazing grace, that the harpoon struck, it's enormous tip passing entirely through him yet without fatal damage. Amazing grace, so amazing that John's heart was changed, and gave up slaving. That his richly deserved fate and his guilt were altered to a profound sense of forgiveness...this is what gave rise to his hymn. I had not ever imagined what it must have been like til today.

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 3:29PM

Actually, that took longer. Unless my information is incorrect, he continued slave trading, and only fought against it later.

Karl Lucifer Marx| 12.26.10 @ 8:59AM

It's amazing that the people who don't believe in God, usually are the biggest endorsers of the God of big government, i.e., secular humanism.

mzk1| 12.26.10 @ 8:59AM

To MarkII - the problem is, there is plenty of dogma outside of religion, not not mention atheism. For example, that cut6e little branch of Atheism known as Communism is full of dogma, and killed more people for "heresey" than any religion existing.

Mark Ya. Azbel in "Refusenik" tells of his wife bugging their KGB tails by asking them about certain problematic passages in Marx that people avoided mentioning.

And without dogma, why not conveniently pick various groups of people to kill or treat as witohut rights - Jews, Black, dissadents, the severely diasabled, the unborn......

mzk1| 12.26.10 @ 9:04AM

BTW, science proving there is no God (yeah - tell that to all of the religious scientists!) is a beautiful example of circular reasoning. You can't mention God, because it is not scientific. Then we turn around and say that science proved there is no God.

mzk1| 12.26.10 @ 9:10AM

Kingofthenet - actually, yes. If there is no supernatural, all is Chemistry, and we are really unthinking machines, with no free will. What difference does it make what a machine does to another machine? The disappearence of humanity would be no more of a tragedy than the obsolescence of the ICM 360 line of computers.

And by the way, if there is not free will, why are you trying to convince us?

Mark II| 12.26.10 @ 9:24AM

mzk1 wrote ...

"P.S. To MARKII - The Decalogue was not given through a human. Of course, it only applies to Jews."

The only direct knowledge we have of course is that a jewish human at some point wrote down that God had physically given something to another jewish human. This thing was reportedly given to a representative of the jews because they alone were in possession of the truth about God.

You have, in one deft stroke, made my point on several different levels at once. Not so easy to do.

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 3:26PM

I suppose so, since you haven't said much that wasn't obvious. I have no idea what your levels are; mustbe too thick. I was just responding to your statement, not implying anything else. And the last statement in the second paragraph appears to be your personal idea.

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 3:27PM

I would rather you replied to sometihng more substantive, like the bit about dogma.

Jerry| 12.26.10 @ 9:56AM

It's always been my impression that after examing and extending the evidence to its End (or more aptly Beginning) Point, both sides -- believers and unbelievers -- are left having to make a leap of faith. The unbeliever's god, "science," can not explain the origin of the universe, or from whence the infinitely dense "singularity" at its core came over 13 billion years ago, or how it could have sprung into existence from nothing. Therefore, the unbeliever makes a leap of faith that although the laws of science can not account for this awesome and mysterious phenomenon, there must nevertheless be a "scientific" explanation that will not require violence to the unbeliever's opinions. The believer must also make a leap of faith, but honestly it does not appear to be nearly so fantastic as that required of the unbeliever. One would think the latter, then, would have just a little more humility, as this is the quality of mind underpinning wisdom -- a virtue appearing in short supply among many above comments of unbelievers...

A R| 12.26.10 @ 10:14AM

There are two possibilites:

1) You claim that you believe in God because you simply have faith. Then you will not need any proof. However, you cannot claim any reason, because we are talking about blind faith without argumentative foundation other than "I do believe, because I believe"

2) You claim you believe in God and this belief is based on reason. Then the burden of proof of course clearly is on your side.

To claim that the burden of proof is with atheists who have to proof that God does NOT exist is outrategous and absurd. It is impossible. You cannot prove that something does not exist. Maybe the flying spaghetti monster exists, maybe not. We will never be able to prove it.
If I claim a scientific theory, I better come up with evidence. I carry the burden of proof. If I do not do that and say "theory x is true" and my reason for it is "I believe in it" nobody is going to take me seriously. This is simply not how science works.
If religious people want to operate that way in regard to God - that's fine. But please, don't make any false statements about science by claiming that whoever claims that something exists, does not carry the burden of proof.

JT| 12.26.10 @ 10:20AM

According to a recent Pew Research poll the majority of scientists believe in God...

A R| 12.26.10 @ 10:36AM

Well, what kind of "God".

The God that Einstein believed in - which is just a vague concept of there is reason for all this beyond our understanding - or is it the God of the literal bible.

After all, we all believe in some kind of God - however the concept of it is either weak or strong. It is a spectrum, not a binary decision.
Atheists do not absolutely not believe in any "God", they just think that the probability of its existence is less than its existence. The difference of these probabilities can be very different amounts - from large to small.

Frank | 12.26.10 @ 10:30AM

Why don't the religious people pray to God and the non-religious pray that there is no God and everybody enjoy themselves.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 1:33AM

I don't think atheists will pray to whatever. To them, it is just a waste of previous time.

And yes, even though they don't pray, they can enjoy life as well.

A R| 12.26.10 @ 10:33AM

It is true: there is no proof that there is no God. Science cannot prove it.

Maybe there is a God, maybe not.
However, based on what we, the human race, researched so far, it seems very unlikely to me that there is any such entity even close to what religions such as Christianity or Islam or Judaism describe.
It seems more far more probable to me that there is no such entity as described by Christianity as that there is such an entity. It seems far more probalbe that the Christian God is a simple fairy tale. It seems very probable that the reason so many people "believe" in such an entity is because their parents and other autorithies told them that there was such an entity. Most people tend to believe what their parents/their culture gave to them as "the truth". If it was different, the belief in a certain religion would be more equally distributed around the world. But it isn't. It is highly correlated to your birth place and the culture you grew up in. I think it is far more likely that people are simply influenced by their parents' beliefs than entire nations independently concluding, based on reason, that a certain God is the right one and just by coincidence one nation collectively holds a different result than others.

Another thought:
If there is an almighty God how created "everything" - what is more probable:
a) We humans are simply one of many possible steps in evolution and therefore have way to limit intelligence as to ever grasp "who" and why created everything as it is. (Compare to ants, who live on this planet, but are not aware at all of problems and facts we human beings know. They simply cannot grasp these facts, they are beyond their intelligence. Yet, they do exist and differ tremendiously to the view ants hold about the world)

b) Humans are intelligent enough to understand everything about the universe. Everything was created by a simple to understand intelligence. This intelligence sent us (from all possible planets and societies in the universe(s)) his "son" - and this son acquired the shape of a human being. Hence, we, human beings, truly are some kind of privileged race - compared to all other living and not living animals, rocks, plants, entities, molecules etc.

Therefore I do not believe in any such Godlike entity as described by religion.

Thomas| 12.28.10 @ 12:40AM

Interesting. I think you meant (b) to describe Christians and faith in God, but actually, (a) describes faith -- it is beyond our understanding to know God; we can only know, as he said, "I AM."

believer| 12.26.10 @ 10:39AM

The Athiest's attack on Christainity in the comments above not only show their ignorance of the Bible but show their gross ignorance of science as well. While taking the side of men like Richard dawkins they completely disregard scientists who not only show that evolution is the biggest hoax in history, but show by Biology that it is mathematically impossible for DNA to occur naturally. The comments by Athiests come not from reason but from classrooms that refuse to allow any other opinions. I would incourage believers to not respond to their foolishness as it is as the Bible says,"Impossible for the human mind to comprehend spiritual things". We can only pity them for their choice in life.

A R| 12.26.10 @ 11:08AM

I am not familiar with these theories you describe. Scientific mainstream is definitely the theory of evolution at the moment. This, of course, does not mean, that it is the truth. The truth could be something totally else.
However, even if it was proven wrong by a different scientific theory - in what way exactly would it make "intelligent design", the story put forward by the bible (genesis) per se more true/valid? Why would it make the bible more "holy"?

No God| 12.26.10 @ 8:41PM

A "believer" says, "evolution is the biggest hoax ..."
LOL.

Why don't we check with our resident microbio Ph D Mr. Alex Berezow and see what he think?

Dr. Berezow, it is your turn please.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 8:46PM

A "believer" says, "(It is) impossible for the human mind to comprehend spiritual things".

Very funny.

If this is the case, the Bible said nothing about trinity. Why do you blindly believe in this fictional myth? Obvious you or your church leaders interpreted the bible. But you just said it was "impossible for the human mind to comprehend spiritual things."

No God| 12.26.10 @ 8:48PM

A "believer" continues, " I would incourage believers to not respond to their foolishness ..."

Who ask you to respond to anybody's foolishness? But don't you want to respond to rational criticisms?

Mark II| 12.26.10 @ 10:53AM

My parting thought for the day is that one dictum has been proven here. From the late, great George Carlin ...

There should be but one commandment: "thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself".

We would all find much less to get upset with each other about.

A R| 12.26.10 @ 11:02AM

Why should it not be okay to discuss religion in an online forum on religion as long as their is respect for the other side and people to not swear at each other.

If one does not want to get upset, it would be best for them to not participate in any discussion.

ejp| 12.26.10 @ 11:12AM

Considering how Carlin never kept his disgusting anti-Christian bigotry to himself at any time throughout his career it doesn't surprise me that he would believe in such a hypocritical philosophy of "Free speech for me, but not for thee."

A R| 12.26.10 @ 11:12AM

To all theists: I am not interested to insult you. Nor do I assume that I am more intelligent than any else, just because of my opinion.
I do not believe in God based on my knowledge and experience and the reasons I came up with for that belief. I do not claim that this belief is the truth, nor that it is per se more reasonable than everyone who disagrees with me.
I am interested in what reasons religious people have for their belief in God, because I cannot intellectually, based on reason, understand it.

What evidence is their for a Christian/Muslim God? Why is it more probable that their is such a God than there is not such a God?

ejp| 12.26.10 @ 11:19AM

The circumstantial case for the Judeo-Christian tradition based on actual *historical* methodological studies is far better than most ordinary people realize. It's rather telling that non-believers feel the need to check historical scholarship at the door and come up with garbage of the Da Vinci Code variety in order to justify their contention that traditional tellings that support the Biblical accounts are somehow "not historical" when inevitably the opposite is true.

When Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian who did not think highly of Christians, ends up *confirming* the basic details of the Crucifixion account in his Annals when discussing Nero's persecution, that is a powerful validation of the Gospels from my standpoint, even though Tacitus of course does not confirm the Resurrection. It is a case where the "reason" of historical understanding offers a circumstantial validation of my ability to have faith in what the Gospels tell us, and also in the process renders the argument that faith in God is the result of sacrificing all forms of "reason" to be the lie that it is and always has been.

You also from a historical lens must consider the remarkable spread of Christianity in the first generation after Christ through NON-VIOLENT means (in contrast to how Islam required the sword) so that by the mid-60s in faraway Rome they were a big enough sect to be made the scapegoats for the fire. The rapid spread of one faith of this type throughout the whole Roman Empire rooted in the belief of a risen Christ and the willingness of so many to sufer martydom and where no one recanted says plenty to me for the historical validity of the Gospels as well.

A R| 12.26.10 @ 11:29AM

I do not doubt in the least that the New Testament is historically accurate in many points.

However, how does the historical accuracy of the bible make all the supernatural / religious contents more probable?
As you said: many historical voices recorded the existence of the person Jesus Christ. His sheer existence and mentioning by the bible does not make him God however. Many witnessed his existence, nobody witnessed his resurrection.
Why has the ressurection have to be taken literally?
Why can we not just say - Jesus cannot be killed and he is resurrected, because his ideas (of ethics) are immortal and live beyond the physical person? This too, would absolutely be plausible, but not religious in the least.
I do not need any bit of religion in order to accept the existence of the person Jesus Christ as well as the consequences of his ideas.

ejp| 12.26.10 @ 5:50PM

Indeed, the reality of Christ as historical figure as proved through historical methodology is not of itself a proof of His Divinity but if I transfer to the area of logical reasoning, if I presume the reality of the existence of Christ, then I am left with one that by the standards of reason I must regard as either (1) who He claimed to be or (2) a liar and madman. Logic and reason does not allow for the "Jesus was just a good man argument" because there is no basis for why a simple "good man" would then find Himself victim of the worst form of punishment of the day, especially when His mere teachings of themself were no threat to Roman law.

And the reason why Christ's Resurrection MUST be literal was summed up neatly by St. Paul. If Christ did not literally arise from the dead then all that we preach is in vain. For Christianity *depends* on the concept of God become Man and taking on the burden of our sins for our ultimate salvation and conquering death through Resurrection. Christ is not a simple guru/Buddha figure preaching simple ethics because His own words go beyond that. Of course to get around this, we then get "scholars" of dubious reputation who try to strip all of Jesus' claims of divinity by resorting to methodological standards that would be laughed out of academia if they were applied to ANY other historical figure.

And you are alas wrong on no one witnessing the Risen Christ as He appears risen to His Disciples and to other witnesses.

Johnny V| 12.26.10 @ 11:25AM

I believe a reasonable start would be to look at Lee Strobel, the atheist lawyer who set out to disprove his wife's abhorrent belief in Christ. He truly decided to give a thorough investigation and in the end came to the conclusion that Christ is real. The evidence for him was beyond a reasonable doubt. The same for me. He wanted to know the truth and when the evidence led him in a different direction than he anticipated, he had the intellectual integrity to accept it. Check him out. If you really want to know.

A R| 12.26.10 @ 11:33AM

I will be happy to check him out.

However, it is the same old problem, discussed above already: I cannot prove the non-existence of something. I can only prove / bring forward the evidence for the existence of something.

If I want to disapprove the existence of God I must fail, because it cannot be done, just as I cannot disprove any arbitraty entity someone just imagined.

Therefore, the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists.

Hence I pose my question again:
what reasons are there to believe in God? Why?
Why is it more probable that their is such a God than there is not such a God?

Johnny V| 12.26.10 @ 2:37PM

AR--I can only speak for myself but let me attempt to tell you why I believe in God. In an above post I mention the probability of amino acids coming together by chance to form irreducibly complex biological systems. This is just too much for me to accept. I also mention the genetic code of DNA and how it provides complex instructions to carry out cell functions. As Bill Gates said, the information in DNA/genetic code is more complex than any computer program produced by man. The use of scientific observation has taught us that all know sources of information come from an intelligence. The coding regions of DNA have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language. Stated another way, DNA is the repository for a digital code containing the instructions for telling a cell's machinery (talk about complexity . . .) how to build proteins. But not only that, the proteins have to be given instructions on how to build biological systems that come together to form a functioning organism. Unlike computers, there are no circuits or wires to guide this process. We are talking about comlexities that are far beyond what I would accept as natural.

If I landed on Mars and saw a heart shape drawing in the soil with AB + CD, I would recognize it as information. Not the product of chance.

Now I do not say that I am using science to prove God. Because I have not done that and that is not what I'm trying to do. This is for me. But I will postulate that the genetic code makes me look away form Darwinism. Therefor it reinforces my belief of God.

Mark L| 12.27.10 @ 2:20PM

A R| 12.26.10 @ 11:33AM

"Therefore, the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists."

Matthew 10:38 of the NIV states, “and anyone who does not take his Cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me.”

It is not my burden to 'prove' anything. It is my burden to share the message of the gospel with those who will hear me. At that point, it is up to you to accept or reject. If you reject the gospel, it does not add to my burden.

Jen| 12.28.10 @ 12:44AM

Please do not toss off "Christian/Muslim" as if they were the same. Read the Koran and the lofe of Mohammed. Then read the Boble and the life of Jesus. Not even close.

Jen| 12.28.10 @ 12:45AM

Sorry -- a problem with my I's (or eyes). Make that "life" and "Bible."

Nate| 12.26.10 @ 11:31AM

There are many books which explain the rationale(s) for belief in God. I don't think a blog will solve this debate. I just think what is being asked for from the New Atheists is the acceptance that people who value reason as much as they do simply disagree with them. They don't have some sort of monopoly on reason. The fairly recent claim (historically speaking) of the clash between science and religion just does NOT bear up under closer scrutiny.

A R| 12.26.10 @ 11:35AM

I absolutely agree that no one has the monopoly on reason.

I would appreciate reasons for God, even in the confines of this blog, as the argument that the space is just to short, is true for every position. Atheists could say much more than in this blog as well, also there are books who explain atheism. If we call just refer to "some books", we do not have to discuss at all.

Mark L| 12.27.10 @ 2:23PM

A reason for God? I'm not sure anyone is qualified to answer that except for God himself. You are essentially asking "Why is God..." That is a good question. We don't know God's motivations, except that they are just. I suspect His motivations are Love.

LeJardin| 12.26.10 @ 11:56AM

Michael... I trust, and hope for your sake, that you are an adolescent. I've rarely encountered in Spectator's estimable pages such an annoying individual, with your innumerable insipid "sluggers" and "fails" and puerile cockiness. At least one thing everyone here can agree on is that the last, your childish arrogance, rises to a level of imbecility that is jaw-dropping.

Ignoring, briefly, the metaphysical question at hand, let's look at the nature of your claim: You actually believe that you -- and your pantheon of mediocre NAS scientists -- have more on the scientific or rationalistic ball than these truly top-notch physicists and chemists, mostly nobelists, who believe(d) utterly in G_d, or, in Einstein's case, denounced atheists for their arrogance:

Isaac Newton - devout
Guglielmo Marconi - physics nobelist
Max Planck - physics nobelist
Albert Einstein - Spinozan
Abdus Salam - physics nobelist, devout Muslim
Charles Coulson - chemistry, devout
John Polkinghorne - physics, priest
Arthur Schawlow - physics nobelist, devout
Charles Townes - physics nobelist, devout
William Phillips - physics nobelist, devout
Freeman Dyson - devout

Asking us to believe that you're in any sort of intellectual position to demean the above individuals' beliefs is a bit beyond the pale, son. Your own pantheon is the National Academy of Scientists, of all things! You actually believe that an enormous mass of lesser intellects amounts to a hill of beans, and you've gone to ridiculous lengths to bore us with these boneheaded statistics. Stunning. (Read up on why Feynman wasn't a member.)

You also wrote, "Atheism was nearly nonexistent before the mid 18th century." Idiotic. Newton himself wrote, "Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors." ANY pre-18th century thinker was well aware of the concept of atheism, especially the scientists! Assuming to know what they would have thought in other eras is sheer stupidity. Atheism is simply quite fashionable these days, but it's not because geniuses like you have actually done your scientific homework... you simply believe what you read, be it evolution or big-bang theory, and want to stick it to the religious.

But to the main point: Criticizing religion or metaphysics from the standpoint of rationalism or science is like trying to describe a tesseract when you're a two-dimensional Flatlander. The whole point of belief in G_d is NOT to explain earthly (i.e., materialistic, mundane) matters, which is all that science can do; it is that the universe and its contents are *inaccessible* to a mechanistic, rationalist view. It's the quite unexceptional understanding that there *likely* has to be an organizing intelligence transcending our existence. To put a finer point on it, physics has had nothing useful to contribute thus far on the nature of consciousness, on the question of existence itself, on the creation of the vacuum and the dimensions and the constants, on the fine-tuning of the universe (yes, we all know about many-universes... it's a half-baked notion that strains credulity). These are METAphysical questions. True, occasionally, that which is meta becomes ortho, but these questions bear no relationship to what physics is now.

You're obviously not a physicist (which I was... now I'm on Wall St.)... You appear to believe that there is a rigor linking scientific derivation to reality that simply doesn't exist. Rather, very rigorous math is applied to an observed universe using... common sense -- which is also what is employed to make philosophical, metaphysical or religious judgments. You may want to take a read of Dirac's address on the link between mathematics and physics.

You seem woefully out of touch, in fact, with modern physics. The last ten years has presented us, as physicists and as humans, with, in my opinion, the most astounding developments we've ever seen. The nature of information, and the universe as information (see Wheeler's It From Bit), entanglement (spooky-action-at-a-distance), the possible breaking of uncertainty, quantum computation, the Quintessence (i.e., dark energy), dark matter, and on and on and on, all call very seriously into question our actual grasp on the true physical nature of our surroundings, at a very fundamental level. None of us is yet in any position to discard the mystical... or humility.

To my mind, it's a little like a replay of what happened at the end of the 19th century, almost exactly one hundred years previously: Scientists and engineers world-wide thought they knew everything, and, as Faraday said, physics was to be consigned to simply add more decimal places. Eddington advised his students to turn away from physics careers, as "everything had already been discovered." But this arrogance was already being tested by the "Ultraviolet Catastrophe" and the "Hydrogen Disaster"... and then, with our friends Planck and Einstein, among others, our whole universe was turned upside-down... I believe it was G_d saying, "So, you think you know something? You think you're in control? Get a load of this..." He seems to do that every so often.

Paul| 12.26.10 @ 12:23PM

Hah! I love arrogant sorties like this. They are both plentiful and predictable. So many of you jabber jaws look to the existence and expertise of great men...instead of the flaws and failings of your faith. I've met countless...worthless people like you. Your dialogue above is typical of the futility your fight has led thou to. Your buying time with tripe like this. As if any civilized person should be led to believe that science and reason are the sole manifestation of antiquitous thinking. I see you Christian spirit has given you a warm heart and a baneful existence at once.

LeJardin| 12.26.10 @ 1:14PM

Somehow I completely believe you when you say you've met countless worthless people (albeit they're obviously not like me)... I expect you convene with them daily. Er, also, that would be "led *thee*," not "thou". But do you care to expand upon any of your fragmentary points above? I mean, there's lots of sound and fury, but not much meaning. Try setting aside some of your rage and putting together at least one complete thought. Thanks.

Joe| 12.28.10 @ 12:50AM

The most intriguing, intelligent, and thoughtful post on here, Thank you for explaining what so many of us have tried to, with much lesser result: God cannot be comprehended; He Is.

Paul| 12.26.10 @ 12:05PM

IS THIS A FECKING JOKE? I have watched monotheistic morons use their ignorance to hold this country back for decades. Let me give you some other statistics sir: the US, in addition to being the most religious country in the West, is also in decline. It's religious tendancies have not made it humanitarian enough to impede its imperial tendancies....especially under Bush. In fact, we became further deluded by our perceived greatness while we fell into financial chaos. I speak to these Christian fools constantly and find their diatribes to be vile...their beliefs poisonous to individual freedoms and the common good both. I find it amusing that any sane person would find either solace or morality in any monotheistic belief system. In addition, Jesus H Christ was likely born at another time of year, if rabinical and cultural history serve as any guide. Your impish and sophomoric plea to keep reason from the celebration of Christmas has hardly found any objection in an American society beleaguered by its absence. Look at our science and math scores. Look at our non-involvement in the next great economic cycle in clean energy. Apparently the rest of the world is eating our lunch...not the pitiful animists of Africa or Taliban fools fighting progress or monks hiding from the outside world in Fiber. Reason tells us how to fight disease. Reason tells us that we need healthy ecosystems. Reason justifies humanitarian efforts. The bible is a sick joke perpetuated upon people who lack knowledge and understanding.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 3:06PM

Paul,

We've (the USA) been in decline a couple of times, and have come out on top. What a "You're a Peon" thinks is meaningless to me. (By the way, check out the health benefits of circumcision, clown.)

Now, Europeans ARE in Decline. Unavoidable, unstoppable. You are heading for a Caliphate because you vote yourself unsupportable largesse from the public exchecquer, and don't have kids, forcing you to import unassimilatable radical Muslims, who breed at the rate of 4.2 kids/woman. Your countries are going bankrupt in a domino pattern. You sir, are "fecked," to use your term. And it couldn't happen to a nicer group of poeple. As Mark Steyn put it, "In this scenario, the role of the Jews is played by the Europeans."

You shouldn't have murdered almost all your Jews, and harassed the ones who are left. Pisses G-d OFF!

As your daughters get raped by the immigrants you let in (88% of rapes in Sweden are perpetrated by You Know Who, incidentally), and your economy and freedoms collapse without support by an America tired of protecting a group of Eurotrash, you will feel the Dangling Dork of Destiny hard, without foreplay. Figure by 2024. I will be manning a machinegun on the border as you desperately try to come in, as the wall will be up by then. No pasaran!

James| 12.28.10 @ 12:54AM

Your rage is palpable. And your talking points are telling. You have just exposed the leftist mind in all its glory.

Real American| 12.26.10 @ 12:40PM

Atheism should really be call Assholism b/c for some reason being an Atheist requires one to be a total asshole to other people.

marilyne| 12.27.10 @ 9:06AM

"for some reason being an Atheist requires one to be a total asshole to other people."
The post right above that statement, from a friendly Christian:

"As your daughters get raped by the immigrants you let in (88% of rapes in Sweden are perpetrated by You Know Who, incidentally), and your economy and freedoms collapse without support by an America tired of protecting a group of Eurotrash, you will feel the Dangling Dork of Destiny hard, without foreplay. Figure by 2024. I will be manning a machinegun on the border as you desperately try to come in, as the wall will be up by then. No pasaran!"
That would be some of the Christian goodness and mercy I keep hearing about.....just sayin'

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 2:39AM

This doesn't make any sense. Try to be a tad more clear if you'd like to make a point.

Martin Treptow| 12.26.10 @ 1:10PM

The Truth that "Theists" seek cannot be proven while we are here by the Scientific Method. Nor can it really be disproven using any kind of test. If I say that my faith sustains me, gives me strength when times get tough, or delivers great joy to me and my family, especially at times like Christmas, it's a matter of fact... for me. That's really it. I don't need "proof". Not while I'm here. The cold reality is that we all die to this Earth, and I, as a Christian will either go to be with my Redeemer, or it will be... nothingness.

By the way, Michael (No God, and the rest of you Atheists that have posted here)... I will make you an offer: I will front the money for all of you to place a billboard in a major American city of my choosing imploring all Muslims to "Admit it, (the Prophet, Allah, the Koran) is a Myth". The catch is that you have to put your contact information on the billboard, so that our Islamic brethren can... "debate you".

Trolls.

Fail.

Merry Christmas!

Brian Westley| 12.26.10 @ 1:30PM

"The cold reality is that we all die to this Earth, and I, as a Christian will either go to be with my Redeemer, or it will be... nothingness."

You mean you aren't considering the possibility that any other religion is true? If Judaism is correct, for example, all Christians are in violation of one of the seven Noachide laws (the one against idolatry, because they worship a man as a god), while atheists are not in violation of that law. So if Jews are correct, atheists are better off than you.

"I will make you an offer: I will front the money for all of you to place a billboard in a major American city of my choosing imploring all Muslims to "Admit it, (the Prophet, Allah, the Koran) is a Myth". The catch is that you have to put your contact information on the billboard, so that our Islamic brethren can... "debate you"."

Well, there's the Extraordinary Claims campaign:
http://extraordinary-claims.com
Notice "Allah" is listed first. He will also be first on their bus ads (check the multimedia tab).

And look at what American Atheists is putting up around the first of the year to promote their January meet in Huntville:
http://www.atheists.org/upload/Scams.jpg
Yep, calling all religions "scams" including Islam.

So put your money where your mouth is. Contact American Atheists with your offer and I'm sure they will take you up on it. Unless you were just lying.

Martin Treptow| 12.26.10 @ 2:02PM

Thanks for your offer. Not American Atheists. Not Extraordinary Claims.

You.

Brian Westley| 12.26.10 @ 2:50PM

OK, what city? Are you putting up about $5,000?

marilyne| 12.27.10 @ 9:09AM

So, you would pay to see muslims kill an atheist/atheists? You're Christian, right?

No God| 12.26.10 @ 1:22PM

For those who do not understand how ethics would work without a god, please read this book:

Ethics Without God, by Professor Kai Nielsen

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 2:42AM

Ethics is not the same as objective moral standards. No one said ethics couldn't work without God...or even subjective moral standards couldn't exist. Quit with the straw men. That's all you guy's can muster?

No God| 12.26.10 @ 2:12PM

In a sense, I think we are all losers. Instead of going for the boxing day sale, we are writing stuff here. LOL,

Happy new year to all.

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 4:26PM

Not true, "No God".
Why, reasonable people will ask?
Well that's easy to answer. Christians always win and so does God because each and every time His words are preached, seeds of faith are planted in the hearts of them that receive them.

For as it is written:

.."so shall My word be that goes forth from My Mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it." Is. 55:11.

"Therefore put away all filthiness and rank growth of wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls." James 1:21.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 6:12PM

Seek medical help, Margie. You are one of those fundamentalists whom were brainwashed severely.

Nobody should abuse you this way.

Margie| 12.27.10 @ 10:55PM

Just telling you the facts.
Of course, you belong in the camp who told Jesus he had a demon, though he performed miracles right before their very eyes. I suspect you would do the same.

A R| 12.26.10 @ 2:15PM

It's a pity that no theists tries to answer my simple questions:

What reason is there to believe in God? Why should I, based on reason, believe in God?

Why is more probable that there is God than that there is no God?

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 2:44AM

Because no one has the time or the inclination to give you a complete delineation of these, plus the ones that aren't included in this list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.....nce_of_God

Have fun.

A R| 12.26.10 @ 2:17PM

There are two possibilities:

1) God intervenes in the course of the world
2) God does not intervene

If 2) is true --> prayer is meaningless since God does not change the course of the world anyway.

If 1) is true - a simple question: why did God let the holocaust happen?
If God intervenes and lets the holocaust happen - for whatever reasons we little earthlings we do not understand - we can definitely say that he is no good God.

jstwndring| 12.26.10 @ 3:52PM

I believe God wanted a family of His own when He created man. However, He also wanted that family to freely choose to be with Him. He didn't want to force us. So, He gave us freewill to choose between life and death. Most of us choose death. Adam did. Satan entered in, and has been reeking havoc ever since. We live in a fallen world.

I think God will intervene on our behalf when asked. There are examples in the Bible of Him doing so for the children of Israel, and, if you believe them, modern day stories of individuals being saved in times of danger. Still, His enemy is also part of the equation and can still injure us. So, I don't think it's a matter of God letting things happen so much as people who know God not asking him to help--in other words, praying for His intervention. That's not to say God is up there saying, "Ha! Serve's ya right! Pay some attention to me, and maybe I'll help ya!" Some Jews of the holocaust claim to have prayed for God's intervention and having escaped--individually. Why did all those other Jews have to die? I don't really know, except, as I said that Satan does have power and influence and does accomplish some of his goals. That doesn't mean God is weak or evil. It means that we all live under the influence of the curse that Adam's decision has left us with.

You also should keep in mind that God's primary objective is to get all of us into Heaven. He has invited us all into His Kingdom. Hell was made for Satan and his fallen angels. They know where they are headed and they are not happy. Their goal is to take as many of us with them as possible. How? Tell us lies, and get us to believe them.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 6:15PM

Wait a minute: does any of this testable?

Or is it in the same garbage category such as "A fairy is dancing at the tip of my finger"?

A R| 12.27.10 @ 5:46AM

"However, He also wanted that family to freely choose to be with Him. He didn't want to force us. So, He gave us freewill to choose between life and death."

So this must mean, since God is the -almighty- creator who created everything, that the concept of freewill is more important to him than something like the holocaust not happening. This does not prove that he does not exist. But it proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he is not a good God. Human beings burning in the ovens in concentration camps are less important than the concept of free will.

And we remember: God is the almighty creator.
He made the world in which it is possible that people *can* be burned in concentration camps. The almighty programmer explicitly programmed this possibility. If had not programmed /allowed this possibility, it would not exist, since he is the almighty creator who created everything. Everything includes evil of course.

"Why did all those other Jews have to die? I don't really know, except, as I said that Satan does have power and influence and does accomplish some of his goals. "
So as a consequence, this must mean, that God is not almighty or alternatively that he has not created everything.
If he has not created everything - who did?

"You also should keep in mind that God's primary objective is to get all of us into Heaven. He has invited us all into His Kingdom. Hell was made for Satan and his fallen angels."
His goal cannot be to get us into heaven if he is almighty. If he is almighty he can just make us go there.
If, however, he does not want to intervene for some reason, so people can have their free will and choose for themselves, there is another problem: this situation does not come out of nothing, but must have been created by God, since he is the almighty creator who created everything.
This must mean that his primary objective (and I don't want to offend, just to illustrate what I mean), his first priority (higher valued than people not being hurt, not being slaughtered) is to set up something like a game situation where he watches whether people choose good or evil. Yes, he might hope that they choose good. But he created this situation - again, something like a game with him as bystander watching and hoping. This must consequently mean that he is not a good God, because the well-being of his human beings is *not* his primary goal, but the game situation is.

If he does not intervene, we again have the problem - when does he and when not. And why sometimes and sometimes not. If he intervenes occasionally, he conciously does not intervene on other occasions (such as the holocaust), even though he would have the power to intervene. Consequently, he cannot be a good God.

marilyne| 12.27.10 @ 9:18AM

What? Adam took a bite of an apple, and all the bad stuff that happens, including the holocaust is because of that? But, but but but.....
Repeat after me. God is great, God is good. He loves you so much, he killed his only son so that you don't have to burn in the fire he made to torture people in for eternity. He only made that fire because he loves you sooooo much. All you have to do, is believe he exists! Or you will burn forever in the fire!!!!!!!!! FOREVER!!!! BURN!!! God is love!

Joe| 12.28.10 @ 12:59AM

You are speaking to the left's stereotype of what Christians believe. You will not figure anything out until you get rid of your preconceived thinking.

A R| 12.26.10 @ 2:19PM

Some logical flaws:

If God is almighty, why can he not beat Satan? Why does he allow Satan to bring evil to the world?

If however he can't restrict Satan, he cannot be almighty.

If God created everything, he must have created Satan, i.e. God himself introduced evil in the world --> God cannot be a good God.

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 3:40PM

A R,

God has already beat Satan. It is just a matter of what we call time until Satan will be destroyed for eternity.

It says this in the Bible. Our concept of time isn't the same as His. Truly, if you want to know the answers to all of your questions you must get into the Bible.

And you must pray to the God who made you.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 6:18PM

Margie say, "God has already beat Satan."

Or should it be Satan has already beat god?

Whichever; they are both not testable; you can say anything you want.

Margie| 12.28.10 @ 7:22PM

You are putting God to the test and already judging Him to be false without even a fair trial.

jstwndring| 12.26.10 @ 4:05PM

As Margie said, Jesus did so at the Cross. The battle is over. God is not up their mad at us. He's mad at Satan, but, Satan's time is nearly up. He knows it and is desperate to take all of us with him to hell because he knows that's the only way he can hurt God.

And, believe it or not, Satan has been severly restricted. The Bible tells us, however, that he and his demons will be set loose on the earth to fully decieve those who refused to acknowledge God, their Creator. He simply cannot allow sin to continue on forever unjudged, because it will eventually destroy everything He loves.

On your last point, God created Lucifer. Lucifer decided to become Satan. God renamed him to reflect his true nature. Lucifer had the ability to choose/use freewill, but, not the right. He was punished immediately. He was thrown out of Heaven. We, on the other hand, have not only the ability to choose, but, the right to excercise that freewill. That's why He is letting this whole thing play out--to give us time to recognize who He, Jesus, is.

Marilyne| 12.27.10 @ 9:29AM

jstwndring:
So, God made Lucifer, an angel, and they lived in heaven, which is great and perfect, but Lucifer, who knows God much better than you do, thought that he might have a chance in a battle with God. Think about this for a bit. How perfect can heaven be if an angel would choose to leave it? Can Lucifer be the only one who thought about leaving? Maybe there was a whole conspiracy, and lots of angels left, or maybe it's really awful up there, and Lucifer just escaped! Maybe it's like a concentration camp, and God is really evil, and Satan is one of the good guys who took a chance and escaped! That would explain alot of stuff.......

Joe| 12.28.10 @ 1:02AM

You are flailing around in rage, trying to dare God to answer your human questions. God does not answer to you. You have been given one small puzzle piece. He has the rest of the puzzle, as he created it. You are not in control of this. All the rage in the world will not make it so that you are.

Linda Drum| 12.26.10 @ 2:21PM

As both an atheist and a secular Jew, I find the real problem is, once again, the intolerance of someone else's opinions and beliefs. I believe that religion and the belief (or not) in God should be private and not in the public sphere. Certainly, anyone can name some horrific deeds done in the name of religion as well as all the good actions. There are terrible people who are religious and terrible people who are atheists (and the reverse). God and religion, (or not) should kept in the home and in a place of worship. Certainly we can function in business, government, school etc. without bringing in this most personal of beliefs.

Adrien Wild| 12.26.10 @ 2:35PM

Atheists need to be more thorough in their skepticism. It would help if they admitted that they, too, can be proven wrong, however implausible they may find this prospect. Their knowledge is not ultimate and all encompassing.

Atheists also need to be more realistic. Do they expect to abolish ways of life, which are often entrenched in ancient civilizations - with arguments? Do they expect people that they believe to be delusional to listen to them at all? Is it not possibly that provoking religious people with insults and condemnations will have unintended or opposite consequences?

Also, atheists need to be more honest. At the foundations of any system of thought are unexamined and unacknowledged premises. Even the most hard nosed science contains A LOT of poorly understood aspects. Moreover, no individual can claim to understand the entirety of the web of human knowledge, or even have a deep enough grasp of a small slice of it, without heavy appeal to knowledge that they could only acquire indirectly and/or based on authority and groupthink.

Finally, atheists need to show more humility. Even if it were correct that there is no God and that religion is "bad for you", they should not seek to compel others to accept their values anymore than fundamentalists try to impose theirs. It simply is not the case that science and reason confer unambiguous good on the world. Science and reason must always defend itself, justify itself, and improve itself.

Personally, I am not religious, but religiosity does not offend me. Many religious practices strike me as absolutely beautiful, and most people I've met that profess their faith to be very kind people. I believe there is something we can denote "God" that absolutely SEEMS to exist - namely, the unfolding universe - but the metaphysician in me finds talk about what does or does not exist to be question begging. As far as I know, there is no final philosophy that grounds science sufficiently to chest-thump about the ignorance of religious people.

Marilyne| 12.27.10 @ 9:36AM

Adrien, atheists need to do none of the things you suggest. We are by definition realistic and honest. Humility is something religious people could use more of. Ask a Christian if he thinks Christians are better people than non-Christians. I can't imagine anyone admitting he's a worse person since he became a Christian. (Or muslim or Jew etc)

Joe| 12.28.10 @ 1:06AM

What happened in your life to make you hate Christians so? You seem angry at the very fact that we exist. For your own sake, let it go.

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 2:46AM

Atheists are realistic and honest by definition? That's a new one on me. I guess Joseph Stalin never got the memo.

Margie| 12.28.10 @ 7:41PM

Marilyne,

You've obviously never spoken with a Christian. We know we are the most undeserving of what God has given to us. And the Apostle Paul said he was the worst of the Apostles and unfit to be called one.

God saves what is low and despised in the world.. to show the other smarty-pantsers that you need Him, too.

"God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God." 1 Cor. 1:28 & 29.

So, while you are always so humbly busy accusing us of being arrogant and holier than thou, you are missing the real truth.

A R| 12.26.10 @ 2:51PM

What reason is there to believe in God? Why should I, based on reason, believe in God?

Why is more probable that there is God than that there is no God?

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 3:21PM

A R,

You should believe in God because (based on reason), if there is a God then what He says is of sheer and utter importance to you. It is literally a matter of life and death.

Is that not a reasonable statement?

If there is a God and He says that He created you for a purpose, then don't you want to know what it is?

If your answer to that is yes, then you need to seek Him. Christians know He is a living God, because that is exactly what we did.

God sees the heart, and if you honestly want to know Him, He will reveal Himself to you. Consider this.. consider humbly praying to Him, on your knees.. and asking Him yourself. That is all I can tell you.

"You will seek Me and find Me; when you seek Me with all your heart.." Jer. 29:13.

God loves you!

A R| 12.26.10 @ 3:45PM

"You should believe in God because (based on reason), if there is a God then what He says is of sheer and utter importance to you. It is literally a matter of life and death."

Fair enough, but if this entity does not exist, this is not the case. Why, for what reason, should I assume its existence? What is the evidence for it?

"God sees the heart, and if you honestly want to know Him, He will reveal Himself to you. Consider this.. consider humbly praying to Him, on your knees.. and asking Him yourself. That is all I can tell you."

There are 5 known human sinces. And so far, no one has ever proven that God can be sensed by any of these 5 senses.

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 4:19PM

Well A R,

Like Paul the Apostle said,

"If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied." 1 Cor. 15:19.

A R, do you own a Bible?

Brian Westley| 12.27.10 @ 12:05AM

Margie, that's no reason to conclude a god exists. If anything, it's a (very bad) reason to believe in every god ever believed by anyone.

SPaquet| 12.26.10 @ 3:13PM

Why has all my comments been removed while Michael's remain, I'm done commenting on this seemingly liberally disguised site---you all can argue with an idiot while I'll go to greener pastures.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 3:14PM

AR: a simple answer is this---the human body is so complex thyat it is impossible to believe that a simple random Monkey Typewriter approach could have created it. Now, I don't doubt that the mechanisms of creation include some evolutionary mechanisms, but it isn't possible that there was no guiding hand. The amount of energy needed to Prigogine sytem this is otherwise too enormous.

(By the way, I don't go to Boxing Day sales. I shop online as much as possible. A loser is someone who goes INTO the crowd. That's an answer to someone else.)

And Alex, I'm still pissed off at you. For personal reasons. That slap at Jews was uncalled for. I didn't slap at Christians in my response, quite the opposite. The more religious the Jew, the more likely they are to be Conservative. Besides, I don't see any Hanukkah psoters, ever. I didn't see them growing up in Chicago. You owe Jews an apology.

A R| 12.26.10 @ 3:40PM

Evolution is not coincidence.

Genes are varied randomly. However, only very specific ones (not random ones) are chosen to survive, namely those which fit best to the environment. This is the law behind. Why that law is there, we don't know.

However, just because there is a law per se, does not in the least point to a God, even less to a Christian God. It is just some law whose origin we do not know.

Alex B. Berezow | 12.26.10 @ 5:00PM

Please, Occam. Enough, already. Just to make perfectly clear (to everybody else) what I said, I'll post it again:

"I think it's curious that atheists mostly pick on Christians during Christmas. I've yet to see any atheists make fun of Jews during Hanukkah or Muslims during Ramadan. But, I suppose that wouldn't be politically correct."

Nobody, except for you, has interpreted that comment as anti-Semitic. The comment is about atheists, not Jews!

This conversation is solely about the state of religious dialogue in the United States. It's not about the historical plight of Jews, the Holocaust, the state of Israel, anti-Semitism in Europe, or anti-Semitism in other parts of the world. Nobody in their right mind denies any of that. But, that's not what we're talking abut now.

My comment was very straightforward, and it's not my fault if you misinterpret it.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 10:15PM

And, Alex, I continue to hold that you are full of it. There are a billion Christians and 13 million Jews---you will get the majority of the flack. But behold, from Slate and Christopher Hitchens:

"Bah, Hanukkah
The holiday celebrates the triumph of tribal Jewish backwardness.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Dec. 3, 2007, at 11:57 AM ET

What we celebrate when we celebrate HanukkahHigh on the list of idiotic commonplace expressions is the old maxim that "it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." How do such fatuous pieces of folk wisdom ever get started on their careers of glib quotation? Of course it would be preferable to light a candle than to complain about the darkness. You would only be bitching about the darkness if you didn't have a candle to begin with. Talk about a false antithesis. But at this time of year, any holy foolishness is permitted. And so we have a semiofficial celebration of Hanukkah, complete with menorah, to celebrate not the ignition of a light but the imposition of theocratic darkness.

PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
REPRINTS
SINGLE PAGE
Facebook Digg RedditStumbleUponCLOSEJewish orthodoxy possesses the interesting feature of naming and combating the idea of the apikoros or "Epicurean"—the intellectual renegade who prefers Athens to Jerusalem and the schools of philosophy to the grim old routines of the Torah. About a century and a half before the alleged birth of the supposed Jesus of Nazareth (another event that receives semiofficial recognition at this time of the year), the Greek or Epicurean style had begun to gain immense ground among the Jews of Syria and Palestine. The Seleucid Empire, an inheritance of Alexander the Great—Alexander still being a popular name among Jews—had weaned many people away from the sacrifices, the circumcisions, the belief in a special relationship with God, and the other reactionary manifestations of an ancient and cruel faith. I quote Rabbi Michael Lerner, an allegedly liberal spokesman for Judaism who nonetheless knows what he hates:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related in Slate
James Ponet looked remembered the civil war that gave birth to Hanukkah. Christopher Hitchens wrote about "the horrors of December in a one-party state." Jess Row described Buddhist discomfort with Christmas. Shmuel Rosner explained why Easter doesn't overshadow Passover. Carol M. Beach summarized what Kwanzaa is all about, and Melonyce McAfee shared how her family benefited from the "made-up" holiday.Along with Greek science and military prowess came a whole culture that celebrated beauty both in art and in the human body, presented the world with the triumph of rational thought in the works of Plato and Aristotle, and rejoiced in the complexities of life presented in the theater of Aeschylus, Euripides and Aristophanes.

But away with all that, says Lerner. Let us instead celebrate the Maccabean peasants who wanted to destroy Hellenism and restore what he actually calls "oldtime religion." His excuse for preferring fundamentalist thuggery to secularism and philosophy is that Hellenism was "imperialistic," but the Hasmonean regime that resulted from the Maccabean revolt soon became exorbitantly corrupt, vicious, and divided, and encouraged the Roman annexation of Judea. Had it not been for this no-less imperial event, we would never have had to hear of Jesus of Nazareth or his sect—which was a plagiarism from fundamentalist Judaism—and the Jewish people would never have been accused of being deicidal "Christ killers." Thus, to celebrate Hanukkah is to celebrate not just the triumph of tribal Jewish backwardness but also the accidental birth of Judaism's bastard child in the shape of Christianity. You might think that masochism could do no more. Except that it always can. Without the precedents of Orthodox Judaism and Roman Christianity, on which it is based and from which it is borrowed, there would be no Islam, either. Every Jew who honors the Hanukkah holiday because it gives his child an excuse to mingle the dreidel with the Christmas tree and the sleigh (neither of these absurd symbols having the least thing to do with Palestine two millenniums past) is celebrating the making of a series of rods for his own back. And this is not just a disaster for the Jews. When the fanatics of Palestine won that victory, and when Judaism repudiated Athens for Jerusalem, the development of the whole of humanity was terribly retarded.

And, of course and as ever, one stands aghast at the pathetic scale of the supposed "miracle." As a consequence of the successful Maccabean revolt against Hellenism, so it is said, a puddle of olive oil that should have lasted only for one day managed to burn for eight days. Wow! Certain proof, not just of an Almighty, but of an Almighty with a special fondness for fundamentalists. Epicurus and Democritus had brilliantly discovered that the world was made up of atoms, but who cares about a mere fact like that when there is miraculous oil to be goggled at by credulous peasants?

We are about to have the annual culture war about the display of cribs, mangers, conifers, and other symbols on public land. Most of this argument is phony and tawdry and secondhand and has nothing whatever to do with "faith" as its protagonists understand it. The burning of a Yule log or the display of a Scandinavian tree is nothing more than paganism and the observance of a winter solstice; it makes no more acknowledgment of the Christian religion than I do. The fierce partisanship of the holly bush and mistletoe believers convicts them of nothing more than ignorance and simple-mindedness. They would have been just as pious under the reign of the Druids or the Vikings, and just as much attached to their bucolic icons. Everybody knows, furthermore, that there was no moving star in the east, that Quirinius was not the governor of Syria in the time of King Herod, that no worldwide tax census was conducted in that period of the rule of Augustus, and that no "stable" is mentioned even in any of the mutually contradictory books of the New Testament. So, to put a star on top of a pine tree or to arrange various farm animals around a crib is to be as accurate and inventive as that Japanese department store that, as urban legend has it, did its best to emulate the Christmas spirit by displaying a red-and-white bearded Santa snugly nailed to a crucifix.

This is childish stuff and if only for that reason should obviously not receive any public endorsement or financing. The display of the menorah at this season, however, has a precise meaning and is an explicit celebration of the original victory of bloody-minded faith over enlightenment and reason. As such it is a direct negation of the First Amendment and it is time for the secularists and the civil libertarians to find the courage to say so."

Damn, I'm always right! AN APOLOGY IS IN ORDER!

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 10:43PM

Dear Alex: The Hitchens article was from Slate, Hannukah 2007. Here's an atheist clip from 2008:

"let's light the candle... - psdevardsHannukah 2008 - Gaza Candle
original photo thanks to:
gazatoday.blogspot.com/2008/03/my-big-siege-photo-story-h....

This little girl has grown up in a 60 year old concentration camp in .Gaza.

She's waiting for the bombs.

I hope I offend a lot of American Jews. This is the result of your 60 year colony in Palestine.

When you kill children, have you no shame?

I hope you'll have enough shame to condemn these attacks on a holy day.

If ´XXXX' (too offensive---OT) offends you, I hope you'll stop applying worse to more than half of your pissing little nation's people.
Comments and faves"

Johnny V| 12.26.10 @ 11:47PM

No apology for this conservative Jew. OT owes Alex an apology for making false accusations as to what he said.

Occam's Tool| 12.27.10 @ 12:38AM

Johnny V,

Learn to read. Thanks. Up yours too, Kapo.

Marilyne| 12.27.10 @ 9:42AM

Occam: Alex doesn't owe you or anyone else an apology. You need to grow a pair. After all the trouble Jews have and still face in the world, one would think you'd have a thicker skin. Geez. You should apologize to Jews who really have been persecuted for trying to co-opt their martyrdom.

Christine Helrigel| 12.26.10 @ 3:18PM

Thank you, Alex, for this article, and our fre

Christine Helrigel| 12.26.10 @ 3:27PM

freedom to post at will. Too often I have spent hours drafting responses only to be censored. I am currently reading the book by Antony Flew 'There is a God; the world's most notorious atheist changes his mind" and it is very philosophical, since that was Flew's profession. This debate as to the existence of God is obviously a hot topic, judging by the enthusiastic give and take here on a Christmas day. By the way, it was mentioned that faith requires belief in absence of proof. That is not so. Jesus came not just declaring that He came from heaven, but giving sight to the blind, replacing lost limbs, and raising the dead to prove it. Even now, if one of us wants to know if he is there, he is always willing to demonstrate in a very individual way to each of us, that he is indeed, there. Thank you all, for a most interesting debate.

Johnny V| 12.27.10 @ 11:41AM

Thank you Alex. Thank you Christine.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 3:29PM

I have been acquainted with the militant atheist rantings for years now.
Much of the argumentation subsists upon scientific claims such as what Michael uses only to be met with other sources that weaken the initial argument. Empirical data it appears can counter other empirical data. Such is the knife of science as it often cuts both ways.

Michael's position is a difficult one in so far as he comes across as more petulant than reasonable.
The type of atheism that is expressed by the Michaels in our culture are fundamentally fearful of belief and systems of belief.

I have seen that human beings of every philosophical persuasion are prey to their own weaknesses primary amongst them are vanity, lust and greed.
I do not trust any self proclaimed atheist in power any more than a theist in the same position of power.

I am also perturbed with Occam's knee jerk antisemitism response against Alex. And the subsequent name calling.
I did not read that sort of intent in Alex's positing with regard to his comparisons with Judaism or Islam.
I think any reasonable person understands that Israel is constantly under a threat. And increasingly Israel must be feeling isolated with fewer friends in the Western world.
I know many of my Jewish friends are very concerned and I am willing to offer Alex the benefit of the doubt that he is as concerned.

So to Occam, I am not certain that name calling is warranted and even if Alex were more conspicuously antisemitic, I am not convinced it is a good idea for Occam to react with such vehemence.

As to the rantings of Michael. If it were simply your desire to seek empirical evidence to support the venture of faith, I would be more sympathetic.
I understand that many desire empiricism to be the foundational support system for justification.
But if empiricism is to be the sole mantle for what encompasses human culture, civilization would need to sacrifice much of what does not fall neatly under that mantle and that seems completely unreasonable.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 4:52PM

Larry,

if you read Alex's comment you would understand. My slap was directed at a gratuitous comment of his that did not directly advance his argument. I don't give the benefit of the doubt to people who don't deserve it.

And Larry, it is obvious that you have no clue what is going on in New Zealand this season. So, until you get more knowledge, close your moronic mouth. Thank you. I will shout from the roof tops if I feel it is necessary. It was the lack of shouting that got us the Holocaust.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 4:54PM

Vehemence, Larry, keeps Jews alive. I grow so tired of people whose asses are not on the line telling me how to behave.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 4:57PM

His comment was MORONIC and antisemitic.YOUR DEFENSE IS SIMPLY moronic. Screw your "don't respond with vehemence."

"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice." The guy who said that was part Jewish.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 4:58PM

So, Larry, in short, the good Doctor owes Jews an apology, and you should have a nice cup of STFU. Clear enough for you?

Alex B. Berezow | 12.26.10 @ 5:08PM

Please, Occam. Enough, already. Just to make perfectly clear (to everybody else) what I said, I'll post it again:

"I think it's curious that atheists mostly pick on Christians during Christmas. I've yet to see any atheists make fun of Jews during Hanukkah or Muslims during Ramadan. But, I suppose that wouldn't be politically correct."

Nobody, except for you, has interpreted that comment as anti-Semitic. The comment is about atheists, not Jews!

This conversation is solely about the state of religious dialogue in the United States. It's not about the historical plight of Jews, the Holocaust, the state of Israel, anti-Semitism in Europe, or anti-Semitism in other parts of the world. Nobody in their right mind denies any of that. But, that's not what we're talking abut now.

My comment was very straightforward, and it's not my fault if you misinterpret it.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 10:36PM

Yes, but now that I have edited it, proof that you are wrong, dear boy:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

High on the list of idiotic commonplace expressions is the old maxim that "it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." How do such fatuous pieces of folk wisdom ever get started on their careers of glib quotation? Of course it would be preferable to light a candle than to complain about the darkness. You would only be bitching about the darkness if you didn't have a candle to begin with. Talk about a false antithesis. But at this time of year, any holy foolishness is permitted. And so we have a semiofficial celebration of Hanukkah, complete with menorah, to celebrate not the ignition of a light but the imposition of theocratic darkness.

Jewish orthodoxy possesses the interesting feature of naming and combating the idea of the apikoros or "Epicurean"—the intellectual renegade who prefers Athens to Jerusalem and the schools of philosophy to the grim old routines of the Torah. About a century and a half before the alleged birth of the supposed Jesus of Nazareth (another event that receives semiofficial recognition at this time of the year), the Greek or Epicurean style had begun to gain immense ground among the Jews of Syria and Palestine. The Seleucid Empire, an inheritance of Alexander the Great—Alexander still being a popular name among Jews—had weaned many people away from the sacrifices, the circumcisions, the belief in a special relationship with God, and the other reactionary manifestations of an ancient and cruel faith. I quote Rabbi Michael Lerner, an allegedly liberal spokesman for Judaism who nonetheless knows what he hates:

Along with Greek science and military prowess came a whole culture that celebrated beauty both in art and in the human body, presented the world with the triumph of rational thought in the works of Plato and Aristotle, and rejoiced in the complexities of life presented in the theater of Aeschylus, Euripides and Aristophanes.

But away with all that, says Lerner. Let us instead celebrate the Maccabean peasants who wanted to destroy Hellenism and restore what he actually calls "oldtime religion." His excuse for preferring fundamentalist thuggery to secularism and philosophy is that Hellenism was "imperialistic," but the Hasmonean regime that resulted from the Maccabean revolt soon became exorbitantly corrupt, vicious, and divided, and encouraged the Roman annexation of Judea. Had it not been for this no-less imperial event, we would never have had to hear of Jesus of Nazareth or his sect—which was a plagiarism from fundamentalist Judaism—and the Jewish people would never have been accused of being deicidal "Christ killers." Thus, to celebrate Hanukkah is to celebrate not just the triumph of tribal Jewish backwardness but also the accidental birth of Judaism's bastard child in the shape of Christianity. You might think that masochism could do no more. Except that it always can. Without the precedents of Orthodox Judaism and Roman Christianity, on which it is based and from which it is borrowed, there would be no Islam, either. Every Jew who honors the Hanukkah holiday because it gives his child an excuse to mingle the dreidel with the Christmas tree and the sleigh (neither of these absurd symbols having the least thing to do with Palestine two millenniums past) is celebrating the making of a series of rods for his own back. And this is not just a disaster for the Jews. When the fanatics of Palestine won that victory, and when Judaism repudiated Athens for Jerusalem, the development of the whole of humanity was terribly retarded.

And, of course and as ever, one stands aghast at the pathetic scale of the supposed "miracle." As a consequence of the successful Maccabean revolt against Hellenism, so it is said, a puddle of olive oil that should have lasted only for one day managed to burn for eight days. Wow! Certain proof, not just of an Almighty, but of an Almighty with a special fondness for fundamentalists. Epicurus and Democritus had brilliantly discovered that the world was made up of atoms, but who cares about a mere fact like that when there is miraculous oil to be goggled at by credulous peasants?

We are about to have the annual culture war about the display of cribs, mangers, conifers, and other symbols on public land. Most of this argument is phony and tawdry and secondhand and has nothing whatever to do with "faith" as its protagonists understand it. The burning of a Yule log or the display of a Scandinavian tree is nothing more than paganism and the observance of a winter solstice; it makes no more acknowledgment of the Christian religion than I do. The fierce partisanship of the holly bush and mistletoe believers convicts them of nothing more than ignorance and simple-mindedness. They would have been just as pious under the reign of the Druids or the Vikings, and just as much attached to their bucolic icons. Everybody knows, furthermore, that there was no moving star in the east, that Quirinius was not the governor of Syria in the time of King Herod, that no worldwide tax census was conducted in that period of the rule of Augustus, and that no "stable" is mentioned even in any of the mutually contradictory books of the New Testament. So, to put a star on top of a pine tree or to arrange various farm animals around a crib is to be as accurate and inventive as that Japanese department store that, as urban legend has it, did its best to emulate the Christmas spirit by displaying a red-and-white bearded Santa snugly nailed to a crucifix.

This is childish stuff and if only for that reason should obviously not receive any public endorsement or financing. The display of the menorah at this season, however, has a precise meaning and is an explicit celebration of the original victory of bloody-minded faith over enlightenment and reason. As such it is a direct negation of the First Amendment and it is time for the secularists and the civil libertarians to find the courage to say so.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the Roger S. Mertz media fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Next, shall you debate me on the greatest Jewish baseball player of all time (no, it wasn't Sandy Koufax.)? Or the greatest Jewish quarterback? Work on this: Sorry, I'm WRONG.

We get worse than verbal and written attacks on Hannukah. We get atheists trying to wipe our culture OUT.

Johnny V| 12.26.10 @ 11:57PM

In the words of Foghorn Leghorn, "This boy is nuts!"

Perhaps OTool is an atheist and just want to throw everyone off the conversation topic.

Occam's Tool| 12.27.10 @ 1:56AM

Johnny, I lived in 'Bama for 7 years and Texas for 8. I know Foghorn Leghorn. And you, suh, are no Foghorn Leghorn.

Occam's Tool| 12.27.10 @ 2:00AM

Johnny---the above was bereft of anything but ad hominem attacks. And as a Jew who has lived in the South for 15 years, I dislike your use of Southern Archetypes inappropriately.

Johnny V| 12.27.10 @ 11:52AM

I'll keep that in mind the next time I throw another one yourway. I'm proud of Jewish intellect . . . unfortunately, you are bringing the curve way down. I've read your ad hominem attacks all up and down this comment section. Thanks for the advice, hypocrit. I'm a Jew who has lived in the south for 60 years.

Margie| 12.26.10 @ 6:33PM

Dear OT,

You know I would defend you if I thought you were right, but I don't think what you're accusing the Dr. of is true at all. I just don't see what you're saying.

I have to say that it's true as far as the Atheists and Christmas.. they are angry about Jesus in particular, and that is why their vehemence.. because Christmas is about Him.

I didn't think he was being anti-semitic by saying that or minimizing the anti-semitism that exists in the world today.

Do you think you can reconsider your thoughts on this? I don't want to see happening to you.. :^(

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 9:34PM

Margie, you are sweet. Here, stripped of gall, is my argument,. addressed to him, not you. I can be wrong.

First, his comment: "I think it's curious that atheists mostly pick on Christians during Christmas. I've yet to see any atheists make fun of Jews during Hanukkah or Muslims during Ramadan. But, I suppose that wouldn't be politically correct."

In New Zealand, during Hannukah, atheists were/are trying to ban kashrut. If you weren't ignorant on this topic, you would know that. You would also know that in San Francisco, efforts are underway to ban circumcision. At Indiana U, the local Jewish student Center was attacked during Channukah. Atheists attack Israel every day from a G-dless perspective.

In short, Dr. Berezow, we are attacked by atheists frequently, every day of the year, including Hannukah, and you are wrong. If no one else "misinterpreted" your comment, sorry.

I happen to think attacking Christians on this day is also dreadful. But you are pathetically ignorant on this topic. Pissing off your supporters gratuitously is moronic.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 9:37PM

In short, Dr. Berezow, Jews are attacked by atheists during Hannukah. Your ignorance about this does not make it less of a fact.

(Please see New Zealand Herald for data on kashrut, and The AMERICAN SPECTATOR for data on circumcision.)

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 11:03PM

In short, Alex, we Jews get attacked by just about everyone EXCEPT The writers on non-Paleo Conservative Conservative websites 24/7/365. We get assaulted on everything, including Hannukah. Stop arguing with me and start learning from me. I've had my Doctorate for over 20 years now, and I work with it 80 plus hours/week. I've also seen much more of humanity than you have, given the nature of my job. What interests me most about you is that you are the first Blogger on TAS that has ever pissed me off. I shall have to review that. But you are still wrong on this topic. A man would apologize.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 11:03PM

In short, Alex, we Jews get attacked by just about everyone EXCEPT The writers on non-Paleo Conservative Conservative websites 24/7/365. We get assaulted on everything, including Hannukah. Stop arguing with me and start learning from me. I've had my Doctorate for over 20 years now, and I work with it 80 plus hours/week. I've also seen much more of humanity than you have, given the nature of my job. What interests me most about you is that you are the first Blogger on TAS that has ever pissed me off. I shall have to review that. But you are still wrong on this topic. A man would apologize.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 9:37PM

In short, Dr. Berezow, Jews are attacked by atheists during Hannukah. Your ignorance about this does not make it less of a fact.

(Please see New Zealand Herald for data on kashrut, and The AMERICAN SPECTATOR for data on circumcision.)

Occam's Tool| 12.27.10 @ 1:58AM

This, of course, Margie, applies to Dr. B, never to you. I didn't like his sideswipe and ignorance. His ignorance of Judaism is met only by his ignorance of the mental health sciences. He also is lazy. I despise laziness in scientists. Hitchen's article took me 30 seconds to find and is a direct refutation of his argument.

Mark| 12.26.10 @ 4:37PM

Mr. Berezow,

You have failed to convince me. I favor the atheists argument.

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 2:50AM

Congratulations.

INTJ| 12.26.10 @ 5:47PM

I have often been amused by atheists who want to believe they are more rational and logical than adherents to religion. The simple fact is that science cannot prove a negative. No matter how much they try to discredit religion, atheists require every bit as much faith in their position as those they belittle, since they cannot objectively prove that God does not exist. And Pascal pointed out that the expected utility of believing is higher than that of not believing, regardless of what the truth might be. By contrast. agnostics can certainly claim to be rational - not atheists - since they merely require proof of God in order to believe in Him, but, notably, they do not spend their lives attempting to discredit and disparage those who do not share that point of view, as atheists do. That in itself is foolish and sad, for if this life is all you have, then don't you have better things to do with your time?

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 6:54PM

This is stupid. Here is a historical example of science proving a negative: the Ether of late 19th century physics does not exist. The Michaelson-Morley experiment threw classical physics into disarray by showing that the evidence one should see if the Ether existed just wasn't there. It took Einstein's Special Relativity to make sense of the resulting confusion.

Science "proves" negatives all the time. And so do you. Here is an example for you to work at home: there is a giant 6' and 300# yellow canary in the next room to where you are reading this right now and that canary will still be there for another hour. There is no mystery about how to go about proving the negative that the canary does not exist: go look soon. No canary? You've just done what you think it is impossible for science to do.

Functional critical thinking means you don't believe in the existence of entities for which you have no evidence and actively disbelieve in entites where there are good reasons to disbelieve. And you know, that, man. For example, you believe in the nonexistence of a giant porcelain teacup filled with the blood of Jesus that orbits around Neptune. You believe it doesn't exist because you have no evidence for it and your experience of the world gives you reasons to believe that no such things are.

Pascal's Wager is a stupid argument. There are numerous problems with it, but my 2 favorites are: 1) The argument can be made to justify belief in any arbitrary imaginary magical buddy. For example: There is a tiny tiny blue gremlin sitting behind you right now holding a skull-vaporizing raygun which it will fire sometime in the next week unless you start repeatedly hopping up and down yelling "I don't think things through!" The expected utility... well you get it, right? 2) The argument at least as readily defeats belief in any God as supports it. For example: Sekhmet, who predates Yahweh by at least 1,000 years is the REAL DEAL. She has promised to let ONLY her minions and atheists into Paradise Gardens. The kicker is that she is still steamed about that Yahweh poser so will surely send all Jews, Christians, and Muslims directly to eternal torment. The expected utility of... see?

There is value in life to calling a swindle that preys on the vulnerable, the gullible, and the stupid a grift. I have no good reason to call the conmen who enable the scam anything but dishonorable.

marilyne| 12.27.10 @ 10:01AM

Michael, I love you. Please, all you reasonable, rational religious people out there-refute his reasoning! I've been reading this string for 2 bloody days waiting for a single honest attempt. You can't do it, can you?

Ted R.| 12.27.10 @ 12:13PM

I thought that LeJardin made a good first rejoinder to Michael.

axbucxdu| 12.27.10 @ 3:14PM

In terms of consistent systems, which set does MATHEMATICS (excuse me, SCIENCE) tell us is PERMANENTLY larger than the other: the set of TRUTHS or the corresponding set of proofs? Just asking. Here's a hint: Look up the term Godel sentence.

Now, we all believe (hope is more appropo) that human science is consistent. Well then I ask YOU: prove it. Here's some additional help:

Hilary Putnam has already made an attempt in this area. Here's an abstract of what he learned that has an immediate bearing on this discussion:

Hilary Putnam: The Gödel Theorem and Human Nature
Abstract
What provoked the research I report on in the first part of this talk is a conversation I had with Noam Chomsky more than twenty years ago. I asked Chomsky whether he thought our total epistemic competence - the competence of the "scientific faculty" that he postulates - could be represented by a Turing Machine (where the notion of "competence" is supposed to distinguish between our true ability and our "performance errors"). He said "yes". The paper shows how to construct a Gödelian argument to prove that if there were such a Turing Machine, then we could never know - not just never establish mathematically, but never know even with the help of empirical data - the Gödel number of the Turing Machine that simulates our "scientific competence". The second part of the talk discusses and cautions against some widespread misuses of the Gödel Incompleteness Theorems in discussions of the human mind.

From this line of reasoning, we are then faced with two possibilities:

(1) Science is inconsistent, and therefore unreliable.

(2) Science is consistent, but not provably so even when we enroll the help of empirical data. Therefore we are making a leap of FAITH, nothing more (After all, what can be justified without PROOF!), when we assume that it is. Now here's where it gets interesting: If we assume that the scientific endeavor is indeed consistent, then we are also COMPELLED to accept that there will always be SOME TRUTH THAT LIES FOREVER OUTSIDE WHAT SCIENCE CAN PROVE OR DISPROVE. This isn't a matter of ill-applied probability, as Dawkins abuses the notion, but fact. Recall, it's not me that has created this dungeon, but SCIENCE.

Now what was your question? You're a bright person, you can figure that one out for yourself.

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 2:55AM

That wasn't reasoning. Pascal's Wager is not an argument, it's an analysis of what logically follows should Christianity turn out to be true. Michael was absolutely correct. If the blue midget with a ray gun is there, you're skull will disintegrate. Congratulations, Michael and Marilyne, on attacking Pascal's Wager as an argument for the existence of God and then believing that you've contributed to this ongoing debate...where people vastly more intelligent than you have made better arguments for and against the existence of God.

Happy New Year.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 6:10PM

I am not sure why Occam has decided to defend himself by attacking others who have not been offensive.

What is meritorious for Occam to call me a moron? Or to say I should shut my mouth? It is a strangely disproportionate response to an observation.
If I had perceived antisemitism within Alex's argument, I would have posted that.

Occam's Tool| 12.27.10 @ 1:52AM

My apologies, Larry.

I get tired of people slapping Jews (look, ma, nobody attacks Hannukah), when THEY DO, and THEY DO frequently, and Jewish practice is under ferocious attack in secular societies, with everything from circumcision to kosher killing under attack.

In short, I think Alex's comment was stupid and ignorant. Still do. The fact that the rest of his arguments are correct doesn't ease the pissed offedness. I just get tired of people assuming that 1) anitisemitism is in the past, 2) Jews have nothing to worry about, and 3) Jews don't know how to define antisemitism. Very few things make me see red. That does.

In addition, he commented moronically on something that I am a certified expert on, and he knows very little about. You note that he did not counter me on IQ tests.

So, that double slam really got to me. There's a reason my wife's nickname for me is "wolverine." But I should have been more polite to you.

Incidentally, he is wrong. period. See Christopher Hitchens' "Bah, Hannukah," in Slate. The fact that I was able to find this in 30 seconds also indicates Dr. B is a very lazy man. Either that, or his Russian is showing.

Josh| 12.26.10 @ 6:14PM

Occam,

I am a Jew. And you are a tool.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 6:48PM

Josh,

You're being a bit harsh on Occam. I think he is fearful and he is angry.
But he inadvertent made Alex's point in so far as the reason why attacks against Jews here in the US are not as overt. And in my opinion it is because that Jews and Jewish organizations will react forcefully and push back.
But sometimes a push back can be aimed at the wrong target. Everyone cannot be your enemy..we all need allies.

Occam's Tool| 12.27.10 @ 12:41AM

No atheist, I, Johnny. Don't know about you. Again, Dr. B's commentary specifically noted that Jews are NOT the recipients of atheist attack. This is bullshit, wrong, and incorrect.

Occam's Tool| 12.27.10 @ 1:53AM

Better a tool than a "Kapo", Josh. I bet you don't know what a "kapo" is, do you, Josh?

Annonymous G| 12.26.10 @ 6:30PM

There is no God anymore than there is a Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. Belief in the divine is superstitious ignorance and you believers are fools to accept it. Science does keep whittling away at your ignorance and you respond like disappointed children trying to come to grips with the fact that there is no Santa Claus. Your beliefs are not harmless…at a minimum you try to make important public policies (e.g., reproductive rights, rights of homosexuals, stem cells, etc.) based upon your superstitious ignorance. Good Christians were wrong about the earth being flat, the earth being the center of the universe, disease being caused by demon possession, vaccines and test tube babies are a “sin,” etc. Ridiculous assertions based on particularistic interpretations of worthless “holy books.” At worst, you’re bomb throwing zealots killing non-believers. You're fools dragging humanity into the abyss. Along with how we don’t need God to explain the natural world (e.g., science does a lot better than religious ignorance), humanity does not need "God" for morality either...that's why you have philosophy. Stop spreading your ignorant false "knowledge." Your "holy books" are the ravings of ignorant, superstitious madmen of antiquity and you're stupid enough to believe it comes from some divine entity...you're morons and your beliefs are going to be as laughable in the future as belief in Zeus and Odin are today. I am laughing at you and your beliefs.

kodiak48| 12.26.10 @ 9:25PM

at least while you are laughing please explain how the inorganic first became organic. My God isn't dead! Sorry about yours

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 6:32PM

Merry Day After Christmas! The rest of your life, filled with reason and a decent understanding of yourself, other persons, and the Universe around you begins today!

No, you don't get to know anything more about me. There are a lot of insane jerks hauling full nutwagons around. Religious belief, that is, adult human persons who believe in the existence of an imaginary magical buddy, all by itself, earns full membership in the "you don't get to make any decisions that affect me or my family" society.

A sterling example of religious belief is Brian David Mitchell, who was told by God to kidnap, enslave, and repeatedly molest and abuse Elizabeth Smart. Another pious believer was Taimour Abdulwahab Al-Abdaly who botched the suicide-murder a couple weeks back in Stockholm. He attempted to murder hundreds in the name of Allah, but he was the only casualty. Another fine example of Christianity is Benny Hinn. Look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvU-DislkI

So... unh-unh. You get the words and that is all you get from me.

I understand every individual has their own cognitive inventory of beliefs and intentional stances they take. That's obvious by the wide diversity of crazy above: "I believe God created it all in 7 days 6,500 years ago" and "The Bible doesn't mean it when it says that Noah's Flood actually happened" and "Nah..nah.nah... I'm not listening to the Bad Man...nah..nah..." and even "If'n Jesus ain't Godson, then tain't none of it worth nuthin nohow! NoSiree!".

So let's get a better handle on what WE believe. This is The Bad Man's Quiz. Feel free to answer with Y (I think so), N (nope), or ? (what? unsure!)
Feel free, of course, to explain your answers.

1) Jesus really was born of a virgin.
2) Jesus really did feed 5,00 and then 4,000 by multiplying a few fishes and loaves of bread.
3) Jesus really did cure blindness, muteness, epilepsy, and leprosy by casting out the demons that cause those debilities.
4) Yahweh did call forth a Global Deluge for 40 days and 40 nights about 5,500 years ago which covered the Earth to its highest mountaintops, killing all terrestrial life not on Noah's Ark.
5) Yahweh created the Universe less than 10,000 years ago in 7 days in the order described in Genesis, including Man. Furthermore, whatever paltry evidence can be mustered on their behalf (a book says it, essentially) cannot hope to shift the Bayesian prior probability in any appreciable manner on their behalf.

See? I can be mostly civil, even when talking to a page full of ...

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 6:41PM

Michael,

I cannot take you seriously.

This is what you are...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 7:07PM

Fail.

Brad| 12.27.10 @ 12:58AM

Yes, Michael, you are.

GaryP| 12.26.10 @ 6:41PM

This discussion has reinforced my observation that atheists are sad, unpleasant people, who are much more dogmatic than the Christians they criticize (they never criticize Muslims, either out of fear or political correctness; which I wonder?). Essentially, atheists, for the most part are bullies. They don't want God and they don't want anyone else to have God either.
After 40 years of being an agnostic, I have started going to church for two reasons. 1) In the hopes of finding God, and 2) because that is where the nice people are (not all of them, but a high enough percentage to make it a good place to visit.)
If there were atheist "churches" I can only imagine their dreary, self-absorbed, self-congratulatory sermons on how much smarter they are they the rest of humanity.
Christians aren't perfect, but most seem to be trying to be better people.
Atheists, in my experience, are mostly just smug, arrogant jerks who have nothing interesting to say compared to many Christians (for example, C.S. Lewis) on the subject of religion in general and Christianity in particular.
I may never achieve personal certainty about the existence of God but at least I will be associating at church with kind, friendly people who add something to my life instead of arrogant fools like Michael.
Sounds like a win, win to me. Wish me luck!

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 7:12PM

Yeah... those who can't reason, emote. Sounds like we are losing the life of the party!

And the fundamentalist talk-radio talking point that atheists don't criticize Muslims is just obviously false. Harris, Hitchens, Maher, and Dawkins, for example, all go after Islam because it is a manifestation of the worst of religion. Crazy on meth instead of the Christian crazy on caffeine.

Jen| 12.28.10 @ 1:22AM

Lovely. I have a feeling one of the athesists will write a snarling, angry rant, thereby proving you correct in your statement that they are not nice people. Rage seems to be their default position.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 6:43PM

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2] In addition to the offending poster, the noun troll can also refer to the provocative message itself, as in "that was an excellent troll you posted". While the term troll and its associated action trolling are primarily associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels highly subjective, with trolling being used to describe intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, recent media accounts have used the term troll to describe "a person who defaces internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[3][4]"

Bill Sundling| 12.26.10 @ 6:48PM

Athiests have to stop shoving their religion down our throats.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 6:49PM

Funniest post yet.

No God| 12.26.10 @ 6:55PM

As atheists have no religion, they cannot shove their religion down your throats.

I thought it was the other way round: for years, theists (especially fundamentalist christians) have been trying to shove their blind faith religion down the throat of others.

What now? Can't even stand some criticism of your blind faith?

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 7:19PM

"Atheists have to stop shoving their religion down our throats."

And to add to the point Bill..many of them have no sense of humor or joy.

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 7:29PM

Hey! You try to have a sense of humor while dodging a mob os shambling mindless Xombies! Brains... brains... BRAINS!"

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 7:41PM

Michael,
If you are in the business of winning over hearts and minds in the arena of competition, then your tactics need adjustment.
You are not screaming into an echo chamber. If you were, then you would not need to think objectively about how or whether your arguments succeed.
But if you are indeed interested in the advancement of intellect and the enlightening of the mind, then a scorched earth tactic is bound to fail.
Think of the arena that you are in as a giant market place. Who will come to your booth and "buy" into your line of thinking if you choose to envelope science and bundle it as you have chosen.
It does not work. It cannot work. Folks will walk away and go to another booth where they are not uncomfortable.
Sensible kind hearted people( be they theist or atheist) do not delight in the insult of others.

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 8:17PM

What a joke. If I were doing a campaign to change minds I would run flashy advertisements with scantily clad young bodies.

My interest is in what one ought to believe. And you sir, seem moslty interested in persuading people of that which is false.

James| 12.28.10 @ 1:25AM

"...what one ought to believe..."

Atheists are totalitarians at heart. Which is why they often stand up for islam.

marilyne| 12.27.10 @ 10:41AM

"Sensible kind hearted people( be they theist or atheist) do not delight in the insult of others."
Anyone out there who says he doesn't feel a pang of joy/happiness when someone he disagrees with gets 'slammed' in a post is a big fat liar. Even us sensible and kind hearted folk get a kick out of winning a contest.

Thomas| 12.28.10 @ 1:28AM

You are projecting your vindictiveness onto others. No "pang of joy/happiness when someone...gets slammed." No "kick." Sorry.

A sincere wish that they would be won over? Sure. But a kind of celebratory joy over one's hostility againt another? Uh-uh.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 9:25PM

Michael, a society without faith is a gray, dreary thing: I have lived in one (NZ) and visited another (Denmark). Further, and here is my main point---it is antisurvival. No belief=no babies. There isn't a secular humanist culture around that has a replacement birthrate. Not one. Go to the UN demographic website or the CIA factbook website and review.

See, no ad hominem. I save that for people who take gratuitous slaps at Jews.

Marilyne| 12.27.10 @ 10:46AM

I doubt all people NZ and Denmark will agree with your assessment of their societies. You can choose to be happy anywhere. BTW, are you saying a person should believe God exists because of those statistics? Your main point is that people should have "faith"-that is, believe in things contrary to evidence or reason, because societies that are not superstitious have fewer children? Brilliant!

Johnny V| 12.27.10 @ 12:21AM

You need help, dude. You're nuts!

No God| 12.26.10 @ 6:52PM

"This discussion has reinforced my observation that atheists are sad, unpleasant people, who are much more dogmatic than the Christians they criticize (they never criticize Muslims, either out of fear or political correctness; which I wonder?). "
You obviously have not read the books and interviews of Richard Dawkins.

kodiak48| 12.26.10 @ 9:34PM

I suggest you review the movie "Expelled". In the movie your infamous Mr. Dawkins was turned everywhere but lose by Ben Stein

No God| 12.27.10 @ 5:04AM

kodiak48: You obviously have not read the books and interviews of Richard Dawkins.

Sean| 12.26.10 @ 6:59PM

1) Jesus really was born of a virgin.

Yes, Jesus was born of a virgin. Says so in the Bible. If you don't believe that, fine, it's a matter of faith for Christian's that it's true. No video camera's to prove it or to disprove it for modern skeptics.

2) Jesus really did feed 5,00 and then 4,000 by multiplying a few fishes and loaves of bread.

Yes, he did, see answer to question #1 above.

3) Jesus really did cure blindness, muteness, epilepsy, and leprosy by casting out the demons that cause those debilities.

The Bible doesn't say that all of his healing was due to casting out demons, in fact that was the exception, not the rule. Sometimes he laid hands on the sick, sometimes he said so and it happened. His healing of the sick on the Sabbath Day is one of the 'charges' brought against him by the Pharisees.

4) Yahweh did call forth a Global Deluge for 40 days and 40 nights about 5,500 years ago which covered the Earth to its highest mountaintops, killing all terrestrial life not on Noah's Ark.

Yes, God caused a global flood and only spared Noah, his family, and the animals on the Ark. There are modern day (20th Century) stories of people seeing the Ark, to include stories from those that live near Mount Ararat in Turkey and Iran. There is also physical evidence of the flood; sea-life fossils well inland and at high elevations, layers of earth that show signs they were layed down by water. Yes you can 'explain' these things through other theories, but you can't disprove it either (add that there are many other 'stories' from other cultures of a world-wide flood...makes you wonder).

5) Yahweh created the Universe less than 10,000 years ago in 7 days in the order described in Genesis, including Man. Furthermore, whatever paltry evidence can be mustered on their behalf (a book says it, essentially) cannot hope to shift the Bayesian prior probability in any appreciable manner on their behalf.

Actually the Bible says God created the earth in 6 days, on the 7th he rested. I believe in a God that is powerful enough to do just that, including putting the stars in the sky so that Man could see them starting the evening of Day 6. You've established by your statements that you don't believe in God, that's fine. Eventually we will all die and then we will know. You scoff at the idea of everything being created in 6 days by an omnscient being, but you accept that everything around us just happened by chance/accident over a thousand/million/billion year period. Ok, whatever floats your boat. I like the idea that everything around us was made with some purpose in mind, otherwise, what's the point?

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 7:18PM

Thank you for your honest answer. You are in the mainstream of Christian thought.

The most recent Gallup poll, for example, have 40% of the American public asserting that they believe the Universe was created less than 10,000 years ago just like it says in the Bible. That comes to about 120 million people out of 320 million Americans.

I think that is an intellectual catastrophe which comes to a national disgrace.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 7:33PM

There is another point to be made about the impact of militant atheism upon science.
The case has been made by scientists such as Ken Miller that the militancy and rudeness of the neo atheists on the circuit right now has done more damage to the credibility of science than the opposite.
In other words most folks do not desire to equate science with militant atheism that manifests rudeness and intolerance.

Unfortunately the militant atheist attitude of rudeness shoots itself in the foot in terms of PR.

Americans are pragmatic people and dislike over the top offensiveness be it in the political realm or the secular.

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 7:43PM

I am not interested in Public Relations For Atheism. Your argument is lousy political analysis, but I could care less. Do you have an actual argument on the issues or do you just wanna play High School Prom some more?

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 7:52PM

Not to be picky..but the appropriate usage is "I could Not care less" rather than what you have used which is a common grammatical error.

Now back to the topic. I am interested in PR since it is a competition of ideas and in all non physical competitions, one has to win over hearts and minds.
You have not served with category well.

Jim| 12.26.10 @ 10:19PM

Michael, your constant citation of an alleged Gallup poll got me to the Gallup website. Here's what I found:

Very Religious Americans Have Wellbeing Edge

There is something about being very religious in the United States that leads to or inherently goes along with having higher wellbeing.

Gallup finds that this group of Americans -- those who say religion is an important part of their daily life and who attend a place of worship at least every week or almost every week -- score significantly higher on the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index than the moderately religious and the nonreligious.

The very religious rate their lives more positively, are less likely to have ever been diagnosed with depression, and experience fewer daily negative emotions. These findings are from parts one and two of a special multipart series on religiosity and wellbeing in America.

The third article in the series, out today, reveals that the very religious also make much better health choices than do those who are not as or not at all religious. For instance, 14.9% of very religious Americans smoke compared with 26.6% of the moderately religious and 27.6% of the nonreligious. The very religious are also more likely to eat healthy foods and to exercise frequently.

Check out parts one, two, and three to read the full analyses and to find out more about why the very religious may be outperforming the less devout on wellbeing.

http://thrive.gallup.com/

Is that enough proof for why one should believe? Is it tanglble enough for you?

Jim| 12.26.10 @ 10:27PM

But wait, there's more:

One-Third of Americans Believe the Bible Is Literally True
High inverse correlation between education and belief in a literal Bible
by Frank Newport

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word. This percentage is slightly lower than several decades ago. The majority of those Americans who don't believe that the Bible is literally true believe that it is the inspired word of God but that not everything it in should be taken literally. About one in five Americans believe the Bible is an ancient book of "fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/276.....-True.aspx

Here's another one:

On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution
Belief drops to 24% among frequent church attenders
by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114.....ution.aspx

I don't know where you learned arithmetic, but 25% who do not believe in evolution or one-third who believe the Bible is literal do not equal 40% who you claim Gallup found believe the world was created in seven days. Can you please cite the poll you have been repeatedly touting?

Kingofthenet| 12.26.10 @ 7:12PM

I like to clarify, in an earlier post I said I hope that 'Religious Believers' are mocked and shunned like Atheists are now. I didn't say that to be mean, or hurtful to the Religious people, but when your FANTASY ideas wind up in public policy, such as outlawing Abortion or Stem Cell Research, then I have to be UNKIND. When I have to hide my true lack of beliefs, in order that a potential Christian Boss, will hire me and not think of me as some Godless Heathen, well that's the kind of thing that will bring out the bitterness. Can you imagine what Galileo Galilei felt when he had to kneel down in front of FOOLS and kiss there rings and BEG their forgiveness lest he suffer as a Heretic? It MUST have been humiliating BEYOND words.
BTW: Atheism is an 'ism' like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

Champion| 12.27.10 @ 5:26AM

I recommend reading Bertolt Brecht's Galileo. His work puts the dilemma together nicely, and provides a counterpoint to your argument.

VinnieCCT| 12.26.10 @ 7:38PM

It is impossible to argue with an atheist. They have turned off there sense of reason and have chosen to blindly believe things they have read. They have stubbornly made up their minds on the matter and no new evidence will be considered.
Anyone who honestly takes the time to consider the universe and all that it contains and REASONS will conclude that there is a creator.
To the atheists posting here, how about a simple lesson on reason...
1. What is the last number? Or put another way, is there a number in which I cannot simply add one more to? or is there an infinite amount of numbers?
2. Where is the edge if space? If there were an edge what is beyond that or is there an infinite amount of space or matter?
3. If I took a length, say 1 foot, and divided it in half and continued to divide it in half would i ever reach zero length?
4. Is it so hard to conceive eternity?

Kingofthenet| 12.26.10 @ 7:59PM

You have GOT to be kidding me? Do I REALLY need to spend ENDLESS hours debating the existence or more correctly (Lack of) of a super natural being? I prefer to try and estimate the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. The ONLY people who have turned off their critical thinking are Believers.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm

Jen| 12.28.10 @ 1:36AM

Thanks, Larry. That lazy "I could care less" grates on me every time I read it.

seeker| 12.26.10 @ 7:49PM

I have spent hours reading this thread. Most of it is over my head even though I have an advanced degree. I was raised in America in an unbelieving house. I don't know if I was an atheist or agnostic, but I was very angry at God, if he did exist. I remember telling my college roommates the only reason they believed in heaven was because they had been told that their entire lives. I don't mind admitting I was terrified of nihilism, but fear could not bridge the gap to faith. I had a crisis at 20 when I went into AA. When I got to the third step I had to come to believe in a higher power. They said it could be God, or the group. I immediately thought I am not about to make a bunch of drunks my higher power, as they used to say "our best thinking got us where we were." I began praying "God if you are real show yourself to me." After about two weeks of that I began to think maybe there could be a god, but I could not stand to hear the name of Christ.

After a year and one-half of creating my own god I even had the intellectual honesty to realize "how powerful is a god of my making?". I cannot do anything supernatural, definitely can't create an afterlife and can't make myself feel better. I had no problem scientifically not believing in God, but I was tormented by "what is the purpose of life?" If I really was just an animal, why am I concerned with meaning and ethics. I have always wondered why man who always rebels against God and anyone asserting authority over him has since recorded history always sought to find or create God. I do not see animals doing this. How are we different?

I felt I needed to find the one true God. Unlike many people, I felt that if there are many gods they must not be that powerful. I just didn't buy into that. As to the issue of different paths to God, most major religions specifically reject many paths. So since I wasn't interested in making up a religion, with an impotent made-up God, I had to research and discern whether I thought any of the remaining ones were the truth. As I looked at the record of Christ's life, I found it interesting that unlike many religious figures he did not elevate himself. Very unlike human nature. Considering he only had a three year ministry over two thousand years ago in an obscure part of the world there is an extensive historical record of him. As Lee Strobel pointed out in The Case For Christ many will die for what they believe to be true (i.e. Muslim fundamentalist), but rarely will anyone die for what they know to be false. Many of the apostles went to their death proclaiming his divinity. Why?

Within years of Christ's resurrection, man was already perverting His teachings. Most of Paul's writings are to correct error in the young church. That doesn't render His teachings false, it just supports what He said about the nature of man. Christians believe man is basically evil (we call it sinful) He is born that way. If you have ever raised a child you know this to be true. You never have to teach a child to do wrong, they do it instinctively and habitually. You only have to each them to do right. You have to teach them to share, care about others, be nice. Kids don't even have empathy until they are much older.

I would like to explain to all non-believers. Christians do not believe you lose the sinful nature when you become a Christian. Romans 8 tells us that the sinful nature battles the spiritual nature that God births in you. Think of the cartoons with a devil one shoulder and an angel on the other. We now have the power to choose the spiritual response, but there is no guarantee we will. That is how preachers fall and Christians do horrible things. We are only different in that we recognize we cannot save ourselves.

Thanks for straining my brain today. After 23 years as a Christian, my worst day is better than my best day in my 24 years as a non-believer. One of my most cherished verses is Mark 9:24 "Lord I believe, help me overcome my unbelief.." I have the hardest time evangelizing because I was not won over by academic argument, but an encounter with the one true

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 7:55PM

Thank you for this post.
And to add a bit here, in the arena of ideas where one has to win over hearts and minds, the angry atheist is not well suited to win anyone over.

Good luck to you and many Blessings!!

Kingofthenet| 12.26.10 @ 8:18PM

Seeker,nice post
Jesse Ventura once said; ' Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers.'
While that might be true ONE common sense thing he failed to mention is that a crutch is USEFUL, it provides us support when we are in pain. Who would hobble around without one with a broken leg(or Spirit)? As an Atheist I just prefer my supports to be of THIS world(Family,Lovers, Friends)

seeker| 12.26.10 @ 9:11PM

Dear Kingofthenet, That felt an awful lot like a backhanded compliment. Although I can honestly say I would never want to quote Jesse Ventura on anything other than WWF wrestling, I too am not interested in organized religion, I am interested in a relationship with Christ. The problem with organized religion is people are involved, same problem with government. Religion is not a crutch anymore than your loved ones are. I also have supports of this world. In addition, I hold to a belief system which actually makes my life more difficult. It would be easier if I could be completely self-absorbed, lie when it benefits me, use people as I see fit, prefer myself over others and any other manner of subjective morality that I pick. However, the God that I am in relationship with prefers a different way of living. One that demonstrates His character. Contrary to popular belief I did not become a Christian to get into heaven. That requires the greatest amount of faith for me to believe it could actually exist. I have no problem believing in the divinity of Christ, His resurrection, but heaven is huge for me. I am taking that on faith. I was never scared of going to hell, I was afraid of ceasing to exist.

As I pointed out to my father, my life has been greatly enhanced by what I believe so even if I get to the end of my life and it turns out to be a social construct I will never know, however, he will know for all eternity if he is wrong.

Kingofthenet| 12.26.10 @ 9:47PM

seeker, no backhanded complement, Straight up compliment, you are clearly a kind, thoughtful person searching for meaning and reason for existence. We might 'slice the salami' in different ways, and find meaning and value in different things.That's OK, but let us BOTH try and do the best we can for humanity in THIS realm, whatever happens or not in the next will only benefit from that.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 9:13PM

The difference is that you are content with faith in your lovers, family ad friends. But for Seeker faith in the Transcendent was what he is/was seeking.

Don L| 12.26.10 @ 8:09PM

I love how suppossedly intellegent folks waste their entire lives fighting the God they insist doesn't even exist. Philosphy 110 exposes the limits of science as being unable to determine the existence or non-existence of God because of its spatial temporal requirements. So these are just opinions(like the plumber giving you a stock tip)

All that sophisticated arguing and anti-God sputtering of nay-words is really about one thing: "I will not serve!"

Maybe inside the Cuckoo's Nest is the saner place...

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 8:22PM

You have it wrong. All of it is for 2 other reasons.

First, it is for the Truth. The imaginary magical buddy you were conned into believing in so that you would give 10% of your wealth to the swindler does not really exist.

Second, it is to prevent the worst of what crazy does. You know, Christians burning 250,000 women at the stake because they were witches, carving the hearts out of 500,000 people as sacrifices to Huitzilopochatli so the crops would grow, wearing explosive vests into cafes full of infidels so that Allah would reward the believer with 40 acres, a mule, and 72 virgins in Paradise Gardens, and on and on and on.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 9:15PM

You have dissolved into a diatribe.
You're incoherent.

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 9:23PM

No, really, is there anything resembling an argument in your near future?

What did you not understand about my response? Two reasons for atheists to object.

1: The truth is that your God does not exist. The Truth matters. What about that confused you?
2: Religous belief is insane and crazy begets crazy. Some of that crazy manifests in really catastrophic ways. Some of it in daily indignities and oppressions. Atheists are motivated to stop the worst. What about THAT is unclear?

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 9:21PM

250,000women? Where does this number come from? Hundreds of millions dead due to fascism and communism---yes, the numbers are there. 270 million dead due to Islam---yes, the numbers are there.

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 9:44PM

This is the pretty good discussion I took that number from: http://www.holocaust-history.o.....ches.shtml .

I agree that communism killed 100 million of its own people, primarily through the forced collectivization of agriculture, but from purges and political pogroms and by imprisonment in the lagois and gulags. Communism is evil.

Islam has murdered many millions over the years and so has Christianity through religious wars and crusades.

You know, the number of people murdered for atheism in all of history is less than the number murdered for religion at 9pm on the 2nd Wednesday of each April.

Jim| 12.26.10 @ 10:31PM

Michael, please define evil.

Johnny V| 12.27.10 @ 12:37AM

The number of people killed by atheists are the same number of people that were killed by Hitler, Stalin, etc. who were all atheists. Numbering in the millions. As my family escaped the Soviet Union please don't lecture me on pleasantries of atheism.

marilyne| 12.27.10 @ 11:19AM

He said the number of people murdered "FOR" atheism, not by atheists. Geez!!! Huge difference. Those millions of people were killed by men who had moustaches, not FOR moustaches. Those millions were killed by MEN! Not 'for' men, or in the name of 'men' or moustaches. Hitler and Stalin, and Mao and Pol Pot were all......men. Ha!
They were also willing to kill lots of people in the name of their ideologies-that is, communism/ naziism. Bad guys can be many things. Men, women, Christian, Muslim, stamp collectors, hairdressers, atheists, geniuses, Norwegians, heterosexuals, dog lovers, mothers, insane, ......

Occam's Tool| 12.27.10 @ 1:01AM

Yes, Michael. Communism is evil, and atheistic.

But you know, that's not really my point, which I think is far more interesting, certainly more so than having to define antisemitism for a Russian. Unless someone directly slaps me, I avoid ad hominem arguments. Dr. B really, really pissed me off. You haven't, so please note the politeness here.

This is my point, and please answer it, if you can: name one secular humanist country (like, say, Britain) that has a replacement birthrate. The answer is none. Does it not strike you as interesting that in countries that have an absence of faith that there is an absence of offspring? My view is that in secular societies there is no vested interest in children, whereas religious societies have an interest as a matter of course (at least the 3 monotheistic religions do).

Now, let us set up some ground rules---the absence of an established church does not mean the society is secular (I would argue that the US is NOT secular), and the presence of one does not mean that the society is not secular---the UK, for example, or New Zealand (blech!---not necessarily the secularness of NZ---the drunkenness, the unattractiveness of the women, the lack of an intellectual life, and the Rugby mania. Blech!!!). Two sources that I would recommend for your demographic searches are the CIA Factbook and the UN Demographic page. Feel free to pick another, but it has to be easily accessible.

In short, I'm arguing that secular humanism is counter survival. The true counter will be to find a society that is secular that has a birthrate of 2.1 or higher. I'll check back tomorrow. Take care,

OT.

(Yes, I would rather have a polite adversary.)

Christopher| 12.27.10 @ 11:48AM

Michael, you do know that the Communists were/are atheists, as were the Nazis. That was the official policy of each. Both killed over one hundred million people because both wanted to reamake the world and man in their image. The number of people killed in the Crusades is less than were killed by Atheist Mao in one day, or Castro in 1958

Thomas| 12.28.10 @ 1:46AM

And the Crusades were defensive, as the muslims had invaded and were putting "infidels" to death in cruel, tortuous ways.

LeJardin| 12.26.10 @ 9:38PM

Michael,

Your idiocy continues, alas, unabated. Regarding "the Truth," as I said before, you don't have the intellectual goods to "inform" the likes of physics nobelists like Bill Phillips or Charles Townes or Abdus Salam... it's agonizingly obvious, you can't handle the truth... But you sure do love to type, boy. Ever think of becoming a secretary?

And regarding your questionable death tolls: You're one of the many unwashed who believe, wrongly, that death and destruction are to be laid more at the door of the religious than the non-religious. This is willful ignorance of the highest caliber. The past century saw the murders of 40 - 70 million Chinese by Mao, at least 30 million by Stalin, 60 million in WWII that we can lay at the feet of Hitler and the Japanese junta... to say nothing of the lesser stars like Pol Pot... all good heathens and atheists. The non-religious have taken the gold on this, I'm afraid. And nut-cases are to be found everywhere... that includes the atheist Tim McVeigh.

But at least I haven't seen you calling anyone "slugger" lately. Congratulations. You've evolved.

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 10:02PM

Poser. Learn to make an honest argument.

You posted a list of a few Nobel scientists who were religious believers and for some reason you think that isn't just an embarassing stunt. Hey Frenchy... there have been 239 physics laureates, 160 chemistry laureates, and 196 medecine laureates to 2010. Your list of believers is less than 2% of the total. Congratulations on dirt-stupid statistics.

THAT embarassing display was supposed to answer the argument that 93% of America's most distinguished scientists are atheists. HERE is what the research says: http://www.stephenjaygould.org.....le002.html .

Poser.

As to the latest tripe excusing religious insanity by pointing to the atrocities of Communism, that's just puerile. The Communists were murderous thugs: they killed 100 million of their own in the collectivization of agriculture, the industrial relocation of the peasants, and the political purgings of intellectuals and others to the lagoi and the gulags. NONE of those atrocities were to spread atheism.

Look, if every murder or other crime committed by Christians counted against Christianity, it would be drenched in blood. In the US, for example, the percent of criminals in prison that are Christian is about 85%, the same as the general population. Atheists are badly under-represented, making up less than 1/10 of 1% of the prison population, despite being 8-10% of the general population. But I won't do that.

Christianity should be shouldered with the horrors committed in the name of Christianity and Atheism should be saddled with the atrocities committed in the name of Atheism. And in that contest, Christianity is drenched in blood.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 10:22PM

Christ shed His blood for you.

LeJardin| 12.26.10 @ 10:24PM

I'm no poser, but you ARE a genuine idiot: your blather regarding statistics couldn't be more irrelevant to anything. The point I was making about the nobelists, you illiterate monkey, was that there are people (

LeJardin| 12.26.10 @ 10:25PM

I'm no poser, but you ARE a genuine idiot: your blather regarding statistics couldn't be more irrelevant to anything. The point I was making about the nobelists, you illiterate monkey, was that there are people (less than 2% or not) who are orders of magnitude brighter than yourself (and I'm beginning to see that it is probably a far greater number than I first imagined) who believe in G_d... and therefore, you are in no position to call them -- or anyone else around here -- stupid, Stupid.

Equally irrelevant is your bilge regarding whether or not Communist purges were meant to spread atheism (which of course they were, Brainless: they were meant to promulgate communism, a core tenet of which was atheism... but I digress). The point is that you were accusing the religious of having a bloody history... and I'm here to tell you, comparing them to the non-religious, that you're just blind stupid.

Good luck with your application for admission to the human race. You still have a ways to go.

The Truth| 12.26.10 @ 10:44PM

OOOWWWWNNEEEDDD....Owned it. Nice...that was some truth. I love it

Joe| 12.28.10 @ 1:48AM

"Poser"? How old are you?

George| 12.26.10 @ 8:10PM

"Telling them not to bother with cookies and milk because Santa Claus isn't coming?"

You make an apt point, although unknowingly.

Just like telling the kids that Santa Claus is not coming because he does not exist, some of us are trying to tell the majority of you that God does not exist.

And just as unpopular as it is to tell kids that their make-believe fairy tale friend is real, it is equally frowned upon by the guardian sheep of religion to point out that the Great Sheep Herder is just as much a fantasy.

Humanity will not enter its next phase of being until such childish fantasies are vanquished from the collective mind ether.

Osamas Pajamas| 12.26.10 @ 9:57PM

There is no "collective" mind --- that, too, is a childish fantasy. There are only individual persons, each of them unique and unrepeatable.

John| 12.28.10 @ 2:08AM

You misunderstand. No one is "sad" at you "setting us straight," as you seem to believe. However, the militant style of the enraged athiest who tells us how we "should" live our lives, who comes onto peaceful discussion pages and vomits hate all over them, needs to be stood up to. Reasonably. Tolerantly. Honestly. And that "standing up" is what you are mistaking for "sorrow" over losing "childish fantasies."

Frankly, I couldn't care less what you believe. And you couldn't care less what I believe. What you really want is a movement, and you're the same people who've previously led the movements against America's goodness and right. You want to Lead Us Into Your Truth about additional ideologies, not just religion. Socialism. Marxism. Communism. Natzism. Islamofacism. Atheism. Eugenics. Globalim. Nihlism. You sre just a foot soldier in the battle, a "useful idiot" or a "dupe," to quote a recent book on the subject. But we know who you are and how you operate.

You know it's bigger than religion. And so do we. And yes, we will fight against your attempts to destroy our culture, our history, and our values. You're not the first propagators of evil America has had to protect against, and you probably won't be the last.

ClarkB| 12.26.10 @ 8:23PM

Consider that Religion cannot explain Science, but Science CAN explain Religion.

To Religion, Science looks like a heretical threat when it debunks religious cosmology such as the origin of the universe or the orbit of the planets. Science however has no regard one way or another towards Religion, other than to understand if Religion has a scientific explanation - which it does.

Religion is an Evolutionary adaptation which provides a framework for human cooperation outside of the tribal bonds. That was the fundamental value of religion. Religion also served as a repository for environmental knowledge - such as don't eat the (undercooked) pork (Judaism), or when to irrigate fields in Bali (water temples), or when to plant corn in the American southwest (Hopi Indians).

Humans are tribal by nature, and religion was the first social mechanism which allowed a larger abstract goal or identity to bind a meta-family of humans together for improved survival potential. That is why the earliest religions were ancestor worship - based upon the tribal elders. The various functions of religion - environmental knowledge, legal principles, market and economic rules, cosmology and our role in the Universe - have been disaggregated into science, economics, philosophy, psychology, politics and law. Not much is left and Religion is actually fighting for its life. It continues to morph more into an entertainment form than a system by which people actually live. It is no wonder that the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) evolved to replicate the human family - with a Father in Heaven, and the Son on Earth, born to a Virgin. It has a strong appeal to the disenfranchised (provides a psuedo-family) and can sometimes supplant the same familial roles in the mentally unstable thus leading them to act in apparently irrational ways (i.e. - suicide bomber).

Religion is a an Evolutionary adaptation which has limited usefulness today, but hangs around as a vestigial social organ; and like a body's appendix, it is prone to infection.

Osamas Pajamas| 12.26.10 @ 9:58PM

Humans are not "tribal by nature" but it makes sense to associate under a division ofg labor as that combination of human efforts yields the highest value for all participants.

RickS| 12.26.10 @ 8:26PM

Michael, Why are you so militant about this issue? Seriously, if people want to believe in God, then what is wrong with that? How does it hurt you? (and don't tell me about religion causing wars, murder, etc. Those things all existed hundreds of thousands of years before the advent of religion). You believe in what you believe (or don't believe or whatever) and we'll believe what we believe. Let it go. This hatred is going to eat you alive boy.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 9:18PM

If you notice his argumentation has not only transgressed into rudeness, but it has dissolved in a spastic rant which conflates witch burning to terrorism.

John| 12.28.10 @ 2:21AM

Amen. I cannot understand their insistence upon our dropping our religious beliefs. Why do our beliefs threaten them so, unless these beliefs are the underpinning to all that's right and good about Western civilization that they hope to destroy?

Yes. Let it go. Be tolerant, rather than bigoted against Christians and Jews. The hate is not harming us; we are strong in our beliefs. But it is easy to see by the bombast on here that your hate is destroying your own humanity and goodness.

Get rid of all the religious and....and what? What will be the benefit to you if your neighbor doesn't go to church on Sunday morning or pray before bed? Judeo-Christian belief must threaten you in some way, and if you feel threatened, you must be afraid. Why do those with strong religious beliefs make you afraid?

(another) Michael| 12.30.10 @ 9:50AM

Because they are not critical thinkers, religious people can not compartmentalize, they judge other based upon their dogma and beliefs. They have a very negative effect on scientific development and education (well behind other western nations in science and math ed.) The proselytize (more a bother than anything else really). Religious politicians have a VERY FRIGHTENING way of bring their esoteric beliefs into public policy as in .."Representative John Shimkus insists we shouldn't concerned about the planet being destroyed because God promised Noah it wouldn't happen again after the great flood"... do I need to go on?

Yes, absolutely, people with strong religious beliefs are VERY VERY frightening.. and they have to be opposed, fought and exposed at every opportunity.

glenn| 12.26.10 @ 8:30PM

I sympathize with the author's position, and think that if anything he understates his argument. He notes that "The Big Bang and evolution explain how we got here, but that is about it. Religion explains why we are here and what we are supposed to do about it." In point of fact, the Big Bang theory does not explain "how we got here". Rather, the theory states, incredibly, that the entire universe came out of nothing at all. Once it started, the theory has much to say about how it developed, but it has nothing -- nothing -- to say about how it started to begin with.

Paul| 12.26.10 @ 8:55PM

The default position is that God exists. The default God is the God is Islam.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 9:19PM

Dear "No God":

Please point out a single society which is secular humanist which has a replacement birthrate of 2.1. Two websites which will aid you in this are the UN Demographic website and the CIA Factbook webiste. If you can find another, so be it.

The answer is none. Secular humanism leads to death.

Josh| 12.26.10 @ 9:32PM

As does knee jerk... lashing out... anger.

Occam's Tool| 12.27.10 @ 12:47AM

No knee jerk, Josh you kapo. Again, rather than ad homineming me, answer the question, goyische kopf. Now, why don't you be a good boy and support the Kiwis in their attempt to ban Kosher, OK?

You like that? No? Well, my question was regarding secular humanism. It was addressed to "No God." And it was bereft of ad hominem attacks. Now, you stupid barely literate adolescent, answer the question or quit annoying me.

Occam's Tool| 12.27.10 @ 12:47AM

No knee jerk, Josh you kapo. Again, rather than ad homineming me, answer the question, goyische kopf. Now, why don't you be a good boy and support the Kiwis in their attempt to ban Kosher, OK?

You like that? No? Well, my question was regarding secular humanism. It was addressed to "No God." And it was bereft of ad hominem attacks. Now, you stupid barely literate adolescent, answer the question or quit annoying me.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 5:06AM

Why do I need to answer that? Is it even relevant?

Negro X| 12.26.10 @ 9:30PM

The one constant we can be assured of is that Michael doesn't have to this discussion with muslims, he cowers in fear of their "pretend buddy".

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 9:36PM

as do all militant atheists, and secular humanists..

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 10:52PM

Do you ALL listen to same idiotic radio programs? Atheists have been at the forefront of criticizing Islam. Read Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, or listen to Maher at least once. Sheeple.

Negro X| 12.26.10 @ 11:21PM

Maher? You are indeed an ignorant buffoon.

Jen| 12.28.10 @ 2:27AM

If they mention islam at all, it is jammed into a conversation about the evils of Christianity. The new atheists on their pages bash Jews and Christians. The TV debates are about Jews and Christians. And 99% of the insults on here have been about Jews and Christians.

Kingofthenet| 12.26.10 @ 9:31PM

IF there IS an afterlife, NONE of the Great thinkers of History have been able to pierce this Mortal Plane, EVEN with all their 'otherworldly' supernatural strength. Does anyone doubt that Einstein or Harry Houdini or Carl Sagan, would LOVE to let the mortal realm, know the REAL truth? Sadly neither can we, pierce theirs(Because there is No other Realm)

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 9:35PM

You forgot to mention Jesus...who leads us there.

Jimbob| 12.26.10 @ 9:37PM

Michael and his atheist buddies in this exchange are indicative of everything that is wrong in western culture right now. The public education system pumps these tools out armed with an incredibly weak understanding of science and philosophy, but also with the outrageous idea that their vastly ill-informed opinions and pseudo-intellectual analysis somehow matter and should be expressed to the public. Case in point: several posts above, Michael proceeds to use a recent book written for the general public (ie: to generate profit) to "crush" theism...entirely ignorant of the several thousand years of scholarly writings of both atheists and theists that far outweigh any futile attempt by Hawking to generate an original thought on the matter. Furthermore, he fails horrendously at describing the opinions the book sets forth, yet obviously believes he has a sound understanding of the material. So fervently he believes this that he is willing to stick his neck out and lecture us all on our belief in fairy tales and blue midgets (or whatever that childish attempt at an ad hominem was about). My guess? Michael is a high school educated clerk for Barnes and Noble where he receives discounts on popular books, fancies himself an autodidact with respect to the question of God, and regularly chastises any religious person he can find in order to provide himself a boost of self-esteem. I hate to be honest with you, Michael, but not really. The individual who wrote this article is vastly superior to you, certainly in intellect, but probably also in every manner conceivable. It takes work to make your opinion valuable. Yours is currently that of a disaffected, resentful child. Get a life. And go read a real book.

Kingofthenet| 12.26.10 @ 10:05PM

We should ALL read 'Real Books' so no Fantasy Holy Books everyone. OK?

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 10:12PM

Why not go further and demand society burns any books you deem inappropriate for the Era.

Jimbone| 12.26.10 @ 10:18PM

Nothing about my post suggests that I'm an advocate for censorship. Thanks for the thoughtful response, though.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 10:24PM

I was commenting upon Kingofthenet 's response to your post which I loved.

jimbone| 12.26.10 @ 10:27PM

OOOOhhhhhhhh. I almost laughed out loud. The profundity...the wit...I'm not sure how your genius slipped through the cracks.

jimbone| 12.26.10 @ 10:29PM

And this was meant for that post too. I obviously clicked the wrong comment button. My apologies.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 10:07PM

... love it. Terrific post.

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 10:12PM

So you don't have even a SINGLE cogent response? Nothing? Look. it isn't my fault you barely got out of high school.

You think that Yahweh created the Universe less than 10,000 years ago, don't you?

jimbone| 12.26.10 @ 10:24PM

It's difficult to give "cogent" responses to illogical or irrational arguments. Hence the phrase: "It's impossible to argue with an idiot". You seem conscious enough to be educated. That's about all I can gather of you in terms of aptitude from your posts. The question is, though, would you listen? The answer is no. Because you don't care about reason. You care about your position. You've made that obvious. Go argue with an emo kid at a coffee shop. Someone like that could probably appreciate your incredibly deep, "cogent" thoughts.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 10:29PM

Jimbone..I love you..!!! hahahaha great post.

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 10:39PM

Hey Jim... your boyfriend Larry wants you back.

You have yet to make a single argument about any of the issues. Not one. I guess we need someone to haul the heavy boxes from place to place. Fetch, boy!

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 10:44PM

Michael are you jealous of my affection?

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 10:27PM

Oh my..I think I have hit a nerve since your default is chiming in again...poor form Michael..TRY HARDER...

The Truth| 12.26.10 @ 10:39PM

You sure have great grammer and spelling. You are great at making people look like fools with accusations, big words, using big words strategically and properly, and essentially arguing. However mr politition( I dont know how to spell very well, it doesnt mean im an idiot, if you think that it does then you are mistaken)(also I refuse to waste time with spell check, id rather waste on on longer paragraphs explain my poor spellinglol) You failed to deliver your point. You read like an erudite scholar, so why dont you drop some references or something? I agree with you about him, he does seem resentful, but I tell you what, hes kinda right in some ways. The truth is, nobody really knows how we got here, thats why we fight, because we dont know. We dont fight about math because it as a substantial and corroberated code. We fight about existence because we all so badly want to know the truth. Most of us believe in what us tell us to believe(god) and others believe in what they went out and searched for(non believers searching in hope for truth) yet truthfully, we all come up short. No one person has proof, only faith. Which to me is just a word used by people who give up, who have no other answer. "Well, since I really dont know for sure, ill just have to say its faith" No really people, you just dont have a clue. With all of the different religions, how could christianity be the real one? The only reason we are a christian nation is because it was and still is the primary religion tought here. That doesnt mean its true. So yes, big fancy words are great, but you didnt nothing with them. You proved no point. I think you were just waiting to use all of those words you learned and you found the right chance. You did a great jon no doubt, I like the way you write.
p.s. Not everyting I said was aimed directly toward you. Discretion is advised

Philosoraptor| 12.30.10 @ 3:21PM

Jimbob,

Your name certainly says "serious intellectual" so I'm a little intimidated to respond to you, but I feel I must.

I want you to point out that you chide Michael for an ad hominen attack, and then, in the next sentence, write "Michael is a high school educated clerk for Barnes and Noble where he receives discounts on popular books, fancies himself an autodidact with respect to the question of God, and regularly chastises any religious person he can find in order to provide himself a boost of self-esteem." That's an ad hominem attack. Either you were being purposely obtuse to prove a salient point (with a name like Jimbob, I think this is a likely scenario) or you don't really know what ad hominem means. Not to stray too far off-topic, but can you please tell me where Socrates went to college in order to get the advanced degree to lend his opinions the proper intellectual gravitas? Conversely, overvaluing, what a person says because of who they are while ignoring the substance of what they say is known as an appeal to authority. I know I've already taught you one term today, Jimbob, but you should really go to a bookstore to look that one up, too. I'm sure any number of Barnes and Noble clerks will be able to steer you in the right direction.

In the case of Stephen Hawking, though, citing him as an authority in matters of quantum physics is an exception to the appeal to authority fallacy. He IS an authority on quantum physics, and widely admired and respected by his peers. Yes, the book cited above is a popular science tome, but it's based on actual peer-reviewed research that Hawking and his colleagues have done. Those papers are available to read in their original math and physics-heavy form. I suggest you take a look at them and attempt to slog through (take Advil for any headaches, Midol for any cramps).

Further, to support the idea, as you appear to, that God is beyond the scope of science invalidates your beliefs. The idea of a personal God entails a being that can intercede on your behalf in your affairs. If that's true, then He can be tested; if God can't be seen and can't be tested for, then what good is He? Going a bit further: what's the difference between something you can't see and can't test for, and something that doesn't exist at all?

Incidentally, I've always found the anthropomorphic view of our invisible best friend to be one of the most rebarbative aspects of religious faith, anyway. How can we say that God - the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful creator of everything - fits one of the two genders found in the carbon-based life forms of our planet. That's bracingly hubristic (to say nothing of the oft-repeated trope that we were "made in His image").

One final note: I've got a thought experiment for you, Jimbob. I believe the term "God" is a myth and a metaphor for human traits, in order to give those same traits a respect-generating divine imprimateur. When believers say "God," however, it's a loaded term. Numerous presumptions and assumptions, most entirely bare assertions, are wrapped up in that word. To a Hindu, God could mean Krishna. To a Catholic, the word could mean the Holy Trinity. To a member of the Mississippean tribes that populated the American plains before the English colonists, God could mean something entirely different than anything we're used to imagining.

Are you with me still? With all of these different views, is it reasonable to believe in just one vision of God? What differentiates one from the other besides where you were born and whom you were born to. Doesn't that seem rather arbitrary?

How do we know that God has revealed himself to humanity at all? Perhaps we've had only false prophets so far. Remember, the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Modern humans have inhabited this planet for maybe 100,000 years. That's nothing in terms of geological time. We're also just specks on one small planet in one of the countless galaxies throughout our 14 billion year old universe. I'm willing to concede that there may be a God, but that he hasn't revealed himself to our planet yet. If believers were content to put their trust in an amorphous, still-to-come phantasm, I'd find the demotic prose of theological nonsense a bit more palatable. Instead, people insist on constructing eschatologies and internally coherent but never updated ideologies around the term "God," so that the term means something entirely different depending upon where you are in the world. A universal definition of God as a benificent spirit who gave us a planet suited for life, brains to help us improve ourselves, and traits like kindness, charity, loyalty, love, and gratitude is an idea I could get behind. I'd also support that idea if people would admit that maybe we haven't learned the absolute truth yet, and that, in their present forms, religions are inadequate when compared to science as far as answering questions of any substance. Religion provides ex post facto reasoning and rationalizations; science provides tools to find answers.

Stop writing misspelled 64pt font captions on pictures of cats for a second, and think about what I've said, Jimbob. With a name like that, I'm sure it will all make perfect sense.

By the way: THAT's an ad hominem (but at least I'm honorable enough to own up to it).

Osamas Pajamas| 12.26.10 @ 9:54PM

OK, I can no longer resist --- how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And what is the planted axiom in this question?

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 10:05PM

As many as shall delight to do so..

Kingofthenet| 12.26.10 @ 10:10PM

At that scale, they BETTER hope there is no Amoeba's there, otherwise can anyone say 'Angel death by THE BLOB'

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 10:18PM

Angels are non corporeal Beings of Light immune to microbiological organisms.

a baptist| 12.26.10 @ 10:17PM

none. according to my denomination, dancing is forbidden.

Will Iteverend| 12.26.10 @ 10:10PM

Well, I can see everyone is having a good time with this. Before I hit the hay, first I'd like to say to all of the Christians (and others who share their belief in God and Santa Clause) who are offended by the mere concept of atheism (see billboard "controversy"), you are hypocrites. Absolute hypocrites for having any objection at all to the thing. You have spent centuries promoting a glorified fairy tale. Answersingenesis? Intelligent Design? Are you serious? The sad truth is that you are serious. You won't stop. It just goes on and on every generation.

Second, you have wasted a couple of thousand years honing your arguments and still they cannot begin to show that the gods that you have invented in your minds are real. Even assuming that there is a god or two, no one with the ability to reason believes that you or your high priests are so gifted as to know anything about that god. The arrogance in this area is endless.

Third, you have also for thousands of years taken yourselves so seriously that you have forced your ideas on the ignorant, the uneducated, the helpless, the insane and the weak. And worst of all, you have indoctrinated innocent children from birth and threatened them with your hell and your gods' wrath for as long as you have existed. That's inexcusable.

Although I am sure Mr. Hitchens does not want me to speak for him, use his name or involve him in this argument in any way... Hitchens would eat you all for lunch.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 11:08PM

No he wouldn't. Hitchens is a cantankerous dying man, who will meet his maker and answer to him for his stupidity soon enough.

He views Judaism as part of an "axis of evil."

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 11:08PM

No he wouldn't. Hitchens is a cantankerous dying man, who will meet his maker and answer to him for his stupidity soon enough.

He views Judaism as part of an "axis of evil."

Marilyne| 12.27.10 @ 11:40AM

Michael, thank you for a couple hours of sheer joy! Not a single refutation. Not even an attempt! I'd bet Hitchens would applaud you, I certainly do.
OT- keep spreading the 'good news'! I love how you've been filled with the loving spirit of god! I hope you are not in a position of authority anywhere. Or, if you are, far away from me.

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 3:06AM

Actually, he's been mowed over several times over the course of the last few days. You don't recognize it, because you're one of the lazy brained masses that sees what you want to see. Good luck with that.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 10:17PM

And your point is.......??????????
Shall you deem what is meritorious for culture and for humanity?

Macca| 12.26.10 @ 10:18PM

It's amusing watching both sides of the issue debate whether God exists at all. Do any of us exist? No, I am not getting very philosophical, but think- we all agree with the first law of thermodynamics- energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Yet, we know for a fact that there is energy! Where did it come from? The singularity? What caused this into existence? Has it always been? How can that be? Well, if we cannot explain the origin than does it exist? Yes! We accept it's truth because we see or experience the effects of energy everyday. We see or experience the effects of God in our lives- those that are believers. Can you prove that not to be true? There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth than not and by a huge margin! Time and again, historians have questioned biblical landmarks of which there was no evidence and time and again archeologists have found them! I am a biologist by profession and during my studies at University I questioned the truth of the bible, not as an antagonist, but rather as someone who wanted to believe it, yet needed sound evidence in order to accept it. I sought the truth and after many years, came to the conclusion that it is the truth and that Jesus Christ was and is who He says He is! The very idea of free will can only be accomplished the way God laid out His plan as revealed in the bible. If He walked the earth today and sat on a grand throne, we all would surely believe, but it would not be by choice, it would be simply a fact and out of fear, by many, would they profess their love for God. Even a thief will profess love if he gets something in return. Genuine love is when you chose, by free will, to love someone by choice. Look at any religion in the world and it will make demands of works to reach God or it will simple serve as a guide on how to lead your life. Only the bible reveals God's plan in which He chose to love us and give us eternal life at the cost of His own life. No works, just grace. Why do so many find this so hard to accept? Again, I end where I started, where did all matter/energy come from? That is an answer we will never know, but accept the truth that it is. We also believe that String Theory may explain matter/energy in it's most basic form, yet physicists believe we may never be able to prove 'strings' due to their extremely small size. So is it science or philosophy?

Kingofthenet| 12.26.10 @ 10:39PM

Quote:"There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth than not and by a huge margin! "
Yeah............................No:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Kingofthenet| 12.26.10 @ 10:22PM

Star with these two and go thru their respective series, YES WE DO take on Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Th.....S5vid4GkEY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

Will Iteverend| 12.26.10 @ 10:28PM

The point is that Christians whining about atheists in this country is like Microsoft whining about a few people who don't use PCs. Religions have had a pretty good run (using questionable tactics at times) and there's no reason to believe that Christianity won't maintain a sizable share of the market.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 10:39PM

Theists responding to nonsense and illogic is not whining.
Secondly, in the competition of ideas, if militant atheists desire to be taken seriously then conflating ideas and arguing ad hominum can never work. Most folks simply do not desire to be associated with the sort of behavior that the Michaels of the web exhibit.
Religion and faith has been and is a part of the human fabric truly since the emergence of abstract thinking. And they will remain.

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 10:46PM

Thank you for proclaiming the human condition! I can paraphrase your entire contribution to this discussion as "Mean people suck! (Except those I agree with!)" Lightweight Larry.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 10:52PM

No Michael..
I never used the word ..suck...

But more to the point, your argument needs to be compelling enough to compete and compel others to change. It is what you desire. Isn't it?
You desire a change of heart and mind.
So your job is to be a messenger of change.
Thus far your message has been dominated by a personal venom against Christianity.
It is a failed argument. Most Christians cannot and do not relate to what you espouse.

jimbone| 12.26.10 @ 10:54PM

Michael, you've been getting steam rolled for this entire discussion. You've posted your entire magnum opus on this website, and no one is impressed. Just go re-read "The God Delusion" and smirk to yourself about how much smarter you are than the average man.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 10:58PM

Please do not encourage him to stop..I am having too much fun.

Kingofthenet| 12.26.10 @ 11:09PM

Larry,Jimbob the ONLY arguments that are being destroyed are YOURS. Whenever someone is confronted with overwhelming evidence AGAINST something they believe, the ONLY refuge you can find is the 'Disrespect' and 'intolerance' these NEW ideas are presented as. Micheal IS Thor and he is swinging a 10,000 lb hammer at your weak ideas and making them utterly shatter into NOTHINGNESS. Truth IS BRUTAL and unforgiving, accept it. You sound like a bunch of whites from the deep south BEFORE the civil rights movement, sure you will let a kind, nicely dressed Black eat at YOUR lunch counter....But that REALLY isn't a RIGHT now is it?

marilyne| 12.27.10 @ 11:45AM

Michael has been steamrolled? what???? where? when? I've been paying very close attention, and no one, not once, has offered a rebuttal to any of his points. Lots of "you think you're so smart, stupid" comments, but no refutations. If I missed one, please, point it out!!!

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 1:44AM

If you've been "paying very close attention" and you didn't notice the several occasions above where the author of this article owned Michael, then you need an eyeglasses prescription.

Jimbone| 12.26.10 @ 10:47PM

Very well said.

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 10:48PM

Hey Larry, I think Jim is going to take you back!

Jimbone| 12.26.10 @ 10:55PM

Hey! That was almost witty, Michael!

Hrumph| 12.26.10 @ 10:39PM

Psalm 115:3 - Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.
This is the beginning of faith. God does not have to prove he exists and neither do I nor anyone else in this forum. Be afraid for that day when God says that he no longer believes YOU exist.

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 10:47PM

Exodus 35:2
" Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

Exodus 21:17
"Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.

Deuteronomy 13: 6-11
6If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
7Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
8Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
9But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
10And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
11And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 10:56PM

Are you suggesting that we all should read the Bible literally?
I thought your argument was for change of heart and mind?

Hrumph| 12.26.10 @ 10:57PM

Nice cut and paste. I too have a bible and can quote scripture. Your post in no way negates my statement, it only strengthens it. Fail.

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 11:04PM

So you like some parts and use them. The inconvenient parts of God's commandments... we'll just pretend they aren't there?

Macca| 12.26.10 @ 11:09PM

Michael, there are people that make very good arguments and succeed, many who take advantage of others for their own gain. I'm sorry if you do not find meaning in life other than to put down other's beliefs. If you convince one person that their "god" is not real, well you probably have succeeded in removing the one source of comfort in their life that is not wavering! Congratulations! It's amazing though, that when your life comes to an end, you fear death and the unknown. It is usually at these times that people like you suddenly have a change of heart. Oh, but I'm sure BIG STRONG Michael will not, because he is a man of reason and death is simply the end and nothing more. I hold no animosity towards you Michael, just feeling sorry for you when you are, literally, all alone in the moments leading up to your death. It is not an abstract thought, it will happen and you alone will face it. I hope you will face death with hope and not fear when that day WILL happen. If your right and God does not exist, you win and we simply cease to exist. If you die and I ( and other Christians) am right, I will live on and you will, for eternity, be separated by God.

(another) Michael| 12.30.10 @ 10:04AM

and you shall be punished (tortured and burnt in a lake of fire) forever and ever.. for not believing like me.. beautiful christian sentiments.

Macca| 12.26.10 @ 10:54PM

One more thing, lets say God does not exist and evolution explains it all. Man has evolved with a need for "god". All ancient cultures believed in a "god", yes even before an idea spread via the internet. Why did we all have this need? The simple answer- life is tough and we simply cannot understand or control it, so we create a greater being that must be responsible for disease or the lack thereof. Mankind has had this need for thousands of years. Now, some elite "scholars" feel man no longer needs "god" and reason is more important than thousands of years of culture and a gods place in it. OK, when they have demystified "god" and we all have woken up to reality, where are we? Do we all simply agree that we are a creation by chance with no more worth than say, a snail? Why morality and to what standard do we compare it? If we cut out a cancer are we killing it? Should we? Why should we not then have bigamy? Why would it be wrong to be a pedophile? If we are simply carbon based organisms that have evolved self awareness, what should it matter to save anothers life? Why would war be wrong? From an evolutionary sense, survival of the fittest? Hitler would no longer be considered mad! His plan, would ultimately be justified as would Stalin's or Mao's. Yet, time and again, the western nations, based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, have saved the world from these despots and have spread freedom and human rights! Do we want a society in which God is dead? What good would this do? From an evolutionary standpoint, it would be disastrous. Yet, this appears to be the goal of atheist - to win the argument. --- The people of the world should be free to chose their religion and practice it freely without someone trying to pull it down. Religions that spread violence should be condemned, but religions that truly preach peace and love should be respected and appreciated. Time and again I hear hate and violence preached by Islam, yet time again I hear love and patience and respect preached by Christians and Jews. Of course there are exceptions, but for the later this it is true.

Kingofthenet| 12.26.10 @ 11:19PM

Quote: "One more thing, lets say God does not exist and evolution explains it all. Man has evolved with a need for "god". All ancient cultures believed in a "god", yes even before an idea spread via the internet. Why did we all have this need?"

We were BORN with a 'God part of the Brain" some of us have it MORE developed than others, apparently MINE was weak enough that I threw off the shackles of Religion easily, you will have a harder time. Read about it:

http://www.godpart.com/

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 10:55PM

Are you suggesting that we all should read the Bible literally?
I thought your argument was for change of heart and mind?

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 11:00PM

Huh? The text of the Bible is pretty much, with a few obvious exceptions, meant to be as literal as it ever gets. How, exactly, are we to read Leviticus 20:13?

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

What is the "figurative" way to read that? What message is being conveyed "ironically"? Naw... the bloody Bible means "kill the homosexuals." Bad news for Larry and Billy.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 11:03PM

You display your ignorance Michael.

The Bible in most Christian denominations and in most of Judaism is not read with a literal approach.
Context, scholarship, translation, history are all taken into consideration.

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 11:08PM

Yeah, of course it does. And before you're done with it, when the Bible says that Yahweh created the Universe in 7 days, that means a Big Bang that happened 13.7 million years ago with a sly reference to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

And "Thou shalt not commit murder." means "unless the priest wants you to."

Just intellectually dishonest.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 11:10PM

Michael,

You need to first try to be coherent.
I know it takes effort, but in order to change hearts and minds, you need to express yourself with clear language.

Macca| 12.26.10 @ 11:18PM

Michael, if the murder occurs by the orders of a priest it is just that , by a priest, not God. The bible is very clear that we are sinners and that even priests may bear false witness. It is up to the individual to read and understand God's word. It is a one to one relationship, not a community based faith. So many "Christians" simply do not understand the word of God as written in the bible. By the way, stop brining up specific quotes from the bible that state something very clearly. A thousand years from now, they will have no idea what Michael Jackson meant when he said "I'm bad". It ould, to them ,mean he is, well bad. We know it means bad as in cool or hip. Oh my gosh, cool and hip- theres another set of words that will be taken out of the correct context. Biblical scholars will and have looked into the ancient text to understand the true meaning by the authors that have otherwise been taken completely out of context. You need to read up on biblical studies to truly understand what the bible REALLY means. It is clear that man must seek the truth of God to understand him. You have simply scratched the surface, like Michael Moore does, to your advantage without understanding the real truth behind things.

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 2:59PM

Well, for one thing, it doesn't mean a steady-state universe, and in the year I was born (1959), a poll of prominent scientists believed in exactly that.

As for the "big bang", Nachmanides 6-7 centuries ago understood Genesis to talk about something of that nature, speaking of the universe coming from something around the size of the mustard seed. And for the rest, you have special relativity. (See Dr. Gerald Schroeder.)

If the Bible had described even a heliocentric universe, no-one would have believed it. We wouldn't even believe a correct description, because undoubtedly we don't have it all right yet. But the Bible's purpose isn't science.

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 3:01PM

You forgot tradition. You'd be surprised at the wide viriety of traditional interpretations of Genesis.

Jimbone| 12.26.10 @ 11:07PM

Humble us now, Michael. Please...I'm dying to hear more of your Old Testament criticism. You have got to be the most profound intelligence in all the universe. If only all 2.6 million Christians could hear your message. They'd all convert in a snap. I don't understand why you're not widely published. It's almost as puzzling as the fact that Christianity does not cease to exist when you pontificate.

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 11:09PM

Not a single idea roaming around in that empty space? Not one you could dust off? Nothing?

Jimbone| 12.26.10 @ 11:12PM

I try not to make a habit of writing books about philosophy of religion on article comment sections. For people like me, that's what publishers are for. For people like you, this will have to suffice. It is enough for me, in this instance, to expose how sophomoric you are. You should consider going to college or something. Maybe take a few classes in argumentative philosophy. You know, in case you wanted to appear semi-credible or something.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 11:17PM

I would be satisfied with coherence.

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 11:20PM

Yep, I was right. No ideas worth writing down, hence "philosophy of religion."

Jim, I understand the extreme disrespect you face from real philosophers. Here the PhilPapers survey:

http://philpapers.org/surveys/index.html .

Of all the issues asked of philosophers, the greatest agreement was about the existence of God. 73% answered that they did not believe in the existence of God. Poor poor Jim.

Jimbone| 12.26.10 @ 11:24PM

Wow. You really do believe that is a valid argument in your favor? You're worse off than I thought...

If that's all it takes, 8 of 10 human beings (conservative estimate) believe in a transcendent being. I win. Close shop. Have a good night.

Jimbone| 12.26.10 @ 11:29PM

Furthermore, I don't recall stating that I was a philosopher of religion. If I were though, I'd still be at least one step ahead of the clerk at the local Barnes and Noble reading all kinds of books he's not conditioned to understand. Let's hear some more of these back breaking arguments against theism. What else you got? Anything that's not rehashed Dawkins? Can we talk about the problem of pain? That's easily the most effective argument against theism, and you've yet to mention it. Surely an academic mind like yours wants to spar over that for a while. If you know what it is, I mean.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 11:35PM

ROFL

Goodness..you are good..

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 11:37PM

Michael..
You in over your head against Jim..just trying to save you some embarrassing moments ahead..

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 11:14PM

Michael,

Try to remain calm and disciplined. Stay away from ad hominum since that argumentation displays failure.
And more to the point, are you suggesting that the Bible should not be read out of historical context?
Are you aware of scripture scholarship?

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 11:18PM

OK, Michael, howzza about this:

Name one Secular Humanist society that has enough kids to prevent societal breakdown by 2050. That is, has enough kids to maintain the current level of social welfare obligations that it has now. Why don't ANY secular humanist societies breed to maintain their population?

Then tell me how secular humanism is pro-survival. All human thought ultimately furthers the existence of the species, or it does not. Secular humanism leads to death. Would you like some European birthrates to play with? The best is France, at 1.82. Of course, the French won't tell you what the French fundamentalist Islamic birthrate is. The Muslims are confined mostly to ghettos and denied access to French higher education, and therefore, do not assimilate.

Thank you for your consideration. You will notice no ad hominem.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 11:18PM

OK, Michael, howzza about this:

Name one Secular Humanist society that has enough kids to prevent societal breakdown by 2050. That is, has enough kids to maintain the current level of social welfare obligations that it has now. Why don't ANY secular humanist societies breed to maintain their population?

Then tell me how secular humanism is pro-survival. All human thought ultimately furthers the existence of the species, or it does not. Secular humanism leads to death. Would you like some European birthrates to play with? The best is France, at 1.82. Of course, the French won't tell you what the French fundamentalist Islamic birthrate is. The Muslims are confined mostly to ghettos and denied access to French higher education, and therefore, do not assimilate.

Thank you for your consideration. You will notice no ad hominem.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 11:24PM

Your point is very well made.
One of the most critical issues in the most Secular nations is that they are removing themselves from the planet.
This is the case in every nation even in the US which is saved through immigrant birth rates.
And fortunately for the US immigrants do assimilate and desire to do so.
Europe is in a very tough position and it will only get worse.

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 11:24PM

Dude, we read you the first 17 times. No one cares. You may well be right that secular societies don't have replacement birth rates. SO FRIKKIN WHAT?

If we were all Sweden, for example and were losing population at the same rate they are, it would still take like 17 billion years before we got down to the samw number of people as there were in 1900. OH NOS!! THE HORROR!!

Dude, get a hold of yourself.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 11:29PM

You display your ignorance ..yet again.....

Modern economies with all of the entitlements and benefits that nations such as Sweden or Norway or the UK or France enjoy..need people employable to pay for the elderly.
I think even you can fact check that fairly easily......Dude.

Michael| 12.26.10 @ 11:38PM

Look, I understand that we need people that will haul the heavy boxes for the rest of us. That is a good job for the religious to do.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 11:44PM

You essentially have conceded defeat since your retorts are dominated by ad hominum to moronic to sophomoric and back again to ad hominum.

Occam's Tool| 12.27.10 @ 1:18AM

Thank you, Larry:

it wouldn't take 17 billion years. The population is now roughly 9.5 million. It was 5 million in 1900. More like 75, Michael. And in the meantime, the social networks would be destroyed, because the population would be the oldest in human history. Thank you for pointing out that your philosophy is inherently a nihilistic one, Michael.

Now, personally, I'm putting money away in gold. I expect that there are a lot of Michaels in Europe, and I met a bunch of them in NZ. Without time binding (the ability to care about one's grandchidlren), societies fall apart.

I'm sorry if this seems repetitious, Michael. But cultural death (and physical) is cultural death. And, incidentally, there is one section of the European population breeding at a rate of 4.2 kids per woman. Care to guess who it is? It is the same group that is committing 85% of all the rapes in Sweden.

I'm sorry that you were a humanities major, Michael. Math hurts. As other bloggers have pointed out, I'm scared and angry. Damn straight. I also view antisemitism very simply: anything that lessens the probability of survival of the Jewish people. I can do math, Michael, and the numbers scare me. My children are 7. I extrapolate data out 70 years, and I see blank walls in Europe. China with its 1 child policy is also going to have a demographic crisis, Japan already has...who the hell is the USA going to trade with?

So, your theology question ties into the demographic question which ties into the cultural survival question. European economies are going down like ten pins as their population ages due to their secular humanism causing them to not give a shit about the future. Their replacement culture are a group of maniacs.

Does that answer "Frikken what" for you, Michael? Learn to think, boy. Review your demographics, because they will decide your future. As a matter of fact, they already have.

And that's why it irritates me to be gratuitously slapped by a man who is otherwise an ally. Our situation is a little too serious to give a shit about relative attacks on Christmas v. Channukah. Of course its going to be mostly Christmas. There are more of them. But Jews are the "canary in a coal mine." How we are treated is indicative of the health of a culture. So far, so good with the USA. But Europe, Japan, China, Russia---dead men walking.

Jim| 12.28.10 @ 10:48AM

Social breakdown actually occurs long before that. Let me explain.

I am a large, physically fit combat veteran with decades of military training. I own firearms and know how to use them. I know how to organize a group of similar men and keep them motivated. The only thing that prevents me from dominating my piece of the world is my own willingness to subsume my personal desires in pursuit of a common good. I don't want to live in a strongman society run by people like me. Why not? Because I can see that a society of people who share the same, yes, Biblically-based principles do not require the rule of man; instead, they can live under the rule of law where people respect the law.

There are abstract theories about utilitarianism and social contracts and similar well-meaning nonsense. I'll grant that it is not necessary to have Judeo-Christianity to have a social contract. How long do states founded on those human-centered principles last before they devolve into dictatorships or mafia or anarchy? The historical track record is not good.

Which brings us to Western Europe. It has had a long secularizing run that started sometime in the 19th Century, leading through various totalitarian ideologies to where we are today. If the United States had not occupied Europe after WWII and implicitly protected it with a nuclear shield, does anyone in their right minds believe that it would not have already descended into internecine warfare? But that shield cannot prevent a society from imploding forever.

I believe we will see, within the next decade, a crisis in Western Europe leading to a reintroduction of some form of strongman government because the people will demand it. It is impossible to say whether it will be in Spain or Italy or Greece, but those collapsing economies seem to be the most likely candidates. The EU will start to unravel as citizens reject Brussels for economic nationalism. Foreigners will be deported en masse to save jobs for nationals, which will begin unimaginable civil unrest. The potential for major global crisis is just around the corner.

Social breakdown doesn't occur when the nation gradually runs out of young people and dies in nursing homes. Social breakdown occurs when the self-imposed inhibitions against action through force break down, and the strong begin to dominate the weak with impunity.

God cannot always prevent that, but it is hard to see how a civil society exists in the real world over the long term in the absence of God.

Champion| 12.27.10 @ 5:15AM

I think there are more than a few million of us.

Bill M| 12.26.10 @ 11:02PM

These comments against theism are great examples of the negativity rampant in today’s Atheism. Putting up a billboard at Christmas to knock Christianity is, at a minimum, rude. I am amazed at the malice from the atheists. Have a little faith in your position.

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 11:11PM

You are correct, Bill M. It is very rude and obnoxious. But atheism IS obnoxious by its nature, as opposed to agnosticism. Communism and Nazism, both atheist doctrines, were very rude. And fantastically bloody.

Kingofthenet| 12.26.10 @ 11:28PM

BS, I don't have to be kind and tolerant of a FALSE system of beliefs that NOT only seek to be practiced, but hold sway over me. I will seek to DESTROY anyone's mystical belief system that seeks to restrict my options. It is antithetical to the Constitution.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 11:31PM

"I will seek to DESTROY anyone's mystical belief system that seeks to restrict my options"

Case closed.

Kingofthenet| 12.26.10 @ 11:35PM

What is wrong with that? You can practice ANYTHING you like, as soon as it affects MY rights than we have a problem.

Larry| 12.26.10 @ 11:41PM

Where are your rights being compromised to live freely to such a degree as to merit that you should seek to destroy anything or anyone else's beliefs?

Kingofthenet| 12.26.10 @ 11:56PM

You mean besides my Girlfriend deciding that a few day old bunch of cells isn't ANYTHING important and wanting to take a pill to flush those few cells BEFORE it develops into a baby, but being prevented for YEARS by the Christians who felt this little ball of cells had a soul?
Beside my friend MJ Foxx who is suffering from a disease that 'might' have been cured, YEARS AGO but for some assine President's Order that such research shouldn't be funded by the FED on RELIGIOUS grounds, even thou the 'Embryos' weren't STOLEN from Christian women but were FREELY giving up by there owners(The Couple in question) for Medical research?

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 12:31AM

As far as I can tell your examples are all wet.
Abortion is legal, the Morning After Pill is available, and Stem Cell Research has taken place even under the Bush years.
All of those goodies and you're still convinced that your rights are infringed upon?
Now what religious groups as well as scientists have had to comment upon all of those examples might be tweaking your conscience. But a counter argument is not enough for burning down anyone's beliefs unless you have no stomach for debate.
BTW, if I were you I would advise your girlfriend to read the possible side effects from taking the Morning After Pill..they are not so cool. In fact they are dangerous as is any legal drug.

In terms of Embryonic Stem Cell research, nothing has been discovered outside of clinical trials. And if you know medical science, I would bet you might not want to be the guinea pig of any unproven research in any area. There is always a lot of hype with very scant actual return within any disease.

So..again..your anger is misplaced.

Occam's Tool| 12.27.10 @ 1:22AM

Non-embryonic stem cell supplies have already been identified, King. It is not necessary to murder an infant for any scientific purpose. And: the more we abort, the less likelihood that Social Security will be around for you. See my earlier comments.

The religious arguments feed into the demographic arguments which feed into the civilization survival arguments. Europe is a corpse walking.

Occam's Tool| 12.27.10 @ 1:22AM

Non-embryonic stem cell supplies have already been identified, King. It is not necessary to murder an infant for any scientific purpose. And: the more we abort, the less likelihood that Social Security will be around for you. See my earlier comments.

The religious arguments feed into the demographic arguments which feed into the civilization survival arguments. Europe is a corpse walking.

Champion| 12.27.10 @ 5:01AM

Why should the fed subsidize any research? If there was a likelihood of these great breakthroughs there should be profits in it. Why should we give borrowed Chinese money to things that private citizens do not think are going to work?

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 2:51PM

That is such garbage! My grandfather had Parkinson's, thank you. Stem-cell is not a miracle cure. And why should I be required t opay for something you want? Pay for it yourself!

Champion| 12.27.10 @ 5:13AM

I like the South-park explanation. Tolerant doesn't mean you like it. You tolerate a screaming baby on a flight, you don't like it.

Mark| 12.28.10 @ 3:05AM

You're very paranoid. Christianity and Judaism aren't trying to restrict your options. However, yes, I would be concerned about islam.

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 1:04AM

Very bloody indeed..don't forget Maoism which was probably the worst form of institutional atheism and institutional secularism ever seen.
No one knows how many millions of people Mao murdered for the sake of 'purification and "cultural" revolution. Some recent reports express the numbers well over 60 million.

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 1:06AM

Very bloody indeed..don't forget Maoism which was probably the worst form of institutional atheism and institutional secularism ever seen.
No one knows how many millions of people Mao murdered for the sake of 'purification and "cultural" revolution. Some recent reports express the numbers well over 60 million.

Skavau| 12.28.10 @ 12:37AM

When you label a term used to describe non-belief in the existence of a deity as "obnoxious" and smear atheists with insinuations that they are predisposed to regress to Nazism and Stalinism you demonstrate that not only do you yourself show complete and glaring hypocrisy to even dare name anything as 'rude', you also demonstrate that you know nothing about the motives of either Nazism or Communism and demonstrate that you know nothing about atheism.

David| 12.26.10 @ 11:50PM

"Religion explains why we are here and what we are supposed to do about it." - this is absolutely true.

Our religion tells us why we are here - because of capitalism and free enterprise.

And what we are supposed to do - give lots of taxcuts to rich.

And we are not supposed to do - no healthcare or handouts to the poor,

Merry Xmas!

Nancy Cohen| 12.27.10 @ 12:02AM

You see, people who speak the way you do only have faith in the government. Just like the Germans of the Weimar Republic, citizens of the former Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea and Venezuela. These are also good examples of places where faith in God was diminished.

Kingofthenet| 12.27.10 @ 12:08AM

Yeah, Govt. is BAD, Private (For Profit) Corps. are GOOD!
Why would I want to trust my health to a Govt. who actually PRINTS our money and who's workers NEVER make Millions a year, when INSTEAD I can trust a For Profit corporation, who's paycheck/bonus is DIRECTLY proportional to how much PROFIT they make!

Occam's Tool| 12.27.10 @ 1:28AM

Dear King:

I was a senior medical consultant in the NZ NHS in 2006-2007. The shortages and the denials of care were outrageous and exceed anything I have seen in the States.

Incidentally, I trained at UTMB and UCLA, practiced in rural Alabama and Rural Kentucky. I have worked with the inner city poor or the rural poor my entire professional life. I have also worked with indigenous peoples in NZ and the USA. Give me the US system any time.

You want to read more, go to the New Zealand Herald (not some rightest paper, but a "Progressive" newspaper and the largest circulation in NZ) and punch in District Health Boards. And then realize this: they don't know the worst of it.

Jen| 12.28.10 @ 3:12AM

You don't know that government scams billions off the top, gives workers' money to wall st., offets deals and insider trading to congressional members, gives your money to third world dictators, and uses it to finance never-ending vacations? Naive.

Skavau| 12.28.10 @ 12:41AM

Nancy, you complain about the Weimar Republic? Germany's first attempt at Republicanism essentially ruined by right-wing (and early on left-wing) paramilitary groups and former monarchists of the former German Empire. Really?

Johnny V| 12.27.10 @ 12:53AM

TRANSLATED: DAVID WANTS YOUR MONEY!

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 2:47PM

Heaven fobid. But please note "we" is "we", not the government.

Religion (well, Judaism, anyway) tells us to help the less fortunate, but to spend our charity money wisely, and not harm people by giving to the self-destructive.

Tax cuts "for the rich" enable this behavior; look at what happened under Reagan.

mzk1| 12.28.10 @ 3:23PM

Sorry, I meant tax cuts "for the rich" increase charitable giving, as occurred after Reagan.

Reg| 12.27.10 @ 12:13AM

Wow, a lot of fire here. Very strong arguments on both sides, IMO.

Maybe I'm not as intellectually gifted as some are in this thread but it seems to me that, as strong as these arguments are and as far as they can take you in either direction, I'm not convinced that Christians can prove the existence of God nor atheists prove the non-existence of God with absolute certainty.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 4:08AM

Reg,

You are looking at the wrong category. If you are looking for absolute certainty, you should look at maths only. Natural science is only about probabilities. As Dawkins says, "There is probably no god."

axbucxdu| 12.27.10 @ 9:20PM

Yeah, and natural science has a difficult enough time keeping order in its own house when describing natural phenomena, and by definition has zero utility when attempting to address transcendent subjects. Refer to Kant's Fourth Antimony.

BTW, your buddy Dawkins pulled a fast one with probability. Using frequentist inference, his probability is DOA, since the probability cannot be tested, so its value cannot be assigned.

OTH, Bayesian analysis depends heavily on the values assigned to the prior ( subjective) probability. It's possible that if you start with diametrically opposed priors, additional experimental evidence does not result in convergence. I'm sure he chose a softball. Why not? The man's got books to sell.

SMIA| 12.27.10 @ 12:18AM

I'm an atheist. It's God's will.

mzk1| 12.28.10 @ 3:24PM

Only if you're a Calvinist Atheist. :-)

Ross Kaminsky | 12.27.10 @ 12:22AM

As a Jewish atheist and frequent contributor to these pages, I'd like to wish all my Christian friends and readers a belated but nevertheless very Merry Christmas.

I would add that I don't have any more use for atheist "evangelists" than Christian evangelists and missionaries and I wish that more people would realize that we don't want or need their help to believe...nor not believe...in any particular thing, at least as long as what we believe (or don't believe) in isn't hurting anybody else.

People like Dawkins give atheists a bad name, which is perhaps why I go so far out of my way in writing and on my radio show to make sure people understand that I understand that I do not consider myself superior to a religious person and, perhaps more importantly, that I understand the immeasurable value that our Judeo-Christian heritage has had on forming many of the core foundational principles which has made the United States of American the greatest nation in the history of humanity.

Kingofthenet| 12.27.10 @ 12:34AM

Ross, you are right, Religion of ALL types has done wonderful things down thru the ages, such as working in Science and storage of knowledge during the 'Dark Ages' But the Modern era has seen an EXPLOSION in Religious 'Political Action' from the Christian Right, to Militant Islam. I honestly believe that Islam, RIGHT NOW is going thru their 'Terrible Two's' like Christianity has done during the Inquisition in Antiquity. Unfortunately with our advanced Knowledge and Weapons this is SERIOUSLY dangerous. The 'Best(Worst)' Inquisitor might have killed a few hundred back in the day, with some luck a modern day Jihadist could kill MILLIONS with access to advanced Nuclear Weapons, this is the problem.

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 12:53AM

The impact of the so called Religious Right has waned considerably within the past 4 to 6 years.
What we see now is a Neo Libertarianism rising..not the Religious Right.

In terms of Jihadists I am in agreement with you. They are terribly dangerous and so are the nations who provide them shelter, financial backing and proxy support. But you have to look at China as a source of woe in that department as well as the Arab Islamic States such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

And finally..the Inquisition did not take place in Antiquity but in the Medieval period to the early Renaissance ( circa 1200 to 1490's).

Champion| 12.27.10 @ 5:09AM

A lot more people were killed over other concerns. You worry about a jihadist using a nuke for religious reasons. But we used them against japan for what exacatly? What great thing were we trying to do there? We nuked two cities as part of a much larger conflict as revenge for them attacking our forward military bases in far flung territories, and in an effort to get them to stop. I don't think that anyone including me will say that we shouldn't have pressed the war after pearl harbor, but you'll have to agree, it's a pretty lame reason to murder millions of people.

Jim| 12.28.10 @ 10:57AM

The historical record is pretty clear, revisionists notwithstanding, that the combined Allied and Japanese death toll from an invasion of Hokkaido, then Honshu, would have exceeded the atomic bomb deaths by an order of magnitude. Truman made the right decision.

Occam's Tool| 12.27.10 @ 12:43AM

Ross, the term I would use to describe you would be agnostic.

Ross Kaminsky | 12.27.10 @ 11:23AM

Occam,

Agnostic implies that I leave room in my mind for the possibility that there is God. If by "God" we mean a conscious being which/who created heaven and earth and man, then "agnostic" does not describe me...

If by "God" we mean something much more subtle, such as some powerful force that we don't understand but which doesn't have to be conscious or a creator, then perhaps...but I don't think most people mean that when they think of "God".

No God| 12.27.10 @ 1:20AM

Have you heard of the Treaty of Tripoli 1797?

The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of
null) was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripoli, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797.

It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

The Treaty is much discussed in the 21st century because of the text of article 11, as ratified by the Senate:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 12:44AM

Ross,
I appreciate your post. I have many agnostic friends in the realm of science and psychology who are embarrassed by Dawkins for various and sundry reasons.
What I have heard articulated from them is that Dawkins is so woefully ignorant and malicious about faith/religion (as are the sophists who rehash his arguments in here) that they fear that he has done greater damage to the interests of education in science than good.

I have had this opinion expressed multiple times that there is anxiety that science is being conflated to mean by default militant atheism.

I wonder if there is more evidence of that opinion and my question is have you heard this in your circles as well?

No God| 12.27.10 @ 1:23AM

I have not heard this in my circle. I understand that within the circles of fundamentalist christians, they keep saying that for some reason.

Ross Kaminsky | 12.27.10 @ 11:34AM

Larry,

As I have more conservative friends than liberal friends (by perhaps two orders of magnitude), more of my friends are religious than atheist/agnostic.

However, even among them, they think that Dawkins puts a terrible face on the people (like me) who don't believe in god through his arrogant, sanctimonious, anti-religion preaching.

Among my more religious friends, they worry about science and atheism coming to mean the same thing, but I actually don't worry about that.

Indeed, I'm for science being atheistic because religion is explicitly based on faith which is anathema to science. Science should be atheistic, but that's not to say that scientists should fervently espouse atheism. They should focus on science.

Not sure if that answers your question...

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 3:21PM

I am glad to see an Atheist (even if his ancestors practiced my religion) who beleives in religious tolerance; I hope you represent the majority.

I've grown up among religious scientists, BTW. Science should be agnostic, not atheistic, because the latter leads to circular reasoning. And science (especially Biology) is a wonderful tool for understanding the glory of God's creation.

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 3:21PM

Yes, I know where i and e go; I just don't type well.

Nick| 12.27.10 @ 1:11AM

Dawkins is such an illiterate slob, that people who read him, and take him seriously, actually lose I.Q. points the more they read.
And brain cells.

What Useful Idiots they are to the Secular Humanist Atheistic Materialistic Marxists. Or, S.H.A.M.M.s, as I like to call them.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 1:24AM

Nick,

Do you know anything else other than name calling?

Occam's Tool| 12.27.10 @ 1:40AM

Of course, "No God," the fascinating thing is that the areas of the USA which are growing are the Religious, and the areas that are shrinking are the Atheistic. G-d does have his little jokes.

Does anyone here, except Larry, understand that when history knocks, the first thing that is asked is "who's there?"

Suppose secular humanists are correct. Nonetheless, it is still an antisurvival trait. And, unlike my Dear Michael's mathematical illiteracies, the civilizational death of Europe will occur in a few generations, thanks to humanism.

My wife and I debate when we should go visit Europe before the new Barbarians burn the paintings containing the human images. The problem is that I didn't like Europe in 1997; it's much worse now. For example, anyone see the German Lingerie Burqa commercial? Go ahead and look it up under that and realize that the ad is several years old, now.

Review your arithmetic, people. You're going to need it. And that's my final slash of the razor for tonight. Tomorrow gotta wake up and save some lives.

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 2:05AM

The curve is running against Secular Humanist/atheism in terms of who will be left to inhabit the posh the nests that the West has created.
We are in for a terribly rude awakening in terms of how low our culture has been allowed to slide.
And Occam you are correct to worry about how those who are coming in will steward the great art and cathedrals of the Old World.
The answer is they will not steward them, they will erase them from existence as they replace what has been left behind.
A friend of mine just got back from Norway in which he was doing research through a Fulbright Grant.
He told me he loved the Norwegians, but they are dying off. Immigrants are allowed in order to keep things afloat. And yes the Norwegians are amongst the most secularized of any in Europe.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 5:09AM

I think X'mas is all about love, christ or no christ.

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 2:00PM

No Christ..no Christmas

Champion| 12.27.10 @ 4:53AM

No Santa? What does he have to do with Christianity? Christmas is more a celebration of Germanic heritage, which is the largest ethnic group in America, than about Jesus. It's like a saint patty's day for germans. No one attacks St. Patty, because they know he really has nothing to do with getting drunk on a weekday anymore. Just as Jesus has nothing to do with bringing trees indoors, buying things for people, or a fat man in a tacky suit. Christmas is just an excuse to get together with friends and family and be nice to each other, while celebrating the fact that a lot of people are German. What's wrong with that? I thought that Christmas as practiced is something that even an atheist could get behind.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 5:10AM

I think X'mas is all about love, christ or no christ.

potkas7| 12.27.10 @ 10:10AM

Sorry but I think you're missing an important connection here. No Christ, No Christ-mas. Know what I mean? I am unaware of any culture that celebrates a mid-winter love-fest just on general principles.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 1:01PM

" I am unaware of any culture that celebrates a mid-winter love-fest just on general principles."

Your lack of knowledge is not my problem. I was happy during this holiday just fine.

Bill| 12.27.10 @ 6:39PM

Yes, but without Christ there is no Christmas.

No God| 12.28.10 @ 7:26AM

Without Christ, we still have a holiday which is what I want.

A R| 12.27.10 @ 5:52AM

Still no answer:

What evidence is there for a God?

For what reason should I assume that is more probable that there is a God (for example such as described by the bible / Christian faith) than that there is not a God? What *evidence* is there for this assumption?

Mark| 12.27.10 @ 9:28AM

What is the origin of matter and energy?
You can no more satisfactorily disprove the existence of God than I will be able to satisfactorily prove his existence to you. You clearly have faith in his non-existence. That is your right, and I respect it. We'll find out who is correct in good time.

Christopher| 12.27.10 @ 11:41AM

AR, if you are serious, there are many books that discuss the "reasons" for and against, there are logical arguments, philosophical arguments, etc. Try Anthony Flew's recent book on why he became a believer in God after a lifetime as the most prominent atheist philosopher.

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 2:10PM

There is ample evidence for God.
Namely the argument for a First Cause, the argument of Truth, the Argument for Contingency, the Argument for Moral truth..just to name a few.

But if you are asking for empirical evidence for God( in other words..what you can taste, feel, touch, measure, ..etc..evidence that is of the senses) then you will come up short since God is Spirit and totally beyond the empirical.
In other words God is not bound and limited to the laws of nature.
And of course if you require only empirical evidence to know anything, you need to discard much that humans understand..and you can begin with mathematics.

A R| 12.27.10 @ 4:00PM

Yes, I am looking for empirical evidence.

Which is beyond empirical proof, is not.

"In other words God is not bound and limited to the laws of nature."
This cannot be, since nature is everything and laws of nature try to describe reality. No entity can be beyond the laws of nature, because what is not subject to the laws of nature, can per definition not be by the laws of logic.

If God cannot empirically proven nor be subject to the laws of nature, then he is not part of my world and hence he is not for me.

Mark| 12.28.10 @ 3:30AM

No one is going to present scientific proof because God is a matter of faith involving a personal relationship. However, if you are persistent in asking God for evidence, He will answer.

Jim| 12.28.10 @ 11:55AM

1. Look above, where I posted that religious people live happier, healthier lives than the nonreligious. Now, you may retort that this is a result of selection bias, or post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning (that is, they aren't healthy because they believe, but rather they believe because they are healthy), but you can't claim that the two facts are independent of each other. You may claim, as some have above, that the "God gene" causes us to believe because of the evolutionary advantages, and this is just evidence of the God gene expressing itself in the population. I submit that the simpler explanation is that God favors believers through the mechanism of prayer. Call it fairy magic if you want, but the evidence is there before your eyes and you have to actively work to deny it.

2. The very act of Creation requires a God. Let's just talk about human beings, the species homo sapiens. It's not necessary to go to Genesis for this. There has to have been a first of the species. How did that first human reproduce? Well, there has to have been some ability for that first human to interbreed with some associated species, because the likelihood of the same genetic mutation that distinguished the human from the others arising in two hominids of opposite sexes is astronomically small. So there was a first human who had a dominant "homo sapiens" gene (or genes), and the humans who carried that gene were more fit for survival than the hominids around them (with which they presumably continued to breed until that species died out and was replaced by homo sapiens). This is inescapable logic, unless you go for the dust and ribs in the Garden of Eden, which I suspect you don't.

What do we call that genetic mutation creating the first human, and by implication the human race? Did it occur simply by a random act, or did it require a Creator? Can we identify THAT gene, which must still be present in the human genome, and demonstrate how it differs from the apes? Or is it possible that it's not just one single gene, but that a whole host of genes had to mutate in the same individual hominid? Does the scale then tilt more toward a Creator and less toward a random occurrence in the small population of hominids in East Africa? Again, it's not demonstrable in a "confidence interval rejecting the null hypothesis sense, " but I'd think it would be admissible inference in court under the "more probable than not" standard that you state (and that courts generally follow for introduction of evidence).

3. This gets a little more esoteric, but assuming that we are not solipsists or sophists, that is, unlike the Matrix or the dream worlds of Inception, we actually live in a real physical world and we actually want to confront the arguments before us instead of assuming them away, let's think about thought. Thought must have something to do with an electrochemical reaction of some type in our brains. There are only three possibilities:

(a) The universe is deterministic, that those electrochemical reactions are occurring at a particular point in spacetime as they have always occurred and always will, that this was set in motion at the time of the Big Bang, and hence our perception that we are thinking and have free will is an illusion.

(b) The universe is probabilistic, so the particular electrochemical reaction that will take place in a given neuron the next millisecond is yet undetermined, but when it does take place that determines our thought, and so we are back to free will being an illusion.

(c) We think, therefore we are. Somehow our thought determines which electrochemical reaction takes place. That is, something incorporeal takes physical form in our brains as we direct the electromagnetic energy of thought to create chemical reactions in our neurons. Free will and thought do exist independent of the brain yet connected, and in so existing they create the form of the brain.

These are mutually exclusive possibilities, with a startling conclusion. Assuming consciousness is not an illusion, free will must either exist or it does not. If free will exists, we are literally creating the world within our brains. If we can do that, does that not at least introduce plausible evidence for a Creator?

Sam Vaughn| 12.27.10 @ 9:37AM

I get a kick out of atheist's. Invariably they are sullen, morose people. Maybe there is a connection? I can not name any objective proof that god exists. I refuse to debate with those that can not "see". I simply choose to believe. One day I will be dead and I will know or,,,, not. The alternative is that life is random, there is no right, there is not wrong, a serial killer is just a jumble of atoms, born that way, as a gay person is "born that way". If there is no higher power of reason (the cornerstone of atheists) everybody can claim they are right and everybody is wrong. Stalin was "born that way" there is not right and no wrong. When Mao condemned 30 million people to death through the "cultural revolution" he had "good intentions", we can afford to lose 300 million as he once said. Pity the poor soul who had no hope.

I feel sorry for those who have no "faith" for guidance. There lives are small and pitiable and then they die, nothing they do matters, nothing they say matters, there is no up, no down, no left, no right, they just live and then the atoms that bind together their existence blink out and then nothing...............

Kingofthenet| 12.27.10 @ 10:55AM

Why is it that you believe Atheists do not condemn evil? Just because I'd like there to be some 'afterlife' doesn't make it real. Just like ALL those Boy's on Omaha Beach WANTED to come home, some could not.I hate to say this you, unless your pretty GREAT in your field MOST of what you do won't have a massive long term significance.Walk past any old neglected cemetery, ask yourself have you heard of ANY of the people buried there? What did they do, Cobble shoes? All the shoes they cobbled are in a garbage dump, farm the land, someone is is doing it now or it's a development, file papers as a white collar person? none of those documents mean anything anymore, sad but true.

YeloStalyn| 12.27.10 @ 1:00PM

Not so true. What is the importance of a single atom? Salt doesn't kill you only because of one atom. NaCl... either one of those two can kill you on their own... but because of the other they form something greater. Someone cobbled the boots that the soldiers who stormed the beaches and pushed back the Germans. That's a pretty long lasting mark on human history if I do say so myself. Someone made a piece of parchment, and someone a quill, and someone some ink. None of those things vey memorable... true. But they eventually collided to make the Declaration of Indpendance. Or maybe Shakespear if you prefer? Out of the hundreds of thousands of bullets that were pressed at the ammo plant... one of them killed JFK. And one of the document pushers? Sure... maybe that part of their life isn't so meaningful... but maybe after work they'll be nice to some kid and set her on a path to become the next Mother Theressa.
The great and vast universe is made up of bajillions (not sure of the exact scientific number here, lol!) of single, ordinary, atoms.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 1:06PM

"Why is it that you believe Atheists do not condemn evil?"

Good question. Atheists do condemn evil, including those that were committed by christians.

Of course, some atheists do so, others don't. This is exactly the same on the christians side: some do good, others know nothing else except to condemn people who have a different opinion.

YeloStalyn| 12.27.10 @ 1:42PM

It takes a perversion of faith to commit atrocities in the name of God (and yes, it has happened).

Atheism, in a pure form... not perverted in any way, is all that is necissary for the same outcome.

Not saying an atheist is therefore a mass murder... just that there is nothign keeping him from being one in a moral sense.

Skavau| 12.28.10 @ 12:48AM

What the smeg is a "pure atheist"? Someone cannot be nulled to the point where every action of theirs can be entirely explained by a statement of non-belief. Your suggestion that atheism is complete purity leads to no moral consideration is simply assuming (incorrectly) that people think in a complete vacuum. However strongly one might tout their atheism, it says nothing about what they actually do believe.

Jim| 12.28.10 @ 11:59AM

As I asked Michael and he didn't respond, @King and @No God, define evil. Can you do it without reference to an external standard?

A R| 12.27.10 @ 4:04PM

I think this comment perfectly shows the reason why many believe - they think they can alter reality by their wishes. But the hard reality is, that reality just IS, no matter what you wish it to be.

YeloStalyn| 12.27.10 @ 10:50AM

The main issue I see with this is that each side fails to understand what they believe. The theist has faith, but tries to act as though they have fact. It's faith. The whole point of which is to believe despite that there are things that may point otherwise. It is more concievable with the things I have observed in the natural world that Jesus did NOTfeed the multitude... yet I believe he did. That's faith. I don't pretend to have proof or act as though I can prove that event happened.
The atheist, however, has faith too, but acts as, as the theist does, that he has proof. It has not been observed, this "quantum vacuum", measured, and tested. It is posited that it exists. It's a theory. Just like other theories. It explains the things they see in the natural world and they say, "Well, it must be, at least for now" Which is all fine and good. The problem they have, though, is accepting that that is a statement of FAITH. We have never "seen" gravity, only the outcome of it effecting those things we can see. We have never felt, measured, or created it. We simply observe events of the physical world around us, measure those events, and conclude that the principle force causing the event is gravity. That's faith. And reasonable faith at that... but still faith. It's faith to believe that there is no god. You can't PROVE that one isn't there. Just as you can't PROVE that one IS there.
Now, if you begin to look at what is more LIKELY, then I think that a god is a much cleaner and fuller explination of things. It fits a much more "unified theory" than anythign else, especially considering that it also accounts for the philosophical side of life as well as the physical side of life. Science, however, only deals with one. Yet, science has not observed, measured, or replicated the origin of life. It simply states, on faith, that it was something... just NOT god. No proof. Life has never been created out of non-life... and even the attempts to "recreate" the primordial ooze thought to be the hotbed of living creation (and don't miss the fact that this is already assuming that the matter necissary for this somehow got into existance... a presupposition that is based on yet more faith of the origin of matter, much less life) all fail to account for a variable that is mandatory for such an experiment... intelligence. The very scientist himself who put the experiment together played the role of some guiding force to put the chemicals in a prime situation to form amino acids... and although, to their credit, they were able to form such organic chains out of inorganic material... it quickly "died." This is also assuming the primordial conditions really matched what was tried in the experiment. Many scientists, then and now, can't quite agree on what it was like then. (This experiemtn was done, I believe, in the 70s). So, without a reproducable experiment, observable phenomena, and teh ability to disprove the "theory" that life did not come from god... you have to rely on faith.
This argument, by theist and atheist alike, would do well to have some intellectual AND philosophical honesty on both parts. Neither have proof. The difference ought to be that the theist admits this because he understand faith and the atheist ought to admit it because he understands sciece. Sadly, both parties often miss this and resort to name calling and arguing about something they have no grounds to argue.

Kingofthenet| 12.27.10 @ 11:23AM

You seem to be a reasonable guy, here is my problem. You say the existence of a 'God' is the 'most likely' way to explain things.How does a belief in supernatural otherworldly powers seem reasonable? I could understand IF in the Real world things like spells and Magic were real, but they are not. NOTHING in our day to day life is otherworldly in the SLIGHTEST way. No Demons,Monsters, Magic not one bit. To give you an example, if you were to say to me king Arther was REAL and existed, I could buy that no problem. Short of some of the more fanciful accounts that are obviously fake(Like the Excalibur story), there in no reason why he COULDN'T exist.Now if you were to say Superman existed, we have a problem. See the difference?

YeloStalyn| 12.27.10 @ 12:31PM

It just seems like a cleaner explination that solves all the "questions" about the world around us. Where did life come from? Why is the earth the exact distance from the sun, with the exact tilt of axis, necissary for sustained life? All the things that otherwise MUST be chalked up to "chance" (if there is no guiding force, the only other "cause" would be... well... sheer chane). Since we're talking about something outside of the physical world (both a god and "chance" are non-physical non-observable "forces" that are said to do the same thing and reach teh same results... hence not the same thing as me saying Aruther OR Superman existed).
Heck, even a number of atheist scientists have to eventually breakdown and say that there is probably some sort of intelligence (not necissarily a god) to explain all the things that have to go just so in order for life to exist much less come into being. A great piece that shows, in their own words, the eventual admittance of a "faith" of many atheists, Dawkins included, is "Expelled: No Intelligence Required"... a documentary by the great Ben Stein. He interviews a number of atheist scientists and some even admit that it is possible that early life was posited on earth from extra terrestrial forms of intelligence. They imply aliens... but would some form of god not also fit that bill?
It's just that science needs a multitude of different parts... many of which often conflict with other parts... to explain everything. How much mass is necissary to explain the gravitational activity we observe in the universe? More than we think exists. The answer, for science? Dark Matter. They made it up. They simply said, "Let there be Dark Matter!" and there was. They can't see it. They can't measure it. They don't even have proof that it's real. They just need something to explain the disconnect between observed phenomena and the estimated amount of mass/matter in the universe. Why should I believe that there is Dark Matter holding everythign together.. matter with all the properties of mass (ie, has gravity) yet... doesn't really exist... physically, but I should be considered "crazy" that there is some non-measurable, non-observable force that has all the properties of mass (ie, controls gravity... keeping us from just ripping apart on a universal scale) like God?
Or what about alternate universes? The same scientists that tell me I should beleive my great great great grandpa was a monkey and his ancestor was a single cell organism with no brian, concept of self-survival, nor means or need of transformation (single cell organisms still exist, therefore there was no causation to push them into evolution per the theory that adaptation spurs evolution) tell me that there are alternate univserses. Some even say they've "created" them. Really? Where are they? Why can't I observe, measure, and replicate them? Science is great. Don't get me wrong. But just as religion tries to explain things, so does science. Just, sometimes, scientists get carried away and often end up sounding just like the "loons" they attempt to discredit.

YeloStalyn| 12.27.10 @ 12:42PM

Also... an argument based on reasonable conclusions.

History, not just religion, states that Jesus was a real person. Most credible atheists will admit that the likelihood of a man named Jesus, about that time, in and around taht area, and doing some of the things (ie, teaching, leading a large movement... I'm not talking about miracles here). was real.

OK... if we can agree that Jesus was a real person lets look at what happened around the time of his existance.
We know that this man lead a large contigent of people. We also have recorded accounts, outside of the Bible, of hundreds of people who were contemporaries of his, being put to death for not renouncing him as a diety. So you have these people who were willing to die for something they had experienced. Why? If he was a fake... don't you think a large portion of these people would have succumbed to the Roman Empire and denounced him? Instead, they stood fast. Why? that is not a reasonable outcome.

Then consider his claim of being God's Son. There are only 3 possible conclusions. He's telling the truth, he's lying, or he was crazy. If he was crazy, I doubt he would have been able to lead such a long lasting movement. That would be unreasonable to conclude. If he was lying, it would have been some lie. Especially since he was put to death himself for it. A normal, rational man would admitted the lie before being killed (again, many historians agree that a man named Jesus was crucified). A crazy man... sure. But we already made a rational "ruling out" of crazy. The only answer left is he was telling the truth. His recorded history outside of the Bible, his recorded history in the Bible and all the things that would mean, explain all the things about the world around us in a way that makes sense. If the atheist can picture a time before matter, why can't there be a god? If matter has always been here... why not a god that's always been here? All the things necissary for an atheistic account of the history of the universe are based on, in the end, a handful of faith. That's no more crazy than that faith being in god.

Kingofthenet| 12.27.10 @ 2:13PM

Well actually NO we cant agree that their was a Historical(Real) Jesus, Read This:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

The reason everything seems 'perfect' is that if it wasn't we wouldn't be here to say that it WAS perfect, simple as that.

Jimbone| 12.27.10 @ 2:21PM

That there was an historical Jesus is as certain as anything else we know about history. Any view that says that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist is so outrageously outside of the mainstream that it literally deserves zero consideration. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

jimbone| 12.27.10 @ 2:28PM

Do you honestly think that dropping a .com website is a legitimate citation? You do realize that I could go find a .com that says that the president is actually an Alien from the planet Xenon...and that's the real reason he doesn't have a birth certificate. The website you posted is dead wrong. Period. End of story. Even the most outrageous of skeptics don't believe this. You're like one of those idiots that tells everyone to go to naturopaths for their ailments.

YeloStalyn| 12.27.10 @ 3:13PM

Tell me something... how would it be possible for one man, Jesus, to so profoundly change the course of human history yet never lived? THAT seems a far stretch. All of history since his "proclaimed" existance has been altered by the sheer thought of him. His "story" has been recounted AS TRUTH for nearly/just over 2000 years. You are asking me to believe that a large number of people (the Gospel writers as well as the historians listed in your "article") all bought into the same lie and propagated it? At the the threat of death during the earliest stages of this "hoax" under the Roman Empire?
Seems a far stretch. Much father than believing there really was a Jesus.
I mean, based on the article, I don't know that Columbus was real. The only proof I have is my gradeschool teacher... but she wasn't an eye witness... thus it's hearsay.
That's the problem with scientists... you HAVE to have faith in things. Not just in a god, but in damn near anything. The entire human record is based on faith. Our conversation is based on faith that you really exist. Maybe you're a computer program on the other end of this interface who is spitting back arguments at me.
faith... we all have it. even atheists.

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 3:16PM

How do we know that anything it says about him was true? How do we know that he led a large movement during his lifetime?I mean aside from claims by this followers.

I do not wish to insult anyone, but there are lots of huge movements based on lies. Islam (created by a madman, in fact), Communism. If I must chose, I'll have to presume some mixture of liar and lunatic. But I prefer "legend"; that what he is portrayed as is not what he was.

Certainly the depiction of the behavior of the Jews during the passion is way over-the-top. And if the Pharissees were the enemy, why does Acts praise the leader of the Pharisees, Rabban Gamliel, the head of the Sanhedrin? (Not that I believe that bit of after-the-fact Triumphalism it put in his mouth.) And if Paul was a Pharisee, why are his writings the least Pharisaic part of the Christian Bible? How could a former Pharisee think that Epistle to the Hebrews would convince anyone with that background?

A R| 12.27.10 @ 4:08PM

"Where did life come from? Why is the earth the exact distance from the sun, with the exact tilt of axis, necissary for sustained life? All the things that otherwise MUST be chalked up to "chance""

This is completely wrong - the answer is not chance, the answer is that there is a reason. There is a natural law causing these things, not chance. However, this reason, the natural law is yet unknown.
Just because it is unknown however, does not mean in the least, not in the least, that the reason is God, let alone the Christian God.

YeloStalyn| 12.27.10 @ 4:22PM

You are sounding like a religious zealot ascribing causality on something unseen and unproven.

Therefore, your "law" is no different from my "God" except that my God also serves as a means to understand not just "how" but also "why"

A R| 12.28.10 @ 4:35PM

This is incorrect, because we know that there most be a law / a rule which causes these mechanisms, otherwise they would not be there.
God or chance could be specifications of this law for example.
However, if we just speak of an unknown law we have a much lighter assumption (occam's razor), whereas if we assume a specific "supernatural" entitity as its specification we have to make very strong assumptions --> therefore this is a weak position.

YeloStalyn| 12.27.10 @ 4:22PM

You are sounding like a religious zealot ascribing causality on something unseen and unproven.

Therefore, your "law" is no different from my "God" except that my God also serves as a means to understand not just "how" but also "why"

Jen| 12.28.10 @ 3:44AM

Just because it is unknown does not mean that the reason is NOT God.

A R| 12.28.10 @ 4:39PM

It could be God of course, I did not say it could not.

But, I want to know why you are assuming God based on the above mentioned cohesion (--> distance from the sun is just right, therefore there is a God), because just from this cohesion God is just one of many explanations, however not the only possible one.

Jimbone| 12.27.10 @ 2:19PM

Watching you respond to people on this website is a little bit like watching the people on American Idol who believe with all their heart that they can sing but they actually suck really bad. You have no idea what you're talking about.

mzk1| 12.27.10 @ 3:07PM

Nothing is otherworldly? You're ignoring a tremendous body of evidence. The fact that it "doesn't seem" real is meaningless. Lots of things in recorded history seem ridiculous, but they happened.

Personally, I have a superstitious belief in the scientific method. I accept it to avoid trouble, and because I like science, but there is a nice bit of evidence to the contrary. (Not that the science has anything to say about the supernatural in any case.)

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 3:54PM

"Explaining things" is a poor rationalization for belief in God. Since the scientific method exists for trying to discern how nature operates.

However, the human mind seeks and has sought far more than how stuff works . The grander philosophical question is why is there anything at all?
There is no rational scientific method to fill in that hole. Why did matter come out of nothingness, and more over why did matter replicate? Why did matter glue together to form mass and why did life elements replicate and show inexplicable desire to replicate?
The force of life is a profound mystery as is the universe itself which is why your comparisons with magic, monsters, or Superman sound hollow and nonsensical in comparison to the enormity of the question.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 1:14PM

"The atheist, however, has faith too, but acts as, as the theist does, that he has proof."

I said it a few times that atheists are dealing with probabilities, not proof. Even Dawkins says, "There probably is no god". Just relax.

The way to show that there is probably no god is the same procedure to show "there is no fairy dancing at the tip of my finger."

Procedure: there is no objective/testable evidence to this hypothesis.

If so, it is probable that there is no fairy at my finger tip/god.

If one still insists on its existence depsite having no objective/testable evidence, one should join a de-programming session.

YeloStalyn| 12.27.10 @ 1:38PM

It is very improbable that God exists. I didn't say otherwise. In fact, I stated that faith is the beliefe in that which you would otherwise discard out of hand.
And if the atheist is dealing with probabilities... then it is more probable that an intelligence was behind creation (any, not necissarily a god or THE god [read it like Bill Murry in Ground Hog day, "I'm A god, not THE god" :) ).
The math doesn't add up otherwise. All of the things necissary for our existance, in its current state, all based on the galactic crap shoot (with each tiny event just as unprobable as the next, yet all required in order to reach life) is far more improbable than a guiding force of some sorts.
The right balance of gasses, the right temperature, amount of light, day/night cycle, chemical ratios, amount of water, amount of energy, distance from nearest sun, tilt of axis, adaptation of a single cell into a multi cell, the adaption of one multi cell into two multi cells (and remember, it's not like a human zygote that has DNA information to cause it to split and change into the different parts needed... this is BEFORE organic life... the origin of life), those cells to becoem something else, those to develope, eventually, into male/female, and then eventually these multi cells to form into a different male/female creature, and into plants, fish, birds, horses, frogs, cows, humans, etc. ALL organic life MUST come from one... ONE... ONE SINGLE cell of life that, prior to the magic lightning bolt hitting the magic primordial soup containing the magic balance of chemicals and shocking it into "life"..... AND for it to survive the, as many scientists put it, "harsh and violent" enviornment. They always show picutres of volcanoes spewing lava all over God's green earth (pun intended)... yet the single cell that was magically formed somehow survives this yet it can't survive controlled enviornments in a lab? But GOD is somehow the improbable conclusion.
And youre choice of words... de-programming session... sounds eerily like "re-education"... yet it wasn't the atheists who killed hundreds of millions of people in modern history alone (and yes... the Communists DID promote atheism and did kill people for not accepting it. They did commit their atrocities in the name of no god).

Jimbone| 12.27.10 @ 5:16PM

Hehehe! Fairies and dancing and angels! Hehehe! I win! I win! Look at me! I have the intellectual maturity level of a 3rd grader!

Newsflash: The scope of the scientific method is limited to the natural world. You can continue to repeat that "you can't test god" until you're blue in the face, but you've succeeded in saying nothing. Everyone already knows that. But they don't care. Some beliefs are properly basic. For example, the idea that you exist. That truth is real. That the space between two points is always divisible by two. A prime mover is a properly basic belief. There is no reason to assume a steady-state universe, nor an eternal vacuum. We have as much scientific evidence for either of those as we do a personal agent named Yahweh. Any alternative you posit...even to young earth creationism, as silly as it is...is just as speculative as any religious idea about the origin of the universe. So shut up. Thanks.

Richard Baker| 12.27.10 @ 11:02AM

I suggest one and all read St. Thomas Aquinas' "Five Proofs for the Existence of God." Illuminating, to be sure.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 1:17PM

None of those 5 proofs worked; the conclusions are not implied by the premises. Check them out in any books on Introduction to Philosophy.

Bill| 12.27.10 @ 6:37PM

Not all philosophical theories are tautological.

No God| 12.28.10 @ 7:22AM

Quite true, Bill. So?

Petronius| 12.27.10 @ 11:44AM

To all atheists posting here
What are your holidays?

YeloStalyn| 12.27.10 @ 12:51PM

The same as ours. Beliefe in Christ, and celebrating His birthday are not requisits for celbrating a time of sharing and giving absent of Christ. The commercialization of holy days has allowed the populous at large to celbrate a very generalized "be good" theme. While not good, imo, because of it's lack of Christ... it's not wholely "bad" I don't think. I would rather everyone, at least once a year, consider giving rather than receving, being nice, etc.

MAJ Mike| 12.27.10 @ 11:58AM

What we have here are dueling faith-based value systems. My believing in God and Christ does not harm the atheist in the least.

The atheist seeks the ego-boosting acceptance of his faith-based value system at the expense of mine. I really don't seek to convert anyone to my way of thinking, unlike the atheist. The atheist is frantic for others to accept and approve of his philosophy.

I choose to ignore him. I will not seek his conversion if he will do me the courtsey of leaving me alone in my faith.

God is at His very essence, supernatural and beyond scientific proof (supernatural = beyond the natural laws of nature). Both of us will ultimately discover the final answer. I hope that neither of us will be disappointed.

Kingofthenet| 12.27.10 @ 2:22PM

"My believing in God and Christ does not harm the atheist in the least."
YOUR beliefs are finding their way into laws I have to follow,I consider that harm.

"I really don't seek to convert anyone to my way of thinking"
I guess your not an Evangelical or many of the other denominations that try to 'save' people?

Jimbone| 12.27.10 @ 2:32PM

I don't care that my values are finding their ways into laws. My values are objectively correct. So you'll have to deal with it. There's nothing you can do about it anyway. The vast majority of the population in this country are religious. At the rate you guys are winning converts these days, it'll be a few thousand years before you have a legitimate shot at changing things. You'll have to do better than "The universe MIGHT have come from a vaccum!!" or "Religious people are dumb!" if you'd like to impose your values on us instead of the other way around anytime soon. Good luck.

sandy| 12.27.10 @ 2:45PM

Greetings, atheists and pseudo-scientists;
Evolution question: If life evolved from some chemical reaction, from where were those chemicals and electron exchanges necessary to form an electric charge made available? If life evolved from the creature from the primordial ooze, what did it eat? If those primordial beings evolved to land creatures, how did the plants get there to support their breath (CO2/O2 exchange), and life; food specific to this evolved creature? If survival of the fittest is the law of evolutionary survival, why then, with no predators, did those creatures not continue to survive or need to evolve? Can some creature evolve into its own predator except by free will? If by free will, then “will,” an act of reasoning must exist. If reasoning exists, then judgment exists. If judgment exists, then beliefs, by which choices are judged, must also exist. If beliefs exist, then principles, convictions, and confidence in those beliefs must also exist. If confidence in beliefs exist, then so does faith.
I remember talking with an atheist professor of astrophysics, reminding him that I can learn everything he knows about astrophysics but that would only be 50% of my knowledge; I know the spiritual dimensions of God and his creation, a dimension in which the professor was sorrowfully lacking. He was speechless.

Kingofthenet| 12.27.10 @ 3:06PM

Can't wait till the Muslims take over and you have to follow Sharia, than you'll understand.

Jimbone| 12.27.10 @ 3:33PM

Or when the atheist secularists take over. Like they did in the USSR...you know...when Stalin killed 20 million people in a futile attempt to achieve his secular utopia. I would understand then too, probably.

skip| 12.31.10 @ 3:58PM

stalin: 62 million russians/soviets killed

jen| 12.28.10 @ 3:53AM

Sorry. Christianity does not tell how to act in every situation in your life. Doesn't advocate violence or say women and non-believers are filth, like feces. Doesn't permit rape or pedophilia. Not the same at all.

Also, we'll get to live (tho' under dhimmihood). Atheists will go first. So if it happens, you won't be here to watch.

YeloStalyn| 12.27.10 @ 2:50PM

You've cited things like abortion and gay rights (IIRC) for laws that have been "inflitraded" by religion. We can have debates on those w/o the religious side and anyone reasonable, should agree that those laws can still be made and that you should still feel compelled to follow them as a citizen. The fact that religious people often fall on the other side of the issue than you does NOT necissarily mean that there isn't an underlying principle in defenseon those positions that isn't religous.
Aborton-
If it is a womans' body and therefore her choice... why does the fetus have it's own DNA? That argument is now defunct.
If it's a privacy issue, why can't she kill her baby after birth in the privacy of her own home? It is a very reasonable next step. The only difference is geographic location of teh child and stage of developement (insider her womb vs outside her womb... and more or less developement of the already established human body in different stages).
Also, why is the father not able to make the determination? The child is exactly as much his as it is hers. She just simply serves as natures means of support durnig early development. That is a poor legal arguement in order to remove the father's rights.

Gays-
IF (and that's a HUGE IF) the US functioned as designed, gays could have all the rights they want. A federation would allow them, in their state, to do what they want and otehrs, in other states, to do what they want. And there is nothing that should prohibt their national cooperation on actual national issues. As it stands now... gays have the very same rights as straights. They jst choose not to exercise them. I can marry any woman I want (assuming I wasn't already married). I can not marry any man. My sexuality has no bearing on that fact. To say it does is blatantly false. Weither I CHOOSE to utilize those rights or not is MY CHIOCE... and not grounds for imposing on other people without their collective consent (hence... voting!).

Now... what law, pray tell, is blatantly religious that you are compelled to follow? If you have one, I'd be glad to discuss it and chances are, there are sound reasons for it other than "God Said So!!" (which, even as a Christian, I detest as a political stance).

YeloStalyn| 12.27.10 @ 2:52PM

I should have added that even if you still disagree with the reasons listed above for abortion and gay rights... you could, I hope as an intelligent and hopefuly intellectually honest person, admit they are still sound arguments that hold merit... just as some of the gay rights argument hold merit since we are in a nation that values equality. I disagree with many of them, but at least can respect the merit they have.

Kingofthenet| 12.27.10 @ 3:09PM

Why Shouldn't a gay person be allowed to marry another gay person? If NOT for religion?

YeloStalyn| 12.27.10 @ 3:29PM

Because it is harmful to the human gene pool (does not serve the advancement of the species... this is a scientific argument) and a public health risk as it promotes activity that has a very high chance to spread HIV/AIDS (and yes, this can be said of other things).

Remember... I didn't say I necissarily agree with all the arguments against gay rights... just that there are non-religous reasons as well.

Also, consider that a group of likeminded people in a federation have every right to dictate moral norms, based on whatever they want, for their local. And since it's not truely an issue of a "right" rather than a legal previlage... there's nothign to legally stop a local or even state govt. to outlaw it with the consent of its citizens (under US govt. theory). And... if SF wants gay marraige (that maening the PEOPLE not the COURT) they they can have a big gay ole time getting gay married. And more power to them... I would just not prefer it in my local. And for me, personally, yes, it is more religious that anything. But as a citizen... I have that right. And so do you. The difference is you're in the minority.

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 3:43PM

Gay marriage is a very new phenomenon..very very new.
The construct of marriage is quite old and has its roots within natural law, biology, propagation of the species and the caring for progeny.

YeloStalyn| 12.27.10 @ 3:46PM

Let' also not forget that marriage was first a religious ceremony... NOT a legal arrangement.

it seems quite odd that non-religous people really want to take part in a very fundamental religous ceremony based on a blessing and dictate from God (that, in its first mention in the Bible, specifically sets it up as a hetero event).

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 4:25PM

You are so right on..that point never occurred to me!
Why in the world would such people who scorn religion ardently desire to participate in an institution which was formed by religion?
It makes no sense, but then again in essence not making sense is fitting for an atheist.

YeloStalyn| 12.27.10 @ 4:38PM

No... let's be fair. They make sense. If we're intellectually honest... they make the exact same amount of sense as Christians do. Which, in rational terms, isn't much. Either way... both groups have faith in something they can't prove and taht can't be disproven. That's a pretty crazy stance to take no matter what side of the coin you're on.

The difference, I feel, comes down to intellectual honesty. And that is displayed in the admittance of having a crazy beleife in a sky god based on faith or a crazy beliefe in a Galactic Vegas jackpot that spat out the cosmos with life.

Jim| 12.28.10 @ 12:05PM

Why shouldn't three gay people be allowed to marry each other? Why shouldn't three stright people be allowed to marry each other? Why shouldn't twenty people, gay and straight, be allowed to marry each other? Why can't I marry my uncle? Why can't my uncle, my cousin his daughter, her girlfriend and brother, and two of his male friends all get married if they love each other (or some of them love others of them so that they are all connected in a love chain, it not being necessary for all of them to love all of them)? Why do people need to love each other to get married anyway? Why can't they just get married if they want to cohabitate and share insurance benefits?

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 4:00PM

Your fears are unfounded.
And if you dislike social norms and prefer anarchy, then just take a peak at how rioters can run amok and cause a society to breakdown in short order.
If you look at Greece, Italy, the UK and Spain you see socially liberal democracies under serious strain and barring any standards you can see nations melt down.
So if you fear laws, then I would enjoy to hear what the alternatives are. And then standards and truths would you enjoy to base such governing laws upon?

Richard Baker| 12.27.10 @ 2:29PM

No God:
Have you read them yourself? Or are you just reading a critique or opinion from someone else?

No God| 12.27.10 @ 3:27PM

5 proofs? Yes, I did.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 3:29PM

Come to think of it, why does it even matter if I read them directly from the source? Either I understand it correctly or incorrectly, that only matters when it comes to an argument. Similarly in maths, do we need to read Leibniz in order to understand calculus?

Jimbone| 12.27.10 @ 3:35PM

Leibniz was a theist. And he was smarter than you.

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 4:28PM

He was certainly smarter than anyone in here and smarter than Michael.
What about that iq relationship to atheism stat? I suppose Leibniz did not make that stat..he fell far out of the Bell Curve.

Bill| 12.27.10 @ 6:35PM

For Leibniz, the theory of monads doesn't rule out the existence of God.

No God| 12.28.10 @ 7:20AM

That was not the point, Jimbone. Same applies to the comments below.

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 2:20PM

I know. I was just being obstinate for fun.

Hawkeye| 12.27.10 @ 2:40PM

The most zealously religious people nowadays are atheists. They worship a very small god-themselves.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 3:31PM

Atheists are by definition people who believe in no god, in case you did not understand, Hawkeye.

YeloStalyn| 12.27.10 @ 3:41PM

This isn't Zoolander... surely, if you can understand theoretical science you can understand a whitty reply (even if you don't appreciate it).

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 7:17PM

Essentially an atheist is one who cannot accept transcendence.
God is a transcendent Supreme Being.
Transcendence by definition is beyond and above all else.
In other words to demand that God be dominated by nature, and atheist rejects the notion of transcendence.

Norman Conquest| 12.27.10 @ 2:52PM

One can't help but notice that there is more of an anti-Christian, rather than anti-religious tone to these atheist diatribes. How about the occasional shot at Islam or would that be politically incorrect? Not to mention dangerous.
Anyway, these arguments are futile and pointless.
Religion, and atheism is most surely a religion, is based on faith and can never be proved or disproved. How about a little live-and-let-live?
Or, to quote that great liberal theologian Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?".

Kingofthenet| 12.27.10 @ 3:11PM

Atheism is a religion, is the same as NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 3:36PM

This argument related to the critique of muslim is very interesting indeed.

Essentially it amounts to saying that "you guys don't dare to criticize muslim because you are afraid that you can be killed or that it is politically incorrect to do so."

Let's say if one is under threat and do not raise any criticism in public, does it constitute a refutation of atheism? Of course not. The criticisms of fundamentalist beliefs are valid and sound no matter what.

Same thing applies to the point on politically incorrectness.

Mike| 12.28.10 @ 4:00AM

It does denote a certain amount of cowardice and intellectual dishonesty.

No God| 12.28.10 @ 7:39AM

Whether this behavior, if it happens, denotes a certain amount of cowardice and intellectual dishonesty is another question; there can be another discussion of the topic. My point is: the criticisms of fundamentalist beliefs are valid and sound.

YeloStalyn| 12.27.10 @ 3:44PM

Christianity is the most visable and widely understood theistic beliefe system and thus, the logical foci of atheism. If one faith, ANY faith, were to fail under atheistic argument then they all would. They feel more threatened by Christians, I'm sure. We are, after all, quite a vocal and rambunctious (sp?) group here in the US (short of flying planes in to buildings). That, and we did found the nation and make the laws they now live under. To be fair... the Jews played a strong part in that as well... they just aren't the largest most widely understood group here in the US.

peter| 12.28.10 @ 4:02AM

It is very convenient to feel most threatened by the belief system most prominent in your country instead of the belief system that actually wants you dead.

YeloStalyn| 12.27.10 @ 3:21PM

"a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"

definiton #2 from dictionary.com

You believe that the world was created by chance. So do other atheists. You believe it as a matter of faith (hopefully we have agreed on that... seeing as how the scientific method would dictate as such itself given taht there is no obersvation or reproduction of the origin of life) rather than fact (we can also agree that matters of fact are not issues of religion... for example... "we are on the AE website" is not a tenant of religous faith).

Sounds an awful lot like a religion. Religion does not dictate beliefe in a god... just a leap of faith in SOMETHING (be it an event, occurance, or diety that has profound implications on your worldview).

Newbs!| 12.27.10 @ 3:40PM

Newbs!

Richard Baker| 12.27.10 @ 4:05PM

No God:
Reading them yourself constitutes scholarship. Reading what others say about them is not. Example, have you read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, as well?

YeloStalyn| 12.27.10 @ 4:34PM

I hate to do it, but I have to side with No God on this one... I never read "The Great Gatsby" yet wrote about 4 reports on it for HS and college courses. I feel I have a fairly decent enough grasp on it to discuss it (well, not anymore... I've forgotten most of it as I didn't really care for the story or characters).

Reading the primary, while certainly ideal, is not necissary for argument. For most people it is highly suggested, but for others you can get by just fine on underlying points and concepts. For example... I have no clue what the last science book I read was (probably my HS physics book)... but no one has really taken me to the mat for it (although they may now, lol!).

Although... first hand knowledge of someone/something is necissary to state it as fact according to thekingofthenet's argument against the existance of a man named Jesus (sorry king... just had to :-) ).

Jimbone| 12.27.10 @ 5:32PM

No. This is exactly the problem. Everyone thinks they are an expert on everything, yet, they've never read a lick of scholarly work in their lives. I hate to be an elitist, but not really. If you want to have something to add to an argument that matters, you have to work for that. You need more than a "decent grasp" of the material.

But this is just the point, isn't it? Virtually none of you have the requisite training required to even think critically about this issue, much less provide valuable insight. Every atheist in this argument has completely overlooked some of the most convincing arguments for their position. Why? Because they're too busy defending their contemporary atheist poster boys like Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. Classical atheism is the only semi-respectable, justifiable atheism there is. Virtually no one in academia respects Dawkins for his atheist apologetics...mainly because when you reduce his arguments to syllogism, it looks like the work of a half-brained ten year old. It is so typical of a modern layperson (especially atheists, for some reason) to interject into these kinds of discussions with a complete lack of adequate reading or intellectual capability. Not only are they willing, but we live in a society that actually encourages such behavior, telling the lazy brained masses that their ill-formed opinions are valuable and worthy of expression. We better hope that God does exist. Otherwise, we are in for quite a fall. Back to the Savannah, guys.

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 6:39PM

Beautifully written Jim.
I should like to add that the atheists of the Enlightenment and into the 19th century had something in common with Dawkins. They were for the most part ill tempered about their position and many were tortured souls.
They knew what they were rejecting and they understood the philosophical void that had to occur when one determines that God is dead.
In fact Nietzsche's argument is a great argument for theism. He understood the loss, the terrifying loss of a culture without God. So terrible was his Godless civilization that only the most Powerful could survive and would by necessity survive.

Nietzsche proclaimed that Modernity killed God, but he also articulated the loss because he understood it.
Dawkins cannot fathom that a Godless world is a lost world because he has not the slightest clue as to who God is and how God operates for the betterment of the human condition and in terms of balance. He does not understand the nature of evil, and he does not understand the value of transcendent purposiveness.
And Hitchens is simply a malcontent who dreams of being a war hero fighting the Nazis.

Jimbone| 12.27.10 @ 8:21PM

That is exactly correct. My largest grievance with respect to contemporary atheism is its blatant hypocrisy...a characteristic which classical atheism had little of, if any. In terms of any hope of objective moral standards (or objectivity at all, for that matter), the implications of a godless universe are clear. Any attempt to circumvent these consequences is disingenuous, at best. Obviously, this is not an argument for the existence of a god, rather, it is an attempt to force atheists to take logical responsibility for their assertions. Something that those like Nietzsche did, probably at the risk of developing severe mental illness like he did. Someone needs to remind these people that they can't have their cake and eat it too.

Also, that was a fantastic caricature of Hitchens. I think out of all of the "New Atheists" he is, by far, the most intellectually honest. He's also exponentially the most fun to read and listen too. That isn't saying much though, I guess, given his peers.

Bill| 12.27.10 @ 6:32PM

If you never read The Great Gatsby, how can you say you don't care for the story or the characters?

Your post suggests that you got the gist of The Great Gatsby from the Cliff Notes. That's like reading the Classics Illustrated version of Crime and Punishment and saying you don't like Dostoevsky.

YeloStalyn| 12.28.10 @ 9:59AM

I knew the characters from reading excerpts, reviews, studies, holding discussions, etc. about the piece itself.
Did you read teh instructino book for your TV? How do you know how to use it? Experience with the thing itself (concepts) rather than the pages that the concept is in.

And after readign Winter Dream... I thought Great Gatsby was, from the parts I had read, far inferior. I just never could get into it.

But that's been 15 years ago? I didn't care to keep much of it with me and can't hardly remember much of anything except names.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 9:31PM

Baker says, "Reading them yourself constitutes scholarship."

Even reading a lot of the original documents does not constitute scholarship; it only constitutes hard work. One can read them without really understand them.

Margie| 12.27.10 @ 5:04PM

The Atheists presume upon the believers to prove the existence of God.
No one has to prove His existence.
God has already done so. The proof is in the Creation of the universe, and of Mankind.

As it is written:

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His invisible Nature, namely, his Eternal Power and Deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools.." Rom. 1:19-22.

The Atheists really hate that simple truth and are always off trying to get us to "prove the existence of God." Each person knows God exists, but their minds are darkened.

The question to them is: Do you really want to die like that?

The Bible tells us that each person is in "lifelong bondage to the fear of death." (Heb. 2:15). We fear death because we know we are in rebellion towards God.

Jesus died for the sin that causes the fear and guilt. He is the only One that can remove it.

Christians are here to tell you that, but like "Mr. No God" said in one of his posts above.. like Margaret Thatcher said: "U turn if U want to."

No God| 12.27.10 @ 9:48PM

Margie,

Still keeping up with your dogmatic religious chanting?

"No one has to prove His existence.
God has already done so. The proof is in the Creation of the universe, and of Mankind."

If so, you don't have to defend our criticism of your blind faith at all.

And if your god has already done the proof, he is a logical fool because his so-called proof is not valid.

Margie| 12.27.10 @ 11:37PM

You're right, Mr. Atheist. It is pure pearls to the swine, isn't it?

You judge God to be false, and that is where you want to be.

I pity you.

Kingofthenet| 12.28.10 @ 12:05AM

Margie, would you go so far as to say you "Pity the Fool'?

No God| 12.28.10 @ 7:34AM

Are you having this pity on Margie or yourself?

No God| 12.28.10 @ 7:34AM

Or shall we say (admit) it is pure garbage to those who think critically?

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 2:22PM

You don't think critically. Stop saying that.

Occam's Tool| 12.27.10 @ 6:00PM

Ok, folks, let's look at "The G-d of History" concept. The Axis Powers who aided in murdering the six million were: Germany (directly), Italy (indirectly, but substantially), and Japan (indirectly, but they are still antisemitic today.)

Birthrates per woman: Japan, 1.2 (22% over the age of 65), Germany: 1.42 (20.3% over the age of 65), Italy: (20.2% over the age of 65) 1.32.

In comparison, the US is 12.8 % over the age of 65, with a birthrate of 2.06 (2.1 is replacement). Israel is, natch, doing even better. (Once they got rid of a lot of their socialism they took off. More startups/scientific papers per capita in Israel than in the US.)

In short, the Axis is dying. But there is no G-d, of course.

Occam's Tool| 12.27.10 @ 6:01PM

And, of course, the Axis is secular.

Occam's Tool| 12.27.10 @ 6:04PM

Again, secular humanist societies don't time bind. All 3 of the societies mentioned with declining birth rates infantilize their young adults, the USA and Israel (especially) don't. The secular societies don't care about their grandkids, the Americans and Israelis do.

Christopher | 12.27.10 @ 10:15PM

OT, don't forget the lowest birth rates were in the USSR, and other commmunist countries, with China having the mandatory one child per couple rule, all officially atheist.

Bill| 12.27.10 @ 6:29PM

For a revealing idea of what celebrating Reason would be like, look to the history of the French Revolution. They specifically set out to worhip Reason. The worship of Reason did nothing to stop the Reign of Terror and Directory, and finally Nap0leon.

axbucxdu| 12.27.10 @ 8:36PM

Someone above mentioned the book Ethics Without God. Were it universally adopted, I wonder how long it would take before the proponents of such ethical systems were compelled to take their own version of a Nicene time-out and impose orthodoxy. From a systems standpoint, what would really change? You still would have the domain of imperfect humanity, the range of their transendent thoughts, and these sets unified by a norm (e.g., Ethics Without God) that is corrupted by that same human fallibility.

After everything would be said and done, we'd still be led back to a world of dogma and orthodoxy, precisely what the atheists rail against. This time though, by definition, it would be strictly humans at the controls. I agree, the previous history here is not very appealing.

Big Leo| 12.27.10 @ 8:35PM

A little note to atheists-- If I am wrong about there being a God, when I die I will suffer no inconvenience whatsoever. If you are wrong about there being no God, you will be seriously inconvenienced.

Brian Westley| 12.27.10 @ 8:39PM

Sorry, Pascal's Wager doesn't work.

For example, if Jews are right, atheists are better off than Christians, who are guilty of idolatry by worshipping Jesus as a god. If universalists are right, everybody gets into heaven regardless of beliefs. If the IPU is right, only atheists get into heaven.

Jimbone| 12.27.10 @ 9:58PM

Sorry, Pascals wager does work. Nothing in your post negates his logic. Thanks for playing, though.

Skavau| 12.28.10 @ 12:56AM

Jimbone, so you believe that willful manipulation of others is an excellent standard of theistic ethics (as Pascal's Wagers proposes)? That the underlying threat of torture in hell for thought-crime (that Pascal's Wager implies) is a good message?

I'm slightly upset to see that you belief in theism can be wittled down entirely to pure self-interest. Charlatan.

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 1:31AM

Pascal's wager does nothing of the sort. He merely comments on the fact that, if Christianity is true, Christians have nothing to worry about and others do have something to worry about. If it's not true, none of us have anything to worry about.

Please explain what you'd like me to do about this. People who complain about Pascal's wager are amazing to me. Would you like me to bend the rules of logic so that the prospects for you seem less daunting? You can call me a charlatan if you'd like, but if you honestly believe that, then I guess everyone who follows the implications of their beliefs out to their logical ends are also charlatans. If that's what it means to be a charlatan, I'd rather be one of those than a fool who gets mad at the course of reason when it takes a turn that's foreseeable, but supremely undesirable. You don't like being trapped? That sucks. I guess just try not to think about it.

Skavau| 12.28.10 @ 9:29AM

Pascal's Wager simply asserts a 'if then so' truth-claim in isolation. If Islam is true, then Christians might have something to worry about. What about Hinduism, Judaism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Pagan traditions, Taoism or Zoroastrianism just to name a few?

I call you a charlatan because you are part of the crowd that invokes Christianity as being all-loving, all-merciful and the one perfect way for life and then turn around and suggest people moderate and change their own BELIEFS (something that cannot actually be done) on the suggestion of reprisal in the afterlife. It suggests something quite sinister, and indeed there is whenever the words 'torture' and 'hell' are thrown around.

I have the moral capacity to understand that torture for thought-crime is immoral. You apparently do not.

Skavau| 12.28.10 @ 9:37AM

To elaborate further, Pascal's Wager is incoherent because it misses the point of belief. I have not chosen out of some insincere or some contemptible motives to condemn Christianity. I simply cannot bring myself to accept the truth-claims. A pointless reminder from specific Christian (or Muslim, I have debated with Muslims who use the wager) quarters that my 'failure' to adhere to their thought could mean my termination or torture in the afterlife and their redemption does nothing but make me question their own piety. Not only do you bring into question what it is you think might happen to me and other atheists, but you then imply that you approve of such a fate. That is, you believe in the possible destruction and/or torture of up to billions of people in a hypothetical afterlife purely on the basis that they could not bring themselves to accept a specific 'redeemer' born tw0-thousand years ago. Your depiction of the absolute truth is nothing much more than a celestial totalitarian state.

It is nothing more than religious hucksterism at its absolute worst.

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 2:24PM

"I have the moral capacity to understand that torture for thought-crime is immoral. You apparently do not."

hahahahaha. Oh, really? From whence do you derive this moral standard? Is it objective? I'd love to know.

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 2:28PM

Your post is like a whiny child. You can object to Christianity on moral grounds all you want. Congratulations. Guess what? If you were born in the west, your moral sensibilities were derived from judeo-christian principles. Furthermore, in a godless universe, there is no reason to think that there could be any objective moral standard. Your "moral capacity" is the sum of atoms slamming into one another within your neurology. You're a hypocrite. Exactly the sort of atheist I love to talk to.

Skavau| 12.28.10 @ 6:06PM

I see you have more or less abandoned your defense of Pascal's Wager and declined to comment on the core criticism of it in that it makes your faith shallow, manipulative, sinister and tells everyone that you approve of others undergoing torture for eternity based on non-belief.

Jimbone| 12.29.10 @ 3:35AM

I didn't abandon anything. Pascal's Wager isn't Jimbone's Wager. I simply stated what it is, which is an analysis of what would be the situation at hand should Christianity turn out to be true. I stand by that remark. I've abandoned nothing. Pascal's Wager doesn't make my faith shallow or manipulative anymore than the USSR makes atheism communist and totalitarian. Christianity, as a whole, doesn't have to answer for Pascal's Wager.

There's no argument here. I'm right about Pascal's Wager. I've not said anything unreasonable. Drop it. You're trying to squeeze a moral victory for yourself out of nothing.

Skavau| 12.29.10 @ 4:58AM

By promoting Pascal's Wager as a reason to believe you present Christianity as shallow, manipulative and sinister. You also give a passive nod for thought-crime and torture by implying that Christianity mandates them for non-believers.

Jimbone| 12.29.10 @ 3:24PM

You're really reaching now.

Skavau| 12.28.10 @ 6:04PM

Morality is not objective. In any case, you still can't coherently oppose torture and you have not disputed this.

Pathetic.

Jimbone| 12.29.10 @ 3:36AM

When was I asked to "coherently" oppose torture? And what do you mean by that? Do you want me to keep from screaming and slurring my speech while I do it?

jimbone| 12.29.10 @ 3:39AM

Furthermore, if morality is not objective. Then who get's to decide what's right and wrong? I've seen you skirt this question several times already. Just answer it. Just admit that there's absolutely no basis for any kind of meaningful moral standard outside of a transcendent standard.

Skavau| 12.29.10 @ 5:00AM

Jimbone, its a loaded question. No-one 'decides' anything on morality. It is a collective human endeavour. You are used to the authority-based approach to morality and thus you can only ask "who is your leader?" type questions for morality. How I go straight to the edge here:

Is it morally right, as you understand for God to torture people in hell for eternity simply for being incapable of believing in him?

Jimbone| 12.29.10 @ 3:22PM

Finally, you admit it. Your morality is based on a consensus view of the world. Which means that if the world decided we should torture people in hell for eternity who were incapable of believing in Skavau, you'd be fine with it. Is that morally right, Skavau?

Skavau| 12.29.10 @ 10:45PM

How morality actually works and why it happens has little to do with what I (with my own understanding and beliefs on what ought or ought not) think concerning morality. Morality is simply a consequence of an intelligent social species persisting. It by definition runs on consensus.

In any case: Is it morally right, as you understand for God to torture people in hell for eternity simply for being incapable of believing in him?

Jimbone| 8.31.11 @ 9:16PM

I hate to point out the obvious by stating that quite a bit of this argument is semantic, but to say that morality is a "consequence" of an intelligent social species persisting is complete nonsense. Morality has a definition. You don't get to artfully define the phenomenon of morality. Purchase a Websters.

Big Leo| 12.27.10 @ 8:49PM

While I admire Pascal and his wager, I don't accept your view of what Jews and Christians think about the chances of salvation of the other. Like most religious people, I don't know how or if people of other faiths will or will not be saved. What I do know is that I have nothing to say about it and God does.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 8:54PM

Big Leo says, "A little note to atheists-- If I am wrong about there being a God, when I die I will suffer no inconvenience whatsoever. If you are wrong about there being no God, you will be seriously inconvenienced."

This is a ridiculous reason to "believe" in your a god. Is it true? You just don't care.

I am sorry, sir, I really care.

Jimbone| 12.27.10 @ 10:03PM

I can tell from your posts that you're a fan of unsubstantiated claims.

"This is a ridiculous reason to "believe" in your god."

Pascal didn't claim that the wager alone was why he believed in God. He was simply stating a fact. If Christians are right, a lot of people are going to be inconvenienced in their afterlife...specifically non-believers. If Christians are wrong and atheists are right...no one will be inconvenienced. As a matter of fact, no one will even know who was right or wrong if the atheists are right. So, poor effort. Try again.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 11:09PM

Stating this reason as a support of your blind faith is a very disgusting thing, in my opinion.

I care whether it is true, not whether I placed the most beneficial bet.

After death, yes, no one will be inconvenienced. That's right. But while we are alive, blind faiths did a lot of harm. They can even brainwash people to such an extent that they lie for their god (e.g. Margie) and flew planes into buildings (e.g. 9/11).

Big Leo| 12.27.10 @ 11:41PM

You really don't get it, do you? Nobody's claiming it as proof of God, neither jimbone or myself, much less Pascal. It's merely an absolutely true statement.

Brian Westley| 12.27.10 @ 11:50PM

"It's merely an absolutely true statement"??

No, it's an example of totally blind faith. You can't even permit the possibility that any other religion could be correct, because your faith is so fragile.

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 1:35AM

Completely wrong. 1.) Not an example of blind faith. It is an analysis of the consequences of the Christian worldview, should it turn out to be true. 2.) Quit whining about Pascal's wager. It's like whining about the fact that if you eat raw chicken you might get salmonella. It's futile and childish. Find something stimulating to argue about, rather than asking religious people to ignore the consequences of their worldviews, should they turn out to be right.

Brian Westley| 12.28.10 @ 2:05AM

"It is an analysis of the consequences of the Christian worldview, should it turn out to be true."

No, the original statement was:
"A little note to atheists-- If I am wrong about there being a God, when I die I will suffer no inconvenience whatsoever. If you are wrong about there being no God, you will be seriously inconvenienced."

The original statement by Big Leo was if he was WRONG, not if he was right. If he's wrong, that leaves everything else as a possibility, including situations where atheists are better off than Christians, such as my earlier example of Judaism. And the second part of his statement was if atheists were WRONG, not if Christianity was right. If atheists are wrong but e.g. universalism is true, atheists aren't very inconvenienced by that, as just one counterexample.

"Find something stimulating to argue about"

I'll do that when theists stop bringing up Pascal's ridiculous wager as if it's meaningful.

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 3:44AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

There are arguments for and against it. I personally think it's meaningless to anyone who's not considering Christianity. Essentially, if you've not boiled down your options to either the Christian God or none at all, then your criticisms are exactly correct. If one has determined that either the Christian God exists or none at all, then the wager is perfectly useful.

Skavau| 12.28.10 @ 9:46AM

Well, yes. If of course you want to lose all intellectual credibility and believe things purely because you think you'll be safer.

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 2:32PM

Is that how one loses intellectual credibility? So if I think there is a good possibility that if I stand in the middle of the highway I could possibly be struck by a vehicle, and I choose not to based almost exclusively on this thought, I'm no longer intellectually credible? What the hell are you talking about? Where were you educated?

Skavau| 12.28.10 @ 6:08PM

No, losing credibility in abandoning your convictions based on fear and intimidation from others. If you sincerely do not believe in a God, then it is nothing less than cowardice and complete self-interest to abandon those convictions (or rather, lack of) on the basis of fear of divine reprisal.

I mean, how seriously would you really take a Muslim who told you that you will burn in hell for eternity unless you accept Allah as your God and Mohammad as his messenger?

Jimbone| 12.29.10 @ 3:31AM

Not very seriously at all, since Islamic apologetics are a joke.

Jimbone| 12.29.10 @ 5:01AM

Well then. You now know why I do not take it seriously when a Christian tells me that I will go to hell for not believing in Jesus as my redeemer.

Skavau| 12.29.10 @ 7:11AM

*Skavau

The Jimbone above is me, Skavau. I have no idea why I referred to myself as Jimbone. I don't care for how replying works on here.

Jimbone| 12.29.10 @ 3:20PM

Except for that the apologetics of Christian philosophers like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga are hardly a joke.

Skavau| 12.29.10 @ 10:47PM

Doesn't matter. You do not take Muslims seriously when they tell you that you will go to hell if you're wrong and for the same reason I discard Christians (and Muslims by the way) making the same 'warnings'.

Brian Westley| 12.28.10 @ 1:41PM

"If one has determined that either the Christian God exists or none at all, then the wager is perfectly useful."

Only if one has gotten to that point using valid logic showing that there actually IS such a restricted outcome.

Consider this: you've determined that a lottery ticket is worth either $1,000 or $5,000. Using logic, you could buy the ticket for $1,000, because you will either break even or gain $4,000. So you buy it for $1,000, because you know you can't lose.

Then you find out the ticket is worth $10, and you've lost $990, because you didn't bother to use logic to arrive at your initial assumption. Using logic AFTER that point gives you the illusion that you are making correct, logical choices, but that's only true if you've used valid logic from the start. If you start with invalid assumptions, using logic after that point won't magically make your conclusion valid.

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 2:36PM

It's entirely possible to use valid logic to reach these crossroads. It's been accomplished by many individuals with an intelligence that dwarfs your own. Somehow I doubt Francis Collins is a Christian because he failed to use valid logic from the start. The idea that either theism or atheism are entirely unjustifiable is absurd.

Brian Westley| 12.28.10 @ 7:42PM

"It's entirely possible to use valid logic to reach these crossroads. It's been accomplished by many individuals with an intelligence that dwarfs your own."

Argument from authority. If there's some valid logic behind it, show it.

"Somehow I doubt Francis Collins is a Christian because he failed to use valid logic from the start."

Collins' OWN DESCRIPTION of his conversion is laughable, and doesn't come within light-years of valid logic. Look it up; he saw (drumroll) a frozen waterfall.

Jimbone| 12.29.10 @ 3:29AM

"Argument from authority. If there's some valid logic behind it, show it."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org.....nce_of_God

Have fun.

Brian Westley| 12.31.10 @ 10:52AM

Argument from authority again. You need to learn how to present actual arguments.

Bob White | 12.27.10 @ 8:56PM

It could also be that atheists are wrong about the existence of god, and believers are wrong about the vindictiveness of god. Suppose there is a god who created us, then he is responsible for creating us with a meager ability to apprehend him. For even amongst the believers, even amongst the believers of a particular sect, there is great disagreement about what god is like, or what he says and does. This does not disprove god, but it disproves the notion that god's nature is obvious or clear.

If god created us near blind and near deaf to him, then how could he condemn us for not seeing nor hearing him? Do you condemn your children when they do not see or hear? Would you condemn a mute child for not talking?

I neither believe, nor fear God's wrath. I expect if God is half what people say he is, he will not place you higher than me when the time comes.

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 10:36PM

You mentioned that amongst believers of a "particular sect" there is "great" disagreement about what God is like.
Before I challenge this statement I must ask you are presumably speaking about Christianity.
If you are the differences can vary from Protestant to Catholic on a variety of issues in terms of doctrine, scripture, Apostolic succession etc etc. But those differences as unbridgeable as they seem are not the same thing as different impressions of God's nature.
For the Christian of any stripe, the nature of God is only discernible through Christ.
And the Christ of the Gospels is clearly knowable as Love. A Love that the world could not accept.

Now how each Christian in her/his life grows to know Christ's Love is as individual as each of us are within our talents and sensibilities.
But if one reads the accounts of the saints from every age.. Medieval, Antiquity or Modern, one will see the portrait of Christ emerge and echo throughout each saint.
It is not a matter of reinvention from person to person or generation to generation. But it is a matter of rediscovering for each person the inexhaustible eternal Love. The Love that the world cannot understand, obtain, hold, own, manage, or distribute without Christ.

Big Leo| 12.27.10 @ 11:43PM

Part of my library is a large green volume entitled "The Common Catechism." It is quite simple. It is a list of the major dogmas of every major branch of the Christian religion. They correspond in over 90% of all particulars. I would judge that they correspond with Jewish theology at around the 60% level as well.

The idea that Christianity is seriously divided is highly overrated.

Big Leo| 12.27.10 @ 11:43PM

Part of my library is a large green volume entitled "The Common Catechism." It is quite simple. It is a list of the major dogmas of every major branch of the Christian religion. They correspond in over 90% of all particulars. I would judge that they correspond with Jewish theology at around the 60% level as well.

The idea that Christianity is seriously divided is highly overrated.

Jeanine| 12.27.10 @ 8:18PM

When I see atheists put up billboards about Islam being a myth or printing bumper stickers that say, The Koran, the world's greatest fairytale, then maybe I would take them seriously. They seem to only attack Christianity. The problem that they have is their ego and pride which will not let them see the obvious - that God is real. I pray for them. And p.s., God did not use evolution and the Big Bang to create - just read Genesis to find out.

Brian Westley| 12.27.10 @ 8:42PM

You apparently didn't see this earlier in the comments:
Well, there's the Extraordinary Claims campaign:
http://extraordinary-claims.com
Notice "Allah" is listed first. He will also be first on their bus ads (check the multimedia tab).

And look at what American Atheists is putting up around the first of the year to promote their January meet in Huntville:
http://www.atheists.org/upload/Scams.jpg
Yep, calling all religions "scams" including Islam.

You only see atheists attacking Christianity because that's all you notice. Maybe your ego is in the way.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 8:58PM

Jeanine says, "God did not use evolution and the Big Bang to create - just read Genesis to find out."

To understand the world, you don't examine the world itself; you decide to just read the bible.

Can you see how ridiculous your blind faith is?

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 10:47PM

Hi NG..
You have heard of Aquinas..have you not?
Aquinas understood God through a layering of methods which he called "proofs". He utilized logic, empiricism, observation, and reason to build upon faith.
Therefore it was hardly a "blind" faith but rather faith taken to the nth degree as far as what his intellect could manage to build and layer upon it.

Hardly a blind endeavor. And his work is worthy of anyone's intellectual curiosity ..IF one is intellectually curious.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 11:14PM

Yes, I was familiar with the 5 proofs. Unfortunately they were not valid arguments. You can mix a lot of things into an argument: tables, chairs, pigs, cats, etc. But is it a valid inference at the end? That is a different question.

In fact, these 5 proofs and their shortfalls have been discussed very thoroughly in those Introduction to Philosophy textbooks. Maybe you should pick one up to study the topic; try not to read only those blind faith texts please.

Big Leo| 12.27.10 @ 11:46PM

Perhaps I am a person of too little faith. It is easier to look at the universe, see the reality of such intangible and unscientific ideas as truth, beauty, honesty, grace, and love and believe in God than it is to believe in all of those things and not believe in God.

I admire you for your superior faith. It takes a lot more faith to believe in nothing.

No God| 12.28.10 @ 7:57AM

"I admire you for your superior faith. It takes a lot more faith to believe in nothing." says Big Leo.

I don't have a faith; I only have working hypotheses that are testable.

YeloStalyn| 12.28.10 @ 10:05AM

What test has been done on the spontaneous ceration of life?

Jimbone| 12.29.10 @ 3:27AM

You mean minus the faith that you have in reason? You do realize that in order to even think coherently about anything you have to presume certain things about the universe...and this demands a modicum of faith?

Jimbone| 12.27.10 @ 10:06PM

Or maybe you're a tool.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 11:15PM

Jimbone,

I am trying to give you a tool (i.e. critical thinking) so that you may wake up from your dogmatic slumber.

Jimbone| 12.27.10 @ 11:35PM

No God,

Thanks very much for the offer, but I'll stick to my obviously dogmatic, not very well thought out worldview.

Sincerely,

Someone who's forgotten more in a week than you will know in your entire life.

No God| 12.28.10 @ 7:53AM

"I'll stick to my obviously dogmatic, not very well thought out worldview," Jimbone says.

Other people can improve, Jimbone, you can, too.

Jeanine| 12.28.10 @ 3:26PM

Thank you for pointing out the earlier comments, you are right that I did not see them. I still believe that atheists mock Christianity more than Islam. Why include Islam with other religions/ideas and not just mock it all by itself? Why cover under the guise of equal intolerance? Will those bus ads run in Dearbon, MI?

I die daily to my ego because of Christ, hence my ability to give you credit where credit is due and to not mock or make fun of you. My prayers are with you and all who refuse to repent.

Bob White | 12.27.10 @ 8:48PM

I tire of the bickering. I was a Christian and now do not believe. Still, I remember the joy that belief brought me at one time and would not begrudge anyone joy, rare as it is to find, even if that joy was the result of believing in a myth. Hence, I let my kids believe in Santa Claus, even though I do not. I let my friends pray to God, even if he does not exist. It makes them happy.

The atheist sees no evidence of the invisible and exercises his faith in his senses and the consistency of his observations to posit that seeing nothing implies there is nothing there. It is an act of faith, but not an unreasonable one.

The believer apprehends something invisible through senses that have no scientific basis, they feel god and posit that feeling something implies that something is there. It is an act of faith, but not a reasonable one.

Neither atheist nor believer is superior to the other. Neither is faith-free. I became more comfortable believing that there is no god, but I cannot prove it one way or the other.

It rankles me when people assert their faith in God and Jesus, but I keep quiet. At this time of year we hear a lot of preposterous assertions about God and Jesus, but we keep quiet. If a few atheists bother to make some meek and friendly assertions and that rankles Christians, well then you know how we feel.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 9:42PM

Quite correct, White. Only one thing I want to say about your piece.

"The atheist sees no evidence of the invisible and exercises his faith in his senses and the consistency of his observations to posit that seeing nothing implies there is nothing there. It is an act of faith, but not an unreasonable one."

In this case, accepting a hypothesis with strong supporting evidence is not correctly described as a faith. Therefore it is not a reasonable faith; it is a reasonable hypothesis.

Bottom line: there is probably no god.

Harrison | 12.27.10 @ 8:58PM

I think you should simply view it as a test of faith and leave it at that. When you die you may learn the truth.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 9:45PM

Harrison says, "I think you should simply view it as a test of faith and leave it at that. When you die you may learn the truth."

Quite the opposite, Harrison, when you die, you will not know.

Jimbone| 12.27.10 @ 10:07PM

Right, so what are you bitching about?

No God| 12.27.10 @ 10:58PM

Calm down, Jimbone. Criticizing is not the same as bitching. Now your tone suggests you in fact was bitching.

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 11:14PM

In my view NG, Jim has lost patience with the conflated arguments and the lack of knowledge that is exhibited by statements such as "blind faith" which is basically left overs given to you by Dawkins.
Dawkins BTW does not understand faith enough to make a statement such as "blind faith" in terms of what that means. If for example faith is pernicious, then there is no point is qualifying faith as "blind".
In other words, one needs to know what one is rejecting..and to hear warmed over Dawkins speak is frustrating to put it mildly.

So ..there is no way Jim or any serious person of faith will calm down in the face of blind willful ignorance.

No God| 12.28.10 @ 7:50AM

"If for example faith is pernicious, then there is no point is qualifying faith as "blind," Larry claims.

Not true. A faith can both be pernicious and blind. The fact that you cannot see the point is not my problem.

Harrison | 12.28.10 @ 2:27PM

Uh... that's why I said "may know."

Or, you may not know because there is nothing.

rrebell| 12.27.10 @ 10:21PM

Guys cannot we just agree that science does not prove or disprove the existance or non-existance of God. It is simpler than that: believe in the exitance or the disbelive are all faith. So do not harass each other with our (dis)believes, nobody will be changed. If one believes in something no philosophical or scientific explanation or proofs will change it. The only thing I doubt about religion and and the existance of Christ that Iosephus Flavius supposedly" wrote". The section about Jesus was inserted by somebody else a lot later. Of course it is not a disproof of the Jesus, it is only a false statement in the "Jewish Antiquities" by somebody else than Iosephus.

No God| 12.27.10 @ 11:23PM

"Guys cannot we just agree that science does not prove or disprove the existance or non-existance of God."

Yeah, but that's not the point. The point is that there is no objective/testable evidence to the assertions of those blind faiths. Blind faith worshipers are, therefore, irrational.

In a society, it is harmful to promote irrationality. Look at those fundamentalists who flew planes into buildings in 9/11. Do we want this to happen again?

No, I don't think so. The bottom line is to promote reasonableness and critical thinking in a society, in my opinion.

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 11:26PM

NG..

What does "blind faith" mean?

No God| 12.27.10 @ 11:36PM

Generally I understand a "blind faith" to be a faith with no objective/testable empirical support.

Fundamentalist christianitiy is a very good example. I see it as a cult.

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 12:11AM

NG,

I am tired of your unwarranted arrogance. You have no clue what you're talking about. Furthermore, you champion your ability to think critically, yet, you display not a scintilla of evidence that you're capable of such behavior.

Science cannot "prove" or "disprove" the existence of God. However, your claim that there is no objective/testable evidence to the assertions of our "blind faith" is patently false. Christianity and other religions make claims about occurrences within the universe that are, in fact, testable.

For example, the resurrection of Christ was, supposedly a material occurrence. The claims of the early disciples with respect to this matter are testable. Either Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead or he did not. There are various historical evidences that suggest not only that Jesus existed, but that the best explanation for the historical circumstances surrounding his death and alleged resurrection is that did rise from the dead.

It is not incumbent upon me to go into details about these historical evidences in the comment section of someone else's article. It will suffice for me to provide links to this information so that you will know that it exists and that this view is held even by some scholars who deny Christ's divinity, such as the Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide

Whether or not you believe the content of the links I provide is immaterial for purposes of this discussion. The point is, you continue to insist that our faith is "blind" with your nose in the air as if you have an inkling of what you're talking about, yet, not even skeptical scholars go so far as you do in their rebuttals of Christianity. You should never be so retarded as to think that 2.6 billion people believing in the life, death and resurrection of an individual who claimed to be the son of God is anywhere near comparable to a delusional crank claiming that citrus fruits are angels or that "fairies dance on his finger". Your rambling is mere conjecture. There are decent, at least, reasons to believe that Jesus is exactly who he said he was and it is this fact, not blind faith, that justifies and vindicates the faith that most Christians profess.

William Lane Craig, PhD. popular article on the resurrection:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org.....mp;id=5351

N.T. Wright popular article on the resurrection:

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm

Josh McDowell popular article on the resurrection:

http://www.leaderu.com/everyst.....josh2.html

I've limited these selections to popular articles because I've no clue as to your educational background and I've no interest in providing links to articles that you either can't understand or are too disinterested to read, in the event that you can. I'll be the first to say that there are responses to these arguments, many of them conceded in the articles themselves, in some cases. However, the point I am making is not that the evidence for Christianity is so overwhelming that you should convert, but to demonstrate that your assertion that the Christian faith is "blind" and that there is no testable evidence to suggest its validity is highly suspect.

Make no mistake, the potential validity of the Christian faith does not rest on three popular articles. There is a fantastic amount of scholarly work and historical evidence that, at least, makes Christianity a viable world view and, at most, an explanatory mechanism for the origin of our universe and the purpose of our lives. My interest in whether or not you look into this is negligible, but I've conclusively demonstrated that you're one hundred percent wrong about the Christian faith making unfalsifiable claims. To the contrary.

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 11:46PM

Let me then ask..are you married or with a significant other?

Big Leo| 12.27.10 @ 11:49PM

"Generally I understand a "blind faith" to be a faith with no objective/testable empirical support." Since love, truth, beauty, justice, and every other quality that makes us human also has no objective or testable empirical support, I wonder what you think it is to be a human being?

You can dissect, spectroscopically analyze or boil down the universe to its objective verifiable components and not find a molecule of any of these things, nor the trace of one human mind. Yet they exist as surely as the Universe itself does, and are universally held by the human race.

So what is it to be human without them?

Gary| 12.27.10 @ 11:51PM

No God, maybe someone has answered this but your response to the very correct argument that it is physically and logically impossible for a very complex universe to appear without any intelligence or power out of nothing means, by the same token, that God himself must have been created demonstrates a stunning lack of depth on your part. The universe as we know it directly testifies to the attributes of the "Christian god" you deride. A material universe must be created by an immaterial Being. A universe that demostrates an incredible complexity for life to exist must have been created by an intelligence beyond anything we can comprehend - i.e. omnicience. The energy demonstrated by the expanding universe must have been created by a Being with power beyond our understanding - omnipotence. And finally, scientists universally agree that the TIME dimension must also have been created. Time itself had a beginning. Therefore, the Being who created time must exist outside of the time dimension for it is nonsensical to postulate that a Being existing within the time dimension created time. Any Being existing outside of the time dimension cannot itself have been created and must be eternally self-existent. Unchangable, in fact. One definition of "time" is a record of change. The Creator of time is by definition uncreated, unchangable and eternally self-existent. All of these attributes are contained in the Christian description of God. There is so much more to be said about the proof of His existence but the proud heart will find any reason to reject sound argument so I think I'll stop here.

Larry| 12.27.10 @ 11:52PM

Yes..you beat to to it..a bit..but I want to hear if NG is or ever has been in a real love relationship with anyone..or experienced love from a parent, grandparent or anyone.

I am waiting NG it is a teachable moment and it may offer you information.

Gary| 12.27.10 @ 11:57PM

One other thing. I find that those who reject God are usually the victim of a boorish pride that essentially says that any concept that challenges their pea brain just can't be true. And all is in service of the idea that they won't countenance any authority higher than themselves. What an empty, wasted life.

Skavau| 12.28.10 @ 12:59AM

Gary

[citation needed]

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 2:19AM

Skavau

[brain needed]

Skavau| 12.28.10 @ 9:25AM

Jimbone, grow up.

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 2:43PM

Are you seriously going to pretend like [citation needed] wasn't equally immature? More hypocrisy. I can't stand people like you. Everything is permitted for you, but God forbid anyone else have a good time.

Skavau| 12.28.10 @ 6:11PM

It wasn't immature in the slightest. Gary just made a load of bigoted assumptions about a large mass of people he blatantly knows nothing. To say he needs to back up his claims with some evidence is putting it mildly.

How can you sit there and bemoan atheists for the slightest affront towards Christianity and yet remain perfectly silent when a Christian, someone supposedly a victim of billboard harassment by atheists posts all manner of lies, smears and misinformation about atheists and atheism.

Hypocrisy, eh?

Jimbone| 12.29.10 @ 3:11AM

He prefaced his comment by pointing out that it was anecdotal. (citation needed) is immature. I was following up with an equally playful quip. Chill.

As far as your second point, I guess it's because I don't care. Furthermore, it was his opinion that atheists are usually like that. For you to demand a "citation" regarding such a subjective anecdote is ignorant. If you happen to know that most atheists aren't like that, isn't it sufficient to just say that's not your experience?

I'm not sure what's hypocritical about it. But it's certainly not on the level of denying the existence of God and then pretending like you could still inject some legitimate meaning or purpose into the human existence.

Skavau| 12.29.10 @ 5:03AM

Gary didn't say anything of the kind. He just made a small rant against atheists based on his own bigotry.

In any case, I'm glad to see that you've basically admitted your hypocrisy that underpins an obvious selection bias in reviewing the comments of both christians and atheists. A christian will insult an atheist and you will ignore it and then become your apparently demeaning, condescending self when an atheist responds.

Jimbone| 12.29.10 @ 3:18PM

I've no interest in discussion the semantics of Gary's comment and any hypocrisy I've displayed I've done so in the interest of comedy...and also to piss you off.

Skavau| 12.29.10 @ 10:48PM

I can see that your divine-obedience-slave-master moral system does you wonders in how you conduct yourself.

Jimbone| 12.31.10 @ 2:32AM

I don't consider being cordial a virtue. Neither did Jesus.

Kingofthenet| 12.28.10 @ 12:03AM

IF God is real, than I think the reality is just the opposite of the Religious Faithful BELIEVE it is. IF you don't Believe Weak evidence and deceitful men of Faith, God will say your thoughtful and intelligent and let you into Heaven(Which is like a combination of an ADULT trip to Amsterdam and Carnival in New Orleans) if not he casts you aside for being a FOOL.(But tells you it's Heaven)

Larry| 12.28.10 @ 12:09AM

????????

Coherence is the first order of business..if you desire to communicate.

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 12:19AM

hahahaha

Larry| 12.28.10 @ 12:08AM

Well..for NG's sake

I will break it down in terms of a love relationship. How is it possible to discern .. objectively..empirically..that your love relationship is real?
Is it a feeling? How can this "feeling" be worthy of your investment?
How do you know objectively, measurably, empirically that your lover is not lying?
He/she says he/she loves you..no? She/he gives you gifts..kisses and hugs or even better ( wink wink)..but how do you know it is not all a lie? Or worse a Con?

Kingofthenet| 12.28.10 @ 12:25AM

OK serious question for the Faithful, IF it were proven that there is NO God, what will you think of ALL the time you spent praying to him, money you spent etc. Will you Immediately throw out all the Crosses, Bibles Korans, pictures of Jesus etc. around your house? Now before I hear the tired refrain, that there is NO way to PROVE God doesn't exist, but know that REALLY isn't TRUE is it? Every religion has certain, how can I say this, 'lines in the sand' ONE almost universal one is that man was created in 'God's image' and is special, now if Extra Terrestrial intelligent Aliens would land on Earth, that pretty much throws that basic tenant out the window. Do you agree?

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 12:33AM

I hesitate to give your comment even a hint of credence by responding. But, no. I don't agree. There are several inductive steps between ET's landing on earth and man not being created in God's image that you either forgot to include or were unaware existed.

In the interest of disappointing you, though:

As Dostoyevsky said, ".....if someone were to prove to me that Christ was outside the truth, and it was really the case that the truth lay outside Christ, then I should choose to stay with Christ rather than with the truth....."

In summation, I would continue living the way Christ commissioned me to. Because, if he's not God, then nothing matters to me anyway. The universe will expand into maximum entropy or, alternatively, collapse in on itself and we will die in a heat death and even the fact of our ever having existed will be completely demolished. I've no interest in living as if this is my only destiny. So, for me, its Christianity or bust.

Kingofthenet| 12.28.10 @ 12:38AM

Jimbone, That's honest anyway. If Nothing can shake your faith, than I guess you are one of those that Rumsfeld once called 'The Dead Enders'

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 12:43AM

Haha. Don't say things like that, King. I almost felt as if you were the sort of person I wouldn't mind having a beer and talking shit with.

Kingofthenet| 12.28.10 @ 12:53AM

I didn't mean anything like what Donny was referring too, just you are 'Hard headed' LOL
Me? I am just one supernatural event away from being the most Religious person in the world...
If Jesus walked thru the wall of my home now and commanded me to spread the 'Good Word' I would be off(Jesus, just don't visit me when I'm stewed or i might take it as a Hallucination)

Larry| 12.28.10 @ 1:04AM

I for one would not mind to have a beer with any of you guys..
Jim I think we could probably talk all night long..
And King..I understand your desire for some significant sign from Christ ..a true blue Supernatural event in order to tip the balance of doubt in one direction.
If you were not joking that is...

But keep this in mind King..and that is this..there have been numerous souls throughout the centuries who have encountered God in ways that are inexplicable and truly transcendent. Life on planet earth however does not change for them whilst they are living.
In fact..it may become even more challenging to exist and carry on in this life after a direct and visual with Christ.

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 1:13AM

No doubt, Larry. You're an insightful guy, to say the least.

...too bad Michael's not around to call us gay. I'll miss his ad hominems.

Larry| 12.28.10 @ 11:03AM

Well Jim,

I think NG is about as much fun as Michael..they may be related!!

Kingofthenet| 12.28.10 @ 1:51AM

My only issue is FAIRNESS, one's ability to 'get into Heaven' shouldn't be based on something so arbitrary as when one was born. Supposedly Many people 'back in the day' got to see Jesus and witness the Miracles firsthand, that didn't require any faith just a set of eye's. Still they are in Heaven and SOME actually were rewarded for their 'Lack of Faith' i.e. Thomas AKA St.Thomas AKA Doubting Thomas, this guy had issues and KNEW the man himself, yet NOW he is a Saint? Yeah that's fair.

YeloStalyn| 12.28.10 @ 10:08AM

That is a very poor description of Christianity at all sorts of levels.

Let's be fair about what eachother believes.

Larry| 12.28.10 @ 11:06AM

King,

Sigh..the problem is and has been for you guys in this Forum, is that you know very very very little about what you desire to reject!!!

When Jesus walked the planet most did not believe in him ( namely that he was the Son of God)..yes ..even after witnessing miracles.
Even those closest to Him were doubters..and that is not limited to Thomas.

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 1:09AM

hahaha. Well, here's to Jesus laying off of the supernatural appearances while you are in stewed mode. So that, in the unlikely event such a thing might happen, you will at least know it wasn't the vodka.

Nick| 12.28.10 @ 12:50AM

No Brain,

To answer your question, from above, yes, I know many, many things.

For instance, I know that you are one of the Useful Idiots for the S.H.A.M.M.s to which I was referring.

If I thought you were interested in an honest debate, not a drive-by poster, which you are, I would engage you. I have better things to do with my time.

Richard Baker| 12.28.10 @ 4:23AM

No God:
Nice dodge. The simple language of our founding documents escape you. Funny how the country understood them easily until the Regressives came on the scene in the early 1900s.

No God| 12.28.10 @ 7:47AM

Even though the Declaration of Independence had mentioned "God", the US Constitution had clearly mandated the separation of church and state. Today the Constitution still has its legal force, not the Declaration.

Also you claimed that the "Regressives came on the scene in the early 1900s." Not so.

In 1797, there was the Treaty of Tripoli in which the US had formally clarified its relation with Christianity.

The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of null) was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripoli, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

The Treaty is much discussed in the 21st century because of the text of article 11, as ratified by the Senate:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of
Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

YeloStalyn| 12.28.10 @ 9:51AM

And later the Supreme Court did, in fact, rule that we were a Christian nation.
And our founding fathers made multiple references to the necissity of faith for the form of governmetn we have to work.
And we allowed state religions for quite some time after the founding (in fact, some states required you belong to certain denominatinos in order to hold public office).
In fact, the Constitution is set up with the seperatio of church and state (a phrase not in teh document itself) to keep the head of the state from also being the head of the church (Church of England anyone?).
And, as a side note, the the seperation of church and state line comes from a letter frmo Jefferson to a Baptist church and was used to ensure them that the law restricted the STATE not the CHURCH from encroaching on the chuch's activities. The entire Constitution is written as a limitation of federal power... in no way does it restrict the power of citizens and/or states. The only claim that could be made to this end (and rightly so) is that citizens and states can't trump the fed in the select areas clearly defined as areas of federal jurisdiction in the Constitution.

No God| 12.28.10 @ 2:44PM

"And later the Supreme Court did, in fact, rule that we were a Christian nation."

Which Supreme Court decision was that? Can you please specify?

Jim| 12.28.10 @ 12:14PM

Separation of church and state is a canard when referring to the Framers. First, they were making a Federal Constitution in an environment where they had a chaplain of Congress, chaplains in the military, opened all public ceremonies with prayer, and frequently invoked the Almighty on the floors of Congress. Second, the Federal government was tiny compared to the states, and they did not dream that the proscription against Congress making law respecting establishment of religion would apply to the states (indeed, it did not apply to the states for 160 years, until in 1947 the Supreme Court took the view that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, enacted eighty years before, "incorporated" a freedom against state religion found in the First Amendment, and that this had somehow been hidden in plain sight from everyone's understanding for decades until it was discovered by the Supreme Court). Clearly, although there were stirrings of it at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, separation of church and state is largely a 20th-century Progressive concept.

No god| 12.28.10 @ 2:46PM

Good for the US.

Kingofthenet| 12.28.10 @ 4:32AM

One of the things I find odd about peoples religious views, is how often they root for the 'Home Team' and barely if at all, look into other possibilities, either Domestic or Foreign? If it was a 'money no object' desire for a car, I might look at German ones, Japanese ones, DEFINITELY Italian ones? Point is I wouldn't grab the first 'Chevy' I saw, yet that is exactly what most people do with religion. Say I narrowed down the field to 'Christianity', i would ask myself, am I a 'get out the vote' kinda guy, if so I might pick Evangelical, do I also like a little 'this world' mysticism, Pentecostal, something Classic, Catholicism Ok but I don't like that it has a powerful 'Head Honcho' on this planet, maybe something like Episcopalian, but I do like alot of Singing and Dancing, Black Baptist? See what I mean?

No God| 12.28.10 @ 6:10AM

Before I answer some of your questions, let me start by pointing out some topics that are not relevant in a discussion of faiths.

1. "I am tired of your unwarranted arrogance." (by Jimbone)

2. "... are you married or with a significant other?" (by Larry)

3. "... if NG is or ever has been in a real love relationship with anyone..or experienced love from a parent, grandparent or anyone."

4. "those who reject God are usually the victim of a boorish pride that essentially says that any concept that challenges their pea brain ...". (by Gary)

Some of the above may fall into the category of personal attacks or insults. If so, you be ashamed of yourself.

Larry| 12.28.10 @ 10:57AM

NG,
I have another favor or another question for you.

Do you know the difference between Socratic thinking and a personal attack?

Now if your desire is to present the position of the more rational as opposed to the irrational, then I would propose that you simply answer a question rather than say what the question is not eg a personal attack.
Do you know the difference?
I am not certain that you do. And if you do not know the difference between something so entirely obvious, then how could one imagine that you could tackle that which you have chosen to address, namely the God question.

So this is a teachable moment for you NG, if you choose to engage in it.

And back to my initial question. Are you married or with a significant other with whom you are in love?
The above question is quite clear and it is very much connected to the overall argument concerning "Blind faith".
If you choose to engage in thee above inquiry, then I will believe you are intellectually honest and not simply a Troll.

Jimbone| 12.28.10 @ 2:50PM

It is not your job to determine what is or isn't relevant in a discussion about anything. If I want to preface my argument with an observation of the fact that you display little real intellectual capability, yet, write as if your apartment smells of rich mahogany, that is my prerogative. I'm not ashamed. Not in the slightest.

No God| 12.28.10 @ 6:26AM

Jesus either rose from the dead or not, says Jimbone, hoping to use this as a testable evidence for the claims of christianity.

Yes, it is true either Jesus rose from the dead or not. That's a historical issue which can, in principle, be indirectly tested by examining historical data, if they exist.

The untestable part of christianity related to this issue is whether Jesus is therefore god if his resurrection is true. I think this is the central issue that fundamentalist christians what to assert.

There were a number of documented records which reported that some people came back from deaths after a while. Nobody, as far as I know, is interested in probing whether these people are god or not.

Is the resurrected Jesus (if it ever happened) god? That is a central part of fundamentalist christianity which cannot be objectively testable.

The American Spectator

Special Report

Merry Christmas, Richard Dawkins

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (1,291) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Brian Westley| 12.25.10 @ 1:49PM

Johnny V| 12.25.10 @ 4:39PM

Michael| 12.25.10 @ 5:39PM

Brubaker| 12.25.10 @ 6:18PM

Michael| 12.25.10 @ 6:57PM

ejp| 12.25.10 @ 7:16PM

Shaun| 12.26.10 @ 3:52PM

George| 12.26.10 @ 8:04PM

ejp| 12.26.10 @ 9:26PM

David Pirtle| 12.27.10 @ 7:56PM

bozak| 1.1.11 @ 12:46PM

Bugalugs| 1.5.11 @ 5:39AM

Alex B. Berezow | 12.25.10 @ 8:36PM

Liz Litterello | 12.25.10 @ 8:57PM

Michael| 12.25.10 @ 9:44PM

Alex B. Berezow | 12.25.10 @ 9:51PM

Brad S| 12.27.10 @ 2:44AM

Johnny V| 12.25.10 @ 11:34PM

Pastafarian| 12.26.10 @ 8:24AM

scrooge| 12.26.10 @ 12:37PM

Stanford Grad| 12.26.10 @ 1:07PM

Jim| 12.26.10 @ 7:48PM

Thomas| 12.27.10 @ 8:47PM

No God| 12.26.10 @ 3:37AM

Christine Helrigel| 12.26.10 @ 2:19PM

Kevin in Appalachia| 12.27.10 @ 10:15AM

Bugalugs| 1.5.11 @ 8:22PM

NMG| 12.26.10 @ 7:37PM

The Truth| 12.26.10 @ 9:07PM

David Pirtle| 12.27.10 @ 7:59PM

Philosoraptor| 12.30.10 @ 11:59AM

A.M. Mallett| 12.26.10 @ 12:26AM

mr c| 12.26.10 @ 7:10AM

mames| 12.26.10 @ 4:32PM

David Pirtle| 12.27.10 @ 8:01PM

The truth| 12.26.10 @ 9:11PM

Mark| 12.27.10 @ 9:06AM

H Ribbens| 12.27.10 @ 11:35AM

Mark L| 12.27.10 @ 12:18PM

Nobammy Bin Lyin| 12.31.10 @ 10:49AM

Skavau| 12.31.10 @ 11:23AM

Bugalugs| 1.5.11 @ 5:28AM

CharlieEcho| 12.26.10 @ 9:06AM

mames| 12.26.10 @ 4:35PM

The truth| 12.26.10 @ 9:14PM

H Ribbens| 12.27.10 @ 11:32AM

Joe| 12.27.10 @ 8:58PM

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 9:17AM

mames| 12.26.10 @ 4:41PM

W| 12.27.10 @ 6:45PM

lscott| 12.26.10 @ 9:26AM

Christine Helrigel| 12.26.10 @ 2:30PM

The Truth| 12.26.10 @ 9:21PM

Christine Helrigel| 12.27.10 @ 2:53PM

Shaun Lamont| 12.28.10 @ 4:37PM

mames| 12.26.10 @ 4:46PM

Stanford Grad| 12.26.10 @ 11:00AM

The Truth| 12.26.10 @ 9:27PM

Occam's Tool| 12.26.10 @ 1:16PM

Shaun| 12.26.10 @ 3:32PM

The Truth| 12.26.10 @ 9:37PM

Gran Torino| 12.26.10 @ 5:08PM

Rev. Jesse Jackson| 12.26.10 @ 5:12PM

chai| 12.26.10 @ 5:25PM

Dave | 12.26.10 @ 8:14PM

Negro X| 12.26.10 @ 9:26PM

Nancy Cohen| 12.26.10 @ 11:59PM

Steven| 12.28.10 @ 4:36PM

MattZ| 12.30.10 @ 2:05PM

Toni| 12.30.10 @ 3:38PM

David| 1.1.11 @ 1:15AM

No God| 12.26.10 @ 3:27AM

mames| 12.26.10 @ 4:53PM

da monk| 12.27.10 @ 6:43PM

Johnny V| 12.25.10 @ 7:24PM