This is disgusting. This shit should be illegal.

WELL , ONLY BELIEVERS AND REPENTERS WILL BE SAVED .PRAY TO OUR HEVENLY FATHER AND YOU TO SHALL BE SAVED . I HOPE PEOPLE LIKE LOGICIAN AND SUCH WILL FIND THE LIGHT OF OUR HEVENLY FATHER . BUT QUITE FRANKLY I AM GETTING TIRED OF THIS CONVERSATION , .
I’M GOING TO THE STRIPPERS TO GET WASTED .

GOD BLESS.

justme (#63856), I would recommend that you check out Eugene O’Neill’s play, THE ICEMAN COMETH.  There is at least one DVD of a performance, but reading the scriptis probably preferable if you want to reflect on what he said.  The play is basically about the dangers of stripping all illusion from our lives.  Since this is a work of literature, the reasoning is not “analytical;”  but it is still very compelling!

I don’t understan how you people can belive in god! Where is your god when young people die? Where is your god when acidents happen with NO REASON! Wanna know what I think? I thing you’r god only answer simple questions. If your god is so great, where is he when you need him! He is there when you need him? NO it’s just your ilusion.

RE: Comment #58821 by Martin

The old testament taught “eye for an eye” type of thought, the new testament, the one about Jesus, spoke about unconditional forgiveness… as i see it, most of the problem with Christian religions is they forget the second testament was meant to negate a lot of what is said in the 1st.

anyway, make sure you are saying informed things before you try to make an argument… athiests can’t go around calling Christian’s stupid if they are just as misinformed themselves… and this is why i don’t call myself an athiest either… i’m just as ashamed to be associated with non-god-believing uninformed bigots as i am to be associated with Christians.

The Bible teaches eye for an eye, therefore it must be right…
If we were to take eye for an eye the world would be blind.
This form of religious teaching (because that is what it is)should be a crime against humanity.
If we continue to let this kind of filth exist in the western world we will all be blind.
It seems incredible that the same kind of religious nonsense took 3000 lives on 9-11 happened and yet all these childrens lives are also being taken, we never learn.
God and Religion is the biggest lie, the biggest deception. Churches, Mosques you name it should be closed down for the sake of all our futures
humanity can not continue with such lunacy

“The Case For Christ”
by Lee Strobel
(Senior Legal Writer for the Chicago Tribune and Yale grad).

Although it sickens me personally to see children taught these things, I also acknowledge the parental rights to teach their children what belief system they subscribe to.  Unfortunately, a belief system that encourages blind faith also stifles creativity and curiosity. 

In my opinion it is reasonable to believe in a god and yet not take every man-written word in the tomes literally.  It is not reasonable to live by text thousands of years old in an explicit manner.

Why Atheism is wrong

Reasons not to believe in God

Wow, I think I quote the great Lewis Black when I say, “These are the people who confuse Flinstones with a documentary.”

Re.53701 by Logician

Unfortunately the Romans did not write about Jewish persons.  So finding or not finding a secular historical record of Jesus does not mean much. 

We know about Jesus from the gospel writers.  It is true that their books were written 30 to 60 years after Jesus’ death.  But they unquestionably had shared written sources.  These sources do not exist today so it is difficult to know when they were written. We do know that they had to have been written much close to the time of Jesus’ life when many people were still alive who would have known if these sources were fiction.  Thus they were most likely true accounts.  Plus the fact that these sources no longer exist means there may be other lost records. Yes, it is not absolute proof.  But it is more than enough to stop calling belief in Jesus unreasonable.

Actually Jesus is mentioned in historical documents; he was a minor prophet to whom no special significance was given by his contemporaries. What historical record exists appears to indicate that he was a troublesome figure who antagonized the religious leaders of his day and eventually was put to death shortly after vandalizing the temple in Jerusalem (casting out the moneychangers).

Does anyone find it ironic that their struggle against evolution is actually inciting its acceleration through communal/religious isolation? Looks like someone up there’s got a sense of humor…

Stephen, you’re still not being meticulous. You’re making a big, gingerbread leap and falling into the chasm. We’re probably at an impasse unless you can find building materials for a bridge, but I think the gap is far too wide. You can’t get there just by dropping names and using all caps.

Laura (#53658), since I was less meticulous in defining my terminology than I should have been, let me now compensate by drawing my definition from THE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY:  “The conviction of the truth of some doctrine which is the result of a voluntary act of will.”  The operative word here is the last one:  The conviction is not based on any Kantian conception of pure reason (or, for that matter, practical reason or judgment).  Once you strip away all the gingerbread from your eight propositions, you are left with this core principle, the voluntary adoption of a belief system.  At this bedrock level the evangelicals and the Popperians stand on common ground;  but, if you choose to reject this formulation, I shall not argue with you!

Re#53589 by Kevin:

Lies?  What lies?  There does not exist on this planet ANY document mentioning Jesus from the time he allegedly existed.  That is not a lie, Kevin, that is a fact.  I do not claim what you have said isn’t true.  The facts prove it, I need make no claim. The burden of proof is on you, buddy.  And so far, you have utterly failed.  If you know of ANY document that mentions Jesus from the time period that he allegedly existed, produce it.  I’m not snarking, here.  You would become obscenely rich and famous.  You would go down in history, Kevin, for you would have produced what even the founding fathers of your faith could not: proof.

Yeah, I know it’s boring to have to really think.  That’s why Nascar, American Idol, The 700 Club, The Hour of Power and all the other equally stupid crap that keeps people from thinking is all so popular.  Thinking takes time and effort, gosh darn it all.

Just for a second, try it out. Think about this:  I am a short man who has never played professional, heck, even amateur basketball.  Now think about me walking up to Magic Johnson and telling him he dosn’t know a thing about basketball and that I actually know more than he ever will about it. Think about me doing this everyday, for many years, without ever offering to prove this amazing statement. After a while, even the great Magic would probably lose his cool and spank me.  And I would deserve it. 

Now, you and others like you say to me and others like me that we don’t know a thing about what we have studied all our lives.  You offer nothing to back this assertion up. That’s right: NOTHING.  We have the originals, we know the timelines, we know the stories. You present NOTHING but your belief that you are right and we are wrong.  Oh, sure, you present the lies of people who make up stories that sure sound good, like the burial box of ‘James, the brother of Jesus.’  But just like the box, when any of your ‘proofs’ are examined, they are shown to be false.

And so I, and others like me, spank you here, there, anywhere you try to foist your beliefs on others.  I’m sorry the spankings bore you.  I had hoped that you might take heed that maybe, just maybe, you ought to be responsible enough to check out what people have been saying to you all these years. 

For that is all that separates the believers from the non believers: non believers check out the stories themselves and when they find out they’ve been lied to, they quit believing.  Simple as that.  But it does take effort, Kevin.  It’s not as easy as bashing gays, liberals, evolutionists, etc.  It is always easier to think we’re right and everyone else is wrong.  Actually making the effort to find the truth is hard work.

But others have, Kevin, and you can too. Really.  You really can.  All it takes is the commitment to get to the truth no matter what some homosexual, or pederast, or fornicator behind a pulpit tells you.  I know you can do it, Kevin, because I have faith in you.

Stephen,

I am not missing your point- I disagree with your definition of faith.

The “act of faith” that science requires is believing your own senses and your memory of those senses. You must have faith that you are not dreaming and that what you sense is real.

This is a completely different act of faith than religion demands.

To define our terms,

If faith is defined as

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

then science only demands #4 (clearly) and #1 (sort of) Religion demands all 8 of these.

Re: Comment #53427 by Logician

YAWN!  Your lies bore me.  Just because you claim what I said isn’t true doesn’t make it so.  Sorry that you live in constant darkness…you must be a real treat at parties.

Laura (#53444), you keep missing my point!  I am not trying to REFUTE scientific method.  I employ it in both “word and deed” (to borrow the language of REPUBLIC).  However, I do so out of an ACT OF FAITH on my own part;  and the fact that I do so out of faith in no way discredits the value it has to me (nor should it to anyone else).  The philosophy of COSMOPOLITANISM does not try to discredit the scientific method.  It merely awakens us to the proposition that ANY belief system (including scientific method) is one among many.  I hope that, in living with that proposition, I can be more tolerant of other belief systems, even when they ridicule my own.

Stephen, oddly enough, I have met Appiah, and read this particular book, but it does nothing to refute the scientific method.

I am seriously confused as to your criticism of the scientific method- I have never heard any real scientists or mathematicians claim that the scientific method is the one and only way to reveal ultimate and unified truth (though some try, none claim to have done). In other words, science describes the natural world, and does so well enough to the extent that you and I are typing away on computers, brought together by the grace of theoretical mathematics from the early part of the 20th century, and electronics. The natural world is messy and we don’t know everything about it yet, but to deny the effectiveness of science while benefiting from its fruits is bewildering.

The scientific method’s claim is to observe natural phenomenon and to get repeatable results where possible. If you’re freighting that with ontological assumptions about the nature of Truth with a capitol T- in other words- the Why of nature as opposed to the How- that’s assigning it a burden it neither asks for nor can carry.

Re#53301 by Kevin:

Yeah, I’m cranky about this, no argument there.  But you know what?  No black person has ever tried to govern my life because they were black.  They did it because of their grossly ridiculous belief that a book of plagiarized fairy tales gave them the justification, just like during the Inquisition.  And that, by any person, of any color or faith, will raise my hackles in an instant. 

As for your claims:

Quit reading Christian apologists.  Check your sources. #3 has already been nailed for its fakery, just for a start.  There is no, I repeat, NO mention of Jesus for at least 50 years after he supposedly lived or died, and the references you use are suspect in the first place by historians not blinded by faith. Just for another, notice the dates?  Read on…

Think,(again, that concept)think of the import of this alleged Savior. This would be earth shattering, even I admit that.  All these miracles, all this hullabaloo?  No mention ANYWHERE on the planet in any language at the time of it happening?  Riiight….. And don’t tell me ‘Satan’ hid the message, like he supposedly hid dinosaur bones in the dirt to confuse us.  I laughed so hard over that one I had to be picked up off the floor, I kid you not!  And they say Christians don’t have a sense of humor! That one still brightens my day…

Re#53322:  That’s a pun, son. Just some joshing. I’m not picking and chosing, it’s all plagiarized tales, none of it worth killing people over or brainwashing children about.

Re#53341: Ever read Jean Dixon?  She nailed her predictions 100%.  After the fact.  Just like in the Bible.  Get your originals in place, get your sources right, get educated, man. Of course, it is a long haul to go through the original languages, but I did feel it was my duty as a good Christian, bless my misguided motivations. (That’s a joke, there’s no one out there to bless me, don’t go all biblical on me, now.) For a good guide to get you started, and buddy, you need to get started, read Robert Price’s “The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man.” 

This book very neatly summarizes the many, many MANY facts of this argument with wit and style.  It you want to believe in a fairy tale, do so, but don’t pervert your stance by claiming to back it up with reason.  It’s irritating to those of us who do use reason as a guide.

And, oh, man, I LOVE Luke 4:9-10. Really, I do. Ya gotta love the power-mad pederasts who wrote it.  What better logic?  “The Bible is God’s word.  How do I know? Because the Bible tells me so! Anyone who says differently is ON THE WRONG SIDE!  Now give us your money, putz.” These are really the most skilled con artists who ever fleeced a fool. 

I’m not on any fantasy’s side, Kevin. I really don’t care if you believe in fairy tales. It’s your right, baby, and if it keeps you out of my hair, believe, baby, believe.  Give your money to hypocrites who publically decry homomsexuals while privately nailing them. Spend your time listening to hypocrites who publically rail about adultery while privately…well, you get the idea.  See images of imaginary people in grilled cheese sandwhiches.  (Oh, man, the entertainment value is priceless..)  But you have NO right (nor do I, Kevin, but I realize it) to tell ANYONE, at ANY TIME, how to act, where to live, or to torture or kill anyone in the name of that belief. And don’t tell me you don’t.  It’s the crux of this whole blog, man.

That’s when it becomes personal, dangerous, and disgusting.  And that’s where it has to stop.  Now.

Laura (#53358), I am not trying to base my argument on credibility.  My point is that the choice to base actions on the principles of scientific method is an ARTICLE OF FAITH.  “Intellectual honesty” may tip the balance;  but it only settles the argument if you subscribe to “enlightenment dogma.”  This dogma accepts three propositions:  1) Every question has an answer.  2) That answer is knowable.  3) All answers to all questions are consistent with each other.  In the realm of pure mathematics, these propositions HAVE been falsified (as Popper and, presumably, you well know).  However, once we let go of these hypotheses, we are in no way bound to choose our methods on the basis of “intellectual honesty.”  All we can do is live in a plurality of cultures with a plurality of methods;  and, as Bruno Latour has demonstrated in SCIENCE IN ACTION, this is how science is actually PRACTICED.  Unfortunately, there is as little tolerance in Latour’s data set as there is in that video clip of evangelicals;  and that is the crux of my point.  By all rights we are under no obligation to rank-order belief systems;  but we go on doing it, just for the satisfaction of seeing our own at the top of the list.  We then back up that priority with lexical weapons like “enlightenment” and “intellectual honesty;”  but, in that plurality of belief systems, those carry very little semantic weight (which is why Wittgenstein had trouble abiding Popper).  Personally, I feel the best way to live with this plurality is to adopt Appiah’s COSMOPOLITANISM strategy:

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-Mff23hgidqmHGqbcv.lfskakEtS6qLVHUEMFUG4-?cq=1&p=23

It seems to me that what you’re referring to can either be covered by accident or intuition, both of which have been very useful as serindipidous tools in the scientific toolbox. They don’t, however, strain the credibility of the use of the scientific method as a tool. The scientific method is intellectually honest, but it’s only one tool. Those things are not mutually exclusive. I don’t see your point. I’m not being deliberately obtuse here, please bear with me. I don’t understand what you’re saying in context to this particular discussion. To me you seem to be conflating things.

Basically, the only problem I have with your statements is that you think that the method itself lacks credibility. Just because there are other useful tools in science doesn’t mean that one isn’t credible.

Re: Comment #53157 by Logician

I don’t even know where to begin with your false assertion that there was no proof of Jesus in the Bible, and nor were there any predictions of his coming in the Old Testament.

That is just such a ridiculous statement it is beyond words.  You have apparently NOT read the Bible or just spray out things that you make up in your head and hope they stick. 

To cite the references to you would be exhaustive as there are MANY…and the ENTIRE New Testament is about Jesus.  HEL-LO!  What more do you want?  A photograph of Jesus in the margins?

As far as your hanging your hat on the legitimacy of your claim that you’ve read the Bible in various languages, all I will say is this.  The devil too knows the Bible as illustrated in Luke 4:9-10, and his greatest damage to date has been his ability to twist and distort God’s Word for his own purposes, not unlike the way you choose to twist and distort not only His Word but the issues being discussed.  You may feel a rise to your ego being the “Great Naysayer” but you’re merely playing directly into Satan’s dirty hand.

Laura (#53207), I am all for Popper’s ideals, just as I appreciate the value of scientific method as theory.  Unfortunately, in the real world of practice, those ideals do not hold up very well, for any number of reasons but mostly just because the world is a very messy place, whether we are dealing with physical objects (as anyone who ever took a freshmen physics lab knows), the individual psyche, or social relations.  So it is that “intellectual honesty” quickly goes by the boards when scientists have to knuckle under and actually DO things;  and it has been that way (at least) since Galileo.  Putting the inquisitors (and the thesis that Galileo actually copped a plea) aside, we cannot ignore the highly politicized setting in which Galileo had to ply his skills.  Both he and Leonardo experienced what we could call the first rumblings of the military-industrial complex;  and, in all subsequent relations between science and government, whatever era you care to address, “intellectual honesty” is in very short supply, usually overwhelmed by the prevailing ideology.

Furthermore, I do not mean this as a strictly political screed.  Had Faraday adhered to the rigor of idealized scientific method, he probably would not have discovered the relationship between electricity and magnetism.  It was only because, in a fit of temper, he hurled his wire through the magnetic field on his workbench and ONLY THEN saw evidence of current that he realized that the current flow depended on the MOVEMENT through the field!

My point is that the practices of both scientists and Catholics almost never adhere slavishly to their ideal theories.  It is in the DEPARTURES from those ideals that we learn the most about science, faith, and (as Berlin keeps reminding us) our own humanity.  I am less concerned with following truth (which history has taught us is far to abstract a concept for any mere mortal to bear) without fear than in honing by senses of perception that I may follow the observations I make!

To Logician,

I already know of the verse that you speak of: Ephesians 6:11-18, which is in reference to donning the Full Armor of God.  I have a coin that celebrates that verse that I carry in my pocket everywhere I go.  I’m curious as to why you make this reference since the “truth” as referenced in the verse is referring to the Bible, which you have adamantly argued against.

All I can say is that the Word of God is either all true or it’s all false…you can’t pick and choose what you like within the Bible and chuck the rest out the window.

correction to my earlier post.. I do realize that Berlin was not Catholic.

To Logician,

First of all, thank you for proving me right about spitefulness towards Christians.  Fortunately my own post logged before yours.  Do you feel that you win arguments by insulting those who disagree?  Funny how if you substitute the word “Christian” within the diatribes of yours and others for another type of person like “Jews” or “blacks”, it suddenly smacks of hate speech.  But we know full well that as long as you’re bashing a Christian in America, that’s fully acceptable.

Despite your claims, there IS evidence of Jesus’ existence outside the Bible.
Evidence #1: In reporting on Emperor Nero’s decision to blame the Christians for the fire that destroyed Rome in 64 AD, the Roman Tacitus wrote: “Nero fastened the guilt…on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of…Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome…”
Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have “suffered the extreme penalty,” obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.
Was Tacitus a Christian?  NO - he was an unsympathetic pagan writer.

Evidence #2: Pliny the Younger
Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asked Trajan’s advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.  At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians: “They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”  This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians, but most importantly perhaps, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity.  Hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, “unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth.”  Even Pliny (another unsympathetic pagan) understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God and this agrees perfectly with the New Testament that Jesus was both God and man.

Evidence #3: Josephus
In his writing “Jewish Antiquities”, Josephus (a first century Jewish historian) mentions Jesus. The reference describes the condemnation of one “James” by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.”  This agrees with Paul’s description of James in Galatians 1:19 as “the Lord’s brother.”  In an earlier writing called the “Testimonium Flavianum,” the relevant portion declares: “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he..wrought surprising feats..He was the Christ. When Pilate..condemned him to be crucified, those who had..come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared..restored to life. ..And the tribe of Christians..has..not disappeared.”
There are other references outside the Bible but I’m out of characters for this post.

Stephen (#52960) What you fail to realize is that in spite of your use of Latin and all caps, you have failed to produce a convincing argument that the scientific method is no different from the logic of the Catholic church. I see a huge difference, and I find the intellectual honesty of the scientific method- which has evolved a bit from Plato’s time to Popper’s time- is far superior to that of the Church. I’m not ignorant of the Catholic church, having extensive experience with it. If we’re talking about Catholics, I prefer C.S. Lewis (who tells us to follow truth and fear not) to Berlin, but as for me I will cast my lot with Karl Popper.

Re#53149 by Kevin

It takes a big man to admit a mistake.  Mea culpa as well on my response to that part and that only.  For that was not your only mistake, as you have read.

If only the hypocrites like Swaggart, Haggard, Baker, Robertson, et disgusting al, would be as big as you, perhaps we wouldn’t have children being brainwashed. 

One can only dream, eh?  In the meantime, Kevin, “...girt (your) loins about with the truth,...” Start by finding that gem. It’s in there, trust me.  Would I lie to you?

Re#52912 by Kevin

You want irony, Kevin old buddy?  How about this, and I quote you now: “Mark the apostle did exactly this when Jesus rose from the dead…he insisted that he touch Jesus’ wounds himself to prove that it was in fact he.”

I now quote from my New Marked Reference Bible, Being the King James or Authorized Version of the Old and New Testaments, that is positvely dog-eared from being cracked open so many times over 35 years of use: St. John 20:27 “Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands: and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not fatihless, but believing.”  In fact, in common American usage, we derive the term, “Doubting Thomas,” not “Doubting Mark” from this scripture.

How’s that for ironic?  If you’re going to accuse someone else of ignorance, okay, but Kevin, make sure you have YOUR facts straight first. Start by cracking open a bible of your own, Kevin.  The lack of education about this subject is what’s tiring me out. For instance, there is NO proof of Jesus, either out of the bible nor in it. Nor were ANY Old Testament predictions met by the myth of Jesus. 

For you see, Kevin, I HAVE read the bible, in English, in Greek, in Latin, in Hebrew.  I know its sources, its contradictions, its outright plagiarisms.  I have always felt that if I were to be a good Christian, I would have to do this in order to know my God.  I believed God did not give me a brain to waste just listening to others tell me what was in the good book, I needed to find out myself.  Else how could I know Him?

But once I did, I found out too many things to cover here.  I found the entire bible to be nothing more than a compilation of earlier and better legends and fantasies, for starters.  My astonishment at these easily found facts left me breathless.  Needless to say, I don’t subscribe to this book of lies anymore. 

I do understand the scriptures, Kevin.  And I do understand the need for something higher, something to hang onto on cold winter nights, in the long dark teatime of the soul, with apologies to Douglas Adams.  So I got a cat.  My cat, Schrodinger, does exist, and she does give me something to hang onto on cold winter nights.

But while I don’t hate the bible nor its completely misguided followers, I do fear these poor fools.  They are being guided down the path of hate and further stupidity than even the bible is capable of.  Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups, Kevin,  for they are dangerous indeed.

Just think, (what a lovely concept, that) just think about the Inquisition.  Scripture based, and don’t tell me it wasn’t, read about it before you misquote something again, (dang that Doubting Thomas, anyway!) it showed us that religion and crowds of stupid people are powerful tools for the destruction of life. 

Use your attention span to devote your mind to the study of what you think you know, Kevin.  Devote 35 years of your life to studying the scriptures in the original languages and the stories they plagiarize and maybe you too might think brainwashing innocent children should be a crime.

I can only hope.

Correction:  I misidentified the apostle that doubted Jesus’ return as being Mark…it was Thomas…hence the term “Doubting Thomas”.  Sorry…please don’t try to invalidate my entire statement by pointing out my one mistake.

Re#52855 by Barney

As an atheist, I’m tired, Barney, tired of the lies, the ignorance, the stupity regarding Christianity, theism, and atheism. Why do I think I know more?  Let me tell you, son.

1) While we are all entitled to our beliefs, we are never, I repeat, never, entitled to force any aspect of those beliefs on anyone else, even our own children.  If this is hard to get your head around, think of Aryans telling their children only whites are humans.  Aryans are entitled to their beliefs, no?  It is a faith, after all.  But foisting that on children who have not yet developed good reasoning powers is, and I think even a theist like yourself would agree, wrong.  And so it is with the belief of Chrisitanity.

2) Atheism is not a belief, partner.  Get an education and you’ll learn that. A little help: the root is from the Greek language (remember those guys?) atheos = a-without + theos-a god. That’ll be a good start for you.

3) Here’s the biggie, so pay close attention:  I know these people on this tape.  They want me dead. In their services they have “amened” and “hallelujahed” over the pastor screaming that “fornicators,” “faggots,” “abortionists,” and “evolutionists” are going to “burn in Hell, in everlasting torment!”  The ecstacy I have personally witnessed on these people’s faces as they gloried over those comments is a sight I will never be able to forget.

4) You see, Barney, I, and many atheists I know, research these people, as we have researched the scripture, much of it in the original language.  We know the origins of the myth of Jesus, we know the history of the church, we know the effects this fantasy is having on those not intelligent enough to see through its lies. 

5) We know that this is not merely a “debate between atheism and theism.”  We know this is a fight for survival.  We know that when religion ruled the world, people were burned on the stake, to quote a bumper sticker.  We know because we are informed and educated about the world in which we live.

I am tired, Barney, tired of those who are not informed nor educated trying to tell me that fantasizing over an invisible angry old man in the sky is justification for killing people and brainwashing innocent children, because, after all, it’s a belief, and everybody’s belief is justified, right?

No, Barney, they are not.

“Evolution is just a theory.”  Well, gravity is just a theory by the same definition.  Is gravity false?  Does gravity not have enough evidence for proof?  Does God make things fall?  Will this be called “Intelligent Falling?”  I hope our human tendency to remain ignorant will not continue in the decades to come when people say enough is enough, and stop making excuses for themselves.  Dinosaurs did exist, that is proven people.  Sickening.

This is why sometimes i think christians can be the most evil people…I mean look how they brain washing these innocent children with their creationism crap! All the damn idiot…about alwayz believe in God and not in the scientist. I hope when he is terminally sick…he will believe in God and not the scientist to come up with a cure!

Goodness.
This kind of indoctrination of children who by ((the biological process that the the antagonists of this video disavow)) evolution have been naturally selected to believe everything that their parents tell them.
This is a beneficial trait for raising children in nearly all aspects—to unquestionaly believe what your parents tell you to do—which in this case can back fire in the case of religion.
It is really a pity that they are being told to unvariably to believe in mythology as a viable answer to natural problems and keep them from questioning how the world works around them.
((that yellow sign prooves just that))
Its sad that because they have been brain-washed from wanting to learn things for themselves that they are further going to repeat the cycle again for another generation to enjoy.

The world would be a much, much better place if people like those in this video would all just drop dead.  It shames me to think that we’re of the same species.

Laura (#52838), the point you are missing is that the very adoption of scientific method is, itself, an article of faith.  The “rigor” of science is nothing more than a commitment to play by its own rules;  and, from a purely dispassionate behavioral perspective, that commitment is not different from a commitment to play by the rules of Catholic dogma, a system that is as much a product of strenuous logical thought as scientific method is.  Where faith comes in is in the belief that either commitment (or any similar commitment) will lead to truth about the natural world.  However, as Isaiah Berlin points out in a variety of different ways in the essays in THE CROOKED TIMBER OF HUMANITY, the very idea that there should be A truth about the natural world is a product of a cultural world-view that can be traced back (at least) as far as Plato, which is a far cry from a formal logical proposition whose truth-value may be assessed.

The credibility of scientific method has always been strained, just as has been the credibility of any religious conviction.  Even when scientific method enjoyed the prestige of a LINGUA FRANCA, the solipsists were applying their own rigor to the hypothesis that, for any practical purposes, the natural world was a construction of our own subjective processes.  The twentieth century saw this perspective expand from the subjectively constructed reality to the socially constructed reality.  At roughly the same time mathematics, always regarded as the NE PLUS ULTRA model of scientific rigor, discovered that, for all that rigor, all but the most trivial logical systems harbored undecidable propositions, revealing that the very concept of “truth” could be questioned, even in the objective world.

Berlin believed that, if we all recognized that all of our belief systems were guided by faith at some fundamental level, we might be more tolerant of each other’s faiths.  I would like to cast my lot with Berlin.  Unfortunately, to use your “scientific language,” the evidence of falsifiability (which I prefer to call “internal inconsistency”) has been spread across all of the inflammatory discourse of the comments that have accumulated around this one video clip.  All we seemed to have learned is that the conviction of many faiths seems to beget intolerance, which does not speak well for our future.

This made me sick to my stomach. I think I’m gonna throw up now…

My belief is simple. I believe that all religion is imaginary and that everyone believing in an all powerful omnipitent being is trapped in a bubble of delusion as detailed at http://www.godisimaginary.com Religion does hurt us as a society. No rational human being would submit themselves to the belief in imaginary creatures. The belief in all gods have been proven false throughout time, Zeus, Odin, Athena etc etc. The God of today is absolutely no different. Even all of the aspects of Christianity were taken from other religions and refined by the Roman Empire. I could go on and on about this but just look at the site. They have 50 pages of proof and evidence

What I find truly interesting is the overwhelmingly vocalized hate for christians.
As a christian, I find that when reading about Atheism on various forums and blogs, I am immediately turned off to hateful comments. There are a great deal of good comments and posts that make well thought out points against christianity. I always enjoy a good argument against my beliefs.
The interesting thing though, is that if anyone looks back through all of the previous comments on this post, and I would imagine, all of the comments to come, there would be many many more comments merely saying something to the effect of “All Christians are Idiots” etc.
As someone who believes that if someone thinks they have the right idea, then try and get others to come to your way of thought, then most of these posts only do good to dissuade christians from even considering atheism. Why give atheism a second thought if the only thing you hear is that you are an idiot and should be put in jail for what you believe. Certainly, there are people in any belief system that are idiots, but to immediately alienate every person you are trying to persuade… doesn’t make sense to me.
I can imagine that one of the first posts after this one will be something like, “Whatever, you’re and idiot, shut up, etc” and someone will probably even say EXACTLY that just to be funny.
What is “actually” funny is that my point has been proven to me. Athiests spread hate just as much as they say christians do. They just feel more free to vocalize.
Watch…

OK, people, lighten up - this is the 21st century.  In the good ol’ US of A, people can believe in whatever they want.  Look at the stadium - do you see anyone with machine guns forcing those people to be there?  No - they *want* to believe that crap - so let them!  Why does it matter if people want to worship dead Rabbis, or puddles, or sticks, or the easter bunny?  I’m allowed to *not* believe that we have an invisible big buddy in the sky - let them believe what they want.  Life’s too short to get wrapped around the axle about such little stuff.

The good news is that these minds are being trained to be robots and robots are easier to control than true thinking beings. These kids will probably grow up to really enjoy making coffee at the local Starbucks. God bless ‘em.

I was brought up Catholic… I don’t believe any of it now, but I’d like to stand up for them a little if I may…

I was NEVER taught to take the old testament, specifically the creation story literally. It was ALWAYS taught to me as a human explanation of something humans could never hope to understand in the days it was written. It was always taught to me hand-in-hand with scientific theories, such as evolution… not all Christians are stupid and ignorant.. sciences teaches us HOW and religion, for people who need it, teaches them WHY… and what’s so wrong with that?

Yes, religions have been the supposed source of warfare for countless years now, but anyone with half a brain would know that, for some people, religion is just an EXCUSE to cover up what people really want… resources, land, money… power… and if religion is a means to power, people are going to use it… and it’s not the fault of the belief system its self, but the fault of the people who interpret it… and then some people, like the preacher in the video actually believe what he’s saying… he’s not intentionally “brainwashing” kids, he’s not feeding them lies as far as he BELIEVES… he thinks he’s sharing some wonderful truths with them… as all parents and elders do to children… you instill beliefs and values in them that you believe they should know… everyone does this, even atheists, the only difference is WHAT you teach your kids.

The brilliant thing is, people DO learn to think, no matter how much you discourage it… and some of these kids will go on to not believe what they have been told, and it will be hard for them because they will have to re-evaluate their whole existence, and some of them will believe it, and teach it to their kids also… that’s the way life works, that’s the way knowledge has been passed on since humans first existed, and if we belittle and ostracize people for not believing the same thing as us, how can you claim to have more wisdom than the guy in the video?

as far as I’m concerned, evolution is without a doubt proven… people from hot climates have evolved to have darker skin and flatter nostrils and more active sweat glands to protect them from the climate… people in cooler climates have evolved paler skin and thin nostrils and fatty deposits to assist them to live in their climates… there’s dogs now which are born with much shorter tails than previously because they are no longer necessary for domestic animals… humans can no longer fit all their teeth in their jaws and most people need to have their “wisdom teeth” removed, toenails are getting smaller, and the little toe is getting smaller since we no longer use our toes like hands…. it’s happening all around us… but does it really matter if some people do or don’t want to believe it? is it really damaging anyone? people will believe what they want, and what you believe when you’re a kid isn’t what you necessarily believe when you’re an adult… we can’t protect people from learning… whether what they are learning is “truth” or not, and to try do so would be very wrong… so if you’re really against pastors preaching creationism as fact, then you should allow it to happen… allow people to learn from everything and everyone and make up their own minds about things when they are disconcerting adults… spend less time criticizing other people and go out and live… especially if you believe, as I do, that this life is the only one you get… why waste it arguing over other people’s reason for living?

What I find incredibly ironic is that there are so many of you that are quick to mock Christians, yet I have a hard time believing that many of you have ever cracked open a Bible and actually read it.  We tend to mock what we don’t understand, and that is so eloquently exampled here over and over again.

So many of you speak about evolution and other theories as if they 100% true and factual.  Well, if that were the case then evolution and your other ideas would be a fact instead of a theory.  I can comment broadly to all of you by saying that faith is not about what is seen but what is unseen.  If you have to have God or Jesus stand before you to prove their existence, then that isn’t faith.  Mark the apostle did exactly this when Jesus rose from the dead…he insisted that he touch Jesus’ wounds himself to prove that it was in fact He.  After doing such, he was woefully reminded about his lack of faith.

Some of you have characterized fundamental Christianity as a bunch of machete-wielding zealots.  Funny that I haven’t seen much of that in the last few hundred years.  All these attempts to bash fundamentalists are merely attempts to justify your own fear and hatred for what you don’t understand.  Funny how those who preach tolerance have so much intolerance for what they don’t want to accept.

If there is one thing to take away from the Bible is the fact that there was a Messiah prophesized in the Old Testament multiple times by multiple prophets, and it came true in the New Testament in the form of Jesus Christ.  It’s okay I guess if you can’t accept this FACT (His existence has been proven outside of Biblical sources) and refuse to find out who He was and why He is important for your life and your salvation because your heart is hardened and you simply refuse to give up your sin life…but let’s not put up these silly facades that fail to get at the root cause for your own disbelief…and please stop referring to the Bible—a book that you obviously never read or bothered to fully understand.  Christians read this book every single day and still take their entire lifetimes to understand.  If you want a God-in-the-box that you can just microwave and understand for your impatient, short attention span, you need not look here.

Christianity isn’t about perfection or being right…it’s about faith and being forgiven because we acknowledge God and the Son that He sent to us as a sacrifice for our sins.  Sorry that you don’t see your sin life as a problem or that you need to modify that (the REAL reason why there has been no enlightenment in society for the last 2000 (not 250) years), but God will disagree with you and hold you accountable on your final day on earth.  You don’t seem to understand that even Christians sin because we’re all human, and it’s because we’re human that we have a sin nature.  So when we fail, we’re not hypocrites…we’re just not perfect just like everybody else.  What sets us apart is that we’re humble before God because we acknowledge that we are human and worship God instead of thinking we ourselves are god or do not need to worry about what we do to ourselves or others. 

If you die tonight, do you know where your soul will be?  You can have theories or ideas about it, but do you KNOW with 100% certainty?  I KNOW I am going to Heaven because I have acknowledged to God that I am a sinner and that the only way I am worthy of entering Heaven is by God’s grace that was bestowed upon me because I believe that He sent His Son Jesus to die for you and me, and that outside of this I could never earn my way in.

Who is more foolish? The fool?? Or the one who argues with him?

I’m done with this it is a waste of time. The only cure for the idiocy of Religion is Evolution. We need to get smarter as a race. After all it is a FACT (since we are all throwing that word around) that there is an indirectly proprotional relationship between how religious someone is and there I.Q. The dumber they are the more religious they are.

Now now….dont start yelling yet. This is a broad spectrum worldview that takes I.Q and education levels of whole nations vs. how religious or what priority religion takes in the lives of the people that live there. Im not saying everyone who is religious is stupid….so tuck that little argument away.

Beliefs are to rigid, thats why they destroy. Ideas are flexible thats why they build. The word computer may not be in the Bible but it was built by Science. Perhaps God didn’t think of that.

I’m taking care of me and mine and history will tell the rest.

Thanks all and be well.

Hey.. u kno what this guy is f**kin stupid.. i mean come on if u have ever had history or w/e u would kno that we came from ““evolution”” like there was dinosaurs and cavemen.. no cavemen didnt live witht them.. but i mean common man get ur facts straight.. jesus

And we wonder what will really bring down the USA. Here is your proof. Nothing better then ignorance. Follow me over the cliff. Keep beliving in fairy tails.

No wonder so many people believe in the bible…..they are brainwashed from day one to do so,
in the above article a segment is shown where children are asked if their grandparents looked like apes. A pile of dirt was not shown to the children and the children asked if their grandparents looked like that!!!!
They were not asked if they knew that God ordered a whole community of people

murdered in the name of God to mention only one of many misgivings perpetrated in Gods name. How God is responsible for all things that occur on earth,and ask why he allows so many terrible things to happen to :his: children

This both saddens and angers me. Whether you’re a scientist or a Christian you should let the kids grow up with both sides of the argument and decide themselves rather than slapping this propaganda crap in their faces. I grew up in a Christian family (lapsed Catholic nuclear family, but my grandmother’s quite devout) and after reviewing the facts from both sides, I can safely say that I think all this Christian stuff is a crock of sh*t. My religious beliefs would be called agnostic. I am prepared to believe if proof is shown to me, but never will I side with the biased organisations that offer spirituality as a universal panacea. If proof is shown I will believe in my own way.
And to reply to the guy with the big hair in the video who said “I believe God created me in one day”
I quote Bill Hicks, comedian and teller of the truth.
“Looks like he rushed it”

After seeing this I am very sad….I won’t comment on my own beliefs, but if Jesus was real and came back to look upon the current religious status, I think he would be upset.  It is true that religion is the basis of many good people, like saints or martyrs.  Still, when people are going as far as starting a ‘war’ as the man said, that is sad.  Religion should be a guideline for life, something to tell you how to live.  When you start telling kids to basically disregard all scientists cause they don’t agree with God, what next?  I think religion and science can coexist, but people like this would obliterate science if they could.  May God pity us, if he’s up there.

To Barney:

I appreciate your call for fairness and tolerance.  These are the two virtues least evident in non-atheists of the world.  Nothing personal, Barney, but theists ARE morons.  I realize this statement isn’t going to change anything in the world.  But, maybe the more non-theists witness righteous challenges to the religious types, the more we will all be emboldened to expose the myth, folly, and tragedy of religion.  “My god is better than your god” is what most of them preach.  Imagine!  The disinterest of theists everywhere in science or truth is possibly the major obstacle to the advancement of civilization.  I guess Armageddon is what they expect, anyway.  Maybe their prophecy will be self-fulfilling if atheists and agnostics don’t win over the masses some day soon.

I saw “Friends of God” on HBO a while ago and was shocked by this fool teaching children this drivel. I had to laugh at the pictures he used of the “grandparent” monkeys…they looked so much like him! The whole “dinosaurs walked with man” nonsense is nothing more than a continuation of Dr. Dino aka Kent Hovind’s lunacy…but he just got sentenced to 10 years in a federal prison for scamming the IRS while raking in the christian cash.

I do believe religion is dangerous in this day and age. Ah but that evokes the remark that it’s not the religion it’s the followers. Well, that’s just garbage since religion doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Without followers it would fade away so as far as I’m concerned that argument is bogus on it’s face. Hoping that some ethereal smoky sky god will make life better is sad. Living it only to reap a better reward after you’re dead cuts so much from the life that is here now. Life can be spiritual(not in a religious sense) and wonderful without the damnation, fear and trappings of myths that no longer serve a purpose. To teach ID (Intellectual Dishonesty) is simply irresponsible and it will be future generations that suffer from the lack of real science unless something is done to stop this lunacy…but then maybe that’s exactly what fundies want…the extermination of the world…the rapture. So they will destroy us all for a myth. Hopefully, I’ll never see that in my lifetime.

This discusts me,i hope they had an evolutionist in to lecture to the children to be balanced about their education!

This is absolute f***ing nonsense. I can not believe this is even legal. Its time for a change.

This is the worst kind of brainwashing I could ever imagine. Poor empty kids. Yuck.

It’s unfortunate that so many of you are turning this into a debate between atheism and theism.  Save your pettiness, please.  Theists and atheists alike are entitled to their beliefs.  That is what we should agree on, and in that light, the opposition are those who think we are not entitled to our own beliefs, as are seen in this video. 

I am a theist, and my beliefs are justified.  I don’t have to justify them to you.  I don’t care what you believe.  So enough with the insults.  You atheists are losing half of your allies because you can’t stop thinking you know it all and the rest of us are all a bunch of morons.

People who think that evolution is a dogma or faith clearly don’t know the definition of the scientific method. Science is the rigorous of the natural world, and evolution is a theory that supports and connects many observations of the natural world. The scientific method is one that follows testable and falsifiable truth, not faith. The fact that some scientists disagree points to the fact that science is used by fallible humans, but the point is that the method itself seeks out the observable nature of reality. In other words, consistant truth in the natural world. If you believe in something supernatural, that has nothing to do with science or the goals of science.

re Comment #52534 by NeoGothic

Dear NeoGothic
“wether or not a religion has good thing or bad things about it has no bearing on its truth value.”

You’re right, of course. I mention the good things to argue against the notion that religion itself is primarily a cause of violence and bigotry. They don’t prove Christianity is true, just as the deluded beliefs of a few creationists don’t disprove it.

“What concerns me and, I suspect, many others is that these people are spreading falsehoods and labelling them “truth” “. 

If by ‘falsehoods’ you mean the claim that the Bible is to be read as a scientific/ historical/ legal textbook, then I agree.

If you mean the claim that the existence and meaning of the universe ultimately derive from a creative, lifegiving intelligence - the source of all being - referred to as God, then I don’t agree with you. That is inherently not scientifically provable or disprovable - many eminent scientists are Christians - so those who denounce faith as a falsehood are on shaky ground, scientifically.

Comodor W. Falkon (#52626) requested source details for the video clip.  I have never before heard of “veoh;”  but, as far as I can tell, this clip was extracted from FRIENDS OF GOD:  A ROAD TRIP WITH ALEXANDRA PELOSI (which I recently saw on HBO).  I have no idea if either Pelosi or HBO knew that this clip was extracted.  HBO has a Web page for the film at:

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/friends_of_god/index.html?ntrack_para1=leftnav_category7_show3

Heh… Nice example of brainwashing… Well, what else one can expect from teocratical society such as is USA (same as in Poland,Iran)...?
Please, If someone could do that, do a titles to that film, upload it both on RS or something and send me a link…
I’ll translate it into my language…
It’ll be definitely same popular as Borat and similar films…

You know what is scary?
Evolution dosen’t care how life survives and evolves. The nonsense of religion; all religion, spreading by the minds of idiots, being forced down the throats of the idiot’s children, will ultimately lead us to regressing back to ape like creatures who won’t have to ponder the unanswerable, or worry about imaginary afterlifes.
We can look forward to being just one step below these idiots in the video. I wonder if they even know to crap in a toilet; or do they just let it plop to the ground wherever they are?

Comment #52312 by mcnash -

McNash, wether or not a religion has good thing or bad things about it has no bearing on its truth value.  Christianity could be the most loving and wonderful belief system in the world, but that still wouldn’t make it true.  What concerns me and, I suspect, many others is that these people are spreading falsehoods and labelling them “truth”.  If they were actually selling a product for money I would sue for ‘false adversizing’.

This is brain wash at its best and stupidity at its worst.

Where is god? Where are those lowly flying angels? Where are the supernatural and earthmoving magics? All of the above were daily occurrences during the stone age, where are they now?

I want earthly answers. I demand earthly answers.

This is child abuse, pure and simple. These people belong behind bars!

Logician - just because you haven’t come across thoughtful Christianity, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

I don’t want to insult anyone - thinker or not - even those who accuse me of not thinking because they don’t agree with me. I’d rather have an intelligent, thoughtful discussion than trade insults.

Oh, and, for the record, I do understand what you just said, and why you said it - but I’ve seen enough of the breadth of Christianity (and other faiths) to know there’s a bigger picture.

Reply to 52192 mcnash:

Please, I just ate…“thinking Christianity?”  Military intelligence, corporate beneficence, thinking Christianity.  See a pattern?  Don’t try to insult those of us who DO think, okay?

If you DID think, you would understand what I just said. 

“thinking Christianity.”  Good grief!

No, no, no, no, no, Tom Baker and lawlessone!

Sure, Tom, religion is often (ab-)used to justify violence - but religion isn’t the root cause. Stalinist Russia, Cambodia, Red China, North Korea (to name a few) show you don’t need religion to cause violence.

On the contrary, all religions teach love, tolerance and respect for other human beings (see what the Old Testament has to say about how to treat foreigners - as well as the violent, murderous stuff (oh, and by the way, the Jim Yell, the 6th commandment, properly translated, is ‘thou shalt do no murder’ - not ‘thou shalt not kill’ )

Practically all our hospitals, welfare services, soup kitchens etc (at least in Europe) have their origins in religious institutions - Christians caring practically for others, of any faith and none, as we still do (those of us who aren’t too busy ranting about creationism!)

And lawlessone, prayer isn’t susceptible to scientific testing, because it’s primarily about ‘tuning in’ to God, aligning yourself with God’s purposes (which include right use of free will) - not about asking God for stuff. That sort of prayer (intercessory prayer) does exist, of course, and scientific measuring of outcomes has been done - with mixed results. But most prayer isn’t objectively measurable in that way. On the other hand, statistical surveys show that believers, on average, live longer and are more healthy than non-believers, and are more likely to describe themselves as happy/fulfilled - so maybe that’s proof of sorts.

But as I said below, to use Genesis 1 as a way of explaining the existence of the world is to misunderstand the whole nature of the text, and most Christians (in Europe, at least) wouldn’t dream of treating it as a scientific explanation.

It is all so very sad.  Religiosity is a normal part of the life of our species and probably evolved with us.  But sometimes it can become a horrible mind destroying illness among a bunch of very sick people. 

But to warp the minds of children with this Christian Taliban idiocy is a crime to the future of our nation.  Where religion rules, you have a totalitarian state.  Religion is always about “facts”.  Science is always about theories that gain relevance as explanations of the natural world when their empirical support reaches statistical significance. Science is hard work but you don’t get to send a rocket to space on a prayer!

If these people are allowed to take over the marketplace of ideas, our nation is doomed. But perhaps it already is.

it’s the 21st Century. Violence, driven by RELIGION, consumes a healthy fraction of the globe. yet some Americans, driven by forces I frankly can’t understand, are trying to act like they’re solving problems by applying RELIGION to them.

our extinction is guaranteed, unless we can be rid of the ignorant superstitions that drive people to be violent and hateful.

“A THEORY ABOUT CREATION THEORIES” 
Or, Why It Might Actually Do Some Good To Have So-called Intelligent Design
Taught Alongside Evolution Theory

Fundamentalists have been trying for decades to circumvent the restrictions against state sponsored religion. Their latest ploy seems to be a demand so called “Intelligent Design” be mentioned in school alongside Darwin’s far more factually supported Theory of Evolution.

Let them. Darwin himself might actually have applauded the idea.  It’s sort of a survival of the fittest opportunity for the concept of scientific method to tackle beliefs in God and/or Gods. In fact, let’s go further than the Fundamentalists and insist not only Protestantism , but all religions, current and past, be taught in school side by side as “Theories.”

After all, that’s really what religions are - theories. Theories proposed by theologians to explain how we got here, how we should act and where we’re going, all based upon what are perceived by adherents to be the “facts” known at the time organized in whatever way deemed most logical.

Let the Bible’s Theory the earth was created in six days be compared to the Greek Theory, for instance. To the early Greeks, there was a goddess of all creation who arose from nothing and separated the sea from the sky. (The part about her dancing naked upon the waves to create the wind should go over well in middle school grades.) She then created a serpent who impregnated her and the egg she hatched gave forth the cosmos.

Do that for all religions and contrast their theories of creation and how man came to be. Every religious theory deserves to be looked at and examined for possible validity. And, one theory is just as good as another, right up to the point where it is put through the theory TESTING process, otherwise known as science.

Proponents of various religious theories might claim their own theories cannot be scientifically tested and they must be accepted on Faith. Not so. Every theory, including even religious ones, certainly are tested all the time by literally millions of people. What is a prayer, for the most part, except a test of the religion’s particular theory? 

Fundamentalists claim prayers work, in other words, a positive statistical correlation between cause and effect. The believers may attempt to disassemble by asserting not all prayers are answered or the result may not be clear or there might not be an immediate response, but the pulpit delivered message remains consistently clear prayers have a purpose and if supplicants pray hard enough or is worthy enough, they can be answered at least some of the time.

When an allegation is made something works (prayers included), workability is testable. Do like science does.  Break down the components and devise tests.  For example, if Michigan’s football coach has more people praying for a football win than, say, Ohio State, does that result in a greater number of wins over time? Maybe praying for a game result does not work. Okay, is it the type of prayer perhaps? The importance of result? The individual need of the person praying? The fact it is sought for others and not self? The volume of the prayer? The time of the day?  That it was done kneeling? You get the idea. There are a thousand variations and all can be tested over time and by means more reliable than anecdotal evidence.

If Fundamentalists behind the so-called Intelligent Design Theory have the courage of their convictions, they should welcome such testing. What we need is a tradition all theories, including religions as well as evolution, need to be viewed with skepticism and continually tested. Those which survive each test are worthy of being taught. I don’t expect the existing Fundamentalists to be converted to the beauty, albeit uncertainty, of scientific based theories, but someday their children might be.

More at resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com

Most atheists have never done anything remotely “bad” enough to be damned forever in the wasteland of a hell for eternity.

Most evangelical Christians have never done anything remotely “good” enough to deserve an eternity (or even fifteen minutes) of happiness.

Hell on earth? That last few seconds, minutes or hours of life when you realize that your only shot at consciousness, emotion or wonder is just about over and you wasted it indoctrinating children in hate, making other humans lives miserable because of your beliefs, and ever, ever considering war as an answer to anything.

I want my last thoughts to be “Wow - that was great!”.

John, your knowledge of what constitutes the Scientific Method is naively incomplete at best. You should have payed more attention in science class.

The scientific method is also based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning. This is the method of painstaking research through which Darwin’s book ‘On the Origin of Species’ came into being, and exactly the kind of science that has been applied in 140+ years of research since then that has continually refined and reinforced his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

The moment someone like you says something to the effect ” Evolution is just a theory”, it instantly becomes clear that you don’t even have enough basic knowledge of the terms of science to form a relevant opinion on Evolution.

Stephen Jay Gould said “Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.”  Evolution is both Fact and Theory.

FACT: Life has changed over time on Earth with organisms becoming increasingly diverse and complex over time. Older ancestral species disappeared (many are still evident in the fossil record) and developed into more complex life forms over many millions of years. This change is called Evolution. To put it another way, evolution is the change in the frequency of heritable traits of a population over successive generations

That evolution occured is incontrovertible scientific fact supported by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, both in the fossil record and in living species (vestigial organs, DNA, etc). It has been observed both in the field and in the laboratory.

THEORY (Darwin): The mechanism guiding Evolution is Natural Selection,  in which organisms that happen to have combinations of traits that help them to survive and reproduce will, on average, have more offspring, passing more copies of these beneficial traits on to the next generation. This leads to advantageous traits becoming more common in each generation, while disadvantageous traits become rarer.

This theory concerns HOW evolution occured, not WHETHER it occured.

In the words of R.C. Lewontin:

“It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organised multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms.

Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in moulding evolution.”

If you have any questions, there is a wealth of information online available from actual scientific sources.  Just Google the word ‘Evolution’. Or, if you are search-engine-challenged, you can start your education here:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

I wonder if the mothers who take their daughters to these shows also teach them what the god of the old testament thinks of women.  Would any of the fathers concider selling their daughters into slavery?  Or stoning them to death because they were raped and didn’t yell loud enough for help? 

God said it, they believe it, that should settle it!

TexasGreen asked:  Why is it only in the U.S. among the so-called “Christian” nations, that this kind of nonsense goes on? 

Because most Evangelical Christians are so overwhelmed by their fear of being wrong.  This is (historically and demographically) a very young movement, essentially indiginous to the US.  Mature believers (of whatever denomination) are secure enough in their own faith that dissent, erroneous doctrine and apostasy aren’t threatening to them, just sad.

Evolution is not just a belief. It’s a damn scientific theory, and everyone with a seventh grade education knows how a hypothesis evolves into a theory. No smoke and mirrors, just good old fashioned experimentation and observation.

Please stop confounding science and religion. They are not similiar. Science is based on reality, religion is based on fantasy.

Fundamentalist’s declare the bible is to be taken literally in all aspects and then pick and choose and are such dullards that they don’t even realize it. Thou shalt not kill and than chapter after chapter about murder and how God told the Godly to do it. Well either God meant thou shalt not kill or he didn’t. Certainly he didn’t waffle about the issue in the 10 commandments.

Science has revealed the past. It is based upon what is observed and measured, not on the fancies of deluded persons. It is better to realize that Science explains what (saying there is a God) process God used in his creations.

There are multiple views upon what and who God and Gods are. But, if God gave us a mind to use than when the record says the bible is either false or is just recording history and developement of moral thought, why would anyone think God wants you to believe literally what is in the bible by example. If you try to follow the bible as it is written you will find your self in a double bind, Thou Shalt Not Kill, which has no except in it and then thousands of demands for death. It really is a hopeless mess. Better to use you critical abilities and not wind up in Guyana drinking purple coolaide with Jimmy Jones.

Who’s trying to convince who?

More people need to stop arguing and learn how to say, “Shut up.”

“If science is defined as using the scientific method which uses observation and experiment to prove facts then evolution is NOT science just as mush as creationism is not science. ” -john

Clearly, john, you do not understand what science really is, and probably have little desire to do so (I bet you’ve been told this many times, but it hasn’t sunken in, so I won’t waste our time).

That’s perfectly OK, but don’t expect us to be overwhelmed by your prognostications on the topic.

The world of life science and (increasingly) medicine revolve around evolution. It is such a vastly powerful unifying idea that it surely ranks as one of mankind’s greatest achievements.

Fundamentalism only offers that some dude waved his magic wand, and voila. It doesn’t offer any explanation for the observed biological forms, for the phenomenon of cancer, etc.. In a nutshell, fundamentalists have nothing to offer with regard to any scientific question that can be raised about the living world and the universe in which it finds itself.

This kind of message gives thinking Christianity a bad name - Genesis 1 is a poetic reflection on the relationship between God, creation and humanity - not a scientific account. Thinking Christianity [as opposed to fundamentalism] is perfectly compatible with belief in evolution - I suspect Andrew Sullivan would agree.

As a matter of historical fact, though, Martin - the “Greco-Roman enlightenment” (complete with belief in dozens of gods, demi-gods etc) came to an end when the Roman Empire self-destructed - nothing to do with Christian fundamentalists. In fact, what learning and scholarship survived, mostly did so in monasteries in the West, and among Muslims in the East - and over the last 2000 years, most scholarly, scientific and philosophical progress in the West has been made by Christians - including Darwin himself! And of course, medieval Muslim scholarship was second to none.

Of course churches are as likely as any other human institutions to be corrupt or oppressive. Of course fundamentalist thinking is dangerous and damaging - whether of a Christian, Muslim or atheist variety - and likely to lead to intolerance, persecution, war and the rest. But the desire for absolute certainty is a characteristic of human nature, and the best religion encourages honest doubt, reflection and respect for/engagement with other points of view.

I find it dishartening that this site uses inflamitory language to bias the reader before they read an article, hence:

“Want to see what this kind of indoctrination leads to? Read Andrew Sullivan describing why it’s impossible for him to ever doubt the existence of God.”

I read the article, and though I am not a christian and thus do not see the world as Andrew does, I was deeply moved and pleased to read such a moving and honest moderate, understanding and tolerant article. An inlighteded person who recognizes the dangers of absolutism with in his own faith. Something we should all take note of in our own preaching of our perciouse ideals and beliefs.

I see him saying live and let live, not believe as I or be damed. I do agree, as a person of a non-mainstream faith, that it is those of us who have a spiritual life that can aide the world and this country in this time of fear and anger. Who would dispute the love and wisdom of the Dahli Lama, a man of faith and spirit. Yet in our rush to protect ourselves from the abuses of the fanatics here at home we generalize all people of faith, lump them together, and curse the lot of them. That is when you end up becoming that which you fight against.

I understan that Andrew believes what he does because that is all that he has known since birth. That he has been “indoctrinated” in the way most people are in the faith, or lack there of, by their family and community. Yet I believe Andrew recognizes that issue within himself when he recognizes that had he been raised somewhere else, his faith and beliefs would be different. Yet this does not prevent him from honoring and recognizing the validity of other’s faith and beliefs.

I am saddened by Truthdig for inferring something far from the truth in its headline referring to Andrew’s arthicle. Propaganda and slick biasing is not something I hope to see here when I come to read your articles.

Wow.  Child abuse - teach your children what to think instead of how to think and you’ll prepare them to be obsolete.

These kids will probably waste several years coming to the realization that they were betrayed as kids - if they’re lucky.

An air conditioner only cools the air a few degrees at a time.  Progress is like that - it usually occurs relative to the last generation.  So, these parents are wasting their grand-children’s time!

Stop looking back at the bible or up for Jesus, and look ahead for your children.  Give them a candle for the dark, give them a tool that adapts to the future - TEACH THEM CRITICAL THINKING.  They will remember you fondly for it, especially when they use it to pick your nursing home!

This attack against any other viewpoint against evolution is just BRAINWASHING on the part of a bunch of God haters who are nothing but full of HOT AIR. Neither evolution nor creationism should be taught in schools as science because NEITHER of them are science but belief. If science is defined as using the scientific method which uses observation and experiment to prove facts then evolution is NOT science just as mush as creationism is not science. Has macroevolution ever been obseved or proved by experiment?Nope. Microevolution which is NOT evolution at all for the bacteria that “evolves” by building resistance to antibiotics is NOT what evolution claims. Evolution claims that one KIND of animal of life form evolves into another higher one. This HAS NEVER BEEN OBSEVED OR PROVED BY EXPERIMENT!Hence no scientific method hence NOT science. The people for evolution are GUILTY of the thing they accuse the evangelicals of; INDOCTRINATION!!Bunch of hypocrites!

What these people are doing to those children is pure CHILD ABUSE.

Oh, I don’t mind the teaching of creationism or evolution just so long as the teacher STICKS TO THE FACTS and presents a BALANCED VIEW. It’s a FACT that the bible states God created everything and I have no problem teaching children the FACT that that is what is written in the Bible!

But, it an out-and-out LIE to not include in the lesson that the Bible was written by MEN and translated, altered, edited many times over by MEN, and therefore the Bible published and taught today CANNOT POSSIBLY BE A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL “SCRIPTURE.” Only fools believe otherwise.

But then, the world is FULL of fools.

All hail organized, institutionalized insanity!  Thankfully, the rest of the western world is pretty much areligious.  Why is it only in the U.S. among the so-called “Christian” nations, that this kind of nonsense goes on? 

On the surface, these people are much too stupid to take seriously, but take them seriously we must if we are not to be overwhelmed by their ignorance and superstition.  Bad ideas often have a way of gaining traction, particularly among the ignorant and uneducated.  Why else would even 28% of the U.S. population still approve of Dubya? 

These crazies need to be rebutted at every opportunity, lest their warped worldview attracts more converts.

Sullivan leaps over the origin on his ‘faith’. Are we to believe he was born with religious faith?

We are all born atheists. Most of us are corrupted by lies told by grownups, which leads to, guess what—religious faith.

In 1935, penicillin first became widely available.  It changed mankind forever.  Immediately, evolutionary biologists predicted that in time penicillin would lose its effectiveness, which it did.  How did they know that would happen?  Because they knew for certain that it HAD to happen, due to the inexorable process of evolution operating on microbial life, as it does on ALL life.  Did any minister predict it?  Any priest or rabbi? Any holy book?  Did anyone’s god proclaim it?  Of course not, because religion, in essence, promulgates ignorance.  And if that ignorance had been allowed to predominate over science penicillin would never have been discovered, and diseases would never have been conquered.

I think we need to look at a “deeper structure” beneath the “surface structure” of evolution.  What we have here is a clash of two totally incompatible belief systems.  On the one hand we have the fundamentalist conviction that the only truth is the truth of God as rendered literally in the text of the Holy Bible.  On the other hand we have what we could call a “Cartesian skepticism.”  This basically posits that we should not take anything as a “given truth” and seek truth through systems of inquiry such as scientific method.  As I said above, these are opposing BELIEF SYSTEMS;  and because they are systems of BELIEF, neither is grounded on anything more solid than faith and dogma.  The very word “enlightenment” is nothing more than a lexical game we play to stack the deck in favor of skepticism;  but any good skeptic (such as Isaiah Berlin) has no trouble seeing through that game.

The unfortunate consequence of this state of affairs is that neither belief system can support tolerance of the other (which is why the skeptics invoke nouns like “enlightenment”).  Indeed, when we take the long view of history, we discover that tolerance is in extremely short supply across those different social organizations that we dignify with the noun “civilization.”  What is even particularly ironic is that the Jews (so frequently held up as victims of the worst acts of intolerance) were often beneficiaries of such tolerance, during the Babylonian captivity (when those who wept by the waters were a decided minority while others were committing scripture to written text with “government support”), under the Persian empire, and, of course, in Moorish Spain, before the Inquisition turned the tables on them!  Nevertheless, we now appear to have devolved (seemed like the best choice of verb under the circumstances) into fragmented social organizations who think nothing of “making war” against those whose belief systems are inconsistent with our own.  I wish it were otherwise;  but I suspect it is just one more facet of “the human condition.”

This is just one of the many items being peddled by Ken Ham, as “curriculum”. http://www.answersingenesis.org/

I feel so unbelievably sorry for those children.

Ok, God dictated the Bible and every word is supposed to be taken literally. The Bible says “Thou Shalt not Kill” and spends a huge amount of time recounting murder, all commanded by GOD.

Men are not to wear sumptuous clothing or any scent but sweat, to which we may ask how many fundamentalist preachers have you seen looking like hobos and smelling like sweat? The damnation for breaking this code is not much different than for being a homosexual.

Now if GOD can’t keep his commandments straight how are we? The book is full of foolishness and outright lies. Therefore the book was written by men, or GOD dictated and men wrote what they wanted it so say. The contradictions are too numerous to count.

Robert Scheer has the hope that fundamentalists will not succeed taking over the country because their message hinders them, I am tempted to say retards them to be effective in this modern society and that others won’t let this take over happen.
I just want to point out that 1700 years ago Christian fundamentalists took over and the dark ages began. 1000 years of Greco-Roman enlightenment were replaced with mind numbing stupidity and a murderous regime to match it.  They didn’t rest until the last book was burned, the last image destroyed, the last heretic burned at the stake. I don’t see any reason to believe that mankind has changed much in those 1700 years.  Our post-enlightenment is hard fought and still not deep enough to put superstitious beliefs in the dust bin of history, in the opposite; the fundamentalists are ready to destroy the little enlightenment that we have for the last 250 years in favor of Taliban like control of the mind.