To Susan 28, dated 7/12/06:

Religious nonsense affects most folk by its brain-drenching
repetitions during the formative years (possibly starting in utero,
when hymns, rhythms, the mother’s emotions, etc.—like the
mother’s pulse—are perceived by the fetus, consolingly or fear-
inducing or not).  Consequently, by age 5 yrs, many are indoctri-
nated both subconsciously & consciously & the dependency so
created is rendered difficult to overcome, even when critical analysis, reason & objectivity are taught (belatedness in objective
analysis or its entire omission are prized by typical “faith-heads”).

So, be not ambivalent, confused, guilty or anxious about the
false ideas of your parents; all faith dogma were created by
humans.  Truthfully, “[Man] created [a god or gods] in his own
image, in the image of [man] created he [himself]”, NOT the
fabricated converse of Genesis.  Having been skeptical most of
my life, I hardly believed most Christian dogma, even in my
childhood.  And since “God” or “Allah” or “Yahweh”, etc. does not
exist, you should be free of anger, awe, fear, etc. re: her, him or
it; it exists only in human imagination, resulting from human
yearning &/or fear &/or ignorance, begun in antiquity but
extended to the 21st c. by clergy who exploit its effects for
financial & individual w. group control.  Likewise “heaven” &
“hell” & immortality & souls do not exist; what is labelled “soul”
is actually cerebral or in the brain in which emotions occur by
humoral, neurochemical & neurotransmitter effects, likewise for
thought, dreams, imaginations, etc.  Deprogramming can be
augmented by accepting facts or truths or the realities of the
universe or planet Earth or nature.

“Truth is great & will prevail if left to herself…she is the proper
& sufficient antagonist to error and has nothing to fear from
[religious delusions]” —Jefferson’s words in the Statute of VA
for Religious Freedom, the basis of most laws on religious
liberty in America, esp. the First Amendment’s establishment
clause (governmental freedom FROM religion) & religious
liberty phrase (freedom OF religion for citizens or individuals)
aka freedom of conscience.

Now here is a twist!

I am a senior, 78 years old. I am very liberal in religion, having gone through my early years of questions, denial, atheism, agnosticism, Ethical Culture, Unitarian, and finally Liberal Muslim.

My son, age 50, is a fanatic Pentecostal preacher, after having been exposed to all the liberal religious questions while growing up. He has excommunicated himself from me and refuses to speak with me. He believes that I have a duty to accept his diatribe about all the non-sense of a virgin birth, dying on a cross to save the world from sin, and the kid born out of wedlock becoming God.

Liberal Muslims know that God is Truth, Truth is God, and that people are liars and deceivers. Many Muslims need four pillar of the faith in addition to the one pedestal—that there is one, and only one God. All else is superstition, dogma, creed, and adoration of a book or person. Iconicism, if you will.

Liberal Muslims do not need the ancient foolishness and errors of tradition coming down through various heretic thoughts about paradise, 70 virgins, and other holdovers from the middle ages to hold up the true Islam.

Truth satisfies all the true definitions of God given by any serious person or religion. Truth makes a believer out of me.

Deception makes a fanatic Pentecostal preacher out of my son.

This manifesto is a perfect reflection of my own beliefs.

Faith and the organizations built upon it are holding humanity back.

good for you Harry.. if i was religious i’d say you were doing God’s work!! i might could benefit from some of your ministrations myself..

i’m in my 40’s and still dealing with the ambivalence i feel toward my parents, not just for the breach of trust that my religious upbringing caused with them but the resentment of things like threatening shunning for going against their religious tenets; that they would bring me into this cruel mortal coil out of “love” then *cut me loose* for threatening their psychic safety net?! sometimes the rage is so overwhelming i can actually *feel* the nerve damage, but it’s hard to resolve. i need a combo of deprogramming (i still have the reactions of dogmatic belief - like imagining “coming before God” and attempting to *strangle* the fascist b*stard before he pulls the trap-door lever on his cosmic barc-o-lounger sending me to hell - even though i know better than to invest myself in such wild speculation), BPD therapy (resolve the schism in internal object caused by conditional love) and anger management.

and as far as taking comfort in it i can’t imagine how the notion of being created for the “glory” of a being that can do with us as it pleases and potentially roast us alive for eternity can be a source of *comfort* but i suspect the comfort derives from imagining that happening to our enemies and that we’ll be in heaven spitting on them. i just wish people could just own their agressive/controlling instincts and lose the whole “Daddy said knock you out” thing.. you wanna oppress someone then oppress ‘em, wanna help ‘em then help ‘em, but own yer crap.. we tailor our religions to suit our personalities, that’s why dogma solves nothing, because it gets interpreted however it suits people. it’s just an echo-chamber for our own wills. same reason people choose pets that resemble themselves. validation. 

i also think you have a good point with the cycle-of-abuse thing, we tend to validate abuse done to us by loved ones by doing it to others, as well as trying to identify with our abusers to make them less scary and simply because contact forms bonds (stockholm syndrome). so if we’re surrounded by religion on a grand scale we’ll try to focus more on what we have in common with it than our differences with it, simply for civility’s sake and to feel less endangered by it. 

i think i posted this earlier (months ago) in this discussion but here’s the link again, to an article about how religious memes are transmitted: http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-03/religion.html

keep the faith Harry.. or lack thereof

Niece, I am actually a professional Religious Healer…...I help people like you learn to live a positive life without the need for a belief in God…...sadly, Religious people like yourself have extremely low self esteem. I help parents whose children get involved with Cults…..as well as helping young adults trying to rid themselves of the many years of religious brainwashing imposed upon them by their parents…..it is a vicious cycle…..as a victim yourself Niece, you will know. I am glad that I have been able to help you…..at least now you will start to ask some questions that I know will help to free you from the clutches of the Bible.

I am glad that I was able to be of assistance… at no charge too….good-luck Niece, I hope life will now improve….but remember it will be slow going, the religious indoctrination that your parents put you through as a child, the abuse, will take time….anger will come and go.
You can do it Niece!

Re: Comment #13422 by Marina

“Everything comes from somewhere. There cannot be creation without a creator.”

So who created the creator?

Answers to all the rest of your questions can be found in any book on evolution.

Druidbros,
You’ve got me.  I’m here to mind control the lot of you.  Lookkkkk into my eyesssssss….
I don’t believe that the examination of other “beliefs” or “nonbeliefs” means that you have to come with the intention of changing your mind.
I disagree with you and the common creed of the atheist, but I respect you for them.  I don’t think I’ve called anyone names, insulted intelligence, and if I have I apologize outright.
But, by your definition of why I should be here, I shouldn’t.  So, chalk another one on the board.
Sincerely,
Jim (James)

Kudos to Lin for her wisdom as expressed in her 4:48 post.  When people bring up the inevitable question to us non-believers “Well, then where did the universe come from and what is our purpose for being here?”, I tell them “I don’t know, and I won’t pretend to know just because it makes some people happy. You don’t know the answers to these questions either, but you use the bogus crutch of ‘faith’ to hold up a leg that isn’t even there”. 

Do I believe in God?  Well, it depends on how you define God.  If God is “Whatever force/entity that is the source of our universe” then yes I do believe in God, because my five senses tell me that yes, the universe exists.  But if you want to get down to specifics and define God as in the Christian Bible or the Muslim Quran or the Hindu Vedic Scriptures etc., then no I don’t believe.  ALL attempts I have ever heard of to figure out what God is like and what he wants us to do are silly fairy tales created by primitive people to give meaning to their lives and comfort themselves that they will not cease to exist at death. 

We don’t know what “caused” the universe and are not likely to know for millions of years, if ever.  All SCIENTIFIC evidence supports the position that when you die you are gone, period.  Not a pleasant thought, right?  But it is where the evidence takes us, so we should face THE VOID like adults and deal with it.  The Bible is gibberish. The Quran too.  There are no miracles, no angels, no heaven.  We need to find a way for people to make the transition to a, dare I say it, Humanist society if we want to surive as a species.  We can’t believe the ridiculous stories we have been told in our sacred scriptures any more.  Got to move on.  We can only rely on ourselves.  The religious people of the world are leading us to ruin.  Can the world’s 6.5 billion people handle the truth? Certainly not.  But we don’t need every single person to change, just enough to stop us from going over the cliff.

Everything comes from somewhere. There cannot be creation without a creator.

What gives you breath? What rotates the earth?

Conscience itself implies the existance of a Supreme Being.

Without a cause there is no affect. No cause…....no man, no animals, no world.

The vast amount of natural order in the world should cause you to realize it is no coincidence.

What teaches an infant to cry when it is hungry?

A small flower invented itself so that man could create digitalis for sick hearts?

What gave us day and night?

How about our sugar thermostat in our pancreas, without it maintaining its levels on its own we would fall into a coma and die.

How do our kidneys know to filter poison from our blood and leave the good things alone? How does it know one from the other?

Who gave the human tongue the ability to form words and a brain to understand them, but denied it to other animals?

What caused a fetus to grow and develop hands, feet, eyes, and ears, and then know exactly when to come into the world?

Harry Rout, I’m not angry with you.  I was never angry with you.  I don’t lose sleep thinking about you either.  Maybe you’ve developed a smug superiority complex to make up for your low self esteem.

It was fun, but it is becoming clear to me it’s time for me to stop posting here and get a life!  I doubt anyone will miss me anyway.  So ‘bye all I love you!

I was worried your hard drive had gone down Niece…...the more you write the more your lack of education shines through…..but I am glad that I am making you angry, it may just encourage you to read more…..get your nose out of the bible…..to give up the ravings of Jesus and study some Darwinian Evolution. I really feel like I am finally helping you my friend.
I love you too…..as far as machines are able to love that is.

Good luck with that, Niece.
Pleasant dreams….and remember….I’m here for you…..so please keep telling me about all your fears and worries.
Your Friend….....Harry

I loved your article. It has provided me with a wealth of arguments and material that i will use a great deal in the future.

That being said, I must point out one or two fallacies in your line of thinking. Responding to the ‘Teapot argument’ from the responce that you made to various responces here; I would have to say Russel makes a good point, except that he’s creating a ‘strawman fallacy.’ (Ironic, considering that this is Mr Logic) because he has not defined what ‘God’ is.

It’s alright to say God doesn’t exist as long as you can tell me what God is to say he/she/it/whatever doesn’t exist. ‘God’ doesn’t exist…ok.. but WHAT doesn’t exist, again?

That is why it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be religious.

For what it’s worth, I do believe in God.. but to me God is the search for God. Before you say that this is liek the snake eating it’s own tail, I’ll respond by saying that’s exactly what it is and that’s why it’s so powerful. God,in one sense, is simply the search for that which we don’t understand.. and that goes beyond what we can know. The mystery.

You have a problem with religions, which is ok because I do too (I’m agnostic), but whereas I say God is impossible to define and it’s silly to have people ring round and agree terms like obedient thought-slaves you take it a step further and say God -can’t- exist. Which, you cannot possibly know… since you haven’t really defined God.

..and you can’t. Once you define God then peopel can counter your arguments and simply tell you ‘that’s not God.’

Jim (I assume you are also James) - response to 13361.

1. I was using the 14th Century as an example to you because any person of faith from the 14th century could be dropped into this current century and be completely at home in a right wing evangelical church. But would be completely flabergated at everything else. Which just shows how we have progressed in some areas but not others.

2. You cannot use the same logic to prove the bible is God’s Word and deny me the opportunity to use the EXACT SAME LOGIC to prove that I am Thor. Cant be done. This is why I know you are lying about ‘just wanting to see what we have to say’. You are not coming to this thread with an open mind no matter what you say. You see I know the mindset of the evangelical because I used to be one. So I do know much more than you would ever admit. If you say you are coming here to learn that implies you are willing to change your mind. So….are you willing to change your mind? If not you are being disingenious.

3. On telling you what you believe, I was using examples from HISTORY which tell me what Christians believed. They are historical FACTS. Christians used to kill Down’s Syndrome children because they believed they were of the Devil. Historical FACT. If you dont like it too bad.

4. Evolution is a theory. But to get to that high level of scientific theory there must be a large number of scientific facts behind it. Period. It is the scientific studies which prove evolution to be true. I.D. has NO SCIENTIFIC FACTS behind it. Therefore it CANNOT be taught in science class. Evolution does not exclude God nor include God because it is science. Science deals with emperical data. I.D. is not science.

5. On homosexuality. You are wrong Jim. Dead wrong. They have done studies of homosexuals brains and guess what? They are different than heterosexual brains. But there is no basis for believing that God doesnt like homosexuality that you have written about.

Here go see these ....

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125584.900.html

newscientist.com/article/dn9125-clue-to-sexual-attraction-found-in-lesbian-brain.html

I noticed you didnt provide any study links. If you say there are studies please do so or dont bother to challenge me and say there are studies when there are not.

Finally, I noted the #3 portion of your post because you bragged about having proper spelling and MISSPELLED beliefs in the statement above it. Guess I assumed you would get it. My mistake.

You come in here questioning everyone but not really being open Jim/James. See even in this you cannot be honest.

Pascal,

I apologize. I did not mean to suggest that YOU had been venomous. I had changed subjects and was making a generic statement about many of the atheists who have posted on this site. I hereby accept your bouquets.

If the objective here is to make the case for atheism (i.e., a “manifesto”), I would say that insults, condescension, and hateful remarks do nothing to bolster the case for atheism. A lot of the posts here just seem snotty.

As to your answer regarding an eternal universe, simple explanations have their merits, but I also want to employ logic as best I can in the analysis. 

As you say, an eternal universe isn’t necessarily a simple thing. Ockam’s razor (Occam?  Ockham?)  is no help to us here, since we are talking about infinite things, not simple things.

An eternal universe simply is not any more logical than an eternal diety. Both require the same steps of faith.  In my mind, they are virtually indisinguishable for all practical purposes.

But the bottom line is, we simply do not know, and frankly, we will never know. An eternal universe is a quick and easy solution in the absence of a diety, but has no other merit. I would have to reject the eternal universe under the same criteria I would reject diety.

Beyond that, evolution teaches us that simple things evolve into more complex things. Although strickly speaking the origin of the universe is not a concept dealt with in evolutionary theory, evolution stands on how the universe came to be.

It seems to me that the principle of evolution should be useful in talking about how the universe came to be. If there can be no scientific process that describes with this, well, all that is left is agnosticism.

#13363 by druidbros on 7/10 at 6:43 am

I dont believe I was insulting you directly but the general attitude of Christians that they are better than ‘non-believers’.

If you knew the tenets of Christ-ianity you would know that is a false assumption.  Christ followers are no better than nonbelievers, just saved.  We are all sinners….
Just because we choose to not live in the 14th century does not mean we are to be pitied. Quite the opposite.

It was the 1st century through the 3rd in which Christ-ianity was cemented on the doctrine established by the apostles.  Not the 14th.

Also, the bible is not the Word of God because there is no emperical proof. The Bible itself says it is the Word of God but that is not proof. It would be like me saying I was Thor,God of Thunder and insisting it was true because I said it. Not logical.

I can logically prove that you are not Thor, God of Thunder.  So, just because you can’t prove something doesn’t mean it is valid?  That is not logical.

Please dont presuppose how I think or feel. This is another of your faults.

I base my presupositions on what you write.  If I am wrong, I give you the means to correct it.  It’s called dialogue. 

You said….
“ 3.  simply dont care to revise beleifs that were given to you without contest.

This bothers me.  I am here, with correct spelling,”

I am not sure I would be bragging about my spelling James. I know I am a terrible typist so I never claim to be infallible.

Here is your presupostion….I was talking about the statement Number 3.

You said….
“Do all atheists attack others who don’t accept their views so viciously?  I don’t believe I have;
1.  attempted to insult your intelligence.
2.  ridicule your (for lack of better term) beliefs.
3.  called you childish.”

Again James I call em like I see them. Have you ever told someone they were going to Hell because they choose not to believe like you do? Now thats vicious! If you dont like non-believers talking back you might want to go somewhere else.

As I have said in other posts, I am here to hear the other side of the story.  I don’t do anything as I stated above, I see no reason if you wish for logical dialogue for that to be your basis for argument.  Yes, I have told someone that this is what the Bible said, which I believe is true, and this is the method that was provided to prevent that occurrence.  I don’t see how that is vicious when it was man who did it, and someone took the cost upon their shoulders.  But, that is your opinion.

As for insulting your intellegence do you believe Intellegent Design should be taught in schools?

Yes I do.  Simply because EVOLUTION is a theory but is put forward as fact, which it is not.  We pride ourselves in allowing our students to form their own opinions based on the theories presented yet fail to tell them all the theories.

If so I take issue with teaching a concept (it doesnt even get to be called a theory because that takes emperical scientific evidence) in a science class which is crap?

So do I.

I dont believe the Earth is flat, the Earth is the center of the universe, or that Mongoloid children are of the devil and must be killed.

But they taught in schools back in the early days of science that the earth was flat.  So Columbus and the other early explorers who proved that wrong did so because of why??  They heard different theories and went out to prove or disprove the ones they accepted.

But Christians believed these things.

Now you are telling me what I believe.  I believe that Mongolian children should be killed??????

And the day will come when we have overwhelming evidence that homosexuality is genetic. What will the church say then? OOPS?

They’ve already proven, ohhhh, guess you don’t think that science is good science, that homosexuality is environmental.  Also, no…that would not be the case.  I believe, even if homosexuality is ‘genetic’ that it is against the faith to act upon it.  I have things that are ‘genetic’ and I don’t act upon them because it is a sin.  I have the ‘alcholic gene’ but I don’t drink anymore.

Just like alcoholics? So dont try and act all reasonable James it aint gonna work.

I don’t have to “act” reasonable.  I just would like to understand what the bashing on people of my faith is.  I don’t lump you atheists together in your assumptions.

Thanks….
Jim

To James - comment #13190.

I dont believe I was insulting you directly but the general attitude of Christians that they are better than ‘non-believers’. THAT is the true insult. Just because we choose to not live in the 14th century does not mean we are to be pitied. Quite the opposite.

Also, the bible is not the Word of God because there is no emperical proof. The Bible itself says it is the Word of God but that is not proof. It would be like me saying I was Thor,God of Thunder and insisting it was true because I said it. Not logical.

Please dont presuppose how I think or feel. This is another of your faults.

You said….
” 3.  simply dont care to revise beleifs that were given to you without contest.

This bothers me.  I am here, with correct spelling,”

I am not sure I would be bragging about my spelling James. I know I am a terrible typist so I never claim to be infallible.

You said….
“Do all atheists attack others who don’t accept their views so viciously?  I don’t believe I have;
1.  attempted to insult your intelligence.
2.  ridicule your (for lack of better term) beliefs.
3.  called you childish.”

Again James I call em like I see them. Have you ever told someone they were going to Hell because they choose not to believe like you do? Now thats vicious! If you dont like non-believers talking back you might want to go somewhere else.

As for insulting your intellegence do you believe Intellegent Design should be taught in schools?
If so I take issue with teaching a concept (it doesnt even get to be called a theory because that takes emperical scientific evidence) in a science class which is crap? I dont believe the Earth is flat, the Earth is the center of the universe, or that Mongoloid children are of the devil and must be killed. But Christians believed these things. And the day will come when we have overwhelming evidence that homosexuality is genetic. What will the church say then? OOPS?
Just like alcoholics? So dont try and act all reasonable James it aint gonna work.

Ed w,
What science do I read?  Oh yeah, that’s right.  As soon as a scientist speaks of creationism, he’s not a scientist anymore.
What about Newton?  What about the earliest scientist who spoke of God in the midst of the scientific evidence.
Saw that your spelling seemed to improve.  Also, I don’t lump all you atheists into one mold and expect the same respect.  All believers, a vast majority of them, love to hear a “logical” argument.  Problem is, we don’t often hear one.

thank you sam.  i can’t wait for the release of “letter to a christian nation”.

RICH S WRITES:

Atheism, at least as represented in these posts, appears to be nothing but a hate fest, dripping with moral certainty, but with no substantive ideas.  And when I question too closely, the venom sure flows. 

I REPLY:

I cannot speak for other atheists on this list, but I truly hope that I have NOT given you the impression that my kind of atheism is any kind of *hate* fest! On the contrary I myself *love* nothing better than to converse and argue with intelligent theists!

100% venom-free!

Yours in the spirit of honest inquiry!

Pascal

RICH S WRITES:

I can see no difference between an eternal universe and an eternal god.  You people certainly haven’t given me any intellectual or scientific reason to choose atheism. Agnosticism, maybe, but not atheism.

I REPLY:

But there’s of course a world of difference between the two, at least from the point of view of Ockam’s razor. Positing an eternal universe simply means that, in the infinite past, there is simply more of the *same*, namely a universe.

But positing an eternal *being* with powers to create something out of nothing is utterly outside of *any* of our experience. Posting such a being presumably can help explain the origin of the universe, but you’re left with having to explain how such a being with such powers can possibly come into existence - or why it should have existed eternally. An eternal universe as opposed to an eternal being is obviously the *simpler* hypothesis to entertain.

Recall from basic science class that the general aim is to explain the *complex* through the *simpler* until we reach rock bottom simplicity. But explaining the origins of the universe, a very complex thing, is done by positing an even *more* complex thing, namely an eternal being that can create something out of nothing! Why not keep it simple by positing an eternal universe?

Cheers and felicitation to all!

Peter Atwood writes about me:

You explain to us that your “reason” for considering the universe eternal is that this makes it easy to think what you want.  Some religious people believe that God made the universe 6000 years ago because this makes it easy for them to think what they want.  Could you explain to us the difference in your logic?

I RESPOND:

Heavens no! That the universe (or a sequence of universes) is *eternal* happens to be the best *inference* from basic facts of physics (namely that *nothing* can either come into or go out of existence. There is only *change*). I simply make an editorial note that I happen to find this inference *personally* satisfying simply because it obviates any further questions about any alleged *origins* of the universe. Why? Because an eternal universe simply does not require an origin that needs to be started by some being or other.

Cheers,

Pascal Bercker

quoting Rich, “What a bizzare rant.  Have you tried therapy?”

Response:  The only thing I see that is bizarre is you rich.  It’s not my fault if you are so dumbed down that you couldn’t read my post.

Indeed, I had guessed that you needed to see a shrink…. There you go describing yourself again and living up to my predictions 100%!

Get a life already.  You are a major bore.

Maggincat,

What in the world are you talking about?  Who was talking about Bush, Republicans, or Christianity?  We were talking about where stuff came from.

What a bizzare rant.  Have you tried therapy?

Harry Rout, if “hardware” is not “genetic” then what is it?  Maybe you should more clearly define your terms.

Every time I disagree with you, you accuse me of being “uneducated” as if there was only one conclusion to be drawn from all the information available in the world.  And I’M the one who’s dogmatic?

It seems to me you believe the only things that are real are those you can sense with your eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin, and possibly measure with an instrument.

Actually, just the opposite is true.  None of what you experience is real, it’s a dream, and you create your own reality.  Yes, you do, whether you know it or not, you’re that powerful!

If you want to keep believing you are nothing but a machine, go ahead, I don’t care.  If you’d rather break out of your limited, five-sense prison, just remember: you are not at the mercy of a cold and uncaring universe!

You ARE important, the universe DOES love you, and I love you too, even though I don’t like you very much.  And that goes for everyone posting here, especially the least pleasant ones, because the most unlovable people are the same ones who need love the most.  So good luck with that….

RE: #13194, dated 7/07/06, Lin:
Thanks for your “down to earth” comments on nontheism vs. the
constant, born & born again Christian verbiage in America, worse under Bush than ever before & perpetually, painfully poured down the national esophagus by bigots, hypocrites & politicians who are both.  But I suspect Sam Harris prefers disagreements that are not disagreeable—both on THE END of FAITH and with each other.  Lin’s observations are relevant for theists & nontheists alike, or for other humans who prefer atheist, agnostic or skeptic as their label.  Ben Franklin, yet again, has sound advice for all centuries:
    “Be civil to ALL, sociable to MANY, familiar with FEW, friend to
    ONE, enemy to NONE”; and from ancient Persia: “The highest
    wisdom [always] is kindness”.  Finally Khayyam has left an
    immortal fact:  “The moving Finger writes & having writ/
    Moves on nor all your Piety or Wit/ Can lure it back to cancel
    Half a Line/ Nor all your Tears wash-out a Word of it”.

james,

my statements are a fight out of frustration of the theologically dominated world we live in.  people killing people over whose god is right.  thats the type of crap that religion yields.  it has done some good thingsm, yes.  but not ONE person deserves to die over someone elses belief in the supernatural.  sorry.

also, if you cant understand how “chaos can produce complexity” check probability theory.  its not evidence of design when someone rolls one “six” with 40 dice.  maybe, it IS evidence of design when someone rolls forty “six"es with 40 dice. 

also, science does not by any means lean toward the idea of design.  it has thoroughly established the chaos that governs our world.  i dont know what science you are reading?

also, someone who attacks someone’s spelling of words generally indicates a position of weakness… nice work though.

in any case, i was trying to offend.  it seems, from my experience, that beleivers dont much care for arguments using logic - so i thought i would try something new :o)

Actually Rich,  You seem to be the one obsessed.  Typical Repuglican BS….. trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.  Anything to take attention away from the actions of the corrupt thugs who make up his party.

They call themselves Christians as they go about their cold blooded murder and their bloddy occupation of a country that never did anything to us.

I wrote a comment for a rabid righty in the old NY Times forums (Abuzz) & have found a number of occasions to use it.  It certainly fits rich:

Anytime a Republican/conservative tries to describe a Democrat/Liberal he always….ALWAYS describes himself.

I have one comment for the so-called Christians, especially George Bush, regarding their flaunting their so-called religion too:

If George Bush is a Christian, I am the Virgin Mother. 

My kids chuckle at that one.

Gotta say, though, that G. Bile has done some pretty good work. At least he sounds like he’s given some serious thought to the issue.

Pascal,

I Haven’t posited a diety.  You and maggincat keep bringing one up.  Why are you people so hung up on god?  It’s seems like an obsession.

What I am starting to dislike about atheists is the same thing that I dislike about religious people:  Their smug arrogance about their beliefs, their unwillingness to give a straight answer to a direct question, and their inability to think outside their paradigms.

I can see no difference between an eternal universe and an eternal god.  You people certainly haven’t given me any intellectual or scientific reason to choose atheism. Agnosticism, maybe, but not atheism.

Atheism, at least as represented in these posts, appears to be nothing but a hate fest, dripping with moral certainty, but with no substantive ideas.  And when I question too closely, the venom sure flows. 

What a pseudo-intellectual waste of time.

Peter,
Thank you.  I get it now.  And thank you for answering my question about the “hot big bang” theory.
James

James #13190 and #13191,

The only competition I’m aware of for a universe with a beginning in time is a string theory explanation that posits an infinite number of universes.  I have seen but not read a book that argues that case.

As for my earlier sentence, no you don’t get it at all.  Go back to comment #13130 and read it to the end and get the context if you want.

Religion is an excuse to kill - to hate - to promote greed as a god (whether love of money, land, or your religion above another) - to place one’s self above others - beit Christian, Muslim or Jew. 

Yes, you are correct.  Religion is man’s structure for committing man’s greed against another. 
I am not religious.  I am a follower of Jesus Christ…hence the name Christian.  I am an American, because I was born in this land.
If you look at all those points you made, they were man-made excuses, not what is biblically spoke of.  And I don’t force myself on anyone but neither will I accept someone trashing on me.  You can believe what you wish because this country was founded on that right.  My brothers in the Armed Forces protected that right.  But, why does everyone else want to bash on the Christians? 
I accept each and every one of the millions of people on this planet.  I will express my views, listen to yours and go to sleep at night content in the knowledge I have.
Simple.

It’s time that I own up…..I am responsible for all the evil in the world…..God and I are really good mates and I know his weakness….he loves Jack Daniels and Coke and I’ve had him stuck in a bar for quite some time now….the poor blokes been smashed for evermore….he just loves getting off his face at “Joe’s Bar and Grille”......he really loves to sing that song….how’s it go…...“Get down off that cross, we need the wood.
Hey….what can I say.
Oh yeah…..he’s the worst pool player I’ve ever seen…..gotta go….it’s my round!

Why must non-believers justify their stance?

You either believe or you don’t.

Not once in my life have I ever tried to force, coerce or persuade someone to give up on their beliefs in order to succomb to mine - and I loathe having it in reverse.  I’m 43 years old - I’ve never, even as a child, believed any differently - it simply isn’t there.  (Thank you, Dr. Seuss - for your Star bellied Sneetches.  I got it.  When I was three.)

People pity me (they don’t mind telling me) my lack of faith.  I’m prevailed upon to attend religious functions, I’m prayed for and cast as the devil.  Not nice - but socially acceptable.  I don’t need, want or wish for religion.  Any religion.

I have faith in myself.

I have lived my life in a guarded “hostile environment” because I don’t buy the goods.  I don’t have an atheist tattoo on my forehead.  I haven’t until recently referred to myself as such.  I’m not a zealot.  I just don’t attend church and politely decline offers to do so.  I don’t say “amen!” when prayers are concluded and I’m in the group.  I don’t usually engage in argument or debate - its akin to being locked up in a drunk-tank as far as I’m concerned.  There’s no reason.  Yet most people feel compelled to “win me over” and birth me again.

I may as well be a leper.  woooosh!  There goes the “judge not” bit or the “it’s between you and your maker” platitudes.  I’m given about as much credence as a child-molester.

Truth is, I’m just a normal human being that’s so very tired of being ostrasized by a “loving Christian community”.  Forced to succomb in all facets of life to a belief system in which I take no part.  Feeling as though I’m two steps away from being burned at the stake.  I live in a Religious Dictatorship - and I’m an American.

No.  I’m not going to heaven to walk the streets of gold.  I don’t need fear, enticement or a list of commandments plastered on a bumper sticker to know the difference between right and wrong, or to choose the former over the latter.

I’m no scientist.  No scholar.  I’m as average as average gets.  I don’t require an explanation on the creation or beginning of the universe in order to displace my lack of belief in a higher power.  Yes, I think mankind is a fluke of nature.  Lucked out at the right place at the right time.  Why this isn’t acceptable is beyond me.  Complete and utter happenstance.

They asked me “Why?”

I answered . . . “Because.”

I don’t belive the Bible is any holier than the Egyptian book of the dead.  Or the Tibetan book of the dead.  Or the Iliad.  Or Charlotte’s Web.  They are words, words created by men, edited and revised and updated to suit the tastes of the current fashion.  Translated again and again until what once was is no more.  If they are the word of God, then God must have been a man - since the Bible was written by men?  Edited by men?  In the language of men?  How can you edit the word of God if the words are sacrosanct?  Decide what belongs, what is viable?  In doing so - aren’t you shooting yourself in the foot from the outset?  How can man translate for God unless he is God?  pfft!  Therefore I am God?

Arguments based on “the Bible says.. ” and “it’s against God” are laughable on their face - TO ME.  They are not reasonable and require no thought or reason.  I find them to be nothing more than a cheap and easy out.

Basic reasoning is not Biblical (nor is it the sole domain of philosophers and scientists).  It is not relegated to the halls of the Ivy League.  One needn’t use big words and reference the thoughts of others in order to have their own.

I don’t care what Jesus said.  The Bible isn’t even a great read.  His words have about as much import to me as the words of Hammurabi (innocent until proven guilty).  Or Akhenaten - the heretic big daddy of monotheism.  Or Thag (of Far Side fame - which I enjoyed immensely!).  Just because written language and literacy haven’t always been a chisel or keystroke away doesn’t mean the thoughts and concepts contained in the Bible didn’t exist previously for crying out loud.

I live in a nation that - idolizes everything from cars to big screen televisions, depicts its saviour on the big screen for a profit, invokes the name of the almighty in order to give testimony in courts of law, worships the dollar and scads of “graven images”, just check the back of your bucks - already has a problem with sticking to the basic tenents of any of the monotheistic religions and has no right making public policy for anyone, anywhere based on religious doctrine.  It is inherently wrong.  It is illogical.

I am part of the public . . .  this is the 21st century (not 1,800 BC) and using archaic justifications to control populations, maintain order and provide palatable excuses for everything from slavery to war just make me grit my teeth.  Nothing turns me off in a politician more than the use of religion.

Religion is an excuse to kill - to hate - to promote greed as a god (whether love of money, land, or your religion above another) - to place one’s self above others - beit Christian, Muslim or Jew.  (I really don’t see hordes of Buddhist monks with AK-47s trying to off the Hindu masses.)  No wars have been started in the name of atheism -  yet the KKK use the Bible promote themselves as Christian, Nazis (neo-nazis and skinheads) use the Bible, the Jihadists use the Koran… Crusades, inquisitions.. “God is on OUR side ” . . .  “It’s the END TIMES!” . . .  Holy chicken-little, Batman!

Give us all a break and keep your religions in your hearts.  If that’s not good enough, what IS the point?

(Isn’t that what all the religious people tell the homosexuals when they search for acceptance?  Don’t shove it down our throats?  Keep it out of our schools?  Do it behind closed doors?  Don’t ask, don’t tell?)

What works on the one hand should certainly work on the other.

(And until someone comes to me and removes the fat from my thighs with a stern look and a whack on the head - I won’t call anything a miracle.  I don’t believe in them.)

Peter Attwood,
“Physicists generally think it does - hence the hot Big Bang theory.”  Is this theory different from the Big Bang theory?  Or was that just an adjective for it? (hot). 
Wondering if there is another theory about the creation of universe.
Thanks

putative-1 : commonly accepted or supposed,
2 : assumed to exist or to have existed.  Okay, so I get it.  You are saying that believers who commonly accept or suppose that the Bible is true also support a God that is daring?

Druidbros,
Please explain to me why the Bible cannot be the inspired word of God.  I would appreciate hearing your views on the subject.

ed w.,
Your presupposition that I must be;
1.  not very intelligent.

2.  have no capacity for reason, or rationality.

3.  simply dont care to revise beleifs that were given to you without contest.

This bothers me.  I am here, with correct spelling, to increase my knowledge, which violates rule #2, am intelligent enough to explore all viewpoints and form my own, which violates #1 and #3.  Also, these “beliefs” (correct spelling) have not been handed to me without contest.  This very website shows that there is debate about them.  The multitude of sites debating my beliefs, and its foundations abound on the net.
“In a world where science has all but solved many of the “great mysteries” of the world, there is little reason to introduce the existence of any supernatural beings - sorry.  it just doesnt add up.”  I can’t understand and I look for the more astute posters on this blog to help me (which is why I come here) to understand how that statement can be truth.  Science did not start out opposed to “religion” and it seems more scientists are coming to a view that there is order that had to take place to enable the universe to happen.  I cannot get past Darwin’s statement on irreducible complexity.  Biologists have shown the human body to have reached that point, haven’t they?  With the flegum (spelling my fault).  The three parts that cannot exist without the others?  I cannot understand how chaos can produce such order. 

“i hope to think that all these people will grow up one day - but such a prospect doesnt seem likely.  i stopped believing in santa clause a long time ago.”  I too stopped believing in Santa Claus, at least the myth of it, long ago.  I discovered the “truth” behind the myth and could see how it has morphed into the ‘celebration’ it is today.  I take offense at your decision that I need to “grow up”, with such a prospect being “unlikely”.  Do all atheists attack others who don’t accept their views so viciously?  I don’t believe I have;
1.  attempted to insult your intelligence.
2.  ridicule your (for lack of better term) beliefs.
3.  called you childish.

Usually a person who has to make statements degrading another human being fights from a position of weakness; either in their cause or in their knowledge of that cause.
If I am wrong with what I believe, that does not negate my level of intelligence or my logic.  It just opposes yours.  I am not here to “evangelize” the “non-believers” or “lost souls” of atheists.  I am truthfully here to understand your views, why you believe them so strongly, what supportive evidence you have, and see how my views/beliefs/evidence, that I have found on my own stand up in argument to them. 
But, I don’t think I’ve been as caustic in my opinion as you have, ed w.
Sincerely,
James

The ‘first stuff’ question has been handled in various ways. Here is some more ‘anti-supernatural biased’ “thinking”.
If an ‘uncaused Creator’ is the beginning of it all, then how do we know what He created. Maybe He created a bunch of .. creators. And maybe, after many generations, some creator, who had hobbies like cultivating roses (supernatural roses off course) and pyrotechnics, mixed in his backyard some putzah and some anti-putzah and loo and behold: a BIG BANG! Then after watching it for several billenia, he got tired of the fireworks and went back to his roses.
Do we have a way of KNOWING that this is not true, or is this where the ‘holy bookS’ kick in ?
By the way, an eternal universe is fine with me. But, time and matter being closely related, ‘eternal’ may be meaningless.

YHVH IS a physics formula describing an ongoing cycle of creation. It’s not the name of an omnipotent dude who gives a shit about you one way or the other. There’s really no need to anthropomorphize such concepts, but some people need their daddy. It doesn’t address where the first stuff came from, though.
World without end, amen.

Quoting: Rich S>>>>>“I can see now that you’re not up to this challenge, and your arrogance towards me can only be a smokescreen to hide your insecurities.”

Wrong again Rich… It simply means that I am not going to waste my type exchanging insults with you.

I’m quite content knowing that it’s a waste of time to believe bad science fiction.

You are free to believe what you please about me or the universe.  I frankly, don’t give a damn what you think about my opinion or me.  Got that?

As for ‘your’ insecurities, I hope you get over whatever is bothing you.

Pascal Berker #13153,

You explain to us that your “reason” for considering the universe eternal is that this makes it easy to think what you want.  Some religious people believe that God made the universe 6000 years ago because this makes it easy for them to think what they want.  Could you explain to us the difference in your logic?

only 4 percent of the entire surface of the earth is livible by humans…  that is a pretty major design flaw.  in any case, if god made the world and everything in it, then he surely made disease… or do you just mean that god made the world and all the “good” things in it?  then, lets assume he didnt.  if he is omnipotent, why not cure them?

any respectable scientist will tell you that our being here is not by design at all, but by our own ability to adapt and EVOLVE.  there i said it.

what is wrong with applying human standards to god now?  thats what has been done since his invention.

Magginkat,

It is odd to me that you consider my question silly.  Can there be any more crucial of a question for atheists?  If there is no god as you say, then the origin of the universe requires a scientific explanation.

But you are so hung up on god that you cannot even consider questions like this without referring to god.  Are you a closet theist?

I can see now that you’re not up to this challenge, and your arrogance towards me can only be a smokescreen to hide your insecurities.

RICH writes:

> So, it seems that your thesis is that the universe is eternal?

> Whether it is god that is eternal or the universe doesn’t seem to matter. After all, it’s the same premise and the same result. I guess that makes you a theist of some sort, doesn’t it?

> What I now need to have explained is why your belief in the eternality of the universe should be chosen over the eternality of a diety?

MY REPLY:

The elementary point is that if the universe (or universes) is eternal there is simply *no* need to posit a deity! There’s nothing for a deity to do if the universe, in one form or another, has *always* existed.

I find it satisfying because not only will the universe (or some form of it)stretch *infinitely* into the future, it also *infinitely* stretches into the past.

To James #13138:

My sentence was
‘For Bible “believers” to flout this statement and then claim to be believing God is audacious indeed.’  It’s not about God being audacious; it’s about putative Bible believers being so.

To Thomas #13140:

To not be able to figure something out yourself is quite different from having no rational confirmation once it’s revealed.  That’s the case in daily life, in any classroom or when they show the new guy where the john is. 

Indeed the plural unity taught in the doctrine of the Trinity is quite evident in our common experience.  For instance, love and truth are clearly distinct, but they are clearly one in that one without the other is not possible, and such plural unity is the case with other moral qualities.  Such evidences do not mean we can work it out for ourselves, but they show, once we’re shown it, that it makes some sense.  This is the sort of thing the Bible means when it says the gospel was revealed apart from the Law but is witnessed by it.  The bottom line is that on Paul’s word everything that can be known about God is evident in creation; hence if it’s not, it cannot be known about God, and has therefore not been revealed to us.

And on #13145:

You need to support your assertion that physics says nothing about whether the creation is eternal.  Physicists generally think it does - hence the hot Big Bang theory.  The only alternative in physics right now to a universe that started at a definite time in the past is an infinite collection of universes.

Pascal Bercker #13090,

Let me make my view clearer.  When I wrote that the subject of physics needs no explanation, I did not mean that the existence of things in general requires no explanation.  What I meant is that from the point-of-view of physics (which is concerned exclusively with movable being) there is nothing inherent in the nature of its subject to indicate that there must have been a first in the order of the subject of this science.  From the perspective of a higher science – that of being in general – i.e. metaphysics, a cause of things in general is certainly called for.  Thus there can be no physical argument against an eternal universe.  But that is not the same thing as a self-caused or uncaused universe. 

You have confused the temporal with the ontological character of the universe.  If it has the character of an effect, even an infinite effect, it still requires a cause.

Peter Attwood #13130,

You misinterpret me.  I do not presuppose that reason and revelation are “mutually exclusive.”  I said nothing of the sort.  What I do presuppose is that there are certain truths revealed in the Bible – such as the Trinity and the union of humanity and divinity in Christ – that exceed the comprehension of the finite mind.  If there are not certain truths that exceed the comprehension of our created minds, then why a revelation?  We can figure out things on our own.

audacious
a : intrepidly daring : ADVENTUROUS <an audacious mountain climber> b : recklessly bold : RASH <an audacious maneuver>
2 : contemptuous of law, religion, or decorum : INSOLENT
3 : marked by originality and verve

Which meaning did you mean for “God is audacious indeed”?

Comment #13133 by Atheista on 7/06 at 11:54 am

Tell an untrained puppy not to pee in the house and he will do it anyway. He has no concept of right and wrong. Tell Adam and Eve no to eat from the tree, and what do you expect? You punish the puppy so he will learn. But to damn all of mankind for generations just is not appropriate for the act, especially from an “intelligent creator.” Why create imperfect beings and then punish them for making mistakes?
http://www.atheistactivist.org

Funny, it wasn’t imperfect beings that God made but beings with free will

Regarding 13089 by Pascal Bercker:

So, it seems that your thesis is that the universe is eternal?

Whether it is god that is eternal or the universe doesn’t seem to matter. After all, it’s the same premise and the same result. I guess that makes you a theist of some sort, doesn’t it?

What I now need to have explained is why your belief in the eternality of the universe should be chosen over the eternality of a diety?

I must say that your explanation is entirely unsatisfying to me from logical and scientific standpoint.

Tell an untrained puppy not to pee in the house and he will do it anyway. He has no concept of right and wrong. Tell Adam and Eve no to eat from the tree, and what do you expect? You punish the puppy so he will learn. But to damn all of mankind for generations just is not appropriate for the act, especially from an “intelligent creator.” Why create imperfect beings and then punish them for making mistakes?
http://www.atheistactivist.org

Comment #13119 by ed w on 7/06 at 10:19 am

Ed,
God didn’t create disease, it is a product of what man lost in the fall.  If you look at the genesis account, man lived way longer than he does now.  Why?
God doesn’t need a cause.  To downgrade God to human standards to try and reason it out doesn’t work.  Can man create the systems that exists in nature?  In the universe?  No, even in things that man creates, there are flaws, errors, and it is never “perfect”.
I just don’t appreciate someone telling me I’m stupid because I believe something they cannot grasp.

Thomas (#13105) said:
“Faith has a reason.  It is divine revelation.  However, certain things are revealed precisely because they are not evident to unaided reason.  If you want to defend the Christian point-of-view with the notion that there are evident (i.e. truths apparent to the naked intellect) reasons for every belief, good luck.  I am sure our friends on this blog will help you see the absurdity of that position.  It is disingenuous to collapse faith into science and pretend that believers ultimately take nothing on divine authority alone.”

This presupposes that divine revelation and reason are mutually exclusive.  The reason for faith in God is no doubt divine revelation.  But as Paul pointed out in Romans 1, this revelation is given to all and is revealed as true precisely because it accords with reason, which is a God-given faculty designed to confirm or falsify what is presented to us.  I’m not demanding that either atheists or religious rejectors of reason agree with me here - just pointing out that this is the obvious teaching of the Bible.  James, for instance, writes that the wisdom of God is “reasonable.”  Jesus defended his statements and refuted his adversaries by being reasonable and showing them not to be - on their own terms.

Baron von Kekule figured out the benzene ring because he dreamed of snakes while dozing in front of the fire and one grabbed its own tail, but he understood that this needed other evidence before he presented his assertion to the world.

Accordingly, the Bible makes it clear that those claiming to believe it must answer to demands for a reasonable accounting for what we believe, and that the claim that something is true even though unreasonable is completely foreign to biblical thought.  As it is written, “The sluggard is wiser in his own eyes than seven that can give a reason.”  For Bible “believers” to flout this statement and then claim to be believing God is audacious indeed.

Quoting Rich Sherlock:  “Magginkat,

Excuse me, don’t get all indignant. I asked a question, and I have a right to a thoughtful answer and not go off on a tangent. If you’re too afraid to answer, maybe someone else is willing. The question was, “How did something come from nothing?  Before the Big Bang, before anything existed, where did the first stuff come from?”
..............................................

You are a strange person to think that two simple sentences are a tangent. 

I’m not afraid.  I simply see no sense in answering your silly question if you cannot tell me where your god comes from.

To me, it’s very simple.  There is no Santa Claus, no Easter bunny and no god.

james,

what kind of design is found in cancer, the plauge, etc.  if i were to unleash such diseases, i would undoubtedly be punished.  god did a great job “designing” the world… with all the suffering and death.  he should be fired.

also, if everything must have a cause, then so must god.  if there are exceptions to that rule, then why not just assume the universe did not itself have a cause?  its simply logic.  there is no reason that god doesnt need a cause, but the universe does.

Sam harris looks like ben stiller

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)

Druidbros #13070 wrote: “No, physics does not take anything as a given. Thats why its called a science. But to say it is not equipped to answer the ultimate origin of things is disingenious. Its a science and it has the capacity to answer it if we have emperical evidence. You reached too far for that one.”

The definition of a science is not incompatible with taking something as a given.  In fact, most every science does this.  For example, architecture assumes the truths discovered in geometry.  Medicine does not seek to demonstrate a difference between organic and non-organic life.  Biology has done this and provided medicine with its premises.  Physics does not seek to distinguish corporeal from non-corporeal being.  Metaphysics has done this and provides physics with its premises.  The conclusions of one science provide the premises of another.

The modern notion that mathematical physics has the power to explain the universe of being assumes – without justification – that the universe of being is limited to the subject of physics.  It is a circular argument.  More scientists, professional or amateur, should study philosophy.

Peter Attwood #13056

Since the purpose of this website is for atheists and agnostics to express their views and obviously accidentally for theists to attempt to respond to them, I will not create a distraction by engaging in a extended debate with you over the nature of faith.  There are other blogs for that.  However, I owe you a comment on your interpretation of my words. 

You wrote: “Thomas (#12997) uses “faith” in the sense of believing what you feel like when you can’t give a good reason, which is what most on every side stipulate.  But this isn’t what’s meant in the Bible by faith; it’s what the Bible calls “presumption,” and its consequences can be lethal… Deciding to arbitrarily believe something without a reason is fit only for matters that make no difference.”

I did not define faith as any kind of arbitrary belief.  Nor did I define faith as an emotional response to the lack of an evident reason.  Faith has a reason.  It is divine revelation.  However, certain things are revealed precisely because they are not evident to unaided reason.  If you want to defend the Christian point-of-view with the notion that there are evident (i.e. truths apparent to the naked intellect) reasons for every belief, good luck.  I am sure our friends on this blog will help you see the absurdity of that position.  It is disingenuous to collapse faith into science and pretend that believers ultimately take nothing on divine authority alone.

Rich Sherlock,
You pose a good question and I put it to you that God always existed, therefore He was able to create what He wanted to create.
You might say that’s not an argument, it predisposes a set belief.  But, if God did not always exist, then how did the matter that created the “Big Bang” come into existence?
Science is not moving further from God, but closer.  There are too many things that rely on design and I find it insulting that I am assumed to be stupid because I see order in the universe than I cannot logically believe came from chaos, or dumb luck.
Just my thoughts.

THOMAS WRITES:

From the perspective of natural science (what used to be called philosophical physics) there must be posited an eternal world.  This is so because physics depends upon the existence of an empirical object.  Either the first “stuff” is eternal – and thus needs no explanation – or its cause transcends the subject of physics (i.e. is not empirical) and thus is not explainable on the basis of the principles of this science.

THE FIRST DISJUNCT IS CORRECT - NAMELY THAT PHYSICS QUITE NATURALLY POSITS AN *ETERNAL* UNIVERSE (OR UNIVERSES). AS YOU POINT OUT THIS THEREFORE NEEDS *NO* EXPLANATION. YOU WERE DOING FINE BUT THEN YOU SUDDENLY SLIDE BACK AND WRITE:

In other words, physics – by its very constitution – is not equipped to answer the question of the ultimate origin of things.  Rather, it must simply take empirical being as a given.

PRECISELY BECAUSE THERE *ETERNALLY* HAS BEEN SOMETHING OR OTHER, THERE IS *NOTHING* TO BE EXPLAINED, AND CERTAINLY NOT ANY ALLEGED *ULTIMATE* ORIGIN OF ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. IT IS A BRUTE (AND SATISFYING!) EMPIRICAL TRUTH IN NEED OF NO FURTHER EXPLANATION!

From the point of view of physics absolutely *nothing* can ultimately be destroyed or be put out of existence. There is only *change*, the most extreme being that the bi-directional conversion of matter into energy and back into matter again. Given that both matter and energy do currently exist, the only logical conclusion is that some *form* of energy and matter have *always* existed. The big bang is but the furthest back that *we* can go back, but there is *no* need to suppose that the big bang came out of *nothing*.

This means that at least with respect to any alleged *first* cause there is simply no reason to look for it, and therefore no need to posit some supernatural first cause like God to get the universe going. An eternal series of big bangs and bing crunches is all that is needed.

Note carefully that if stuff of one kind or another has *always* existed, it becomes nothing but a brute fact in need of *no* explanation whatsoever.

It’s remarkably silly to claim that physics or any other science takes nothing as a given.  That’s in the nature of thought - most obviously in mathematics, but in all else as well.
Some of the more obvious things that all sciences take as givens:
-There’s a real world out there that we observe; we’re not just dreaming it.
-The rules are the same everywhere in the universe.
-What we observe doesn’t lie about itself.  Rocks look old because they are, and we remember things or have records because they happened.  God didn’t make us 10 seconds ago with all these memories and evidences of everything that happened long ago.

These are all biblical ideas, by the way, but people don’t believe them because they’re in the Bible.  The Bible teaches them, in my view, because that’s the way it is.

Magginkat,

Excuse me, don’t get all indignant. I asked a question, and I have a right to a thoughtful answer and not go off on a tangent.

If you’re too afraid to answer, maybe someone else is willing.

The question was, “How did something come from nothing?  Before the Big Bang, before anything existed, where did the first stuff come from?”

On comment # 12997 by Thomas said…

“In other words, physics – by its very constitution – is not equipped to answer the question of the ultimate origin of things.  Rather, it must simply take empirical being as a given.”

No, physics does not take anything as a given. Thats why its called a science. But to say it is not equipped to answer the ultimate origin of things is disingenious. Its a science and it has the capacity to answer it if we have emperical evidence. You reached too far for that one.

Thomas said….

“The Big-Bang hypothesis offers physicists an ultimate term for their investigations of the series of empirical events that make up the history of the universe as we know it, but if it is taken as an explanation of the ultimate origin of things from the perspective of their material existence, it is being misunderstood.  To hope that physics will one day solve this problem is simply a confusion of logical categories.”

Physics does not take the big bang as an explanation for the ultimate origin of things.
It is simply an emperical explanation for how the universe got where it is today. It does not include nor exclude the possibility of a supreme being. Please do not include beliefs as a ‘logical category’.  Trying to make science speak to personal beliefs will not work. However the opposite is also true. Faith/belief in a supreme being is not scientific. Simply because it is not a provable postulate. This also works when the religious want to talk about Intellegent Design. There is not any science behind the idea. It does not even reach the level of a competing theory. Therefore it should not even be taught in a science class. 

Thomas said….
“Atheists must argue, whether they adopt an eternal or a temporal universe, ultimately for an uncaused effect – which shows the irrational consequences of their position.”

Dont tell me what I believe! My position is not as illogical as yours as a Christian. I dont believe in a god who tells you to stone your children if they dont behave. Or a god who asks you to sacrifice all your life and then says that your payment will be AFTER you die. Now THATS not logical. So be careful Thomas when you go telling other people that what they believe is not logical. (if your nice I will explain to you how the bible is NOT the word of god.)

frank yer immortal now baby http://www.5gigawattlizard.net/?p=391

enjoying your mind thanks for sharing..

Re: Comment #12997 by Thomas on 7/05

Much truth is hypothetical and involves the subjunctive to posit the basis of belief. One can not carry out an experiment to determine the answers to the questions, ‘Was there a beginning and will there be an end.’ The answers will always be unavailable to the human mind. That is where all the extralogical assumptions come from. However, all who claim to know anything depend upon truth and what is true. It is like life and death.

Before one lived, one has no recollection of the existence of his own substance and where it has been. After death, he probably has no conscious sense of his state of being or of his former life.

To have experienced a deep and dreamless sleep and awakened to realize a passage of time while you snoozed, is a common experience. We deal with it every day in a practical way and suffer little remorse for the loss of consciousness for a few hours while the body repaid its oxygen debt and adjusted its other chemical imbalances.

William James, the lazy pragmatic thinker, decided it was safer for his peace of mind to believe, just in case he might be wrong if he did not, but that if he were wrong if he believed, there would be no consequence. At least, he reasoned out his response. Most people believe out of fear of physical punishment after death. I have always failed to understand how a spiritual soul could feel the sting of Hell Fire. I have had surgery and have no conscious memory of the pain of the surgeon’s knife slicing away my tissues while under anesthesia. The probability of a conscious life after death is not high enough to contemplate, let alone fear, or reason to a safe position.

One thing I can do is to accept that everything is true and everything exists now, existed in the past, or will exist in the future. I can comfortably accept that everything I know is true. That, even when I can accept that what I believe (but do not know) may not be true. I can believe that truth is eternal and never had a beginning or will have an end. For if nothing else is true, it is true that nothing else is true, and truth remains to sustain that consequence. That is transcendental to all other existence and experience. But it can be sustained by philosophic exercise in mental acuity.

“Quoting Rich S on 7/04 at 5:19 pm
magginkat, Let’s stay on topic.  Answer my question first.”

Rich who are you to dictate topic?  If you answer my question there will be no need to answer yours.

Repeat:  Where did god come from?

Thomas (#12997) uses “faith” in the sense of believing what you feel like when you can’t give a good reason, which is what most on every side stipulate.  But this isn’t what’s meant in the Bible by faith; it’s what the Bible calls “presumption,” and its consequences can be lethal.  Atheists and others are perfectly right to agree with the biblical prophets in rejecting out of hand.  Biblical faith is about being faithful to the truth we know even when it seems otherwise - the close relationship to “faithfulness” in most languages is not coincidental.

The reason for not believing in an eternal universe is the abundant evidence that it is not possible, which has forced even people like Fred Hoyle to abandon that position.  Deciding to arbitrarily believe something without a reason is fit only for matters that make no difference.

if you beleive a god or gods exist, at least one of the following are true:

-you are not very intelligent.

-you have no capacity for reason, or rationality.

-you simply dont care to revise beleifs that were given to you without contest.

in a world where science has all but solved many of the “great mysteries” of the world, there is little reason to introduce the existence of any supernatural beings - sorry.  it just doesnt add up.

i hope to think that all these people will grow up one day - but such a prospect doesnt seem likely.  i stopped believing in santa clause a long time ago. 

read sam’s book too: End of Faith.

It is irrational to seek a physical solution to a metaphysical problem.  Again, this is another example where atheist “thinking” is hopelessly encumbered by its anti-supernatural bias.  Aristotle answered the problem of the origin of the first “stuff” by positing an eternal material principle – although even his naturalism required that the matter be formed by an eternal intellect.  The question of the first “stuff” can be asked from the point-of-view of time (what is the first effect in the order of temporal succession) or from the point-of-view of being (what is the first cause of things in the universe).  From the perspective of natural science (what used to be called philosophical physics) there must be posited an eternal world.  This is so because physics depends upon the existence of an empirical object.  Either the first “stuff” is eternal – and thus needs no explanation – or its cause transcends the subject of physics (i.e. is not empirical) and thus is not explainable on the basis of the principles of this science.  In other words, physics – by its very constitution – is not equipped to answer the question of the ultimate origin of things.  Rather, it must simply take empirical being as a given.  The Big-Bang hypothesis offers physicists an ultimate term for their investigations of the series of empirical events that make up the history of the universe as we know it, but if it is taken as an explanation of the ultimate origin of things from the perspective of their material existence, it is being misunderstood.  To hope that physics will one day solve this problem is simply a confusion of logical categories.

The Christian recognizes that the temporal beginning of the universe is a matter of faith.  He also recognizes that while a finite universe (with respect to time) may not be demonstrable, neither is an eternal universe.  He also recognizes that the dependence of contingent being upon necessary being (and therefore divine being) is demonstrable.  As to the question of the origin of God, the answer is simply that God is uncaused (not self caused) and outside of time.

Atheists must argue, whether they adopt an eternal or a temporal universe, ultimately for an uncaused effect – which shows the irrational consequences of their position.

To Mike #1 on Mental Acuity

Mike asks, “Why do we in the U.S. have a welfare state? That there’s a single person in this nation that goes without a meal, without a home, without clothes, without an education is entirely (and I do mean entirely) the fault of the religious.  If ‘people of faith’ did as their so-called savior did as they were told, we would have no poor in our country.”

I say, perhaps, if those who listen to their savior would contribute what they can to the productive capacity of the nation there would be no poor. There would be no poor if everyone worked and carried their share of the burden. The amount of work time needed to earn the cost of one’s daily food and shelter is very little. Only a little more can provide extras. There is no charity without productivity. Someone has to work to grow the food, build the shelter, and to pull the energy from the earth to provide the rest of the needs.

Mike says, “But, of course, that’s not how the ‘well dressed and morally superior’ will interpret it.  They’ll give me this, that, and the other excuse.  They’ll all still have multi-million dollar edifices to worship in, each with air-conditioning, plush seats, gymnasia, expensive lighting, state-of-the-art sound-systems, comfortable pews, fancy newsletters, brand new hymnals, and well-paid clergy.”

I say, the ‘well-dressed’ wear clothing made by workers who are contributing to the productive capacity of the world. The workers are paid out of the funds accumulated by the well dressed. If the funds were diverted to charity, the productive effort would have to be paid for by someone else, not the well dressed. The multi-million dollar edifice was built by workers who contributed to the productive effort of the nation. They were paid out of the funds accumulated by those who worship there. The maintenance of the edifice and all its comforts is by people who are paid by the worshipers out of their funds. If the money were given in charity, the maintenance of the edifice and all its facilities would not be paid for, or paid for at a lower rate.

Mike says, “And ten blocks over, a man will sleep on a bench, eat whatever soup the local Kitchen will provide, and do without those amenities the religious so take for granted, those amenities the scientific community provided that those of faith will take credit for.”

I say, the man who sleeps on a bench could sweep the floors of the edifice of the well dressed and be paid out of the funds available for maintenance of the edifice. With this pay, the sleeper could sleep in his own apartment, paid for by the product of his labor. And he could eat soup from his own pot on his own stove prepared by his own hand. He could even go to worship in the edifice and make a contribution to the collection plate instead of subsisting on some of the proceeds from the worshipers. The worshipers take credit for paying for those amenities of their multi-million dollar edifice out of their own earnings.

Mike says, “They’ll say ‘the good Lord showed us the way’, never mind that their ‘holy’ works provide absolutely nothing in the way of disease cures, engineering, or any other thing humans use to make their lives better.”

I say Truth, who is God, showed them the way to share in the productive capacity of their world by working and paying for their place of worship with money earned by working. The holy works provide comfort to the soul to face the battle for survival in the work places of the world. It gives them hope for a reward to compensate for the effort to share in the blessings God has bestowed upon them by grace. That is the right to live and to enjoy the bounty of nature and nature’s God, who is Truth. All the disease cures and engineering are paid out of the proceeds of the productive capacity of the nation and the world, not from the labor of the sleepers on park benches and those who line up at the soup kitchens for their food and carry signs saying, ‘I am hungry. I will work for food.’ Then, when work is offered, turn it down as bemeaning to their dignity and demand money to buy food. They even turn down a sandwich offered at the corner where they stand. Charity should sustain the sick and the lame, but not the lazy. Charity is temporary, poverty is permanent for the lazy.

Beyond that is the investment wealth, which is earned purchasing capacity for which the investor delays his own satisfaction and pays in advance for productive capacity, job creation, and research. I have never been offered a paying job by poor people. I have hired poor people and paid them for their productive effort, even when it was not productive. I hire rich people every day to help me meet my own needs with their wealth, which they gladly share with me for my efforts. We all contribute our share to the charitable needs of the sick, lame and, yes, even the lazy. Every dime we contribute to non-productive consumption, denies someone the opportunity to be productive.

Sorry, man, Truth, who is God, brought me this message and I charitably offer it to you for whatever benefit you may derive from it. Sorry that you do not know Truth, who is God. Those who worship in multi-million dollar edifices have earned that right by their own effort and the investment return for their delayed satisfactions represented by their invested capital, which sustains more people than all the charity combined. Even the poor person who contributes a small part of his labor into the collection plate at his church, pays his own way.

Free Will.  I like your comments on that, Mike.  But tell me, do you “willingly” go to work?  I’m not talking about enjoying your job, or having variety, or anything along that line.  I’m talking about work.
Do you see?  You ‘have’ to work to get paid, to afford to live the lifestyle you wish, to enjoy the other pursuits you have.
If you ‘choose’ not to work, you reap the results of that action.
Free will?  Yeah, everything—from the cosmos to the simple act of getting up each morning has its cause and effect attached.
Of course, that’s just my thinking.  I am far beyond reaching such intelligent and deep thinkers that come here.
I just like the free will to see what the secular world thinks.

An honest believer?  As if there is any other kind.  I don’t claim to know everything, I don’t believe that I can speak beyond what the Bible tells us.  But I do believe that I’ve been insulted, “Like your use of adjectives”.
If there is suppose to be “tolerance”, why does that apply to everything but Christianity?
Funny….

magginkat,

Let’s stay on topic.  Answer my question first.

Quoting Rich S on 7/03 at 9:27 pm

“I did not suggest an origin of the first stuff, whether god or little green men. However, if I were to postulate a god, I would not postulate one that must itself be created, for such a creature would not be a god by definition.”

Then where did god come from?

To: James, Re: 12861

Finally, an honest believer!

I love your use of adjectives, at least as they apply to you!

to: Francis   Re: 12676

You wrote:

“A religion-hating Nazi murdered six-million Jews. Bad God!”

Uh, Francis, read this:

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
  In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.
  Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.
  As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…
  And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting
rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery.
  When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed.”
    [Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922, published in “My New Order”, quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]

Or this:

“And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God.”
      [Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.174]

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so”
  [Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]

Or this:

“In nearly all the matters in which the Pan-German movement was wanting, the attitude of the Christian Social Party was correct and well-planned.”
      [Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

“It [Christian Social Party] recognized the value of large-scale propaganda and was a virtuoso in influencing the psychological instincts of the broad masses of its adherents.”
      [Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

“The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement) was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.”
    [Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

Hey, Francis, consider the following:  the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch-burnings, and the massacre of over 20 million natives in North, Central, and South America.  Do you truly believe these atrocities were committed by liberal atheists?

To: Peter, Re: 12891

Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy are a hell of a lot more fun than your “this-era”, “this-culture” god.

Of course, Zeus was cool, too.  So was Odin, Thor, Zoroaster, Horus, Krishna, Quetzlcoatl, Ammon-Ra, Isis, Ares, Hermes, Ahura Mazda, and the Boogeyman.

To: Frank.

Okay, Frank, let’s talk about “mental acuity”.

Why do we in the U.S. have a welfare state? That there’s a single person in this nation that goes without a meal, without a home, without clothes, without an education is entirely (and I do mean entirely) the fault of the religious.  If “people of faith” did as their so-called savior did as they were told, we would have no poor in our country.

But, of course, that’s not how the “well-dressed and morally superior” will interpret it.  They’ll give me this, that, and the other excuse.  They’ll all still have multi-million dollar edifices to worship in, each with air-conditioning, plush seats, gymnasia, expensive lighting, state-of-the-art sound-systems, comfortable pews, fancy newsletters, brand new hymnals, and well-paid clergy.

And ten blocks over, a man will sleep on a bench, eat whatever soup the local Kitchen will provide, and do without those amenities the religious so take for granted, those amenities the scientific community provided that those of faith will take credit for.

They’ll say “the good Lord showed us the way”, never mind that their “holy” works provide absolutely nothing in the way of disease cures, engineering, or any other thing humans use to make their lives better.

Thanks for your reply, G. Bile.

I did not suggest an origin of the first stuff, whether god or little green men. However, if I were to postulate a god, I would not postulate one that must itself be created, for such a creature would not be a god by definition.

I have no problem with unanswered questions, but how about unanswerable ones, G. Bile? If we were to be intellectually honest, we must admit that something cannot come from nothing.  This is an impossibility.

It is healthy to admit it when one doesn’t know something, but you sir are an atheist, not an agnostic.  So, therefore, are you going to answer my question?

Mike #1,

Your answer in your Comment #12855 on 7/03 confuses me in that you seem to believe I am some kind of a religious fanatic. I seriously suggest that you read my comment again. I admit that you may have to read between the lines and develop the latent lateral images that must be processed in a solution of mental acuity.

Believers are not willing to examine their comments.
A Creator comes about how? His, Her, Its own creation.
Evolution could be a Creator. Creator is omnipotent is self serving to the theist.  Who determined the Creator to be called the Creator/God.  Obviously Mankind.  Why are believers self serving in not admitting the Bible was written by the hand of Mankind.

God’s phone number, Mike, is as follows - needs no hardware, money, or connection to any human communications sytem:

“He who shuts his ear to the poor will cry himself and not be heard” - so take care to hear the poor in every interaction.  People are rich in different currencies, and it follows that they are poor likewise.  So don’t shut your ears to those without money, force, beauty, reputation, eloquence, or debating skills.  They may be right anyway, as perhaps has happened to you sometimes.  When you make mocking comments comforted by the crowd that will shout approval and laugh along with you, you’re mocking the poor - if you ever had it happen to you on a school playground or Sunday school class, you know just what it is. 

“Whatever you want men to do to you, do so to them” - including God, just in case.  Jesus stated this in connection with how to pray and be heard (Matthew 7:7-12).

Tell the truth about yourself to God and people, so that God can tell the truth to you (1 John 1).

Pray and fast (various kinds of doing without) in order to free people from bondage instead of devising ways to strike with the fist of wickedness and deceit - even if it seems to be in some worthy cause (Isaiah 58).

Whatever you do, do not do it to be seen by men but by God, which is where nobody is looking.  Truth is the tree falling when nobody sees it, and if that’s not so, then Big Brother was perfectly right to use the memory hole.  Wanting to be admired by people and being truly admirable - that is, to gain the admiration of the God of truth - are mutually exclusive.  I think this is obvious even to people who claim to be atheists, some of whom live like it is so.

As I get more skilled in dialing the number, it works better.  I’ve seen God answer me, sometimes miraculously, for over 35 years.  If I had not, I would have found a better alternative long ago.

“Our moral intuitions have been systematically biased by natural selection in ways that tend to maximise the inclusive fitness of our genes. Thus our moral intuitions are “deep” in the sense of being strongly felt rather than well-grounded, insightful or profound.” - David Pearce

Well, seems like this is a lively subject, since I received upteem million replies to my comment, but can’t be taken right to it.
It appalls me that the athesist on this site are “bent” on bashing the Christians and their beliefs.  Seems like a “machine” reaction to borrow one poster’s comments.
Explain to me, if our machine controls us, why we experience outrage at infants deaths, or anybody’s deaths.  Explain to me why, when a nation goes to war to promote and establish its beliefs on another nation, we rise up to defeat that nation.
Explain to me one simple thing.  If we are an accident of evolution, why are we so orderly?
Just my “stupid” machine thinking

Rich S in Comment #12844 asks atheists to answer the question ‘where does the first stuff come from’. My answer is: I don’t know. Whether our scientific methods will ever come up with an answer is speculation. In my opinion it may be difficult to study what came before the Big Bang. Some theory may be formulated about it, but evidence may hard to come by, because the Big Bang being a ‘singularity’ may have destroyed all the evidence.
That you ask this question to atheists suggests that you have an answer based on theism: The first stuff was created by a Creator. This is obviously not an answer, because this Creator would then be the first stuff (and so on).
I think that for the time being we must admit that there is no scientific answer to your question, but that we ‘are working on it’. I have no problem with ‘unanswered questions’, do you, Rich S?

The Great Dilemma

So I told my wife the other day, “Honey, I love you unconditionally.  You have free will, and no matter what you decide regarding marital fidelity, I will still love you no matter what.  Just know that you have two options:  remain loyal to me, or cheat on me.  Now, if you cheat on me, I’ll have to hunt you down and torture you for the rest of your life.  But, remember, it’s your choice, okay? I love you, and want what’s best for you (of course, what’s best for you is to remain faithful, to act the way I want you to act).  You have free will, and can do what you want.  But if you displease me, I’ll punish you.  But I do love you. Okay? Remember, it’s your choice.  And I love you.  But if you cheat on me, I’ll hurt you real bad, and for a long time.  But I love you, and the choice is yours.  Okay? Hey, it’s a free country, right? I love you.  But cheat on me, and I’ll make you wish you’d never been born.  But I love you.  And it’s your choice.”

Sound familiar?

God sent his son to atone for the sins of his own creation.  But he loves us.  And we have “free will”.  It’s all on us.  But if we don’t believe, we’ll land in Hell.  No, we can’t see, hear, feel, or smell this God (and maybe we don’t want to accept the “proof” self-serving individuals with a clear-cut agenda want to shove down our throats; and maybe we have a fair understanding of many of the other “true belief systems” handed down throughout the ages; and maybe we have a rudimentary understanding of history), but we have to accept that he’s real (at least, the version we’re brought up to believe in, the doctrine we’re assured is the right one by our well-meaning parents, that version propounded by lazy, manipulative turds with their own agenda, men who wouldn’t know an honest day’s work if it bit them on the proverbial ass, men who think the universe was Created with their holy-rolling backsides in mind), or else.

But he loves us.  And we have free will.  Door #1: everlasting life, eternal joy.  Door #2: everlasting agony, eternal suffering.

And remember—either way you choose, he still loves us.  (Do you have that warm, fuzzy feeling? I know I do.)

Hmmm.  Not much choice, is there?  “Do as I say, and in the way I say to, or you’re in deep trouble.”

Yeah, free will.  Right.

To Frank Sr., re: 12771

You said:

“Your long comment on June 18th makes common assumptions that are wrong: 1) That money paid for idle or intellectual time could be diverted to feed the poor. 2) that time spent in non-productive (of food, fiber, or fuel) effort is wasted. 3) That gold can produce wealth.”

“Idle” or “intellectual” (I can only assume you made this comment tongue-in-cheek) time paid for by deluded individuals to conmen could, indeed, be spent on the poor in our country—just as your alleged “savior” told you to.  I will not let you slide on this.  You are to give any and all extra monies to help the poor, not hoard it for yourselves, not build extravagent chapels, not pay charlatans large wages, and not to influence politicians and legislation.  Period.

As far as “non-productive” time, I can’t think of anything more “non-productive” than feeding the mindless herd slanted, unproven, agenda-based garbage, the very travesty performed every Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and Wednesday evening in houses of the morally superior and nicely dressed all across this fading republic.

You want to do some good? The kind of good your alleged “savior” wanted you to do? Feed the poor; house the homeless.  But don’t come around with your holier-than-thou attitudes and pretend moral superiority (and stay the hell off my legislation! I’ll eagerly adhere to your “biblical” laws after you show me ironclad proof your GOD even exists).  Need I remind you of Pat Robertson (a falst prophet and bigot), Oral Roberts (a falst prophet), Jerry Falwell (bigot), Jimmy Swaggart (sexual deviant), or Jim Bakker (thief)? Or how about the Crusades? The Inquisition? The Holocaust? The murder of approximately 20 million Natives of the Americas by good, moral Christians?

God can’t produce wealth????

Did you just arrive on the planet???

To Peter, re: 12802

Uh, what???

You said:

“You should watch more movies, from which you would learn that a really obvious vulnerability often turns out to be a flaw in the perception of him who sees it.  Of such are ambushes made.”

??

First of all, Pete, I would like for you to give me the phone number and address of your god so I can talk directly to him.  That, or perform any of the miracles you’re supposedly able to perform, according to your “savior” (i.e.: move mountains, handle snakes, or drink any poisonous thing). I’m not interested—in any way—in talking to the weak, mouth-breathing, semi-educated adherents of this particular myth, or their tiresome, circular reasoning.  Grow up, take a good look around at the real world, and realize that your beliefs are nothing more than the continuation of one of history’s great hoaxes.

Hey, Doug…  If there is no god, then your waste disposal apparatus evolved.  Either way, it’s feces and waste matter.  So how does that argue against god and in favor of atheism?  Either way, it is is a practical mechanism with useful and necessary features.

But what I really want to know, and what no atheist has yet told me in this thread, is how something can come from nothing.  Before the Big Bang, before there was photons, matter, or energy, where did the first stuff come from?  And give a scientific answer, please.

of interest: http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/jesus_myth.htm

If there is a god that created all life on earth, why did he create feces?

I can think of dozens of better ways of handling the waste issue, even to the point of having no waste. God creates the rules, he could make it any way he wanted and he chose to create feces and to stick your feces expulsion hole on your backside, where it is difficult to keep clean.

If there is a god, he is either a moron or a sicko pervert.

Mike, you should consider that the points you raise have been obvious to readers, and certainly the writers, for these thousands of years.  You should watch more movies, from which you would learn that a really obvious vulnerability often turns out to be a flaw in the perception of him who sees it.  Of such are ambushes made.

The brothers were speaking of Jesus manifesting himself to the world, fufilling the feast by showing himself as its fulfillment.  He refused to do that because it wasn’t time.  That didn’t prevent him from going to the feast, but in secret, not as they demanded and as he refused.  H went, but he didn’t.

Since his opponents could not find a credible charge against him, it is evident that they themselves had no problem with his calling people fools as he did, while warning against it as he did in Matthew 5:22.

That’s because they’re different things.  In Matthew 5:22 we have reviling, the contemptuous talk we resort to when we are unable to make our case.  I think Rush Limbaugh’s insults of the librulls and the ranting about the liberal press being such bad guys for actually reporting rape and murder by American troops are good examples - they talk this way because they have something else they don’t want to talk about, or because they see people are weak and can be bullied that way.

Jesus called the arrogant who had elected themselves teachers of the people fools - only when he had thoroughly demonstrated it and they no longer dared to ask him a question.  He was, in short, calling the exact same people fools in his society that you call such in yours.  You don’t think you’re sinning when you so name them, even though if I set about calling you names because I can’t answer you, you will certainly identify my behavior as wrong.  So you know the difference here well enough.

It’s interesting that in the matter of John’s assertion in John 3, you show the same sort of ignorance as Nicodemus asking how a man can be born again (Can he go back again into his mother’s womband be born?).  To his credit, though, Nicodemus considered the possibility that Jesus was aware of the point.  To be as sure as you are that Jesus was unaware of Elijah in view of his dealings with others regarding the Bible really is ludicrous conceit.

Elijah, like Enoch, was taken up into heaven - as you say, by a chariot of fire.  He didn’t go under his own power.  Jesus claimed that he himself would ascend, and we have the story at the end of Luke’s gospel.  That Jesus might be in heaven while sitting there with Nicodemus, well how might disciples be seated in heavenly places with Christ while we are here on the earth?  DOubtless how Job was in heaven defeating Satan while he sat on the ash heap scraping himself.  Jesus wasn’t lying just because you don’t understand this.

Jesus’s word to his mother was, “What to me and to you?”  He wasn’t claiming that she had nothing to do with her but asking her why she felt that this was necessarily their problem.  Maybe it was, but before getting involved in somebody’s problem it’s always good to see why you think so.  Reading in the papers about Iraq should clear up any misunderstanding of this issue.

I don’t understand your point about eating the grain on the sabbath.  When Jesus pointed out that David was held sinless for eating the showbread contrary to the Law, the Pharisees were silenced.  Why are you so intent on holding to their position?  Are you even more foolish than they are?

It’s not theft if God sends you for it and proves it OK by having the owners give permission.  The sign that it was God was that Jesus, without being there, told them what they would find, in the manner of the signs that Samuel gave to Saul (1 Samuel 10), and it worked out as he said it would.

It is also generally forbidden to kill people.  But God charged the people invading Canaan to kill certain people, and they knew it was God by certain undeniable signs: the Jordan parting, the walls falling down, things like that.  Contrary to how those with hearts full of murder use these to justify murdering Iraqis and Palestinians to soothe their fears and greed, they make it clear that only supernatural intervention, among other things, makes it permissible.  Otherwise you’re just a mass murderer.  I have more detail on that issue at http://home.earthlink.net/~attwoods/utterlydestroy.html

If one is to believe the Comment #12676 by Francis Lawrence on 6/29 at 2:27 pm only “pious liberals”  have had abortions.

According to him “Secular humanists and liberals waged war to end all war. A war lustily fought by liberals in charge of great murder machines.”

Has Mr. Lawrence looked around lately?  Seems to me that conservative George Bush has been terrorizng most of the world with “his christianity”, his spreading of democracy with the barrel of a gun.  And if I remember correctly, the ‘pious’ looking George Bush forced one or more young women to get an abortion.

Sorry Mr. Lawrence, you and your god (those invoking his name) have been responsible for just about every war ever fought on this earth.  You and your god have killed billions of people over the the years.  Murderous dictators have used his name to do their dirty work and continue to do so.  The squatter in the White House uses his god in his feeble excuses for attacking two defenseless countries and murdering it’s citizens.

Mr. Harris doesn’t have to worry about your god because that entity doesn’t exist.  When it’s all over and done, you will be a pile of rotting flesh just like all the rest of us.

What a waste of your brief time on this earth to practice and preach so much hatred and intolerance.

To Mike #1:

Your long comment on June 18th makes common assumptions that are wrong: 1) That money paid for idle or intellectual time could be diverted to feed the poor. 2) that time spent in non-productive (of food, fiber, or fuel) effort is wasted. 3) That gold can produce wealth.

All life is sustained from the materials in the environment. Effort to extract the needed sustenance from the environment is called labor. Time spent on idle pursuits (not productive of food, fiber, or fuel) is still life and one of the benefits flowing from the joint effort of man to wrest his sustenance from his environment.

The religious, philosophical, educational, speculative, scientific, and other cultural pursuits, are by-products of the joint activities of a society functioning as a productive unit. They represent the excess time after satisfaction of essentials.

Even the under-productivity or non-productivity of the poor represents excess time after satisfaction of essentials. It is not essential for the non-productive to live. The religious, philosophical, educational, or other cultural pursuits are not essential. Time for them derives from high productivity of the human effort to satisfy essentials and to cover all the non-essential consumption. Compassion for the poor, afflicted, and the unfortunate, is a human emotional discomfort to be alleviated by the over-production by others beyond their own needs.

Only the aversion to the ‘lazy’ makes us deny sustenance to the willfully non-productive. Base ball and basket ball, as well as golf, swimming, reading, and writing in forums, are sustainable non-productive enterprises.

If all the ‘money’ of the rich were to be used to ‘feed’ the poor, the poor would starve. But, if all the idle time of the rich, the intellectuals, the preachers, the government functionaries, and the bums on the street, were to be diverted to productive effort (for essentials), there would be no poor and nobody would be hungry. But, then there would be no time for what we do here. Nay, if it could be made productive, even the time of the lazy, good-for-nothing, could take up the slack and still leave time for you and me to read each other’s comments, and to write things like I do.

All the gold of the Catholic Church could not be converted to food for the poor without the labor to produce it. And, there would be no college professors without farmers, herders, and miners to provide their food, fiber, and fuel. I am happy that farmers, herders, and miners are willing to do their thing rather than mine.

The Bible does not forbid slavery.  Deuteronomy 23:15-16 says, however, “You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has delivered himself from his master to you.  He shall live with you in your midst, in the place which he shall choose in one of your gates where it pleases him; you shall not mistreat him.”

That ordinance makes slavery impossible, also revealing the source of its oppressiveness - not the master, but the society around him that conspires to oppress so that the oppressors can all get along.

The reason the Bible does it this way is that you can’t stifle something by simply legislating against it without revealing its roots and confronting that.  Christians prove over and over how true this is by blowing it off.

Slavery is ownership of one human by another.  But as Jesus pointed out, the coin is Caesar’s because it bears Caesar’s image and superscription.  Hence humans are God’s, not man’s, because they bear God’s image and superscription.

Since God’s word is truth - so if it isn’t truth it isn’t God’s word - it is appropriate to be slaves of God’s, because the only service to God that the Bible admits of is obeying the truth.  And when it comes to obeying the truth, everybody knows you can’t serve the truth as a hired hand or volunteer.  You can’t obey the truth that 2+2=4 only if the price is right.  Those who will tell the truth if it pays, but will cheer Bush for violating the laws they have passed themselves if it doesn’t, are examples of those who are not slaves of truth but only its hired hands.  And it doesn’t look so good on them, does it?

You are right but confused Francis…...as an atheist I have no problem with frightened individuals believing in their gods….just don’t tell me he put his message in some stupid book like the Bible or the Koran, or that a woman who slept with her boyfriend 2000 years ago because they couldn’t control their sexual urges had a virgin birth…..Joe and Mary knew the consequences of their actions so they lied….a lie is fine….the problem is the fools that believed it then….and still do.
You are correct when you point out secular beliefs in progress and this is a major floor in Harris’ book…..Sam is a Utopian Idealist, not a true Evolutionary Atheist…..his belief in reason and free will is just Christianity without God…...Marx, Pol Pot, Mao….were all Utopian Idealist….left over relics of the Enlightenment…...they believe that we human animals can use reason to rewrite history and eventually end it…..they are always wrong.
The Universe doesn’t love us…..our DNA doesn’t love us…..your imaginary Gods don’t love you either.

Good Luck with that.

Secular humanists and liberals enjoy the freedom women have to kill their babies before they are born.  Come on, you are committed: “We will not go back to the coat hangers and back alleys.”  Since 1973, over 40 million humans got murdered by the choice of pious liberals.  Bad God!

A religion-hating Nazi murdered six-million Jews.
Bad God!

Secular humanists and liberals bombed Hiroshima and Dresden in murder most awesome. Religious voices ignored. Bad God!

Secular humanists and liberals waged war to end all war. A war lustily fought by liberals in charge of great murder machines.  A million casualties in one battle. Pope Benedict XV’s peace message ignored.  Secularists of the world fought on. Bad God!

Reds in Russia, China and elsewhere murdered scores of millions of human beings in the name of secular progress.  Many secular humanists and happy-go-lucky atheists regarded the Reds as liberals in a hurry.  Bad God.

Mr. Harris should like his world without God! The one he and his liberal, humanist pals are making has already chalked up fine charnel holocausts.
Good Harris.

In discussions about atheism, one type of comment seems to show up almost inevitably. Often this argument is brought politely, sometimes it is stated with an obvious intent to insult. Such a comment is ‘#11996 by sofistdecaydid on 6/18’. I like to respond to this comment. I could do this also insultingly, like ‘Apparently you haven’t changed since being a teenager because it is still crap that you produce’, but I will try to do it differently.
In the comment we are persuaded to accept God and religion as The Truth because it has so many advantages for us humans. Well, in my opinion truth is NEVER dependent on possible benefits for whomever and I think that there are many that share this opinion.
Besides, your arguments ‘proving’ the benefits of God and Religion are very questionable. Let me discuss some of them. 
‘God and religion are nice balms for emotional pain and crisis’ is what you say. So is money and Prozac.
‘Atheists tend to discount the genius and utility of religion to overcome reality to inspire hope and peace.’ ‘Overcoming reality’ what does that mean ? Shit happens and you better be prepared. Don’t go to a church on Sunday and give your money to a ‘spiritual leader’, but fix the levees around your city before the water comes in.
An atheist does not assert that God is immoral because ... God does not exist! He only suggests to people who still think there is a omnipotent Doogooder out there, that they should admit that because of his actions (or lack of action) THEY should consider Him to be immoral.
‘At least religionists who die in mass slaughter die with some hope of eternal life.’ Do you describe here a sunni suicide bomber who just blew up 40 worshippers in a shiite mosque, expecting soon to meet the promised virgins?
By now you understand that I disagree with all your statements and reasoning. Religions as they present themselves, are more than balm and hope. They are also straightjackets, instruments of physical and mental torture, engines for misuse of power etc. I hope humankind will get rid of them shortly and form a brotherhood of thinkers, facing what lies ahead with reason and compassion.

Niece…..why would I believe that…..and Shermer’s book isn’t about gene differrence although there certainly is difference between genders…as there is between individuals themselves
....your lack of education is truly starting to show…..and that is understandable Niece…. for like all “religious people”...you are stuck in a puddle of DOGMA called The Bible….The Koran….
etc….etc…

good luck with that!

Well put!