Atheism vs. Religion

[Chmilz]

The reason it's perfectly acceptable to focus on Christianity (or Judaism or Mohameddanism or Buddhism) is that atheism is a monotheistic concept.

Animal spirits, mythological figures, numina, or whatever else the polytheistic religions call gods are a different thing altogether.

Also I think it is fair to say that every single one of the proud atheists on here is a Christian atheist first and last. It was the Lord of Hosts and His son Jesus, give or take that silly Dove, that they agreed not to believe in.

Not only not fair, but patently false.

Totally. To be Atheist, you need to not believe in any higher power. Since Christianity is by far the majority religion in North America, Christians assume we're anti-Christian. All the more ridiculous considering Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship the same god, just different takes on him.

As for Jesus, I absolutely positively believe he was a real person. He just wasn't a god, the son of a god, or anything other than a typical human being that managed to attract one hell of a following. As far as I'm aware, there's not an Atheist out there that doesn't agree that Jesus existed.

I should add, we see the same thing today: Jesus and Kim Kardashian may as well be the same person. Both have untold followers despite having completely imaginary talents.

[Roquentin]

The reason it's perfectly acceptable to focus on Christianity (or Judaism or Mohameddanism or Buddhism) is that atheism is a monotheistic concept.
Animal spirits, mythological figures, numina, or whatever else the polytheistic religions call gods are a different thing altogether.
Also I think it is fair to say that every single one of the proud atheists on here is a Christian atheist first and last. It was the Lord of Hosts and His son Jesus, give or take that silly Dove, that they agreed not to believe in.

(snickers) Man, you're out to lunch.
What makes you think that it's acceptable for you to presume to represent the ideas of people whom you've never met or spoken with in person? How dare you spout your disrespectful and puerile statements with such hubris? Your tripe might put you at ease, with the thought that you understand people better than they understand themselves, but your assumptions are tedious and facile. For shame.
(fades back to lurker status)

[lpasternak1]

Sorry Arsoy's, but you've completely gotten the whole meaning of monotheism wrong. It is not synonymous with atheism. You're a monotheist though, claiming earlier that you believe that all science does is point to the fact that someone somewhere said "make it so." Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, so perhaps you can enlighten us on who or what created your creator?

But in regards to twisting things, this is nothing new for you either. This was exemplified when you chose to chalk up all atheists here as simply nonbelievers in Christianity and that we are all members of a cult. Let me remind you of what atheism is: to reject the belief of any god. Notice how that meaning is not limited to the rejection of the Christian god or religion. Notice how that meaning does not mention morality, political stances, or any stance whatsoever except one.

[Arsoys]

You're a monotheist though, claiming earlier that you believe that all science does is point to the fact that someone somewhere said "make it so."

I did not say that. Study some logic before you presume to argue.

What I did say is that no scientific experiment or observation tests or can test the existence of a supreme being outside the universe being observed, and therefore all the science is just as consistent with the idea one exists as it is with the idea one does not. Hardly an original point, but all the enthusiastic scientism types on here need to be reminded of that on a minute-by-minute basis.

As for my own beliefs, I outlined them in my first post. I consider monotheism an especially primitive attitude, -- and the only attitude more primitive than monotheism, atheism.

[Arsoys]

The reason it's perfectly acceptable to focus on Christianity (or Judaism or Mohameddanism or Buddhism) is that atheism is a monotheistic concept.
Animal spirits, mythological figures, numina, or whatever else the polytheistic religions call gods are a different thing altogether.
Also I think it is fair to say that every single one of the proud atheists on here is a Christian atheist first and last. It was the Lord of Hosts and His son Jesus, give or take that silly Dove, that they agreed not to believe in.

(snickers) Man, you're out to lunch.
What makes you think that it's acceptable for you to presume to represent the ideas of people whom you've never met or spoken with in person? How dare you spout your disrespectful and puerile statements with such hubris? Your tripe might put you at ease, with the thought that you understand people better than they understand themselves, but your assumptions are tedious and facile. For shame.
(fades back to lurker status)

Your anger only proves how right my guess was.

I'll repeat. It's a racing certainty most of you guys have grown up in a society with a Christian heritage, found the Christian supreme-being particularly tedious, and have generalized your dismissal of the Christian god. There's nothing wrong with that, it's totally inevitable, but be honest with yourselves.

As for facile... exactly.

[c--b]

ALL of the science is perfectly consistent with the idea that someone somewhere once said make-it-so. And no amount of self-stroking will change that, or convince anyone of anything except that you are probably wrong.

Even if you are probably not.

God (or any supernatural claim) is a moving target as far as science is concerned, believers seem not to notice that they use the knowledge gained by science to move the target further out of reach. If believers think their god is outside the universe, and science goes there and sees no signs then it'll simply be that god must be somewhere else (and the increasing difficult in finding it is a test of your faith to boot).

Thats why its consistent with science, because believers assume the answer then ask the question.

[Vincent]

The arrogance to think that science should be able to "find" God if he exists is astounding. Science is a process of discovery, nothing more. And until science learns how to peer into other dimensions and interact with the supernatural it's not going to "find" him. So the inability to prove there is a God does not disprove him either.

The existence of God has nothing to do with science other than everything it discovers is a footprint of that same God. God is a supernatural being. He has always existed. Can we even comprehend that? Can we understand anything outside our realm of time? Everything we understand has a beginning and an end, but God has neither. We can't even begin to understand him or his existence. He is not like us, other than we were created in his image. He does not live like us, he does not think like us.

If God's existence were proven then it would at the same time prove creation. Which means that we are his creation and so insignificant in knowledge and power compared to the one who created us and everything that sustains us, it's just mind boggling.

So if you don't believe there is a God then that's a fairly simple issue, but to suggest that if God were real, we should be able to prove he exists because we have science and we're "so smart" is just arrogant beyond belief.

[Thomas Hinderks]

ALL of the science is perfectly consistent with the idea that someone somewhere once said make-it-so. And no amount of self-stroking will change that, or convince anyone of anything except that you are probably wrong.

Even if you are probably not.

God (or any supernatural claim) is a moving target as far as science is concerned, believers seem not to notice that they use the knowledge gained by science to move the target further out of reach. If believers think their god is outside the universe, and science goes there and sees no signs then it'll simply be that god must be somewhere else (and the increasing difficult in finding it is a test of your faith to boot).

Thats why its consistent with science, because believers assume the answer then ask the question.

Excuse me for being a little off topic (then again maybe not) but I was recently in a debate about the existence of Extra Terrestrial life and the above argument is almost word for word what was used in opposition to the most likely existence of ET life.

I happen to believe we are not the only intelligent life in the Universe and far from the only life. Statistically it would be arrogant to think so in my mind, yet science has not proven it, found it or quantified it so using the above argument...it doesn't exist.

Yet the majority of the people I know that are science based (sorry couldn't tell you if they are religous or athereist, I don't ask) believe in ET life.

Funny, at least to me

Tom

[c--b]

The arrogance to think that science should be able to "find" God if he exists is astounding. Science is a process of discovery, nothing more. And until science learns how to peer into other dimensions and interact with the supernatural it's not going to "find" him. So the inability to prove there is a God does not disprove him either.

The existence of God has nothing to do with science other than everything it discovers is a footprint of that same God. God is a supernatural being. He has always existed. Can we even comprehend that? Can we understand anything outside our realm of time? Everything we understand has a beginning and an end, but God has neither. We can't even begin to understand him or his existence. He is not like us, other than we were created in his image. He does not live like us, he does not think like us.

If God's existence were proven then it would at the same time prove creation. Which means that we are his creation and so insignificant in knowledge and power compared to the one who created us and everything that sustains us, it's just mind boggling.

So if you don't believe there is a God then that's a fairly simple issue, but to suggest that if God were real, we should be able to prove he exists because we have science and we're "so smart" is just arrogant beyond belief.

"Can we understand anything outside our realm of time" That's a very good question, and I think atheists and agnostics would agree that the answer is "No", as well as most sane believers in the supernatural.

Why is it then, when we agree that we understand nothing at all the default for some is to slowly build our understanding up assuming nothing. And for others assuming that there is a god though we know and understand nothing?

[Vincent]

Tom, I don't think the question of ET is off topic at all. I recently heard an interview from a guy who claims to have worked at Area 51 and one thing he said really caught my attention. He said they're not Extra Terrestrials, but Extra Dimensionals. This lines up of course with what most Christians believe which is that the "aliens" are really just demons/fallen angels.

[Vincent]

"Can we understand anything outside our realm of time" That's a very good question, and I think atheists and agnostics would agree that the answer is "No", as well as most sane believers in the supernatural.

Why is it then, when we agree that we understand nothing at all the default for some is to slowly build our understanding up assuming nothing. And for others assuming that there is a god though we know and understand nothing?

That's because it boils down to simply faith. You either have it or you don't.

[c--b]

"Can we understand anything outside our realm of time" That's a very good question, and I think atheists and agnostics would agree that the answer is "No", as well as most sane believers in the supernatural.

Why is it then, when we agree that we understand nothing at all the default for some is to slowly build our understanding up assuming nothing. And for others assuming that there is a god though we know and understand nothing?

That's because it boils down to simply faith. You either have it or you don't.

And this is where I take my leave from the thread, here is where what we value out of life differs.

ALL of the science is perfectly consistent with the idea that someone somewhere once said make-it-so. And no amount of self-stroking will change that, or convince anyone of anything except that you are probably wrong.

Even if you are probably not.

God (or any supernatural claim) is a moving target as far as science is concerned, believers seem not to notice that they use the knowledge gained by science to move the target further out of reach. If believers think their god is outside the universe, and science goes there and sees no signs then it'll simply be that god must be somewhere else (and the increasing difficult in finding it is a test of your faith to boot).

Thats why its consistent with science, because believers assume the answer then ask the question.

Excuse me for being a little off topic (then again maybe not) but I was recently in a debate about the existence of Extra Terrestrial life and the above argument is almost word for word what was used in opposition to the most likely existence of ET life.

I happen to believe we are not the only intelligent life in the Universe and far from the only life. Statistically it would be arrogant to think so in my mind, yet science has not proven it, found it or quantified it so using the above argument...it doesn't exist.

Yet the majority of the people I know that are science based (sorry couldn't tell you if they are religous or athereist, I don't ask) believe in ET life.

Funny, at least to me

Tom

The difference being that we have some agreed upon definitions for life, and when we see something that fits that definition we'll know we found it, and have some idea on how to actively look for it such as examining light spectrum, earth-like planets, etc.

[Jeremy]

Jeremy, you made some interesting points. So I have to note the irony in your glasses half empty comment.

The glass is neither half empty nor half full for it is topped off with another moment of optimism.

Begin with invalid questions and what do we gain?

Jeremy...
"Some people's glasses are not only half-empty, but also cracked and leaking.
Just remember, they're not happy until you're not happy!"

And here I thought it was simply too big. . .

[Thomas Hinderks]

The difference being that we have some agreed upon definitions for life, and when we see something that fits that definition we'll know we found it, and have some idea on how to actively look for it such as examining light spectrum, earth-like planets, etc.

But your above definition feeds the argument...with preconceived notions of what life is makes for very narrow (and likely incorrect) parameters for what is acceptable to "recognize" as life.

We still haven't figured out how the human body works and we presume to know what other life should be like?

Nope cannot agree

Tom

[lat]

Tom, I don't think the question of ET is off topic at all. I recently heard an interview from a guy who claims to have worked at Area 51 and one thing he said really caught my attention. He said they're not Extra Terrestrials, but Extra Dimensionals. This lines up of course with what most Christians believe which is that the "aliens" are really just demons/fallen angels.

or

... what most Christians believe are "demons/fallen angels" are really just aliens.

[Thomas Hinderks]

are really just aliens

But we have no proof of aliens...by scientific definition

[c--b]

The difference being that we have some agreed upon definitions for life, and when we see something that fits that definition we'll know we found it, and have some idea on how to actively look for it such as examining light spectrum, earth-like planets, etc.

But your above definition feeds the argument...with preconceived notions of what life is makes for very narrow (and likely incorrect) parameters for what is acceptable to "recognize" as life.

We still haven't figured out how the human body works and we presume to know what other life should be like?

Nope cannot agree

Tom

A narrow definition doesn't equate to NO definition, we work with what we have until we have more.

[Jeremy]

The reason it's perfectly acceptable to focus on Christianity (or Judaism or Mohameddanism or Buddhism) is that atheism is a monotheistic concept.

Animal spirits, mythological figures, numina, or whatever else the polytheistic religions call gods are a different thing altogether.

Also I think it is fair to say that every single one of the proud atheists on here is a Christian atheist first and last. It was the Lord of Hosts and His son Jesus, give or take that silly Dove, that they agreed not to believe in.

Not only not fair, but patently false.

Totally. To be Atheist, you need to not believe in any higher power. Since Christianity is by far the majority religion in North America, Christians assume we're anti-Christian. All the more ridiculous considering Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship the same god, just different takes on him.

As for Jesus, I absolutely positively believe he was a real person. He just wasn't a god, the son of a god, or anything other than a typical human being that managed to attract one hell of a following. As far as I'm aware, there's not an Atheist out there that doesn't agree that Jesus existed.

I should add, we see the same thing today: Jesus and Kim Kardashian may as well be the same person. Both have untold followers despite having completely imaginary talents.

Not to mention the fact that, in polite circles at least, it's concerned somewhat, uncouth to self-elect to speak for an entire group, and it's especially galling when you do so with a group you're not actually a member of. As for his incoherent logic, I'll choose to be kind, and presume that he's simply unclear about the meaning of some of the words he used.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Awfully presumptuous...from a scientific view point our minds should be open not closed requiring all aspects to be viewed.

From your direction that is not the case

[Jeremy]

Awfully presumptuous...from a scientific view point our minds should be open not closed requiring all aspects to be viewed.

From your direction that is not the case

Then consider them viewed and dismissed for lack of tangible evidence. Science does allow for bad theories to be thrown out and replaced with better ones. It happens all the time.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Not directed at you personaly Jeremy, but in general.

This view:

Then consider them viewed and dismissed for lack of tangible evidence. Science does allow for bad theories to be thrown out and replaced with better ones. It happens all the time.

Has taken us down some pretty horrible paths...eugenics policies for one and there are many, many others.

So while this discussion is straying from one of purely belief in "God" or "Something more" it also highlights some of the failings of scientific theorizing as well.

Not to say "Science" in itself is a bad thing...but it's application can and does often leave something to be desired when it strays into the application of theory.

Tom

[Vincent]

Tom, I don't think the question of ET is off topic at all. I recently heard an interview from a guy who claims to have worked at Area 51 and one thing he said really caught my attention. He said they're not Extra Terrestrials, but Extra Dimensionals. This lines up of course with what most Christians believe which is that the "aliens" are really just demons/fallen angels.

or

... what most Christians believe are "demons/fallen angels" are really just aliens.

But then you have to ask yourself, whether this guy is legit or not, what would possess him to use a term like "extra-dimensionals" when "extra-terrestrials" is the norm? I just thought the comment added a lot of credibility to what he was saying. Not to mention the obvious fear and panic in his voice.

[Jeremy]

Not directed at you personaly Jeremy, but in general.

This view:

Then consider them viewed and dismissed for lack of tangible evidence. Science does allow for bad theories to be thrown out and replaced with better ones. It happens all the time.

Has taken us down some pretty horrible paths...eugenics policies for one and there are many, many others.

So while this discussion is straying from one of purely belief in "God" or "Something more" it also highlights some of the failings of scientific theorizing as well.

Not to say "Science" in itself is a bad thing...but it's application can and does often leave something to be desired when it strays into the application of theory.

Tom

I hit my thumb with a hammer once. Didn't stop me from using hammers. I was just more careful next time.

Science is a tool. A useful tool, but only a tool. Religion too, is a tool. And like any other, both can be used to horrify or delight.

[lat]

are really just aliens

But we have no proof of aliens...by scientific definition

Precisely my point. We have no proof of either.

Scientifically speaking, evolution is a theory (of which the existence of extraterrestrials is a part, imho), since it is a widely accepted hypothesis, based on a large body of evidence supporting the hypothesis and no evidence that contradicts it.

Creationism, on the other hand, does not rely on the scientific method, but rather theology and faith. Therein lies the rub. It is impossible for the two sides of this argument to come to terms, since they are not speaking the same 'language'.


Here is an interesting article on these points...

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutio...ceCriteria.htm

[Thomas Hinderks]

Precisely my point. We have no proof of either.

But your point contradicts lat...

Acceptance of Aliens (I do) without the qualifying scientific proof and a highly disputed theory (accepting aliens into evolution, not evolution itself)
vs
Belief in "some else" being out there is contradictory as there is nothing provably accepted on ether tenant.

So it could be easily your belief is no more correct than a belief in "something else"

Yet one is open to critizm the other accepted?

By that argument atheists are believers...just a different set of beliefs.

Now you are really confusing me.

[Thomas Hinderks]

Jeremy

I hit my thumb with a hammer once. Didn't stop me from using hammers. I was just more careful next time.

A error meant you did yourself harm...oops.

The pontification and implementation of a flawed scientific theory...eugenics (or a selection of many others) did many, many people wrong...not the same kind of oops.

Which is why I made the comments I did...the implications are much larger and much more harmful.

[lat]

Precisely my point. We have no proof of either.

But your point contradicts lat...

Acceptance of Aliens (I do) without the qualifying scientific proof and a highly disputed theory (accepting aliens into evolution, not evolution itself)
vs
Belief in "some else" being out there is contradictory as there is nothing provably accepted on ether tenant.

So it could be easily your belief is no more correct than a belief in "something else"

Yet one is open to critizm the other accepted?

By that argument atheists are believers...just a different set of beliefs.

Now you are really confusing me.

haha! now YOU are confusing ME!

There is a difference between BELIEVING someone and having FAITH in someone. For me, the former requires supporting evidence, the latter does not.

As I said, neither can be PROVEN. But the body of scientific evidence in support of evolution is far larger than that of creationism. As far as the body of evidence supporting extraterrestrial life (if you want to call them 'aliens', fine...) is concerned, it is growing. There is indirect evidence of life on Mars (the by-products of organic matter have been detected in Martian soil samples) and the mathematical probability of there being life on other planets is compelling... again, none of which is PROOF. Therefore, for me and most reasonable people, there is enough evidence to support my belief in the scientific theory of evolution. There is not, however, any supporting evidence for me to believe in creationism, and I'm fresh out of faith for that...

If you haven't looked at the link I provided earlier, I would encourage you to. I found it quite interesting...

[Thomas Hinderks]

Ohhhhh fer cryin out loud (LOL)

I knew this was coming after our last conversation.

There is a difference between BELIEVING someone and having FAITH in someone. For me, the former requires supporting evidence, the latter does not.

Belief, as in your claim of ETs being a part of evolution with o supporting evidence, is a leap of Faith. In this conversation Belief and Faith are essentially the same.

Believing is different again and I agree it requires a burden of proof. (see u r confusin me)

But the body of scientific evidence in support of evolution

As far as the body of evidence supporting extraterrestrial life

We agree

But if you read what I wrote:

and a highly disputed theory (accepting aliens into evolution, not evolution itself)

Which is what I was refering to as your "belief"

There is not, however, any supporting evidence for me to believe in creationism, and I'm fresh out of faith for that...

I never brought up creationism...you did (lol) and for the record I do believe in Evolution to the point where we back up to the big bang and the concept of creating something form nothing which science contradicts.

I will take a look at your link when I get a few minutes and do want to track down the book recommended by Jeremy....

But science, as I said earlier, does not explain all and hoping it does eventually is also another kind of "faith"

Tom

[rime ice]

We are the Aliens visiting us...wrap your head around that concept..

[lat]

Ohhhhh fer cryin out loud (LOL)

I knew this was coming after our last conversation.

There is a difference between BELIEVING someone and having FAITH in someone. For me, the former requires supporting evidence, the latter does not.

Belief, as in your claim of ETs being a part of evolution with o supporting evidence, is a leap of Faith. In this conversation Belief and Faith are essentially the same.

Believing is different again and I agree it requires a burden of proof. (see u r confusin me)

But the body of scientific evidence in support of evolution

As far as the body of evidence supporting extraterrestrial life

We agree

But if you read what I wrote:

and a highly disputed theory (accepting aliens into evolution, not evolution itself)

Which is what I was refering to as your "belief"

There is not, however, any supporting evidence for me to believe in creationism, and I'm fresh out of faith for that...

I never brought up creationism...you did (lol) and for the record I do believe in Evolution to the point where we back up to the big bang and the concept of creating something form nothing which science contradicts.

I will take a look at your link when I get a few minutes and do want to track down the book recommended by Jeremy....

But science, as I said earlier, does not explain all and hoping it does eventually is also another kind of "faith"

Tom

Ah, ok, you're making the huge assumption that when I say that the existence of extra terrestrial life is a part of evolution, that I mean that is on the critical path of our evolution. These are two different things. All I am saying is that extra terrestrial life evolved, the same as life on this planet.

[kkozoriz]

There is evidence that the conditions for life exist elsewhere. We have found amino acids in meteors. We have detected organic (carbon based) molecules in space. We know that chemistry, physics and other natural forces work the same elsewhere as they do here.

We have yet to crack open a meteor and find another book of the Bible or an image of Vishnu.

There is evidence that life elsewhere in the cosmos is possible.

There is no evidence of god, by any of his names.

[Vincent]

On the contrary. Everything we see, hear, touch, feel and smell is evidence of God.

Simply put, to imagine that this world with all its creatures dependent on each other and the planet they live on are not a result of intelligent design is, in my opinion, ludicrous. It takes far greater faith to believe that all of this happened by random chance, than it does to believe that it was designed and created with a purpose.

[lat]

On the contrary. Everything we see, hear, touch, feel and smell is evidence of God.

Simply put, to imagine that this world with all its creatures dependent on each other and the planet they live on are not a result of intelligent design is, in my opinion, ludicrous. It takes far greater faith to believe that all of this happened by random chance, than it does to believe that it was designed and created with a purpose.

This is exactly why this debate never goes anywhere... one side is speaking in the language of faith and the other side is speaking in the language of science.

[Jeremy]

On the contrary. Everything we see, hear, touch, feel and smell is evidence of God.

Simply put, to imagine that this world with all its creatures dependent on each other and the planet they live on are not a result of intelligent design is, in my opinion, ludicrous. It takes far greater faith to believe that all of this happened by random chance, than it does to believe that it was designed and created with a purpose.

If it is true that anything and everything is somehow evidence of God, then by inference everything and anything could also be evidence of an absence of God. If you don't need to present specific evidence, then why should anyone else? In fact rather than present any evidence at all you merely claim the alternative is "ludricrous" without bothering to demonstrate, besides the fact you personally disagree with it, why.

[Chmilz]

On the contrary. Everything we see, hear, touch, feel and smell is evidence of God.

Simply put, to imagine that this world with all its creatures dependent on each other and the planet they live on are not a result of intelligent design is, in my opinion, ludicrous. It takes far greater faith to believe that all of this happened by random chance, than it does to believe that it was designed and created with a purpose.

And what intelligent force designed your god?

[Arsoys]

On the contrary. Everything we see, hear, touch, feel and smell is evidence of God.

Simply put, to imagine that this world with all its creatures dependent on each other and the planet they live on are not a result of intelligent design is, in my opinion, ludicrous. It takes far greater faith to believe that all of this happened by random chance, than it does to believe that it was designed and created with a purpose.

And what intelligent force designed your god?

You did, Chmilz. Sad but true.

[Chmilz]

The science doesn't agree. But hey, why let facts enter into the argument now? God worshippers have done a good job avoiding them this far.

[Thomas Hinderks]

As the conversation is starting to devolve from a debate to something else I'm going to depart.

But something to think about as I go.

I don't know about the rest of you but I have had to take some amazing leaps of faith in my life in both personal affairs, business and with my passions.

From things I have seen (physical not religion based), things I have physically experienced (racing, flying and other events) and questions left unanswered by conventional science and wisdom I am willing to accept (at least to me) that there is a hand in the game that ain't mine.

Remember I am not a supporter of any organized religion.

So I respect your position but in a debate requiring minds be open, I don't see that happening here at this point.

To each their own...enjoy

Tom

[Arsoys]

When I told Chmilz he was a creator of the god(s), I meant it quite literally and without any particular insult intended.

As in, not just him, the one particular human being, but him as any given human being.

If there is a spark of "something beyond" in us, then it exists in every one of us.

I'm not sure I totally believe that, but it's what I would like to believe if we are to believe something.

That's all, and I too will depart.

[kkozoriz]

Man created god in his own image.

[Replacement]

On the contrary. Everything we see, hear, touch, feel and smell is evidence of God.

Simply put, to imagine that this world with all its creatures dependent on each other and the planet they live on are not a result of intelligent design is, in my opinion, ludicrous. It takes far greater faith to believe that all of this happened by random chance, than it does to believe that it was designed and created with a purpose.

This is exactly why this debate never goes anywhere... one side is speaking in the language of faith and the other side is speaking in the language of science.

Except that Vincent is correct in believing Science is also only at the "faith" stage. I'd say we're talking about two disparate faiths.

The history of science is really the study of one erroneous hypothesis and theory after another. All of which in their time were deemed to be correct interpretations of the world and universe. Until they were revised with new hypotheses that required subsequent revision..

[Jeremy]

So, here's the quote that greeted me on Facebook this morning:

"If we don't understand something, we should roll up our sleeves and get to work trying to figure it out. We should not be lazy and say it doesn't exist."

And now for the question, and I kinda want to hear from both non-believers and believers on this one, why the assumption that if something isn't believed in, it's merely a matter of insufficient understanding? Put another way, is it not possible to completely understand what God is supposed to be, why some choose to believe in him, why that belief is important to them, and so on, and still choose not to believe, as I do?

Tell me how I'm not supposed to look at the above quote as anything but arrogant presumption? If not else is it not a matter of false dilemma, namely that the only two options are belief or misunderstanding?

[Edmonton PRT]

If we look at the fact that the majority of people are religious then there is overwhelming evidence that religion is both relevant and much more popular than atheism.

5.1 to 6.8 billion people are religious

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

[Edmonton PRT]

This is exactly why this debate never goes anywhere... one side is speaking in the language of faith and the other side is speaking in the language of science.

I was speaking to Dr. Don Page at the UofA. He studies the cosmos and is a man of science. He is a friend and college of Stephen Hawkings and edits his books and theories. As Dr. Page studies the Universe, he is more and more convinced that there is a God.

[Jeremy]

If we look at the fact that the majority of people are religious then there is overwhelming evidence that religion is both relevant and much more popular than atheism.

5.1 to 6.8 billion people are religious

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

Neither relevance nor popularity are evidence. Popular myths are still myths.

[lat]

If we look at the fact that the majority of people are religious then there is overwhelming evidence that religion is both relevant and much more popular than atheism.

5.1 to 6.8 billion people are religious

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

Just because something is prevalent doesn't mean its correct. At one point, prevailing wisdom told us that the earth was flat. This was due to a lack of evidence contradicting that idea. We now have enough evidence to show that the earth is not flat. Those folks that did not believe what they were told but instead found evidence to contradict it, paid a heavy price for speaking out...

I am open to evidence of creationism ... still waiting...

[lat]

This is exactly why this debate never goes anywhere... one side is speaking in the language of faith and the other side is speaking in the language of science.

I was speaking to Dr. Don Page at the UofA. He studies the cosmos and is a man of science. He is a friend and college of Stephen Hawkings and edits his books and theories. As Dr. Page studies the Universe, he is more and more convinced that there is a God.

evidence

[Vincent]

On the contrary. Everything we see, hear, touch, feel and smell is evidence of God.

Simply put, to imagine that this world with all its creatures dependent on each other and the planet they live on are not a result of intelligent design is, in my opinion, ludicrous. It takes far greater faith to believe that all of this happened by random chance, than it does to believe that it was designed and created with a purpose.

If it is true that anything and everything is somehow evidence of God, then by inference everything and anything could also be evidence of an absence of God. If you don't need to present specific evidence, then why should anyone else? In fact rather than present any evidence at all you merely claim the alternative is "ludricrous" without bothering to demonstrate, besides the fact you personally disagree with it, why.

How can the existence of everything and anything possibly be evidence against the existence of God?

And don't confuse evidence and proof. Evidence points you towards a belief, proof confirms that belief.

There is no tangible proof for either side of the argument but I use all of creation as evidence of God simply because everything fits together so perfectly that it can't possibly be random.

I don't just simply disagree with atheism. There is a reason why I disagree with it.
Because of the intricate dependencies of everything in our world on everything else it has to have been intelligently designed. There is just no other way unless you are prepared to believe that our existence somehow beat impossible odds.

I'm sure you've all heard that without honey bees, plant life would die off, which means animals would die off and eventually humanity. So if, essentially the world as we know it, depends on the honey bee, how could one ever have existed without the other? Everything depends on everything. That is some strong evidence, not only that there is intelligent design involved, but also that it all came about at the same time and not over billions of years of evolution.

That is why I believe any other theory is ludicrous. So tell me, how can the existence of everything and anything possibly be evidence against the existence of God?

[Jeremy]

On the contrary. Everything we see, hear, touch, feel and smell is evidence of God.

Simply put, to imagine that this world with all its creatures dependent on each other and the planet they live on are not a result of intelligent design is, in my opinion, ludicrous. It takes far greater faith to believe that all of this happened by random chance, than it does to believe that it was designed and created with a purpose.

If it is true that anything and everything is somehow evidence of God, then by inference everything and anything could also be evidence of an absence of God. If you don't need to present specific evidence, then why should anyone else? In fact rather than present any evidence at all you merely claim the alternative is "ludricrous" without bothering to demonstrate, besides the fact you personally disagree with it, why.

How can the existence of everything and anything possibly be evidence against the existence of God?

And don't confuse evidence and proof. Evidence points you towards a belief, proof confirms that belief.

There is no tangible proof for either side of the argument but I use all of creation as evidence of God simply because everything fits together so perfectly that it can't possibly be random.

I don't just simply disagree with atheism. There is a reason why I disagree with it.
Because of the intricate dependencies of everything in our world on everything else it has to have been intelligently designed. There is just no other way unless you are prepared to believe that our existence somehow beat impossible odds.

I'm sure you've all heard that without honey bees, plant life would die off, which means animals would die off and eventually humanity. So if, essentially the world as we know it, depends on the honey bee, how could one ever have existed without the other? Everything depends on everything. That is some strong evidence, not only that there is intelligent design involved, but also that it all came about at the same time and not over billions of years of evolution.

That is why I believe any other theory is ludicrous. So tell me, how can the existence of everything and anything possibly be evidence against the existence of God?

Argument from design, which is all you're presenting, has been done to death. The only people whom continue to equate complexity and design are people who want to re-enforce a priori beliefs.

As for the honey bee stuff, I've heard of lots of things over years, and I shake my head at most of them. For example, people who would write nonsense like "everything depends on everything." Absurdity at its finest.

And while you're pondering the question of bees, a little dose of reality:

http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pol...pollinator.pdf

Pay close attention to the state fact that there are about 200 000 other species that pollinate, besides your bees that the world supposedly depends on. You may want to read it two or three times to let it sink in.

[kkozoriz]

If we look at the fact that the majority of people are religious then there is overwhelming evidence that religion is both relevant and much more popular than atheism.

5.1 to 6.8 billion people are religious

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

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov

[MrOilers]

I am a Christian and I also believe that all those "gods" you mention are real. They were not fairy tales. They were real. The Titans were real too.

I am wondering how you think that they "were" real at one point, but aren't anymore?


I don't want to make assumptions about your opinion, but I personally believe a god without any followers doesn't exist.

[Vincent]

On the contrary. Everything we see, hear, touch, feel and smell is evidence of God.

Simply put, to imagine that this world with all its creatures dependent on each other and the planet they live on are not a result of intelligent design is, in my opinion, ludicrous. It takes far greater faith to believe that all of this happened by random chance, than it does to believe that it was designed and created with a purpose.

And what intelligent force designed your god?

The question alone assumes that God lives within our realm of time.

Genesis 1:1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

That is the beginning because when God created the heavens and the earth, time began. Everything in our world has a beginning and an end. As a result the concept of infinite is impossible for us.

But God himself exists outside of time, which means in His realm there is no cause and effect, and hence no need for Him to be created. God has always been.

As tempting as it is, don't bother trying to fit God into a definition. We have no idea what it's like to live without time. So the answer to your question is, he was not created.

He has always been. This is why he said to Moses "I AM WHO I AM.[c] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’" and Jesus (who is God) said to the Pharisees "before Abraham was born, I am!" thereby confirming not only that he existed before Abraham (who had lived hundreds of years prior) but also that he is the same God who spoke to Moses from the burning bush.

Don't dismiss as a fairy tale something you don't understand just because you don't understand it.

[bolo]

As for the honey bee stuff, I've heard of lots of things over years, and I shake my head at most of them. For example, people who would write nonsense like "everything depends on everything." Absurdity at its finest.

Reminds me of this video (Bananas are Proof of God): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

And they never even bothered to look up what actual, wild bananas look like.

[Vincent]

Argument from design, which is all you're presenting, has been done to death. The only people whom continue to equate complexity and design are people who want to re-enforce a priori beliefs.

As for the honey bee stuff, I've heard of lots of things over years, and I shake my head at most of them. For example, people who would write nonsense like "everything depends on everything." Absurdity at its finest.

And while you're pondering the question of bees, a little dose of reality:

http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pol...pollinator.pdf

Pay close attention to the state fact that there are about 200 000 other species that pollinate, besides your bees that the world supposedly depends on. You may want to read it two or three times to let it sink in.

The argument is used because it is a strong argument. You can't dismiss the complexity of design argument simply because you've heard it before.

The honey bee is only one example of how certain elements of creation are dependent on other elements of creation. For example, how is it that animals have exactly the right camouflage they need for their environment, and exactly the right hunting and foraging skills they need to sustain them? If they developed these skills over millions of years then how did they not die of starvation during those years? And how on earth could an animal develop camouflage colours? Does the DNA of the animal recognize the colours of the environment and then decide what colour it should be?

Also if the hunters were more skilled or more deadly, then their prey would eventually face extinction. If on the other hand the camouflage of the prey were more perfect then the hunters would face extinction. So if all of this developed over millions of years of evolution how did nature become so perfectly balanced in time for both the hunter and prey to survive and thrive?

And you still did not answer my question as to how the existence of creation can possibly be evidence against the existence of God.

[Spill]

And what intelligent force designed your god?

The question alone assumes that God lives within our realm of time mind.

...

Fixed that for you.

[MrOilers]

Genesis 1:1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

The ancient Hebrew that this verse was originally written in actually lends it to 3 possible interpretations. Some translations of the Bible have footnotes that explain this - the New Revised Standard Version, or NRSV, gives some alternative descriptions as well (and I am paraphrasing here just to make it simple):

Possibility 1 - God was already present (for some undetermined time), and started to create the heavens and the earth. The start of this creation was when "the beginning" started.

Possibility 2 - "The beginning" was actually the moment when god came into existence, and then god created the heavens and the earth.

Possibility 3 - "The beginning" is simply a reference point describing the time that both god, and the heavens and the earth, simultaneously came into existence.


I think that there is A LOT of text in the Bible, whose intended meanings we will never be able to sort out, simply because the sources are ambiguous and/or because of the way they were written. The intended meanings of Chapters 1-11 of Genesis (Creation, Eden, Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel, etc.) will forever be debated among Christians and scholars.

[brett-]

Not going to get too involved with the debate as I realize I will always be an atheist, regardless of the arguments presented. And I am sure the theists will think the same thing..

The Bible is largely problematic in many ways because there are SO many translations and interpretations.. not to mention entire books and stories were added in and taken out throughout the years. The Vatican (esp. throughout the Middle Ages) has been more than liberal in adding and taking things out (often for political reasoning) of what the original scriptures would have been that I am sure the bible today would be simply unrecognizable to those who were around to write the original.

[MrOilers]

The honey bee is only one example of how certain elements of creation are dependent on other elements of creation. For example, how is it that animals have exactly the right camouflage they need for their environment, and exactly the right hunting and foraging skills they need to sustain them?

Short answer - the pressures of natural selection work upon the populations of all organisms within an ecosystem concurrently.

The thing is, natural selection is a very harsh process. The vast majority of organisms (more than 99.9% of them) that have ever existed did not have features that allowed them to survive, so they have gone extinct. Survival is the exception, and extinction is the rule.

All breeds of dogs we have were selectively bred by people from wild wolves. Broccoli, cauliflower, and Brussels sprouts were created by people by selective breeding of wild mustard. This "artificial" selection was done by people over only a few thousands years. I know it's difficult to imagine, but if life on Earth has existed for hundreds of millions of years, it's not a stretch to see how "natural" selection, done through the laws of nature could create such diverse, complex, and intricate ecosystems.

[MrOilers]

The Bible is largely problematic in many ways because there are SO many translations and interpretations.

This is an important point - there is a lot of symbolism and metaphor written in the Bible, sitting along side the history.

A lot of disagreements come when one person interprets a metaphor for a literal phrase, and vise-versa. There's no real formula or hard and fast rule for sorting out symbolism from literal descriptions, either.

Also, the Bible is an edited volume of books, poems, songs, and letters. Over the centuries, people decided which literature should be part of the Bible and which ones shouldn't. Certain Bibles contain extra books (i.e. Book of Maccabees, Song of Solomon, etc.) because their church denominations still use them, and some Bibles even contain extra chapters for some books. For example, NRSV containing the apocrypha has an extra chapter in the book of Daniel (which has the tale of Bel and the Dragon), which the King James Version doesn't have.

[Edmonton PRT]

This is exactly why this debate never goes anywhere... one side is speaking in the language of faith and the other side is speaking in the language of science.

I was speaking to Dr. Don Page at the UofA. He studies the cosmos and is a man of science. He is a friend and college of Stephen Hawkings and edits his books and theories. As Dr. Page studies the Universe, he is more and more convinced that there is a God.

evidence

I'll ask him to sign a affidavit the next time he is over at my house for another Bible study.

A devoted evangelical Christian, he has led discussions in his church community on the relationship between science and faith, something which, according to his former pastor, "is so often problematic for those with religious beliefs."
"I don't really see a conflict between science and religion," says Page, adding that entertaining multiple universes has perhaps made him more open to various arguments for the existence of God.

http://www.archives.expressnews.ualb.../11/10566.html

[Edmonton PRT]

If we look at the fact that the majority of people are religious then there is overwhelming evidence that religion is both relevant and much more popular than atheism.

5.1 to 6.8 billion people are religious

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

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov

Are you saying that people of faith are unintelligent?

[Chmilz]

If we look at the fact that the majority of people are religious then there is overwhelming evidence that religion is both relevant and much more popular than atheism.

5.1 to 6.8 billion people are religious

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

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov

Are you saying that people of faith are unintelligent?

Actually, they are. There has been lots of research that shows a direct relation between low intelligence (meaning anything from poor education to lower IQ) and a belief in higher powers.

Statistically, as any population gets more educated, the rate of atheism grows rapidly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...d_intelligence

Here's the results of one of many, many studies on the topic (above link has more details on this specific study):

[Edmonton PRT]

^I'll tell Dr. Page that he is an *****.

Maybe it is because more educated people get all wrapped up in the God of Materialism and religion just gets in the way they worship the all mighty dollar.

[Vincent]

I am a Christian and I also believe that all those "gods" you mention are real. They were not fairy tales. They were real. The Titans were real too.

I am wondering how you think that they "were" real at one point, but aren't anymore?

I don't want to make assumptions about your opinion, but I personally believe a god without any followers doesn't exist.

This is a very interesting subject and one that even most Christians know little to nothing about. But I've done some studying and read some very in depth archeological research that ties together archeological evidence and secular history with biblical history.

The book of Enoch (which most denominations don't even include in their Bible) is very much the key to all of this that ties all the pieces together.

It is a matter of Biblical record that God had placed a number of Angels to watch over man after creation. The book of Enoch identifies this group as "The Watchers" and groups them in 20 groups of 10 with a leader for each group, a total of 200 Watchers. One of these leaders convinced the others to "take wives" from among the daughters of men and make offspring for themselves. This event is also briefly mentioned in the book of Genesis. (It's not clear whether they did this through DNA manipulation or whether they actually had the ability to fornicate, but for the purposes of this study it doesn't really matter)

The offspring of these unions between angels and human women were known as Nephilim and described as being giants. (There is archeological evidence that giants existed on earth at some point, which supports the Biblical account).

Anyway, to answer your question about the Greek Gods, quite simply the Watchers interacted with men (against the orders of God) and they became the "gods" that man worshipped with names such as Isis, Osiris, Horus and Dionysus. The demi-gods (or Titans) were a group of 72 fallen angels who conspired against the others including Osiris, whom they "killed" according to Sumerian legend. Hercules was a Nephilim (half man, half "god"). Other famous Nephilim are Gilgamesh and Nimrod, the builder of the tower of Babel (which was not actually a tower, but a stargate to reach the other dimension which is why God put a stop to it - note; God does not care if we build tall towers but he does care if we try to leave this dimension where we belong).

The book of Genesis tells us that God ordered the Israelites to kill all these Nephilim (giants) so that none would survive. The book of Enoch tells us that the giants who are "the offspring of spirit and flesh" "will be called evil spirits on earth. And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth and cause trouble." (think ghosts and hauntings)

The book of Enoch also tells us that the Watchers themselves were "bound for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth until the day of their judgement". Because they are angels, they can not be killed but only bound.

So to make a long story short, when you put all the pieces of archeology and both secular and biblical history together, it would seem that the gods that the Sumerians and Greeks and Romans and Egyptians worshipped were simply fallen angels who have since been bound. So they still exist, but they have "gone away". They were supposed to watch over man, not interact with man. But clearly, they decided to interact. That's where all the "legends" come from.

Although over the years, these kinds of stories have changed somewhat and in many cases have become more and more fairy tale like and less and less realistic, they do have their basis in real events.

[Vincent]

Actually, they are. There has been lots of research that shows a direct relation between low intelligence (meaning anything from poor education to lower IQ) and a belief in higher powers.

So I guess Isaac Newton, Plato, Kelvin, Kepler, Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Albert Einstein and Galileo were all a bunch of dummies for believing in a creator God.

And according to that graph, the highest percentage of people not believing in god (80%) are people with an IQ of approximately 94. That's brilliant.

[Vincent]

The Bible is largely problematic in many ways because there are SO many translations and interpretations.

This is an important point - there is a lot of symbolism and metaphor written in the Bible, sitting along side the history.

The Bible is a puzzle in many ways. No doubt about it. Much of it is literal and much is metaphoric. Even within Christian circles there is a lot of debate about how certain passages should be interpreted. And most Christian scholars agree that there is not a single English translation that is 100% correct, which is why those of us who do serious Bible study always refer to Greek and Hebrew lexicons to ensure proper understanding of the scriptures.

None of this makes the original scriptures any less real. It only means you need to put in a little effort if you want to truly understand God's plan for mankind.

[lat]

This is exactly why this debate never goes anywhere... one side is speaking in the language of faith and the other side is speaking in the language of science.

I was speaking to Dr. Don Page at the UofA. He studies the cosmos and is a man of science. He is a friend and college of Stephen Hawkings and edits his books and theories. As Dr. Page studies the Universe, he is more and more convinced that there is a God.

evidence

I'll ask him to sign a affidavit the next time he is over at my house for another Bible study.

A devoted evangelical Christian, he has led discussions in his church community on the relationship between science and faith, something which, according to his former pastor, "is so often problematic for those with religious beliefs."
"I don't really see a conflict between science and religion," says Page, adding that entertaining multiple universes has perhaps made him more open to various arguments for the existence of God.

http://www.archives.expressnews.ualb.../11/10566.html

neither of which is evidence

[Edmonton PRT]

Do you have proof that God doesn't exist?

[Chmilz]

Actually, they are. There has been lots of research that shows a direct relation between low intelligence (meaning anything from poor education to lower IQ) and a belief in higher powers.

So I guess Isaac Newton, Plato, Kelvin, Kepler, Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Albert Einstein and Galileo were all a bunch of dummies for believing in a creator God.

And according to that graph, the highest percentage of people not believing in god (80%) are people with an IQ of approximately 94. That's brilliant.

The study associated with that specific graph was just one of many. Countries with a high level of education also have a very high level of Atheism, there just wasn't a simple graph handy for me to paste up.

As for those men noted, some of them were alive hundreds of years ago, before evolution was discovered and many religious beliefs were disproven via science. Also, Einstein was not religious, and did not believe in a god, although he often spoke about the universe in a way that religious folk have (unsuccessfully) try to spin as religion. There are an astounding number of books, articles, references, and more that confirm this as fact.

[MrOilers]

Although over the years, these kinds of stories have changed somewhat and in many cases have become more and more fairy tale like and less and less realistic, they do have their basis in real events.

Personally, I think this is true for all of Biblical history. I don't trust the Bible as any kind of authoritative or a very accurate source (learning about the Bible, ironically, is one of the reasons I first became an atheist). There's a lot of mythology tied in with historical accounts, which makes all of it suspect to me.

As for Nephilim, does the book of Enoch actually describe them as being giants? I have only seen people translate/interpret the word "Nephilim" to mean "giant" but haven't encountered any other source telling me that's what it means.

[kkozoriz]

If we look at the fact that the majority of people are religious then there is overwhelming evidence that religion is both relevant and much more popular than atheism.

5.1 to 6.8 billion people are religious

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

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov

Are you saying that people of faith are unintelligent?

Ignorance does not mean unintelligent. You may be a brain surgeon and yet know nothing about astronomy. In that case you would be ignorant in regards to astronomy.

In other words, know of what you speak. Don't just parrot the line give in a book that's got literally hundreds of translations all of which are subtly different.

Evidence.

"Jesus is the son of god"
How do we know this? In a book written years after he supposedly lived someone said that Jesus said that he was.

Yeah, that'll stand up in court.

[kkozoriz]

Do you have proof that God doesn't exist?

You cannot prove a negative. Atheists don't prove that god doesn't exist. Believers are the ones claiming that he does. Where is your proof?

Can you prove the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster don't exist?

[lat]

Do you have proof that God doesn't exist?

read my earlier posts.

Edit:

Actually, I was looking for him last summer on Scona Road. I didn't see him there at all. I even asked the road crew that was there at the time and they hadn't seen him either. Therefore, he doesn't exist.

[Chmilz]

Do you have proof that God doesn't exist?

Humankind has substantially more evidence that there is no god, than humankind has that a god does exist. You keep asking us to prove negatives, which is, plainly, stupid and childish. You've been known to be that way even discussing observable facts like local road construction, so seeing it applied to this topic is even more comical.

But hey, for fun:

Word has it that there's also a cosmic teapot flying through space somewhere between Earth and Mars, but it's so small no telescope can see it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

It's laughable how religion's only defense is, well, nothing. Asking the scientific community to prove negatives is a joke. Those are the arguments made by people with no argument, as a diversion tactic.

[Marcel Petrin]

So I guess Isaac Newton, Plato, Kelvin, Kepler, Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Albert Einstein and Galileo were all a bunch of dummies for believing in a creator God.

Einstein did not believe in a creator God, and only spoke of God in a non-literal sense ("God does not play dice" in regards to his opposition to quantum uncertainty). This is extremely well documented, and Einstein himself was explicit about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_..._the_afterlife

He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems."

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

For some reason though, theists love to claim Einstein as one of their own, and often quote him out of context to back up their false claims.

As far as the rest of your list goes, it's hard to say if any of them truly were theistic or atheistic in their deeply held beliefs, because they lived during a time when not believing in god was an offense that could receive severe punishment or ostracism. Look what happened to Galileo, for example.

Do you have proof that God doesn't exist?

No, nor do atheists require any. We are not the ones making a positive claim about the existence of something.

Do you have proof that Thor doesn't exist?

[Chmilz]

Do you have proof that Thor doesn't exist?

That would be pretty hard. He's clearly real, and in movies: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0800369/

[Marcel Petrin]

Also, I think it's pretty amusing that Vincent is claiming that the Bible is some sort of inerrant reflection of actual history. Several of the biggest, most important stories/allegories/myths from the Bible were they true would have had huge implications for archaeology and should be easy to find in the archaeological record in the area, but are completely absent. The ones that spring to mind most easily of course are the Flood, and the Exodus (to saying nothing of Creation itself).

There is zero archaeological evidence of the Exodus. None.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exo...oricity_debate

[Edmonton PRT]

Maybe you should read the first line in our Constitutional proclamation. This is the proclamation that makes our Constitution the law of Canada. When you get that line changed, let me know.

[Vincent]

As for those men noted, some of them were alive hundreds of years ago, before evolution was discovered and many religious beliefs were disproven via science. Also, Einstein was not religious, and did not believe in a god, although he often spoke about the universe in a way that religious folk have (unsuccessfully) try to spin as religion. There are an astounding number of books, articles, references, and more that confirm this as fact.

Einstein recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. He also said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.".

[kkozoriz]

Maybe you should read the first line in our Constitutional proclamation. This is the proclamation that makes our Constitution the law of Canada. When you get that line changed, let me know.

So does that mean if I don't recognize the existence of your god then I don't recognize the existence of the laws? Cool! No more taxes to pay! I can run red lights! Woo-hoo!!!

Of course this is the same god that gave us such great laws as :

Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
Deuteronomy 22:11

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.
Leviticus 24:16

Whosoever he be that doth rebel against thy commandment, and will not hearken unto thy words in all that thou commandest him, he shall be put to death: only be strong and of a good courage.
Joshua 1:18

I notice that the constitution says god and not Jesus so I'm assuming that the old testament is fair game.

[Vincent]

Personally, I think this is true for all of Biblical history. I don't trust the Bible as any kind of authoritative or a very accurate source (learning about the Bible, ironically, is one of the reasons I first became an atheist). There's a lot of mythology tied in with historical accounts, which makes all of it suspect to me.

I understand where you're coming from but as I said earlier, a lot of the "Mythology" we learn about in school is based on actual events, and the further we dig the more we learn that what was once considered "mythology" is in actual fact history.

Many Biblical stories have been supported by archaeology, such as the time of King David's reign, the seven years of plenty followed by 7 years of famine during Josephs time, various battles, the tower of Babel, the flood of Noah and the exodus of the Israelites, including even the parting of the red sea.

So over time, stories that were once unproven are suddenly proven to be true.

As for Nephilim, does the book of Enoch actually describe them as being giants? I have only seen people translate/interpret the word "Nephilim" to mean "giant" but haven't encountered any other source telling me that's what it means.

The book of Enoch does specifically call them giants. Here are a few quotes:

[speaking to the fallen angels]: "Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants as your sons?"

"And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. They shall be evil spirits on earth, and evil spirits shall they be called."

"And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth and cause trouble"

"And the women have borne giants, and the whole earth has thereby been filled with blood and unrighteousness."

[speaking of the angels who sinned] "And they shall produce on the earth giants not according to the spirit, but according to the flesh, and there shall be great punishment on the earth and the earth shall be cleansed from all impurity. Yea, there shall come a great destruction over the whole earth, and there shall be a deluge and a great destruction for one year."

[kkozoriz]

The flood of Noah has archaeological proof? Really?? Really???

[Vincent]

Maybe you should read the first line in our Constitutional proclamation. This is the proclamation that makes our Constitution the law of Canada. When you get that line changed, let me know.

So does that mean if I don't recognize the existence of your god then I don't recognize the existence of the laws? Cool! No more taxes to pay! I can run red lights! Woo-hoo!!!

Of course this is the same god that gave us such great laws as :

Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
Deuteronomy 22:11

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.
Leviticus 24:16

Whosoever he be that doth rebel against thy commandment, and will not hearken unto thy words in all that thou commandest him, he shall be put to death: only be strong and of a good courage.
Joshua 1:18

I notice that the constitution says god and not Jesus so I'm assuming that the old testament is fair game.

It's generally considered a bad idea to mock things you don't understand.

First of all Jesus is God.

Secondly, those old testament laws you mention were given to the Israelites to both test them and to teach them. The harsh punishments were both a deterrence to sin and a reminder of the seriousness of sin. Many sins however could be atoned for by the shedding of blood from a calf or lamb.

The Israelites agreed to obey the laws in exchange for being God's special people and having God's hand of protection over them. As long as they obeyed God He gave them victory in battle and prosperity in the land. When they turned their backs on God, He turned His back on them and they were conquered by other nations.

The Israelites broke the covenant with God, as He knew they would, but the broken covenant served to prove that they were not capable of earning their salvation, but that the gift of salvation was the only way.

So then Jesus came with a new covenant that required only faith and would provide salvation not through works but through grace. When Jesus died on the cross, His blood was the atonment for all sin; past, present and future.

Christianity is the only faith that teaches that salvation is a gift of grace, and not earned through works. Which is an important point because nobody is perfect, and no one can save himself through works, which was evident by the repeated failure of the Israelites to keep God's commands of the first covenant, and continues to be evident by the sinning of all people including Christians.

[Edmonton PRT]

Amen!

[kkozoriz]

And god said "I'm going to give you free will and punish you if you use it. I'm funny that way."

[azzey]

^ I don't think you get it. Did you read Vincent's post?

Ultimately, this boils down to faith. Some of us believe in God, and some do not. No opinions are going to be changed by this argument, and nothing will be proven or disproven.

[MrOilers]

Many Biblical stories have been supported by archaeology...

I don't disagree with you there. But there are also many Biblical stories that are not mentioned anywhere else in history or archaeology, and are only mentioned in some books of the Bible.

There's also a lot more Archaeology (important kings, rulers, empires, battles & wars, wolrd-changing events) that happened that are well-known in history, but never even mentioned in the Bible.

...the tower of Babel, the flood of Noah...

There is no archaeological evidence for these events (these stories are both contained in the mysterious, surreal, and often confusing stories mentioned throughout Genesis 1-11).

It's interesting that at one time "Noah's flood" was a major part of the geological sciences up until around 150 years ago, and stopped when we finally realized that the fossils of ocean creatures on mountain tops are because the mountains rose (and are still rising) out of the ocean, not because the ocean rose above the mountains. This is typical in scientific history - an old belief in Biblical stories is somewhat accepted until observation and physical evidence overwhelmingly proves its literal meaning to be false. Today's whole "origins" debate (i.e. evolution vs. creationism) is the exact same thing that was going on with Astronomy and the public back in Galileo's time.

You have to be incredibly careful when trying to interpret the Bible as a scientific text. I agree with Galileo when he wrote, "The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go."

[MrOilers]

As for those men noted, some of them were alive hundreds of years ago, before evolution was discovered and many religious beliefs were disproven via science. Also, Einstein was not religious, and did not believe in a god, although he often spoke about the universe in a way that religious folk have (unsuccessfully) try to spin as religion. There are an astounding number of books, articles, references, and more that confirm this as fact.

Einstein recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. He also said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.".

Either way, it doesn't matter what Einstein believed personally. It's his scientific work and accomplishments that he is revered for.

And listing the names of people who believed in God is pointless. It's not as if whichever has more "smart" people on their side is correct. That's not the way any argument is won.

[Jeremy]

I owe Vincent an aswer to his question from a number of posts back, but I wanted to take a day to think about so that I could give as complete an answer as possible.

The simplest answer to the question of why everything could be consider proof of an absence of God is that it depends on how you view "everything." Someone can look at the cosmos and say "See, God must have had a hand in this," whereas other look at the same cosmos and see no evidence of the divine at all. So why can two people look at the same same evidence, the same thing really (namely, "everything") and come up with two somewhat divergent conclusions.

I would contend, in other words this is simply my point-of-view, that it comes down to which side asks the better questions. Frankly, I think science asks better questions than faith does. Here's what I mean.

Speaking of the cosmos, let's look at something like the horsehead nebula. I've had people, theists, show me a picture and proclaim "Who made this?" Now almost immediately the implication in this question is clear -- that the "this" in question must have been made by a "whom". Actually, if you listen to a lot of theists, they do tend to ask a lot of "who" questions, "who made this, who made the earth, the first person", and so on.

Science, on the other hand, doesn't often concern itself so much with who's. Instead, the question is usually "how". How was this made, how can we tell, how did life begin (never, conversely, "who began it") and so on. To me, how questions generate far better answers than who, and they do so because they are better questions.

And isn't that really what the difference between faith and science is all about, which asks the better, more complete, more satisifying questions?

[Marcel Petrin]

Maybe you should read the first line in our Constitutional proclamation. This is the proclamation that makes our Constitution the law of Canada. When you get that line changed, let me know.

If your post was a response to one of mine or something I said, I have no idea what you're responding to nor what point you were attempting to make.

[Arsoys]

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov

It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.
― Francis Bacon

The three great apostles of practical atheism, that make converts without persecuting, and retain them without preaching, are wealth, health and power.
― C C Colton

If you don't believe in God, all you have to believe in is decency. Decency is very good. Better decent than indecent. But I don't think it's enough.
― Harold Macmillan

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists.
― Mohandas Gandhi

In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners.
― Jonathon Miller

[Vincent]

The flood of Noah has archaeological proof? Really?? Really???

I didn't say "proof" I said supporting evidence. Frankly I'm surprised you asked about that one and not the parting of the red sea.

The Sumerian King List, shows us that kings reigned for long periods of time, followed by a great flood, followed by kings who ruled for much shorter periods of time. The Bible describes the same pattern. Before the flood men had long life spans (up to 900 years) and after the flood the life spans decreased dramatically.

The Gilgamesh Epic speaks of the flood also. Even an ark with animals, and details such as the sending out of birds during the flood, and the fact that the ark rested on a mountain and a sacrifice was offered after the flood waters receded.

These are extra-biblical records that support the story of Noah's flood.

In 1934 two archeologists, S. Langdon and L. Watelin discovered evidence of a salt water flood at Kish (Cush) which matches the time period (2900 - 2600 BCE) of the Gilgamesh account.

[Vincent]

And god said "I'm going to give you free will and punish you if you use it. I'm funny that way."

You can't buy love, nor can you force people to give it to you. God wants to be chosen and loved of a free will. That's the only true love.

You can choose to turn your back on God, or you can choose to turn your back on the world. Choose wisely.

[MrOilers]

There have been countless examples of catastrophic floods throughout human history that have wiped out entire civilizations, including today (E.g. the tsunami in Japan last year).

But it makes a heck of a lot more sense to analyze the intent of the story of Noah's flood (which is a lesson of redemption after destruction) than to try and comb through data to "cherry pick" pieces of scientific evidence that happen to coincide with a literal meaning of the story.

[brett-]

.......ever think that the Bible simply recycled the mythology present in the King List and the Epic of Gilgamesh? These documents were around centuries before the Bible was being put together, and many believe many of these stories were simple retelling of the local myths which had been recycled around the region for generations before. The book of Ecclesiastes is recognized as borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh for instance..

[Vincent]

I don't disagree with you there. But there are also many Biblical stories that are not mentioned anywhere else in history or archaeology, and are only mentioned in some books of the Bible.

There's also a lot more Archaeology (important kings, rulers, empires, battles & wars, wolrd-changing events) that happened that are well-known in history, but never even mentioned in the Bible.

The Bible has a lot of information but no book is exhaustive. The fact that certain events are not mentioned does not discredit the book in any way. Did your high school history book mention every single event that ever happened in the world? Of course not. Did that make the book any less factual? Again, of course not.

If a book (the Bible for example) has a hundred stories in it, and 50 of them have been proven to be true, does the lack of proof for the other 50 then invalidate the entire book? Of course not.

It's interesting that at one time "Noah's flood" was a major part of the geological sciences up until around 150 years ago, and stopped when we finally realized that the fossils of ocean creatures on mountain tops are because the mountains rose (and are still rising) out of the ocean, not because the ocean rose above the mountains.

The fact that mountains rose up out of the earth does not prove that there was no flood. Only by accurately dating those fossils can we see if they could have been brought up there by the flood, or if they were there before the flood.

[kkozoriz]

The flood of Noah has archaeological proof? Really?? Really???

I didn't say "proof" I said supporting evidence. Frankly I'm surprised you asked about that one and not the parting of the red sea.

The Sumerian King List, shows us that kings reigned for long periods of time, followed by a great flood, followed by kings who ruled for much shorter periods of time. The Bible describes the same pattern. Before the flood men had long life spans (up to 900 years) and after the flood the life spans decreased dramatically.

The Gilgamesh Epic speaks of the flood also. Even an ark with animals, and details such as the sending out of birds during the flood, and the fact that the ark rested on a mountain and a sacrifice was offered after the flood waters receded.

These are extra-biblical records that support the story of Noah's flood.

In 1934 two archeologists, S. Langdon and L. Watelin discovered evidence of a salt water flood at Kish (Cush) which matches the time period (2900 - 2600 BCE) of the Gilgamesh account.

I just picked one. I could have picked another. Don't read too much into it.

Isn't it funny how the Noah story matches up with one from an earlier time but with the names changed. It's almost as if someone was rewriting history in order to support their own religious views. Nah, would never happen....

There's any number of floods in history. There was one in Washington state that was caused by the sudden release of a glacial lake. That doesn't mean that the entire Earth was flooded.

I suppose it's not worth asking where all the water came from and where it all went in such a short span of time.

Related story. When the first stuffed examples of the greater bird of paradise were sent back to Europe they had been prepared by the Indonesian natives without their feet. This cause quite a lot of excitement as the church used this as "proof" of the story of the ark. It was claimed that the birds spent their entire lives in flight and were actually native to heaven.

At least until someone pointed out that the feet had simply been removed beforehand.

[Vincent]

Either way, it doesn't matter what Einstein believed personally. It's his scientific work and accomplishments that he is revered for.

And listing the names of people who believed in God is pointless. It's not as if whichever has more "smart" people on their side is correct. That's not the way any argument is won.

Agreed. I was merely responding to another post that claimed a belief in the supernatural was somehow tied to low intelligence.

[Marcel Petrin]

The fact that mountains rose up out of the earth does not prove that there was no flood. Only by accurately dating those fossils can we see if they could have been brought up there by the flood, or if they were there before the flood.

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

I do believe those fossils pre-date the supposed time of Noah's flood by a few hundred million years, give or take. Are you claiming that there is a similar deposit somewhere that coincides with Noah's flood? Or rather, that there is a series of them located around the entire globe that all do?

Again, there is no archaeological or geological evidence that supports the events you claim to be supported: Exodus, Flood, parting of the Red Sea, the building of the tower of Babel. Or at least none that is in the slightest way credible. On the other hand, many if not most of the main concepts, stories and memes within the Bible are quite obviously derived from the mythology of previous religions, such as Judaism (obviously), Zoroastrianism, and numerous others.

[Vincent]

I owe Vincent an aswer to his question from a number of posts back, but I wanted to take a day to think about so that I could give as complete an answer as possible.

...

Science, on the other hand, doesn't often concern itself so much with who's. Instead, the question is usually "how". How was this made, how can we tell, how did life begin (never, conversely, "who began it") and so on. To me, how questions generate far better answers than who, and they do so because they are better questions.

And isn't that really what the difference between faith and science is all about, which asks the better, more complete, more satisifying questions?

I believe that even the "how" questions will eventually lead you to God.

Here's a good question: How many years would it take humanity to reach a population of 7 billion if they started with 8 people who stepped off Noah's ark at approximately 2600 BCE?

Or another way to look at it is this: Knowing that our population continues to increase, and knowing that the further back we go the population numbers get smaller, if you go back far enough you must eventually get down to a handful of people on earth. Where did this handful of people come from?