God is Always the Worst Explanation: 8 Reasons

For the answer to any of life’s big questions—such as “Why are we here?” or “What is the meaning of life?”—God is always the worst guess. Super-smart aliens would be better. Fairies would be better. “I dunno, but there’s gotta be something better” would be better.

“God did it” is perhaps the most remarkable claim possible since it assumes, without compelling evidence, that a supernatural being created everything.

Let’s explore why God is the worst explanation for anything.

1. “God did it” is unfalsifiable. It explains too much.

“God did it” is the ready answer to explain any scientific puzzle—what caused abiogenesis (the first life, which allowed evolution to begin), what caused the Big Bang, and so on. Of course, science keeps answering those puzzles, meaning that “God did it” was both wrong and premature, but apologists never seem to learn that lesson.

I can never prove that “God did it” is not the explanation for anything. What about a tsunami that kills hundreds of thousands of people, God’s hiddenness despite earnest prayers, or anything else within Christianity that confounds us? The Christian can always say that God might have his own reasons that we simply aren’t entitled to know or aren’t smart enough to understand.

(A god who made knowing about him a requirement to avoiding hell in the afterlife and yet remains hidden is not the omnibenevolent Christian god, but let’s ignore that for now.)

Handwaving away challenges to the God hypothesis is exactly what you’d do if there were no God.

The problem is that “God did it” can never be falsified, which makes it useless. By explaining everything, it explains nothing. More here and here.

2. “I don’t know” is a perfectly reasonable answer. Don’t stretch to fill the void—if you don’t know, just say so.

Christians will say that they have the answers to life’s big questions. They seem to imagine a time limit, with the teacher saying, “Time’s up! Pencils down. Pass forward your quizzes.” Yes, Christianity does have answers to life’s big questions; it’s just that those answers suck. They’re given without evidence.

Things are clearer when we pull back to take in all the world’s religions. The map of world religions makes clear that religion’s answers to these questions depend on where you live. If you live in Tibet or Thailand, Buddhism teaches that we’re here to learn to cease suffering. If you live in Malaysia or Morocco, Islam teaches that we’re here to submit to Allah. Christianity, Scientology, and all the rest—they each have their own supernatural answers to these big questions, and each answer must be taken on faith.

3. Popular apologetic arguments don’t point to God.

The most popular Christian apologetic arguments today—the Cosmological, Moral, Transcendental, Ontological, Design, and Fine Tuning arguments and so on—are all deist arguments. The Christian god is never the conclusion; all these arguments can do is allude to some sort of vague and undefined Creator. Yahweh fits the bill no better than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

4. The Principle of Analogy tells us where to put supernatural claims.

We’re familiar with supernatural stories. Even the most secular society has in their history some approximation to Grimm’s Fairy Tales or the Greek pantheon of gods or magical folk such as fairies, leprechauns, and elves. We have a bin for these stories labeled “Mythology and Legend.” Zeus, Odin, and Merlin go in the bin, and so does Yahweh. More.

Concluded in part 2.

I’m afraid I don’t believe there is such a thing as blasphemy,
just outrage from those insecure in their own faith.
— Stephen Fry

Image credit: Bob Seidensticker

"Insulting you is not trolling, especially when you make silly statements which are rebutted in ..."

When Christianity Hits Reality: the William ..."
"The hexagon at Saturn's south pole is quite regular. I wonder why Paul's god designed ..."

William Lane Craig Replies to My ..."
"But he did decide which team won the game and it wasn't yours."

William Lane Craig Replies to My ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Chuck Johnson

    “God did it” is perhaps the most remarkable claim possible since it assumes, without compelling evidence, that a supernatural being created everything.

    Not a good way to describe the situation.
    There is plenty of very compelling evidence that God did it to the faithful. To you and me, that same evidence is not compelling.

    “Without scientific evidence” would be a good way to describe the situation. Even Christian fanatics have a respect for the reputation of science to be persuasive. So much so, that they have created their own preposterous and ersatz versions of evolutionary biology.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Perhaps I should’ve said “objectively compelling evidence”?

      • Chuck Johnson

        Perhaps I should’ve said “objectively compelling evidence”?-Bob

        “Compelling” evidence refers to the person or persons who might be compelled. This could include religionists.

        “Objective” evidence refers to the person or persons who might consider the evidence to be objective. This might include religionists.

        I think that “scientific evidence” is best, but not foolproof. The religionists can still claim scientific superiority with their claims, as in creationism or intelligent design.

        But when they try stunts like this, they are really sticking their necks out and exposing themselves to the wrath and ridicule of real scientists.
        Given enough scientific rope, they will hang themselves.

      • Chuck Johnson

        “Objectively” is an interesting word.
        It implies that we are observing or perceiving the object of our perception in a complete and inerrant way.

        But this is impossible.
        We can only know in part, and prophesy in part.

        http://tinyurl.com/34d5o85

  • Chuck Johnson

    “God did it” is unfalsifiable. It explains too much.

    Let’s change that to “It asserts too much”.
    The religious fanatics are not very scientific. Their ability to actually explain these phenomena is quite poor. But they don’t mind poor-quality explanations because this is a very longstanding tradition with them.

  • Chuck Johnson

    Christians will say that they have the answers to life’s big questions.
    They seem to imagine a time limit, with the teacher saying, “Time’s up!
    Pencils down.

    There is a very good reason for this.
    In ancient times, there was a need for the uneducated masses to be blindly obedient to the authority of religious and political leaders. This type of society helped to build civilizations.

    The God assertions allowed the leaders to use God as a ventriloquist dummy to deliver authoritative messages to the masses.

    The time for such simpleminded political and social control is now past.

    • MarkRM16

      It certainly should be, but the fact that so few people are atheistic/humanistic is frustrating, to say the least. The fact that religion plays such a huge role in American socio-political affairs is especially disturbing considering the progressive beliefs of the nation’s founding fathers and that it is the most powerful country in existence.

    • William

      In ancient times, there was a need for the uneducated masses to be
      blindly obedient to the authority of religious and political leaders.
      This type of society helped to build civilizations.

      Or at least, that’s what the authorities said.

      • Chuck Johnson

        Or at least, that’s what the authorities said.-William

        No, the traditional authorities would not have admitted to such a thing. That would have been like intentionally pulling back the curtain.

        That type of societal control only works as long as the illusion is maintained.

        http://tinyurl.com/l9gfxuy

  • Mr. A

    So I’m not the only one who noticed most of these arguments apply to a deistic being.

    • Michael Neville

      Aquinas’ Five Proofs of God™ are all logical arguments for deistic deities. Tommy admitted it.

      • Mr. A

        “Tommy”? Who is that?

        • Maoh

          Tommy Aquinas?

        • Mr. A

          Ohhhh I get it now. Was a bit confusing because someone named Tommy replied to the comment.

        • William

          Judging by his avatar, that’s Tommy Paine.

        • Michael Neville

          You’ve never heard of Thomas Aquinas? He was the most famous of the medieval scholastic philosophers and theologians. He had a love affair with Aristotle, which inflicted that guy’s philosophy on Christianity and Western Culture. We’re still living with the remnants of Aristotle’s ideas.

          Aquinas concocted five “proofs of god”. The first four of which are cosmological arguments, in which the existence of some kind of god is deduced or inferred from alleged facts concerning causation, change, motion, or contingency in respect of the universe as a whole or processes within it.

          The fifth argument is a teleological argument, also known as the argument from design. Aquinas argued for an intelligent creator based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural world.

        • Robert Templeton

          The Pinball Wizard, no doubt.

      • Jim Jones

        Huh?

    • Tommy

      It’s funny that Christian apologists unwittingly (I assume) justify Deism.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        When a Christian apologist lists these popular arguments, I half expect them to say, “And that’s why I am convinced that deism is true.”

        But that’s my bad–that would require them to be consistent.

        • eric

          Christian apologists are deists in the debate room and theists in the pew. Or, if you prefer, deists on Monday but theists on Sunday. Or another: Schroedinger’s theism – a nonbelieving observer appears to alter their state from theism to deism.

        • Michael Neville

          A while ago I asked one Christian if his god was a vague, deist deity who kick started the universe and then faded into the background or if his god was a white-bearded geezer who helped him find his car keys, decided which high school team wins the “Big Game”, and has an unhealthy obsession with sex or something else.

          I got a whine about strawman but I didn’t get a coherent answer. “My god is the Christian god like the Bible says, you know, that god.”

        • (((Mike)))

          Deist on the street. Theist in the sheets.

  • Hans-Richard Grümm

    An explanation for X should also tell us why we don’t see the alternatives to X. “God did X” fails this criterion, because God could equally well have done Y.
    As the saying goes, what could explain everything explains nothing.

    • Ryan M

      The “Equally well” qualification is a bit ambiguous. It could mean “it is possible that God bring about X and it is possible that God bring about Y”. But it could also mean “The probability that God would bring about X = The probability that God would bring about Y”.

      The first interpretation would be a problem since per your criteria it would imply that me putting food in my cat’s bowl is not a good explanation for there being food in its bowl if it’s possible that I put food in its bowl and it’s possible that I don’t put food in its bowl.

      I think the second interpretation seems more reasonable, but I would rephrase it to something like this: “God did X” is a bad explanation for any X since the probability of God doing some X over some Y is always equal. e.g. “God caused evolution” is a bad explanation for evolution since the probability of God doing evolution over some alternative like instantaneous creation is equal.

      I think the above is a reasonable position, but it’s not entirely correct since we often say “God did X” is a bad explanation for some X precisely because we would expect God NOT to bring about X. e.g. “God caused evolution” is a bad explanation for evolution since we would expect God not to use a process which appears gratuitously evil.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Christians are happy to judge God when he does something they’d call good. It’s only when he does something insane (support slavery, demand genocide, drown everyone) that they attempt to play the “Ah, but no one can judge God!” card.

      • MR

        And I think it’s important when they do that we clarify that we’re not judging “God,” we’re judging whether their story is believable. If such a God as you describe existed, would he do or allow such things? We seem to fall into the trap (I guess for the shock value) of saying things like, “Your God is a monster for doing those things!,” when that’s not what we mean at all. That shock value trick might be effective with first-timers who hopefully would then realize, “Oh, yeah, that makes no sense;” but it seems to me that these hard-core apologetic types take it at face value that we are actually judging an existing God, when that’s not the case at all.

        I think it’s important to hammer home the point, “I don’t believe your story, it makes no sense” is what we’re really saying. “On the one hand you talk to me about an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful god who so loves the world, but out of the other side of your mouth (am I mixing metaphors?) you’re describing a god who is doing the opposite of those things. Then you excuse him for completely enigmatic and unbelievable reasons. Your story makes no sense.

        And importantly we have to point out that there is always a better explanation which completely resolves all issues: It’s simply not true. When we leave off with this, “You’re God is a monster” shtick, then we end up in the unhelpful position of appearing to them to be criticizing an existing God, when we should be criticizing their story because it makes no sense.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yes, good distinction. Carefully qualifying every argument (“Now, I’m just going to assume for argument’s sake that your God exists, OK, but that doesn’t mean that I really do”) is a pain and often unnecessary. But sometimes, yeah.

          They’re quick to say that we ignorant monkeys can’t judge the all-powerful Oz when he does something that looks crazy, but they’re happy to label as “good” things that they approve of. Consistency, please.

        • MR

          Carefully qualifying every argument….

          Agree. It’s a pain in the ass for something that seems obvious. But, I often see them, sometimes not making the distinction, sometimes taking advantage of the ambiguity (especially the apologists). I just think it’s important to throw in the distinction from time to time, especially for the lurkers, but also for the ones who really do think we simply hate God. I mean, it’s a bizarre stance to take, but how many times do we hear it? (shaking my head)

          They’re quick to say that we ignorant monkeys can’t judge…, but they’re happy to label….

          Again, two completely different things. We’re judging whether the story makes sense, they’re judging the actions of God himself which to them are good by default. We have to make the distinction.

          God is supposed to be the objective moral standard, God is supposed to be our moral example. When God is shown not living up to those standards, our response shouldn’t be, “God is a monster.” It should be, “Your story doesn’t make sense. The character of God isn’t being consistent with the moral standards you profess.”

          The first leads them to defend something they assume to be real. God himself. The second forces them to defend the integrity of the story. That’s a very different thing. God can’t be wrong for them. God being a monster or immoral isn’t the issue for us. The problem is that the story doesn’t make sense.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          Yep. A plane crashes and one out of a couple hundred passengers survives & they say it’s a miracle! praise god!

          They never say god killed the other couple hundred passengers or let the other passengers die. ( maybe he was too distracted & busy making his son’s image appear on a taco shell or slice of toast)

        • MR

          I just have this picture in my head of God playing with a plane like a little kid would, flying it through the air in his hand while making engine noises, and then saying in a teeny voice, “Oh, no, we’re going to crash!” and then plucking one person out and setting them on the ground before smashing it into a hillside and making Kerplow sounds before getting bored and going off to spread the plague or something. Meanwhile everyone gathers ’round the lone survivor crying “It’s a miracle!”

        • C_Alan_Nault

          Well, if you go by what the Bible says, we are just toys for him to play with & treat as he wishes, depending on his mood.

          The story of Moses has the pharaoh ready to free the Hebrew slaves on more than one occasion, then god steps in & hardens pharaoh’s heart ( takes away his free will) so pharaoh won’t free the slaves, then god punishes pharaoh ( for not freeing the slaves) by sending down a plague.

          It amounts to a bully taking your hand, slapping you with your own hand & saying “stop hitting yourself”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It amounts to a bully taking your hand, slapping you with your own hand & saying “stop hitting yourself”.

          What the Hebrews did was to take their own fist and smash their own faces in with it. While saying “stop hitting me”.

          Having supposedly witnessed the might of Yahweh on multiple occasions, the buck eejits thought it a good idea to construct a golden cow to worship in competition to the the big bejaysus fella. The halfwits that wrote those yarns didn’t think the plot line through at all. Worse still, there are multitudes of fuckwits walking the planet today who believe it is all true ffs.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • TheNuszAbides

          On the one hand … but out of the other side of your mouth (am I mixing metaphors?)

          TALK TO THE HAND.

      • Ficino

        Off topic, but this is something I really hate about the Book of Job. It is supposed to be so deep to reveal that Job cannot judge God, the maker of the universe. But I can judge God the character in that story, and I’d say the God character is a projection of a typical “Because shut up, that’s why” authoritarian and narcissistic personality.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yep. The lesson of Job is that might makes right, God can do whatever the hell he wants to, and when he wants your opinion, he’ll beat it out of you.

        • Tommy

          The lesson of Job:

          Job: Why did you do this to me?

          God: Because I could.

        • Joe

          “Let that be a lesson to anyone who thinks otherwise. In the meantime, these guys in the funny robes speak for me. Do exactly as they say or I’ll be back.”

          It takes a special kind of motivated reasoning to see any kind of benevolent message in that story.

        • Zeta

          Job: Why did you do this to me?
          God: Because I have to win my bet with my sidekick Satan. It is true that you lost your lovely kids. But you should be happy that I compensated you with another set of kids.

        • Joe

          “Admit it, you secretly hated those old ones anyway.”

        • C_Alan_Nault

          He lost his kids because Satan killed them ( after getting permission from god to kill them). They are the only people in the Bible killed by Satan, while god has killed countless numbers ( some of them he killed because of what their parents did).

          That being the case, it seems that Satan is the good guy & god is a malicious capricious child ( I’m thinking similar to the Squire of Gothos without the charm & sophistication).

    • MR

      It’s always a win-win for God. If he treats sinners like shit it’s because they deserve it and God is a just God; but if he forgives them, God is a merciful God. They’ve invented a god that morphs to fit any situation.

      • Kodie

        They’ve invented a god that will always forgive them for being so shitty, but allows them to judge others and secure themselves in the idea that those people will end up in hell. Christians are really such assholes.

      • TheNuszAbides

        it’s the only way to consistently (in the same vein as “explaining everything explains nothing”) paint Him as an ultimate, undoubtable authority.

  • Jim Jones

    From: Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth

    The core of Christianity—the worship of a miracle working, walking, talking godman who brings salvation—was also the core of other ancient religions that began at least a thousand years before Jesus.

    Heaven, hell, prophecy, daemon possession, sacrifice, initiation by baptism, communion with God through a holy meal, the Holy Spirit, monotheism, immortality of the soul, and many other “Christian” ideas all belonged to earlier, older Pagan faiths. They were simply part of ancient Mediterranean culture. Along with miracle working sons of God, born of a mortal woman, they were common elements of pre-Christian Pagan religion. Mithras had ’em. So did Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, and Orpheus. And more.

    When Osiris is said to bring his believers eternal life in Egyptian Heaven, contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, we understand that as a myth.

    When the sacred rites of Demeter at Eleusis are described as bringing believers happiness in their eternal life, we understand that as a myth.

    In fact, when ancient writers tell us that in general ancient people believed in eternal life, with the good going to the Elysian Fields and the not so good going to Hades, we understand that as a myth.

    When Vespatian’s spittle healed a blind man, we understand that as a myth.

    When Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from death, we understand that as a myth.

    When the Pythia, the priestess at the Oracle at Delphi, in Greece, prophesied, and over and over again for a thousand years the prophecies came true, we understand that as a myth.

    When Dionysus turned water into wine, we understand that as a myth.

    When Dionysus believers are filled with atay, the Spirit of God, we understand that as a myth.

    When Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin, we understand that as a myth.

    When Alexander the Great is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.

    When Augustus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal, we understand that as a myth.

    When Dionysus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.

    When Scipio Africanus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.

    So how come when Jesus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, according to prophecy, turning water into wine, raising girls from the dead, and healing blind men with his spittle, and setting it up so His believers got eternal life in Heaven contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, and off to Hades—er, I mean Hell—for the bad folks… how come that’s not a myth?

    • Robert Templeton

      Short answer: Because these adherents ‘won’. When your myth takes over an empire and spreads throughout Europe and the Mediterranean, heretics and dissenters forced aside, it is easier to turn myth into fact.

    • Ficino

      Some Christian apologists: totally not the same! Jesus is unique! Whatever is the same is a Satanic counterfeit!

      Other Christian apologists: totally the same! The Gentiles dimly recognized the truth before Jesus came! Whatever is the same is a foreshadowing of Him!

      • Tommy

        Other Christian apologists: totally the same! The Gentiles dimly
        recognized the truth before Jesus came! Whatever is the same is a
        foreshadowing of Him!

        One ancient example:

        And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God,
        was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our
        Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into
        heaven, we propound NOTHING DIFFERENT from WHAT YOU BELIEVE
        regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.For you know
        how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the
        interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius,
        who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and
        so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from
        limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to
        escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and
        Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of
        Danae; and Bellerophon,
        who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus.
        For what shall I say of Ariadne, and
        those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars?
        And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy
        of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he
        has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And
        what kind of deeds are recorded of each of
        these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who
        already know.
        – Justin Martyr First Apology

        • C_Alan_Nault

          … and if Jesus died & rose again, he didn’t die for our sins. He had a few nasty hours on Friday.

  • Ryan M

    1. Some variations of “God did it” can be refuted. For example, a creationist version of “God created all animals in their current forms” can be refuted. It is for this reason that creationists believe that evolution must be false.

    3. I think this needs to be fixed. Even if modern arguments for theism point to a non intervening deist God, that would not imply that “God” becomes a bad explanation.

    For the sake of accuracy, the post should really say “Christian theistic explanations are always the worst explanations” since what is really being attacked are Christian theistic explanations.

  • KarlUdy

    “God did it” is the ready answer to explain any scientific puzzle—what caused abiogenesis (the first life, which allowed evolution to begin), what caused the Big Bang, and so on. Of course, science keeps answering those puzzles, meaning that “God did it” was both wrong and premature, but apologists never seem to learn that lesson.

    A couple of questions to press against your argument here …

    1. If we ask a few simple questions about the origin of the universe, such as, ‘Did the universe have a beginning?’, ‘What can be inferred about any cause for a beginning of the universe?’ – what then would be a shortlist of possible answers to these questions?

    2. If science keeps answering the unanswerable, is the number of mysteries of the universe (I’m thinking particularly about those on the edge of scientific knowledge) growing or shrinking?

    • epeeist

      what then would be a shortlist of possible answers to these questions?

      To paraphrase George Smoot, we have a theory that fits back to 10^-30s, once we get towards 10^-44s then our current theories break down. So the best possible answer at the moment is “We don’t know (but we are working on it)”.

      As for your second question, it begs the question in a couple of ways. Firstly it would appear to assume that the universe had a cause and secondly that “beginning” is meaningful in this context.

      2. If science keeps answering the unanswerable, is the number of mysteries of the universe…growing or shrinking?

      What tends to happen is that as science advances it answers more of what Bob might refer to as “corner cases”. Newton’s mechanics works well at human scales, but as mass and velocity increase then it breaks down and we need a more general theory, in this case relativity. As we get closer to the Planck epoch then we will need a theory of quantum gravity.

      An example I have given before which illustrates our exact our theories are getting, the measured dimensionless magnetic dipole for the muon is 2.0023318416(13), compared to the theoretical prediction of 2.0023318361(10), which shows both the precision of our measuring instruments and the accuracy of our theories.

    • tyler

      why limit yourself to questions about the origin of the universe? “why does lightning strike?”, “how did my breakfast get to my plate?”, and “who left a dog poop on the sidewalk?” are all questions just as answerable with “god” as the big questions of the universe. why isn’t “god did it” an acceptable answer to the question of why the last slice of cheesecake was missing from my fridge this morning?

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        Is God the guy who takes the last slice? Bastard. Maybe he’s the explanation for why n socks go in the dryer but only n–1 come out.

        • tyler

          theists do like to argue that belief in a god makes one happier, and it is nice to believe that i didn’t actually eat half of a cheesecake yesterday…

      • Tommy

        why the last slice of cheesecake was missing from my fridge this morning?

        Sorry, I was hungry. That cheesecake looked good.

      • Tommy

        I bet Karl wouldn’t answer your question because it would be admitting God of the Gaps.

      • C_Alan_Nault

        If the dog poop was left there in a bag & the bag was on fire, it may have been me. You know why.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          OK, now that surprises me. Childish pranks like that have the hand of God all over them.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          !!!!!! Are YOU implying that I am NOT A GOD???? LOL

          I suppose I could have been channelling/been possessed by Loki, Anansi, Coyote, or one of the other trickster gods…..

        • (((Mike)))

          Winston Zeddemore’s Theological Axiom: When someone asks you if you’re a god, you say “YES”!

    • eric

      – what then would be a shortlist of possible answers to these questions?

      See Bob’s point #2.

  • Bruce Gorton

    Personally I think the worst thing about it is that it puts any real knowledge beyond the reach of any society that accepts it.

    Allow me to illustrate by example: the variation of species.

    With God-did-it, you have the explanation for why we have species being that God made them that way, you have the whole seven day creation myth, the world being created some time after the domestication of the dog, etc…

    So what happens when some Charley comes along and figures out evolution? Suddenly you’ve either got to bin the book that said God-did-it, because we’ve got a real explanation, or you’ve got to bin the actual explanation.

    And a lot of people who are intellectually disabled by their inability to admit error will go with the latter.

    And here is the thing, that Charley, he probably isn’t the first to figure this out, he’s more likely just the first who figured it out and didn’t immediately discard his not-God-did-it explanation for not being what the holy books said.

    So all the stuff that flows from his discovery? That stuff could have happened hundreds of years sooner, because “I don’t know” isn’t exactly the sort of answer which has people figuring they must be wrong, or had better keep quiet for fear of their neighbours, if they come up with something different.

    God-did-it meanwhile? Well, for most of our recorded history, how has society treated its heretics?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      I continue to be amazed at how many evangelical apologists are determined to reject evolution. It makes them look stupid (because they will happily accept the scientific consensus for the Big Bang), and it’s driving away their young people.

      • Max Doubt

        “… and it’s driving away their young people.”

        Which I think most of us here would agree is a good thing.

      • Michael Neville

        As I’ve said before, around 400 Augustine of Hippo discussed the literal interpretation of Genesis and rejected it for many reasons both theological and pragmatic. My favorite of Augustine’s arguments is that quite often an unbeliever will know something about the world and the universe. If a Christian tells the unbeliever something the unbeliever knows is wrong and cites the Bible as the authority for the wrongness, the unbeliever will consider the Christian a fool and reject the Bible as a collection of myths and fables with nothing important to say on any subject including redemption.

        1700 years ago a prominent Christian theologian considered creationism and the creationists lost.

  • Phil Rimmer

    I don’t do POE/POS arguments and the like against God. I don’t do sub optimum design arguments about human physiognomy. The others likewise are trivial in my view.

    The thumping single argument against Theo even if he existed is the moral chaos produced. Intervening gods are a moral meddling fuck up.

    Russell T. Davies wrote and filmed “The Second Coming”. He took the whole idea seriously (he is atheist) with miracles …the whole bit. Theo needed to disappear from the scene to make moral progress.

    I think the US will start to progress faster once it stops playing God Games.. Theo is better than this, worse than that, would be better if the other,… but rather and clearly asserts/is challenged that… God creates moral cripples.

    • Michael Neville

      Theo is better than this, worse than that, would be better if the other,… but rather and clearly asserts/is challenged that…

      There’s the further complication that Christians claim their god’s thoughts, desires and motivations are unknowable by humans and yet these same Christians know exactly what their god thinks about certain topics. “We can’t know why God allows child rape but we do know that God hates gay marriage.”

      Ever notice that when someone claims to know the Christian god’s thoughts that this god has exactly the same opinions and prejudices as his mouthpiece?

      • Phil Rimmer

        Indeed.

        Incidentally as you were posting I tweaked follows on from what you have quoted.

      • Otto

        I completely agree, and I agreed with this even when I was a believer. I knew that in the end it was my opinion and any religious rules I personally accepted applied only to me. I never thought my religious convictions should have any bearing on someone else. That reasoning probably is what led me out of religion but it certainly took longer than it should have…ugh.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        Ever notice that when someone claims to know the Christian god’s thoughts that this god has exactly the same opinions and prejudices as his mouthpiece?

        It would be refreshing to hear someone say, “I must admit that Christianity’s position on homosexuality [or abortion or capital punishment or whatever] makes absolutely no sense, but my hands are tied—I’m obliged to accept the church’s moral position.” I can’t remember when I’ve seen that, if at all. That’s God as sock puppet.

        Christianity: stunting people’s moral growth for 2000 years.

      • C_Alan_Nault

        You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. ~Anne Lamott

        If God doesn’t like the way I live, let him tell me, not you. ~Author unknown

    • skl

      “The thumping single argument against Theo even if he existed is the moral chaos produced. Intervening gods are a moral meddling fuck up.”

      By “moral chaos” do you mean the ‘problem of evil’ thing?
      What I find probably most bizarre about Christianity in particular
      is that their god, or Christ, becomes immersed in the evil of the world and
      even dies from it.
      Not exactly a “good” god who stops evil from happening.

      • Phil Rimmer

        By “moral chaos” do you mean the ‘problem of evil’ thing?

        No. Not at all.

        I agree we become moral in our specific way entirely because of our environment and because of our consequent evolutionary response. Mutuality emerges again and again as a survival strategy against our particular slings an arrows. Nor can I imagine any way of being apart from this. Wishing for paradise is bonkers. That is a state we cannot possibly sustain without the urgent need to open BDSM clubs. Our journey is our reward. And the greatest poetry is unavailable to those without expectation of total loss. No. The problem of evil is no problem once we posit a god as callous as William Lane Craig’s indistinguishable from the one that simply enacts physics.

        The problem is being moral through moral dogma and thus obedience rather than by self cultivation. Obedience isn’t morality. It is frangible and spurious in the complexities and changing circumstances of real life. Moral self cultivation is a daily due diligence. More than anything it is the non prosaic stuff of life itself.

        • skl

          “I agree we become moral in our specific way entirely because of our environment and because of our consequent evolutionary response. Mutuality emerges again and again as a survival strategy against our particular slings an arrows.”

          Given that our morality comes from our environment and evolution, I was wondering about the mutuality part.
          Most of evolution seems to be about survival of the fittest, about competition. But scientists say there are also elements of cooperation, like I suppose the mutuality aspect you noted.
          But IF you determined rationally that in your particular situation/environment your best chance of survival was competition, or even more extremely, killing other people, would that be moral?

        • Joe

          Most of evolution seems to be about survival of the fittest, about competition.

          Most, but not all.

          But IF you determined rationally that in your particular situation/environment your best chance of survival was competition, or even more extremely, killing other people, would that be moral?

          Yes, or at least not immoral. It’s not a dichotomy.

          That’s assuming that ‘survival’ is the basis for morality, and not ‘alleviation of suffering’.

        • Michael Neville

          Russian anarchist Pyotr Kropotkin was also a zoologist. He wrote Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, exploring the role of mutually-beneficial cooperation and reciprocity (or “mutual aid”) in the animal kingdom and human societies. It presented arguments against the competition-centered claims of social Darwinism. Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay “Kropotkin was no Crackpot” examining mutual aid. Gould, who was a biologist, agreed in the main with Kropotkin’s arguments, noting that cooperation, if it increases individual survival, is encouraged by natural selection.

        • Joe

          This poster’s ‘undercover atheist’ act is wearing thin for me.

        • al kimeea

          I got that sense too

        • Joe

          The more this person posts, the more I get the idea they’re fishing for quotes to mine for their blog or forum. They ask questions that should be obvious to anyone here, that seem deliberately leading. “If our behavior is purely from evolution…”, “some posters here say free will doesn’t exist…”. Hoping for us to agree so they can do a ‘gotcha!’ moment. “Look, atheists believe we’re just animals so killing each other is fine.”

          The biggest red flag is their refusal to listen and engage with our answers. They seem philosophically naive as only someone raised purely on theology would be.

        • Phil Rimmer

          Cultural morality is a negotiated thing. Fall outside of that too far and your actions will be subject to curtailment. The neurally atypical will be disruptive beyond some limit.

          Language and even these discussions, culture itself will not exist to become evolutionary without the fact of mutuality arising from kin selection and the mis-detection of kin with many useful false positives.

          FWIW https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/c_s_lewis_gets_morality_wrong/#comment-3386640956

        • skl

          “Cultural morality is a negotiated thing. Fall outside of that too far and your actions will be subject to curtailment.”

          But isn’t that what is called a (perhaps artificial) “construct”?
          Something outside of evolution and nature and nature’s environment?

          In the link you provided you say
          “… the moral requirements of an intelligent and sociable
          species will be based on its evolutionary trajectory and the impositions of its ecosystem.”

          I would think “sociability” is secondary to survival itself.
          So, given that our morality comes from our environment and
          evolution, I would think that IF you determined rationally that in your particular situation/environment your best chance of survival was killing other people (and taking their resources, money) would be moral.

        • MR

          That would be a false dichotomy.

        • Joe

          I would think “sociability” is secondary to survival itself.

          Which is why animals that wander off from the herd tend to fare better?

          I would think that IF you determined rationally that in your particular situation/environment your best chance of survival was killing other people (and taking their resources, money) would be moral.

          Or, it could be immoral, but necessary.

        • MR

          Or amoral. Neither right nor wrong. Morality, after all, is simply a judgement label we place on intent, actions and their consequences. Who labels self-defense, after all, immoral or moral? We don’t generally place a moral label on such an action. If a lion kills another lion, we don’t call it immoral. Morality is subjective. It isn’t inherent.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Or, it could be immoral, but necessary.

          Like choking the weakest person in a lifeboat and feeding them to the rest of the folk who are all starving to death?

        • Joe

          Would that (the choking) be necessary? It would have negative impacts beyond that act i.e. nobody could relax knowing they could be next. I’d class that as immoral personally.

          A better example of a morally ambiguous act would be eating that person after they died of hunger.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Would that (the choking) be necessary? It would have negative impacts beyond that act i.e. nobody could relax knowing they could be next. I’d class that as immoral personally.

          Indeed…or the person in charge forcing everyone else to draw straws.

          A better example of a morally ambiguous act would be eating that person after they died of hunger.

          Absolutely. We have documented examples of both scenarios in reality.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_cannibalism

        • TheNuszAbides

          who says it’s necessary to pick the weakest one? do they contain the most protein/fat? 😉

        • Ignorant Amos

          Not necessary at all, just likely to put up less resistance that’s all. A suppose it depends on how many mouths there are to feed.

        • Phil Rimmer

          “a construct?”

          One that evolved. Culture evolves.

          “I would think “sociability” is secondary to survival itself.”

          If it weren’t for that meteorite 65 million years ago the little pesky mammals might not have got sufficient of a chance in the intervening years to avoid a current master race of antisocial parrots.

          We might though see that without the mutualism enabled by oxytocin responding to the need for a muscle relaxant, to release live young, to release milk, to pacify young whilst nurturing, to be effected by c-tactile nerves and grooming of young and him indoors eyeing those tasty little morsels and their dubious paternity……. without mutualism, the achievements of co-operation would have to wait for a later time. Evolution gets into dead ends that have rather fewer choices for the relief of specific selection pressures.

          Bully parrot culture has a partial analogue in that of the Samurai, freezing scientific progress in Japan, seeing that gunpowder undoes their martial skills and yields ten a yen punks like Indiana Jones, bringing their rule crashing down. For four hundred years culture froze until a little horizontal meme transfer from a Glaswegian trader sold rifles to the down trodden. Japan then catapulted so to speak through those 400 lost years in 40.

          The key is not sociability which is a proxy for the functional mutualism, but mutualism itself and the dramatically increased, problem finding, problem solving and reliable robustness it confers.

          Is it culturally moral (to kill) for an individual who thinks parrot among the mammals or even thinks mammal among the parrots? Probably not.

          If the mass are in fact mammals that have become mistakenly parrots it may well be moral for a lone mammal thinking mammal to release them to their more natural state by killing the evil but beguiling parrot whose spell they fell under.

          etc. etc.

          It is not mutualism that is morality for every alien race. But mutualism may be a construction that levers better problem finding, solving and robustness than other interactive cultural modes we have found to date.

        • skl

          “Culture evolves.”

          But not in an evolutionary, biological sense, right?
          No one would say current memes or manners are the result of a change in allele frequencies. Would they?

          “… without mutualism, the achievements of co-operation would have to wait for a later time.”

          That shouldn’t matter. Evolution’s not on a time table and doesn’t have any goals.

        • Phil Rimmer

          The elements of culture get copied more or less.

          If you want to pursue this further we can. From Sue Blackmore’s average Meme Machine to Dennett’s excellent Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, though you’ll have to wait for Rimmer’s Tale of Tales, the Evolution of Thoughts….from Muscle Memes through RNA World for thoughts to Moon Walking.

          There is no one to matter, but evolution acts from thermodynamics and hurries all to the heatdeath. It would seem arguable that doing work is better enabled with the bigger plans mutualism is capable of were it ever to arise.

        • TheNuszAbides

          you’ll have to wait for Rimmer’s Tale of Tales

          do you have a guest-accessible repository that might include progress reports on your potential publication?

        • Phil Rimmer

          Sorry. I don’t do social media or run a blog. There are a total of four notional books so far, so its going to be a couple of years yet though The Tale of the Antique Amygdala, the Evolution of Thinking and the Tale of Tales, the Evolution of Thoughts will come first. Most likely they will dribble out here and elsewhere. I am currently trying to master modelling of RNA world.

        • TheNuszAbides

          safe travels! I will keep my proverbial ear to the proverbial ground.

        • epeeist

          Most of evolution seems to be about survival of the fittest, about competition.

          “Fittest” is a measure of reproductive success, not necessarily about competition. You might want to consider what something like reciprocal altruism has to do with “survival of the fittest”.

        • skl

          “”Fittest” is a measure of reproductive success, not necessarily about competition.”

          Yes but a lot of nature programs document the fierce competition for mates. And once they do reproduce they’re competing with the others for food.

        • adam
        • MR

          Not always.

        • epeeist

          Yes but a lot of nature programs document the fierce competition for mates.

          So you are just going to go with your initial preconception and ignore the points I made, especially about reciprocal altruism.

          Oh, and you really ought to consult the literature rather than take popular nature programmes as necessarily correct.

        • skl

          Merriam-Webster says altruism is the “behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species.”

          Are you saying that in evolution an animal has an overriding concern for its overall species and subordinates its own survival and reproduction for the good of the species?
          I don’t know that evolution theory teaches that.
          And it wouldn’t seem to fit with lions eating or killing cubs that aren’t theirs or the fish parents that sometimes eat their hatchlings.

        • adam
        • epeeist

          I don’t know that evolution theory teaches that.

          Then you ought to read the literature, this paper provides a model and this paper and this paper are a couple of examples.

        • skl

          The last sentence of the first abstract says “Each individual human is seen as possessing altruistic and cheating tendencies, the
          expression of which is sensitive to developmental variables that were selected to set the tendencies at a balance appropriate to the local social and ecological environment.”

          After all these billions of years of evolution, why would
          each individual human (and I assume every animal) not only HAVE non-altrustic cheating tendencies, but ACT on them (at least many people in every society around the world do every day)?

        • epeeist

          After all these billions of years of evolution, why would each individual human (and I assume every animal) not only HAVE non-altrustic cheating tendencies, but ACT on them

          After all these billions of years of evolution why should some people have brown eyes rather than blue eyes, or be 1.8m tall rather than 1.6m tall?

          Why do you assume that things that can have a continuous range of values must only take a particular value?

        • skl

          Now that seems more like it!
          In evolutionary terms, altruism vs. non-altruism is like
          brown eyes vs. blue eyes, like being 1.8m tall vs. being 1.6m tall.

        • MR

          I don’t know that evolution theory teaches that.

          Then you should learn more about evolution theory.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Are you saying that in evolution an animal has an overriding concern for its overall species and subordinates its own survival and reproduction for the good of the species?

          Try reading your cited dictionary definition for comprehension and then see if you can find examples of human animals displaying behaviour that is not beneficial to, or may be harmful to itself, but that benefits others of its species.

          Being from a military background, here’s a couple that springs immediately to mind.

          Any posthumous Victoria Cross winner would suffice, but this one is one that strikes a chord.

          No. 14/18278 Pte. William Frederick McFadzean, late R. Ir. Rif.
          For most conspicuous bravery. While in a concentration trench and opening a box of bombs for distribution prior to an attack, the box slipped down into the trench, which was crowded with men, and two of the safety pins fell out. Private McFadzean, instantly realising the danger to his comrades, with heroic courage threw himself on the top of the Bombs. The bombs exploded blowing him to pieces, but only one other man was injured. He well knew his danger, being himself a bomber, but without a moment’s hesitation he gave his life for his comrades.

          And to quote Winston Churchill…

          http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-never-in-the-field-of-human-conflict-was-so-much-owed-by-so-many-to-so-few-winston-churchill-37218.jpg

          The actions of Sgt. Willets were selfless…listen to the words….

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slBUvn7sK8c

        • skl

          First of all, thank you for your military service, and for
          your inspiring words!

          The question I had, though, was whether altruistic behavior,
          or whether mutuality, results from evolution, which has been defined by many as a change in allele frequencies.

        • Joe

          The question I had, though, was whether altruistic behavior,
          or whether mutuality, results from evolution,…

          Then why are you asking us, and not reading up on the wealth of research in this area. Where esle would such behavior come from?

          ….which has been defined by many as a change in allele frequencies.

          The map is not the terrain, the definition is not the theory in it’s entirety.

        • MR

          She appears to be less interested in learning about evolution than she is in JAQ-ing off.

        • Joe

          They seem to be either JAQ’ing off, or fishing for soundbites. For most of us, this is not our first rodeo.

        • TheNuszAbides

          The map is not the terrain

          oh, that’s way better than ‘territory’. thanks!

        • Ignorant Amos

          And it wouldn’t seem to fit with lions eating or killing cubs that aren’t theirs or the fish parents that sometimes eat their hatchlings.

          You are conflating evolutionary traits. Altruism has nothing to do with either of those.

          https://www.livescience.com/19987-altruism-animals-varies-based-environment.html

        • skl

          “You are conflating evolutionary traits.”

          But the traits evolve, the traits come from evolution.

        • Joe

          But the traits evolve, the traits come from evolution.

          Or, evolution comes from traits.

        • TheNuszAbides

          rather than take popular nature programmes as necessarily correct

          or comprehensive even when accurate.

        • MadScientist1023

          You’ve actually hit on a rather interesting struggle in evolutionary biology, that is the question of the best way to pass down one’s genes. The answer isn’t as straightforward as you’d think. Yes, producing and raising your own offspring is one strategy, but some organisms forgo reproducing on their own in order to help raise the offspring of other individuals they are highly related to. In other words, having no kids of your own but helping your sister raise 10 kids to reproductive age results in more of your genes being passed down than if you and your sister only have 1-2 kids each.
          Honeybees and naked mole rats are the penultimate examples of cooperative breeding. One female has the children, while other female members of the group (who are closely related to the queen) help the queen raise their offspring.
          Humans are somewhere in between the hive strategy and the lone strategy. In our natural state, we form tribes, usually of closely related individuals, and help them out because they have some of our genetics. It’s imbued into out psychology. We cooperate with our “tribe” and compete with other “tribes”. Obviously with the onset of civilization we’ve come to where we often accept unrelated individuals into our “tribe”.

        • adam

          “But IF you determined rationally that in your particular
          situation/environment your best chance of survival was competition, or
          even more extremely, killing other people, would that be moral?”

          So you mean not as an evolutionary action, but as a free will action?

          That sounds more like a bible God dictating it’s own morality:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3d75f40886a30963d29f96e7ac5c05cad2aeb7bf5d71b350bbea60643eeff355.jpg

        • Tommy

          Obedience isn’t morality.

          Many apologists posit morality as obedience and submission to authority. That’s authoritarianism, not morality. Morality is doing what’s right, no matter what you’re told. Authoritarianism is doing what you’re told, no matter what’s right.

        • Phil Rimmer

          Of Haidt’s five moral values, it is notable that the (political) right have to themselves, subjection to authority, purity of institutions and loyalty.

          These “virtues” which clearly include obedience, are “virtues” configured for war footing or perhaps “End of Days”

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      I don’t do POE/POS arguments and the like against God.

      Personally, I find the Problem of Divine Hiddenness to be more compelling than Problem of Evil.

      The thumping single argument against Theo even if he existed is the moral chaos produced.

      Are you saying that if YHWH existed, he would come down and fix humans’ imperfect morality?

      Theo needed to disappear from the scene to make moral progress.

      If you think Daddy will clean up your messes, (1) you won’t learn and grow up and (2) you’ll keep making messes.

      • Phil Rimmer

        Hiddenness still falls into a lesser class for me and arguments for apparent hiddennness can sort of work. Though the “how hiddenness” seems to be arguing in the direction of my concerns. God hides with increasing IQ and reveals with increasing problems of semantic knowledge retrieval and is often cured with the use of SSRIs.

        Of course, the problem is not what Theo would actually do. But if you intend what people imagine what Theo might do, for instance, intervening in any way, then this is a component of the moral problem that I intend.

        Independent moral authorship is the only solution to the burgeoning opportunities for moral choice (unless you are a Catholic and so enamoured of personal salvation you would rather the pregnant and the foetus both die from inaction rather than a foetus die by your hand.) Obedience can only deliver a tiny set of moral choices. Theo reduces us morally. Deo, not.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          That reminds me of the story of the woman who had some sort of seizures (epilepsy?) but refused medicine for the problem because she felt that she got some sort of message from God that way.

        • adam
        • Phil Rimmer

          Of all scientists, psychologists and psychiatrists are the least atheist of a mostly atheist bunch.

        • adam

          Interesting..

        • Phil Rimmer

          Adam, I’m sorry I wrote this entirely wrong. No wonder you though it so interesting.

          They are the most atheist of a mostly atheist bunch.

          Sincere apologies to all, especially to psychologists and psychiatrists….

        • Phil Rimmer

          There is a lot I could write here. My best atheist mates are schizophrenic and when the glow is upon them visions and God speaking to others via the sunshine and a myriad little miracles in the prosaic happen. One is a poet the other a playwright. Both with very high IQs.

          Struggling to get one friend to take his Meds after I had taken him to see a young female Muslim doctor who diagnosed him as having spiritual problems, he refused to take the meds because it didn’t say it was for treating spiritual problems on the side of the box. Schizophrenics love their condition often. He slips the leash of the chemical cosh using nicotine which returns a little of the glow.

          I don’t know if folk here have all seen the Robert Sapolsky lecture upon the biological underpinnings of religious experience. If anybody wants I can post it.

          I would also be happy to explain the two connected reasons why religious experience may well happen with certain brain states.

        • TheNuszAbides

          I don’t know if folk here have all seen the Robert Sapolsky lecture upon the biological underpinnings of religious experience. If anybody wants I can post it.

          yes please! or if not here/now, then at the next current/apt opportunity.

        • (((Mike)))

          You may be thinking of Ellen G White, or Mary Baker Eddy, the founders of 7th Day Adventism and Christian Science, respectively.

          Both women may have had “divine” visions caused by temporal lobe epilepsy.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I heard of one Catholic woman who refused treatment for her epilepsy. That was how God chose to communicate with her, you see.

          Your name looks like a LISP function. Perhaps I’ve asked before, but was that your intention?

        • (((Mike)))

          No, sir. I went to a speech therapist to take care of my LISP. Now I primarily use Python and ASP, but I’m working on communicating with other types of snakes.

          The (((Echos))) meme started as an alt-right way to identify Jewish people on the Internet. When I tear down the arguments of Holocaust deniers, provide context to Talmud quotes, or demystify Yom Kippur traditions, I want the haters, alt-righters, and white nationalists to know exactly who schooled them.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I heard Michael Shermer speak about his book about Holocaust deniers. He had a succinct yet powerful rebuttal: if there were no Holocaust, the men charged in the Nuremburg Trials would have said so. But they didn’t–it was “I was following orders” or “Don’t blame me that German morality was different than yours” or whatever.

        • (((Mike)))

          Thanks for the solidarity.

          I’ve enjoyed your web log for quite some time now. It’s an island of considered thought in a sea of immaturity. Kudos.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Thanks for the solidarity.

          We fans of LISP and the truth must stick together.

          I’ve enjoyed your web log for quite some time now. It’s an island of considered thought in a sea of immaturity. Kudos.

          :-)

        • Michael Neville
        • MR

          I heard of one Catholic woman who refused treatment for her epilepsy. That was how God chose to communicate with her, you see.

          Some guy upthread had a similar story… ahem….

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Is the POE even supposed to be an argument against god? I thought it was an argument against benevolence.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        But that’s one of the Christian god’s attributes; therefore, the PoE is a challenge to God (the Christian god).

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          Of course, if omni-benevolence is challenged, so are things that possess that trait. But it is still an important distinction to make, IMO.

      • Joe

        Find me a Christian who thinks their God isn’t benevolent.

        • TheNuszAbides

          I don’t think hardcore Calvinists require omnibenevolence, but I think JAA2’s wording was sloppy in the first place.

      • Phil Rimmer

        I’ve argued here before that it isn’t so much against omnibenevolence but omnipotence. A triple O god may want to to do better, but this is the only way folks…..

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          Absoutely, omni-benevolence or omnipotence, you can’t have both.

        • TheNuszAbides

          the ones for whom omnipotence is crucial are egregiously immature in their apologetics – they can’t even grasp how devoid of humility their stance is, even while promoting such a virtue to be shown by all to their ultrafather.

      • Michael Neville

        The POE and the POS are arguments against the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god that Christians claim to believe in. They don’t work against gods like Wotan and Zeus whose mythology says can be uncaring, selfish assholes.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          Agreed, my point is that Christians are adept at sacrificing part of their god to salvage another…. and the acting is if it emerges from that concession intact. That’s why I think it’s best to phrase this argument more intentionally, to seal off that escape hatch. ☺

        • (((Mike)))

          Sacrificing parts of their god is the very core of Christianity.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What’s curious is that the PoE is a serious problem for the Christianity that we’re familiar with, but other flavors–Marcionism, Gnosticism–didn’t say that the guy in charge of earth was the father/source of Jesus. So, yeah, things are pretty messed up here on earth, but you can’t connect that to Jesus. He came to save us from that nuttiness (rather than being a part of it in the flavor of Christianity that is popular today).

  • King Dave

    Religion was created by men, inspired by envy, motivated by greed, sustained by fear, and spread by the sword…

    • Dys

      As were the gods the religions were built around.

      • King Dave

        No argument here.

  • King Dave

    The gods of modern religion clearly seem incapable of creating anything more complex than human conflict…

  • Scooter

    Bob – if I answered every objection you have to the existence of God to your intellectual satisfaction would you then believe? I suspect not. Why? The real problem I think you have with God is not in your mind but in your will.

    • Michael Neville

      The “problem” that Bob and the other regulars here is not that we don’t want to believe in gods (remember there’s more than your favorite deity) but there’s no evidence for their existence. If you or any other theist presents reasonable evidence that gods exist then we’ll reconsider our position.

      I know you’ve been told this before. Maybe one of these days you’ll accept that we actually do know why we don’t believe in gods.

      Christian apologist William Lane Craig made a similar argument to yours:

      Even [people] who are given no good reason to believe and many persuasive reasons to disbelieve have no excuse, because the ultimate reason they do not believe is that they have deliberately rejected God’s Holy Spirit. (Reasonable Faith, p. 50)

      Nice bit of blaming going on there. But wait, there’s more. Lane Craig explains why atheists don’t believe in his pet god:

      When a person refuses to come to Christ, it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God’s Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God. (Reasonable Faith, p. 47)

      No, Willie, we don’t reject “God’s Spirit” because we love darkness. We reject “God’s Spirit” because there’s no reason for us to believe it isn’t just a figment of the imagination.

      (Quotes and basic argument shamelessly stolen from Bob’s post Sh*t Christians Say.)

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        WLC is definitely a piece of work. It’s amazing that he can pass off this childish thinking and sleep at night.

        • Tommy

          In response to WLC’s quotes and those who say things similar to what WLC says. Just flip the script:

          “Even [people] who are given no good reason to believe and many
          persuasive reasons to disbelieve have no excuse, because the ultimate reason they do not believe is that they have deliberately rejected God’s Holy Spirit their human intellect.”

          “When a person refuses to come(s) to Christ, it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties arguments: at root, he refuses to come(s) because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God’s Spirit on his heart reason and logic in his mental faculties. No one in the final analysis really fails to become(s) a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become(s) a Christian because he loves [intellectual] darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God reason.”

          Let’s see how well he can take what he and others like him dish out. 😉

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Nice!

        • Kev Green

          It’s worth noting that almost all conversion stories involve telling how someone was at a low, emotionally vulnerable point in their life and Christianity gave them the strength to carry on. Seldom, if ever, do you find someone who converted on the strength of Christianity’s arguments. So, if you’re a Christian you were either brainwashed from birth or someone took advantage of you when you were down.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          One angle that I find surprising is when they have an epiphany of sorts or turn a corner or something else good. Then they’re happy with Jesus. But that’s not the end of the story. Then they have a relapse or finances get tight again or there’s a death in the family or some other crisis that sets them back. Their road to Jesus becomes a lot more bumpy and a lot less inevitable.

          Or at least that’s a feature of some of the stories I’ve read.

        • Joe

          almost all conversion stories involve telling how someone was at a low, emotionally vulnerable point in their life and Christianity gave them the strength to carry on.

          What’s worse is when it’s a perceived low point in their lives. They may have been leading a perfectly normal life, but retcon their vague feeling of being unsatisfied into some kind of traumatic life event. Drinking a normal amount of alcohol made them an ‘alcoholic’. Taking paracetamol was ‘drug abuse’.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      The evidence to date is so very, very far from what I need—what you’d need if you were to convert to another religion—that it’s hard to even imagine. But to answer your question: yes. My issues are all intellectual.

      Of course, you can’t begin to give me what I need . . . but God could. He knows what would convince me, and he’s able to provide it. But he doesn’t. Weird—does he not exist? Is he just an SOB who wants me to fry in hell? Why would God not answer my very reasonable demands (made by a brain he gave me) for evidence?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      And expand on your last sentence. What do you think my real problem is? That I just want to keep screwing sheep, murdering people, and eating babies (as all atheists do)? That I’m too proud to bend the knee?

      • Michael Neville

        I keep telling theists that I’m not an atheist because I hate their god. It would be silly to hate a figment of someone else’s imagination. Nor am I an atheist because I want to live a hedonistic lifestyle. My hedonism extends to buying a bottle of good single malt Scotch whisky every year. Nor am I an atheist because that’s what all the cool kids are doing. I’m the antithesis of cool.

        It would be nice if they believed me. I’m not holding my breath.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          But you’ve just got to have been given enough evidence! If not, Romans 1:20 (“… so men are without excuse”) would be wrong, and that’s not possible, is it?

        • Tony D’Arcy

          Lagavulin ? Or are you a Speyside man ? I tend to favour the peaty west coast Scotch style, Beethoven v Debussy ?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I visited the Talisker whisky distillery on Skye a few weeks ago. It was an interesting tour, but if there’s a Scotch I like, it’s not that, I’m afraid.

        • Joe

          See, Talisker is probably my favourite Scotch.

          Us atheists do have our disagreements, after all!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I think it’s an acquired taste. My age is rather late to acquire it.

          I tend toward girlie drinks. If it doesn’t have an umbrella, I’m skeptical.

        • MR

          😉

        • Susan

          Us atheists do have our disagreements, after all!

          No, we don’t!

        • Michael Neville

          I keep trying different whiskies but I always seem to go back to The Macallan and other sherried Speysides. My last purchase was Glen Moray Port Finish, which is quite good.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A YEAR?

          Holy feck….that would never do.

          Am Monkeys Shoulder man maself usually, I recently got into Singletons.

          Though me and her indoors have been having a bit of a charge at various gins just recently. There is a gin and tonic bar in Benidorm with a menu of gins and tonics the thickness of a catalogue. Around 180, iirc, from all over the world.

          We both did a bottle of Tanqueray in the other night, lovely it was too. The problem is, it is too easy to sup.

          Some excellent Irish gins too. One local one called Jawbox is becoming very popular.

          http://www.celticwhiskeyshop.com/image/Gin/jawbox-gin.jpg

          As ma auld Da used to say, “There’s some good drink, and there’s some not so good drink. But there is no bad drink”.

        • Michael Neville

          I don’t drink gin because when I was 16 some friends and I got a bottle of Beefeaters and got extremely drunk on it. I was hungover for two days and had a delicate tummy for three. Ever since then the smell of gin turns my stomach. I’ll drink pretty much anything else but I don’t do gin.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A was the same maself for a long time with Pernod. A got sozzled on Pernod and blackcurrant at a Christmas Eve disco when a was 16, that was the alchopop of its day. A was sick as a pig, lashed rings round me inside a full faced motorbike helmet being pillion lifted home on a friends bike. I was too pissed to ride my own. A couldn’t stand the smell of any aniseed based liqueur for a long time. Thankfully, am all better now though.

        • TheNuszAbides

          that (an early overindulgence –> prolonged revulsion) happened to me with tequila, but a roommate helped me past it about six years later. then a year or two after that, the Prairie Fire Incident … I just need extra lessons sometimes.
          my only experience to date with Beefeaters was quite pleasant. it was also my only experience with “gin ‘n’ [grape] juice”.

        • Scooter

          This explains everything!

        • adam
        • Ignorant Amos

          Ah yes…the fuckwit and the ad hominem fallacy…an age old combination. Ya never fail to amuse with your asininity.

    • Dys

      Of course, you’re making the assumption that your answers would be adequate to address the objections (doubtful) and rational (also questionable). Merely having an answer to an objection doesn’t mean you have a good answer.

      Also, since you’re engaging in speculative mind-reading, you obviously wouldn’t object to people telling you why you reject reality in favor of religious superstition, right?

      • TheNuszAbides

        not to mention that Scooter’s already repeatedly demonstrated an incomplete toolkit for presenting any such case. either trusting that some Great Mind already produced the requisite knockdown arguments, or fantasizing that if he himself really honed his smartypants rhetoric and/or was appropriately Moved by The Spirit he’d totes collect Bob’s scalp* for UberDad … doesn’t matter until either of those card tricks finally, gloriously materializes, does it?

        *that’s a metaphor, o ye lurker ninnies.

    • Joe

      Bob – if I answered every objection you have to the existence of God to your intellectual satisfaction would you then believe? I suspect not.

      How are you in a position to answer all those objections?

      • JustAnotherAtheist2

        Yes, I don’t see how anyone is in that position given the fact that all arguments for god are fallacious. Scooter doesn’t have to simply address “questions”, he must present completely new evidence. Something tells me this isn’t forthcoming.

        In the interest of fairness, though, my answer is yes. If Scooter can provide compelling new evidence for a god, I will believe.

        • Joe

          I didn’t want to jump ahead to the conclusion.

          Scooter here would only be able to give his opinion on each of those objections. An answer would require demonstrable evidence.

          Still, I’d like to see him try. Answer the problem of Evil, once and for all. Go………

        • epeeist

          If Scooter can provide compelling new evidence for a god, I will believe.

          He didn’t say he would be providing evidence for the existence of his god, merely countering arguments against the “objections”.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          I know, my point is that the “objections” illustrate that the original arguments are fallacious. No subsequent response can overcome the fact the the entire foundation of the discussion is gone, only new evidence will suffice.

        • MR

          He didn’t say he would be providing evidence for the existence of his god, merely countering arguments against the “objections”.

          Therein lies the problem, doesn’t it? Cult leaders promise their followers the same kind of thing. But surely an all-loving, Master-of-the-Mother-F-ing-Universe would provide some convincing evidence? It has nothing to do with our will. I’d have no problem believing in God’s existence, I mean, show me that he’s a part of our reality and what difference does my will make anyway? I embraced belief in God most of my life. I didn’t stop believing in God’s existence because I didn’t want to believe anymore, how does one do that? I stopped believing because I came to realize there’s no evidence, that the emperor has no clothes.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          He didn’t say he would be providing evidence for the existence of his god, merely countering arguments against the “objections”.

          I just realized that you might have been agreeing with me about how useless the exercise would be. Sorry if it went over my head the first time. :)

      • TheNuszAbides

        it has to be a colossally hypothetical “if”, as long as Scoot continues to indicate time and time again that his deck doesn’t contain the necessary cards.

    • Ficino

      Scooter, you mean you are religious because you really just want to sin?

      • TheNuszAbides

        that’s too easy – “of course, we all want to, that’s why it’s so important to be guided by [insert favored cult here]!”

    • Tommy

      Scooter – if I answered every objection you have to the non-existence of God to your intellectual satisfaction would you then disbelieve? I suspect not. Why? The real problem I think you have with atheism is not in your mind but in your will.

      • JustAnotherAtheist2

        Brilliant! Witty and true.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        Good question. My guess is that Scooter believes for emotional rather than intellectual reasons.

    • Zeta

      Scooter, I can’t speak for Bob but I would be interested in seeing how good you are at apologetics.

    • Jason

      The underlying assumption here, at least, IMO is that, believers tend to be swayed solely by objective facts/philosophic arguments concerning the nature/existence of God, while poor hapless Atheist, the wretches that they are, can only arrive at their positions through an arrogant and self delusional act of their will (you probably don’t even believe that Atheist exist).

      That same psychological babble that believes distort themselves with in order to stay in the fold, is now being projected onto free thinkers and honest skeptics as the reason they aren’t in the fold themselves.

      I think you need to look in the mirror, bro and recognize who is really blinded by their will and wishful thinking.

    • TheApe

      Can you answer the objection of actually providing evidence for a God, and one that shows (insert religion here) is true? Arguments are well and good, but providing evidence holds more weight.

    • RichardSRussell

      You’ve got it backwards, Scooter. If you think God exists, you’re the one with the burden of proof. It’s not incumbent on Bob or me, for example, to prove to anyone that, say, the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist. It is incumbent on those who claim the Tooth Fairy is real to come up with some convincing evidence for it. (Frankly, there’s more evidence for the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus than there is for God.)

    • adam

      “The real problem I think you have with Zeus is not in your mind but in your will.”

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3da7f08a3390ef2111a626073dd7132a22b19bc1ce34ac9d4883c5e2d74a0eb8.jpg

      • Cozmo the Magician

        My imaginary invisible pet dragon ‘fluffy’ approves this message (:

    • C_Alan_Nault

      No need for you to answer any objection to the existence of god.

      All you have to do is present evidence that proves a god exists ( to do this you will first have to define god clearly & in a meaningful way).

      Go ahead.

      • Scooter

        Actually Alan, you bring up a very important point. We need to define what it is we’re talking about before we can determine if it exists. The essence of what we’re talking about then is what it is, and existence is that it is. And you need to know the former before you can talk about the latter. Therefore, before we can begin to discuss the question of God’s existence, we must have a conception of God in our mind. We should have some idea of what He is like-God’s essence. I’m not surprised that an atheist wouldn’t believe in God if he/she has a wrong conception of God and most likely would end up rejecting a straw man. This error is brought out in Richard Dawkin’s “The God Delusion” when he writes,

        “I have found it an amusing strategy when asked whether I am an atheist to point out that the questioner is also an atheist when considering Zeus, Apollo, Amon-Ra, Mithras, Baal, Thor, Wotan, the Golden Calf and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I just go one god further.”

        Simply put, Dawkins doesn’t understand the Biblical God. He seems to think that since English speakers use the same three-letter word to describe Thor and Yahweh, they can be grouped and dismissed together. But the nature of Thor and the nature of the God of the Bible are very different. In fact, grouping them together borders on a category mistake. Even a cursory understanding of theology is enough to demonstrate that the traditional concept of God is nothing like the so-called gods listed above. For instance, the God of the Bible is an uncreated, infinite, eternal, and metaphysically necessary Being. Furthermore, He is described as all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and everywhere present. Now contrast this with the gods that Dawkins lists. These are all created, finite, temporal, and contingent. They are not all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and everywhere present.

        I would also submit that there are good reasons to believe in a transcendent, personal, creator God even if there aren’t good reasons to believe in these other finite beings. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga provides several of these reasons if you care to read at

        https://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/plantinga_alvin/two_dozen_or_so_theistic_arguments.pdf

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          This sounds very similar to an email from Stand to Reason (Tim Barnett) that I got today. Perhaps even identical.

          Since STR doesn’t like discussions that rain on their happy-though-irrational parade, this is a nice opportunity to share my reaction with you. You’re saying that Yahweh is very different from Thor, Zeus, and the FSM.

          Nope. The concept of Yahweh has indeed evolved, through tradition and evolution within the Bible, to be all-good, all-knowing, and so on, but that’s now how he started. Yahweh in Genesis was just an up-and-coming god with a dream of the big time. He had to send angelic scouts to Sodom to learn what was up. He walked in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the evening and dropped by Abram’s for a snack, just like an ordinary Joe. And then there’s Deut. 32:8–9, which makes clear that Yahweh was just part of a pantheon.

          Yahweh’s story is the same as a long line of stories formed out of the Combat Myth (more here).

          Your own Bible documents the evolution of Yahweh. Yes, he’s all-powerful (etc.) now. He didn’t used to be.

          And as for Plantinga’s long, long list of fabulous arguments: I don’t want 2 dozen crappy arguments. I need just one good one. Go.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Your own Bible documents the evolution of Yahweh. Yes, he’s all-powerful (etc.) now. He didn’t used to be.

          And yet dopey Christians believe number 20 on the list…

          20. God is absolutely immutable.

          ETA blockquote.

        • Ignorant Amos

          This sounds very similar to an email from Stand to Reason (Tim Barnett) that I got today. Perhaps even identical.

          Definitely stolen.

          Tim Barnett completely missed the point of the Dawkins quote. Scooter has plagiarised Barnett’s stupidity. The asininity of the believer knows no bounds.

        • Scooter

          Yes, I find that STR always has something pertinent to say which today seemed to fit Alan’s question very nicely. (obviously you do as well since you receive STR emails) My reaction to all the comments? Theistic beliefs I find are not critiqued as much as mocked and caricatured so there’s little use in answering those that do.

        • adam

          “Theistic beliefs I find are not critiqued as much as mocked and caricatured so there’s little use in answering those that do.”

          Well when theists can actually demonstrate that their ‘God’ is anything but IMAGINARY, then they will get respect.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/878b8e07d2b942087c85ac234890ad18b3e8f811594bc275918c5d05cbe88467.jpg

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Pro tip: Copying something is fine, but you get points taken off if you don’t make clear that you’re copying and give the source.

          I find the mocking often appropriate in this case, so if you can find the kernel of a valid argument in there, I’d encourage you to consider it and respond if you have something useful to offer.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          For your convenience, I found Tim Barnett’s column online here.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Some plagiarising getting done.

          An example: Consider the proposition of the existence of a “pink unicorn”. When asserting the proposition, one can use attributes to at least describe the concept such a cohesive idea is transferred in language. With no knowledge of “pink unicorn”, it can be described minimally with the attributes “pink”, “horse”, and “horn”. Only then can the proposition be accepted or rejected. The acceptance or rejection of the proposition is distinct from the concept.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

        • TheNuszAbides

          wait, they’re leaving out the healing powers and refusal to be ridden/touched by anyone other than virgin girls? heretics.

        • adam

          “I’m not surprised that an atheist wouldn’t believe in God if he/she has a
          wrong conception of God and most likely would end up rejecting a straw
          man. ”

          Or if they had the right conception of God and reject it out of morality:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86effa5e2bc761ae95f687bf44f1632c13ebd40a54b07502d779f242a887cc3e.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          Therefore, before we can begin to discuss the question of God’s existence, we must have a conception of God in our mind.

          And given my theological noncognitivism, I challenge you to describe the concept of God in your mind.

          There are as many concepts of God as there are believers. It’s a meaningless proposition.

          George H. Smith uses an attribute-based approach in an attempt to prove that there is no concept for God: he argues that there are no meaningful attributes, only negatively defined or relational attributes, making the term meaningless.

          Simply put, Dawkins doesn’t understand the Biblical God.

          No one does apparently…that is a dogma of Christianity.

          Number three on the nonsense list of 255…

          3. God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men.

          http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Dogmas-Of-The-Faith.pdf

          Then Christians go on to wax lyrical about Gods Nature. How ta fuck anyone could know the truth claim of most of them is beyond me. Just check the list. Many are logical contradictions the prick of a God of the Buybull for starters. It’s all nonsense.

          32. God is infinitely just.

          33. God is infinitely merciful.

          Not that fecker written about in the Buybull, infinitely just and merciful, my arse.

          He seems to think that since English speakers use the same three-letter word to describe Thor and Yahweh, they can be grouped and dismissed together.

          Whoooosh…and you completely missed the point Dawkins was making.

          But the nature of Thor and the nature of the God of the Bible are very different.

          That is not the point. Believers in Thor followed the fiction with every bit of conviction as those of God. Priests of the Phrygian god Attis, the Galli, castrated themselves to prove their devotion to their god.

          Attis was also a Phrygian god of vegetation, and in his self-mutilation, death, and resurrection he represents the fruits of the earth, which die in winter only to rise again in the spring.

          That was 13 centuries before the Jesus story was invented.

          Perhaps a look at John Loftus’ The Outsider Test for Faith will better help you understand what Dawkins was getting at.

          In fact, grouping them together borders on a category mistake. Even a cursory understanding of theology is enough to demonstrate that the traditional concept of God is nothing like the so-called gods listed above. For instance, the God of the Bible is an uncreated, infinite, eternal, and metaphysically necessary Being. Furthermore, He is described as all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and everywhere present. Now contrast this with the gods that Dawkins lists. These are all created, finite, temporal, and contingent. They are not all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and everywhere present.

          What they all are, is man invented mythical concepts. They are all evidence-less contrivance’s worshiped by different groups at different times with equal passion. You don’t worship any of the Hindu gods, why not? When you can answer that, you will realise why atheists think the same about your nonsense too.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You must not read so good. The title is, “The 255 Infallibly Declared Dogmas of the Catholic Faith.” Did you miss the “infallible” part?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Frig…bugger and damn…that changes everything. If someone claims they are infallible, then that settles it. Am off to sign up for that lot…can’t argue with infallibility, can I?

        • Cozmo the Magician

          Sign me up too! I would go myself, but I will be busy masturbating to lesbian porn later…

        • TheNuszAbides

          3. God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men.

          …Then Christians go on to wax lyrical about Gods Nature. How ta fuck anyone could know the truth claim of most of them is beyond me.

          a perverse inversion of the Gaps & Superexternalization apologetics: rather than

          well, yeah, but [insert scientific discovery] doesn’t mean that wasn’t His Idea/Plan in the first place – He still dunnit!”

          or

          well, maybe you arrogant smartypantses figured out a way to explain _____ without invoking His Ineffable Willery, but what about [insert putative mystery here]?!?

          it’s

          well, sure, we remark upon the Outward Manifestations of His Emanations, and of course upon the Exegetically Appropriate Meanings of His Word, but neither of those Clever Theologicalities are His Inner Core Ultimate Nature (which verily, no True ScotsmanHumbly Sagacious Theologian evereverever claims to know)!

        • C_Alan_Nault

          “Simply put, Dawkins doesn’t understand the Biblical God.”

          Oh? Is the Biblical god something that can be understood by a human mind?

          Don’t forget, the question I just asked is meaningless unless it is first proven that the Bible’s god exists.

          Unless that god is proven to exist, we are not discussing the god, we are discussing a character in a book & are basing our view of the character (god) based on what the book says.

          “But the nature of Thor and the nature of the God of the Bible are very different.”

          Of course they are. While they are both gods, Thor is the son of a different god ( Odin) and the Bible’s god is not the son of another god.

          One thing Thor & the Bible’s god DO have in common is that neither of them has been proven to exist.

          “In fact, grouping them together borders on a category mistake. ”

          Agreed. The Bible’s god is NOT ( according to the Bible) the son of a god, while Thor is.

          The Bible’s god should be grouped with Odin, Zeus, and Jupiter ( to name three).

          “I would also submit that there are good reasons to believe in a transcendent, personal, creator God ”

          Go ahead and list some of these reasons here.

          Don’t forget you first have to clearly define the god in a meaningful way.

          You also have to define what you mean by “transcendent” as it applies to the god.

          And IF your definition of the god says the god exists in a realm outside of time & space you will also have to prove there is a realm outside of time and space.
          .

        • Ignorant Amos

          …the Bible’s god is not the son of another god.

          Unless Yahweh was originally the son of El in an earlier time when the Israelite’s were polytheistic. Not that that matters to the point.

        • Scooter

          “Is the Biblical god something that can be understood by a human mind?”
          Good point Alan- Perhaps a Freudian slip, but you posit the idea that God can’t be comprehended fully by a human mind which would throw a monkey wrench into the atheist’s clamor for proof of God’s existence. However, interesting that we can fully comprehend all the other false gods of antiquity because they are made in the image of man whereas man is made in the image of God and we understand a little of love, justice, compassion, and other revealed attributes of God.

          And this idea of “proving” the existence of God will never happen based on your philosophy of materialistic naturalism. As an atheist the only thing that is real in your world view is material which can only be understood through the 5 senses. Your presuppositional world view automatically removes any other possible criteria which would point to the reality of the supernatural.

          Now if you want evidence and not proof, then there’s plenty of it. I’m reminded of this line from “The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle” by Arthur Conan Doyle. “On the contrary, Watson, you can see everything. You fail, however, to reason from what you see. You are too timid in drawing your inferences.”

          And from the Scriptures, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

          So I reckon that the evidence you look for lies within the created “order.”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          you posit the idea that God can’t be comprehended fully by a human mind

          Then why whine that Dawkins doesn’t understand the biblical god when Christians don’t either? 45,000 Christian denominations (and counting) underscores the point.

          However, interesting that we can fully comprehend all the other false gods of antiquity because they are made in the image of man

          What’s hard to understand? Read Genesis and tell me how that god differs fundamentally from Marduk, Chemosh, or any of the other ancient gods of the Levant.

          Your presuppositional world view automatically removes any other possible criteria which would point to the reality of the supernatural.

          Presuppositional? Alan can respond for himself, but I’m happy to go where the evidence points. You just got no evidence.

          And from the Scriptures, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

          I know, right? Who wrote this stuff? “You don’t think there’s evidence? Well, you’re wrong!” Uh, yeah–color me unconvinced.

          This could’ve just as easily been written about any other nutty invented god.

        • Michael Neville

          However, interesting that we can fully comprehend all the other false gods of antiquity because they are made in the image of man whereas man is made in the image of God and we understand a little of love, justice, compassion, and other revealed attributes of God.

          If you knew anything about Hinduism you’d know those are revealed attributes of the Trimūrti. That’s the trinity of supreme divinity in which the cosmic functions of creation, maintenance, and destruction are personified as a triad of deities” Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer. The Trimūrti as an oral tradition dates to about 500 BCE if not earlier.

          The Hindus were discussing philosophical theology when the Hebrews were deciding whether pork was kosher or not.

        • Joe

          Hebrews were deciding whether pork was kosher or not.

          They chose poorly.

        • adam

          “However, interesting that we can fully comprehend all the other false
          gods of antiquity because they are made in the image of man whereas man
          is made in the image of God and we understand a little of love, justice,
          compassion, and other revealed attributes of God.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ae1ee2515b89022446d029f7aa397845b841c7af79c03fa498660b13179b4044.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/86effa5e2bc761ae95f687bf44f1632c13ebd40a54b07502d779f242a887cc3e.jpg

        • C_Alan_Nault

          “but you posit the idea that God can’t be comprehended fully by a human mind which would throw a monkey wrench into the atheist’s clamor for proof of God’s existence.”

          Hardly. In the past, people could experience tides & have no comprehension of what tides are or what they were caused by, but if someone who had never seen the ocean asked them, they could take them to the shore & have them see the tide occur. People could not comprehend why eclipses happened but when they were occurring they could point them out to other people.

          Someone could watch a compass needle & discover that it always points north without having any idea why.

          It is not necessary you comprehend something to be shown it or shown evidence of it’s existence.

          That being the case, why do you believe a god exists, and how would describe the god you believe in? To believe something exists, you must have some idea of what you think it is.

        • al kimeea

          “In the past, people could experience tides & have no comprehension of what tides are or what they were caused by,”

          did somebody recently clue in Bill O’Liely?

        • C_Alan_Nault

          “we can fully comprehend all the other false gods of antiquity because they are made in the image of man”

          I suggest you examine the various gods & goddesses of Hinduism to see that they are NOT in the image of man…. Hinduism is also not a religion of antiquity, it is still practiced & believed by millions today.

          “whereas man is made in the image of God”

          That’s what the Bible claims. It hasn’t been proven yet. Are you saying god has a single head ( with 2 ears, 2 eyes, nostrils), two arms, two legs?

          ” and we understand a little of love, justice, compassion, and other revealed attributes of God.”

          Revealed where? In the Bible?

          Love? In the old testament there is a long list of people that god supposedly tells us must be killed… a partial list includes homosexuals, women ( not men) who aren’t virgins on their wedding night, disobedient children, and anyone that worships a different god.

          Justice? The Bible tells us that god will punish people for the sins of their parents or ancestors, sometimes for 10 generations. The Bible tells us god will take away a person’s freewill when it suits his purposes, causing the person to do things he wouldn’t have done, then punishes the person for doing the things god caused him to do.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s what the Bible claims. It hasn’t been proven yet. Are you saying god has a single head ( with 2 ears, 2 eyes, nostrils), two arms, two legs?

          More to the point…has God got two nipples, two balls, a cock and belly button ….oh and not forgetting an arsehole? To what ends?

        • C_Alan_Nault

          The Bible does have a passage where god is talking to Moses & is going to walk past Moses. God tells Moses to turn around (so he doesn’t look upon god’s face) but allows Moses to look upon his ( god’s) backside.

          Going by the Bible, god is a dick. One of the stories from the Bible that they never seem to teach in Sunday school is when god physically wrestles with Jacob for an entire night. God isn’t able to win, Jacob gets god in a hold god can’t break so god tries cheating & uses his power to dislocate Jacob’s hip. Jacob still doesn’t release god until god agrees to bless him.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Aye…the BuyBull is riddled with such nonsense that I never heard before becoming a non-believer and actually reading the idiotic flannel.

          http://www.bricktestament.com/genesis/jacob_wrestles_god/gn32_23.html

          That educated adults believe such fuckwittery while keeping a straight face, never ceases to astound me.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          It’s one thing to believe silly stories because, from your worldview, they are comfortable and familiar. But when they point and laugh at other religions’ equally silly stories, wouldn’t you think that the spell would be broken?

          I remember a WLC lecture where he was trying to cut down the noncanonical gospels–the Gospel of Peter in this case. He said that it has a bit with a walking, talking cross in it*, which is indeed ridiculous. I wondered if he’s read his own crap.

          *Christian scholar Mark Goodacre has a plausible idea: that it wasn’t originally “cross” but “crucified one.” Apparently this would’ve been a small typo.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          “And this idea of “proving” the existence of God will never happen based on your philosophy of materialistic naturalism.”

          If you want to call not believing something because no one has been able to present any evidence for it materialistic naturalism, go right ahead. Call it whatever you like, it won’t change the fact that no one has ever presented any evidence for god.

          “As an atheist the only thing that is real in your world view is material which can only be understood through the 5 senses.”

          Not at all. numbers are a metaphysical concept.. by that I mean it is not possible to show me a number two, all you can show me is a visual symbol used to indicate the number two ( some examples: 2 and II). Despite the fact that numbers ( in fact, all mathematics) are metaphysical construct, they are used every day.

          The concept of “god”, on the other hand, hasn’t been clearly defined in any meaningful way & no evidence for the existence of a god has ever been presented.

          As for the five senses, can you give an example of any other way to experience & examine material things? Do you have some undiscovered other sense?

          “Your presuppositional world view automatically removes any other possible criteria which would point to the reality of the supernatural.”

          Wrong. The lack of any evidence for anything supernatural means belief in something supernatural is ridiculous.

          I am quite prepared to believe in the supernatural, just show me the evidence.

          “Now if you want evidence and not proof”

          A ridiculous statement, since evidence IS proof.

          “And from the Scriptures, ”

          Unless you can prove the god of the scriptures exists & that the scriptures are an accurate account, what the scriptures may say can be dismissed.

          “So I reckon that the evidence you look for lies within the created “order.”

          Calling the universe created order is what you are claiming, it isn’t evidence because it has not been proved it was created by a god.

        • Max Doubt

          “So I reckon that the evidence you look for lies within the created “order.””

          No. Your incredulity and ignorance do not constitute evidence for anything other than that you’re incredulous and ignorant, of course.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Of course they are. While they are both gods, Thor is the son of a different god ( Odin) and the Bible’s god is not the son of another god.

          Actually, Deuteronomy 32:8–9 shows where Yahweh is the son of another god, Elohim.

          And keep in mind that Christianity’s 45,000 denominations shows that they don’t “understand the Biblical God.”

        • TheNuszAbides

          While they are both gods, Thor is the son of a different god ( Odin) and the Bible’s god is not the son of another god.

          even ‘better’, he’s the son of himself! at least, when it’s vaguely convenient to narrative pseudo-profundity.

        • adam
        • Rudy R

          For instance, the God of the Bible is an uncreated, infinite, eternal, and metaphysically necessary Being. Furthermore, He is described as all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and everywhere present.

          You don’t understand the Biblical god either. Yahweh can hardly be defined by any of those characteristics.

        • al kimeea

          and kinda cuts against the au courant “unknowable creator” grain of the sophisticated apologists

        • Joe

          or instance, the God of the Bible is an uncreated, infinite, eternal, and metaphysically necessary Being.

          I challenge you to provide the bible verses that state Yahweh is all of those things.

        • Scooter

          Eternal and uncreated- The independent self-existence of God is a truth stated clearly in the Bible. See the following verses: Psalm 90: 1-4; 102:25-27; Isaiah 40:28-31; John 5:26; Revelation 4:10

          Exodus 3:14 says “God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I am has sent me to you.’” The “I AM” expression is related to the Hebrew name for God, Yahweh (LORD , or Jehovah)
          The term Yahweh occurs more than 6,800 times in the Old Testament. The word is believed to be a form of the verb hayah, which signifies “to be,” ultimately meaning “the eternal One” or “self-existing One.” God’s existence is underived; no one made him. He simply always was.

          Infinite- Hebrews 13:8; Revelation 1:4; Psalm 147:5

          A necessary Being- Acts 17:25,28
          These present just a brief look at some of the indicators of God’s nature and there are many more.

        • Joe

          The term Yahweh occurs more than 6,800 times in the Old Testament. The word is believed to be a form of the verb hayah, which signifies “to be,” ultimately meaning “the eternal One” or “self-existing One.” God’s existence is underived; no one made him. He simply always was.

          Or, it meant ‘he who blows’, which would befit a storm god.

          The rest is a gish-galop of half truths that takes too long to refute.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          To be complete, you must search the Bible to show that there is nothing that contradicts these properties.

          But of course, such contradictions exist–God as just a dude appearing to Abram or to Adam. God having to check out the rumors he heard about Sodom. God regretting that he had made humans. And so on.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Eternal and uncreated- The independent self-existence of God is a truth stated clearly in the Bible. See the following verses: Psalm 90: 1-4; 102:25-27; Isaiah 40:28-31; John 5:26; Revelation 4:10

          ….

          The term Yahweh occurs more than 6,800 times in the Old Testament. The word is believed to be a form of the verb hayah, which signifies “to be,” ultimately meaning “the eternal One” or “self-existing One.” God’s existence is underived; no one made him. He simply always was.

          Nope…only if one is wearing them god shaped tinted goggles.

          http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Yahweh

          ETA missing paragraph.

        • David Cromie

          Yahweh (Beth-Yahweh?), the ‘god’ of the desert, became the ‘god’ of the Edomite and Midianite nomads in the 14th cent, BCE, before the cult of Yahwism had reached Israel, probably via the caravan routes of the Midianite, or Kenite traders. For a full discussion of ‘Yahweh’, see:

          ‘Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible’, by van der Toorn, Becking, and van der Horst, eds. 2nd Edn. 1999, Brill.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A necessary Being- Acts 17:25,28

          Whaaaa? Nope…clearly not.

          25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’[a] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’[b]

          Human beings didn’t evolve from “one man”, so that’s wrong…surprise, surprise…a God wasn’t necessary at all, nowhere in that dross does it say he was either.

        • Ignorant Amos

          These present just a brief look at some of the indicators of God’s nature and there are many more.

          Only in your opinion, others differ.

          In the meantime….

          http://slideplayer.com/slide/256387/1/images/7/I.+The+Nature+of+Evil+A.+The+Problem:.jpg

          …backed up by scripture….

          https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/92/f4/a6/92f4a6834907af63be31127677a6e016.jpg

        • Scooter

          Actually, there’s a problem with your syllogism. Listen to Greg Koukl for the brief but corrected explanation.
          https://www.str.org/videos/did-god-create-evil#.WWf4oITyucM

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          tl;dr. Perhaps you can summarize the point being made.

          The Bible itself says that God created evil.

        • Scooter

          I’ll give it a shot as there are several ideas involved in this topic. In terms of lumping evil in with other created things that God created and thus thereby also creating evil Greg points out that the syllogism would be true if in fact evil was a “thing”; however evil is a corruption of good and not something. He adds that it is a word to describe something that is missing. His examples are donut holes that have no being, shadows are where light is not. So he points out that evil isn’t a thing that was created but a hole in goodness. God created the world as good but man’s freedom corrupted that good and introduced evil. Greg points out that God can never fail to do everything good and to create evil would be a failure to do everything good.

          Now this takes us to your point Bob that the Bible itself says that God created evil ( note Isaiah 45:7 where God is speaking and says, “I form light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil) and so this on the surface appears to be a contradiction to Greg’s comments. Now I’ve noted that this text in Isaiah is often misunderstood-for a couple of reasons. 1) the old Elizabethan King James English and 2) translation from the Hebrew. Bible scholar R.C.Sproul points out that the Hebrew has about 7 distinctive words that can be translated by the English word “evil”. There’s different kinds of evil such as moral evil. Whenever the Bible speaks of of God bringing evil upon people, it is evil from their perspective ( a calamity). Sproul mentions the fires that fell on Sodom was bad news for the Sodomites but it was ultimately good because it was an expression of God’s judgment upon their wickedness. It was a punishment by God upon a moral evil

        • Joe

          So Greg can define ‘good’ as something, but not ‘evil’.

          So things exist that aren’t things and don’t exist?

          Whenever the Bible speaks of of God bringing evil upon people, it is evil from their perspective ( a calamity).

          So if it doesn’t affect the cause of the calamity, it’s not evil?

          Sproul mentions the fires that fell on Sodom was bad news for the Sodomites but it was ultimately good because it was an expression of God’s judgment upon their wickedness.

          How is that good?

          It was a punishment by God upon a moral evil

          Shouldn’t the punishment fit the crime? Isn’t that the most moral perspective to take?

        • Ignorant Amos

          No children in Sodom?….Scooter is a knuckle dragging fuckwitt.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I thought that Sodom was just a continuous gay rave. Isn’t that in the Bible somewhere?

        • MR

          Yes:

          Genesis 19:10: But the men inside reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they rained down suds upon the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they were unable to find the door.

          That’s how foam parties got started.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So it was there all the time! Huh–who knew?

          I wonder if disco balls and strobe lights are in there, too.

        • MR

          Luke 17:24: For as the disco ball flashes and the strobes light up the dance floor from one side to the other, like Travolta will the Son of Man be in his day.

          (It’s all about reading it in the original language. The traditional translations get it all screwed up.)

        • Paul B. Lot

          Wait….The Vatican is Sodom?

        • Ignorant Amos

          That would mean that Lot didn’t think things through when he “offered” his daughters to the howling hordes that want a piece of angelic ass.

          Mind you, this is the BuyBull we are talking about here…not much in there makes much sense.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You don’t half talk some shite.

        • Michael Neville

          So God nuked a couple of towns because the people there were “wicked” but couldn’t be bothered to do anything about the Holocaust or the Cambodian Killing Fields. He must have been resting up for the Sunday afternoon bowling league.

        • Scooter

          Do you not understand what these Old Testament stories were about? “Now these things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.” 1 Corinthians 10:11

        • Michael Neville

          I see. Your asshole of a god nuked a couple of towns to tell us “gay secks is double plus ungood”. Since your asshole of a god likes genocide, he didn’t do squat about millions of people getting murdered. And you worship this clown?

        • Ignorant Amos

          I see. Your asshole of a god nuked a couple of towns to tell us “gay secks is double plus ungood”.

          What God did, that sort of evil doesn’t count…that’s just an absence of good. What the geyz were doing, that sort of evil counts.

          Since your asshole of a god likes genocide, he didn’t do squat about millions of people getting murdered.

          Genocide is the sort of evil that doesn’t count. Unless it isn’t God, or Gods righteous ones in the Buybull doing it, then that kind of evil counts.

          And you worship this clown?

          Nonsense, isn’t it?

        • (((Mike)))

          It’s been a looooooooooooong Shabbat.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nope. Wishy washy apologetics don’t cut it am afraid.

          That other apologists have other ideas is telling.

          Philosopher Alvin Plantinga writes, “An all loving, all powerful, all knowing Being could permit as much evil as He pleased without forfeiting His claim to being all loving, so long as for every evil state of affairs He permits there is an accompanying greater good”. The potential for love out weighs the existence of evil, especially if evil can only exist for a time. Evil is a side effect of love. Suffering and death are a side effect of evil (Romans 5:12). God says in His Bible that this side effect is only for a time. Evil serves the limited purpose of establishing real love relationships between creation and the Creator, and evil will be done away with after that purpose is achieved. “And the world passes away, and the lust thereof: but he that does the will of God abides forever” (I John 2:17).

          Your man’s claim that evil is an absence of good is fudge. One could just as easily assert that good is the absence of evil.

          There’s also the problem when other apologists claim that the evil that God created is really calamity, disaster, allowing free will…as opposed to the sinning kind of evil.

          “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

          What is the darkness God created? We all know that darkness is the absence of light, and as Koukl points out that a shadow is no light. But something has to be the reason for that no light. Isiah claims it was God…is Isiah’s God telling lies? Does it not understand that darkness is the absence of light? If it can create the absence of light, can it created the absence of good? Is creating apologetic evil, i.e. The word translated “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.” Is that not creating the lack of good in the same sense that creating no light might be? Or was it that Yahweh was originally a war god and at the time, creating evil for a war god was actually a handy attribute to have? Something displayed throughout the OT, but an embarrassment in these modern times?

          Either way. Not the antics of total perfection with unlimited powers and ultimate benevolence. Poor show all round.

        • David Cromie

          Quoting the so-called ‘bible’ as proof of itself is a circular argument, proving nothing! Anyone could proceed in exactly the same way if they believed Harry Potter really existed.

        • abb3w

          Nonetheless, what you asked to be provided for was for the Bible verses supporting this assertion.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nope…he didn’t…I think you’ll find that it was Joe.

        • abb3w

          Ah, my mistake.

        • Cozmo the Magician

          I’d like to see him back up even ONE.

        • al kimeea

          My conception of the Abrahamic Prick is derived from reading the BuyBull cover to cover and without tossing away the nasty bits.

        • David Cromie

          What you seem to be saying is that to know a supposed ‘god’, one has first to believe that it exists. Why is that not a fallacious circular argument, and therefore meaningless?

    • VaulDogWarrior

      The real problem here is that because you are so certain that your particular god exists you find it hard to imagine people have genuine issues with your belief and the lack of evidence for it.

    • Ignorant Amos

      The real problem I think you have with God is not in your mind but in your will.

      Really?

      Haa-ha-ha…ha-ha-ha-haa!

      People are getting educated. You lot are going down the shitter.

      53% of Britons are non-religious, says latest British Social Attitudes Survey

      https://humanism.org.uk/2017/07/05/53-of-britons-are-non-religious-says-latest-british-social-attitudes-survey/

    • Phil

      Really dumb question. If there was evidence of a god then it wouldn’t be a question of belief. duh!

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Scooter: You’ve gotten a mountain of replies to your comment. Are you overwhelmed, changed in your opinion, or what? Any response?

      • TheNuszAbides

        If he gave that a straight answer it’d be suspiciously out-of-character compared to his archive.

    • Cozmo the Magician

      “I suspect not. Why? The real problem I think you have with God is not in your mind but in your will.” typical. Make a statement and support it with unsubstantiated claim (actually, claims that have been shown to be FALSE).Rational peeps OTOH do science. Where we TEST our ideas and then reject the ideas that are shown false.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    . “God did it” is unfalsifiable. It explains too much.”

    Actually, saying “god did it” explains NOTHING… or rather, it explains as much as saying “time-travelling invisible space pixies did it”.

  • Rudy R

    Saying “God did it” only answers “who” did it, not “how” it was done. What explanation Christians are really alluding to is that god magic was responsible for “how” the universe was created or “how” the first life was created on earth.

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Yup. And what’s worse, once you concede that it took magic to accomplish these tasks, there are literally an infinite number of possible “who”s and no way to discern between any of them.

      • Tommy

        Yep, the moment you appeal to the supernatural, literally anything goes. And apologists betray their monotheistic bias by positing only one designer. Their opponent should press them on why they believe there’s only one designer instead of more than one designer and ask them are they willing to accept the possibility that there are more than one designers and that their arguments easily justifies multiple designers instead of just one and only one.

    • Clinton Max Walker

      Only when you learn what has spilled, can you ask who spilled it. It may turn out not to be a spill at all.

      • Tommy

        Good point.

    • C_Alan_Nault

      It doesn’t even answer who did it, it’s just making a claim that god did it. It doesn’t even specify which god or goddess.

      • Rudy R

        And to top that off, it doesn’t follow if the god or goddess continued to exist after creating the universe.

  • Clinton Max Walker

    If you are everyone, you are no-one. If you are everything, you are no-thing. If you are everywhere, you are no-where.

    That said, ‘god’ is shorter to say and type than ‘everything’. One and the same sometimes.

  • Teto85

    That might be so, but god is always the best cop out.

    • TheNuszAbides

      that does explain the endurance of the ‘concept’ – humans aren’t exactly the poster-species for consistency of thought.

  • ColdFusion8

    Not finding the answers to some of our most profound questions is just the kind of thing that would happen in a godless universe. We may answer some in the future but never all.

  • Mark Dowd

    I don’t like the common phrasing very much: “A theory that explains everything explains nothing”.

    We want our theories to be able to explain everything. Our knowledge never shrinks, it always expands, including ever more sophisticated rules to account for more and more circumstances. “Theory of everything” is a common phrase in theoretical physics, and would be an amazing achievement if it was discovered.

    No, what’s problematic is not a theory that explains everything, but a theory that explains anything. I may be splitting hairs in an unconventional way, but I take “everything” to mean “everything that actually exists”, and “anything” to be “anything that someone can imagine might exist”.

    Take planetary orbits for example. I think it would be uncontroversial to say that general relativity explains pretty close to everything about it. Not just the shape of the path, but the exact velocities at every position on the path. Out of all the conceivable motions that an object can be imagined to take, only a vanishingly small subset of those motions are valid in general relativity. And all the objects in our solar system are on one of the valid paths. General relativity explains not just “everything” that we see, but everything that we don’t see. Triangular orbits are not observed, because they are not even close to valid solutions to the equations.

    Contrast that with what I will generously call the “old theory”, that angels push the planets around. Now it is not just the observed motions that are explained, but vastly more paths are possible and unobserved. The triangular orbit above that would kill general relativity would just be an amusing oddity under the angel “theory”. It is no longer a theory that explains just “everything”, it can now explain “anything”.

    Theories that can fit everything would be fantastic. Theories that can fit anything are useless. i hope I’ve made that distinction clear.

    • TheNuszAbides

      that might be an instructive exercise for some fence-sitters or for theists who are making a genuine effort at applying rational thought [e.g. Matt Dillahunty’s deconversion trajectory] to [ideally] escape the murk of apologia. there can be quite an emotional attachment (dare we label it “pride”…) to the everything-explained aspect of “the superwonderfulamazing entity with whom I have a Personal Relationship did it” – but those who don’t thoroughly close their minds to consistent reason can be shown that (as others have noted in these threads) if absolutely anything is so simplistically explained, “anything goes”, rendering reason pointless.

  • Susana Gonzalez

    Millions and millions of people have lived on this earth and have built monuments to their gods. As per “atheist logic ” those people lived real life, fought, built all based in their “imagination” atheist lives their life rejecting any evidence of gods found everywhere…while clsiming g there is no-evidence. There is an absolute true in the following statement: if I die and there is no god, nothing will happen. If you die and you meet God at the other side, you will be, in a big problem.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Pascal’s Wager fails because it assumes just Christianity and atheism. What if neither is true, and we both wind up in Buddhist hell?

      You say there’s lots of evidence for the supernatural? Convince me.

      • Susana Gonzalez

        Do budhists believe in hell? No , budhists believe in reincarnation, until the wage of sins are paid. Until the chosen one is born the one tha will wipe out sins (which was Jesus) This is the atheist problem talking of things you do not know…Look around you, the created world and yourself is the evidence of a designed world. You believe irrationally that this world came from coincidence.

        • al kimeea

          Why should I believe you? All you’ve done is make a completely unoriginal claim.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Do budhists believe in hell? No

          Some Buddhists do believe in hell. I’ve been to the monasteries and seen the paintings.

          This is the atheist problem talking of things you do not know…

          Like the concept of hell in Buddhism, which I do know a little about?

          Look around you, the created world and yourself is the evidence of a designed world.

          Ah, so we just assume it’s a “created world” first and then deduce that it’s a created world? Very clever.

          You believe irrationally that this world came from coincidence.

          “This is the Christian problem of talking of things you do not know.”

    • adam

      ” If you die and you meet God at the other side, you will be, in a big problem.”

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/474299198fa468cb412454dc5c43a24444b671b390af392fb7d2e088f0031e1d.jpg

      • Susana Gonzalez

        ” If you die and you meet God at the other side, you will be, in a big problem.”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The fallacy of Pascal’s Wager: there are more worldviews than just Christianity and atheism.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Not a fallacy. An undeniable true..A probability of 50% that you will meet God at the other side.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          First, read a few other posts of mine about Pascal’s wager. In particular, note what I said above, that there is much more than just Christianity and atheism. Example: what if Buddhism is right? You and I will both wind up in Buddhist hell. So much for Pascal’s limited view.

          Second, what’s this 50% thing? Show your work.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          BE honest with yourself one in a time Bob. You cannot prove that God does not exist. So you cannot be 100% sure that after your death, you are finished for good. There is a 50% probability that Your soul will still live and you will meet God…
          And oh, please leave religion out in a discussion.

        • epeeist

          You cannot prove that God does not exist.

          Your particular omni-maximal god? Of course we can, such a god is logically incoherent and cannot therefore exist.

          A couple of other things, firstly it isn’t our job to show your god doesn’t exist. You are claiming that your god exists therefore it is you who has the burden of showing this to be true.

          Secondly, even if we were unable to show that your god does not exist then you can’t therefore claim that it does exist. This is just an argument from ignorance.

          There is a 50% probability

          You pulled that figure out of your fundament.

          that Your soul will still live and you will meet God…

          When all else fails invoke the argumentum ad baculum

          EDIT: typo

        • Ignorant Amos

          When all else fails invoke the argumentum ad baculum…

          Overreaching a bit there mate…there is no chance she will understand what that means and a doubt has the gumption to Google it.

        • epeeist

          there is no chance she will understand what that means

          Oh I know that, but other readers will.

        • Ignorant Amos

          }8Op

        • Susana Gonzalez

          why do you invest so much energy and time denying GOD? you are obsessed to deny God and you jump right away to get arguments with theists.

        • Paul B. Lot

          why do you invest so much energy and time denying that THERE IS PROBABLY NO GOD?
          you are obsessed to deny THERE IS PROBABLY NO GOD and you jump right away to get arguments with atheists.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          I was not talking to you. I was talking to BOB, and you are the one writing me to get an argument.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          There’s no rule that someone else can’t add to the conversation.

        • epeeist

          why do you invest so much energy and time denying GOD?

          In other words, “You raise points I can’t answer”.

          If religionists stopped trying to impose their particular views on science, education and the running of society then to be blunt I wouldn’t care whether people believed in gods or not.

        • OldSearcher

          +10

        • Susana Gonzalez

          “f religionists stopped trying to impose their particular views on science, education and the running of society then to be blunt I wouldn’t care whether people believed in gods or not.”

          Too bad for you, for your own dismay Christians advanced science and founded the greatest universities in the world.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

          If only evolutionists stopped trying to impose their particular views on science and education… I hope that you can see, that respect goes in two ways. Christians do not deny science and the Christian scientists huge contribution to a better world, is the proof. In fact we are asked to investigate everything.
          “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;”
          http://biblehub.com/1_thessalonians/5-21.htm

          One of the things we deny from modern science is the absurdity of evolution. Why? because it just a huge hoax.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

        • epeeist

          Too bad for you, for your own dismay Christians advanced science and founded the greatest universities in the world.

          The science that they had to have translated in the 12th century and onwards from languages like Arabic and Persian you mean because there had been scarcely any development of science in the West since the fall of the Roman empire. Hence Gerard of Cremona bemoaning the “Poverty of the Latins”.

          As for universities, you are probably not aware of the Edict of Charlemagne which forced cathedrals to open schools because they either didn’t have them or the quality of teaching was so poor.

          Now the universities may have initially been started by Christians (though they did teach the trivium and quadrivium which both derived from ancient Greece) but if you look at universities today you no longer have to commit to the 39 articles (as you did at Oxford and Cambridge). In fact apart from the openly religious organisations like Liberty and Bob Jones “universities” Christianity scarcely figures outside of the theology departments.

          https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FList_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology%3Ao37hyX5GaaB8jQ-DLUEt0Yb4qIM&cuid=2306652

          There are Christians (and Muslims and Hindus etc.) working in science, so why should this be exceptionable. I can equally well point to the list of atheist scientists. I can also point out that scientists are much less likely to believe than the general population. For something like the American National Academy of Sciences only 7% or so are believers while in the British Royal Society only 3% of its members are believers.

          If only evolutionists stopped trying to impose their particular views on science and education

          Ahh, but the problem is that evolutionary biology is science, demonstrated both in the laboratory and in nature and with an accompanying theory which has masses of evidential back and has been critically tested.

          Whereas creationism or its cousin in clown shoes “intelligent design” is as much science as is astrology.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          well you just have to provide the evidence! Christians have proved that evolution is not observable.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ&t=255s

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Gravity is not observable either as every teacher physics can tell you. Still you won’t jump off a high tower to check if you may fall upwards.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          | Gravity is not observable either
          So you just accepted that evolution does not have scientific evidence.!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Hey, I have an idea! Why don’t your provide evidence from actual scientists? Ray Comfort isn’t one.

        • epeeist

          Christians have proved that evolution is not observable.

          And yet speciation events have been observed for things like evening primrose, Spartina Anglica and the red viscacha rat, this is discussed on this page.

          And since you are posting videos, here is one for you that shows observable evolution.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Let’s bring it to the level of the imbecile…just for you.

          Ever seen electricity?

          Try licking a a high tension cable with your feet on the ground.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T68vR07Q4w

        • Michael Neville

          The good old 50 cycle shuffle.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ray “The Banana Man” Comfort? Seriously?

          http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ray_Comfort

          I see now why yer head is away with the fairies when you are taking yer lead from moronic arseholes like the Banana Man…ya poor sod.

        • adam
        • adam
        • Sharon Diehl

          Evolution is being observed, my dear. Take the example of an Australian lizard that normally lays eggs, but as the climate has warmed and the lizard has extended its range to higher altitudes, the lizard has “evolved’ to give birth to live young in harsher climate conditions, rather than lay eggs.

          http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/

          What is with you bible humpers that you cannot distinguish between pseudoscience and real science?

        • Susana Gonzalez

          So finally, evolution do not take millions of years? what makes you think that we are not in face of another kind of lizard that gives birth? suddenly it just changed? They have always existed!!
          http://sciencing.com/reptiles-give-live-birth-8059548.html
          Do not be easily deceived.

        • Sharon Diehl

          You write so strangely, it’s difficult to even discern what you are saying.

          Re: lizards: There are many mechanisms of evolution, my dear–gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium to name two schools of thought. The method of giving birth is evolving, honey.

          I repeat: you are unable to distinguish between pseudoscience and real science.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          How lucky for us that you’re here to tell us the correct science. What is your doctorate in again?

        • Susana Gonzalez

          What is yours Bob? Atheists have fell in the deception of powerful people who have brain washed you to think there is no God. Think about it… Is more easy to manipulate people with no belief, than people with beliefs. Why? Because we will never submit 100% to the governments. In the first moment they force something contrary to our beliefs we will disobey. But atheists with no God to turn, you put your hope of government and science. Is more easy to manipulate godless people than ppl with beliefs. Their new world orden agenda is yo get rid of religion and every moral value in this world. This is the reason they mock, reject religion. You are doing a good job for this elite. How sad…

        • Michael Neville

          It’s quite astounding how you managed to get everything wrong in that comment.

          Atheists have fell in the deception of powerful people who have brain washed you to think there is no God.

          Nobody “brainwashed” us, we came to the belief that there are no gods (there’s more gods than the sadistic bully you worship) for one simple, straightforward reason. There’s no evidence that any gods exist. Each of us came to that conclusion on our own, often with friends and family doing their best to “brainwash” us into keeping the faith that we started out with and then rejected.

          Think about it… Is more easy to manipulate people with no belief, than people with beliefs.

          It’s much easier to manipulate people with beliefs in gods. All that’s needed is for someone to say “God wants you to do or say or think this. God told me so himself.” All religious authorities, without exception, claim to have a direct line to their god and to know exactly what that god thinks about any particular subject. Incidentally, many atheists have noticed that when someone claims to know the mind of God that God has exactly the same opinions and prejudices as his mouthpiece. We don’t think this is a coincidence.

          Because we will never submit 100% to the governments. In the first moment they force something contrary to our beliefs we will disobey.

          You will disobey except for the times when you don’t, which is most of the time.

          But atheists with no God to turn, you put your hope of government and science.

          We put our hope in reality. Science is very good at showing reality, government not so much. But given the choice between putting my hope in a government which is supposed to be answerable to me and putting my hope in some scoundrel who claims to speak for an imaginary god, I prefer to go with government because it’s usually more honest than a charlatan who pretends to know what an unknowable god wants.

          Is more easy to manipulate godless people than ppl with beliefs.

          As I’ve already explained, it’s much easier to manipulate a believer by appealing to their beliefs.

          Their new world orden agenda is yo get rid of religion and every moral value in this world.

          Besides being a godbot you’re also a conspiracy nut. So you’re a very easy person to manipulate. I’d just tell you that God wants you to do something and the government doesn’t want you to do it. You’ll click your heels, shout Jawohl Herr religiöser Führer! and do it because you’d be doing God’s work and disobeying the government you distrust.

          Also if you think that religion promotes moral values just look at the child rapists the Catholic Church supports and protects or how Joel Osteen is worth over $40 million or that the Mormon Church is the largest landowner in both Utah and Florida. You don’t get rich in religion by pushing moral values, you get rich by manipulating believers like you.

          This is the reason they mock, reject religion.

          As I said, you’re a conspiracy nut. How sad.

        • David Cromie

          You are the one that has been indoctrinated, and probably a an early age, to believe in magical beings. Where is your proof that such beings actually exist, especially the one you promote as a ‘god’?

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Lying again ? At your age, and never learnt the 9 commandement? Thou shall not lie …

        • David Cromie

          What has the ‘9 commandment’ have to do with asking you for your irrefutable evidence for the real existence of your favourite supposed ‘god’?

          Sorry to have to inform you that you are the one that is lying since you persist in dodging my questions! Are you mentally retarded in some way?

        • Susana Gonzalez

          You are assuming I was indoctrinated when child, that made you a liar, because if I am Christian, is because I decided to become Christian 8 years Ago, while bring an adult. See, you should never assume things, otherwise you become a liar .
          You ask for proofs? What about answering this simple question.

          Can you prove God does not exist? No you cannot.

        • David Cromie

          Making a wrong assumption (for which I apologise) is not the same as lying! Get up to scratch with logic, and you will also learn that it is logically impossible to prove a negative, just as you cannot prove my pet unicorn does not exist. Your ‘god’, and you have the onus for adducing the evidence that you are not deluded in believing that it actually exists!

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Well making a wrong assumption or statement is LYING. Which is the 9th
          The Laws of God are written in the conscience of people. Atheists can be as moral as believers, but for different reasons.
          noun
          1. the telling of lies, or false statements; untruthfulness.. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/lying

          So please do not assume anything about me. I do not assume anything about you, which is the first rule to carry a good decent conversation.
          1 Peter 2:1
          Rid yourselves, therefore, of all malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander.
          Now, I wanted to share the next post to you. Try to explain with logic please.

        • Susana Gonzalez
        • Ignorant Amos

          So before becoming a Christian 8 years ago when you were an adult, what beliefs did you hold, if any, and what was the epiphany experience that turned that adult into a Christian.

          What evidence convinced you of Gods existence and what method did you use to check its veracity?

          Can you prove God does not exist? No you cannot.

          Can you prove a herd of universe creating Space Ponies does not exist? No you cannot. So pah!

          You don’t believe all sorts of nonsense gods and other supernatural shit doesn’t exist. Once you think about it and realise why that is, then you’ll realise why I don’t think your particular nonsense god exists either…no evidence required.

        • Susana Gonzalez
        • Ignorant Amos

          You are a lost cause and away in the head Susana…the brain rot has set in from that religious mind virus that has well and truly fucked you up.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You do realise that the U.S. is not the centre of the universe, right?

          The bumpkin that wrote Luke was writing two millennia ago somewhere in the middle east at a time when the Americas were unknown.

          I’m living where there was no eclipse, storms, or flooding on the 21st, 25th, or 26th…so a guess am gonna be okay.

        • Susana Gonzalez
        • Susana Gonzalez

          The Judgement starts in the house of GOD. (USA was a country consecrated to GOD)

        • David Cromie

          You might as well quote Nostradamus!

        • Susana Gonzalez
        • Susana Gonzalez

          what convinced me? prophecies, like this one…seems all is written down already, and God is calling out as many people to repent and turn to Him.

        • jamesparson

          You can prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

        • Greg G.

          You can prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

          But that isn’t the Flying Spaghetti Monster that I believe in.

        • jamesparson

          My Flying Spaghetti Monster is real. Yours is made of Lasagna. It is a false pasta.

        • Greg G.

          My FSM is al dente. Yours couldn’t lick a wet noodle.

        • jamesparson

          Blasphemer!!!!!!!

        • Pofarmer

          This I gotta see.

        • Michael Neville

          There is a difference between being wrong about something and lying. You might want to apologize to David Cromie for accusing him of lying when he was wrong.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Here’s a little secret for those of us who don’t have doctorates in the sciences: when there is a consensus of those who understand the data (that is, not us laymen), accept it. It’s easy. And then when the consensus changes, you just follow the consensus. That’s the best way to stay on the right side of truth.

          And actually, I have a doctorate in math from Thunderwood College. I might have several more from there–I forget.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e21e9fb7bc9552f6d0255ca17f405e81fcc9747d37e6cce74457dcb74dd558c2.jpg

        • Greg G.

          When you get your PhD in accounting, will you do my taxes?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I was thinking of getting a doctorate in baraminology. At first I thought that the “kinds” idea in the Flood story was just the nonsense that non-scientific primitive people would say, but then someone gave it a fancy name and all of a sudden I’m on board.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Good for you Bob. Christians usually accept the science, when scientifics do not contradict what the Bible teaches.

          We Christians believe in the signs of heavens such eclipses. They bring messages from God, specially solar eclipses. They bring plagues, civil wars, destructions. The more unbelievers remain unrepented, the more natural catastrophes will happen. Is time of repentance, because is time of judgement. From today to 7 years USA will be slowly put to its kneels…because when the people Lost everything, they turn to God.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Only those Christian’s at the more lunatic end of the wedge. Guess what end of the slippery slope you reside?

          The those that go barking at the moon end.

        • David Cromie

          So the so-called ‘bible’ is a very dependable science textbook? Well, just for starters, how does it explain talking animals, or the science behind the Garden of Eden and the cloning of Adam to form Steve (any clone of a male will also be male!), and how all those animals survived living together in a small boat, and for so long? How did a raven turn into a dove?

        • alexinfinite

          “We Christians believe in the signs of heavens such eclipses. They bring messages from God, specially solar eclipses. They bring plagues, civil wars, destructions.”

          No they don’t. And to believe so is idiotic in the extreme.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse

          “Christians usually accept the science, when scientifics do not contradict what the Bible teaches.”

          Then those Christians are idiots and willfully ignorant.

        • Susana Gonzalez
        • Susana Gonzalez
        • alexinfinite

          Yeah a nice vague claim from the bible that could be applied to any negative situation is soooo convincing. Never mind we have had scientists telling us this was coming with mountains of data as to why. Grow up

        • Susana Gonzalez

          I think that not believing is foolish..Harvey, Irma, Jose, are the proof. But you can choose to ignore the evidence.

        • alexinfinite

          No, those aren’t evidence for the end times. We know what caused those phenomena. Stop being a nut job

        • epeeist

          We know what caused those phenomena.

          But, but, but this doesn’t stop it being Susana’s god that caused it. It watches every single quark and gluon to make sure it is doing the right thing don’t you know.

          Stop being a nut job

          You think this is actually likely to happen?

        • Michael Neville

          Hurricanes and eclipses are natural phenomena, they have nothing to do with each other. We’re not ignoring the evidence, we’re saying that there is no evidence and only a idiot would try to conflate the two.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh I don’t know….am sure the Waponis of Waponi Woo must’ve thought Krakatoa was a sign their fire god was pretty pissed off.

          Even Joe Banks’, aka Tom Hanks, self sacrifice could appease the fire gods.

          https://i.pinimg.com/originals/51/42/fa/5142fa09d544d71e891ceba9d0fb9381.jpg

          Winters coming.

        • David Cromie

          Winter! Why should religiots worry, they have fur-lined bootlaces, obtained directly from the Spaghetti Monster’s online store!

        • Ignorant Amos

          According to Susanna, no point in worrying about winter…the game will be a bogey by the end of October, God is going to see to that.

          I was punting towards GoT where the God of Fire does all sorts of magic shit, including resurrections.

          https://theramblingramblers.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/winter-is-coming.jpg

        • Michael Neville
        • Ignorant Amos

          Hey ho….gods and their whimsical ways….it’s all a mystery.

        • David Cromie

          What are you babbling on about?

        • Ignorant Amos

          The moronic headcase thinks the end of the world is nigh, so ya better break out your dusty old Pascal’s wager, brush it off and buff it up…coz we are all gonna need it.

          We have a “special” kind of bug, nutty, bat shit, crazy, barking at the moon, airhead Christian in ole Susana, don’t you cry for me.

        • Kodie

          You think hurricanes are proof of god? You are so fucking stupid.

        • Susana Gonzalez
        • Kodie

          You are delusional.

        • Susana Gonzalez
        • Kodie

          Some things do not make it to the 3rd stage, but morons like you continue to stick to your stupid guns anyway. Nothing I can say will get through to a moron like you.

        • adam

          “Christians usually accept the science, when scientifics do not contradict what the Bible teaches.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cabed70b642dd4e05ad235b84e0aa17bf649485d3dd1ae990d98e27dbf7f5a23.jpg

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Good for you Bob.

          The doctorate is pretend, just to be clear.

          Christians usually accept the science, when scientifics do not contradict what the Bible teaches.

          Which isn’t saying much. Science can do whatever it wants, as long as it doesn’t step on Religion’s toes.

          We Christians believe in the signs of heavens such eclipses.

          I don’t know why. They’ve never been accurate about anything in the past.

          Example: did you get excited about John Hagee’s invented “4 blood moons” thing?

          From today to 7 years USA will be slowly put to its kneels…because when the people Lost everything, they turn to God.

          I fear that, 7 years from now, you will be walking back from this one. So let’s be precise: please list what things we will see in the next 7 years. This is your chance to show the power of God’s celestial signs. Show us that this is not nonsense.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Hi again Bob. This is my last response. I deep care for your souls, so I spent my time here, but the time is closed now with so many natural catastrophes coming, I have only the time, to close the door with my family and children and wait for my beloved Jesus to show up in heavens.

          I am not coming to these sites anymore. I am in peace with myself, knowing I announced to a group of unbelievers about the incoming judgement. I am a Christian person who wanted atheists to know that there is hope in Jesus and that everyone who repents and trust Jesus as their savior will be saved of the terrible tribulation that is coming.

          And for your question: “And why did you start your quote with Luke 21:25? The verse before says this: “ They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations . Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” You don’t suppose you didn’t quote that bit because it destroys your theory, do you?”

          WRONG AGAIN. In fact it did not destroy, but it confirms…And by the way, I know perfectly this passage and what it means.
          You can read history and prove to yourself, that the Bible foretold these events. Let us analyze it in detail:

          “ They will fall by the sword (1) and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations (2) . Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles(3) until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (4).”

          1- Israel fall by the sword 70 by Rome(EC)
          2- Jews went to all nations. (70 EC)
          3-Jerusalem was possessed (trampled by nations) by Muslims, crusades Ottomans and finally by the British empire. IS CLEAR and provable by history that ISRAEL was conquered by nations, again prophecy was right on time.

          3- 1967 was the date that ended the “time of gentiles” or fulfilled (4)
          In a 6 days war, Israel won the war against Islamic nations and captured Jerusalem. Exactly as prophesied by Ezekiel 37-38 and Psalm 83.
          So when JERUSALEM CAME BACK TO JEWISH RULE, So THE time of gentiles ended. **And another time begins:
          THE END OF TIMES**.

          Now…the full context of this prophecy proves what I am saying.

          In the END OF TIMES.. ***25There will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among the nations, bewildered by the roaring of the sea and the surging of the waves. 26Men will faint from fear and anxiety over what is coming upon the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.…**

          Are not these prophecies right on time? accomplished? what is the probability of the author of the Bible knowing all these events?
          about Jerusalem?
          about Jews expelling to all nations?
          about Liberation of Jerusalem?
          about all the signs of heavens?

          MORE NATURAL CATASTROPHES ARE COMING. BIGGER, WORLD WIDE.

          Watch what this pastor has to say, the first 20 mins only if you wish:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki-sKAdXM5A&t=748s

          I also suggest you Mark Fox warnings, I love his speeches as well :)
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yneGDAZmSdE

          bye Bob

        • Paul B. Lot

          This is my last response. I deep care for your souls, so I spent my time here, but the time is closed now with so many natural catastrophes coming, I have only the time, to close the door with my family and children and wait for my beloved Jesus to show up in heavens.
          I am not coming to these sites anymore. I am in peace with myself, knowing I announced to a group of unbelievers about the incoming judgement. I am a Christian person who wanted atheists to know that there is hope in Jesus and that everyone who repents and trust Jesus as their savior wil l be saved of the terrible tribulation that is coming.

          Jesus Donkeypunching Christ, it’s about goddamn time.

          It’ll be worth going through the End of Days, Armageddon, Judgement and Eternal Hellfire if it means that you’ll finally shut the fuck up.

          Bye bye.

        • adam
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          This is my last response.

          Don’t you want to come back and gloat that you called it correctly?

          I am not coming to these sites anymore.

          That would be rather embarrassing, I can imagine. I’m sure you won’t return to tell us that you were wrong, but when you are, I suggest you ask yourself if you’ve been backing the wrong horse. You can be a good person without believing supernatural nonsense. Read a book about atheism. Read this blog. Read one of my books. Something.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          I am 100% sure the word of God is right. Reading your book? I apologize, I have no time for it, I know your way of thinking and is enough.
          For someone with PH degree giving me the probability of Luke 21:25 matching with modern events should be simple .
          For the prophecy before Luke 21: 23 (the one you assumed it will not back the second prophecy)..You have nothing to say with those accomplished prophecies?

          Are you ignoring historical evidence?
          you always says, that you need proofs,.. evidence.. when you get facts, you just ignore.

          A person who is looking for the TRUE will get the facts and will change the way of thinking. But because you ignore the facts that I bring on the conversation, I am not willing to continue with this conversation..

          You can be a good person as per your own standards. Some people believe they are good people killing others. Which does not mean killing is good. Moral is relative as per each one beliefs. But killing is wrong. But rejecting God is even worse.

          I will leave with a biblical verse:
          Jeremiah 17:5 `Thus says the LORD: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the LORD.`
          You are not in a good position

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I am 100% sure the word of God is right.

          Then come back here on October 1 (or whatever date is after the final day) and tell us what happened or didn’t happen.

          And remind me: what are you certain will happen?

          Reading your book? I apologize, I have no time for it, I know your way of thinking and is enough.

          Doesn’t have to be mind. I’m just trying to help you out.

          For someone with PH degree giving me the probability of Luke 21:25 matching with modern events should be simple .

          Just to clarify: I don’t have a real doctorate, if that’s what you’re saying.

          Luke 21:25 says, “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.”

          What does this mean, precisely. “Signs”? Like what? Are you referring to the solar eclipse? Uh, yeah. Science explains those. You’re more excited about them than a caveman would’ve been.

          Nations in anguish? Tossing of the sea? Are you thinking of hurricanes? Uh, yeah—science explains those as well. If this is supposed to be a portent of The End, you need a lot more than natural events that are understood and unsurprising.

          You have nothing to say with those accomplished prophecies?

          What accomplished prophecies??

          you always says, that you need proofs,.. evidence.. when you get facts, you just ignore.

          Give me some facts to ignore. So far, you’ve given me nonsense. This is no argument.

          A person who is looking for the TRUE will get the facts and will change the way of thinking. But because you ignore the facts that I bring on the conversation, I am not willing to continue with this conversation..

          You’re so certain? Then commit to coming back here after these terrible events (that you need to clearly specify for us) if nothing happens.

          But rejecting God is even worse.

          One wonders then why God gives so little evidence.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          http://biblehub.com/romans/1-22.htm
          21For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

          Bye Bob.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Are things on track for the end of the world?

        • Michael Neville

          It’s 0002R or 12:02AM on the 24th so Nibaru didn’t make it here yesterday as promised.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Dang! I’ve got chores that I’ve been postponing, just in case.

        • epeeist

          Elsewhere I bet someone my immortal soul against £100 to a non-religious charity that the world would not end today. He didn’t respond to me after this.

          EDIT: sentence construction

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Susana: come back and tell us what you think. Was something supposed to happen on 9/23? If it’s a few days later, are we still on track?

          My goal isn’t to gloat. Rather, I’m wondering if you’ve become more skeptical about claims of prophecy.

        • Paul B. Lot

          A day ago you said:

          Hi again Bob. This is my last response.

          Why did you lie?

        • Greg G.

          I am 100% sure the word of God is right.

          OK, but are you 100% sure that the interpretations are right?

          If we are still posting here, still having hurricanes during hurricane season, still having earthquakes near faults in the earth’s crust, the right thing to do would be to come back and apologize.

          Deuteronomy 18:20-22 (NRSV)20 But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak—that prophet shall die.” 21 You may say to yourself, “How can we recognize a word that the Lord has not spoken?” 22 If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.

          Remember, we are not the people you need to worry about regarding the end of verse 20.

        • Greg G.

          We Christians believe in the signs of heavens such eclipses.

          The Bible says to not do that.

          Isaiah 47:13-15 (NRSV)13 You are wearied with your many consultations;    let those who study the heavensstand up and save you,    those who gaze at the stars,and at each new moon predict    what shall befall you.14 See, they are like stubble,    the fire consumes them;they cannot deliver themselves    from the power of the flame.No coal for warming oneself is this,    no fire to sit before!15 Such to you are those with whom you have labored,    who have trafficked with you from your youth;they all wander about in their own paths;    there is no one to save you.

          Jeremiah 10:1-2 (NRSV)1 Hear the word that the Lord speaks to you, O house of Israel. 2 Thus says the Lord:Do not learn the way of the nations,    or be dismayed at the signs of the heavens;    for the nations are dismayed at them.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And here I thought that all along Susana was doing the Lord’s work.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          The context was for those who believes to astrologers…and those who believes in nothing as yourself.

        • Susana Gonzalez
        • adam

          “Good for you Bob. Christians usually accept the science, when scientifics do not contradict what the Bible teaches.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • adam

          ” They bring messages from God, specially solar eclipses. They bring
          plagues, civil wars, destructions. The more unbelievers remain
          unrepented, the more natural catastrophes will happen. Is time of
          repentance, because is time of judgement. From today to 7 years USA will
          be slowly put to its kneels…because when the people Lost everything,
          they turn to God.”

          THIS is God’s LOVE, right?

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Hi Bob. I have something for you my virtual friend. Please look at my post and provide a logical explanation.. Too much coincidence? you are a mathematician. Can you provide me the probability of Luke 21:25 related to signs in heavens and roaring seas happening on the august 21 and 25. Right on time.

          Provide the probability of these events, happening 2000 years after Jesus came to earth..in the time, we Christians affirm are the end of times..

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9eef7d03b65b78991cfc5dd6fa4c48ca954fe4997ccdba4c9158dd815e10fdd0.jpg

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Where’s the puzzle? There’s a solar eclipse. They happen about twice a year (it’s just that ones that go across the continental US are rare). What’s the big deal. The eclipse didn’t coincide with either the formation or the landfall of Harvey. Not much of a coincidence to explain.

          And why did you start your quote with Luke 21:25? The verse before says this: “ They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” You don’t suppose you didn’t quote that bit because it destroys your theory, do you?

          You’re saying the End is nigh? How much time do we have? Will there be a rapture? When will the stars fall (Mark 13:25)?

        • Susana Gonzalez
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Make a prediction of what will/won’t happen on Sept. 23 and then come back here to discuss how well your prediction did.

          (Or whatever date is special to you)

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Not the first one! The Bible is full of events describing our times! God knows our future and HE controls it.
          Bob, do you remember when you read the Bible code predicting Trump victory from a Rabbi? but you can choose to believe or ignore.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Cool! Give me a short-term Bible prediction about the future. Let’s test your claim.

        • Susana Gonzalez
        • Susana Gonzalez

          7 years from now, another solar Eclipse will happen in USA. Its trajectory will cross the trajectory of the other. Making a cross sign. If you think what is currently happening is terrible, wait to 7 years. God knows how to break your pride. That will include North of mexico and Quebec in Canada. Huge disasters are in their way to the 3 countries. People have since August 21, 40 days to repent. You might believe or not, is your choice. You are free to choose where you will spent eternity. Do not mock God. Luke 21:25 Remember that

        • epeeist

          7 years from now, another solar Eclipse will happen in USA.

          Ah, so only the US counts. What about the solar eclipses in on the 2nd July, 2019, the one on 4th December 2021 and the one on 20th April 2023? What portents are told for the likes of Antarctica where two of these are due to occur?

        • Greg G.

          I think the 7 years is significant to her because of the 7 years of tribulation. Somehow the fact that the paths of the eclipses cross means Jesus.

        • epeeist

          Somehow the fact that the paths of the eclipses cross means Jesus.

          Is there anything that doesn’t mean Jesus?

        • Greg G.

          When your goggles have a Jesus-shaped clean spot, everything looks like Jesus.

        • MR

          Huh. I just checked Rev 9:

          1 And the fifth messenger did sound, and I saw a star out of the heaven having fallen to the earth, and there was given to it the key of the pit of the abyss,
          2 and he did open the pit of the abyss at Carbondale, Illinois, and there came up a smoke out of the pit as smoke of a great furnace, and darkened was the sun and the air, from the smoke of the pit.
          3 And out of the smoke came forth locusts to the earth, and there was given to them authority, as scorpions of the earth have authority,
          4 and it was said to them that they may not injure the grass of the earth, nor any green thing, nor any tree, but — the men only who have not the seal of God upon their foreheads….

          Funny how I never noticed that one bit before….

        • Greg G.

          Did you find anything on Jackson County, Missouri? The eclipse passed over it, I believe. Joseph Smith thought that was where the Garden of Eden was.

        • MR

          No, but I did find a suspicious sounding bee attack in Jackson County, Texas that occurred exactly 1902 days before the eclipse, which just happens to be the same year that B. H. Roberts, was commissioned to work through and correct the History of Joseph Smith.

          Some would say it’s just a coincidence, but if you read the signs correctly….

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/448bbe418b349371e913b064aab6508f76313ec526dd445e089e3b1834b56211.jpg

        • epeeist

          Some would say it’s just a coincidence, but if you read the signs correctly….

          Sorry to be serious, but you might like this article by Steve Novella.

        • MR

          Thanks, epeeist! Foucault’s Pendulum by Umberto Eco went a long way toward exposing this phenomenon for me. He never directly applies it to religion, but the connection is obvious. Good stuff.

        • MR

          Woe unto ye penguins…!

        • Greg G.

          Penguins are the best birds.

        • epeeist

          Penguins are the best birds.

          Here are some that have escaped the tribulation.

        • Michael Neville

          Especially the migrating penguins.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dfWzp7rYR4

        • David Cromie

          There are numerous sinful animals there that are crying out for punishment/redemption.

        • Greg G.

          People have since August 21, 40 days to repent.

          So you think the shit is going down on September 30? If October 1 is just another day, will you admit that this is just another case of Christian hysteria gone wrong again, as it has for 2000 years? It is superstitiously connecting dots that have nothing to do with one another.

          Recently, you touted the Bible Code. It has been shown that one can get remarkable coincidences using Moby Dick, too. The secret is to use a base of letters that has the same frequency of letters as the language you are going to search for words. Using a text written in English will let you find lots of coincidences in English. If you use a random set of letters, you will have too many Js and Xs and too few vowels so fewer words will be found in the text. If October 1 is just another day, you should write the Bible Code crapola off, too.

        • adam

          But she is praying for COMPLETE destruction of humanity and the planet.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cdf1945c329723ddbb7c03a5aa7c5a3ef1bae3c5f93caabe7aed79f438227c78.jpg

        • epeeist

          But she is praying for COMPLETE destruction of humanity and the planet.

          Do you think that she orgasms when she contemplates it?

        • adam

          It would not surprise me.

          I am sure she is giddy to see people tortured, mercilessly for ETERNITY

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f6edead041781202f80c75d015d387e6cc53a861b9cb5dd846e0f4dd40a5805a.jpg

        • adam
        • adam
        • Ken Campbell

          So what will happen as a result of this cross event?

        • adam
        • Ken Campbell

          Its always good to be prepared

        • jamesparson
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So by Sept. 30, America has to repent? Of what? And what will happen if we fail?

          Be sure to come back after that date and give us your analysis of what happened.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          I am not coming anymore to this site. Read my previous note, Bye Bob

        • Kodie

          Swear to god, promise?

        • David Cromie

          Does your supposed ‘god’ know that you have given it a deadline?

        • Greg G.

          Does your supposed ‘god’ know that you have given it a deadline?

          Susana: Jesus Christ, you have three weeks to get your ass down here! Or else!

        • Michael Neville

          Will Susana hold her breath until she turns blue? Or will she find Wotan?

        • Susana Gonzalez
        • Susana Gonzalez

          The sign of Jonas the prophet: a solar eclipse and another one in 7 years that will bring worse things. This is all you will get. You will see an increase in natural disasters. Then you will be afflicted, your pride and disbelief will be broken and you will cry to God. If you still alive. People have 40 days to repent from August 21.
          I feel like Jonas the prophet among disbelievers. I dislike telling you this, because of your mockery, however I shall announce you the things that are coming…and I do not wish God judgement that to my worse enemy. I do care for your souls.
          “Lord Jesus open their eyes to see, Touch their hearts. amen.”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I don’t plan on repenting between now and Sept. 30.

          Give me more specifics. What will God do to break/soften my hard heart?

          But that does raise another question: if people come to God because of the work of the Holy Spirit and for no other reason, why has he not cured me of my hatred of God? Is he sleeping? Is he capricious? Is he nonexistent?

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Because you have never asked to God to be cured Bob. You follow your own desires. You hate God for a reason. And when you hate someone is because the person is real. You cannot hate someone that is unreal. You believe God exists, so you hate Him.

        • Paul B. Lot

          And when you hate someone is because the person is real. You cannot hate someone that is unreal.

          You’re a fucking idiot: I hate Joffery Baratheon.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • adam
        • adam
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Nope. I don’t hate God, just like I don’t hate Zeus. I hate Christians’ actions when they mess up society.

          If they could mind their own business, I’d be a lot happier.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Well read your own response, because you CLEARLY SAID YOUr feelings for GOD. 12 days ago

          “Give me more specifics…., why has he not cured me of my ***hatred of God?”

          I am not making things up.. You are a confused person.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I need to qualify every reference to God with “(who I don’t believe in)”?

        • Michael Neville

          You’re playing word games. Atheists don’t hate your god or any other god, just like we don’t hate Sauron, Voldemort or Iago. We don’t hate these beings because they’re not beings, they’re fictitious, every one of them, including your favorite god. Most of us aren’t happy with your god’s fan club because of things done using your god as an excuse, but that’s a different topic.

        • Kodie

          What you don’t fucking understand about atheism because you are brainwashed: none of us think the figment of your imagination is real. What is problematic is the people who think god is real, and when that fictional character is a monster, you excuse him because you are a monster. We don’t need monsters like YOU. Atheism is the lack of belief in god, but people who believe do exist and have a tendency to fuck up things, such as thinking atheists are mad at god instead of LISTENING TO WHAT WE TELL YOU – it’s the people.

        • Michael Neville

          I do not wish God judgement that to my worse enemy.

          So you’re saying your “loving” god is actually a sadistic bully.

        • Greg G.

          Do you think this is the first time that there have been eclipses seven years apart in the last 2000 years?

        • Susana Gonzalez
        • Susan

          I predict that within the next year, a child somewhere will step on a crack and within the year, that child’s mother will break her back.

          I feel like Jonas the prophet among disbelievers. I dislike telling you this, because of your mockery, however I shall announce you the things that are coming…

          I know what you mean.

        • Susana Gonzalez
        • Susan

          They’re lying to you Susana

          It breaks my heart.

        • Greg G.

          It’s 42 days from August 21st and nothing happened. We are all still here.

          Are you going to fall for anymore of these wild biblical predictions or are you just waiting for the next one?

        • adam

          ” The Bible is full of events describing our times! ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/831e274b356c03b8778b1d9672b8ab244560e2fda7a4cd57b0436d5bda02694f.jpg

          “God knows our future and HE controls it. ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/66f99a24f11ff6634c1a735c6aed6dba2376e2b8df3a74c0b1d19a1c9bc737fd.jpg

          “Bob, do you remember when you read the Bible code predicting Trump victory from a Rabbi?”

          Do you remember Jesus predicting that the people he spoke to, would be alive to see the end of times?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6a5b53f4489e73d718f1bf8170a6e17f5961429392c56d208f90d3671f5a3179.png

        • jamesparson

          “The Bible is full of events describing our times!”

          Christians have been saying that for centuries.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Do not be easily deceived.

          why, was it actually difficult for science-denialists to deceive you?

        • alexinfinite

          I don’t think you even know what evolution is

        • TheNuszAbides

          “Christians have proved that evolution is not observable.”

          well let’s see Francis Collins – a Christian who actually understands the theory and somehow isn’t motivated to deny its accuracy – acknowledge their efforts, then.

          oh, they didn’t torpedo his book The Language of God? surprise, surprise. it likely would’ve gone over their heads (and hacks like Dembski and charlatans like Comfort would just ignore the salient points).

        • adam
        • Susana Gonzalez
        • adam
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Too bad for you, for your own dismay Christians advanced science and founded the greatest universities in the world.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2016/01/yeah-but-christianity-built-universities-and-hospitals/

          If only evolutionists stopped trying to impose their particular views on science and education… I hope that you can see, that respect goes in two ways.

          We have no respect for lies invented just to prop up someone’s unevidenced religious beliefs, like Creationism. No, the respect doesn’t go two ways.

          Christians do not deny science and the Christian scientists huge contribution to a better world, is the proof.

          European scientists in years past happened to be Christian, but they also happened to be meat eaters. Is this correlation or causation? You seem to be confused.

          One of the things we deny from modern science is the absurdity of evolution. Why? because it just a huge hoax.

          Ah, good thing we have a biologist like you to evaluate the evidence for us.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Trying to steal the knowledge that Christians advanced for your own agenda is dishonest. Sadly you cannot produce evidence that God does not exist. You deceive yourself.
          Atheists have nothing contribute to society but death.
          The endless empty statement of “respect my ideas, but I do not respect yours..” that is so low even for you, promoting fascism at it finest!!
          Keep in your same path and you might end as the Charlie Hebdo people, who excelled in no respect to anybody ideas. Now, they will not dare to offend the religious ideas publicly.
          Sadly this is how fools learn to live in society. Got the point BOB?

          Do not know that every single word can turn against you?
          Mathew 12:36 “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,”
          Make a favor to yourself and go and study history and religion of people through the times .
          Then you can understand why people believe in GOD.

        • Paul B. Lot

          The endless empty statement of “respect my ideas, but I do not respect yours..” that is so low even for you, promoting fascism at it finest!!
          Keep in your same path and you might end as the Charlie Hebdo people, who excelled in no respect to anybody ideas. Now, they will not dare to offend the religious ideas publicly.
          Sadly this is how fools learn to live in society. Got the point BOB?

          This looks startlingly like a death threat.

          Fuck you, @disqus_VM9uG0ZL4W:disqus and fuck your idiotic belief in a sky-daddy.

          You neither deserve, nor shall receive, any respect from people like me.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          |This looks startlingly like a death threat.

          No is not a death threat. Is a reality. Even for Richard Dawkins
          https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/noted-atheist-finds-out-that-its-ok-to-mock-christianity-but-not-islam

          There is nothing to be afraid from Christians. We will never harm anyone. You can mock our beliefs, as much as you can, we are not affected neither afraid. Actually We are concerned for anyone who mocks God.

          But remember that is not the same for a specific religion (Islam). And if you cannot mock one religion, what make you think that you can mock the other? Sadly for you, we live in a society who claims tolerance. And tolerance goes both ways. Charlie Hebdo learnt it the hard way. For your own sake Just do not follow that path pls. Is just an advice.

        • Susan

          Charlie Hebdo learnt it the hard way. For your own sake Just do not follow that path pls. Is just an advice.

          Still, sounds like a death threat.

          We will never ham anyone/

          Too late. Are you that naive?

        • MNb

          “There is nothing to be afraid from Christians. We will never harm anyone.”
          No, they never did during the Crusades, during the conquest of the Americas or during the Troubles in Ulster/Northern Ireland. Let’s not forget the Ugandian Army of the Lord either.
          I have mocked islam.
          On this very site.
          You’re lying – but possibly you believe your own lies.

        • TheNuszAbides

          You’re lying – but possibly you believe your own lies.

          available evidence gives monster odds favoring that possibility. barring poehood, obvz.

        • Michael Neville

          All we’ve seen from you is assertions and threats. “Believe in my god or be tortured forever” is a threat. People don’t take well to threats. Maybe you should try some other way to bring us to your god. Evidence that your god exists would be a good place to start. So, do you have any evidence?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You said, “No is not a death threat. Is a reality. Even for Richard Dawkins” and then you linked to an article in which Richard Dawkins was dis-invited from a speech for criticizing Islam. He said, “Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticize Christianity but not Islam?”

          Isn’t that precisely the question you ask sometimes? What point could you possibly be making here except to support Dawkins?

          There is nothing to be afraid from Christians. We will never harm anyone.

          I’ll echo MNb’s response. Christians have a long history of Christianity-driven violence. Looking more broadly, Christians are the bull in a china shop in the US, doing their best to dump on the Constitution as they attack the wall of separation between church and state, the very wall that will protect them from Islam as the number of Muslims increases.

          You can mock our beliefs, as much as you can, we are not affected neither afraid.

          Gosh, but aren’t you brave? It must be tough being a Christian in the US today.

          And if you cannot mock one religion, what make you think that you can mock the other?

          I agree. I reject the false beliefs in Islam as well as Christianity.

          Sadly for you, we live in a society who claims tolerance. And tolerance goes both ways. Charlie Hebdo learnt it the hard way. For your own sake Just do not follow that path pls. Is just an advice.

          The staff of Charlie Hebdo were shot for exercising their free speech rights. What is your “just an advice” here? That I should watch my mouth as I criticize Christianity so I don’t get shot?

        • Paul B. Lot

          No is not a death threat. Is a reality.

          How dumb do you think we are? [A death threat] and [a reality] are not in any way exclusive.

          Indeed, if [one makes a death threat] where there is [no reality behind it]…what would that be? A joke, perhaps?


          There is nothing to be afraid from Christians. We will never harm anyone.

          History shows this to be a lie.


          You can mock our beliefs, as much as you can, we are not affected neither afraid.

          Lol, yeah right. You are *never* affected by it. 😛


          But remember that is not the same for a specific religion (Islam). And if you cannot mock one religion, what make you think that you can mock the other? Sadly for you, we live in a society who claims tolerance. And tolerance goes both ways.

          Fuck Jesus. Fuck Mary. I fart in God’s general direction.

          I use Mohammed’s beard to wipe my nether-regions.


          Charlie Hebdo learnt it the hard way.

          “Learnt”? What did they learn, pray tell?

          Those goddamn hereos are still at it today.

          That’s what “courage” means, dear: looking your enemies and death in the eyes….and smiling.

          Of course, a spineless, craven, christian like yourself wouldn’t understand. :)

          http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/17/16/2E8867B900000578-0-image-m-6_1447779168742.jpg

        • adam
        • adam
        • Susana Gonzalez

          You fool read history, if not for Christian crusades, you would not even existed.
          https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/games/crusades.aspx

          The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was attacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

          By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.

          Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.

          Citation needed

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Read history: Islamic invasions.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Citation still needed. By 900, Muslim armies had pushed into France but were pushed back. In 1492, they were finally pushed out of Spain. In the 1500s, the Ottomans pushed as far as Vienna. Don’t imagine these east and west thrusts happened concurrently, and don’t tell me that 2/3 of the Christian world was under Muslim control by 1096 (the time of the First Crusade) without a citation.

          https://www.epochtimes.se/uploads/2017/04/slide_2-1655718-9514607.jpg

        • MR

          Let’s not forget that in 1492 the Christians pushed out not only the Muslims, but Jews who had been coexisting peacefully for centuries. Christian propaganda against the Jews had been building, and one incident early in that century comes to mind when:

          “a Dominican priest, came to Toledo to preach a series of sermons against the Jews. One particular sermon allegedly roused his listeners to run out of the church, gathering a mob as they ran through the streets, and burst into the synagogue. They dragged out all the Jews they could find, slit their throats, and threw them over a nearby parapet onto the rocks below.” –Wikipedia

          Christian love at its finest.

        • Greg G.

          What about when Charlemagne mustered his Francs to assault and pepper the Saracens with great relish, but he couldn’t catch up?

        • MR

          Those mountain passes get quite chili and the Francs just wanted to basque in the sun to keep their buns toasty warm.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Except by Spain, Europe was never conquered. But the Christian countries of North Africa and the Middle East NS as Constantinopla were conquered. Did you know Egypt, Syria were christian countries before..

          http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/islamchron.html

          http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/crusades_timeline.htm

        • Greg G.

          Did you know Egypt, Syria were christian countries before..

          Of course. That was mostly before there was any such thing as Islam. Allah just couldn’t wait to deliver those two countries to Islam, though.

          Why didn’t God listen to the prayers of the Egyptian and Syrian Christians? It’s should be enough to make you think and stop believing silliness.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yes, thank, but I’m still stuck on the 2/3 claim. Perhaps that was just an approximate number?

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Hi Bob. I have something for you my virtual friend. Please look at my post and provide a logical explanation.. Too much coincidence? you are a mathematician. Can you provide me the probability of Luke 21:25 related to signs in heavens and roaring seas happening on the august 21 and 25. Right on time.
          Provide the probability of these events, happening 2000 years after Jesus came to earth..in the time, we Christians affirm are the end of times.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9eef7d03b65b78991cfc5dd6fa4c48ca954fe4997ccdba4c9158dd815e10fdd0.jpg

        • TheNuszAbides

          come back after you at least learn the difference between the Crusades and the Reconquista. Jerusalem wasn’t taken from Europeans and it wasn’t ‘liberated’ by Europeans for the sake of locals. The triple-obsession with the city having deep religious significance has been an unfortunate diversion for an absurdly long period in human history, but is not grounded in anything other than legend and destruction.

        • epeeist

          The triple-obsession with the city having deep religious significance has been an unfortunate diversion for an absurdly long period in human history

          As Havelock Ellis said, “The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum.”

        • adam

          “You fool read history, if not for Christian crusades, you would not even existed.”

          Oh, thank “God” for mass murdering……….

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fa7eb6a996f1d1803edec05ed6940f176a2fae1df66450d6e526122a5c782acf.jpg

          It was you ‘christians’ who nearly wiped out my people.
          And for whom, I ALMOST never existed.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bc3d2f2cc6d56454300f773d819a6ad3a142b9a220646a2efef4b5414944542b.jpg

        • adam
        • Susana Gonzalez

          You just need to bring a modern example of Christians stoning a gay person. Be honest once in your life, otherwise you fail to understand anything.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Why demand a modern example? Stoning was demanded by your god, and modern or ancient isn’t relevant here.

          Show some backbone and make clear to us that you reject God’s demand for stoning.

        • adam
        • Susana Gonzalez

          Israel follow the Torah. They follow Old Testament. Now bring a modern example of Jews killing gays…if you fail then you just do not know what you talk about it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s not for the want of trying.

          Jerusalem Gay Pride: Six stabbed ‘by ultra-Orthodox Jew’

          The event has long been a source of tension between Jerusalem’s secular minority and its Jewish Orthodox communities. Israeli police granted a permit for 30 right-wing religious activists to protest on Thursday by the Great Synagogue, close to the parade route.

          Ultra-Orthodox Jews have previously gathered in the city’s Mea Shearim quarter to protest against homosexuality.

          Israel’s homosexual community was the target of a 2009 attack in Tel Aviv, where a gunman opened fire at a centre for young gays, killing two people and wounding 15 others.

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33726634

          Let’s not pretend that those air head ultra orthodox Jews wouldn’t stone gays to death if they could get away with it.

          Bible based bigotry is a fact.

          Trembling Before G-D, an 84-minute documentary film by Sandi Simcha DuBowski, introduces viewers to the troubled, conflicted world of gay and lesbian Orthodox Jews who must reconcile their sexual identity with their religious beliefs. Alienated from their families and shunned by their community, these Jews cling to their traditions and religious practices and call out to be accepted. Many of them have confronted rabbis with their dilemma, but most rabbis haven’t helped.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          They are murderers. It sounds That atheists do not know anything about it. I will explain you: corporal punishments are valid only if sinners are judged by 70 eldests, that conform the Sanhedrin. Ah.. the Holy Temple must exists. If these conditions are not met, gays cannot be stoned. Sanedrim judges descendants are lost. Holy temple cannot be built because of Islamic mosque. Is imposible now… as imposible to stone gays today Legally, what they did is murder plain and simple. Are you also to denounce the gays being killed in Orlando by muslims…no.. you only care of what christians and Jews does. Muslims also kill atheists …

        • Greg G.

          In Numbers 25, Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, killed a Hebrew and his girlfriend by running a spear through them both. God liked it so much, he called off a plague. Phinehas didn’t wait on a Sanhedrin, he did what God wanted. It was a horrible thing to do, but the Bible authors loved it. Why do you read that stuff?

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Yes he did it. there were laws and laws are to be respected. The same way, the judges sentences a murderer, a police can shut a terrorist down and not be accused of any crime. What is your problem on this?

        • Greg G.

          He murdered two people because of his religious beliefs, then justified it because an epidemic ran its course a little later. You don’t see that? That is religious sickness.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          No Greg you fails to see the problem here. Is about obedience and loyalty The context was about the Moabites or /and the ancient Arabs (Midianites), who wanted to attack Israel out of nothing and engaged a gentile prophet to curse ISRAEL. HE failed (did not curse ISRAEL) and then he had the idea to engage the women to deceive the men of Israel and make then disobey God. It was not about true love. as many men followed their hormones instead of obeying God, God sent the plague to Israel.
          http://biblehub.com/nlt/numbers/25.htm

          You need to be a fool to disobey God, knowing God was manifested to them.
          But why you cared so much? you do not believe what the Bible says, so certainly you do not believe what happened here 3800 years ago.

        • Greg G.

          The Exodus never happened. Egyptian archaeology shows that the Hebrews were not in Egypt in large numbers. A hundred years of archaeology in the Sinai shows no evidence of a large population living in the desert for a few decades. It is a made up story. It makes cold-blooded murder into an ideal to live up to. The story itself should make you sick.

        • jamesparson

          But, I like shrimp.

        • David Cromie

          ???

        • David Cromie

          I am sure you would love to be able to follow their example, if it were not for the laws of the land forbidding it.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          I will explain you: corporal punishments are valid only if sinners are judged by 70 eldests, that conform the Sanhedrin. Ah.. the Holy Temple must exists. If these conditions are not met, gays cannot be stoned. Sanedrim judges descendants are lost. Holy temple cannot be built because of Islamic mosque. Is imposible now… as imposible to stone gays today. Besides you assume that I would like to stone people, you are a liar, people are under grace now. Vengeance and judgement is from The Lord for those who despise Jesus sacrifice.

        • alexinfinite

          It sounds like they’re not following the rules of their own holy books then

        • Susana Gonzalez

          It sounds That atheists do not know anything about it. I will explain you: corporal punishments are valid only if sinners are judged by 70 eldests, that conform the Sanhedrin. Ah.. the Holy Temple must exists. If these conditions are not met, gays cannot be stoned. Sanedrim judges descendants are lost. Holy temple cannot be built because of Islamic mosque. Is imposible now… as imposible to stone gays today.

        • alexinfinite

          Wow poor English skills much? And did you just defend stoning gays to death?

        • Susan

          poor English skills much?

          In fairness, I think English is Susana’s second language.

          did you just defend stoning gays to death?

          It sure sounds that way.

        • Greg G.

          Your post didn’t appear when I responded. Great minds and all that.

        • Greg G.

          You should cut her some slack on the language issue. She says English is her third language. I can order food in Spanish and Vietnamese and say that I can speak a little of either language, in case that is not immediately apparent. But Susana’s ability to communicate in English is way better than I can communicate in any other language.

          But she definitely is defending stoning gays.

        • alexinfinite

          I might potentially have cut her slack but she defended stoning of gays so I don’t really feel compelled to give her an easy time.

          And it still sounds like the people she’s speaking on behalf of aren’t following their holy book’s rules.

        • Greg G.

          Yeah, defending of the stoning of gays doesn’t win much in the way of acceptance.

        • MNb

          Oh, wow, we unbelievers should not use christian knowledge. Fortunately we unbelievers are a bit more generous. You are free to use the knowledge we advance exactly the way you want. For instance you can bet that the vast majority of scientists who developed the computer you use and the internet that enables to promote your christian agenda were unbelievers.
          Now what’s the word again?
          Ah, yes. You’re a hypocrite.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          |For instance you can bet that the vast majority of scientists who developed the |computer you use and the internet that enables to promote your christian agenda |were unbelievers.

          You mean Ted Hoff the one who created the processor? well he received a *Christmas present that advanced his interests. So he was/is Christian right?
          http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/hoff-ted

          Tim Berners-Lee the WWW creator? he belongs to the theist Unitarian Universalism religion.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee#Personal_life

          Along with these notable people
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unitarians,_Universalists,_and_Unitarian_Universalists

          Israel has advanced/designed the intel processors. Well, most of them are God believers.
          http://www.jpost.com/Business-and-Innovation/Tech/Intel-launches-next-gen-processors-developed-and-designed-in-Israel-477358

          Steve Jobs? he was 50 / 50. And as many atheists, he wondered about God, at the end of his life and when he /was seriously sick. do not worry, eventually you will do it as well.

          http://christiantoday.com.au/news/steve-jobs-biographer-reveals-his-struggle-with-religion-faith-in-god.html

          Bill Gates? , Mark Zuckerberg? they believe in God dear.

          I am afraid you lost the BET. I usually do not answer people who do not make their homework,before to speak, but your ignorance was appalling. Now, you should thank theist people, for making your life less miserable.
          Never read the biblical verse?
          “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;”
          http://biblehub.com/1_thessalonians/5-21.htm

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Bill Gates is an atheist. Most Israelis are secular Jews with no God belief. I don’t have the interest to track down the others, but it doesn’t much matter. That many scientists are Christian says nothing about the truth of Christianity.

        • epeeist

          So he was/is Christian right?

          So anyone who gets a Christmas present must be a Christian?

          Along with these notable people

          If you look at the article on Unitarian Universalism it says:

          The beliefs of individual Unitarian Universalists range widely, including atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, deism, Judaism, Islam,[8] Christianity, neopaganism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Humanism, and many more.[9]

          So there is no certainty that any of the people in your list believe in your god.

          But we have been through this before. I have pointed out that scientists are much less likely to be believers than the general population, that only 7% of the American National Academy of Sciences are believers and only 3% of the British Royal Society are.

          Oh, and let’s talk about evolution. There are more scientists whose first name is Steve that accept the theory of evolution than there are members of the “Creation Research Society”. In fact some 97% of all scientists accept evolution (source, p. 37).

          I am afraid you lost the BET. I usually do not answer people who do not make their homework,before to speak, but your ignorance was appalling.

          And there goes another irony meter.

        • MNb

          Do you understand the difference between “vast majority” and “all”? A few carefully selected names don’t prove anything, except your hypocrisy.

        • Michael Neville

          I usually do not answer people who do not make their homework,before to speak, but your ignorance was appalling.

          This from some godbot who doesn’t know anything about evolution other than it contradicts her “holy book” and so she rejects it.

        • TheNuszAbides

          au contraire! she also knows that there’s this righteous flick featuring Bananaman that really kicks evolutionary theory in the dick!

          /s

        • Rudy R

          Now, you should thank theist people, for making your life less miserable.

          Do you speak for the heretics who suffered during the Spanish Inquisition and the sexually abused males by pedofile Catholic Priests?

        • epeeist

          the sexually abused males by pedofile Catholic Priests?

          I think you are going to find that Catholics are not True Christians™

        • Rudy R

          Which is a failed claim by Protestants, since Catholics are the original Christians, but predictable nonetheless.

        • epeeist

          Well I can’t be arsed trying to find the post in the Disqus oubliette but we certainly have had one theist here who seemed to think that the Catholics were Johnny-come-latelys.

        • TheNuszAbides

          oubliette always gets a +1.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Catholics are the original Christians

          which catlicks are those again?

          Anglicans, Lutherans, and some Methodists also believe that their churches are “Catholic” in the sense that they too are in continuity with the original universal church founded by the Apostles. However, each church defines the scope of the “Catholic Church” differently. For instance, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox churches, and Church of the East, each maintain that their own denomination is identical with the original universal church, from which all other denominations broke away.

          (Wikip.)

        • Rudy R

          I would be more accurate stating that Catholicism is the original Christian religion.

        • epeeist

          and the sexually abused males by pedofile Catholic Priests?

          Incidentally, locally to me the Jehovah’s Witnesses are involved with the cover-up of abuse as well.

        • adam
        • Ignorant Amos

          Steve Jobs was a Zen Buddhist.

          Zen does not seek to answer subjective questions because these are not important issues for Zen. What really matters is the here and now: not God, not the afterlife, but the present moment here and now.

        • TheNuszAbides

          somehow your vaunted humility before Yahwehjesus gets perverted when you attempt to be smug towards people who are better-informed than you are. why is that attitude so common, I wonder? (don’t flatter yourself that I’m waiting expectantly for an answer by way of more of your canned ‘pearls’ – you haven’t achieved an actual rebuttal in this thread, despite over a week of blatant pretension that you have.)

        • Ignorant Amos

          You’re a bit thick really…aren’t you?

          You’re a bit of a feckin’ Dime Bar.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqeGxMgVOHI

          Two Armodillo’s

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Trying to steal the knowledge that Christians advanced for your own agenda is dishonest.

          What’s this supposed to mean?

          Sadly you cannot produce evidence that God does not exist. You deceive yourself.

          I can and have written many posts on that. But that’s beside the point. The burden of proof is on you and not me. You have evidence that God does exist? Show me.

          Atheists have nothing contribute to society but death.

          Yet more gibberish.

          Science has eliminated smallpox from the world. Let’s just start with that one thing and ignore the rest of medicine, electricity, clean water and food, and all the rest. What has religion taught us about the world that has been equally useful?

          The endless empty statement of “respect my ideas, but I do not respect yours..” that is so low even for you, promoting fascism at it finest!!

          Huh? This is a blog. We are discussing thing.

          I don’t demand respect or acceptance of my ideas. I put them out there with evidence, and if you have a better idea or a correction of mine, you respond. Did you not understand how this works?

          Keep in your same path and you might end as the Charlie Hebdo people, who excelled in no respect to anybody ideas. Now, they will not dare to offend the religious ideas publicly. Sadly this is how fools learn to live in society. Got the point BOB?

          Was that a threat?

          Do not know that every single word can turn against you?
          Mathew 12:36 “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,”

          Yes, you have a book of magic with crazy stuff in it. No, I don’t believe it. It doesn’t bind me.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          |Was that a threat?
          No it was not. It was a reminder, that people ideas deserves respect, although you do not agree with them. This is how civilized people live. If you insult what other people consider sacred, the threat will not come from Christians. Eventually it will become from muslims. (although catholic organizations persecuted this magazine 18 times because of blasphemy).
          Society lives in a double standard, read this:
          https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/noted-atheist-finds-out-that-its-ok-to-mock-christianity-but-not-islam

          But always remember Bob for your own sake: (and is an advice ok)
          http://biblehub.com/galatians/6-7.htm
          “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          No it was not [a threat]. It was a reminder, that people ideas deserves respect, although you do not agree with them. This is how civilized people live.

          Wrong. Civilized people treat other people with respect. Ideas aren’t people, and they can be criticized, mocked, or laughed at.

          I didn’t appreciate your not-threat (which sounded like a threat). What I’m fine with is your criticizing my ideas and arguments. Discussion (including criticism) is part of blogging. I need to get out of the game if I can’t handle criticism of my ideas.

          Society lives in a double standard, read this:

          Like I said before, Dawkins deserves your praise here for pointing out the hypocrisy.

          “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

          Why should this bother me? I critique ideas honestly. If they’re poor ideas, I might attack them. Where’s the problem? God can only be in support of that.

        • Paul B. Lot

          No it was not. It was a reminder

          I’m sorry, but your “this isn’t a threat, just a reminder” …. doens’t pass the sniff-test.

          What IS a threat, if not a “reminder” that [if you don’t do _______, I’m going to attack you/hurt you/kill you/etc…]?!?!


          that people ideas deserves respect, although you do not agree with them

          Fuck you, you dumb, whiny asshole. Send me a picture of your Christ, I will send it back with a cock and balls drawn on his face.

          “Ideas deserve respect”? What the fuck? No they don’t. People deserve some basic levels of respect. I wouldn’t run you over with my car, and I wouldn’t watch you drown…but I’m not going to let you try to censor me because otherwise your precious feelings might get hurt.

          Grow the fuck up, child, or suffer more ridicule for your infantile ways.


          This is how civilized people live.

          No. THIS is how they live: people a) being honest, and b) respecting each-other’s honesty.

          What “civilized people” do not do is try to intimidate each other by pointing to past acts of atrocity and saying “beeee carefuullll”.

        • adam

          “It was a reminder, that people ideas deserves respect, although you do not agree with them. ”

          “the foolish evolution theory. ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fb3cf31802ee6a04952cbcc243fc939a9c7733dab0b439304cafbbd0cdb0c969.jpg

        • adam
        • adam

          ” “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,””

          “There is a 50% probability that Your soul will still live and you will meet God…”

          Pulled this number right out of your ASS, didnt you.

          WHY resort to LIES?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/15ca0861e39343c39684a19ac9ceddd9534f334c6757b32dc5e2772146b00297.jpg

        • TheNuszAbides

          “There is a 50% probability that Your soul will still live and you will meet God…”

          Pulled this number right out of your ASS, didnt you.

          not quite … i’m guessing she either made an honest calculation from an infantile grasp of probability (“either He exists or he doesn’t!!”), or borrowed it from someone else who made a similar (though perhaps less-honest) maneuver.

        • adam

          “Sadly you cannot produce evidence that God does exist. You deceive yourself.”

          FTFY

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3d5d4a2909d67c62c518e6574ff1a0b42f6295b335ae8fd4039f6f765cefb813.jpg

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Parrot is a talking animal…and it can go to court. How you fail to recognize this?
          http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suspect-murder-witnessed-family-parrot-appears-court-n691271

        • adam

          Parrots naturally mimic, they dont talk.

          Are you claiming serpents and asses do as well?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/04570f3531aa4e675333fdcce29973e95d6ad5b518125333d607badb96b99c03.png

        • MR

          Well, technically, we’ve had a fair number of talking asses around here….

        • Ignorant Amos

          A number of them claiming to be non-believers too.

        • adam

          “Mathew 12:36 “I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,””

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/88bf7da1da5821e9baded052e03d77d3265d44c3529c59d8b689049fec30ae36.jpg

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Acts 2:17

          17‘- In the last days, God says, I will pour out My Spirit on all people; your sons and ***daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. 18 Even on My servants, both men and ***women, I will pour out My Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.…

          READ THE BIBLE.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “READ THE BIBLE.”

          You’re talking to an atheist. You know that we don’t think the Bible is a special book, right?

        • adam
        • adam
        • TheNuszAbides

          Trying to steal the knowledge that Christians advanced

          truly, you have a fascinating grasp of the principles of intellectual property.

          oh, wait. “truly” wasn’t quite the word I was looking for …

        • Michael Neville

          You can’t prove that Buddhism isn’t right. Nor can you prove that Vishnu, Allah, Wotan or Quetzalcoatl don’t exist. There’s a lot more choices than your favorite god and no god.

        • Susana Gonzalez
        • Michael Neville

          All I see is a black rectangle.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Me too….that’ll be the equivalent to the vapid nonsense that she meant to post anyway.

        • TheNuszAbides

          or a bloody clever rendition of The Atheist Worldview(TM)!

        • Joe

          Without looking at it, it looks like a screenshot from a ‘no singularity’ model of the universe.

          So, definitely no god required if there’s no big bang.

        • adam
        • adam

          “There is a 50% probability that Your soul will still live and you will meet God…”

          Pulled this number right out of your ASS, didnt you.

          WHY resort to LIES?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/681785c573e0e941d7e81f66dd2e305bc7671f7e9b41f0b84b263f098be05d79.jpg

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/52cb8e254d7cf6cce5bbf961ce2199f84c5743dab945b122fe4cde0533bcfe0a.jpg

        • Susana Gonzalez
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          For starters, this is a deist argument. Why does this point to the Christian god? Why not any of the others? Why not a god we haven’t invented or met yet?

          Second, this is just god-of-the-gaps thinking. Natural explanations got us this far; why imagine that now is the time where the supernatural will start to make sense?

        • Susana Gonzalez

          “Why does this point to the Christian god? Why not any of the others?”
          There is only one GOD, the creator of the Universe. Call Him any name, but is better known as JESUS. And a serious researcher will even deny His existence.
          So why did you deny His existence?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re simply declaring that you’re correct. What kind of argument is that? Do you have any reasoning behind your position?

          I have no god belief because there’s no good evidence for it. You know how you don’t believe in Thor? It’s like that.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          There is evidence , but you deny this evidence. Look I will try my best to better explain myself, as you know English is not my language.
          Let us suppose ok? let us suppose evolution is right. Then I want answers. I want to know where the elements that provide life came from. I want to know how water came to these quantities on earth. How water originated on earth. Why the earth seems to be the only planet to have life on. How the complexity of ADN was programmed. I want to know how children carried the ADN of their ancestors. I want to know how evolution made it happen to the complexity of brain..why the blood seems programmed quickly tries to heal an open wound. Is very easy to say there is no GOD, more difficult to answer complex questions. to say that all of these questions, came by design of “mother nature” is, sorry to say, but is plain stupid and I am surprise you do not realize how stupid is, to claim that “nothing” made “everything” because of “mother nature”.

          Atheism is a hoax, a pretext for individuals to not give accountability, to the moral rules of GOD. Look to your inner conscience and you will find GOD there.

        • Paul B. Lot

          I want to know where the elements that provide life came from. I want to know how water came to these quantities on earth.

          Probably in a similar fashion to how water got on Mars. Or on Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus.

          Probably in a similar fashion to how water got in comets:

          Stellar Fusion and Super Novae

          http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-did-water-come-to-earth-72037248/

          You fucking idiot.

        • MNb

          Silly Susan, instead of presenting evidence for your creacrap you ask a few questions, most of which have exactly zilch to do with Evolution Theory.
          Your silliest error is that only few unbelievers argue “Evolution Theory is correct, hence there is no god”. That false dilemma is a creacrap obsession and you’re obviously equally obsessed.
          Argue against evolution as much as you like. Nothing you bring up possibly can be an argument for your god.

        • Ignorant Amos

          We don’t always see eye to eye on everything Mark, but you were missed when you took your sabbatical.

        • MNb

          It’s not mutual.
          It’s just that there are precious few funny apologists outside. I missed them.
          Nowadays I don’t read any of BobS’ articles anymore – and I’ve met two more reasons to do so.
          Moreover I don’t read more than about 10% of the comments, probably less. That includes yours.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Well now.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Fair enough.

          That doesn’t detract from your contribution, for the most part, being missed.

          Still, if ya feel ya need to be an arsehole about it, knock yerself out.

          That includes yours.

          And yet you read that one…cool.

        • MNb

          It belonged to the 10% – because it was in my mailbox.
          Did I ever claim that I was a nice guy?
          If you missed me you missed my arseholish nature.
          Yeah, cool.

        • adam

          “If you missed me you missed my arseholish nature.”

          You are selling yourself short.

        • adam

          Still it is good to see you posting.

        • Michael Neville

          Atheism is a hoax, a pretext for individuals to not give accountability, to the moral rules of GOD. Look to your inner conscience and you will find GOD there.

          No, you silly person, we are not atheists because we want to sin. We’re atheists because we don’t see any evidence for gods. Please note the plural, there’s a lot more gods than your favorite deity and we don’t believe in them either.

          Humans are social animals. We evolved morality to help us live together in groups. Every group has morality but they differ on what is or is not moral. Catholic bishops think artificial contraception is immoral, most other people, including most Catholic laity, don’t agree. Pacifists think that killing is immoral, soldiers have a different opinion. Intelligent, rational, well-meaning people have completely different ideas on the morality of abortion. Morality doesn’t come from gods, it comes from ourselves.

        • Ignorant Amos

          soldiers have a different opinion

          And the most of them are believers. And of those believers, many claim to be believers in YahwehJesus. Go figure.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          let us suppose evolution is right. Then I want answers.

          Do you want answers about quantum theory as well? Or how rainbows work? In short, are you hungry for answers about science in general, or are you curious only about the areas of science that step on your theological toes?

          If your “curiosity” is actually an attack on a scientific discipline that makes Jesus cry, there’s not much to talk about. And if you truly are curious about evolution, read a textbook on it and stay away from agenda-driven critiques (any web site that has “Creation” or “Ministry” in the title, for example, would obviously have an agenda).

          Is very easy to say there is no GOD

          And that’s not what I’m saying.

          more difficult to answer complex questions.

          That’s why scientists get the big bucks. Why don’t we ask them?

          to say that all of these questions, came by design of “mother nature” is, sorry to say, but is plain stupid

          But how would you know when you’re not a scientist?

          to claim that “nothing” made “everything”

          Also not what I’m saying.

          Atheism is a hoax, a pretext for individuals to not give accountability, to the moral rules of GOD.

          Oh, yes—we’re all hedonists. You found our secret.

          It can’t be because we’re honestly following the evidence.

          (Where do you get this stuff?)

          Look to your inner conscience and you will find GOD there.

          Why God? Why not Allah or Xenu or Quetzalcoatl? You don’t think your claims of objective curiosity are simply an agenda to select evidence to support your preconceived ideas about religion?

        • Susana Gonzalez

          DO you know what your problem is Bob? you are so Sceptical that you become irrational. Tell me if qutzacoatl has a world wide religion…
          My claims are rational, clear, and I have never found an answer or evidence how that happened in the foolish evolution theory. As you believe yourself to be so smart, tell me how that happened. Show me the evidence, bring the proofs to the discussion.
          But happily, evolution has no evidence, is a hoax, a fraud..
          So I will happy if you can explain my first question: “I want to know where the elements (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen) that provide life came from”
          I have read some evolutionists theories: (and thanks God they will remain ..as theories)

          1-Floating from meteorites..
          2-They made it alone.
          3- Note, that Darwin stated that they originated by God. (oh that part is ignored right?)
          4-“Electric sparks in a boiling soup” chemical reactions?

          the problem with points 1,2,4 is that you have no proof. You live in a fictitious world of fake science of conjectures.
          Spontaneous generation was debunked last century. And I laugh of that. You are being fooled. Seriously Bob. You are in a sectarian movement.
          You a creature of God, created to His image. We did not evolve from a beast. We are humans with a soul. Elements were not on earth because of probability.
          **We Christians claims that Life comes from life only**. What is wrong with this statement?

          And for that we can prove it.
          https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/

        • Michael Neville

          We get it. You don’t like evolution because your religious masters have lied to you about it. Big yawn. When you can show evidence that your god exists then we can discuss why your religious masters lied to you.

          **We Christians claims that Life comes from life only**.

          So what? It’s an unevidenced claim. And no, AIG is not proof of anything except Ken Ham is a lying charlatan.

        • adam
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          DO you know what your problem is Bob? you are so Sceptical that you become irrational.

          Oh? Am I more skeptical than you are of other religions? You have no problem accepting the supernatural, so maybe you’re on board with Muslim claims?

          Not me—I’m skeptical. How about you?

          Tell me if qutzacoatl has a world wide religion…

          No, he doesn’t, but Allah does. What’s your point? If there’s an established religion today, it must be true?

          My claims are rational, clear, and I have never found an answer or evidence how that happened in the foolish evolution theory.

          Have you explained why I should accept your Christian beliefs? If you have a favorite, compelling argument, give it to us.

          But on to evolution: you say that you’ve not been convinced by evolution. So what? Read a textbook and then see. If you’re still not convinced, get a degree in biology.

          As you believe yourself to be so smart, tell me how that happened. Show me the evidence, bring the proofs to the discussion.

          Much easier than you hearing me ramble on: find out what the scientific consensus is and accept that. The scientists who understand the evidence are the ones to listen to, after all, since you don’t.

          But happily, evolution has no evidence, is a hoax, a fraud, evolutionists worship an ape, that is your god, really.

          Evidence isn’t important to you, is it?

          So I will happy if you can explain my first question: “I want to know where the elements (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen) that provide life came from”

          You do know that you’ve changed subjects, right?

          3- Note, that Darwin stated that they originated by God. (oh that part is ignored right?)

          Prove it.

          the problem with points 1,2,4 is that you have no proof.

          Right. Science doesn’t know where life came from. Neither do you.

          Spontaneous generation was debunked last century.

          Yes, it did. Only Creationists bring it up these days.

          You a creature of God, created to His image.

          said Susana, giving no evidence whatsoever.

          **We Christians claims that Life comes from life only**. What is wrong with this statement?

          Because it rejects the possibility that God created life from nonlife.

          And for that we can prove it.
          https://answersingenesis.or

          Oh, that’s adorable! You think that a Christian web site is actually where science comes from. So cute!

        • Susana Gonzalez

          ||No, he doesn’t, but Allah does. What’s your point? If there’s an established religion today, it must be true?

          Islam was foretold by the Bible 3500 years ago. Jesus told about muhammad, Muslims worship satan, in case you do not realize yet, their main doctrine is to kill and destroy.

          ||But on to evolution: you say that you’ve not been convinced by evolution. So what? Read a textbook and then see. If you’re still not convinced, get a degree in biology.
          Keep your advice on yourself Bob. I have read/study more than you can imagine. Evolution is the huge lie of all times.

          ||You think that a Christian web site is actually where science comes from. So cute!
          Christians advanced science in the time atheists were pariahs. That is a fact. How science has been kidnapped by atheists is another story. Now you are a firm believer of what a crazy theist scientist (Darwin) said and proposed a century ago? Explain how do you firmly believe what a God believer said more than a century ago. That is “adorable” coming from you.

          ||Darwin stated that they originated by God. (oh that part is ignored right?)
          ||Prove it.

          You have not read the origin of species book have you? Make a favor to you and read it. Darwin believed that all creatures were created and then evolved. HE WAS NOT ATHEIST.
          https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1228/1228-h/1228-h.htm#link2H_4_0008

          ps. Still waiting where the main elements (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen) that provide life came from” I want you to explain me, how do you think they come from. not what any “scientist” said or “found”. I want you to tell me what do you believe those elements comes from. Floating from Space? Coming from meteorites? they just appeared from nothing?

          any idea? give me your own theory Bob. Do not be like a child, waiting for others to tell you what to believe.

          In fact I would like to read, that you can think by yourself.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Islam was foretold by the Bible 3500 years ago. Jesus told about muhammad, Muslims worship satan

          Show me where the Bible does this.

          I’m pretty sure that Muslims to a person would make clear that they don’t worship Satan. Or are you saying that Allah is the biblical Satan?

          If that’s your point, show me how Satan in the book of Job is Allah.

          their main doctrine is to kill and destroy.

          If your point is that you can find some hideous stuff in their holy books, I agree. But then you find hideous stuff in your holy book, and you’re not a dangerous person, right?

          Keep your advice on yourself Bob. I have read/study more than you can imagine. Evolution is the huge lie of all times.

          What are your sources of knowledge about evolution? Have you read a textbook on evolution? If so, which one(s)?

          Christians advanced science in the time atheists were pariahs. That is a fact.

          I agree, but why were atheists pariahs? It was because of the Christians, if memory serves.

          And what precisely are you claiming about the relationship of Christianity and science? Is it just that European scientists were Christian in centuries past? (I’m pretty sure that pretty much everyone was a Christian in Europe in centuries past.)

          How science has been kidnapped by atheists is another story.

          Ooh! A scary story! Add some fairies to it. And unicorns—I like them.

          Now you are a firm believer of what a crazy theist scientist (Darwin) said and proposed a century ago?

          No. I accept evolution as it is understood today. I don’t much care what Darwin said or thought.

          Explain how do you firmly believe what a God believer said more than a century ago. That is “adorable” coming from you.

          (Oh dear! I hope she doesn’t ask me if I firmly believe in what God-believer Isaac Newton said! Because that would undercut my entire worldview! Or something!)

          Darwin believed that all creatures were created and then evolved. HE WAS NOT ATHEIST.

          No one cares what Darwin wrote, but I repeat myself.

          Still waiting where the main elements (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen) that provide life came from

          (1) Why? You don’t give a shit about evidence or science, just for data points that you can take out of context to support your preconception. You don’t follow the evidence, you reinterpret it.

          (2) You’re still waiting because you didn’t like how I already answered it. So I’ll just repeat myself: I don’t know, science doesn’t know, and neither do you.

          I want you to tell me what do you believe those elements comes from.

          Nuclear synthesis.

          Do not be like a child, waiting for others to tell you what to believe.
          In fact I would like to read, that you can think by yourself.

          Yeah, I want to be just like you. Who cares what those scientists say, right? Why should I care? I’ll just make up my own reality and adopt that. And I’m sure everyone I talk to will be convinced by my well-evidenced argument.

          Maybe you’re just too proud to bend the knee. Science says things that make you uncomfortable, so instead of being an adult and accepting reality, you just pout and say, “I don’t like those facts! Mommy, make them change!”

        • Ignorant Amos

          If your point is that you can find some hideous stuff in their holy books, I agree. But then you find hideous stuff in your holy book, and you’re not a dangerous person, right?

          Maybe not physically dangerous, though a couldn’t be certain, but those are some dangerous mind viruses being demonstrated, that’s for sure. Thank fuck I’ve been inoculated from that mindwankery a long time ago.

        • BlackMamba44

          Moron…just like Ken Ham.

        • TheNuszAbides

          you are so Sceptical that you become irrational.

          you have yet to demonstrate that you are a competent judge of what is either rational or irrational. were you planning on ever demonstrating such a thing, or are you too drunk on artificial certainty?

          Tell me if qutzacoatl[sic] has a world wide religion…

          once again, missing the point of the comparison. yet you have the gall to expect respect for the ideas you promote

          But happily, evolution has no evidence, is a hoax, a fraud..

          let’s be charitable and assume that you’re unaware of the fact that this inane assertion you keep repeating relies on ignorance and deception glorified by Comfort, Ham, Hovind and their ilk. (because if you’re actually aware of this, you should be banned for consciously spreading nonsense.)

          on that basis, your homework assignment is to make a sincere attempt to understand the points being made in the following pieces (hint: you can be lazy and only check the first two, the only ones that really matter in this context, since you’ve already repeatedly demonstrated how unlikely it is that you are capable of considering an avowed atheist’s intellectual arguments with anything resembling seriousness.)

          http://www.oldearth.org/evolution_vs_god.htm

          http://www.godofevolution.com/christian-review-of-evolution-vs-god-ray-comfort-is-the-worlds-worst-scientist/

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtrZYecJ8QA

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF4yR5iYwiA

          My claims are rational, clear, and I have never found an answer or evidence how that happened in the foolish evolution theory.

          yet another assertion with no evidence. why do you bother? does it feel good just to type it out? do you seriously expect anyone here to accept it as an accurate reflection of reality, when you are so busy demonstrating only a lack of understanding, or mischaracterization, of virtually every argument that’s been made against the ideas you’re promoting? even assuming that you are not struggling with the English, your desperation for absolute certainty is toxic.

        • epeeist

          Tell me if qutzacoatl has a world wide religion…

          There are no “world wide religions”, all of them are minority views. Christianity (at the moment) is the biggest but only if you ignore the fact that it is broken into so many different and incompatible sects. Islam may become the largest religion in the decades to come. On your view this would make it true and Christianity false.

          I have read some evolutionists theories: (and thanks God they will remain ..as theories)

          And here you betray the fact that you haven’t a clue what it means for something to be a scientific theory.

          3- Note, that Darwin stated that they originated by God. (oh that part is ignored right?)

          Did he? You have a citation for this I presume (and note a citation is different to a quote mine).

          Oh, and this Darwin:

          Dear Sir,

          I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God.

          Yours faithfully

          Ch. Darwin

          (Source)

        • David Cromie

          Confirmation bias is just another fallacy, since it is a circular argument. Genesis/the ‘bible’ is not proof of itself! Is the computer you use to post your BS, or the vehicle you drive, also the product of the fake science of conjectures?

        • Joe

          Then I want answers. I want to know where the elements that provide life came from.

          The three lightest elements: The big bang. All heavier elements: Stars. Their ratios were predicted and verified by cosmologists.

          I want to know how water came to these quantities on earth. How water originated on earth.

          Water didn’t originate on earth. Bombardment by ice asteroids is the most likely scenario. Again, tested and verified. Next:

          Why the earth seems to be the only planet to have life on.

          Is it?

          I want to know how evolution made it happen to the complexity of brain..why the blood seems programmed quickly tries to heal an open wound.

          These have been answered by evolutionary biologists, if you care to look.

        • Susan

          There is evidence.

          And the evidence for Yahwehjesus is… (drumroll)…

          Crickets so far. Well… fallacious arguments in lieu of evidence and when those arguments are called out for being fallacious… crickets.

          but you deny this evidence.

          No one’s denying any evidence. You haven’t provided any. Nor have any theists of any variety.

          Atheism is a hoax

          I don’t believe that Yahwehjesus is anything but one mythological entity that humans have made up and others accept. You haven’t done a thing to separate your claiim from countless other claims that you don’t believe.

          That is, you have provided no good reason to accept Yahwehjesus or any other deity exists. Hos is that a hoax?

          Your last paragraph is drivel for reasons listed above.

        • adam

          “Atheism is a hoax, a pretext for individuals to not give accountability, ”

          Accountability?
          People flock to christianity to AVOID accountability.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c5445e273728092c84dc583a4e5d5b4272a1e62c42654b930aa001a7c5c86900.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6fc7ab2c98ecd5d432d579b44c7bea11b9ca469d406c8e32490fe04a24f16a31.jpg

        • adam
        • David Cromie

          Where is this ‘evidence’ that christers keep referring to? If there were really any irrefutable evidence for the existence of your favourite supposed ‘god’, do you think that anyone with even half a brain would deny its validity?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Space Ponies are the answer.

        • Joe

          Call Him any name,

          OK. i’ll call him “Mr Horatio Poopypants III”

        • TheNuszAbides

          And a serious researcher will even deny His existence.

          you really need to practice proofreading your own text before posting, let alone reading anyone else’s for comprehension. if you’re lucky you might even be able to find a fellow theist who’ll help you with that without salting your poor little mind with further propaganda.

        • TheNuszAbides

          you’ve totally failed to address the actual question. if you can’t even see how to do so, this entire thread is truly, utterly pointless – but probably not for any of the reasons you will conjure up to ‘agree’ with that assessment in another one of your rounds of Delusional Gotcha!.

        • Zeta

          Susana Gonzalez: “There is only one GOD, the creator of the Universe. Call Him any name, but is better known as JESUS.”

          Assuming that you know your holy book well and have read it many times, have you ever thought about the implications of the following verses:

          Deuteronomy 32:8:
          “When the Most High gave nations their homes
          And set the divisions of man,
          He fixed the boundaries of peoples
          In relation to Israel’s numbers.

          32.9: “For the LORD’s portion is His people, Jacob His own allotment. ”

          Your god Yahweh was one of the deities in the pantheon of gods in the Ancient Near East. The chief god Elyon (your god’s daddy) allocates the nations to lesser deities in the pantheon. So Yahweh, a lesser deity, was alloted to take charge of the ancient Israelites who became his “Chosen People”. He then served as a local tribal war god of the ancient Israelites, fighting alongside them to kill their so-called enemies.

          Over the ages believers, apologists and theologians use their imagination to embellish Yahweh with fantastic attributes and evolved and promoted him to become an omni-everything and all-loving creator god of the Universe.

          Wikipedia has a good summary of this in an article about your god Yahweh:

          In the early tribal period each tribe would have had its own patron god; when kingship emerged the state promoted Yahweh as the national god of Israel, supreme over the other gods, and gradually Yahweh absorbed all the positive traits of the other gods and goddesses.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

          This shows very clearly that your absentee god is really a myth based on the imagination of ancient people, and later apologists and theologians. Why does a real god need his believers to embellish and promote him? Ask yourself this question.

          If you feel that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, I can provide more references if you are willing to read.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh holy jaysus, you will explode poor Susana’s swede with that info. That’s blood vessel popping data that the knuckle-draggers have not been pre-conditioned to deal with right there.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          God do not need anyone to promote Him. We need God, not the other way. You really think ancient ppl lived and worshipped out of imagination? You are wrong! All people and nations descends from a common branch of humans. We know him as Noah. After the deluge all people descended from his children. Is not a surprise they try to worship the same God in different ways. History proves this fact and you just confirmed.

        • Greg G.

          If there were 8 humans, or 5 genetically distinct humans and only two chimpanzees, why are chimpanzees more genetically diverse than humans, even with a much smaller population?

        • David Cromie

          Please provide the irrefutable, falsifiable, evidence for any supernatural entities, especially your favourite supposed ‘god’. Since English is not, apparently, your first language, ask a friend who does understand English to explain what I have asked you to do, and get back to me.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Ad-hominen… for someone who complain for my third language, skills, you answer all my posts…why you care so much for what I post? I think you feel very lonely..

        • David Cromie

          Where is your answer to my question?

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Honestly, I do not want to engage in a useless discussion. I am not here to argue with you or anyone about sterile subjects. I just want to announce you that we live in critical times (end of times) and that God is looking for all their children to come back to Him.

        • Ignorant Amos

          There is the wider audience to be considered here…we are all enjoying the craic between you two from the peanut gallery. David has you boxed in and we are patiently waiting on yer head exploding, because we know you have no answers.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Oh If you want to know, I do not answer people who lacks human decency.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Susana Gonzalez

          Ignorant amos…There is only one GOD, does not matter how you called HIM

        • Ignorant Amos

          Problem is….not everyone agrees on that point. Right up to the level of killing each other. Heck, even Christians can’t agree who “HIM” is, to the point of killing each other..so pah!

        • adam
        • Susana Gonzalez
        • Ignorant Amos

          Am sure there was a message in there somewhere….unfortunately your lack of technical competence means we’ll never know.

        • adam
        • Susana Gonzalez

          SAdly you cannot prove God does not exist. You deceive yourself

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Do you truly not get it? You’re the one making the incredible claim. The burden of proof is yours. We don’t have to prove or disprove anything.

          Go.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And you cannot prove my Universe creating Space Ponies don’t exist either.

          See how that moronic logic works ya ignorant knuckle-dragging buffoon?

        • adam

          SAdly you cannot prove Zeus does not exist You deceive yourself.
          SAdly you cannot prove Shiva does not exist You deceive yourself.
          SAdly you cannot prove Thor does not exist You deceive yourself.
          SAdly you cannot prove Ganesh does not exist You deceive yourself.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6597272c55aa1dd14b2602406d98ba576903e53dce5800dd7f26a6fb2ca9728c.jpg

    • adam

      “Millions and millions of people have lived on this earth and have built monuments to their gods.”

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b9dbc608c75de3993dedde945f0023cefba23c42542abf34ca8cd62aa490e455.jpg

    • Ignorant Amos

      Millions and millions of people have lived on this earth and have built monuments to their gods.

      Argumentum ad populum

      As per “atheist logic ” those people lived real life, fought, built all based in their “imagination” atheist lives their life rejecting any evidence of gods found everywhere…while clsiming g there is no-evidence.

      So which of those millions and millions of monument builders to gods were based on their imagination and how do you know?

      There is an absolute true in the following statement: if I die and there is no god, nothing will happen. If you die and you meet God at the other side, you will be, in a big problem.

      Balderdash….try and think it through…Paschal’s Wager is a nonsense.

      http://the-militant-atheist.org/images/pascals-wager1.jpg

    • BlackMamba44
    • Joe

      As per “atheist logic ” those people lived real life, fought, built all based in their “imagination”

      Unless Zeus, Poseidon, Ra et. al.were real.

      if I die and there is no god, nothing will happen. If you die and you meet God at the other side, you will be, in a big problem.

      Maybe, maybe not. Anything is possible in that situation. God doesn’t have to do what you think he will, in any case.

      • Susana Gonzalez

        You are asserting that ancient people lived their life full of “imaginary” beings. The problem is that “zeus, Poseidon, Ra” etc and other gods, were very real for them. So real that you should look the ancient monuments as a proof, oh I forgot that means nothing to you!!

        • Joe

          The problem is that “zeus, Poseidon, Ra” etc and other gods, were very real for them.

          But not actually real, which is the most important thing.

          So real that you should look the ancient monuments as a proof, oh I forgot that means nothing to you!!

          Proof of what?

        • TheNuszAbides

          You pontificate about our ‘problems’ but you don’t do it by actually addressing our points; at best, you leap on key words that we use and then rattle off another scripture-soaked P.R.A.T.T.

          You pose questions (emphasis on pose) but you don’t show a grasp of how those questions could ever possibly be answered outside of your theist bubble – largely because you seem to suffer from the misconception that Christianity has possession of, or some vague authority over, every useful idea that occurs in areas where it has social influence.

          (homework assignment #2: figure out what “unfalsifiability” means – not how some apologist hack dismisses it to protect the credulous flock, but what it actually means.)

          Let’s not even get into your obvious misunderstanding of the meaning of “theory” in scientific terms. (You’re always welcome to attempt a brief essay proving otherwise, but you’ve plenty of homework on your plate already.)

          Best guess at an explanation for this is that you regurgitate what apologists have ‘informed’ you about atheism as though it is monolithic, as though we all reflect on it or ‘submit’ to it in identical, benighted ways. That’s false, and you seem blissfully unaware of the fact that it’s false, despite numerous demonstrations otherwise. But until you learn how to seriously engage the arguments, your efforts here are just a waste of everyone’s 1s and 0s.

        • Velvetpage

          The monuments are a testament to the power of story to drive human thought. They are a testament to the power of belief in the people who created them. But they’re not a testament to the thing that was believed. I have a poster of the Flying Spaghetti Monster around here somewhere. The poster doesn’t prove the existence of His Noodliness anymore than Bach’s “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring” proves that Jesu existed. Bach did, and was a musical genius who put his efforts into extolling the god he believed in. But I can know that about Bach, and respect and enjoy his music, without believing in his god.

        • foldedthought

          When you say “real for them”, you don’t mean those gods actually heard and granted prayers, or awarded immortality. You mean that those people lived their lives believing they felt the presence of those gods. They were wrong. Exactly like you.

    • al kimeea

      and you’re worshiping the wrong deity… ooops

    • Cozmo the Magician

      “atheist lives their life rejecting any evidence” EPIC FAIL.Atheism is not about ‘rejecting evidence’ on the contrary, as an atheist I have seen NO evidence to support a belief in any god(s). Show me just ONE piece of solid evidence to support the existence of your ‘god’, and I will consider it. You on the other hand seem to accept ANYTHING that supports your belief yet reject out of hand anything that disagrees with your pre-defined fantasy.

    • Mark Dowd

      Per Christian logic, they spent their lives imagining the wrong god. I don’t see how that’s much of an improvement.

      Also RE: “meeting god on the other side”, you have no way of knowing what that god values. Said god may be a fan of reverse psychology, and reward the non-belivers for passing its perverse test.

      So no, not even remotely close to an absolute truth.

    • MNb

      Yes – and your god being a piece of shit if he lets my existence continue after I die the best bet for me is not to believe. That’s a truth christians are incapable to recognize. That truth is reinforced by what you’re telling us: even if I don’t believe you want us to pretend that we believe. In other words, according to your statement your god doesn’t value sincerity – not surprising from a piece of shit.
      Plus you saying underneath that chances are 50% shows you don’t understand probability calculation. Fortunately chances are close to 0% that there is a god. Fortunately for both me and you. You’re not capable of imagining it now (as another christian once told me) but you’re not going to enjoy eternal afterlife. It unavoidable will turn into the worst torture possible, no matter how good your god is – a torture based upon boredom.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Susana: this is out of context, but I’m wondering what you’re thinking about end-of-the-world prophecies now.

  • abb3w

    1. “God did it” is unfalsifiable. It explains too much.

    More pressingly, it’s non-parsimonious. An explanation not only lets you infer from it what showed up in your data set, it lets you infer that something didn’t. In order to do that with an omnipotent deity, your explanation needs to enumerate every X that deity did (to preclude every Q that the deity didn’t)… which posits an additional entity beyond the mere null hypothesis (effective, saying “X happened”), resulting in higher complexity and lower probability.

    The mathematics underlying this also relate to “burden of proof”.

  • Vita O
  • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

    If “I don’t know” is acceptable, then “God did it should also be acceptable”

    “it assumes, without compelling evidence, that a supernatural being created everything” You really mean evidence that does not convince you. For me, the evidence keeps coming in to indicate that life based on DNA and RNA did not come about by natural causes. Some of my reasons are stuff discovered by atheistic biologist. Here’s an interview with Stanley Miller. http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html He firmly believes that life on this planet arose by natural causes, but his discoveries keep pointing in the opposite direction. The instability of ribose is a big big obstacle. He has abandoned the RNA first hypothesis, he has abandoned the hot ocean vents hypothesis. DNA and RNA are synthesized in water which then slowly hydrolyzes them. For that reason, DNA must co-exist with its very complex repair system or life will be impossible. RNA mutates so rapidly that even correct sequences will not be preserved.

    • Paul B. Lot

      If “I don’t know” is acceptable, then “God did it should also be acceptable”

      Why?

      • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

        Both don’t really stretch to fill the void. You are wrong that “God did it” explains too much; it actually explains nothing, so both amount to the same thing. Not all theists stop at, “God did it”; some of us still want to know how Hed did it and look to see if we can imitate what He did. (eg biomimetics)

        • Greg G.

          It is presumptuous to jump to the supernatural explanation until you know you have eliminated all natural explanations. The demon theory of disease was way off. The angry god theory of lightning was way off. It took thousands of years to arrive at natural explanations for those. We have only been studying the question of the origin of life for less than a human life span.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          To the theist scientist, the natural processes amounts to, “So THAT’S how God did it!” Anyway, the evidence clearly says that life based on DNA and RNA did not arise by abiogenesis. Ribose, deoxy ribose, cytosine and adenine are way too unstable, the polymerization occurs in water which then starts to slowly hydrolyze them, therefore DNA must coexist with its complex repair mechanism or life will be impossible. RNA spontaneously mutates so rapidly and readily that even correct sequences will never be preserved.

        • Greg G.

          RNA spontaneously mutates so rapidly and readily that even correct sequences will never be preserved.

          That cannot be true.

          From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

          A virus has either a DNA or an RNA genome and is called a DNA virus or an RNA virus, respectively. The vast majority of viruses have RNA genomes.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          The RNA viruses mutate very rapidly.

        • David Cromie

          What is your point?

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Stanley Miller himself discovered how unsuitable RNA was and abandoned the RNA first hypothesis. As Miller himself noted, “This pre-RNA must have somehow developed into RNA. There is a considerable amount of research now to try and figure out what that pre-RNA compound was, that is, what was the precursor to the RNA ribose-phosphate”

        • Greg G.

          Miller was one of the first to investigate the question. Why are you quoting a scientist who worked 50 years ago?

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Because his findings have been confirmed over and over again.

        • Greg G.

          Then you should cite a scientist who confirms that “his findings have been confirmed over and over again.” I have given you evidence that RNA does not mutate so rapidly as to not preserve “correct sequences”.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman
        • Greg G.

          I am not arguing against high mutation rates of RNA viruses. My point is that it is not so high as to make them go extinct. The fact that RNA viruses are the “vast majority” of viruses implies high mutation rates that do not result in the complete extinction of RNA viruses. So your assumption that RNA is unsuitable because of the high mutation rate is wrong.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          I never said that the high rate would make a virus go extinct. A virus uses the DNA of the host to replicate; it does not replicate all by itself, so it can mutate all it wants and not go extinct. The high mutation rate makes RNA a horrible information storage molecule.

        • Paul B. Lot

          The high mutation rate makes RNA a horrible information storage molecule.

          And yet, viruses are some of the most prolific entities on this planet. So your “horrible” here is nonsense.

          Dunning. Kruger.


          I never said that the high rate would make a virus go extinct. A virus uses the DNA of the host to replicate; it does not replicate all by itself, so it can mutate all it wants and not go extinct.

          If a virus’s RNA is mutated to an arbitrarily large amount, which is what I take to be implied by “all it wants”, then the virus will very likely lose the ability to a) target the appropriate cells, b) invade those cells, c) appropriately manipulate the internal machinery of those cells.

          A mutation rate too high will, indeed, cause that strain of virus to self-annihilate.

          You simply aren’t discussing the fundamentals of this topic with anything like competence. Go away and learn something before opening your gab again, imbecile.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Which is why RNA can only suit viruses. They aren’t even considered to be a form of life.

          “the virus will very likely lose the ability to a) target the appropriate
          cells, b) invade those cells, c) appropriately manipulate the internal
          machinery of those cells.” Not necessarily so. A virus uses part of the host’s protein. It is the Host’s DNA that is used to make protein.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Which is why RNA can only suit viruses. They aren’t even considered to be a form of life.

          1) Viruses certainly *are* considered to be “a form of life” by many biologists. Bzzzzt, wrong again.
          2) It’s beside the point – doesn’t matter if RNA “can only suit viruses” (not true, btw).

          a) Viruses alone are enough – remember the context here isn’t about “life”, but about abiogensis. Your contention was that strands of RNA were too fragile to maintain continuity long enough to be a vector for increased chemical complexity. Whether or not they are alive, they *ARE* an example of the falsehood of your assertion:

          RNA spontaneously mutates so rapidly and readily that even correct sequences will never be preserved.

          b) You consented to discussing Viruses long ago in this thread: trying to back-out now is both cowardly and moving the goal posts.


          “the virus will very likely lose the ability to a) target the appropriate
          cells, b) invade those cells, c) appropriately manipulate the internal
          machinery of those cells.” Not necessarily so.

          What the fuck are you talking about? Why did you leave of the “if”, eh?

          It is simply the case that IF you mutate the code which allows a virus to do a), b), and c) too much, THEN that virus won’t be able to do a), b) or c)….

          A virus uses part of the host’s protein. It is the Host’s DNA that is used to make protein.

          This supports your counter argument not at all. This absolutely basic fact was implied by “manipulate the internal machinery of those cells”.

          Jesus fucking christ, you’re addicted to pretending to understand what you don’t, aren’t you?

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          And you are deluded to think that you do. Some consider virus to be life and some do not. If the experts disagree, why shouldn’t I?, especially when I am siting the opinions of experts?

        • Paul B. Lot

          when I am siting [sic] the opinions of experts

          This is false.

          When citing the “opinions of experts”, where those experts are sharply and notably divided, it is inaccurate to characterize them as anything but.

          You didn’t say that experts were divided on the topic, you said unequivocally and without ambiguity that viruses “aren’t even considered to be a form of life”.

          You were either ignorant of the non-consensus of expert opinion, or you lied. There is no middle ground. Either admit to being a deceiver, or take your lumps for exposing your ignorance.

          This wriggling worm bullshit you’re pulling now is gross. Come on man, if you didn’t have a spine before this moment in your life, try to grow one now.

          It’ll be painful, but worth it in the long wrong run.


          And you are deluded to think that you do.

          What the fuck are you on about? I am not “deluded to think” that I understand abiogenesis.

          I just know that I understand it….better than you.

          ETA to correct hilarious word choice.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          “When citing the “opinions of experts”, where those experts are sharply and notably divided, it is inaccurate to characterize them as anything but.” However it is acceptable when you guys do the very same thing.

          If viruses are considered a life form, then they have designated them as the fourth kingdom? Currently every site I checked has only three kingdoms; none of which includes viruses.

          You understand abiogenesis? Explain it to me! I happen to know that nobody can!

        • Paul B. Lot

          However it is acceptable when you guys do the very same thing.

          Go ahead and quote for me where anyone claimed that [the scientific consensus is that Viruses are alive].

          If you cannot do so, then you stand before us a ignorant, petulant, hypocritical fool.


          If viruses are considered a life form, then they have designated them as the fourth kingdom? Currently every site I checked has only three kingdoms; none of which includes viruses.

          Wait, which claim are you fighting against here? Are you trying to slither your way around to saying that no scientists consider viruses alive….again?

          Go away you silly, pathetic creature. Until and unless something like this advice sinks into your frontal cortex

          “f you didn’t have a spine before this moment in your life, try to grow one now….It’ll be painful, but worth it in the long run”

          you won’t be an interesting or worthwhile interlocutor.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          I would not be surprised at anything “experts” claim. I am sure that there are some who do claim that viruses are a form of life, however I am still waiting on those to say which domain they have assigned them to.

          The very fact that I am calling so many “experts” illogical shows that I do have a spine!

        • Paul B. Lot

          The very fact that I am calling so many “experts” illogical shows that I do have a spine!

          Lol, that’s one way to soothe yourself, sure.

          It takes courage to [admit that you could be wrong]. To do what you’re doing, [pretending to understand what you don’t and always ignoring counter arguments and evidence], takes only incorrigible arrogance and petulance.

          But, being incorrigibly arrogant and petulant as you are, my analysis to that effect clearly doesn’t, won’t, couldn’t matter to you.

          For future reference, though, you operate on a definition of “courage”, “spine”, and “character” that I do not. That’s fine, this is the internet: you do you. Just don’t expect to ever be able to talk to someone like me.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          “It takes courage to [admit that you could be wrong].”. So they are the ones without spines! I used to believe these “experts”. However contradiction after contradictions kept coming up, so since I’m not spineless, I courageously admitted that I was wrong to simply swallow down what they were saying.

          I’m not the one ” incorrigibly arrogant and petulant”, these “experts are the ones guilty of that (along with spinelessness).

          You and I are using the same definition of “courage”, “spine”, and “character”.

        • adam

          “so since I’m not spineless, ”

          “”experts are the ones guilty of that (along with spinelessness).”

          Definition of expert Merriam Webster
          : having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience

          So you may not be spineless……….

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d0d0298251c444a7ed04da50dce984d9062e4ab3cd35d48cb69c11eabfe078e2.jpg

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          They won’t follow what is in front of their very eyes. Yes, they are experts, but too spineless to go with what the very evidence in front of them is saying.

        • adam

          ” Yes, they are experts, but too spineless to go with what the very evidence in front of them is saying.”

          No, we’ve read them, it is you who are too mindless to understand that what they say does NOT support your claimis.

        • adam

          “The very fact that I am calling so many “experts” illogical shows that I do have a spine!”

          No, it shows how ignorant you really are:
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Insult again; no scientific rebuttal. (facepalm)

        • MNb

          Why do you bother? As soon as scientists have figured out how it went you will exclaim “So THAT’s how God did it!” anyway. Btw your trick is called the Immunization of Theism.

          http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697533.001.0001/acprof-9780199697533-chapter-10

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          They’re never gonna figure it out. Why do I say that? Simple, DNA and RNA are hydrolyzed by the very water in which the polymerization occurs. The ribose in the RNA is being damaged by the very oxygen in the molecule. They have to therefore propose that the repair system existed, or was generated at the same time the nucleic acids were formed; that is an unreasonable expectation and they all know that!

          The Immunizatiuon of Theism? Nice name! What to they call, “We don’t know” every time stuff like I just pointed out is revealed? I call it the “Immunization of Atheism”. 😀

        • MNb

          1. Thanks for not answering my question. I appreciate that; thus you implicitly admit your dishonesty.
          2. Given your dishonesty you won’t commit yourself t “they’re never gonna figure it out” and accept any consequence if you’re shown wrong.
          3. “The Immunization of Atheism” is creacrap. What you should call “we don’t know” is honesty, an alien concept to you. You claim to have an answer to everything and anything (“Goddiddid”), we don’t.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          I am dishonest? Please indicate specifically which statement displays dishonesty. The same experts who believe in abiogenesis are the ones showing that neither RNA or DNA were possible on the prebiotic earth. They are the ones being dishonest; I’m merely exposing their dishonesty!

          “The Immunization of Atheism” is creacrap! New word coined! Anyway, “The Immunization of Atheism” is their fallback position of “Just because we don’t know, that doesn’t mean . . . ” or “Just because it doesn’t explain . . . That doesn’t mean . . .” Also “One day somebody will figure it out” is actually a statement of faith based on no evidence at all.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “One day somebody will figure it out” is actually a statement of faith based on no evidence at all.

          Did MNb say that? I don’t think so.

          And actually, there’s quite a bit of evidence that somebody will figure it out. Will some questions remain beyond science’s ability to answer them? Quite possibly. But we know that science is great at answering questions, so science’s ability isn’t really the issue.

          The real question is: Will religion ever answer a single question about reality? It hasn’t so far, so I’m not holding my breath. Science, on the other hand, has opened myriad doors that we didn’t even know existed.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          “there’s quite a bit of evidence that somebody will figure it out”. Been looking for that for decades now. Every experiment over the last 160 years has supplied reasons to say that abiogenesis has never happened on earth. (Yes, I said “every one”)

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’ve got no skin in the game … or do you? Is your faith dependent on there being no scientific explanation for abiogenesis? If not, then your argument is simply “Science has unanswered questions; therefore, God.” Not much of an argument.

        • adam

          ” (Yes, I said “every one”)”

          Yes, you lied.

          But you are an apologists, so that’s expected.

        • Greg G.

          Don’t you know how science works? It goes down lots of alleys to see which ones are blind. Occasionally they find one that is not blind but it leads to many other blind alleys and sometimes, to another alley that is not blind.

        • MNb

          Silly, not what you do displays dishonesty, what you don’t do displays dishonesty: systematically not addressing what I write.

          “The Immunization of Atheism” is not a fallback position. It’s pointing out that theists consistently fail to present a supernatural explanation at all beyond “God did id”. Granted, you tried, but immediately turned your god into a lab assistant. So you misrepresent the atheist argument. Also I never wrote “one day somebody will figure it out”. Nobody here did. I’ll give your statement a charitable reading, but it too borders on dishonesty as well – the dishonesty of a strawman.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          “Supernatural explanation”? You mean, “God waved His hand and magic happened?” i will never say any such thing. I always insist that God very strictly follows His laws, even in the acts of creation. So, how did God do it? Basically, he deliberately mixed the necessary components together under the correct conditions, in the correct order, in the correct concentrations and then separated and purified the results. To you, that makes God a, “lab assistant”. To me, it makes God the most amazing biochemical engineer in the entire universe! (BTW, most theists hate that explanation, they prefer, “God waved His hand and magic happened)

          My view means that I am not averse to the naturalistic explanation because sometimes, God simply let nature takes its course; the course He designed.

          That’s “immunization of theism”? Well, I won’t bother to dissuade you, however, “We don’t know” is immunization of atheism.

        • Greg G.

          The high mutation rate makes RNA a horrible information storage molecule.

          But it is good enough which nullifies your original claim.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          How do you conclude that such a high mutation rate is good enough? If the information is constantly being corrupted, why is that a good thing?

        • Greg G.

          How do you conclude that such a high mutation rate is good enough? If the information is constantly being corrupted, why is that a good thing?

          Didn’t you give this a moment’s thought? If a high mutation rate was not good enough, there would be zero RNA viruses. If there was one RNA virus then it would be good enough. RNA viruses are the vast majority of viruses.

          “Good enough” does not imply “a good thing”. If you think it does, then you should be able to work out the answer to “Why?”

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Notice that the host’s DNA is what does the replication? It does not matter what the code sequence is; the DNA will copy any sequence presented to it.

        • Greg G.

          Notice that the host’s DNA is what does the replication? It does not matter what the code sequence is; the DNA will copy any sequence presented to it.

          You know less about biochemistry than I do. DNA does no such thing. It serves as a template for RNA which does the work.

        • Greg G.

          The RNA viruses mutate very rapidly.

          You have moved the goalpost. Your original claim was that “RNA spontaneously mutates so rapidly and readily that even correct sequences will never be preserved.” Obviously, that is not a true statement.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          I have moved nothing. RNA viruses mutate very rapidly and readily, so even correct sequences in an RNA virus cannot be preserved. Cytosine spontaneously becomes uracil; that happens randomly. One work I read even says that sometimes uracil changes to cytosine. Adenine also sometimes deaminates while it is part of RNA or DNA, but DNA has a repair system.

        • Greg G.

          RNA viruses do not have DNA. They do not have a repair mechanism. You noted that they “mutate very rapidly”, but they still exist so they obviously do not mutate too rapidly to preserve “correct sequences”.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          RNA viruses mutate so rapidly that they are constantly evolving. Those mutations that make a strain drug resistant will continue to evolve even when a mutation has granted an advantage because subsequent replications will not produce the same genetic codes.

        • Greg G.

          The advantage of rapid reproduction is my point. It doesn’t have to preserve the original correct sequence as long as usefully correct sequences are produced.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Ribose, deoxy ribose, cytosine and adenine are way too unstable, the polymerization occurs in water which then starts to slowly hydrolyze them, therefore either a) DNA must coexist with its complex repair mechanism or life will be impossible, or b) I’m missing something

          1) FTFY
          2) Do you want to guess, in the wake of all the other creationist apologists who have declared [xyz] to be “irreducibly complex} or “impossible without God” and been proved wrong, which of a) and b) is more plausible?

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          There is nothing missing. Without the repair system DNA would simply disintegrate; that has been confirmed over and over again.

          I have not used the “irreducibly complex” argument in this debate; I don’t need to. Or are you saying that the need for the two to coexist amounts to a “irreducible complexity” argument?

        • Paul B. Lot

          There is nothing missing.

          Haha, okay. So. Maybe you’re right, eh? Maybe you understand all of the potential RNA synthesis possibilities in a pre-biotic world. Perhaps you understand all of the variables and all of the maths….we could suppose that you have access to a set of comprehensive models which cover all conceivable scenarios.

          Or.

          Maybe there’s something you don’t understand.

          Which of those is more likely, do you think?

          More to the point: if the latter were true, if you did not in fact understand this topic well enough to state that “there is nothing missing”….

          would you know it?

          Of course not, by definition. If you [don’t know something], then you also [cannot notice it’s absence].

          In other words “There is nothing missing” is a sentence I should expect to be confidently stated by both:
          a) someone utterly and completely competent, someone with a mastery of both the fundamentals and nuances of the topic at hand,

          and

          b) someone who doesn’t know how little he knows.

          Which of a) and b) do you think seems more likely to me? Are you an abiogenetics-researching genius, a complete master of your domain? Or are you and ignorant, arrogant doofus, who understands neither Dunning-Kruger, nor the topic he’s currently bloviating about?


          Or are you saying that the need for the two to coexist amounts to a “irreducible complexity” argument?

          Yes. I am drawing an equivalence between your reliance on the fragility of RNA and someone like Behe’s reliance on eyes or flagella.

          Argument from ignorance/incredulity fallacies.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Fact confirmed: DNA and RNA are hydrolyzed by the very water that the polymerization occurs, therefore I have not bothered to try work out how the polymerization could have happened. I already have conformation that without a repair system the molecule will be slowly pulled apart. So nothing is missing.

          To me, the need for two things to be present does ot constitute “irreducible complexity” because I do not consider two necessities to be “complex”.

        • Paul B. Lot

          To me, the need for two things to be present does ot constitute “irreducible complexity” because I do not consider two necessities to be “complex”.

          Lol. The Universe consists of spacetime + energy. Two things, therefore not complicated.

          You’re not a very thoughtful person, are you Dennis?


          I already have conformation that without a repair system the molecule will be slowly pulled apart.

          And?

          So nothing is missing.

          Why should anyone trust your assertion?

          There are still a huge number of questions to be answered, nimrod. Take a look at this list, which a complete biochemical amateur came up with off the top of his head in under 5 minutes:

          1) How long does a chain of nucleotides have to be in order for it to be an functional unit in-context. The longer the necessary polymer, the more relevant the rate-of-hydrolysis. If a single nucleotide can get caught in an enzymatic natural reaction relevant to the development of more-complicated chemistry, the rate-of-hydrolysis is irrelevant.

          2) How quickly are RNA molecules of [minimum functional length] synthesized by [natural process x]? Perhaps the rate-of-production is enough to overcome the rate-of-destruction for long enough that [relevant down-stream chemical reaction abc] could still occur.

          3) What, if any, natural processes in the various hypothesized natural catalytic environments could possibly act as partial or complete anti-hydrolysis mechanisms?

          I have not bothered to try work out how the polymerization could have happened

          I’m glad we finally agree on something.

          Let me make another thing clear to you: the fact that you don’t understand something, does not make it impossible.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          “Perhaps the rate-of-production is enough to overcome the
          rate-of-destruction for long enough that [relevant down-stream chemical
          reaction abc] could still occur.” No it isn’t. Look at this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC20907/. It is by persons who firmly believe in abiogeneisi These “experts” actually say, “Therefore, unless the origin of life took place extremely rapidly
          (<100 yr), we conclude that a high-temperature origin of life may be
          possible, but it cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine, or cytosine." That only leaves thymine! Why should I believe any of this rubbish? Because it is the opinion of experts? I will continue to think for myself!

        • epeeist

          Look at this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go….

          OK, I have done that. What they are claiming is that at high temperature hydrolysis would destroy amino acid molecules. However the rate of chemical reactions is given by the Arrhenius equation:

          k = A exp(-E/RT)

          Where E is the activation energy, R is the gas constant and T is the temperature. What is obvious from this is that at lower temperatures hydrolysis would be much slower. I will leave it up to you to work out what the rate constants would be at say 80C and 20C.

        • Joe

          I hadn’t used, nor even thought about, the Arrhenius equation since I left university!

          I will leave it up to you to work out what the rate constants would be at say 80C and 20C.

          That’s like leaving it up to the dog to make its own dinner.

        • epeeist

          That’s like leaving it up to the dog to make its own dinner.

          Well yes, as I have said elsewhere I generally find that creationists are innumerate and that he would be incapable of performing a simple calculation.

        • Greg G.

          Like a cat trying to figure out a can opener.

        • MR

          My cat tried to figure out the doorknob once, “I think if you just wave your paw in front of it, it will magically open….”

        • Greg G.

          Probably best to let the cat think you have magical powers.

        • MR

          Not me, but I think she thinks Alexa does.

        • Joe

          At least the cat is motivated (by hunger) to attempt such a thing.

        • adam

          “You’re not a very thoughtful person, are you Dennis?”

          Apologists never seem to be…

          And when they are, they arent honest about it.

        • Greg G.

          There is nothing missing. Without the repair system DNA would simply disintegrate; that has been confirmed over and over again.

          How have you ruled out that amino acids can bind to amorphous silica substrates? One grain of sand out of all the sand on all the beaches in the world or on the ocean bottoms could attract a certain sequence of amino acids to produce an RNA molecule that could reproduce itself imperfectly. Eventually, the imperfect copies would be out producing that grain of sand and be optimizing itself by very rapid mutations until some RNA was producing a DNA molecule.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          How have I ruled out that amino acids can bind to amorphous silica substrates?

          I was not the one who did. Many other experts have already ruled it out.

        • Greg G.

          I tried to find one expert who ruled it out. Instead, I found New evidence emerges on the origins of life” [Link]

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Read that article before you pasted that like. Not a bit of evidence shown in it, just opinions. Nothing about how ribose, cytosine and adenine would have stayed around long enough to become part of RNA. He expects the reader to simply swallow it because he’s an expert.

        • Joe

          Not a bit of evidence shown in it, just opinions.

          As the pot said to the kettle.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          I know that ribose, cytosine and adenine would not have stayed around long enough to become part of a polymer. My evidence, Read this interview: http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html. Look for this statement from Dr. Stanley Miller:
          “We know we can’t have a very high temperature, because the
          organic materials would simply decompose. For example, ribose
          degrades in 73 minutes at high temperatures, so it doesn’t seem
          likely. Then people talk about temperature gradients in the
          submarine vent. I don’t know what these gradients are supposed
          to do. My thinking is that a temperature between 0 and 10
          degrees C would be feasible. The minute you get above 25 degrees
          C there are problems of stability.”

          BTW, the situation with cytosine is even worse. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC20907/. Look for this statement:
          “we conclude that a high-temperature origin of life may be possible, but it cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine, or cytosine.” That only leaves thymine. Why should I believe any of this rubbish?

        • Joe

          Why should I believe any of this rubbish?

          I’d start by trying to understand it before you come to a belief either way.

          In the quote you mentioned, Dr Miller is talking specifically about submarine vents, which have extreme temperatures.

          How did you fail to miss the context?

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          But you haven’t eliminated that as a possibility. What other possible explanations have you never considered? I don’t have any idea, but more importantly, you don’t either.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          To accept that as a possibility must include how ribose, cytosine and adenine would have stayed around long enough to become part of a polymer.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Fundamental failure to grasp burden of proof, Bayes, or really rationality in general.

          No.

          One does not need to know those details before accepting naturalistic RNA synthesis as “a possibility”. One needs to know those details before ACCEPTING THAT IT HAPPENED.

          Hypotheses are allowed *before* all details are known … then, of course, they must be tested against the data.

        • Greg G.

          Jumping to the supernatural hypothesis is always premature. You have not ruled out all possible natural explanations. Not even close.

          I bet you never considered anything like http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar200332w

          It’s a hard problem. Why do you want to give up on a real answer already?

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          I can’t believe you posted that without reading the article first. I read that long ago. Did you notice this? “So why does the community not view this discontinuous synthesis model as compelling evidence for the RNA-first hypothesis for the origin of life? In part, the model is deficient because no experiments have joined together those steps without human intervention.”

        • Greg G.

          I did not read the article but I did read the entire abstract. The last paragraph:

          Our hypothesis centers on a geological model that synthesizes RNA in a prebiotic intermountain dry valley (not in a marine environment). This valley receives high pH run-off from a watershed rich in serpentinizing olivines and eroding borate minerals. The runoff contains borate-stabilized carbohydrates, formamide, and ammonium formate. As atmospheric CO2 dissolves in the subaerial aquifer, the pH of the aquifer is lowered. In the desert valley, evaporation of water, a solvent with a nucleophilic “background reactivity”, leaves behind formamide, a solvent with an electrophilic “background reactivity”. As a result, nucleobases, formylated nucleobases, and formylated carbohydrates, including formylated ribose, can form. Well-known chemistry transforms these structures into nucleosides, nucleotides, and partially formylated oligomeric RNA.
          [my bolding]

        • Greg G.

          I am getting “You cannot reply to a post that is not active.” to a couple of your posts. One (http://disq.us/p/1lz0u26 ) goes like this:

          None of that supported by any evidence. We are still left with :http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs
          “So why does the community not view this discontinuous synthesis model as
          compelling evidence for the RNA-first hypothesis for the origin of
          life? In part, the model is deficient because no experiments have joined
          together those steps without human intervention.”

          My reply:

          Stop being a creationist quoteminer. Read the paragraph I just threw in your face. You are quoting the problem the hypothesis proposes to answer and the final paragraph gives an overview of how it turns out. Is your cognitive dissonance shutting down your brain because it would destroy your argument that you have been touting for months?

          The other is (http://disq.us/p/1lz0qwt ):

          Still no scientific evidence. We’re still left with:

          “So why does the community not view this discontinuous synthesis model as
          compelling evidence for the RNA-first hypothesis for the origin of
          life? In part, the model is deficient because no experiments have joined
          together those steps without human intervention.”

          From: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs

          My reply:

          Read the rest of the abstract, at least. You are like the creationist quoteminers who cite where Darwin mentions his critics arguments while ignoring the rest of the chapter where he shows that evolution answers those critics. The abstract proposes a hypothesis that makes the synthesis model continuous. Can’t you read just a few more paragraphs, please?

        • adam

          ” Can’t you read just a few more paragraphs, please?”

          Maybe it is like reading the bible?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e902fc8a6aff8e1b1db158762d3e7bdaab1894471fb56d9f89db788237574fc3.png

        • adam
        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Insults do not amount to rebuttal; they’re admissions of defeat.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Insults do not amount to rebuttal; they’re admissions of defeat.

          In the face of well-reasoned, evidence-based, thoughtful argumentation: yes. It is true. Insults in reply to the aforemention are, in fact, an admission of defeat.

          In the face of overwhelming incompetence, arrogance, and self-pity, in a situation where a Human plays chess against a Pidgeon, insults are not an admission of defeat. They are an expression of inchoate rage against the injustice of the universe which allows a being which seems to be clothed in the raiment of sentience, to be so fucking stupid.

          So when you find yourself being [insulted] instead of [engaged] by the opposition, one of two things is true:
          1) You’re too smart and capable for them be able to beat,
          or
          2) You’re too dumb and incapable for them to be able to suffer any longer.

          Which of 1) and 2) above do you think well-represents your case?

          I’ll give you a hint: the fact that you didn’t even contemplate, let alone allude to, the possibility of 2) is….a strong indicator.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          “well-reasoned, evidence-based, thoughtful argumentation”. I’m still waiting on them.

        • Greg G.

          I linked you to the abstract of a study. You got about halfway through the stating of the problem they were working on and you stopped reading.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “well-reasoned, evidence-based, thoughtful argumentation”. I’m still waiting on them.

          1) You and me both, boy, you and me both.
          2) You seem to have failed to grasp that it [is the person complaining about being insulted] whose quality we were asked to judge by my comment, not that of [those doing the insulting].

        • adam

          “they’re admissions of defeat.”

          See, just another unsubstantiated claim, like your “God” character from mythology.

        • MNb

          Abiogenesis is a natural process. If a scientist unravels this process the theist proclaims: “So THAT’s how god did it!” If none scientist had done so: “God did it!”
          God explains too much.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          “God did it” by itself explains nothing. One must include details of how God did it and why the process must be carefully controlled. I’ll give an example: Ribose can be synthesized from inorganic materials, however, the chemicals needed are almost never found together in nature; even when they are in contact with each other, other stuff will interfere with the reaction. The concentrations and purity needed to achieve ribose is improbable for a natural cause.

        • MNb

          “One must include details of how God did it.”
          Something you carefully avoid – you just proceed by arguing why it couldn’t have happened by strictly natural means.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          I did in other comments. I only hinted at it here. God took the necessary chemicals, purified them, allowed them to react while carefully monitoring the process, removed the hydrogen cyanide, purified the resulting chemical. That’s the short version. The full version would take way too long.

        • Greg G.

          The full version would require more hand waving than you have arms.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Displaying ignorance again. You don’t know much biochemistry do you?

        • Greg G.

          You don’t know much biochemistry do you?

          No, but if you hum a few bars…

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Thought so.

        • adam

          No you didnt.

        • Greg G.

          Says the guy who says about RNA, “Notice that the host’s DNA is what does the replication? It does not matter what the code sequence is; the DNA will copy any sequence presented to it.”

        • adam

          “You don’t know much biochemistry do you?”

          Says the man spouting biochemistry ignorance

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7e6eceefda06b08605b3653301b5e246ee7fbd6ce2a594a4e6a0d18e41ce10f5.jpg

        • adam

          “God took the necessary chemicals, purified them, allowed them to react
          while carefully monitoring the process, removed the hydrogen cyanide,
          purified the resulting chemical. ”

          YOU DID NOT!

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c4e3bbea2d1e4d81dbd3798980be2ee8b39f893fee5d1d2b81b76b5e7ba184e1.jpg

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Again, no rebuttal that includes any science.

        • adam
        • adam

          Again, science is way over your head.

        • MNb

          How does that work, “God took the necessary chemicals”? Did he take them with his hands or something? If yes, how is that possible? Are his hands material? How can an immaterial god have material hands? Are his hands immaterial? How can immaterial hands take material chemicals?
          Mutatis mutandis the same questions for the other steps you mention.
          What you are doing is describing how a lab assistent would do it – and lab assistants are material.

        • adam

          “”God did it” by itself explains nothing.”

          It explains those who explain with ignorance, proud ignorance

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/38e97a5f539b6a96f7e7c4f0d7f39708bd0390257ecbd4bcbd51d081982f6034.jpg

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Answering with insults I see. 😀

          Now show me why you say I’m ignorant when I wrote, “Ribose can be synthesized from inorganic materials, however, the chemicals needed are almost never found together in nature; even when they are in contact with each other, other stuff will interfere with the reaction. The concentrations and purity needed to achieve ribose is improbable for a natural cause.” (I got that from DR. Robert Shapiro who was not a theist) See if you can get his book https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01808782

        • adam

          You are ignorant because you dont understand what you THINK you are claiming.

          “chemicals needed are almost never found together in nature;”

          It only needed to happen once.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6fdb39aadd75100b6a42a22589cc237e66125efb7c16def734b5dcc49a03caaa.jpg

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Ypu really don’t know biochemistry or you would never have made such an erroneous error. If each synthesis happened only once, DNA and RNA would not exist.

        • adam

          ” If each synthesis happened only once, DNA and RNA would not exist.”

          You really dont know shit or you would never have made such an erroneous error.

          “chemicals needed are almost never found together in nature;”

          It only needed to happen once.

        • adam

          “Ribose can be synthesized from inorganic materials, however, the chemicals needed are almost never found together in nature; even when they are in contact with each other, other stuff will interfere with the reaction.

          The concentrations and purity needed to achieve ribose is improbable for a natural cause.

          Making ribose in interstellar ices

          Astrobiologists have long speculated on the origin of prebiotic molecules such as amino acids and sugars. Meinert et al.
          demonstrated that numerous prebiotic molecules can be formed in an interstellar-analog sample containing a mixture of simple ices of water, methanol, and ammonia. They irradiated the sample with ultraviolet light under conditions similar to those expected during the formation of the solar system. This yielded a wide variety of sugars, including ribose—a major constituent of ribonucleic acid (RNA).

          Science, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6282/208

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          I already know that, however, when the meteorite lands on earth, the heat generated will destroy all the sugars, cytosine, uracil, guanine and adenine. I’m not sure if thymine would survive that temperature either, however, it has already been demonstrated that some amino acids could survive.

          They have yet to address the problems created by the instability. In experiments on abiogenesis, someone has to keep adding cytosine because it disappears too rapidly. The other is the instability of RNA and DNA in water. Like Dr. Robert Shapiro was once quoted to say, “Water and oxygen are bad for DNA and RNA, so if I don’t drink or breathe, my DNA and RNA will do O.K.” (Must have been tongue-in-cheek :-D)

        • adam

          “I’m not sure”

          then quit pretending.

          ” In experiments on abiogenesis, someone has to keep adding cytosine because it disappears too rapidly.”

          You are pretending again.

          ” Like Dr. Robert Shapiro was once quoted to say, ”

          You are STILL pretending

        • Greg G.

          I gave you a link to a paper on a hypothesis that accounted for those problems but you couldn’t get past the statement of the problem they were proposing to solve.

        • adam

          “I already know that,”

          So you deliberately LIED when you said:
          ” the chemicals needed are almost never found together in nature”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dbb5ebd19667aae2c9b60afdbf72e9907a2c37d01a0986f1232ed576484110bb.jpg

        • adam

          “Meinert et al.demonstrated that numerous prebiotic molecules can be
          formed in an interstellar-analog sample containing a mixture of simple
          ices of water, methanol, and ammonia.”

          What meteorite are you talking about?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c330421491e72e6714756add7c9c94cc5778e80c36841325b5119420dccea3e1.jpg

        • Paul B. Lot

          You are wrong that “God did it” explains too much

          You’re assuming things about your interlocutor without warrant: don’t.


          Not all theists stop at, “God did it”

          1) “Not all ___________” is…a less than iron-clad defense. Not all baseball players swing a bat, either.

          2) Admirable. The key point which you seem to elide, of course, is that the event-horizon for [the things we can/must attribute to (g)God(s)] has been pushed back steadily. Year after year, decade after decade, century after century, the [(g)God(s) hypothesis] looses explanatory significance, while the [naturalistic hypothesis] explain more and more of the universe.


          “God did it” … actually explains nothing

          You seem to grasp this, partially. I have little doubt that compartmentalization will allow you to continue to do so.

          Finally, let me just note that you seem to have missed the thrust of my question.

          WHY is [the act of asserting that deity xyz accomplished abc through means 123] on equal epistemological footing, in your mind, with [the act of stating that one doesn’t have enough information or understanding to be able to make a claim]?

          I have follow-up questions too, mind. Questions like “why [deity xyz] and not [deity xyz’]?” But to ask those is to put the cart before the horse.

          You still haven’t address my “why?”.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          “God did it” does not even identify the specific God; science almost never can identify the specific individual responsible for the existence of anything we know is an artifact. Who made that screen you’re looking at? No scientific test or experiment will reveal that; you need reliable historical records.

          My physics teacher always warned us to not depend on extrapolation; they don’t always lead to where they seem to be pointing 😀

          When a theist scientist discovers the laws, mathematiocs, processes and or chemistry involved, the reaction is, “So THAT’S how God did it!”

        • Paul B. Lot

          “God did it” does not even identify the specific God; science almost never can identify the specific individual responsible for the existence of anything we know is an artifact. Who made that screen you’re looking at? No scientific test or experiment will reveal that; you need reliable historical records.

          My physics teacher always warned us to not depend on extrapolation; they don’t always lead to where they seem to be pointing 😀

          When a theist scientist discovers the laws, mathematiocs, processes and or chemistry involved, the reaction is, “So THAT’S how God did it!”

          None of this is interesting enough to respond to in detail – just more unsupported assertions, cognitive biases, and spelling errors: par for the course.


          You still haven’t address my “why?”.

          WHY is [the act of asserting that deity xyz accomplished abc through means 123] on equal epistemological footing, in your mind, with [the act of stating that one doesn’t have enough information or understanding to be able to make a claim]?

        • MNb

          You nicely contradict yourself. First you say that there probably is no scientific answer to the origin life. Now you say: if there is a scientific answer (laws, math, processes and/or chemistry) the theist reacts with “So THAT’s how he did it!”
          A fine example of your god explaining too much.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          You left out, “So who does the scientist who sets up the conditions, carefully monitors the process and extraction and purification represent?” That is the reason for saying, “So that’s how God did it!”

        • MNb

          Totally irrelevant for my previous comment, so shrug.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Of course you would have that attitude. The experimenter is simply making sure that the conditions that accidentally existed in the past exists in his experiment.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Whaaa? You are all over the parish on this issue.

          You said…

          So you ignore the fact that the processes required control and careful monitoring? Control and careful monitoring is not what nature does.

          Now your saying…

          Of course you would have that attitude. The experimenter is simply making sure that the conditions that accidentally existed in the past exists in his experiment.

          What attitude do you expect with such fuckwittery?

          You do know that some of the greatest discoveries ever made were as a result of not great control and un-careful monitoring, right?

          How can the experimenter know the conditions that accidentally existed in a unique event in the very distant past “simply” make sure they exist in any subsequent experiment?

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          “How can the experimenter know the conditions that accidentally existed
          in a unique event in the very distant past “simply” make sure they exist
          in any subsequent experiment?” You didn’t read Oparin did you? You didn’t read about the Miller/Urey experiments? They know what conditions should produce the desired result, then when they simulate the conditions and get the result, they use that as “proof” of what the conditions were like. That’s circular logic!

        • MNb

          Again this is totally irrelevant for the way you contradicted yourself above, so again shrug.

        • adam

          “The experimenter is simply making sure that the conditions that accidentally existed in the past exists in his experiment.”

          So these conditions occur NATURALLY?

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          I’m being sarcastic 😀

          Those conditions do not occur naturally.

        • adam

          “Those conditions do not occur naturally.”

          Do not or did not?

          And dont PRETEND to know….

        • adam

          “”So who does the scientist who sets up the conditions, carefully
          monitors the process and extraction and purification represent?””

          SCIENCE

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/57d8812041d27bff15f48eb5ac5edd1f3cb26a8df7bfd55a8bae3b5a093d53c8.jpg

        • adam

          “My physics teacher always warned us to not depend on extrapolation; they don’t always lead to where they seem to be pointing :-D”

          Yes, of course:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/62da10177de8c12d9feedf1a0ff3d448ed929feef887a1192640edb3a8a15953.jpg

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          You think that is what I am like? I never started out theist. I even used to swallow down what those “experts” say, but when the contradictions became obvious, I started thinking for myself. As a result, I also started to disagree with even what theist “experts” were saying the bible says. However atheists also don’t think for themselves; they just put all their faith faith in books written by humans who are just as misguided as they are.

        • adam

          “You think that is what I am like?”

          I think that is the way you act.

          ” I never started out theist.”
          Nobody does.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/06091f1f3465af170c19826d987e626590fa562e338c588cf4278fb694454f4f.jpg

          ” I started thinking for myself. ”

          but you are NOT demonstrating that.

          ” However atheists also don’t think for themselves; they just put all their faith faith in books written by humans who are just as misguided as they are.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1b62fd50c12666129076652f8a63d576544a940c671a338518571aab8c908dcd.jpg

          Atheism, unlike Abrahamic religions dont depend on mythology, fairy tales, and childrens stories

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/831e274b356c03b8778b1d9672b8ab244560e2fda7a4cd57b0436d5bda02694f.jpg

        • MNb

          “I don’t know” of course doesn’t fill the void. That’s what “I don’t know” means: admitting that there is a void.

          “some of us still want to know how He did it”
          So do we. How did he do it? Let’s say create life – which procedures did he follow and which means did he use? Natural ones? Then your god ceases to be supernatural. Supernatural ones? How does that work, supernatural procedures and means to create life?

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          How did He do it? By natural processes, however, it required careful monitoring and control of each step. That does not occur in nature.

        • MNb

          Thanks for not answering “which procedures did he follow and which means did he use?”. You implicitly admit that an answer is not possible and that hence your position falls apart.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          So you ignore the fact that the processes required control and careful monitoring? Control and careful monitoring is not what nature does.

        • Greg G.

          When you are doing it in a small batch for a short period of time, you need control and careful monitoring. Nature can run millions of experiments in millions of conditions in millions of places for millions of years. It needs only one positive outcome.

        • Pofarmer

          Your numbers are too small.

        • Greg G.

          Somebody put the “z” key on the “m”.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Cytosine, ribose, guanine, uracil are so unstable that nature would have to be successful trillions of trillions of times, because there would need to have been a constant supply of them or they would bot build up in quantity or concentration.

        • Greg G.

          If you had read to the end of the abstract I linked you to, you would have read the next to the last sentence, which says, “As a result, nucleobases, formylated nucleobases, and formylated carbohydrates, including formylated ribose, can form.

          Before you jump to a supernatural conclusion, you will have to rule out all possible events, including those that haven’t been thought of yet.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          I have already admitted that getting the parts needed is not a problem. We are always left with the fact that ribose will not stay around long enough to become RNA. You are still left with:

          “Therefore, unless the origin of life took place extremely rapidly
          (<100 yr), we conclude that a high-temperature origin of life may be
          possible, but it cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine, or cytosine." – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC20907/

        • Greg G.

          Read the rest of the damn abstract. The last sentence says, “Well-known chemistry transforms these structures into nucleosides, nucleotides, and partially formylated oligomeric RNA.

          It’s time for you to move the goalposts.

        • adam

          ” We are always left with the fact that ribose will not stay around long enough to become RNA. ”

          No we are not.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6fdb39aadd75100b6a42a22589cc237e66125efb7c16def734b5dcc49a03caaa.jpg

        • adam

          ” Control and careful monitoring is not what nature does.”

          Demonstrate that control and careful monitoring is necessary for nature.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b85c139d187be51d3fe0c0c77bcc2e185955505da1a61a389655083966df2057.jpg

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Now you’re demonstrating. Nature does not do control and monitoring, so if those are necessary, then the process did not occur naturally.

          As regards that quote,Professor František (Frank) Vyskočil of Charles University in Prague and a few others used to be atheist. It was scientific discoveries, including some of his, that made him abandon atheism.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Nature does not do control and monitoring, so if those are necessary, then the process did not occur naturally.

          …says who?

          Do mineral crystals grow in a random and uncontrolled manner?

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Every investigator says that.

          Minerals aren’t life forms.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Every investigator says that.

          Who the fuck are these “investigator[s]”, pray tell?

          Name your sources.


          Minerals aren’t life forms.

          @dennismgilman:disqus, you have the intelligence of a rancid jar of mayonnaise.

          The antecedent isn’t [life forms], but rather [nature].

          The proposition under question is “does “nature” ever “control and monitor” a “process [which does] occur ‘naturally'”?

          So.

          Q1: Is [crystal formation] a “process which occurs ‘naturally'”. (By which I mean: un-directed by a superior intelligence.

          Q2: Is [crystal formation] a process which could be called “random and uncontrolled”?

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Resorting to insults is an admission of defeat.

          Crystal formation is not a good example. Crystals aren’t life and their formation requires absolutely no monitoring or control at all. In some cases, temperature or pressure might affect the form.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Crystal formation is not a good example.

          Tut tut, child. Slow down. One thing at a time.

          Answer THESE questions, before letting your poor little cerebellum run wild on down the road:

          Q1: Is [crystal formation] a “process which occurs ‘naturally'”. (By which I mean: un-directed by a superior intelligence.

          Q2: Is [crystal formation] a process which could be called “random and uncontrolled”?


          Resorting to insults is an admission of defeat.

          False, for the reason I laid out here.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          There is no complexity in crystal formation.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Hey.

          Dennis-the-dumb-fuck-Menance.

          Slow.

          Down.

          Answer.

          The.

          Questions.

          Asked.

          Come on now, I’m confident you can put on your big-boy pants and focus just this once.

        • adam

          Do mineral crystals grow in a random and uncontrolled manner?

        • adam

          Of course there is.

          From random molecules in a drop of water to the intricate patterns of a snowflake.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ec831d9facb36edd9b3ffe2e278ad5365e6a7e6a8e7c7ef5a0c29f4a0708f64b.jpg

        • adam

          Do mineral crystals grow in a random and uncontrolled manner?.

        • adam

          “Resorting to insults is an admission of defeat.”

          Nope, just a realization of how stupid your claims are.

          “Crystals aren’t life and their formation requires absolutely no monitoring or control at all.”

          So you havent demonstrated that life requires absolutely monitoring or control at all.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/36c7f3e95199cdc69eb0d2e5128b4b7b08234049ed8f551a7d9bfa7e0e7d8dd3.jpg

        • Michael Neville

          Resorting to insults is an admission of frustration with a dishonest debater.

        • adam

          Do mineral crystals grow in a random and uncontrolled manner?

        • Greg G.

          Minerals aren’t life forms.

          Neither are amino acids.

        • adam

          Do mineral crystals amino acids ‘grow’ in a random and uncontrolled manner?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Do mineral crystals grow in a random and uncontrolled manner?

          No. The problem with crystals is that they are far TOO controlled by chemical law to be analogous to the non repeating quality of a quaternary digital code like DNA or the works of Shakespear.

          The chemical laws that allow for crystal formation also ensure that you will never get a more complex arrangement.

        • Paul B. Lot

          No.

          Excellent, you managed to provide the correct answer! (Albeit to a question you weren’t asked in a thread two months dead).

          It is not the case that crystals grow in a random and uncontrolled manner. In some sense, the growth of crystals is “controlled”.

          @dennismgilman:disqus asserted that this was not possible:

          Nature does not do control and monitoring, so if those are necessary, then the process did not occur naturally.

          Thank you for taking the time, @disqus_QnFvQny97s:disqus , to confirm that my assessment of Dennis’ statement was accurate: that he was mistaken. I appreciate your help.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Illiterate theists abound. But I didn’t want you to think they had the market cornered…

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kofOJDzckbM

        • adam
        • adam

          ” Nature does not do control and monitoring, so if those are necessary, then the process did not occur naturally.”

          So IF THOSE ARE NECESSARY

          Arguing from IGNORNACE

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          No ignorance on my part. Read this article: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar200332w. Look for this:
          “So why does the community not view this discontinuous synthesis model as compelling evidence for the RNA-first hypothesis for the origin of life? In part, the model is deficient because no experiments have joined together those steps without human intervention.”

        • Greg G.

          Don’t forget to tell him to read the last paragraph. That is where the authors show that their proposal bridges that gap.

        • adam

          “No ignorance on my part.”

          Absolute ignorance your your part.
          Or MOST LIKELY christian DISHONESTY

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/be4d743e26717dcdf466341bb513c26c0d0ac8d61b6d32518ce3c0fe5dc70cc5.png

          “As a result, nucleobases, formylated nucleobases, and formylated
          carbohydrates, including formylated ribose, can form. Well-known
          chemistry transforms these structures into nucleosides, nucleotides, and
          partially formylated oligomeric RNA.”

        • MNb

          You are the one who does the ignoring, not me.
          1a. You ignore my question “which procedures did he follow and which means he use?”
          b. You ignore the requirement to specify how an immaterial entity like your can is capable of using material procedures and means.
          2. You ignore the requirement to demonstrate that the processes require control and careful monitoring at all.
          3. You ignore that you nothing but decreed that natural processes are insufficient to do the explanation.
          4. You ignore the fact that all this is totally irrelevant for your belief system, because you already build in the cop out “or God used the natural processes to pull the trick off” and hence your entire antiscientific argument is void.

        • epeeist

          You are the one who does the ignoring, not me.

          Just another one-trick creationist pony. He has ignored my question too, ones that would actually require him doing some work and showing his understanding.

        • MNb

          Of course. I just can’t resist the temptation to rub it in as hard as I can.

        • Greg G.

          How do you expect Ed to come up with an answer that is not on one of his VHS tapes of Gene Scott?

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          1a. I answered that somewhere. Basically God deliberately mixed the correct chemicals together in the correct proportions and at the correct concentrations in the correct order, then separated and purified the product.
          1b. Why would an immaterial entity not be capable of manipulating material things? Us humans use immaterial forces to manipulate stuff all the time. (Mars Rover being the most famous example)
          2. I have not ignored it. It was answered. Experts have already demonstrated that many times : http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar200332w. Look for, “No experiments have joined together those steps without human
          intervention. Further, many steps in the model have problems. Some are
          successful only if reactive compounds are presented in a specific order
          in large amounts. Failing controlled addition, the result produces
          complex mixtures that are inauspicious precursors for biology,” See what I mean by careful monitoring and control?
          3. It has been shown in experiments several times that natural processes are insufficient to do the explanation.
          4. That means that I am not averse to saying that God at least sometimes just let nature take its course. After all He decided what the course of nature will be.

        • adam

          ” Basically God deliberately mixed the correct chemicals together in the
          correct proportions and at the correct concentrations in the correct
          order, then separated and purified the product.”

          How did YOUR “God” learn to do this?

        • adam

          ” Us humans use immaterial forces to manipulate stuff all the time.”

          What ‘immaterial forces’ are used for the Mars Rover?

        • adam

          ” “No experiments have joined together those steps without human intervention. ”

          What experiment lacks human intervention?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • adam

          “3. It has been shown in experiments several times that natural processes are insufficient to do the explanation.”

          What experiments demonstrate that unnatural process are sufficient to do the explanation.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/898acb221897f3365c0086db2f2d5cc75dce06e5db3d1d625d01a6403f3f9514.jpg

        • adam

          “4. That means that I am not averse to saying that God at least
          sometimes just let nature take its course. After all He decided what
          the course of nature will be.”

          How do IMAGINARY characters from mythology actually DO anything?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cabed70b642dd4e05ad235b84e0aa17bf649485d3dd1ae990d98e27dbf7f5a23.jpg

        • Greg G.

          Basically God deliberately mixed the correct chemicals together in the correct proportions and at the correct concentrations in the correct order, then separated and purified the product.

          That is something that never happens in nature.

        • Susan

          That is something that never happens in nature.

          True. Nature doesn’t seem to work towards that end.

          But in the sense that a royal flush isn’t an end toward which a poker game works.

          That doesn’t mean royal flushes never happen in poker.

          Dennis seems to be arguing that royal flushes never happen in poker.

          That if a royal flush is dealt, that it could only have been Yahwehjesus an unevidenced, meta-agent behind it

          That is, unless you can show every physical detail in a very old universe that led to that royal flush, it had to be YJ an unevidenced being of some kind.

          Without showing a connection

          .

        • epeeist

          That is, unless you can show every physical detail in a very old universe that led to that royal flush, it had to be YJ an unevidenced being of some kind.

          That old staple, an isolated demand for rigour.

        • Greg G.

          If godidit, the royal flush of abiogenesis is like dirty dealing.

        • Michael Neville

          I still fail to understand why you’re arguing about biochemistry on an atheist blog instead of a biology or biochemistry blog.

        • adam

          “I still fail to understand why you’re arguing about biochemistry on an atheist blog instead of a biology or biochemistry blog.”

          Because they would kick his stupid ass out.

        • epeeist

          2. I have not ignored it. It was answered. Experts have already demonstrated that many times : http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs…. Look for, “No experiments have joined together those steps without human intervention.

          So just another creationist quote miner. You did miss the final paragraph of the paper:

          Our hypothesis centers on a geological model that synthesizes RNA in a prebiotic intermountain dry valley (not in a marine environment). This valley receives high pH run-off from a watershed rich in serpentinizing olivines and eroding borate minerals. The runoff contains borate-stabilized carbohydrates, formamide, and ammonium formate. As atmospheric CO2 dissolves in the subaerial aquifer, the pH of the aquifer is lowered. In the desert valley, evaporation of water, a solvent with a nucleophilic “background reactivity”, leaves behind formamide, a solvent with an electrophilic “background reactivity”. As a result, nucleobases, formylated nucleobases, and formylated carbohydrates, including formylated ribose, can form. Well-known chemistry transforms these structures into nucleosides, nucleotides, and partially formylated oligomeric RNA.

          So you quote mined an abstract that we can all read in full, in other words not just a quote miner but an incompetent one.

        • Greg G.

          I gave him the link but he can’t get past the statement of the problem the hypothesis is trying to solve. I have quoted it to him more than once, embolding the sentence you did or the sentence before it. His cognitive dissonance catches the implication and shuts down his conscious thought before it can sink in, it seems.

        • epeeist

          I gave him the link but he can’t get past the statement of the problem the hypothesis is trying to solve.

          It’s the old false dichotomy thing that is common to all the creationists I have ever come across; there is a “problem” with X (where X is evolution or abiogenesis) in that it cannot explain everything; therefore X is false; therefore god-did-it wins because it is the only other possible explanation.

          His cognitive dissonance catches the implication and shuts down his conscious thought before it can sink in, it seems.

          I don’t think it gets that far, I think he is just engaging in that kind of confirmation bias called motivated reasoning.

    • David Cromie

      Complete balderdash!

      • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

        Actually no. Read that interview. Stanley Miller gives me much evidence on which to base my assertions.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      “it assumes, without compelling evidence, that a supernatural being created everything” You really mean evidence that does not convince you.

      No, evidence that doesn’t convince science.

      For me, the evidence keeps coming in to indicate that life based on DNA and RNA did not come about by natural causes.

      OK, but I hope that neither you nor I are impressed by your evaluation of the evidence (unless you’re a biologist).

      He firmly believes that life on this planet arose by natural causes, but his discoveries keep pointing in the opposite direction.

      So he’s a scientist who’s an atheist. And he’s an argument for your position . . . how?

      The instability of ribose is a big big obstacle. He has abandoned the RNA first hypothesis, he has abandoned the hot ocean vents hypothesis.

      So you’re saying that abiogenesis is an unsolved problem. Yeah, I knew that. But what’s your point?

      Here’s a thought experiment: 10 years from now, there is a theory for abiogenesis that the consensus of biologists accept. What are you going to do with that? Here’s my prediction: it will be some combination of (1) quibbling with the conclusion so that you can pretend you have good reasons for rejecting it and/or (2) moving on to some other unanswered question within science and hoping we forget your failure with backing this horse.

      Did I guess right?

      • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

        “No, evidence that doesn’t convince science.” Not an accurate statement. That evidence has convinced many experts in the field.

        “OK, but I hope that neither you nor I are impressed by your evaluation of the evidence”. One does not need to be a biologist to see the contradictions. Ribose and deoxyribose are unstable, cytosine is even more unstable I just learned a few minutes ago that guanine is also unstable. Craig Venter discovered that to get DNA from scratch requires careful control and monitoring, water hydrolyzes nucleic acid. All these and much more are excellent reasons to conclude that DNA and RNA based life did not come about by natural causes. Where is the flaw in my logic?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “No, evidence that doesn’t convince science.” Not an accurate statement. That evidence has convinced many experts in the field.

          When it has convinced the consensus of relevant scientists, get back to me.

          And just to make sure we’re on the same page, what field does “experts in the field” refer to? Are you referring to biology or to science in general or to something else?

          “OK, but I hope that neither you nor I are impressed by your evaluation of the evidence”. One does not need to be a biologist to see the contradictions.

          Help me understand your position. Fill in the blank: “Though I’m not a biologist, I will reject the consensus view of biologists—that is, those people who actually understand the evidence, unlike me—because ___.”

          Ribose and deoxyribose are unstable, cytosine is even more unstable I just learned a few minutes ago that guanine is also unstable.

          You sound pretty confident. Let’s see how much: tell me that your Christian faith rides on science never reaching a consensus on abiogenesis and that if it does, your Christian faith will crumble.

          If not, then your argument is simply “Science has unanswered questions.” Uh, yeah, that’s right. And I don’t know where you want to go with that tautology.

          Where is the flaw in my logic?

          Is this a trick question? You’re rejecting the consensus of a field of science to which you’re an outsider. You might say that you’re pretty good for an amateur. That may well be, but that changes nothing.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          “When it has convinced the consensus of relevant scientists, get back to me.” So Don’t think for yourself, just swallow what the consensus is?

          As for experts in the field, I meant biologists with PhD’s.. One is Dr. Simon Garte; another is Professor František (Frank) Vyskočil of Charles University in Prague. Both abandoned atheism as a result of discoveries they themselves made.

          “You’re rejecting the consensus of a field of science to which you’re an outsider. You might say that you’re pretty good for an amateur. That may well be, but that changes nothing.” Like I said, think for yourself; don’t just swallow what the experts say. And my thinking for myself does not answer the question, “Where is the flaw in my logic?”

        • Michael Neville

          Like I said, think for yourself; don’t just swallow what the experts say.

          You’re saying that we should ignore what thousands of experts say because a rank amateur whose honesty is suspect says he doesn’t accept it. Sorry, Mr. Gilman, but that is the opposite of a convincing argument.

          And my thinking for myself does not answer the question, “Where is the flaw in my logic?”

          Does the phrase “Dunning-Kruger Effect” mean anything to you?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So Don’t think for yourself, just swallow what the consensus is?

          Sometimes you’re not the smartest guy in the room. Life’s a bitch, ain’t it? When you’re a layman with respect to a scientific field and that field has a consensus, yes, you sit down and swallow it. What else can you do??

          If you want to get educated, that’s great. If you want to get that PhD and become a fellow scholar in that field, then I will respect your saying whatever you want against the consensus. Until then, not a chance.

          As for experts in the field, I meant biologists with PhD’s.. One is Dr. Simon Garte; another is Professor František (Frank) Vyskočil of Charles University in Prague. Both abandoned atheism as a result of discoveries they themselves made.

          That says nothing about laymen like me rejecting the scientific consensus.

          But to your point: do these scientists have anything interesting to say to me about the validity of Christianity? Otherwise, I don’t know why you introduce them.

        • adam

          “Craig Venter discovered that to get DNA from scratch requires careful control and monitoring, ”

          LIAR

          What Venter discovered was that DNA could be produced under certain conditions.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ae97f946c372f0c383b185246d5fb96c16e496e1fda9fbce601351eac4aab4df.jpg

    • adam

      “If “I don’t know” is acceptable, then “God did it should also be acceptable””

      However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the
      foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of
      such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your
      land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your
      children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like
      this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated
      this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8638fdedfe8fad3b245ca0981085794967c878d6bfba020d03d8b426a1c98936.jpg

      • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

        Took you a bit longer than I expected for you to resort to the Mosaic laws. Let’s get back to scientific evidence.

        The evidence currently says that life based on DNA and RNA did not form by natural causes.

        • adam

          “The evidence currently says that life based on DNA and RNA did not form by natural causes.”

          No it doesnt.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          It does Look at the article in this link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC20907/. Its by atheists who firmly believe in abiogenesis in spite of the fact that : “Therefore, unless the origin of life took place extremely rapidly
          (<100 yr), we conclude that a high-temperature origin of life may be
          possible, but it cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine, or cytosine." That only leaves thymine! Why should I believe any of that?

        • adam
        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          No science again; only another insult. Many Christians are scientists.

        • adam

          “No science again”

          I know, look I understand you dont understand science/

          ” only another insult.”

          Stupidity deserves insults.

        • Michael Neville

          Why are you arguing about science with a bunch of non-scientists? Why aren’t you on a biology blog arguing with biologists? Is it because you know they’d blow you out of the water?

        • Greg G.

          He stopped posting several hours ago after posting prolifically. He had pooh-poohed my knowledge of biochemistry, then I caught him making a clearly incorrect understanding of how DNA works and pointed it out, about five minutes after epeeist gave him a math problem. I don’t know what chased him off. Maybe it was time for his nap. Maybe he just lost his curiousity. (see his profile).

        • epeeist

          about five minutes after epeeist gave him a math problem

          About 5m after you say. It must therefore have been my post that scared him off 😉

          In general I find that creationists are innumerate and incapable of even the simplest of calculations. In this case I thought this was so in that he referenced a paper that was about hydrolysis at high temperatures and tried to claim it as valid regardless of temperature.

        • Susan

          Many Christians are scientists.

          For that reason, I disagree with Adam’s meme above.

          But you seem to be relying on an argument from ignorance….

          which only supports Adam’s meme.

          Give us an example where christian scientists who made breakthroughs in science did anything but science to do so.

        • epeeist

          No science again; only another insult. Many Christians are scientists.

          Certainly some Christians are scientists as are some Muslims, some Hindus and some Buddhists, but many? If you look at the surveys you will find that only 7% of the American National Academy of Science are believers in a personal god and in the British Royal Society the figure is 3%. In fact the proportion of scientists in general who are believers is much smaller than in the general population.

        • adam

          “Took you a bit longer than I expected for you to resort to the Mosaic laws. ”

          Why?

          You brought it up.

          “God did it should also be acceptable”

          but you did not defend this claim either.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          I brought up the Mosaic Law? In which comment or reply?

        • adam

          You brought it up.

          “God did it should also be acceptable”

          but you did not defend this claim either.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          I did defend the claim. However, please indicate where I quoted the Mosaic Law.

        • MNb

          “Let’s get back to scientific evidence”
          Good idea. The synonym for scientific method is methodological naturalism. How does that make sense, using scientific evidence (ie something natural) for a supernatural entity?
          How can evidence derived from our natural reality lead to the conclusion that the cause is not natural?

    • MNb

      “If “I don’t know” is acceptable, then “God did it should also be acceptable”
      Sure – just don’t call it science.

      “For me, the evidence keeps coming ….”
      Evidence by definition is derived from our natural reality. How does that make sense, jumping from natural reality to a supernatural entity like god?
      Plus – why is it evidence for god iso say fairies?

      • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

        “Therefore, unless the origin of life took place extremely rapidly
        (<100 yr), we conclude that a high-temperature origin of life may be
        possible, but it cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine, or cytosine." That is from this site: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC20907/ If those are so unstable (read the whole article) that only leaves thymine; why should I believe it?

        • MNb

          Thanks for not addressing anything I wrote.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Oh really? You mean that the fact that only thymine would be available means nothing?

        • adam
        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          I did; several times: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar200332w. Look for:

          “So why does the community not view this discontinuous synthesis model as
          compelling evidence for the RNA-first hypothesis for the origin of
          life? In part, the model is deficient because no experiments have joined
          together those steps without human intervention.”

          and :

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC20907/ Look for:

          “Therefore, unless the origin of life took place extremely rapidly
          (<100 yr), we conclude that a high-temperature origin of life may be
          possible, but it cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine, or cytosine."

        • adam

          You’ve presented two papers that look at very specific conditions and very specific claims.

          THAT doesnt eliminate natural evolution.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1c55e3055fbaa0d2894e33afdb875d1346cfb559c4cd84f8ea97adb857b705bb.jpg

        • Joe

          He’s cherry picking single sentences out of entire papers that support abiogenesis as a basis for his argument.

          I don’t think I can be bothered with this type of stupidity.

        • Greg G.

          That’s why I started calling him “a creationist quoteminer.” He doesn’t understand that a paper will often mention the problem they are trying to solve then tell how their work helps to solve the problem. He treats that as their conclusion. He was quoting it all over the place.

        • Susan

          That’s why I started calling him “a creationist quoteminer”

          I’m not sure he is the direct culprit. It’s just that he seems to have only read the quotemining. I’m not sure (as I’ve only just met him) that he is intentionally quotemining, so much as accepting the quotemining provided for him.

          I sure wish he would read the papers for context, though.

          That science tries to study and discover answers for what it doesn’t “know” is one of the principle reasons there is science.

          It’s like a gazillion to nil in favour of methodological naturalism over non-methodological supernaturalism.

          But theists seem to think that every point science hasn’t scored yet is a point for them.

          And that’s not how it works.

          On any scoreboard.

        • Greg G.

          I’m not sure he is the direct culprit. It’s just that he seems to have only read the quotemining. I’m not sure (as I’ve only just met him) that he is intentionally quotemining, so much as accepting the quotemining provided for him.

          I cited the abstract of a paper proposing a hypothesis. An early paragraph stated the problem their hypothesis was trying to explain, which is basically what he has been harping on. Then he started quoting from that one particular paragraph over and over within minutes. I don’t think he got that source or that paragraph from anyone but me.

          But theists seem to think that every point science hasn’t scored yet is a point for them.

          And that’s not how it works.

          On any scoreboard.

          One must use the Argument from Ignorance when it is all one has.

        • Susan

          I cited the abstract of a paper proposing a hypothesis. An early paragraph stated the problem their hypothesis was trying to explain, which is basically what he has been harping on. Then he started quoting from that one particular paragraph over and over within minutes. I don’t think he got that source or that paragraph from anyone but me.

          True. That makes him look like an apologist. Not someone interested in any subject if it doesn’t linevitably lead to their version of Yahwehjesus (or some other unevidenced deity).

          Do they have anything but apologists and Atheist Butts in Fake Moustaches?

          As Kodie has implored many times (and I’m paraphrasing):

          “Can’t (your deity) send us an honest christian?”

          One must use the Argument from Ignorance when it is all one has

          Yahwehjesus-of-the-gaps in my part of the world.

          =====

          Edit: 3 minutes later ’cause Disqus decided to post before I meant to.

          (Must remember to keep the heel of my hand off the laptop).

        • Greg G.

          The first post from him that I read was to say that if “I don’t know” was an acceptable answer, then “God did it” should be as well. He just didn’t seem to get that “I don’t know” was an honest answer.

        • Susan

          The first post from him that I read was to say that if “I don’t know” was an acceptable answer, then “God did it” should be as well.

          Yes. Without defining “God” and without acknowledging one was a claim of not knowing (which seems to be accurate, without disconfirming data) and one is a claim of knowing, without showing any work.

          “I don’t know’ was an honest answer.

          And an accurate one.

          And we wouldn’t have science (which is ahead by a gazillion to nothing at this point) if someone could show that “I don’t know” is the same as “my (mumble-my version -mumble of a god) did it”.

          Instead, we have special pleading.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          God can still exist even if I have not defined him; He can still exist even if my definition of Him is wrong.

        • adam

          “God can still exist even if I have not defined him;”

          them demonstrate ‘him’

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5df43b70f3165705b7b26bc01b69d3c08f116a133c1502cc3c3ad70913af2106.jpg

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          God could still exist and not be anything like you want him to be. Would you still call him God?

          Suffering is either necessary or unnecessary.
          If suffering achieves no purpose, then it is unnecessary.
          If suffering can achieve a purpose, then it is logically possible to achieve that purpose.
          If there is an omnipotent being, then it can achieve the logically possible purpose.
          If an omnipotence can achieve the purpose, then it is unnecessary for suffering to achieve the purpose.
          If an omnipotence exists then it has chosen for sentient beings to suffer unnecessarily.
          If a being has chosen for sentient beings to suffer unnecessarily, then it is sadistic.
          Suffering exists.
          Therefore, no non-sadistic omnipotence exists.

          The being doesn’t need to be omnipotent. We can substitute a being that is sufficiently powerful to prevent all suffering.

          If you want to claim free will to counter the argument, we can make the third line:

          “If suffering can achieve a purpose without inhibiting free will, then it is logically possible to achieve that purpose without inhibiting free will.”

          Then go from there.

          Option 1: God as an omnipotent sadist. Who wants to spend eternity with that?
          Option 2: God is benevolent but impotent against suffering. If this universe can have suffering after a few billion years, eternity will be hell. I think my old dog would have wished that nobody suffered but was not powerful enough to prevent much suffering, and so would most people.
          Option 3: There is no god thingy and we live in an indifferent universe where pain is necessary for survival and incidentally results in all kinds of suffering because it is not perfect.

          But by observing suffering we can rule out all concepts of an omnipotent and benevolent being.

        • Michael Neville

          Do you have any evidence that your or any other god exists? If so, bring it out so we can examine it.

        • Prof_M

          You did define god…to be a male!

        • Susan

          God can still exist even if I have not defined him.

          But you haven’t even explained what might exist. What are you claiming and how do you support it?

          I’ll note that you ignored the rest of the post.

          One is a claim and one is not. .

          @ epeeist put it much more precisely at least twice..

          “One is an ontological commitment and one is not.”

          I’m not nearly as smart or as well-trained as epeeist.

          So, I just ask people what they are claiming and how they support it.

          What are you claiming and how do you support it?

        • Michael Neville

          Susan, you may not be as well educated as epeeist but you are easily as smart as him.

        • Susan

          That’s kind of you to say, Michael but I disagree.

          It’s OK. It’s not a competition. I don’t have to be exceptionally smart to recognize nonsense when I see it.

        • TheNuszAbides

          but you do have to be more intellectually honest than, say, that Lockett guy.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Both ar honest answers.

        • adam

          “Both ar honest answers.”

          Nope, they are not.

          http://www.godisimaginary.com

        • epeeist

          Both ar honest answers.

          No, “I don’t know” is honest, “God did it” is an ontological commitment and therefore requires justification, making a claim without justification is dishonest.

        • adam

          then you can demonstrate that this “God” of yours is anything but IMAGINARY?

        • Greg G.

          “I think God did it” would be an honest answer but “God did it” is no more honest than saying “the Tooth Fairy did it”.

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s your evidence that your god even exists? GODDIDIT can’t happen if your god is merely a figment of the imagination.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          I am not an apologist. I merely show where they contradict themselves. I already know that the components can form under purely natural conditions, however the polymerization does not occur without human intervention and the nucleic acid is always hydrolized by the very water in which they are formed.

        • adam

          ” I merely show where they contradict themselves.”

          But you didnt.
          Due to your lack of scientific understanding and lack of comprehension of the articles you linked to, all you’ve done is demonstrate your IGNORANCE.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eb8a7e73957ded447269085abf01df5d5cb0416d10b2f8752001a8d27bc8e2d9.jpg

        • Greg G.

          Now show that the nucleic acid cannot form in a solvent after the water has evaporated.

        • Michael Neville

          You most certainly are an apologist.

          apologist, noun. a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial Oxford Living Dictionary

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Argument from ignorance? The thermodynamics are wrong! They contradict themselves! You keep harping on the fact that the components are available. I already know that!

        • adam

          “Argument from ignorance?”

          Obviously

          ” The thermodynamics are wrong!”

          Obviously you dont understand the paper you are referencing.

        • Greg G.

          Argument from ignorance?

          When you cite something that science cannot explain and stick God in there, you are using the Argument from Ignorance.

          Are you questioning that because you don’t understand Argument from Ignorance? Many people feel that they are being insulted by that when it is not about personal ignorance but the ignorance of science. The fallacy is that the ignorance does not imply that there is no reasonable explanation.

          The thermodynamics are wrong!

          You haven’t ruled out every explanation.

        • adam
        • Joe

          It’s like a gazillion to nil in favour of methodological naturalism over non-methodological supernaturalism.

          But theists seem to think that every point science hasn’t scored yet is a point for them.

          I’d love to play poker against these people, who pretend not to know how odds work.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          There is no antagonism between science and the bible. The two antagonisms are:

          1. Between what the bible says and what most theists says it says.
          2. Between what scientific evidence says and what atheistic scientists say it says.

        • adam
        • adam

          “There is no antagonism between science and the bible. The two antagonisms are:”

          I am going to let STUPID stand, with your own self-contradictory words.

        • Prof_M

          1 and 2 look like “antagonism between science and the bible.”

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          No quotemining from me. I merely show where they are being self-contradicting. The polymerization does not occur without human intervention and the nucleic acid is always hydrolized by the very water in which the polymerization occurs. The thermodunamics are wrong!

        • Greg G.

          Read the whole abstract as an abstract. An abstract is not the conclusion of their study. It states the problem they are addressing, not contradicting itself. The abstract explains the role water plays and how it is removed from the solution – by evaporation!

        • adam
        • Joe

          Reminds me of one of the trolls we had a while back. I think it was Kir, but it could have been anyone from the rogues gallery.

          They quoted Steven Hawking from A Briefer History of Time apparently saying the universe appears to be designed. When I pointed out that, in the very next chapter, Hawking addresses why that isn’t the case, I was accused of not understanding what Hawking had said!

          When people like this post quotations or papers from scientists, you can always bet that it is a quote mine from something that undermines their argument.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          No quote mine from me! I merely point out where they are being self-contradicting.

        • adam

          ” I merely point out where they are being self-contradicting.”

          But they are not.

          It is YOU who are being self-contradicting.
          Apparently because YOU can’t comprehend what you are linking to.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cb49f25b842aef4e0a6e36dccd4c0d86c43e6e95e934f6a511dc718c5fd1fac3.jpg

        • Greg G.

          You were reading the abstract of a hypothesis. It would be weird to not state the problem that they are trying to explain. They are not contradicting themselves. You thought that because you are reading like a creationist.

        • adam
        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          They haven’t said how to overcome the fact that the thermodynamics is wrong. They have not addressed the problem that the very water in which the polymerization occurs will slowly destroy the molecules. By their own admission, the polymerization does not occur without human intervention. I have no reason to believe any of that self-contradiction.

        • adam

          ” By their own admission, the polymerization does not occur without human intervention.”

          Nope, not what was said at all.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/23e7092c60a928b6349cc029fd75cb332f18c86daab1c6a4e4f8fe6cef114c6c.jpg

        • Greg G.

          They have not addressed the problem that the very water in which the polymerization occurs will slowly destroy the molecules.

          You are showing that you didn’t even read the whole abstract. Do you understand what an abstract is? From the last paragraph at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar200332w :

          Our hypothesis centers on a geological model that synthesizes RNA in a prebiotic intermountain dry valley (not in a marine environment). This valley receives high pH run-off from a watershed rich in serpentinizing olivines and eroding borate minerals. The runoff contains borate-stabilized carbohydrates, formamide, and ammonium formate. As atmospheric CO2 dissolves in the subaerial aquifer, the pH of the aquifer is lowered. In the desert valley, evaporation of water, a solvent with a nucleophilic “background reactivity”, leaves behind formamide, a solvent with an electrophilic “background reactivity”.

          Their hypothesis has water washing minerals and hydrocarbons into a puddle which evaporates, leaving a solvent solution. If you want more details, download the paper.

        • adam

          “They haven’t said how to overcome the fact that the thermodynamics is wrong.”

          Because they are not stupid enough to make the fallacious claim that thermodynamics is wrong.
          See, they ACTUALLY understand science, where you do not.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ef407d23e2be8fcdc9acf3948763219ef19d1e53c08d25a1c440a62047a02d28.jpg

        • adam

          “I don’t think I can be bothered with this type of stupidity.”

          I can be bothered just far enough to point how how IDiotic he is.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          The idiots are the ones making these self-contradictory statements.

          If the thermodynamics is wrong, why should I accept their inferences?

          By their own admission, the very water in which the polymerization occurs will slowly destroy the molecules.

        • adam

          “The idiots are the ones making these self-contradictory statements.”

          That would be YOU, by claiming sources that contradict your claims.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6fdb39aadd75100b6a42a22589cc237e66125efb7c16def734b5dcc49a03caaa.jpg

        • epeeist

          If the thermodynamics is wrong, why should I accept their inferences?

          What has thermodynamics got to do with chemical kinetics?

        • Greg G.

          You certainly shouldn’t accept your own inferences because you can’t even read an abstract.

        • adam
        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Stupidity? Cherry picking? Nope; I merely indicate where they are being self-contradictory. If the thermodynamics is wrong, why should I accept their inferences?

          By their own admission, the very water in which the polymerization occurs will slowly destroy the molecules.

        • adam

          ” Nope; I merely indicate where they are being self-contradictory.”

          Nope, the ONLY thing your have indicated is where YOU are being self-contradictory.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d2f6c5ee819e85cc536f06ee9978ca5014843d0c6cea2e0be451a34308697efe.jpg

        • Joe

          ‘”The thermodynamics”?

          What thermodynamics? You don’t understand the basic terms you use.

        • epeeist

          He’s cherry picking single sentences out of entire papers

          I think the most extreme example I have seen is a creationist who picked three words out of a 7-page paper.

        • adam

          But see you havent demonstrated that that was the case.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          I have demonstrated that it is an unreasonable expectation under every scenario ever presented.

          “RNA has been called a “prebiotic chemist’s nightmare” because of its
          combination of large size, carbohydrate building blocks, bonds that are
          thermodynamically unstable in water, and overall intrinsic instability.”

          The components are possible under purely natural conditions, however,:

          “So why does the community not view this discontinuous synthesis model as
          compelling evidence for the RNA-first hypothesis for the origin of
          life? In part, the model is deficient because no experiments have joined
          together those steps without human intervention. Further, many steps in
          the model have problems. Some are successful only if reactive compounds
          are presented in a specific order in large amounts. Failing controlled
          addition, the result produces complex mixtures that are inauspicious
          precursors for biology, a situation described as the “asphalt problem”.
          Many bonds in RNA are thermodynamically unstable with respect to
          hydrolysis in water, creating a “water problem”. Finally, some bonds in
          RNA appear to be “impossible” to form under any conditions considered
          plausible for early Earth.”

          The thermodynamics simply doe not allow it.

        • adam

          “I have demonstrated that it is an unreasonable expectation under every scenario ever presented.”

          No, you havent, and you are just lying about it.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • Greg G.

          You are only considering that it happens in an ocean. You have not ruled out a fresh water puddle where the water evaporates, which concentrates the solvents and everything else.

        • Prof_M

          So, lets assume that the authorities you cite successfully falsify abiogenesis as it is currently explained. What is the reasonable next step: use methodological naturalism (i.e., the scientific method), or reject it, wave our hands, and go back to church? I’m at a loss of what your arguing for: keep the hypothesis of abiogenesis, but modify it and continue the hard work of science; or, reject it and replace it with a theistic hypothesis? (Are you associated with the Discovery Institute?)

        • Joe

          So abiogenesis was either rapid, or occurred at low temperatures? Is that what you’re saying?

        • epeeist

          Is that what you’re saying?

          No, he is saying that because it was unlikely at high temperature then it is impossible in all circumstances, therefore his god did it.

        • David Cromie

          In spite of the extreme temperatures?

        • epeeist

          With magic anything is possible. Of course with magic there can be no science.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          However with God, we do get evidence 😀

          God did not use magic.

        • adam

          “However with God, we do get evidence :-D”

          then you would not need faith….

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/25e032ca775a5b0649f633dd4d3fb27d0d2dc8839eb06577678220a8f2ac721a.jpg

          “God did not use magic.”

          God is ONLY magic.

        • Joe

          I know, I’m trying to bait him into more self-contradiction.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Failed!

        • Greg G.

          You are still showing that you did not read or understand the abstract or what an abstract is.

        • adam

          Yep, you’ve pretty much topped out on self-contradiction.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          They are the ones contradicting themselves; you’re just not recognizing it. It is known that of all the components of RNA, only thymine is stable. All the other components are unstable. The worst being cytosine and ribose comes a close second. The “community” as they call it do not find their evidence compelling (their admission). RNA does not form without human interferrence, and when it forms, the water is pulling it apart. They have not addressed that!

        • adam

          “They are the ones contradicting themselves;”

          No, they are not, you are just incapable, apparently of comprehension of information you are citing.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/57d8812041d27bff15f48eb5ac5edd1f3cb26a8df7bfd55a8bae3b5a093d53c8.jpg

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          They have contradicted themselves. They know the biochemistry. There is a cult of ignorance all around the globe. Instead of thinking for themselves, people simply swallow what is being told to them. I am not an anti-intellectualist. By their own admission, they have not given evidence that convinces even their own colleagues.

          Remember this?

          So why does the community not view this discontinuous synthesis model as
          compelling evidence for the RNA-first hypothesis for the origin of
          life? In part, the model is deficient because no experiments have joined
          together those steps without human intervention. Further, many steps in
          the model have problems. Some are successful only if reactive compounds
          are presented in a specific order in large amounts. Failing controlled
          addition, the result produces complex mixtures that are inauspicious
          precursors for biology, a situation described as the “asphalt problem”.
          Many bonds in RNA are thermodynamically unstable with respect to
          hydrolysis in water, creating a “water problem”. Finally, some bonds in
          RNA appear to be “impossible” to form under any conditions considered
          plausible for early Earth.

          It does not convince their colleagues for the very good reasons stated, yet we are to accept it?

        • adam

          “They have contradicted themselves. ”

          No, they havent, and you havent demonstrated such.
          All you’ve demonstrated is your IDIOCY.

          ” Instead of thinking for themselves, people simply swallow what is being told to them.”

          No, science is all about testing and evaluating the evidence.

          The only people to swallow what they are told are theists.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/06091f1f3465af170c19826d987e626590fa562e338c588cf4278fb694454f4f.jpg

          ” I am not an anti-intellectualist.”

          OK, so you are just ignorant with a comprehension problem.

          ” In part, the model is deficient because no experiments have joined together those steps without human intervention.”

          Not our problem you dont understand what a ‘model’ is.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • adam


          RNA does not form without human interferrence, and when it forms, the
          water is pulling it apart. They have not addressed that!

          they DID address that, you’re just not recognizing it, due to your inability to comprehend what you obviously didnt read.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Where did they say how to get around both problems? RNA will be slowly destroyed by water no matter how it is formed. Cytosine will deaminate, no matter how it is formed.

        • adam

          “All of these factors point to a low-temperature accumulation of organic
          compounds on the primitive Earth and a low-temperature origin of life.
          Therefore, atmospheric models suggesting a cool early Earth (≈ 0°C)
          rather than a warm one (12, 13) need to be considered.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • adam

          You are an IDIOT

        • epeeist

          RNA will be slowly destroyed by water no matter how it is formed

          At what sort of rate? You seem to have missed answering my question as to how the rate of hydrolysis changes with temperature. I was expecting at least an attempt to quantify this given that I provided you with the equation.

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          You did not get that perfectly correct. It is impossible at high temperatures and an unreasonable expectation at temperatures low enough to address the instability of the components.

        • epeeist

          It is impossible at high temperatures

          Nope, it is unlikely in the conditions specified in the paper you linked to.

          an unreasonable expectation at temperatures low enough to address the instability of the components.

          Why unreasonable, especially if it were catalysed in some way?

        • adam

          ” It is impossible at high temperatures ”

          Look I understand WHY christians have to lie.
          But to lie to obviously…

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          I am saying that if abiogenesis occurred, it would have had to be very rapidly. (the fossil records are unequivocally clear on that!) Also because of the great instability of the components, it would have had to be a very low temperatures. Both conditions make it unreasonable to believe that abiogenesis has ever occurred here.

        • Joe

          That’s not what the paper says.

        • MNb

          I didn’t write anything about thymine. So no, I didn’t meant that.
          The fact that you persist on trying to change the topic confirms what I wrote elsewhere: you are intellectually dishonest.

    • epeeist

      If “I don’t know” is acceptable, then “God did it should also be acceptable”

      Nah, that’s just an argument from ignorance.

      • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

        So is “I don’t know”. 😀

        • adam

          “So is “I don’t know”. :-D”

          At least it is honest.

          Apologetics is nothing if not dishonest….

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eb8a7e73957ded447269085abf01df5d5cb0416d10b2f8752001a8d27bc8e2d9.jpg

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          This is also honest: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar200332w. Look for:

          “So why does the community not view this discontinuous synthesis model as compelling evidence for the RNA-first hypothesis for the origin of life? In part, the model is deficient because no experiments have joined together those steps without human intervention.”

          I’ll go with what the evidence says rather than resorting to the dishonest, “We don’t know.”

        • adam

          “I’ll go with what the evidence says rather than resorting to the dishonest, “We don’t know.””

          But you dont, you dishonestly make a claim unsubstantiated by your link

          “This is also honest: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs…. Look for:”
          As a result, nucleobases, formylated nucleobases, and formylated
          carbohydrates, including formylated ribose, can form. Well-known
          chemistry transforms these structures into nucleosides, nucleotides, and
          partially formylated oligomeric RNA.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ec831d9facb36edd9b3ffe2e278ad5365e6a7e6a8e7c7ef5a0c29f4a0708f64b.jpg

          So are you THAT stupid or just THAT dishonest.

        • Michael Neville

          So are you THAT stupid or just THAT dishonest.

          Those choices are not mutually exclusive.

        • epeeist

          So is “I don’t know”. 😀

          Rubbish. Your claim that “God did it” is made despite the lack of evidence, hence a classic Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Whereas “I don’t know” makes no epistemic commitment whatsoever.

    • epeeist

      Here’s an interview with Stanley Miller.

      And that’s the problem with creationists, they simply don’t acknowledge things have moved on since the time of Miller (on abiogenesis) or Darwin (on evolution).

      • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

        I know that things have moved on. Miller’s experiments were based on a lie. The earth had oxygen in its atmosphere over 4 billion years ago. However adenine, uracil, guanine, and cytosine are still way too unstable for it to be reasonable to expect that DNA or RNA were possible on the prebiotic earth. Deoxyribose is less unstable, but still too unstable for it to be reasonable tho expect that it would be available, so that only leaves thymine. Some (including Miller) are proposing a pre-RNA world. One possibility that would have made Miller’s experiments relevant is PNA (peptide nucleic acids), however Miller was wrong about the composition of the early atmosphere and the only unit available for that nucleic acid would have been thymine.

        Dawkins and others have proposed meteorites as possible sources of the necessary material, however that still leaves the fact that adenine, uracil, guanine, and cytosine are too unstable.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The earth had oxygen in its atmosphere over 4 billion years ago.

          Yeah, some. Not much. Graph here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#/media/File:Sauerstoffgehalt-1000mj2.png

          What about panspermia? That expands the initial conditions.

          However adenine, uracil, guanine, and cytosine are still way too unstable for it to be reasonable to expect that DNA or RNA were possible on the prebiotic earth.

          Looks like you’ve broken some new ground here. What’s the status on publication of your paper? What has been the reaction of other researchers on this topic—have they been supportive?

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC20907/. Experts have already done that. Nobody has objected to any of this yet.

        • adam

          “All of these factors point to a low-temperature accumulation of organic
          compounds on the primitive Earth and a low-temperature origin of life. ”

          What’s to object to?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Dennis: this isn’t hard. If you’ve proven that abiogenesis is impossible, you have revolutionary data that is new to science. You need to do what it takes to get this into the biology mainstream.

          Unless … you’ve got nothing. Perhaps instead, you’re just cherry picking random papers that you imagine are obstacles to abiogenesis. Obstacles are very different from “it can’t happen.” Make clear which horse you’re backing.

        • adam

          ” the fact that adenine, uracil, guanine, and cytosine are too unstable.”

          Not a fact, just YOUR BASELESS uneducated, unsubstantiated CLAIM….

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5384be5f51cf510dfcc10cdfe33853ac2af771a7fcfadd6eae4080d22b61519f.jpg

        • http://DGilman.Gather.com/ Dennis M. Gilman

          Unsubstantiated? I merely cited the opinion of every expert. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC20907/

        • adam
        • adam

          Yes, that article doesnt support your point.

        • epeeist

          Miller’s experiments were based on a lie.

          No, they were based on an incorrect assumption about the earth’s atmosphere at the time.

          The earth had oxygen in its atmosphere over 4 billion years ago.

          Citation required, my understanding is that oxygen wasn’t present at the beginning of the Archean Eon.

          However adenine, uracil, guanine, and cytosine are still way too unstable for it to be reasonable to expect that DNA or RNA were possible on the prebiotic earth.

          Assume this is so, what does it show? Simply that these were unstable and that RNA was unlikely to have formed on the pre-biotic earth, nothing more. What it does not show is that therefore god-did-it is the only other possible explanation. If you do want to claim that your god created life then you need to demonstrate this. All hypotheses stand on their own merits, not on “problems” with other explanations.

    • Michael Neville

      If “I don’t know” is acceptable, then “God did it should also be acceptable”

      So which of the thousands of creator gods invented by the human imagination is acceptable? If you insist that your favorite god is the creator then you have to show that your favorite god exists. After that we can discuss whether or not this god did any creation.

  • Susana Gonzalez
    • adam
    • Greg G.

      Acts 21:25-26
      25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written our decision that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from food offered to idols, from blood, from strangled things, and from sexual immorality.”

      26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purified himself and went with them into the temple, declaring the fulfillment of the days of purification, until the offering was offered for every one of them.

      So we Gentiles shouldn’t be observing what you are telling us. We should donate money for the victims.

      • Michael Neville

        I prefer to keep myself from strangled things. I’m more of a stabby kind of person.

        • adam

          Back stabby like Trump or front stabby like the Mooch?

        • Michael Neville

          Front stabby but only because Trump is identified with back stabby.

        • adam

          Yeah, I assumed that already after a few conversations about Libertarianism.

          I have a lot of respect for front stabbers.

          You know where they are coming from.

      • Susan

        Genesis21: 25-26

        25 Then Abraham complained to Abimelek about a well of water that Abimelek’s servants had seized. 26 But Abimelek said, “I don’t know who has done this. You did not tell me, and I heard about it only today.”

        Exodus 21: 25-26

        25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

        26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye.

        Wow, this is freakishly prophetic stuff.

        Eclipses are a sign of… hmmm…

        • Greg G.

          I was trying to come up with a way to determine that Luke was the book to look at. The hurricane hit in the 8th month but Ruth is the 8th book of the Bible but has only 4 chapters. 2 Corinthians is the 8th book of the New Testament but it doesn’t have 21 chapters either. Then I remembered that August is named for Caesar Augustus and he is mentioned in the Bible at one place: Luke 2:1. So, there we have it. What more confirmation do we need?

          Does the solar eclipse have anything to do with “strange signs in the sun, moon, and stars”? The light from the sun is almost always striking the moon and the moon casts a shadow behind it. Why would it be strange that the shadow sometimes crosses the earth?

        • Susan

          I was trying to come up with a way

          I added 21, 25 and 26 together which gave me 72 which gave me 9. But the chapters and verses didn’t exists in the ninth book of either testament.

          So then, I added 2,1, 2, 5,2 and 6 together which gave me 18 which (and this was spooky) ALSO adds up to 9.

          So then, I searched the only book in the bible that started with the 9th letter of the alphabet but I didn’t like the answer as it didn’t support my position.

          So then, I calculated that the eclipse happened on the 233rd day of the year and the hurricane on the 237th.

          I added 2, 3, 3, 2, 3 and 7 and got 20 which gave me 2.

          Mark doesn’t contain chapter 21: 25-26 so we are left with the Exodus passage above.

          There is a deep truth there that we must search. The signs are all around us.

          Susanna has been listening to false prophets.

          I feel bad that God’s going to squish her wrath is going to fall upon her but that’s her choice.

          Many are called but few are chosen.

        • Greg G.

          Wait a minute… There are many Bible books that start with the 9th letter:
          I Samuel
          II Samuel
          I Kings
          II Kings
          I Chronicles
          II Chronicles
          Isaiah
          I Corinthians
          II Corinthians
          I Thessalonians
          II Thessalonians
          I Timothy
          II Timothy
          I Peter
          II Peter
          I John
          II John
          III John

        • TheNuszAbides

          hey, did the RCC ever officially shift from Roman numerology to Arabic? surely there’s a golden bull or something about it somewhere …