Believers: Make your best case for God

Are you really prepared for the word-games that will follow? “You can’t PROVE the existence of God, he loves us so much that he gives us the free choice to believe in him”.

These people have spent 2000 years mangling logic in order to create sentences that appear to bridge the discrepancies in their faiths. You will hear plenty of regurgitated, often mis-heard, statements of that type.

You know there is no verifiable evidence for any god of any kind worth calling God, Daniel. I’m worried that you will just start a flame-war between the delusional believers and those atheists who think that being right entitles you to tell everyone so.

(And I agree, David, the ability to edit posts for a short time would be jolly handy!)

I agree about the editing posts — unfortunately that’s not a feature on wordpress.com yet. At some point I’ll convert over to a self-hosted install, but I like wordpress.com because it’s cheap and handles my traffic spikes with ease.

I’m seriously interested in what believers will respond with. I always moderate out very offensive comments and occasionally stupidity. This thread will be no different.

I don’t expect anything mind-shattering, but if we had some theists respond who are of a similar mental caliber as many of the commenters here, it could be interesting.

@anon: I’m not asking for emotional pleas — I’m asking for verifiable evidence. I don’t think it exists, but I admit I could be wrong about that. Many theists claim to have evidence for God’s existence. My point is: if verifiable evidence does not exist, why expect us to believe? But if it does exist and I’m unaware of it, then I would have no problem believing.

And as for counterprodutive — we’ll see. It’s an experiment. It’s only counterproductive if you don’t care about these things and take time to read all the comments. :)

My faith in what was true came from the combined weight of a million tiny things. God never did one big road-to-damascus miracle, but there were little touches where I or people I knew went out on a limb – one example was a friend I knew feeling called to give money to charity which meant they had no money for diapers for their young son, only to have that evening another couple in the church who had recently had a girl (and therefore had no need of male diapers, bought against the possibility it would be a boy) came and offered them a small pile. It’s not earth shattering – none of them were, but to my mind they added up from a morass of circumstantial evidence to a compelling picture.

That, combined with a sense of peace received (although not always) through prayer, convinced me that it was true.

Looking back, there were other aspects – once decided on it’s truth I kind of resisted any doubts or questions as being the opposite of faith (not that that had been explicitly stated by any preacher, it just seemed obvious) and ended up kind of brainwashing myself into it.

Of course, that kind of basis is way open to confirmation bias, and testimony has a nasty reporting bias associated with it (just because you don’t hear people get up in church and relate the time they stepped out in faith and were let down doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen); airy feelings are pretty hard to rely on, and it’s not hard to see that meditating on ones problems – especially in the belief that you are expressing them to a concerned and active higher power – can produce a sense of peace and release that verges on psychosomatic.

I’m another believer in Jesus Christ, my God. I have to admit that there is nothing I can present to you for you to see, touch, or smell as evidence that He exists besides the Bible, the research and data that show that a historical Jesus existed. I agree that a “word-game” can get started here. I can say that the evidence that God exists is that He created us and everything we see, but of course, that is not an option for you.

I don’t think a believer in God can actually present God to you in person, and say, “Here He is. Say hello.” If someone could, believe me, I’d be the first in line to meet Him. The bottom line is that it is “my belief” that He exists. I choose to believe that He is a real God. It is my choice to accept everything that my God has to offer. That is my belief. The same goes for everyone that does not believe in a God. It is your choice and your belief.

Just as a Christian or any other theist will not be able to present the satisfactory evidence that God exists to the opposing party, the atheist finds himself/herself lacking the evidence that God does not exist. You have nothing more than just your personal belief. But that is the beauty of it all. That we as people have that right to believe as we prefer.

On a personal note, it does not offend me when I see atheists trying to disprove God. Yes, I wish everyone could share and enjoy everything my God offers, but I respect peoples’ beliefs. To tell you the truth, I have been enjoying reading Daniel Florein’s blog everysince I ran into his article on Santa and God. I find Daniel’s oppinions and views very interesting. Quite honestly, I use to be an atheist. But like most things in life, things happen and things change. Thanks.

This is truly low level Atheism. Your choice to stand and be counted among the god-free is great, but what you’re doing with articles like these is akin to forum trolling, argument baiting and to put it bluntly – this is childish.

You know what Theist will respond with – Faith. So why not accept who you are, acknowledge the differences and move on? I’d understand if you we’re doing something productive or making an attempt to foster open discussion with Theist, but thats not what you’re doing.

Spend more time teaching Atheist how to co-exist in a country dominated by Christians and less time pointing out the differences in our beliefs and the hypocrisy involved with religion. I fear that as more and more people stand as god-free, the more Atheism will resemble other religions. You’re inviting verbal war over our differences in this forum – how long until its just plain war? Atheist are already the least trusted group in the United States; why continue to be smug and invite conflict?

Be better.

Score so far: Juan C. believes because he believes. He acknowledges that neither necessary nor sufficient evidence for this belief is available, possibly not even conceivable.

OK, who’s next? At least, someone, give is the ontological argument.

give US. yeesh.

> 10 X = typing(David)
> 20 print X

> run

Sucks!

>

“I’d be most interested in hearing why a specific god is real when all others are not. Given that I could summon up sufficient beliefiness (I know that’s not a word, but I’m trying to avoid saying ‘credulity’!) to ascribe to a religion, what is it that makes yours true when others make claims no more or less outlandish?”

Exactly.

Tell me what makes the Farie Tale true, and why all the other Faire Tales are wrong.

So, non-believers, here is your chance. Convince logical believers there is no God. Give us verifiable evidence for the lack of existence. Pitch your best logical case for why we shouldnt believe in a deity.

Oh an while you’re at it please prove to me that I exist.

I’ll point out that what Daniel is asking for isn’t proof (which doesn’t exist outside of pure mathematics), but evidence. The “best logical case” for why you shouldn’t believe in Zeus, or Jehovah, or Amon Ho-tep, or even invisible pink unicorns is that there’s no evidence that they exist. Until that evidence is produced, there’s simply no reason to accept that they’re real. And I’ll wager that you agree with me for at least three items on that list.

And as for evidence that you exist? Do you own a mirror?

@Jimminy Christmas

Please illuminate me with a discussion not just attempts put me down.

I’m not even sure what empirical evidence for a deity would look like. Any deity, presumably, could offer such evidence; it’s essentially impossible to extract it from an unwilling deity (if the deity is omnipotent and omniscient).

What specific predictions do religions make?

The existence of any spirit seems to predict that there is an utterly intangible (read: has no affect on any physical process) component to some/all physical entities. Dark matter is downright friendly compared to spirit-stuff. By definition, we can’t test to see if this is real. We can only test that which affects physical reality. If spirits can interact with the physical world at will, then perhaps this predicts that we will see forces that can’t be accounted for by any conceivable physical process. How do we distinguish these forces from those produced by physical processes we don’t fully understand? We would need the ghostly equivalent of aliens landing on the White House lawn: large scale independent verification by many sources.

Most religions predict that piety and/or prayer will result in the deity’s favor. They carefully explain, though, that this doesn’t necessarily translate into any measurable affect on their lives before death: the only guaranteed reward is in the future, in a spiritual (and thus unmeasurable) existence. Practically speaking, most people expect to be rewarded before death, but this isn’t promised in specific enough terms to give us something to test. Given the widely divergent lives of people of all supernatural belief systems, physical rewards certainly don’t seem evenly distributed.

In my opinion, religions “evolved” similarly to organisms: the surviving major religions have survived in the modern world expressly because they make vague enough predictions that you can’t directly test them. People have worked over the details and ground off the rough edges so that almost anybody’s existence seems to provide enough reasons to believe, without ever promising any tangible evidence. You can climb Olympus and see the peak is bare. You can perform a rain dance and observe the lack of effect on local weather patterns. You can’t pin lack of divine favor on a god whose own stories depict the suffering of the faithful.

I forgot to add.

In defense of Christianity: For some people – its all they have. Being faithless is a luxury. When all you have is poverty or a jail cell or a life otherwise devoid of love warmth and understanding, it can be comforting to know that someone – even some guy who lived 2000+ years ago, loves you.

For some people its all they got. Yes, it defies logic, but logic hasn’t worked for many Christians lives.

That’s the second mention of war. I hope something like that can be avoided at all cost. What a waste of life, energy, resources, and time. I don’t see why ANYONE would want a war.

@Juan: Then we can all agree we can’t prove something doesn’t exist. It’s impossible, and none of us here believe that God can be proven not to exist.

But to believe something — especially something extraordinary — requires positive proof. Otherwise, we could believe absolutely anything. That’s why I’m asking for evidence.

Does that make sense?

@Everyone:

Let’s try and keep our tones civil and respectful on both sides. I don’t want this to degrade into a flamewar.

Daniel,

“But to believe something — especially something extraordinary — requires positive proof.”

But doesn’t this depend on the believer? I may say I have “proof”, but my proof may not be acceptable by you.

@ Jesse

Well said. Here is a something that is worth adding or expanding on if you are able, because I would like to hear your thoughts.

Many religions, in fact most, say that spirits/gods primarily act through individuals, either empowering them or smiting them or what have you. How would you account for the possibility that this ‘spirit’ essence was only able to affect reality as we perceive it by acting either on large populaces as a whole, or through specific individuals in a subjective manner? The results would look very similar to as yet to be fully defined factors such as sociological movements and or other forces we have not yet accounted for as you said.

I would also argue against the idea of afterlife only rewards as most religions that do only that would not keep people around for very long. If there wasnt at least some subjective or personal reward (or in some cases punishment for leaving) in the religion then why would anyone stay with it? Especial in ancient times when it was easy to move from one belief to another?

I’m not a believer, but I’m married to one. So I have some idea how to do this.

You can believe in God if you want to. You just need to define the concept to your liking. After all, there is no universal consensus on God.

For the purpose of my relationship, I define God as “whatever causes the universe (or multiverse) to exist.”

It is indeed provable, since the universe does indeed exist.

That’s not a very specific definition (and it means God could be nothing more than a set of physical principles), but I think many theists will find it acceptable (as a broad definition.)

You have a point about not having seen gods, but do you really believe that humans of history did all the work in building monuments and statues without any evidence guiding their belief?

Yes. By your logic, if I were to say no, we would have to assume the Egyptians had “evidence” (I do not think that word means what you think it means) of Ra, Isis, and Osiris. The Romans had “evidence” of Jupiter and Saturn. The Greeks of Zeus and Apollo. And on and on and on ad infinitum back to the earliest days of human history and beyond.

And of course all those monuments serve as some sort of evidence

Yes. They serve as evidence that a group of people believed something at some time, and that a group of people had a lot of money and/or manpower at their disposal.

Do you think that even now the religious of the world have no subjective ‘evidence’ which creates the foundation of their belief?

I am am certain that the religious have a boatload of “subjective evidence”, just no empirical evidence. We have words for subjective evidence, such as “feelings” and “opinion”.

Obviously its not proof, but personal perception, be it seeing or feeling are valid inputs for anyone when attempting to determine the nature of reality

And when those feelings and inputs are tested and found to be supported by the data and empirical evidence, that’s called “science”.

Looking into a mirror and refusing to believe you exist is called “insanity”.

I think it’s interesting that you were an passionate evangelical christian, because this sounds like the exact kind of loaded challenge that a passionate evangelical christian would present… you know, just from the other side.

I find it fascinating. Obviously no set of core beliefs or value structure has a monopoly on passion or conviction. But the manner by which people approach their core convictions often seems to be more deeply rooted that the convictions themselves.

Science, on the other hand, is supposed to be a passionless endeavor, in the sense that our passion is reserved for the method, not the results. Are you sure you haven’t simply traded one set of beliefs for another? Would you now consider yourself a passionate evangelical athiest? And when you look back at your old beliefs, which part do you consider the problem… the passionate evangelical part, or the christian part?

To elaborate some more, a religious shift on its own would normally not cause a civil war. However, we live in a bit of a special time, in that America has gone bankrupt, as all empires do when they overextend their military (over 170 military bases in almost every country in the world).

The resulting depression, triggered by the fallout from unregulated financial scheming and outright fraud, will result in a double-whammy for America as a whole. Not only will she lose her dominance in the world sphere (with a LOT of enemies waiting in the wings), but she’ll also be caught in a financial bind, unable to meet the spending commitments for her military, and unable (and largely unwilling) to scale back fast enough to consolidate her position.

In times such as these, discontent runs rampant. When the people are discontent, they look for someone to blame. Since a very large portion of the American population is Christian, and since Christians hate atheists even more than they do Muslims, the irreligious will be held to blame.
Conversely, the atheists will point to the heavy religious shift of the past 8 years, as well as the religious overtones of the ongoing wars and oppressive legislation, as evidence that the Christians are to blame. This will form the basis of the ensuing power struggle.

@Matt: Well I am a result of my experiences and I am still passionate about what I believe (or do not believe).

Are you sure you haven’t simply traded one set of beliefs for another?

Yes, as I’m quite open to believing anything as long as there is evidence for it. As I said, if I could be convinced again that there is evidence for God, I would believe.

Would you now consider yourself a passionate evangelical athiest?

No, just a passionate atheist.

And when you look back at your old beliefs, which part do you consider the problem… the passionate evangelical part, or the christian part?

Both, because (1) the supernatural claims in Christianity appear to be false and (2) for a long time I was a fundamentalist, ignoring any contrary evidence.

The difference is in this post, I’m ASKING FOR and INVITING contrary evidence. And I’ll consider any evidence presented.

I don’t really see what’s so controversial about this.

@Aaron: This post is not for fideists who simply believe and take a leap of faith. It’s for theists who believe there is scientific/verifiable evidence for God — Ray Comfort has claimed this, for example. And most Christian apologists are “evidentialists” — that is, they say they believe Christianity based on the massive amount of evidence for it.

philos said:

“Did you know most Scandinavian countries practice Pseudo-Pagan/Christian rituals as the basis for their holiday celebrations?”

How is that different from what Christians do in the U.S.? The entire thing derives from old pagan customs. To their credit, there are at least a couple of Christian sects that don’t celebrate Christmas at all (Seventh Day Adventists, I think, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Worldwide Church of God to name a few).

if the bible thumpers are happy in their bliss, why on earth would they want to join in with the unhappy atheist gang who just sit around and mock believers?

So all atheists are unhappy? All we do is mock believers?

Neither of these gross generalizations are true, I’m afraid. I’m reasonably happy, probably within the normal range of “happiness” (if there is such a thing), and I have too many demands on my time to sit around and do nothing but mock people who believe religious nonsense.

I suspect most atheists would tell you the same.

@Bruce LaDuke

You’re just the latest to enter this [relatively] low-heat discussion and immediately start making reference to war and annihilation.

Is there something going on that the rest of us need to know about? Do you know about an elite cabal of bloggers who are stashing weapons in the basement? Has PZ Myers finally perfected his mutant squid army?

‘Cause, frankly, if internet arguments somehow lead to war, this country is about to be split by about 5,000 different conflicts.

You may tear apart the baby’s rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, DANIEL, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart.

I dunno. An atomic bomb, particle accelerator, or gravitational singularity would probably do a pretty good job of tearing apart your little rattle.

So seeing is evidence? If thats the case then david blane can fly and everything on TV is real.

Seeing is evidence, yes. I assume that when you drive, you accept that the fact that you can see other cars is evidence that they’re there. If not, you must have very high insurance premiums.

Of course, seeing is not the only evidence we have for things, but it’s a good start. We also have plenty of evidence for camera trickery and special effects, so claims about someone being able to fly need more evidence than simply that you saw it on TV once. Just as everything we know about mammalian biology means that we need mroe evidence than “it was in this really old book I read” before we believe that virgins give birth.

You have a point about not having seen gods, but do you really believe that humans of history did all the work in building monuments and statues without any evidence guiding their belief?

Yes, I really do. After all, the people who build religious monuments today don’t have any evidence (or, more precisely, they never present any evidence). Why should people who lived thousands of years ago be any more rational in their beliefs than we are today?

I take it you accept that the ancient Greeks had lots of evidence for Hermes and Apollo and so forth, right?

And of course all those monuments serve as some sort of evidence, if that is all we are looking for.

It’s evidence that people believed in a god, yes. It’s not evidence that that god actually exists. Do you find the Parthenon to be a particularly compelling piece of evidence for the existence of Zeus? If not, why should a Christian cathedral be better evidence for the existence of Jehovah?

Do you think that even now the religious of the world have no subjective ‘evidence’ which creates the foundation of their belief?

“Subjective evidence” is a contradiction in terms. What you mean is that they believe because they believe, and they have no evidence that their belief is true, other than that they believe it.

If all of these people have so much evidence, why do they all think it’s evidence for completely different things? Why can’t a Hindu and Catholic agree on the slightest thing about what their evidence means? How do you decide which of them is right? Are they both right?

Obviously its not proof, but personal perception, be it seeing or feeling are valid inputs for anyone when attempting to determine the nature of reality, or they arent in which case looking in the mirror is not a viable answer to my request of proof I exist.

If by “feeling” you mean intuition and emotion, then no. It’s not a valid piece of evidence, though it may be based on evidences not consciously registered.

As I said, there’s no proof of anything in the real world. I can’t possibly know for certain that you exist; any evidence for your existence may simply be part of an elaborate hallucination on my part. But I can provide evidence that you exist, evidence that you yourself are in an excellent place to observe. You can look in a mirror and compare how the image moves to how you think you are moving. You can make noises that you are capable of hearing. You can have a conversation on the Internets. You can get someone to punch you in the face, and experience pain. You can apply for a copy of your birth certificate. You can go over to your mother’s house and ask to look at pictures of you as a child. All of these things should provide you with a reason to believe that you might, possibly, exist. Some of them are even evidence (again, not proof) that you have a physical body that is basically humanoid in form. None of them is entirely convincing, especially if you have reason to think someone might have faked your existence as a cruel hoax against you, but it’s evidence.

There is evidence you exist. I believe that your existence is unremarkable enough that I accept the amount of evidence presented, and will henceforth accept your existence as demonstrated. Can we say the same for Jehovah (or any other god you care to name)? Like many here, I’ll be happy to consider any evidence you can present, and I’ll happily convert to the religion of your choosing the moment you can demonstrate something even marginally compelling.

@Jimminy Christmas

You have yet to put much forward but name calling. Its a shame that one who supports logic and science isnt able to respond with a cool head to the valid allegations that science cannot provide every answer. Only those dogmatically faithful to the belief of science deny this fact and thus put themselves in no better a position then any religion in the past.

I just hope it doesnt get to the point where atheist feel the need to purge the religious in the same way the older belief’s did. The loss of diversity simply led us to where we are today and much the same would happen again.

At the very least it is extremely clear that a hatred or desire to remove those who believe will not lead to any great enlightenment but simply be a repeat of the Inquisitions and religious purging of old. And as was true then, much of the diversity and beauty of the world will be lost to savage self-righteousness.

@Bruce

Condemning someone for what they believe is an attack on their person (because that is who they are), whether it is,e.g., an atheist to a religious person or a religious person to an atheist.

Who’s condemning? Your argument is basically to live and let live? To accept everyone’s beliefs?

All atheists and skeptics want is for everyone to think logically and rationally. That’s all.

Sure, we like to have debates as much as the next person, and if the purpose is to get one’s viewpoint accross because the opposing view is not understood, then what’s wrong with that? It doesn’t necessarily mean that someone has to be “right”.

The logical answer, that I’m pretty sure most atheists would accept from a believer, is “I have no evidence for God. I believe because I choose to believe”. Of course some would press further and ask why one would believe in something they have no evidence for, but that is not the question of the post.

@philos

Seriously? Your response to the question at hand is to ask for proof of non existence? Do you really expect answers to that, or were you just being rhetorical? In which case you could have just tried to make a point by speaking logically, rather than ask questions in a manner that tries to make a point.

@philos – “I just hope it doesnt get to the point where atheist feel the need to purge the religious in the same way the older belief’s did.”

GAAH! What is WITH you people? I’ve seen arguments between rules-lawyers at role-playing conventions that get more heated that the average atheist/theist spat. Why do you keep popping up with these doomsday scenarios?

Seriously, philos, take a breather. Before we atheists take out the theists, we’re gonna have to settle our hash with the agnostics. Then there’s the whole weak atheist/strong atheist battle to fight. We shouldn’t get around to cultural genocide for a good couple of months.

[Justin case: the above is sarcasm]

@Daniel

“Yes, as I’m quite open to believing anything as long as there is evidence for it. As I said, if I could be convinced again that there is evidence for God, I would believe.”

Yes, but that’s not what I asked you. You’ve switched from ignoring evidence to considering it, and that’s wonderful… but it’s not what I asked.

Controversial? I don’t know, that depends on what most people consider controversy. I just find it interesting, and here’s why.

You’ve asked for evidence. There is none, and I’m pretty sure you know it. Oh sure, you’ll get a lot of personal anecdotes, but those are easily and rightly dismissed. As for credible, empirical, repeatable evidence… anything useful in the scientific world… well it doesn’t exist. And if it did exist it would have been brought to the public long ago in a forum far larger than the comment section of your blog.

This is because atheism and religion fall outside the scope of science, as neither makes any falsifiable quantitative predictions. Athiesm doesn’t really claim anything concrete outside of ‘God doesn’t exist’ and the religious will change their theories every time you try to falsify something. So science goes elsewhere.

Now, if you know this, and since you seem like a very intelligent guy I have no reason to think otherwise, then it means you didn’t pose this invitation expecting theists to come forward with new evidence you’ve never heard so that you could have a meaningful discussion and perhaps change your mind. No, you did it to make a point and to bait the theists to come out and play.

Which is exactly what I expected when my fundamentalist Baptist friend invited me to participate in a discussion on the New Testament. If he became an athiest tomorrow, I would expect that while his beliefs would change, his methods would not.

@philos

You mentioned the possibility of a deity with zero ability to interact with the physical world, except to convince humans (as some sort of physical/spiritual hybrids) to act on its behalf. It’s kind of a fun idea. I could imagine some really interesting stories along these lines.

There are some pretty severe conflicts between this description of a god and those offered by the religions I’m aware of. For instance: it’s hard to see how this god could have created the universe, or could perform miracles of any sort. It’s hard to see how the deity could see what’s happening in the physical world to provide meaningful advice. One could suppose that a deity chose this limitation voluntarily – this is something like what certain protestant Christians think. It’s difficult to see why, or to explain a deity choosing to be relatively powerless to help or reward its followers. It certainly isn’t a universal claim of Christianity that God is powerless to affect the world, except through Christians.

If the limitations are part of the deity’s nature, if the spiritual and physical both exist and are unable to interact, that is roughly equivalent to the idea of a parallel universe. Two distinct worlds exist; each has its own physical laws, and normally neither can interact with the other. Somehow a species came to exist that appears to be directly descended from the normal inhabitants of one of the universes – the one we call “physical” – but with the ability to receive communications from the other universe. When members of this species die, they take tangible existence within the alternate universe, for better or worse. The ruling resident of the other universe then tried to coach this species on how to end up on its good side.

I think we’ve invented a new religion, but I’m not sure (:

There is at least one possible form of evidence for this religion, if it was true: the deity could communicate some identical message to all its most receptive followers simultaneously, providing instructions to record the message in a fashion that makes it possible to verify later. It would be extremely helpful if the message involved was something humans don’t know: some complicated bit of math we haven’t discovered yet, for instance. If the president of the American Mathematical Society received simultaneous letters from all regions of the world that each provided a proof for a different unsolved problem, a lot of people would sit up and take notice.

This goes back to what I said before, though: most conceivable deities could prove their existence, if they chose to. The hard part is squeezing evidence out of an unwilling deity.

@Sir Jebbington

Very nice response. This is the sort of thinking I was hoping to bring out.

Firstly I would question the compatibility of deities existing side by side. In fact most of history and mythology points to them doing so, even Christianity doesn’t deny the existence of other god’s just that its evil to worship them.

Im not certain why, speaking from a logical stand point, they cant all be right when one considers interpretation and cultural influence on any piece of information. A good example may be the myth of the great flood, or the Hun’s invasion, in different cultures around the world and how those events were interpreted differently. It seems perfectly possible that the incompatabilities are more likely reflections of cultural differences over actual event based differences. But this is an assumption based on the various independent cultures who developed near identical gods in vastly different settings before meeting and ultimately choosing a single name (usually decided by the conquering culture). Look at the historical and mythological evidence for the green god, of agriculture.

You are right that the buildings are only potential evidence but there is a lot more potential evidence leaning towards there being something like gods, then there is in the non-belief. In fact I would say there is no monument towards the non-existance of god. Which of course is not evidence in it self but it does lead one to wonder: if the assumable logical state of being is to not believe without evidence, then why in the world would all these structures, both physical and sociological, exist in such vast numbers?
Logically there should be at least as many if not many more built in the support of non-existance.

@McBloggenstein

Actually I copied Daniels question and reworded it so that it was inverted. Yes it was rhetorical in an attempt to point out the ridiculousness of the request. Apparently many others have come before me and this idea has been thoroughly deemed inappropriate. Which I now understand fully. Admittedly a silly way to start a conversation such as this.

@Jimminy Christmas

Let me try again then: Please provide empirical evidence of the existence of love or fear or inspiration.

You are right that the buildings are only potential evidence but there is a lot more potential evidence leaning towards there being something like gods, then there is in the non-belief

Please define what you mean by “potential evidence”. There are an infinite number of things that could have potential evidence in favor of them. There is potential evidence that there is a pink elephant in my room right now. That’s not the same thing as actual evidence. Just because a lot of people built a lot of buildings in the name of something has absolutely no bearing on the fact that that something actually exists or not.

I also find the idea of monuments to “non-belief” amusing. What would such a structure look like? Nothing? If so, I would posit that we have an infinite number of monuments to non-belief. If you just had more faith in their non-existence, you would be able to see them everywhere.

All kidding aside, from a practical perspective, it’s difficult to organize large groups of people to create monuments devoted to a nullifying concept. It would be like constructing a monument to the non-belief in astrology. “Hey Bob, what is the purpose of this monument we’re constructing?” “Oh that thing? Nothing.” “Cool!”

I think there is a proper name for the “argument from the number of monuments” fallacy, but I can’t think of what it is right now.

Let me try again then: Please provide empirical evidence of the existence of love or fear or inspiration.

Hahah! Ah yes. The old “Have you stopped beating your wife/Prove that your wife loves you” fallacy. Good one! I love the classics.

I suggest you take a look at this page before you continue:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

@Jimminy Xmas

“This is a fallacious scenario. In this statement you seem to be implicitly assuming that “infinity” has a “starting point”, but that starting point can never be reached. If that were the case, the argument might hold some water. You should rather think of infinity as a continuum which has events occurring along it at all points. Just because an infinite number of events has happened prior to the existence of our current universe does not mean that our universe cannot exist. Our universe is just another event occurring at a particular point along the continuum.”

Excellent response.

I’ve never understood the argument that believers give, that if God doesn’t exist, “then the universe started from nothing???”… and how could we believe such a thing?

Why is the only other option, besides God, that the universe “started” from “nothing”? The concept of time having a beginning is purely human invented.

If there were a list of choices for why the universe exists, the choice of God is just one of the more unreasonable answers for some. This does not mean that those people have to assume anything else by placing the likelyhood of God low on the list.

@philos:
> “if the assumable logical state of being is to not believe without evidence, then why in the world would all these structures, both physical and sociological, exist in such vast numbers?”

Very simple: because humans are not rational or logical per default, especially when power or rewards come into play, as they do in religion.

Besides, you don’t see the structures that were NOT built due to lack of belief in some god. So it’s rather flawed “evidence” of anything.

@trj

I agree completely – the idea as stated was in response to another post, it was that there would be buildings to non-belief, monuments of atheism if you will not that there would be non-monuments. Sorry for the confusion.

And there was a bit of a jump because the idea came from a different post that the burden of responsibility lay on the believer, was due to the fact that the default logical state is to assume there was nothing until provided with evidence that there was something. Again logically sound yet completely contrary to human nature. Which is what I’ve been getting at this whole time.

Philos:

Whoops, I meant to say evolutionary psychology, not biology. Although either of those subjects should do the trick. The former is just more specific to your query.

Let me try again then: Please provide empirical evidence of the existence of love or fear or inspiration.

My wife bought me a sword for my birthday. She doesn’t like it (especially as we have a small child), and thinks it’s a waste of money. But she’s glad that I like it, and that she made me happy by buying it.

Yes, there are other hypotheses that this evidence would also support (for example, that she hopes I’ll kill myself with it, and that she’s just pretending to be happy that I’m happy. And short of an fMRI or CAT scan, I really can’t begin to pretend I know for sure which it is (and even with such technologies, it’s a long way from solid proof), but it’s evidence.

It goes something like this:

Hypothesis: Person A loves Person B.

Prediction: Person A will act so as to spend as much time around Person B as possible, and will try to make them happy whenever possible.

Observation: Person A acts so as to spend as much time around Person B as possible, and performs acts that seem intended to make Person B happy.

Inference: Person A loves Person B.

@philos

There would never be a building built in honor of non-belief because it’s such a mundane thing. You only build monuments to things you consider to be singular, special, and powerful. Copernicus, for example, is forever seared into our memory as one of the greats that pushed for rational thought during his time.

There are three things that monuments are built for: commemoration of an event, or tribute to a ruler or to a god. Sometimes the rulers are even considered gods themselves.

It is the ultimate display of power to waste other peoples money and effort to build something big that serves no practical purpose other than to display your power for others to see, and that is exactly what the purposes of these monumental buildings to kings and gods are.

It makes no difference whether it is done for a king or for Zeus or Baal or the pharaoh or Yahweh or Shinto spirits. These buildings provide evidence that people believed something to be powerful, enough to divert a considerable amount of treasure and labor towards its completion. It does not, however, provide any evidence whatsoever that a particular deity existed. It doesn’t even hint that a particular deity existed, any more than cave pictographs of forest spirits do.

Tut: Can you prove you have morals? Is it enough to point out that I’ve never killed anyone, and that I try not to lie, steal or cheat (but sometimes fail)?

Suppose you had two children. One of them generally does the right thing, but only because he knows he’ll be punished or rewarded based on his behaviour. The other is equally likely to behave properly, but does so without expecting reward or punishment, simply because it’s the right thing to do.

Which of these is the most moral?

Everybody,

I did not join this discussion to try to convert anyone to Christianity. Everyone has the right to believe what they please. I simply accepted the invitation to Daniel’s topic and gave my general opinion. I have alos found everyone’s opinions and views to be interesting.

After participating, and sincerely trying to learn and understand the views of others, I got this:

_______________________________________________

Score so far: Juan C. believes because he believes. He acknowledges that neither necessary nor sufficient evidence for this belief is available, possibly not even conceivable.

OK, who’s next? At least, someone, give is the ontological argument.

While verifiable evidence seems to be the determining factor here for God’s existence, would any atheist like share their verifiable evidence of God’s non-existence?

Sure. As soon as you share with us your verifiable evidence of the non-existence of unicorns.

Oh, and you’ll also have to be more specific about which god you want us to prove does not exist. There are several thousand of them and counting.

@Juan: Then we can all agree we can’t prove something doesn’t exist. It’s impossible, and none of us here believe that God can be proven not to exist.

But to believe something — especially something extraordinary — requires positive proof. Otherwise, we could believe absolutely anything. That’s why I’m asking for evidence.

Does that make sense?

@Juan: Of course. That’s why I’m asking for positive evidence for God, because I don’t know of any. But obviously some believers think they have evidence and it is convincing to them.

Juan M. Ocampo offered:

I have to admit that there is nothing I can present to you for you to see, touch, or smell as evidence that He exists besides the Bible, the research and data that show that a historical Jesus existed.

An argument which could have best stopped after 13 words.

I don’t think a believer in God can actually present God to you in person, and say, “Here He is. Say hello.”

Nor do we, Juan, nor do we.

If someone could, believe me, I’d be the first in line to meet Him.

So would we, Juan, so would we.

The atheist finds himself/herself lacking the evidence that God does not exist.

Do we have to put up with this again? It is not the non-existence of a god which requires proof. His existence requires proof. Simple enough for you?

I’m not trying to disprove god. You can’t disprove what doesn’t exist.
_______________________________________________

God may not be real to you, or He may be as real to you as He is to me. You may spend all your life not satisfied with the present, so called “evidence” that is available, but the fact is that people will continue to believe in a God or disbelieve in a God for as long as they live. I guess the real evidence will discovered at death. If God is not real, then the dead will continue in death and no longer exist. But if God is real, then the evidence and proof of God will be before your eyes and all questions will be answered. I guess for some it will be a chance that had to be taken, but for others it will be a guarantee of their faith.

Thanks to all for your time, comments and for the opportunity to participate.

God may not be real to you, or He may be as real to you as He is to me. You may spend all your life not satisfied with the present, so called “evidence” that is available, but the fact is that people will continue to believe in a God or disbelieve in a God for as long as they live. I guess the real evidence will discovered at death. If God is not real, then the dead will continue in death and no longer exist. But if God is real, then the evidence and proof of God will be before your eyes and all questions will be answered. I guess for some it will be a chance that had to be taken, but for others it will be a guarantee of their faith.

And we have Pascal’s Wager. Does that mean this thread is over, now?

@Jimminy Christmas

Well then you have your empirical evidence of god, see the wiki articles you have pointed out as a starting point. If that is empirical evidence for the existance of the emotion rather then an observation of the mechanics of the emotion then we have our evidence.

But isnt there some sort of scientific flaw when one seeks a corollary observation to a predetermined conclusion? ie emotions exist, lets prove them by observing the brain?

So if I were to say God exists, lets prove them by observing whatever one thinks god consists of you would take my observations as empirical evidence? Of course you wouldnt.

Again not science, where is the controlled experimental environment? At best it boils down to the subjective experience of the individual being observed and what they determine to be fear, love etc while being examine for fear, love, etc. Its all inferred observational theory at best.

Tim Kurek:

Why would I, as a theist, ever try to talk to someone with such an arrogant attitude about the faith I choose to believe in.

I like how you masterfully fight the arrogant attitudes of others with your own arrogant attitude.

I’ll acknowledge what others won’t. There is not proof!

Well at least you’re honest. That is a lot more than I can say for the majority of theists I encounter. Kudos to you, sir.

Also why would I try to prove something that is associated with so many lunatics?

Wait. Are you saying many people who believe in your god are lunatics? Well sheesh. I’m having trouble finding things to disagree on with you here. Are you sure you aren’t any atheist?

We can all agree that humility is a trait that allows for intelligent debate, but would I get that if I honestly tried to talk to you about my faith? Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn’t. Just know I’m open to it if you are.

Hey bring it. If you you can make a well-reasoned argument in favor of the existence of your god (or any god for that matter) without resorting to the standard religious fallacies, then I’m sure you’ll find people willing to respectfully discuss them with you. Just don’t make the common mistake that many theists do make which is to consider any disagreement or criticism of your arguments a personal attack.

Sadly this has degraded significantly. Thumpers have arrived it seems.

Im off, good conversation while it lasted though.

Thanks to those that provided productive counter discussion.

while i am a “believer” in the sense that i know God exists, i am an intellectual athiest when it comes to discussing whether the “christian” “god” exists (which is to say “he” probably doesn’t exist).

on the other hand, the fact that i know God exists doesn’t mean that i can prove to you, or to anyone, that God exists. you have to experience God for yourself. until then, i guarantee that if you think the “christians” are crazy for believing what they believe, you’ll think i’m stark raving mad.

i know God exists because i have a personal relationship with him: i talk with God on an ongoing basis. God guides my every step, and there isn’t a question God has not been able to answer to my satisfaction.

that being said, the God that i am talking about is not the “god” of the “christians” because that “god” has definable characteristics: you frequently hear “christians” talking about “god” referring to “his will”. calling God “him” is a limitation: God is beyond him, her or it. referring to God’s “will” is a fallacy, because “god’s will” implies that it will be complete at some time, at which point, “god” will become pointless. God is the Spiritual Father of jesus ben miriam in the same way that God is the Spiritual Father of Jadava Krishna, Gautama Siddhartha, Mohammed, and every other person on earth, as well as being the Spiritual Mother as well.

but i have no way to prove this. i learned about God from doing an experiment, and the result of that experiment was that God showed Himself (and i use that term advisedly) to me. unfortunately, it didn’t leave me with any way to show God to other people, because regardless of how much i try to convince you, unless you see God for yourself, everything else is just made up stories, like the “christians” try to fool you with.

i disagree with the “christians” enough that i agree with athiests more of the time than not, but still, i know that God exists. i guess that makes me an outcast from both sides of the argument.

@przxqgl

“on the other hand, the fact that i know God exists doesn’t mean that i can prove to you, or to anyone, that God exists.”

You also can’t prove to yourself that God exists unless you can see him or literally hear his voice. When you say that you talk with him, do you think that it is the same thing as if you were having a conversation with your neighbor?

@przxqgl

“i learned about God from doing an experiment, and the result of that experiment was that God showed Himself (and i use that term advisedly) to me. unfortunately, it didn’t leave me with any way to show God to other people”

Can you explain this more? What was it more than (what I’m assuming) was either a suspected outcome, against all odds, or a very unexpected outcome, that evoked certain emotions from you that you interpreted as evidence for something you were likely to believe in anyway?

@Juan M. Ocampo

I’m confused as to why you posted all of the comments that were directed toward you.

Did you mean to imply that you didn’t like them, and that’s why you are no longer participating?

I don’t think anyone wants you to feel defeated. Why not continue to discuss?

> Why does it matter so much to you what I think, provided I don’t try to impose my beliefs on you?

That really is the key. If religious people DID keep to themselves and didn’t try to impose their beliefs on others, then there would be no problem.

But as the religious right has so poignantly demonstrated over the past 8 years, there really IS a problem here.

@Kate

“Reason and rational thinking may be a compelling arguments on the surface, but they are human creations, based on our collective experience of the world. Yet we experience only a tiny fraction of the universe, both because of our short life spans and our physical limitations.”

In trying to understand what you mean… Are you basically saying knowledge of what some people would call god is outside of what we are capable of knowing, given our limited perspective on the world?

If so, this idea does nothing to make the likelyhood of the existence of an omnipotent being any more valid.

I don’t think anyone wants to talk anyone out of their beliefs. Atheists don’t necessarily always want to disprove God. We just feel as though those that believe in the unreasonable are not truly thinking clearly and rationally. That is just an oppinion that we often argue that the religious are not thinking as such and often use logical falacies to support their beliefs.

Can you not take this opportunity to view the question posed as a chance to strengthen your faith for yourself?

@Kate – “Why does it matter so much to you what I think, provided I don’t try to impose my beliefs on you?”

I’m sorry, are we knocking on your door with pamphlets? This is just an attempt at rational discussion on an obscure (but increasingly popular) blog. We want to know about this evidence for God that everyone from Ray Comfort to NT Wright says exists. We’re not trying to deconvert you, and you’re free to leave at any time.

@Wolter – “That really is the key. If religious people DID keep to themselves and didn’t try to impose their beliefs on others, then there would be no problem.”

Maybe. I mean, there would still be arguments, humans being humans. However, there’s a close tie between belief and action. I have a hard time imaging religious belief that does not influence actions. And false beliefs can lead to bad decisions.

I have perused and digested all of what has been said here before me and would like to add a scenario to this discussion…

If God creates man in his own image, then who else can do this?

If God is omnipotent, who else is?

If God will always forgive mans sins, who else will do this?

If you’ve came to the same conclusion as me and your answer is Man. therefore we are God. There are a lot of “If’s”, so there will no defineate conclusion to this subject.
“If” we are God, then our exsistence is irrefutable evidence of the exsistence of God…

“I have a hard time imaging religious belief that does not influence actions.”

I think that this comes from believers trusting their religious organizations to know how the world works and what god does or does not want humans to do. They then vote according to those decrees, thereby restricting others based on the proclamations of their organizations. That’s where religious belief leads to actions.

@Chaotic Warrior

“If God is omnipotent, who else is?”

Man isn’t omnipotent, but he can imagine omnipotent beings. I’ll agree with McBloggenstein that gods are man-made, but that only provides evidence for man’s imagination.

Kate:

I’d also like to add that although it is true *some* things can’t be outright disproven from a logical or philosophical perspective (unicorns, fairies, Gods), it is still possible to place odds on how likely such things are to exist.

For example, it is possible that unicorns exist. However, the supporting evidence for the physical existence of unicorns is so overwhelmingly lacking, the chances of them existing are practically zero. Knowing this, should I still live my life as if unicorns exist (since there’s an infinitesimal chance that they do), or should I live my life under the assumption that unicorns do not exist?

My point is, all possible scenarios are not equally likely.

@Efogoto

Oh, I was just trying to reiterate what he was saying.

I do believe gods are man made though. Good point.

You ask for evidence yet reject spiritual experiences that are personal and immeasurable. No, they can’t be measured and weighed, and yes, they are predominantly emotional, but that does not mean they are not real. Weights and measures, reason and “clear thinking” are only part of what it is to be human. We have emotions, and they are important and have value. To discount them from a subject as central to human experience as faith is is to dismiss half of what it means to be human. How is that rational? I refuse to reject the emotional component of spirituality because I think that is as inconsistent as believing the bible is literally true. I know the world isn’t flat and that the earth wasn’t created in 6 days. I also know that the fundamental laws of physics are beautiful and for me, contemplating them is a spiritual experience. That is a fact. Whether that experience is correct is impossible to say, but it is real, and it is as much a part of me as my intellect and my ability to rationally understand how chemistry works, and I fail to see why one is more valid than the other. That you don’t experience the world the same tells me only that there are 7 billion people alive right now, and there are 7 billion ways to see the world. And that makes me smile at the infinite variety of the human experience

@Kate

Per your first response… Efogoto said what I would have said:

Yes, but grounded in evidence rather than faith, and subject to adjustment if given new evidence.

The second… you said:

Since articulation requires careful thought, this is forcing me to evaluate my own beliefs honestly…

That’s kinda all I meant by using discussion to strengthen your beliefs. It didn’t mean that your belief had to remain static.

“The majority of the hostility towards religious people comes from the pressure that religious people put on nonbelievers.”

This is a good point. Also, the religious (generally) take non-belief as an attack on them personally, for some reason. There’s an air of “How can you NOT believe?? I take offence to your non-belief!”

Kate, did you read the question? It isn’t saying “Hey, we want to disprove your beliefs”, it says “give us your evidence, show us”.

“By its very nature there is and can never be proof for or against the existence of SOMETHING. Science, which seems to be the favored argument of atheists, cannot prove a negative. You cannot perform experiments to prove or disprove the hypothesis.”

What? You can’t prove the non-existence of something. You CAN prove its existence. For example, I think there is something called “Water”. To prove this, turn on a tap. We know the proof of god doesn’t exist, however some people continually assert that they have this proof. Others, such as Tim Kurek stated that there was no proof, and that christianity is designed that way, as it is faith that counts. If you had evidence it wouldn’t be faith.

Also:
I would like to claim “Bingo”, I have “Circular Reasoning”, “Prove the non existence”, “Argument from antiquity”, “Atheists are Mean to me!” and “I’m taking my ball and going home!!!”. Remarkably, they were all one person.

“Religion looks like the biggest-ever, most popular conspiracy theory in history. It has its place: In churches and in history.”

Is this disucssion about religion or faith and spirituallity? I have nothing to say about the former, it interests me not because 1. I think the evils of organized religion have already been neat to death and 2. I’m not religous

“What? You can’t prove the non-existence of something. You CAN prove its existence.”

No, actually you can’t. Not scientifically anyway. All science ever claims is that the data supports the theory. Since we can’t do controlled experiments on this particular subject, you can’t even say that.

You don’t think we can do controlled experiments on the existence of anything? I think you are confusing science with philosophy. You are probably familiar with the saying ‘you cannot prove a negative’, but you are mistaken to claim that you also cannot prove a positive.

I have yet to show you any disrespect, Kate. If anything, your polite request that I extend respect toward you might come off as a bit.. disrespectful, if you know what I mean.

Kate:

You’re being awfully defensive here. I think most everyone here has been responding to you quite politely so far. We haven’t even put you on the rack or broken out the dull, rusty implements of torture yet. ;)

Oh and I’m not sure if you saw it, but scroll back up a ways where I show that you can prove a negative. I also provided a number of links that explain how this is done, as well. Or just click here:

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/12/29/believers-make-your-best-case-for-god/#comment-6767

I notice you avoided responding to the issue of proving positives in science. Not to be disrespectful, but a common tactic amongst theists is deception. When confronted with a disproof of a closely held belief, rather than defend their position rationally they tend to go for distractions and changing of topics. Those are not the methods of choice of people who have the truth on their side. Those who can defend their beliefs rationally tend to do so, and those who cannot tend to go for the irrational because they have no other choice.

If you no longer wish to claim that science cannot prove a positive, please say so. An intellectually honest person will admit they were wrong on that particular issue and move on to other issues. Avoidance is deception, and it would be nice to have a conversation where the other side never felt the need to deceive.

Jimminy Christmas

No really, it’s ok. Thanks for your apology. And if I came accross as the typical Christian that you described, then I deserve what you said. But I can assure you that I am not your typical Christian.

I know that Christians today have left a bad taste in peoples’ mouths when it comes to their beliefs, how they defend themselves and how they evangelize. I know it’s sad.

I do respect atheists’ views. The comments and views I read today are valid for the topic at hand. I joined to learn something from others, and I did. I’m glad I did.

Jimminy Christmas,

there is a difference between mathamatical proofs and science. If you give me a mathamatically formula disproving god we can talk,, but scientifically proof is out either way.

As for being defensive, there appeared to be an assumption of hostility on the part of people who have spiritual beliefs. I am only trying to point out that assumption, and that it does not apply to me.

Kate:

As is demonstrated in some of the links I included, a negative can be proven outside of mathematics. In fact, Aor just gave a good example (kittens) a few posts above.

Now, as I posted previously, there are some things which can’t be immediately disproven from a philosophical standpoint (unicorns, fairies, gods, etc), but we can assign probabilities to the existence of such things. You may have missed where I discussed that too, so here’s the link to it:

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/12/29/believers-make-your-best-case-for-god/#comment-6775

I didn’t miss it, I just hadn’t gotten to it yet. I have a lot of info and opinions coming my way ;) And you are essentially correct. And if you would like to make the arument that the probability of the christian concenption of the white dude in the robe is not probabilitically likely, you will have my whole hearted agreement. And if y’all want to limit your discussion to monotheistic organized religions, go nuts. I will say right now I probably agree with you and get back to work.
If, on the other hand, you would like to have a discussion of other belief structures that are not so limited in scope then I’ll stick around.

I would follow up with a question. Should the emotional response people have be dismissed out of hand or is there something there worth discussing. Whatever you think of theists (which I do not cinsider myself, by the by) I don’t think you can deny that the resonse is real, whatever the source. Does that matter in this discussion?

@Kate

“And if y’all want to limit your discussion to monotheistic organized religions, go nuts.”

Well.. the original topic was pertaining to evidence for God.

“If, on the other hand, you would like to have a discussion of other belief structures that are not so limited in scope”

I don’t want to speak for other atheists here, but I don’t see the two topics as any different.

I know what you mean by saying that the pop culture version of God is rediculous compared to more broad ideas of supernatural stuff, but they really are the same to me.

You can say that there are aspects to our world that are beyond us knowing about them, but I will bring up Jimminy Christmas’ point that among the theories of what does exist beyond our plane of existence, supernatural ideas such as God are among the least likely for us.

@Anthropeleres

So, a few people said some smart things, and a few people said some dumb things, and everybody else got pissed off at both of them! Sounds like typical Internet blog comments to me ;)

@Kate:

Should the emotional response people have be dismissed out of hand or is there something there worth discussing.

I’m not sure if I understand what your question is here.

Kate:

I think there is a world of difference between the “pop culture version of God” and the belief that there is meaning and something profound about how the universe is put together.

This sounds a lot like deism, which I think is relatively harmless (although it’s sort of meaningless too).

Einstein also believed in a form of what you describe, but his idea of “God” was nature itself, and I don’t believe he ascribed any anthropomorphic characteristics to it. In fact I’m pretty sure he went out of his way to make it clear he did not believe in any kind of anthropomorphic “intelligence” behind the universe.

If for nothing else, I don’t imagine that the already avowed (and not illegitimate) hostility of some atheists to believers extends to Buddhists. They are believers in a greater spiritual truth in world, but the atheists I know personally tend to respect them.

This is mostly because Buddhists don’t evangelize, nor do they generally try to influence politics (at least not in western countries). In fact, some sects of Buddhists actually consider themselves to be atheists. Many people also believe Buddhism to be more of a philosophy than a religion (in some forms it probably is).

My question is – do you dismiss this a “just” an emotional response and therefore not relavent, or do you think that it is important to talk about, dissect and analyze why so many people have such responses and what that means about the human condition and experience?

I know of no one who would dismiss the fact that individuals do have highly personal, and sometimes transformative, emotional experiences. I just don’t think they are supernatural in nature ;)

I also think it’s very important to discuss, dissect, and analyze what it is that makes us human and why we behave and think the way we do. I just think science (especially neuroscience, and psychology to a lesser degree) is the best and only reliable way to go about it.

Kate:

There you go being defensive for no reason again. What I meant was that deism is a relatively harmless philosophy. That’s all. Because it is. It doesn’t make any truth claims that can influence people to for example, start wars or ban homosexual marriage or mutilate the genitals of children or the like.

I wasn’t insulting your beliefs (whatever they are…they seem a bit nebulous so far). Heck, I wasn’t even saying anything bad about deism. I was just stating a fact. I would love it if everybody who is now a fundamentalist Christian was a deist. At least that would be a start in the right direction.

“I also think it’s very important to discuss, dissect, and analyze what it is that makes us human and why we behave and think the way we do. I just think science (especially neuroscience, and psychology to a lesser degree) is the best and only reliable way to go about it.”

I agree that neuroscience has an enormous amount to tell us about the human experience, but I don’t think its exhaustive. If I may, I will describe what I mean with the good old Socratic method.

An atheist might say “I distrust the spiritual argument that relies on emotional response and transformative experience because if we give neuroscience enough time we will be able to artificially create that experience with drugs and electrodes.”

I would respond, yes, you are totally correct, that is theoretically possible, and we already make profound changes in people with, for example antidepressants. However, people also make profound biochemical changes in themselves through faith and spirituality. The evidence? The placebo effect. A persons faith in a drug can, and I stress can, make it work. To me this suggests that the human condition as we know it is an agglomeration of the pure biochemical and determinative, and the mind, which is something else entirely, and may not follow the same rules. Each half of this pairing can affect the other, and to be that strange amalgamation is to be human.

@Kate

“Most people of faith describe it as a deep and profound feeling. For myself, as I said in some post or other, when I read and think about quantum physics and general relativity I have a feeling that the theories are related to something far more profound than what we experience as normal life.

My question is – do you dismiss this a “just” an emotional response and therefore not relavent, or do you think that it is important to talk about, dissect and analyze why so many people have such responses and what that means about the human condition and experience?”

In trying to understand… In basic terms, are you attempting to say that because you find the way the universe is put together to be beautiful, and that it evokes emotions from you, that you then have a feeling that there is meaning beyond what we see?

I don’t think anyone would debate you over your feelings (because I’m sure most of us have the same feelings about the universe), but to assign meaning to it, especially a supernatural one, is what we are trying to dismiss.

I think that to assume that the universes existence as well as ours has meaning, is derived from a very human emotion… ego.

Kate:

To me this suggests that the human condition as we know it is an agglomeration of the pure biochemical and determinative, and the mind, which is something else entirely, and may not follow the same rules.

Sorry, but there’s simply no evidence at all for an immaterial “mind”. It is immensely probable that after you die, and the electrochemical activity between your neurons ceases, everything that was you will also cease to be. You’ll experience the exact same thing you experienced before you were born: nothing.

Obviously, it’s not possible to *prove* what someone experiences after they die (especially if what I said above is true…there would be nothing to prove). But it is possible to determine what happens to your personality without even killing you. All we have to do is remove all the higher parts of your brain, only leaving intact those which control your basic bodily functions such as breathing and heartbeat. At that point, you would be a vegetable. Your personality would be gone. Dead. Non-existent. This has been observed many times in traumatic accident victims and those with profound mental handicaps or birth defects. You simply cannot maintain or form a personality without a (mostly) working brain. There is no evidence at all that your personality would magically float away to some far-off plane of existence after your brain is damaged beyond repair.

If you’re going to make extraordinary truth claims such as there being a magic “mind” that exists apart from your body, then I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you unless you can provide extraordinary evidence to back it up. Sorry if that offends you.

Also, I have to go to the store, but I’ll be back in a bit :)

@ Kate

“Was the point of this discussion to religion bash, or to have a substantive discussion of faith?”

Neither. It originated from the request for “verifiable evidence of God’s existence” made by Daniel, which is not an attempt to bash religion and is an explicit attempt not to accept religious propositions on faith alone.

Man, you turn your back for a few hours and the conversation leaves you behind.

*shakes fist* Don’t you people have lives?

@trj – “However, I think that most people agree that at some point one has to say “that’s good enough” and so accept an explanation as proof.”

I tend to look at it a bit differently. The point isn’t necessarily to make a theory that as close to perfect as we can. The point is to use basic skepticism to weed out theories that do a poor job of explaining the data, make flawed or untestable predictions, or generally don’t mesh with reality. What’s left is the best of the crop, and we go on from there. Science is organized skepticism.

That’s one of the reasons talk of spirituality leaves me uneasy. I don’t see how you can judge between different spiritual claims. When something is beyond our understanding it seems unethical to me to make sweeping claims about it. Say what little you can with reasonable confidence, then shut up.

As Wittgenstein said, “Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.”

As Wittgenstein said…

I wonder if we’re related….

“There would never have been “meaning” to anything before humans decided to see their existance as having such a thing. Before the human mind invented meaning, everything just existed because it did. Am I wrong?”

A well made point, but Feynman pointed out that the act of observation changes the outcome. That we exist changes nothing. That we are consious and observe changes everything. To me, this gives meaing beyond our own conception of the word.

@Kate:
> “Feynman pointed out that the act of observation changes the outcome. That we exist changes nothing. That we are consious and observe changes everything.”

Just being pedantic here, but observation is just another influence, comparable to any other disturbance in the quantum-mechanical system. Including consciousness or intelligence in the observation does not bestow some changes to the quantum state that would not otherwise have occured, had we disturbed the system similarly but not evaluated the result.

Or so the theory says, anyway. It’s a bit hard to verify experimentally, ha ha. That is an example of where we have to say “it’s good enough – I trust the world not to behave differently when my back is turned”.

My point is simply that the “magical” ability of consciousness to produce a wave function collapse, prompting the world to behave according to our unconscious demands, is overused.

Hm, we certainly get around in this debate.

Kate:

Apparently y’all are used to delicate flowers, so I’ll say it one more time, I’m not offended, and provided you don’t suddenly go apeshit and start hurling insults, I’m not likely to be.

Actually, it’s more so that many of us are terribly used to people flying off the handle and playing the persecution card at a moment’s notice anytime you say anything that might even remotely challenge their beliefs or statements. The conversation then has a tendency to rapidly develop into a flame war, quoting of scripture, total gibberish (same thing), or with the person with the persecution complex leaving…all of which end the conversation. Since I find this conversation interesting, I wanted to preempt that in case you were one of those people. Some of your earlier statements (which I apparently misunderstood) seemed to me to be bordering on I’m getting offended so I’m about to leave. Apparently, I must be overly sensitized. ;)

However, people also make profound biochemical changes in themselves through faith and spirituality. The evidence? The placebo effect. A persons faith in a drug can, and I stress can, make it work.

This may be true. The placebo effect has been studied and seems to work sometimes (that’s why legitimate pharmaceutical studies often use a control group that takes a sugar pill). But I have yet to see any studies of a placebo working on things such as Bubonic Plague, Rabies, Herpes, Necrotizing fasciitis, etc, etc. If the placebo effect is the result of some kind of brain/body/mind nexus, it sure is awfully unreliable and sporadic. It seems to only really work on things which have even odds or better of resolving themselves naturally even if they were left totally untreated. And it works really well on psychosomatic illnesses!

To me this suggests that the human condition as we know it is an agglomeration of the pure biochemical and determinative, and the mind, which is something else entirely, and may not follow the same rules.

How do you get from peoples’ immune systems doing what they are supposed to do, to there being evidence of an undetectable non-material “mind” that exists outside of the human body? Again, you’re making a claim that has absolutely no evidence to support it, other than your own intuitions or feelings.

Hi Kate, I’m joining the debate a little late here, but there were a few points I need to make.

The placebo effect isn’t simply a case where the mind heals the body. Like most of these things, it’s more complicated than that. The use of placebo’s in medical trials is to counter miscellaneous effects that one needs to balance for in order to provide a scientifically valid study. It’s an essential part of providing a double blinded experiment. A placebo is also necessary for counteracting any psychological bias that the experimenter has, but you’d never say that it was their mind that cured the patient would you?

In the simplest case, if I have a tension headache and I take a pill that someone tells me will relax me and get rid of the headache, chances are even if the pill is medically inert, I’ll relax and the headache will go away. This does *not* mean that my mind healed the headache. That’s getting cause and effect round the wrong way.

BTW, you should listen to Dr Steven Novella on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast. It’s fantastic and he explains it all much better than I’m doing here.

It’s interesting reading your posts, because many of the complementary medicine supporters talk in a similar way and invoke similar thoughts, often citing the placebo effect as evidence that the body can work in mysterious ways or as evidence of a higher plane of understanding. Even invoking quantum mechanics, as you did. To be fair, I find your reasoning is much more coherent, logical and open minded, but it does tend to lean towards the general assertion that “there must be more to it than we can measure with science”.

You also said that we only experience a tiny part of the universe. Do you mean universe or reality or both? What would you say we haven’t experienced? If we haven’t experienced it yet, how can you draw any new information or conclusion from it? It seems that you’re making an argument from personal incredulity here.

It’s very easy to say “I have a spiritual side”, as it happens my sister does too :-) But where do you get that from, what’s it about, and what use is it? Is it about feeling warm and fuzzy when you watch the sun go down over a calm sea on a summers day? You seem to suggest that there’s something else there. Why? What does that achieve and how is that based in reality?

Lots of questions thrown at you here and some assertions made too. Look forward to hearing your response.

“It’s very easy to say “I have a spiritual side””

I tend to agree with Salman Rushdie: “I have no spiritual practice. The word spirituality should be banned from the English language for at least 50 years… Talk about a word that has lost its meaning! You can’t walk your dog without doing it in a ‘spiritual ‘manner, you can’t cook without talking about spirituality!”

The word has become so overused that it now seems to mean anything intangible: ideas, emotions, sensations, etc. Since it shades into other meanings that have to do with mysticism and souls, it can allow people to conflate a simple emotional reaction with something transcendent. I wish we could call a moratorium on it until we hammer out a more precise vocabulary.

I’d also like to call a moratorium on the word ‘quantum,’ unless it’s immediately followed by some high level math or a discussion of the two-slit experiment.

I agree with both of you (Vorjack and McBloggenstein). “Spirituality” has essentially come to mean any nebulous feel-good idea of a supernatural/non-material explanation for reality that does not fall under any of the major religions or paganism. It’s most often used in the US as a way to say you believe in god without saying you believe in god or identifying with a particular religion.

I was probably what you would call a “spiritualist” (maybe even an extremely lukewarm Christian) many years ago in my late-teens and early twenties. But after I grew up, educated myself and had some life-lessons, I eventually realized that all non-materialist views of the universe are at best extremely speculative, and at worst dangerous homicidal (or genocidal) bullshit.

When I’m confronted by theists over why I’m an atheist, this is usually my response:

“When I look at the universe around me, with all of its wonders and spectacles, I fail to find any phenomenon that cannot be explained scientifically or that definitively require the invocation of a supernatural entity. Furthermore, even if some phenomenon were observed that required said invokation, I fail to find any reason for why said supernatural entity should take any one form over any other.”

Rephrase the last sentence to fit the theists’ belief, e.g. if they are Fundamentalist Christians, I would say that there’s no reason for why said entity should be as described in the Bible.

————–

Sometimes, however, I do question myself (I’m paranoid), and I wonder if God (as we’ve defined him over the millennia) really exists.

When that happens, I watch a few videos on YouTube. I have them now on my iPod, so I can watch them on the go. I recommend that everyone wtach these videos, as they are probably the most spiritual scientific videos you will ever watch.

Neil Tyson — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ai-VvboPnA

Neil Tyson, on Stupid Design — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1cKD93W3yg

Carl Sagan’s “Pale Blue Dot” — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pfwY2TNehw

“Pale Blue Dot” Remake (watch it even if you watched the one above) — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47EBLD-ISyc

@Daniel Florien

Sounds interesting — is this the kind of experiment that we can try on our own as well? Or is it only for someone in a specific situation?

yes, it is an experiment that anyone can perform, although the outcome (I.E. God proving Its existence) is not guaranteed. the experiment was as follows: for a certain period of time (i chose 6 months) formulate your live as though God exists, and act accordingly. don’t put any limitations on what God can or cannot do (in other words, anything that you can’t immediately explain is not automatically “god’s will”).

@McBloggenstein

When you say that you talk with him, do you think that it is the same thing as if you were having a conversation with your neighbor?

yes, in fact, it is exactly the same as having a discussion with my neighbour, except that nobody but me can hear the voice… which is one of the reasons why i said that you’ll probably think i’m crazy. i’m okay with that, though, so you don’t need to worry about it.

@przxqgl

“..for a certain period of time (i chose 6 months) formulate your live as though God exists, and act accordingly.”

In other words, try your hardest for a long period of time to believe something with all of your being, and eventually you WILL believe it.

“yes, in fact, it is exactly the same as having a discussion with my neighbour, except that nobody but me can hear the voice… which is one of the reasons why i said that you’ll probably think i’m crazy. i’m okay with that, though, so you don’t need to worry about it.”

I’m afraid you’re right. I’m also afraid that receiving a calming feeling when you imagine that your dialog has been received and responded to, is NOT even close to the same as a tangible, audible speech from another human being.

Seriously?

since i can’t prove God doesnt’ exist.. i can’t deny my hope in something greater. why not hope in God if He might be there? Maybe it’s much simpler than “evidence.” looking at death and destruction, we want to fight for something. so let’s fight! stand together, look at eachother with compassion and mercy.

love. can’t it be simple?

im not saying let’s not talk about this. these are just current thoughts. i just want simplicity man. im sick of the rigor of shit.

i know we’re not all in the place where i am.. so you might not understand what im saying..and i wont understand you.

my father just found out he has a brain aneurism, so maybe that’s why it’s easy to say “fuck proof”. to me, proof is the fact that i love my Dad. proof is seeing my Dad’s love through his days or hard turmoil and yet still fighting for what is good.

life is so fragile… im not going to stop praying to God for help or hope even if i dont have peace.. i will still pray.

i have no proof he does not exist.

@McBloggenstein

the same as a tangible, audible speech from another human being.

it is possible for one human being to communicate with another in a way that is not audible to any other human being. to do so with a human being that one cannot see in the normal sense of the word is not unheard of.

Seriously?

i told you that you would probably think i’m crazy. i also indicated that kind of opinion is just fine with me.

What is it like to preface statements that you make about your beliefs with, “I know you might think I’m crazy, but…”

it feels a lot better than not expressing my opinions at all, and since i had a brain injury and resulting surgery which left me with a three-inch diameter hole in my skull, i figure it’s probably the least of my worries at this point…

although i will say that although i started experiencing the presence and communication with God a long time before my injury, it’s only gotten more intense and personal since my injury.

@przxqgl: I mean this as non-offensively as I can put it, as you seem to be a civil, well-spoken individual, but yes I do think you’re crazy.

Substitute your use of the word ‘god’ for, say, ‘trolls’, and reread your own sentences. If you heard anyone else say those words, you’d consider them crazy.

One man’s delusions do not amount to evidence for a supernatural sky daddy’s existence. Daniel’s original question remains unanswered.

@Yasser Mahmood:

“If the text is from GOD given to his servants called prophets it should be realistic and should be proven and should sound like GODLY TEXT.”

Why should it be especially as we are constantly told that god works in ways beyond human understanding so how do you decide what sounds like godly text?

“I totally agree with you Dan one should not blindly belive in religion wheather he is Muslim, christian, Hindu, Jews etc etc… ”

Yet your post clearly demonstrates that you do.

“From this verse we realize that God Almighty tells us if this KORAN was created by human mind then there would have been many contradictions and problems in the Koraninc text.”

So a book says that it is the word of god so it is the word of god that’s one great set of reasoning there.

“80 % of the things said in the Koran is 100% backed by scientific facts. The remaining 20% which speaks about JInn (Deamons) and Angels or the Un Seen world may be Insha-Allah be proven in coming years.”

… and

“So Insha Allah I will put some scientific established facts for your comments.”

Well I look forward to hearing your scientific facts.

@Jimminy Christmas
You made all the points I wanted to make without ever coming across as an “evil fundamentalist dogmatic atheist”,

Wow, I think that’s the best complement anyone’s ever given me. Thanks! Actually, it’s a struggle for me too, especially when talking to my family about this sort of stuff. For some reason it’s always harder when people you love fall into anti-scientific thinking.

Not to get off topic or anything, but if you want to listen to someone who’s waaaay better than I will ever be at discussing this sort of stuff, check out the guy I mentioned in my post, Steve Novella (http://www.theskepticsguide.org). The guy is articulate and rational beyond belief (pun intended). His ability to construct an intelligent rational argument on the fly while talking to the most infuriating pseudoscientists is just awesome and is compulsive listening.

“You can’t PROVE the existence of God, he loves us so much that he gives us the free choice to believe in him”

My girlfriend gives mee the free choice to beleive in her too….

But I can see her….

if ‘god loves us so much’ why don’t let us to see him? If we could see him we could beleive and we’ll go to the heaven!!! Our soulths will be salved!!!!!

god wants us in hell? why? im a god person that tries to do always de rigth think

does it matter what people believe? if people are happy with their faith, keep themselves to themselves, do you really need to be so militant about faith (this goes to evangelical Christians too)

– If a Christian comes to my door trying to get them to buy a bible I’d tell them to go away,
– If an atheist came to my door to tell me there is nothing I’d tell them to go away,

If people can justify it in their minds that’s good enough for me. Its not like any of it makes any difference.

Oh also, religion is an excuse for war, you really think if there was no religion there would be no war?

@T

Yes it does matter what people believe as it does make a difference. Do you honestly think that believers are happy to keep themselves to themselves and why would they when they believe that only they are an enlightened to the true way and have a duty to enforce that on others whether democratically or through violence.

Does it make a difference that a child may not be able to go to the local school because of his/her parent’s faith; does it make a difference that people consider their religious views should take priority over laws that apply to everyone else; does it matter that freedoms should be removed to avoid offending those that believe in fairy tales; does it matter that 52 people where murdered in London in the name of religion?

Im not being a prick here and asking people to embrace Islam…but there is a reason why Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.. most people who join this faith do so after their own research.so the best way is to read the Quran ,the one and only book,,which hasnt changed since 550 A.D

@ibz

“which hasnt changed since 550 A.D”

Would you say that’s a strength or a weakness?

After nearly 1500 years, wouldn’t you have thought there might be a few additions or corrections that might need to be made?

Kate:

To me this suggests that the human condition as we know it is an agglomeration of the pure biochemical and determinative, and the mind, which is something else entirely, and may not follow the same rules.

This is long (and, in places, technical) but well worth reading. After you’ve read it, let me know if you still think the mind is separate from the brain.

Aor:

Do you want proof of kittens? I can go get you photographs. You could maybe go to a pet store and see one. There, proved. One fuzzy kitten.

Technically, Kate is right about this. In the physical world, we can never prove anything. All we can do is say that a hypothesis (such as “kittens exist”) is consistent with the evidence. Those photos might be faked. That kitten you just saw at the pet shop might be a puppy in a kitten outfit, or a hallucination, or some kind of advanced robot from the future. While the evidence in favour of kittens is very strong indeed, we can’t technically be sure that kittens actually exist. The difference is splitting the finest of hairs, and I doubt anyone outside of a mental institution really believes that kittens might not actually exist, but she’s technically right.

The evidence for kittens is overwhelming, but it doesn’t constitute proof.

@Jabster
Ok, some kinda odd points there,

don’t get islamic fundamentalists confused with people who believe in god, its like saying the IRA were fighting for Catholics.

religion/race/football team/whatever they’re all ways of people making an us and a them, it’s always been the same, it always will be, its not about religion, its about human nature. Sure you get some religious nuts, but believe me, if no one believed in god, the world would be a much worse place.

Yasser Mammood:

Speicially USA 60% of American woman are accepting Islam.

Given that less than 1% of Americans overall are Muslims, I think your statement might be less than entirely accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Main_religious_preferences_of_Americans

@Yasser Mammood

Well, I don’t get to see the argument of the Muslim often, but if yours is at all representative of others of the Islamic persuasion, then I am quite aghast.

If it were possible to have more than 360 degrees in a circle, then your circular reasoning would surely break the rules of geometry.

Oops. That makes sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding Anna :)

I like this challenge and I would like to write something, but I need more information as to what exactly you accept as being ‘proof’.

This is not a semantic game, it’s common sense. For example, if you want proof that it is hot outside and I give you a photograph. Is that acceptable proof cuz its sunny in the photo? I think you need a thermometer in this case.

You are asking for proof of the existence of God. I am asking you what you would consider to be proof. Proof can come in many forms. Do you accept logic? Do you accept only sensory perception and your mind’s interpretation of what you perceive as proof?

So I’ll check back to see if you give any response.

Peace,
Jagat

@Jagat

Agreed. There are no hard and fast parameters. What do you have? I’m sure you realize that the closer the evidence is to empirical, the better. But if it is not, we can still discuss it’s validity.

I would like someone here to give me the probability of life, the universe and everything coming into existence the way it is now.

Because the chances are too small to even contemplate, even WITH natural selection, evolution, and everything else.

But any mathematician here, give a figure.

@Matt

Given how tenuous our current understanding of the early universe is, I think you already know that those calculations are impossible.

But there’s also an unwarranted assumption built into your question. We don’t know that our current universe was “intended.” As an atheist, I believe our current universe is a product of chance and contingency. Therefor, we shouldn’t be impressed by how unlikely our current situation is, because it is exactly as unlikely as all the other possibilities.

Think of it this way: the chance of drawing a specific card is 1 in 52. The chance of drawing two specific cards in a row is 1 in 52 * 1 in 51, and so on. The chance of drawing 5 specific cards is astronomical. However, if you don’t care which cards you draw, then the probability drop to 1 in 1: if you’re drawing five cards, you’ll definitely wind up with five cards.

So the odds against our existence is impressive only if you assume that we are somehow a chosen result that the universe was aiming for.

@Matt
I think I misinterpreted your question Matt. I thought you were just asking about the chances of the universe coming into existence, rather than the chances of it arriving at a particular outcome.

VorJack’s nicely answered your point anyway. Thanks dude!

I would like someone here to give me the probability of life, the universe and everything coming into existence the way it is now.

I would say that the odds of that happening are zero. but as no-one claims that the universe came into existence in its current form, I’m not sure what that proves. On the other hand, the probability that our universe came into existence and then, eventually, became arranged into its present form is exactly 1. Because we know that it happened.

What are the odds that that tree in your yard just randomly appeared one day, full size and with every leaf in place? Because if the odds of that are too low, it must have been planted there by Johnny Appleseed, right?

Matt Mapplah

I would like someone here to give me the probability of life, the universe and everything coming into existence the way it is now.

Nil, the evidence is completely overwhelming that neither the universe nor life on this planet came into existence the way it is now.

I assume that you are trying to show how improbable the various creation stories are.

@Adamus

Substitute your use of the word ‘god’ for, say, ‘trolls’, and reread your own sentences.

if we’re proving whether or not God exists by proving whether or trolls exist, then God does exist: i attended a party two nights ago for a venerable old troll that everybody else at the party also saw and had visible, auditory conversations with… and a few people even hit him in the face with a pie…

i’m not saying God doesn’t exist, and i’m not saying God does exist: i’m saying that God both exists, and doesn’t exist, at the same time, with no contradictions… which probably seems even more crazy than my previous statements. as i said, i’m not trying to convert or convince anyone, so my delusional rantings shouldn’t affect anyone else.

with spanish accent:
“I do not think it means what you think it means..”

wintermute:

“What are the odds that that tree in your yard just randomly appeared one day, full size and with every leaf in place? Because if the odds of that are too low, it must have been planted there by Johnny Appleseed, right?”

Interesting example, because that is just exactly what creationist say, just substituting God for Johnny Appleseed.

I do believe in god (not a specific one, just a creator), but can easily be persuaded, otherwise by any scientist (atheist or not).

All they have to do is either create a living cell (or even clump of molecules) that wants to eat and procreate, from basic chemicals. Or explain, specifically, with constituent proof of concepts, how it could be done (I don’t expect scientists to know everything after all).

That’s it! Simple. I will be happy to un-convert right now in front of everyone.

Until then, I do believe in a Johnny Appleseed that planted it.

Any takers?

Przxqgl, yes it does sound even more crazy. Your words contradict each other and you do not understand why.

Often believers attempt to use mystical language, or co-opt the terminology of quantum mechanics and misapply it to philosophy, but this may be the first time I have seen a person write that they don’t say god exists, they don’t say he does not, but then in the same sentece say that he both exists and does not and that there is no contradiction in that sentence. Blatantly false is the response that comes to mind. It does not pass elementary reasoning.

Here is a useful exercise: put your thoughts down in precise terminology. Avoid words that are undefined (or deliberately misdefined, which happens a lot) and try to put your beliefs into clear words that cannot be easily misinterpreted. If you can’t find a way to make your thoughts clear to others then they are probably unclear to you as well.

@Grapeape –
“All they have to do is either create a living cell (or even clump of molecules) that wants to eat and procreate, from basic chemicals”

*wants* to eat and procreate? That’s an odd phrasing. It’s like saying a sponge *wants* to absorb water. Do you mean anything specific by it?

Aor,

not quite, but that is extremely interesting.

It fails both of my test however.

1) it is not alive (in the sense that it wants to procreate or eat in any way), it is just a copy of a dna fragment

2) it was not created from basic chemicals, it was synthesized using other living organisms, coincidentally so were you and I ;-)

Not to discount the science, it is fantastic, but they did not create life in any sense.

(I am not saying that it can’t be done, I am very open to the possibility)

Andy,

This is much closer to what I am searching for.

The article is scant on details, but appears to be a combination what Aor linked, and hopes of future “breakthroughs”.

Even a self-replicating (using only “natural” energy, ie., no human, or “forced” intervention), molecule would satisfy me, I think.

Grapeape, what basic chemicals are you referring to? Perhaps Guanine, Adenine? Are you going to claim those are not chemicals, or not basic enough?
Here is the quote: “The team achieved this technical feat by chemically making DNA fragments in the lab and developing new methods for the assembly and reproduction of the DNA segments.”

DNA that can assemble and reproduce. Do you know anything about viruses? Do they eat? Are they alive? Perhaps you should take some time to think this through. I believe that the scientists involved in this particular research could be said to have ‘constituent proof of concepts,’

I think you are grasping at straws, hoping for a way to get out of your ill conceived dare. I often see theists lie about what will convince them, only to move the goal posts when someone provides what they ask for. Is that what you are doing here?

Viruses reproduce naturally and do not have a cellular structure. They do not eat in any conventional sense. Are they alive?

A virus does not self replicate. A virus cannot reproduce without the help of a living cell. But if you want to use a somewhat looser definition of self-replication (as you seem willing to do)….

Hows this then:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-11-13-new-life-usat_x.htm
or this:
http://www.naturalnews.com/023431.html

You are gradually getting painted into a corner, Grapeape. Eventually you will either retract your claim to change your beliefs, or withdraw from the conversation (most of us have witnessed this kind of stuff before).

A virus does not actually reproduce on its own, but lets run with that somewhat looser definition.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/11/13/scientists-create-artificial-virus.htm

Interesting, isn’t it? And that is from five years ago.

Woot!

Hehe, congrats grapeape :-)

Andy, Aor:

1 down and a few billion to go huh?

I was trying, unsuccessfully it appears, to bring about the dialog that even atheists have to have faith in something, even if it is just the suppositions of scientists.

I strongly believe that faith, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.

It is when people start believing that “their faith” is the only possible explanation that leads to all the historical (and current for that matter) damage to the human race that we see from organized religion.

I know it is hard to believe, but sometimes, people are so down-and-out, and so alone, and so afraid, that all they have is faith. Faith that even though this life has been cruel to them, that there might be a chance that once it is over there might be something better for them.

Faith in that sense just gives hope to the desperate, and is not harmful in and of itself.

When you mix faith, human failings, and a little mythology together, you get organized religion, which has almost without exception been harmful to civilization.

I believe that it is not right for atheists (now that i am one, i can say that, right?), to demonize all forms of faith, when in fact they probably just want to demonize organized religion, hence my original attempt to show that everyone has to have a little faith every now and then, even atheists.

wintermute,

it didn’t.

I agree with you, the only thing that it proved was that life can be “intelligently” designed.

I should have made the pre-conditions the same that they were in the beginning, ie. make life using non-living physical phenomena, naturally occurring chemicals to create a self-replicating cell or molecule.

But I had to stick by by agreement, right?

Mr. Juan Ocampo,

There is no historical Jesus. All the available documents were written generations after the alleged resurrection. All of them are hearsay, and talks very little about Jesus. The ‘best’ one is from the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, but is clearly a dishonest addition, most likely by the early Christian historian, Eusebius, known for his ‘pious lies’.

The Gospels were not written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. Paul, who has the earliest Christian writings, never met Jesus, and did not even mention the virgin birth.

PinoyHeathen,

Do you take the fact there there is little or no contemporaneous documentation of the life of Jesus to mean he never existed at all?

Or do you mean that he might have existed as a teacher, healer, etc., but has since been projected with the mythological abilities and characteristics of Mithras, Zoroaster, Horus, etc?

The claim that atheism requires faith has been destroyed many times over. Only those who willfully refuse to accept reason still make those claims. I will assume you heard this from somewhere and accepted it, and since so far you have shown a higher level of intellectual honesty than most believers, I hope that knowing that it has been disproved will lead you to looking up the many places where it has been disproved.

But lets take this a step further. That idea that atheism requires faith, despite being disproved many times over for many many generations, still gets spread by dishonest believers. Why would that occur? Why would anyone who has the truth need to deceive? The simple fact that believers still spread that myth after it has been disproved to them makes those who do so appear to be willfully trying to deceive their followers. I cannot imagine any preist-to-be going through seminary without encountering these elementary disproofs, yet they get repeated. The fact that those who represent the believers often use lies and trickery in order to back up their positions should be taken as a sign, and not a good one.

As an aside, what would it take to convince an atheist of, for example, a creator?

I don’t mean the whole fire and brimstone, 70 virgins, schtick of organized religion, just that that inception of life as we know it (ie. from simple cells, to modern humans), was intelligently designed.

I know that if an alien, or a god showed up and took credit and explained how it all went down, that would be acceptable, but short of that?

What evidence would an atheist need to be convinced that we were created?

McBloggenstein:

not to science, to understanding.

I’m not trying to be a jerk, but I’ve been down this road enough times to know how to cut people off at the pass just in case they decide to go that route. Believers tend to want to use big-F Faith, often hoping to exclude the small-f definitions of faith. Nobody ever claims that they truly need religious faith that the world will not stop turning at any given moment, but often they wish to restrict the meaning of the word as if they did believe that. Lets not go there, because it won’t hold up. Faith in the religious sense is belief in the absence of evidence, and given that we have evidence of gravity I don’t feel the word applies in the way you might hope.

As for what would convince me of a creator, I call it evidence. If the first eleventy-one digits of pi and a recipe for fat free chocolate bars were included in our DNA, then I’d be pretty convinced. Clear and indesputable evidence, not the kind of ‘oh, maybe, wouldn’t it be nice if..’ illusions that people believe simply because they want to believe in something bigger than themselves.

McBloggenstein:

”’hmm.. Couldn’t “understanding” be subjective though?”’

…exactly my point from above.

It is that subjectivity that lets an, appropriately ignorant, person take some things on “faith”.

No one can do and understand all scientific experiments that where ever completed, just to prove to themselves the existence of, neutrinos, for example.

I believe in them because the scientific evidence used and the scientists that used it told me so, and showed me pictures of their trails.

I couldn’t prove it to myself if I wanted to. I lack the capabilities.

I can also promise you that there are plenty of atheists in the same boat.

The evidence is “good enough” for them.

Some evidence, even, for example in the case of gravity, if it is the past personal history of not flying off of the earth, has to be taken on faith, if the person does not have the ability or understanding to prove it a different way, or even prove it at all.

Also this is assuming we are talking about “intellectual understanding” and not the “love and understanding”, that is.

Aor,

I clearly defined my definition of faith and it is not the “religious leap of…” kind.

I understand how faith and “Faith” can get mixed up, but I thought I was being clear that I was using it in the sense of “i believe in something because of…”.

@grapeape

I know what you’re saying, but that is not the meaning I meant when I said:

“God (or faith in the supernatural) is in an inverse proportion to science.”

If we agree that “understanding” is subjective, then I don’t think that word takes the place of science in my quote.

I guess I meant “science” more as “the search for truth”.

Understanding does not necessarily mean that, as it is subjective. Right?

@grapeape

I do believe in god (not a specific one, just a creator), but can easily be persuaded, otherwise by any scientist (atheist or not).

All they have to do is either create a living cell (or even clump of molecules) that wants to eat and procreate, from basic chemicals.

But invoking ‘god’ in attempt to explain ‘the living cell’ or any complex phenomenon is no better than the Ancient Egyptians invoking a god riding a chariot to explain the passage of the sun across the sky. It’s just the classic god of the gaps argument that’s been around for thousands of years.

You are just bypassing the explanation of the phenomenon by invoking an unknown entity that must be at least as complex as the phenomenon that it is supposed to create and then treating it as exempt from the difficulties or questions that apply to the initial phenomenon. It’s just a rhetorical trick that doesn’t help explain the phenomenon one jot, in fact philosophically you are in a worse state than before as you now have an extra, unevidenced entity to explain as well as the initial phenomenon.

So your point about atheists requiring faith was simply a way of saying atheists are confident? I’m afraid that doesn’t add up.

Aor,

my point about atheist requiring faith, was that there had to be a reason for the confidence that they enjoy.

They do no prove in detail to themselves everything that they believe, they have to have faith (or confidence) in things that match their experiences and observations(most important), via. the scientific studies of others.

Non-atheist can just as easily apply the exact same steps to some things.

For example, a creator.

I have seen (and been responsible for) creation of new life, I now know thanks to you that life (by my loose definition) can be created by intelligence with the know-how, therefore, original life here on earth was created from another life or by intelligence.

All of my experiences, observations, and for that matter scientific data back up that statement.

Do you see what I am getting at with that?

@grapape
You aren’t Eric Kemp by another name, are you?

I find nothing outlandishly foolish about the following statement:

We know from experience and experiments that life or (thanks to your link) intelligence are the only ways to create new life….so the first life on planet earth came from another form of life or intelligence.

No, we don’t. We know that life and intelligence can create life. We certainly haven’t excluded other methods, and we’ve put a dent in the usual creationist argument that “only God can create life.”

And *sigh* NO. Atheism isn’t a faith. Do we really need to trudge this ground yet again?

Atheism is a religion the way bald is a hair colour.

Atheism is the only philosophy completely and incontrovertibly supported by scientific fact so far.

Put some salt on God’s tail: Conduct a scientifically-viable double-blind experiment to prove the existence of a god.

Because that’s your theory (or used to be–I thought you were an atheist now?). And to be accepted, it needs to be proven.

I need not prove the non-existence of god any more than I must prove the non-existence of fairies, leprechauns, and the invisible dragon in Carl Sagan’s garage.

And no, the scientific data don’t back up your sudden claim that only intelligence can create life. In fact, they offer tantalizing glimpses of how it might be possible to derive life from non-life without agency.

You keep using that word “faith”. It doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Which do you think is more likely:

A) A grand conspiracy of scientists are keeping the truth from us. They have found clear evidence of god, but refuse to publish their research or results, and intimidate into silence all those who think differently. Not merely a few, but every single one.

Or

B) A grand conspiracy of assorted holy men and their dupes and associates, all wearing the same clothes and symbols keep their followers from useful inquiry into the real substance of their particular profession. To this end they deride as “misguided” all those who think differently, in hopes of undermining those peoples’ opinions and sowing sufficient doubt in the minds of their followers to keep them uncertain and allow themselves to consolidate their power.

Which?

Because I am willing to accept the opinion of the scientific community as being more reliable than those of the shamans.

Once upon a time, chemists believed in phlogistons. They had to exist for the theories of the time to work. With time and research, science outgrew phlogistons, because the truth was more interesting and the money in chemistry was in accurate scientific description. Chemists came out and said shamefacedly “Yeah … those phlogiston thingies? Um, well it turns out we were wrong, you see. Yes, we feel a right bunch of charlies, but look at these atom thingies–We’re getting some really interesting results …”

The shamans, once people started to discover their secrets, were worried they’d lose position, privilege, and power in society. After all, if there’s no God, why do we need priests to speak for him/her/it? So they redifined the words of scripture, altered doctrines society had outgrown, and made it acceptable in accordance with the mood of the times. And then told their flocks (great word for those who are fleesed) that these alterations were well within the scope of eternal and inerrant Truth.

Cleary, Truth under shamans is a malleable proposition.

Hmmmm. Looks like we’re coming up on 300 comments, and we’re pretty thoroughly side tracked.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone found any arguments or evidence for a specific diety in all of this? I kinda lost track.

grapeape said:

“faith must be taken by anyone trying to explain to themselves something that they have not proven step by step from the beginning.”

This is what should be emphasized.
It’s like I work in a lab. Me and Bob are working on completely different experiments. Bob finished his and pretty conclusively comes up with X. Well, I trust Bob, and respect him, so I’m going to have faith that he did the experiment correct and I will then trust the results.

As far as whether or not this was the original meaning grapeape assigned to faith (vs. Faith), I don’t know.

@VorJack

“Just out of curiosity, has anyone found any arguments or evidence for a specific diety in all of this? I kinda lost track.”

You don’t find this to be a hands down winner? :)

“ibz
Im not being a prick here and asking people to embrace Islam…but there is a reason why Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.. most people who join this faith do so after their own research.so the best way is to read the Quran ,the one and only book,,which hasnt changed since 550 A.D”

I have yet to meet a person who says that atheism requires faith who is not trying to imply the religious definition of faith. Nobody ever says atheism requires confidence or trust, because that is fairly meaningless and wouldn’t really add anything to a conversation. In the same way it would require trust and confidence to start your car in the morning or to make coffee. It is always an attempt to suggest that atheism is as much of a religion as christianity. Perhaps Grapeape wasn’t trying to go there but that would go against my experience. I’ll leave aside his statement that providing proof of artificial life would convert him, since we all knew that was a lie from the beginning didn’t we?

Here is the relevant quote:

“We know from experience and experiments that life or (thanks to your link) intelligence are the only ways to create new life….so the first life on planet earth came from another form of life or intelligence.”

As I said, false. We do not have an experiment that shows only life or intelligence can create life. In fact, we have the concept of emergent properties of matter. In all our prior discussion the concept of only life creating life was unmentioned. So this claim comes out of thin air.

But I’m not getting the impression that Grape is being honest with us or with himself. I sense evasions, diversions, attempts to change the topic, attempts to misdefine terms. Standard theist attempts to deceive.

Those with the truth on their side would have no reason to use such methods.

You again mention the experiments of life. Do you have a source or a link, because I see no experiment. Or are you denying the validity of research into the emergent properties of matter? I would hope not.

I’m sorry that you do not see your claims about atheism requiring faith in the way I do, but I came to this conclusion based on experience. I simply cannot see why you would mention it at all if you only meant it the way you claim. It would be a pointless thing to say. I have seen hundreds of people bring up that subject and the goal has been universally to imply that atheism is as much a religion as christianity. It has been shown to be false time and time again, and all we are doing now is belaboring the point.

I didn’t take your statement about unconverting as a joke at all. You made a clear statement. I showed you research that has created an artificial virus. I could have provided other links, such as this one:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=d8r4h0q00&show_article=1

or this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/sep/06/2

These conversations follow a pattern, once you have been through it a few times. Often a believer comes into a conversation and says ‘if only you could do this, or show this, or prove that’ then they would stop believing. When the point is proved, they move the goalposts.

grapeape,

“I just believe that we were created (not in the 7-day sense), and I think I have a pretty good argument about it.”

In considering your argument, remember that to believe in a creator, you are saying that although humans have not been able to demonstrate that without intervention life can form form ooze, you are saying that the best alternative to that idea is that someONE made it happen.

It seems to be a fall-back… until someone shows you something better.

Keep in mind that this is not only convenient, and just as unlikely (if not more), but it ignores that just because modern science hasn’t seen it doesn’t mean it’s not possible. Modern science being EXTREMELY NEW vs. the timespan of human existence.

Do you see that a creator being a fall-back is not really a reasonable alternative?

Atheism is not (at it’s core) making any assumptions about anything. It is merely denouncing what some believe to be the more unlikely of explanations among the various possible ones available.

McBloggenstein,

well said, but here is my reasoning.

What is the simplest answer for life on earth?
1) A fairy god made us in his image in 7 days?
2) We developed from basic compounds with the help of a few hundred million years and the fact that sometimes structures show surprising phenomena? (this is Aor’s emergent property thesis)
3) We came from pre-existing life?

I submit that I am not arguing the beginning of all life in the universe, just life on earth.

If I say it a different way, for example:

1) Alien rocks hit our planet with “special” molecules that expressed the ability to replicate and some of them stuck. or;

2) We are the latest in a change of life forms that have been developing (ie. evolution) for millions of years and over several planets with the help of the destructive power of space-rock collisions.

most people, especially atheists are willing to say, “well it is a possibility”.

I honestly do not even see the controversy if I say life (or intelligence with the right tools) begets life.

It is only when it is framed in the context of the beginning of life, that it makes hackles pop up.

It is the timespan of the universe that makes me believe. It is hard to think that we are the fortunate few that developed by beautiful accident in relatively recent history, when there is a giant universe out there that has been there “forever” in universe time, that is.

Is it not more reasonable in that respect to follow what your eyes, ears, and all of human history, and all science experiments that are possible to perform, tell you…which is that “life begets life”.

Also, in my opinion a “fall-back” is saying that “well we haven’t figured it out yet, but we will”, no?

This life begets life issue isn’t what you are having trouble with. It is the position that ONLY life or intelligence can create life. That qualifier is massive.

As for my approach, I still question your truthfulness. Once your initial post got you a result you did not expect, you attempted to imply atheism required faith. You have danced around precisely what you meant ever since, but there is little doubt when I re-read your comment that you were simply doing the a fairly standard song and dance commonly used by those who come here from AiG and other apologist websites. I would have much more respect for that if you were open about it. In fact I would love to hear you say that atheism does not require faith, since I assume we have proved that to you by now.

As for your idea of life having originated on other worlds, what does that have to do with making your best case for god? We’ve strayed far from the original topic.

McBloggenstein,

I agree with you on all points.
In fact, I would say that my statement in general is commiserate with atheism, yet most atheists will not agree with that point, because it starts down the slippery slope of a “God”.

I should tell you that I am not religious.
My degree is in chemistry with an emphasis in organic chemistry and a double minor in maths and computer programming. (if you can believe that!)

I was indoctrinated young from a religious family, but by the time I was 13 or so was a sworn atheist.

Later, after a little thought and a lot of soul searching (something else specifically human, I suppose), I did start to believe that life on earth did not initiate from the primordial ooze (or the new vernacular of emergent properties, or as I was taught “emergent structures”)

I seems “right” to me, both from a purely observant standpoint (a true scientist, no?) and from a scientific one that we are arrogantly selfish to think that the little blob of rock we call earth was lucky enough in the entire universe to develop the type of intelligent life that we know exist, and can’t detect anywhere else.

Clearly to me the answer was that it either ended up here or was put here.

You will notice that no one is willing to dispute the “life begets life, thesis”. The reason is because as much as it would make sense for it not to be true, it is still there looking us in the face.

I do believe in evolution, although it is a stretch of the mind and almost requires a “religious leap of faith” to take it all in.

Although a lot of scientists disagree, I am consoled within my “beliefs” with Stephen Jay Gould’s punctuated equilibrium ideas. (It helps me reconcile the whole “morphology is relation” idea within a framework of my own short time here on earth related to the vast amount of time that has been.)

Aor,

I thought we made up?

;-)

I never argued for the existence of God, only the existence of a creator (keep in mind that my idea of a creator is pretty vague, and may actually overlap with yours!).

I have no idea how you came to the conclusions that you did reading my posts, but I love you anyway. (but not in that way, that is a sin, right?)

You know, niceness might help you in changing the minds of “others.”
(It worked for the mormons, right?)

In the off chance that was too snide, let me go a bit further.

Niceness is a luxury. When people do not use evasion or attempt to change the subject, or make baseless claims to have evidence for their belief in the supernatural, and stick to using some form of reason rather than deception, then generally being nice is appropriate. But those situations rarely arise. Evasion seems to be a pattern amongst those who believe in the supernatural. Have you presented your evidence for the experiments of life you mentioned a few times? Have you accepted that atheism does not require faith? If you have, why not mention it? If you have not, why not mention that?

I sense evasion. I sense deception. Hiding that may be nice, but it wouldn’t be truthful.

@T

“What odd points”

Can you point out which of them are not true and/or are not due to religious reasons?

“don’t get islamic fundamentalists confused with people who believe in god, its like saying the IRA were fighting for Catholics.”

Islamic fundamentalists do believe in god as did the four suicide bombers in the London bombings – are you trying to claim that the bombers did not believe in god? With reference to the troubles in Northern Ireland these where heavily influenced by religious hatred and separation. Do you this was just a coincidence?

Finally I’ll just re-reiterate what Daniel said in reply to you comment:

“if no one believed in god, the world would be a much worse place.”

… exactly why do you think that to be true as I see no correlation between belief in fairy tales and a positive benefit to society?

Jabster,

you win me!

Yaaaaaeeeeeh!

how is this for an argument:

1) humans can make other humans
2) nothing else can make humans(at least note demonstrably)
3) therefore a human made one of your ancestors.
4) by god, a human made that ancestor.

Do I now win £5?

grapeape,

I’m starting to see what Aor is talking about…

NO ONE is denying that life begets life. Obviously it is easier to get life from life than from non-life.

Obviously it is easier to believe in the possibility that life came to earth, rather than life starting on earth with no help from pre-existing life.

Both of those points are convenient among the scenarios that propose how life started on this planet. They are also completely avoiding the main point of how – life – begins.

I know, I know, you mentioned a creator… but your solution only brings up more questions than it answers.

I doubt any of us definitively believe that life on Earth was absolutely the first life in the universe. Of course it’s possible that it was not.

But, again, that avoids the question as to how life began.

(not that that is the question I am trying to answer per se)

To clarify, while bringing up the idea that it is possible that life was seeded on Earth from elsewhere is a valid point when discussing where life on Earth came from, it was not the original (assumed anyway) direction of the discussion when you brought up your original position and life creation preposition.

In other words, if you had brought that idea into the equation at the beginning, the discussion would have taken a different turn. To bring it up at the end suggests that you “moved the goalposts” as Aor said.

McBloggenstein,

“if you had brought that idea into the equation at the beginning, the discussion would have taken a different turn”

We can only beat one poor horse so much, right?

I assumed most of these types of conversations “evolve”, naturally.

I have never set any real goalposts. As I stated to Aor, I was just in if for discussion, not necessarily a full on argument or debate, not to say it didn’t veer off into that general direction.

A few of my points, I don’t even subscribe to, I just put them in there as more of a “Devil’s Advocate”, or to illustrate a point, not to trick anyone.

For example, I am a firm believer in evolution. The response to jabster was just to illustrate his breakdown in logic, not my beliefs. I admit, in hind-sight, that sarcasm is difficult to communicate in a post.

Out of curiosity, and since you have been remarkedly level-headed throughout this discussion, what do you think my “goalposts” are? I mean what would you think my “endgame” with you guys is?

As far as Aor, to be honest, I thought he and I were finished after the first little round as my original couple of posts were not well formed, and he handled them pretty well.

I assumed he would just kick back with a satisfied smirk and a wink, fist-pump the air, and mark “one more idiot” off the “hit-list”.

I had know idea he was going to follow me down the rabbit-hole whipping and kicking the whole way.

:-)

@grapeape
So when you ignore requests to clarify your position on atheism/faith, that is not an evasion? When you make points you do not agree with, you are not being deceptive? When multiple people dispute the claim that only life and intelligence can create life, and you ignore that each and every time only to raise the same question, are you not being both evasive and deceptive?

By your latest lines of reasoning, evolution does not occur. You claim only humans can make humans, this seems clear and indesputable denial of evolution in its entirety. Only a chicken can make a chicken egg, and all chickens are born from chicken eggs, therefore chickens do not and have not ever evolved. You claim to be a believer in evolution, and then later claim that believing in evolution is a ‘stretch of the mind,’ and later claim that only a human can give birth to a human, which is a complete denial of evolution. Which do you truly believe? Which is deception? How do we know you believe any of the things you say?

You have been very slippery. When the topic is to make your best case for god, you have claimed both to believe in a creator and to believe that life originated on other worlds and spread here. While those two positions may not conflict with each other, at no point have I seen you try to make any real case to prove the existence of any god.

What I have seen from you fits a common pattern amongst creationist trolls. They begin with a claim to be open and objective, make a challenge (yeah! well, scientists can’t create life so!), challenge gets refuted, they respond with atheism requires faith (Quote: “I was trying, unsuccessfully it appears, to bring about the dialog that even atheists have to have faith in something, even if it is just the suppositions of scientists.” Is this an admission that all of your prior comments were only there to steer the conversation towards faith?), follow that up with the standard “well, what would prove god to you then” and around and around we go.

Perhaps you didn’t mean to come across that way.

But as long as you act evasive, my instinct to chase you down the rabbit hole will kick in. Thats just how things go. When the prey runs, the predator chases it. The simple solution is to not run, not be evasive, say what you mean and defend those positions when people come forward to refute any claims you make. Honest people with the truth on their side do not have any reason to be evasive.

Those who are confident in their beliefs, proud of their beliefs, never have a reason to hide them or avoid clarifying them when questioned.

Aor,

I honestly do not understand the problem you have.

Let me try to clarify the best I can, that way everything will be in one place and there should be no confusion.
(takes deep breath)

1) I believe in evolution, AND it is a stretch of the mind. (the same way I believe in black holes, but have to stretch my imagination to do so)

Everything in the theory of evolution is not as neat and tidy as you and I would like. That does not make it untrue, it just takes a few “leaps of faith” as it were.

As one example:

Morphological differences in fossils over time are accepted as evidence of one species (slowly) changing, or splitting in to another.

I don’t have a problem with that. But there is not way to conclusively test that. Fossils can’t be DNA tested. They are so rare that scientist will never be able to piece together a smooth chain of fossils illustrating the change.

In short, we are asked to accept something that can not be conclusively proven or disproved, because the available evidence is “good enough”.

I do. So do you. But it does take a stretch of the mind…and a little “faith”. (more on that later)

2) Multiple people do NOT dispute that only “life” and/or intelligence can make life. Not in the sense that you mean it, (ie. that there is a generally accepted theory that there is another way). I am fully aware of the “emergent properties” (or as I learned it, “emergent structures”) hypothesis.

It is only hypothesis, not a widely, nor generally accepted theory for the origin of life on the planet earth.

I will repeat this one more time to clarify, so you do not think I am being evasive:

“THERE IS NO KNOWN METHOD THAT WILL PRODUCE LIFE OTHER THAN OTHER LIFE, OR THROUGH BEING INTELLIGENTLY ASSEMBLED.”

That is just a fact! You can not dispute that, no one can.
You can offer an alternative hypothesis but it can not at the current time, be “better” than that fact.

It is observable, demonstrable, and repeatable.
There is nothing in any respected literature, nor proposed by any scientist that is observable, demonstrable, and repeatable and will show you how to produce something “alive”, other than by one of the two methods above.

There are a few (very realistic) hypothesis but no generally accepted theory on this topic, certainly not emergent properties, as you suggest.

The “case” is not closed on the origin of life on earth by any means.

I hope that point is clear now.

3) I have not tried to make a case for the existence of any god, because I do not believe in any god. (I do agree that most of my discussion was off-topic in that respect)

4) The faith vs. “Faith” issue. I thought this one was settled by McBloggenstein. But anyway, here goes….
(also reference point #1 above)
(takes another deep breath and a shot of whiskey)

If you believe something that you can not conclusively prove, due to the available evidence being “good enough” for you….than you are having “faith” in that idea.

You possess a confidence in that idea for some reason…either you believe who is telling it to you, or the idea “fits” your life experiences or observations to the extent that you believe it.

Granted, it is not the giant leap of faith that it takes to believe that there is a fairy god flying above obsessed about your genitals….but none-the-less it is still faith.

The difference between “faith” in the theory of evolution and “faith” that a “magic” Jesus existed, is in degree and type of evidence, NOT definition!

Neither of those ideas can be conclusively proven.

However there is much, much, much more evidence for the theory of evolution then there is for “magic” Jesus.

There is also a difference in the quality of “evidence” between the two.

The evidence for evolution is consistent and found throughout the world, and is supported by other scientific research frequently.

The evidence for “magic” Jesus, is just that some people said so.

I know that you do not like the idea, but those two issues use the same “type” of faith, but they do.

A confidence (one undeserved, in my opinion), in an idea that can not be conclusively proven, is faith, whether it be in evolution or the existence of a “magic” Jesus!

Granted that you and I enjoy a higher confidence in the theory of evolution, because we believe that it is the best idea that describes the evidence that we see, feel, and experience.

But, never-the-less you and I will die not knowing if it is 100% correct. Evolution can never be “proven”.

We will just be satisfied that we were right….because we had faith in the idea due to the amount and quality of supporting evidence.

I hope that this post clears up any issues you have with my other posts.

If you are unclear on something, or think I am being unclear or evasive, just let me know and I will take care of it right away.

Aor,

Just so I can have one post in this thread that is on topic….chew on this.

I was willing to accept a virus as a form of life, most people do not.

In that spirit, if you can accept a “creator” as a god (i do not, but just for this post, let’s pretend)….then:

1) The only conclusively provable ways to create life as we know it is through other life or by being intelligently assembled. (emergent properties do not qualify, as the hypothesis is currently unprovable).

2) Any “life” that you currently see or can touch was created that way.

3) There was a “first” “life” on earth.

4) Therefore, using the suppositions above, that “first” “life” was created one of those two ways. (I know this is the one you are going to have a problem with, but it follows from the other points as using only conclusively provable ideas.)

5) Since the “first” “life” on earth was the “first”, then it could not have come from another “life” through replication or reproduction.

6) That leaves being intelligently assembled as the only remaining method (that we can prove conclusively, anyway), of the “first” “life”‘s creation.

7) Being “intelligently” assembled, would mean that there was a “creator”

What do you think?

Crisp and clean with no caffeine, using only conclusively provable facts and direct logic.

ps. I do not accept #4 above, but if you use only conclusively provable facts available to us right now….it works!

VorJack,

excellent points all throughout.

Quantum theory make me tingly inside.

Hilairiously, if you look at my “proof of god” post just before your, it actually takes “faith” not to believe!

@Aor

Your words contradict each other and you do not understand why.

no, you’re wrong. i undestand exactly why they contradict each other, and that is because, from your point of view, having not met God personally, they do contradict each other.

what i am talking about is something that exists beyond even the concept of contradiction. the fact that God can both exist, and not exist, at the same time, is irrelevant from God’s point of view. at the same time, if God couldn’t both exist and not exist at the same time, then It wouldn’t meet the criteria for being God in the first place.

Blatantly false is the response that comes to mind. It does not pass elementary reasoning.

again, blatantly false from your point of view. in fact, it is both blatantly false, and 100% truth, at the same time, with no contradictions. God exists beyond elementary reasoning, and if that’s what you use to judge whether or not God exists, you’re going to be forced to the conclusion that what i’m saying is blatantly false.

as i said before, i’m okay with this. if it makes you feel any better, think of me as that guy with a 3″ diameter hole in his skull with the crazy ideas…

@przxqgl

That is called the fallacy of special pleading. Look it up.

@Aor

it’s actually the fallacy of false dilemma, but a fallacy is a fallacy…

VorJack,

From the way the thought experiment was framed, you do have all of the data you need.

We know how life is formed.

You have to start asking people to suspend what they know to be true about that in order to accept that the “first” life was formed any differently….right?

Aor,

“What is repeatable about not having found the answer yet?”

Really?
.
.
.
Really? Are you going to stick with that?

That type of reasoning is worse than the organized religion’s line of reasoning.

At least most of them have a “feeling inside” or something, they don’t just shoot you down, without explanation, then say “well you are not right, I don’t know why, but I will when I find out…”.

That doesn’t make any sense.

As for your disapproval of my use of the word “faith”, I am just sorry that it confuses you.

I clearly defined it, pointed out the definition I was using from the copypasta you had, then used it (correctly) in several sentences as examples.

A lot of people here are uncomfortable with my use of the term, but I believe that you are the only person here confused by it.

I think someone has told you that atheists do not have to have faith, and that it has been debunked, but you seem unable to explain why, in fact is sounds like you just took it on “faith”. ;-)

So I am going to continue to use it when I think it is appropriate, and just refer you to my previous posts if you need definition or usage examples.

@Grapeape

“You have to start asking people to suspend what they know to be true about that in order to accept that the “first” life was formed any differently….right?”

Now you’re being silly. You’re jumping from the particular to the universal.

Yes, we can say that in some cases life was created by intelligent agent. But it does not logically follow that ALL life was created by intelligent agents. Until we have a larger sample size from which to draw statistics from, we must build a positive case for each instance. We have no evidence for this instance, so our answer MUST be, “we don’t know.” Anything else is frankly dishonest.

Granted, I suppose it behooves us to look for evidence of intelligent creation. But since we have NO evidence, that’s a dead issue.

“these guys are about to attack you,”

Nah, I’m done with feeding trolls.

Aor,

okey dokey…here you go.

“What is repeatable about not having found the answer yet?”

I offered a simple, detailed, logically sound explanation for the creation of life on earth.

Your response what that it could not be the case, but you do not know what the “real” answer is because “we have not found the answer yet” and the act of not finding the answer out yet is not repeatable.

That is the flaw in your reasoning.

You reinforced my exact point.

My point was (for like the millionth time now), that we only know of 2 provable ways that life can be created.

That is it! It does not say that there will never be another way.

In fact it take a giant “leap of faith” to discount the 2 provable ways that we know life can be created for another, as yet undiscovered, method.

Do you see the problem with that?

@Grapeape

I may be only partially following you.

“We see how life is created all the time, and we understand it very well.”

Correct – if you mean the various acts of reproduction where a living organism creates another.

But at some point the planet was too hot and molten to support life as we know it. So there must have been a time when the earth was sterile. Then, famously, almost as soon as we can find fossils, we find evidence of bacteria.

So at some point the earth must have gone from lifeless to supporting life. So reproduction, as we understand it, is out. Oh, there may be something to the panspermia hypothesis or the notion that the planet was seeded by extraterrestrials, but that just kicks problem back a step. At some point the UNIVERSE had no life – was, in fact, too hot and molten to support life as we know it, so where did it come from? Life as we DON’T know it is, by definition, unknown, so we can’t speculate about it.

Life can come from life – reproduction is part of the definition. But in this case, that’s not an option.

So, intelligent creation. Again, the notion of aliens is possible, but again that just kicks it back a step. Further, this is a philosophical problem where we’re just replacing a mystery with another mystery. We don’t know of any aliens, we’ve never encountered an alien, it’s never been shown that aliens exist. In all philosophical investigations – including science – you’re not allowed substitute a mystery for a greater mystery. If we DID know of an alien species, we could posit that they came to earth and crafted some bacteria. We don’t, so we can’t.

If we knew of an entity with the required power to craft a life, we could certainly assume that the most parsimonious and probable explanation was that this entity created life on earth. That theory would stand and fall on the evidence we could muster. However, we don’t know of such an entity, and we have no evidence.

Perhaps this will make things more clear to you:

Your position would be that because this particular information is not yet all gathered we can discard anything unanswered entirely. It never will be answered because not having the answer right this instant means that one of the other candidates must be the answer. This leads to the conclusion that because we do not know this answer we never will.

Classic appeal to ignorance.

You are claiming that you have conclusively proved that intelligent design is the only way life could have arisen by excluding anything that is not currently understood and fully explained. That is not what conclusive proof is. Not in the slightest.

Here is your quote, from a comment above:

“My position is that since we do not have a “better” answer yet that the “best” answer is the one that we can conclusively prove now.”

Conclusive proof. Your words, not mine.

Aor,

yes I do, but you apparently do not.

I am in no way claiming conclusive proof of intelligent design.

Please stop saying I am or show me the sentence that does say it. (ie, take a dose of your own “show me” medicine)

I am claiming that we can conclusively prove that life can be formed right now either through reproduction/replication or through intelligent assembly (you actually linked me to the second one)

We can conclusively prove those 2 things.
You and I can go witness them ourselves.

What we can not conclusively prove as an origin of life is for example, emergent systems. (at least not right now)

So what I am saying, and please read this as you are picking and choosing items to try to make an argument, is the following:

We do know where life comes from.

In, fact, I think you will personally agree that you feel confident that the “second” “life” on earth came from replication.

So why is it an astoundingly crazy idea that we should apply what we know for a fact (ie. where life comes from), to the “first” “life” on earth, as a best guess, until it is proven false, or a “better” reason is found?

Please reread my posts again.

If you are still confused at to what I am actually saying perhaps I can break it down into something simpler.

Happy New Year!

Aor,

“I don’t see pointing out inconsistencies as being unproductive. In fact, I see ignoring them as being unproductive. No progress is made when people are allowed or encouraged to be unclear, imprecise and inaccurate.”

Excellent point, I agree. I think I just meant that since a blog is not the ideal tool for intellectual discussion, and because not everyone is great at expressing themselves so as to be understood 100%, that quibbling over intentions and accusing the other person of something like equivocation (when more likely they just didn’t understand what you meant) is unproductive. Don’t you notice that more time is often spent (not only on this thread) arguing over what each person meant by what they said, than talking about the actual topic?

In a better realm of discussion, of course it would be productive to point these things out because it is necessary for the progress of the debate. Here, unfortunately, we don’t even know if the other person will return to respond.

Anyway, I think each of you has explained your words as best you could have at this point.

I think Jabster has summed up the points against Grapeape’s argument well with:

“just because A causes B doesn’t mean that B is only caused by A. Until you have evidence of an external intelligent creator than there is no reason to apply that as fact to the creation of life on Earth”

So, just because we don’t definitively know how life on Earth began, it doesn’t make the idea of a “creator” any more likely to be the cause. It is on the table as an option, but of course we all know it is not a reasonable one. So perhaps the only thing we can do at this point is discuss the likelyhood of a creator existing, and who created him, and all that jazz.

This is why you dont see atheists running soup kitchens or housing the poor, loving the unloveable, the despised and destitute.

I think you need to look harder. I see atheists (including, at the risk of immodesty, myself) doing this every day.

John C.

No offense, but that was a bunch of dribbling nonsense.

I can’t even imagine the kind of delusional mind it takes to spout such unintelligible sentences.

McBlog-

No offense taken. If you knew me or my story you might think differently.

I appreciate you, best to you in the New Year…

Mcblog (cool screen name btw)

I understand that, I really do you are speaking from a logical basis, your “worldview” reference and personal history. And it makes perfect sense…in the natural. But what if there was a spiritual, eternal or super-natural “realm” that was just as real, and even more so but we just can’t “see” it with our natural eyes or the natural (un-renewed mind)? Would that make it any less “real”? Ok bear with me here cuz I’m actually gonna make sense to you this time (hard to believe i know).

You just paraphrased 1 Cor 2:15 (I know another damn scripture verse sorry) in your post. It reads: “but a natural man does not accept the things of God for they are foolishness to him, he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned”. Just like you said in your post its simply…nonsense meaning it doesn’t make sense to your (natural) mind to believe in a God you cant see.

Wasn’t it Einstein who said that this world was just an illusion? How did he come up with that? By peering at the quantum world which is the model for the spiritual, eternal realm.

So Jesus comes telling us this “kingdom” has come and in fact is “within us” imploring us to “repent” of our old, wrong ways of thinking so that we might “see” anew and rightly. Now the natural man hears the word “repent” and automatically assigns a negative connotation to it…right? The greek is Metanoi meaning to change for the better. Better is always…better.

He also tells us that if we want to “see’ this new kingdom we must be “born again” but this time of the spirit kind. So the flesh (natural man) sees that which is of the flesh “plane” and the spirit (spiritual man) sees that which is from above, or the spiritual ‘plane”? Still with me? Then later on He says “blessed are those that believe and do not see” with our physical, natural eyes.

He says “dont be conformed to this world but be transformed, changed by the renewing of your mind”, then you will “see”. Jesus was the original rebel. He came to restore things as they were prior to our losing our high (spiritual) position of pure, unadulterated fellowship with Him. Just because you cant (yet) “see” it doesnt mean it (He and His Kingdom) is not there…can we at least agree on that tonight?

And what if this kingdom (and the King himself) meant unconditional love, light, fellowship, acceptance, restoration, sonship…eternal life?

Our problem is its just too good (where do you think all the fairy tales with “happily ever after” come from)?? What is the deep origin of the science of fairy…tales and are they merely tales? Or is God trying to say something to us, to reach our deep hearts, to remind us of long ago, what once was and what He offers again…here and now??

ok, ok I know enough, enough my friend. Good nite and thank you for being…you.

@John C

“I understand that, I really do you are speaking from a logical basis, your “worldview” reference and personal history. And it makes perfect sense…in the natural. But what if there was a spiritual, eternal or super-natural “realm” that was just as real, and even more so but we just can’t “see” it with our natural eyes or the natural (un-renewed mind)? Would that make it any less “real”? Ok bear with me here cuz I’m actually gonna make sense to you this time (hard to believe i know).”

There’s lots of “super-natural” worlds that people claimed to have existed so what makes you think your one is any more real than the thousands of others?

“Good nite and thank you for being…you.”

No problem.

John C, Sunny Day was making a very serious point about the teapot analogy. What do you think about it?

You mention a “spiritual, eternal or super-natural “realm””, what evidence do you have that it exists? You say, what if it exists? I say, what if it doesn’t? Because there’s no reason to believe that it does.

If you think it exists because Jesus referred to it, then what evidence do you have that he said it? If he did say it, why do you believe him? Because he is the son of God and would not lie? What evidence do you have that Jesus was really the son of God? What evidence do you have that Jesus even existed? Why do you believe that anything in the Bible really happened, and wasn’t just regurgitated stories from past religions?

Please note that all of these questions are rhetorical, so I do NOT want answers to them (except the teapot one), but I am curious about one thing.. Do you ask yourself these questions?

McBlog-

Thx…please see my response above to Jabs…in this I share “experientially” a little more of the Truth that I have known.

Then I will be happy to try and answer any questions you might have….not sure ever to your satisfaction.

Talk soon…

Don’t the other religions have shoes that fit everyone too? What makes your shoes better than theirs?

@John C

Yet if you don’t love him then he will make you burn in hell for an eternity – sounds as though he wants to be obeyed and feared doesn’t it?

Jabs-

Your up late my friend?? What’s the deal with that? Is He speaking to your heart? He does not condemn. Everybody knows John 3:16 but what does the very next verse say??? “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn, but to save…and John 5:45 “do not think that I will accuse you before the Father…”

It is we who deny or reject Him, not the other way around. Love is a choice…choose life!

John C

“But I think you would rather me just shut up, thats ok too.”

I can’t decide! On the one hand you’re still spouting dribble, and on the other, it’s fascinating to me.

You spend like 500 words saying “I know it’s true because Jesus told me”, which to me means nothing.

Then you completely avoid the teapot question.

Aor, this is what I meant when I mentioned a “non-sensical scripture spouting fundie that hardly deserved rational debate”.

No disrespect, John C, but you proved yourself to me to be incapable of logical discussion.

@John C:
> “Wasn’t it Einstein who said that this world was just an illusion? How did he come up with that? By peering at the quantum world which is the model for the spiritual, eternal realm.”

No, in fact Einstein was very much opposed to regarding the world as an illusion. And comparing the very real quantum world with the very unreal spiritual world is just plain BS. Please don’t attempt to boost your religious arguments by hijacking Einstein’s fame. That is simply dishonest, and it’s a trick employed all too often by fundies and creationists.

Sunny,

You stopped reading…you missed the best part. I’ll make you a deal…you read the rest and I’ll answer your question.

Then maybe you will have a “sunny mind” too.

You think that because you haven’t experienced it it cant be true, cant be trusted.

Read on my sunny friend.

TRJ-

Hmm? What does that stand for I wonder? Could it be Truth Reigns….Joyously? I am kidding my friend. You are so full of…you that it leaves no room at the inn (your inner man) for the childlike king to play and rule with holy laughter.

Things are not as they appear…this is the first lesson we must learn. Your body is not you.

There is more to life than…this life.

We need to lock you down to some hard and fast claims.

Are you saying that your god does not want to be revered?

Are you saying that your god does not want to be obeyed?

Are you saying that your god does not want to be feared?

Are you honestly trying to claim that not a single atheist in the entire world knows what love is? And you speak about us not being humble! The arrogance of that claim is truly horrifying. Do you claim to have intimate knowledge of the emotional state of every single athiest in the world?

Mcblog–

Good morning, btw you are may favorite “un-believer” of the whole lot!!

The reason you continue to talk is that while unrecognizable to your reason, the absence, the void you “feel” is in fact very substantive and significant to your “journey”. I know, I know feelings (emotions as you call them) cant be “trusted” as you say. But exactly what are they and where do they originate from?

There is in each of us a faint, latent remembrance of the original Garden fellowship and wholeness we enjoyed with LOVE in the beginning. This is how we know joy, laughter, peace, deep hearted “feelings” come from our inner man, not our reasoning. To deny your inner man exists is to kill your own longing for that which you were originally created.

So we see many in agony, addictions, alcohol, sex, you name it, anything to fill that void. But only He, His spirit IN you (not in the sky) can satisfy that very real part of you, your spirit man.

This is why you continue to talk…your heart is trying to “tell” you there is more than your eyes can “see”.

What are you so afraid of, threatened by? Are you worried that you might find a friend in Him, that He may actually turn out to…be…the Eternal One?

You are suffocating your heart…stop. You have read everything under the sun, all man has to offer….but none have remedied your condition. Maybe this year you can open up just a little and “see” with spiritual eyes that there is more…that He lives.

I know you will now feel the need to defend yourself to your unbelieving “brethren” so go ahead…you get the last word if that will make you “feel” better.

Warm regards…anyway Mr. Mcblog.

Aor-

If you saw a child trying to ride a tricycle with only two wheels on it…you would “see” two and not three. Furthermore the child would struggle greatly even though he persisted in his efforts.

In the same way I am saying that a person who refusese the impartation of the spirit of LIFE within, is operating in a similar, albeit limited fashion. We need all three (spirit, soul & body) to function wholly, or as man was originaly intended. A man functioning solely from the soul and body is left to merely reason within his own mind. This is why he can not “see” into the things of the spirit.

As far as love goes, yes you can love….with a limited human love born of the soulish realm. You can do good, be “nice”, etc. But knowing love as you put is means that you know Him, for He is love and is eternal as opposed to man who is created…does that help at all or do you simply want to keep bashing??

All the best…

Aor-

Let me go grab a quick bite, I havent slept or eaten in a while. I am not trying to avoid your questions and will answer them as soon as I return…take care.

Aor said: “Your avoidance of those questions implies that you have doubts about the validity of your own beliefs.”

John C,
I also asked you questions. Although mostly rhetorical, the one that was not was the one that asked if you ask yourself those questions. Your lengthy answer, from which I drew no meaning, basically told me that you believe that to ask so many questions means one has a hard heart, and is unable to realize the existence of the spiritual realm.

I don’t know about you, but my mind and heart are connected. My emotions (heart) are dependent on my perceptions of the world (mind). A skeptical mind is what makes me happy. You claim that I have a void because I ask questions. Your unwarranted presumptuousness is amazing.

“You have read everything under the sun, all man has to offer….but none have remedied your condition.”

Haha, not even close. And neither have you. Yet you presume to know all there is to know about the nature of the world because of what one book told you (more likely, what people like yourself told you when you were young). You got to the Bible, and stopped. Stopped learning about the world with an open mind. Jesus may have opened your heart, but he has closed your mind, which I think is the pathway to the heart (to speak in your language).

I am not continuing to talk because I deep down am looking for “more”. I continue because a mind like yours fascinates me. Please don’t misunderstand that my fascination does not denote envy.

“btw you are may favorite “un-believer” of the whole lot!!”

I’m suprised, considering (not only on this thread) I called you a robot, a broken record, and a “nonsense spouting fundie”.

Aor-

For the sake of time and text…lets sum up all three questions…you asked…”Are you saying that your god does not want to be revered, obeyed, feared”?

Now please “hear” my response since you are so adamant that I answer you.

Before God came in the flesh (Jesus) people lived under a religious “system” called the Law. This was an endless, burdensome, external set of do’s and dont’s, rituals that they could never fully satisfy…and neither could we. They were “dead” laws.

They thought that if they could keep all these mostly man made laws they could “earn” Gods approval, that He would then be pleased with them, accept them, yada, yada, yada. We have another name for it today…BS.

The results of that flawed “system” was a performance based, fear-filled and false “view” of God in that He was burdensome, heavy, distant and “religious” and how could they ever “live up” to His stringent and never-ending demands. Why would they want to…except for fear, the unhealthy kind.

Reverence, fear and obedience were “parts” of that old system or the “law” that enslaved them…and still enslaves most of “Christendom” today.

How can you reverence (respect) a demanding and burdensome God? You cant from the heart…you might “say” something reverential but its just “lip service” and not authentic. It means nothing.

When God came in the flesh (Jesus) He no longer dealt with the external, but with the inward or “heart” of man. He showed us the Father…His true nature and heart toward us that had been cloaked, hidden in the endless rules and rituals of the old, external and inferior fear-filled law, (performanced based view of God).

Now, in Christ “love is the fulfillment of the Law”. The fulfillment of those things you asked me about. Even an atheist like yourself knows that love is an internal thing and not an external, contrived or manufactured response.

You have placed those “things”, reverence, fear and obedience above the law of Love. That inversion is what is holding you back for all those are fulfilled in the one…the highest requirement…love. They are natural consequences of loving Him.

Jesus said (paraphrased) “when you love me, then the natural consequence will be that you obey me”. But you have it backwards…you can not love, honor, obey, fear or revere a God you dont first really know or love. And what if obeying (following)Him was only good for…us? Again, the issue of trust is crucial.

So God prophesied (speaks of a better, clearer way and view of Him, a new day) regarding these “external”, lip-service laws saying “In that day, (the Jesus day) I will write my laws (His ways) on their minds and in their hearts”. Now reverence, fear (healthy awe, respect) and obedience are all inward matters of the heart and not external “rules” by which we gain Gods acceptance. Fear is annihilated.

How was Jesus able to reverence and obey when others could not? What was his secret? Its because he ‘knew” the Father, that is His nature being love. This is where we err. He said “the true worshipers of God will worship Him in spirit and in truth”. Once again, its all inward now. Where the spirit of the lord is there is liberty. Does that sound “religious” to you?

So the offer to “repent” or change our minds from our current, faulty thinking (view of God) is really an invitation…back to life, to freedom from fear, from a performance oriented theology.

Lets go all the way back to the garden before the “fall” of man for a minute. Remember Christ came to restore what was lost, what we abdicated (mainly our proper relationship, fellowship and view of God). Then we had unbroken fellowship, oneness with the Father, with the spirit. There was no duality, no good & evil. We were not limited by time and space, subject to the elements of cold, heat, etc.

The “body” we had in the beginning was the same one that Christ had after the resurrection…it was of a spiritual nature, celestial and not earthly. While there was form, there was not matter, limitation, it was a “glorified” or of a spiritual nature and not subject to death and decay which was unknown to us at that time.

When sin (death) defiled us, entered into that heavenly plane, we essentially “de-volved” into our current, earthly, lower, physical state of being that we “live in” today. In this condition we have lost our original ability to perceive spiritual or divine truth being limited to the “sense” plane. That’s why the things of God, the things of the spirit dont make sense to the natural, physical man anymore, he simply can not “see” them and now demands “proof” of the eternal, spiritual realm in which He was originally created. Oh the irony, the paradox.

So now Jesus says…I am the way, the truth, the life. The “way back” to this eden, this original life that God intended. He calls it a “new and living way” as opposed to the old, dead law of trying to “earn” Gods acceptance by adhering to ridiculous and dead laws and rituals.

Christ has satisfied all the requirements by putting to death the old way, the old you (yes we were also on the cross in Christ, that is our former selves, the old Adam that lost paradise). Now I have lost you for sure huh…again the story is so good…we simply cant bring ourselves to believe…Him and what He in His love has done for us. I can show it to you in scripture but I doubt you are sincerely interested.

Fear, reverence, obedience??? These are by-products and not what God is ultimately after which is yours and my heart, our love. He is the God who wants to be loved. Those “other” things fall naturally under the umbrella of love when love is numero uno.

He says “fear involves torment but perfect love casts out fear”. He is the perfect Father, His love for us is perfected and demonstrated in Christ’s sacrifice.

The kingdom is come and where exactly did Jesus say the kingdom of heaven is? Within you.

But you dont even “think” to look there do you?

If you made it this far, good for you and I apologize for the long-windedness.

Now…let the usual accusations and name calling fly boys…call me every name in the book, a fool, an idiot, a deceived, delusional, irrational simpleton…It’s ok because “I” died a long time ago…with Him and in Him. I have no reputation to uphold and man you cant imagine how liberating that really is. You cant offend a dead man.

Col 3:3 sums it up best “for you died (that is your former self, old identity) and your (new) life is hidden with Christ in God.

Aor…are you sorry you asked? Or did I answer your questions? If not, I tried.

Warm regards

I’d like to propose the following, not as a serious offer of proof, but to understand how many holes there are in it and what kinds of bad logic it uses to achieve its ends.

So, the following premise says:

The evidence of supernatural entities such as G-d, by whatever form one calls it, is in the assertion that science does not (and cannot, but that’s probably part of the refutation) have explanations or answers for all phenomena, and so until it can answer all questions with natural processes, G-d (or other entities) exists.

I was going to start with the Clockmaker and Irreducible Complexity, just to get it out there, but I see we covered intelligent design and the probabilities earlier in the thread.

@Silver Adept:

Well, my first reaction is that this is the classic “God in the gaps” argument. We don’t know how X occurs, so God must have done it.

This is the fallacy of argument from ignorance, or “argumentum ad ignorantiam”. If we don’t know something, then the proper response is to say, “we don’t know.” We might, at some future point, solve the problem. But even if we don’t, it is a false dichotomy to say that if we can’t explain it with science it must therefor derive from God. To show that God did this or that you must build a positive case for it.

Silver,
You want to see this thread hit 500, don’t you?

Basically your premise is saying that if we don’t have all the answers with science, then we should stick with God until we know for sure?

A problem with that idea is that it assumes that not only are there only two choices, but that God is the best alternative. So, until the dethroned Ms. America proves that she didn’t do porn a few years ago, the runner-up will take her place and wear the crown? I submit that there are more than two choices, and God is not even close to being in 2nd place on the list of viable choices.

I actually just talked about this on another post, but I will paste it here with a bit of re-wording:

In order to consider God as a reasonable possibility, you would have to acknowledge all that we know about the history of man, and his many tales of now dead gods that were once believed to explain countless questions that we now are intelligent enough to know the answer for. So, since all of those things that humans once attributed to their god have since been proven to have a scientific explanation, wouldn’t that make God less reasonable on the list of explanations for things?

Because “god” as an answer has failed so many times, wouldn’t that discredit it as a choice for future questions?
So, just because we don’t know the answer to something, there is no good reason to use God to fill in the gap anymore than any other possibility. The only real reason that anyone chooses to use God to explain things is because it’s easy, it sounds good to them, and it boosts their ego because it gives their life and the universe meaning. I believe that given the history of using God to explain things, there is actually less of a reason to consider it than many other viable choices.

Strike three.

They were yes or no questions, John C. Again you avoid and distract.

Those are the tactics of a deceptive person.

Answer the questions, with a yes or no.

Three times you have avoided answering. Why are you afraid? Why are you ashamed? If you have any intellectual honesty at all you will answer the questions and if necessary retract statements you find yourself ashamed of. That is how honest people behave. When they are shown to be wrong, they correct themselves and maybe even apologize.

That confusion you feel, that reluctance to speak, that is your doubt speaking. Your evasions and deceptions imply that you have deep doubts about your beliefs.

Aor-

I spoke plainly. All three of your questions are consolidated under the one. You just dont want to hear so let me draw it out for you:

1) “you shall love the lord your God with all your heart, soul and strength” is the first commandment

so…… LOVE
___________

then…. Reverence (honor, respect)
Fear (you are God, not me)
Obedience (I want to follow you)

I can get my 20 month old grand-daughter who ‘just knows’ how much I love her and doesnt question my love to draw it out for you if you want.

Its all about love man…thats the part you cant “see”. I know….whiffed again. lol

I appreciate our discussions and you.

Mcblog-

You said “In order to consider God as a reasonable possibility…

Tell me, what is reasonable about leaving paradise to come to earth to die a horrific death on a cruel, nail pierced cross? Love is not reasonable, its…love.

Tell me how many apples fell from the orange tree today? The answer is…none.

And so it is with love and reasoning.

Press on my friend into another realm…the realm of the heart, the spirit where love is very….reasonable.

Jabster

Oh, I definitely agree with that. I agree that they are not even similar.

It is with reluctance that I say that God must stay on the list, no matter how improbable, but only for the reason that it can’t be disproved.

Aor-

I have no priest?? I am not “religious” He is my King…the abiding, inward Holy King.

You do not know what to do with the rare, non-religious, spiritual man. You can’t “label” him can you. He doesn’t “fit” into any of your categories.

Maybe he is “in this world but not of this world”?

I plainly answered you. No, God is not interested in those three things, Reverence, Obedience, Fear. Because He knows they are disingenuous outside the bounds of love…the One thing that He is truly interested in possessing is your love, your heart. Now those “things” will naturally fall in place under the surrendered and liberated life, they are mere by-products and have no power in and of themselves.

I dont know how much plainer I can say it. I am sorry if that doesnt work for you but I can tell you I am sincerely attempting to communicate the truth in my heart to you.

Aor…let me try appealing to your logic…the problem is that you dont understand what your problem is. And you dont understand the solution He offers.

Out with the old, in with the new.

?????

@ John C

“If you study in Exodus……..”

Ok lets have a look

The only real restraint God counsels on the subject of slavery is that we not beat our slaves so severely that we injure their eyes or their teeth (Exodus 21).

The 10 commandments the only passages in the Bible so profound that the creator of the universe felt the need to physically write them himself and in stone. As such, one would expect these to be the greatest lines ever written, on any subject, in any language. Here they are. Get ready…
1. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10.You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s.

If we are going to take the God of the Bible seriously, we should admit that He never gives us the freedom to follow the commandments we like and neglect the rest. Nor does He tell us that we can relax the penalties He has imposed for breaking them.

If you think that it would be impossible to improve upon the Ten Commandments as a statement of morality, you really owe it to yourself to read some other scriptures. Once again, we need look no further than the Jains: Mahavira, the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the Bible with a single sentence: “Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being.” Imagine how different our world might be if the Bible contained this as its central precept. Christians have abused, oppressed, enslaved, insulted, tormented, tortured, and killed people in the name of God for centuries, on the basis of a theologically defensible reading of the Bible.

@Silver Adept:

“the premise basically acknowledges that it can’t be tested in an objective manner by science, due to the highly personal nature of the gods,”

It IS a scientifc question. It fails the test……..

The premise that people think it isn’t is the problem.

James-

What is the bible..exactly? Do you know? Is it a historical document, maybe its Gods “word”, what is it… really? Can you tell me? For from this basis we draw our “reasonable” (man-made) conclusions.

Here’s it is…and while not a widely held or accepted “doctrine” when understood in its significance and profundity you will begin to ‘see more”.

Its like this…”Each man within himself has moses and the israelites, the sadducees and the pharisees, the patriarchs and the very kingdom of heaven and hell. Thus, the events “described” in the bible, and looked upon by the pious as being things of a past history, are actually the descriptions of eternal processes taking place in the constitution of man…himself”.

Now when we hear Jesus say “the kingdom of heaven is within you”…what is your (man-made) conclusion? What, who are you? What is the nature of your being? Things only reproduce after their kind right? You learned this in biology years ago didnt you? The law of bio-genesis?

What is the essence of you, does the mirror lie? Is there more than…meets the eye? What or who is IN you?

You say that you “see” (are wholly self-sufficient) so your sin, my sin remains. In contrast to “Lord I dont see, I dont understand, help me to see (wholly dependent). Hmm

As the ancient mystic said “what keeps us from seeing and hearing God? Is it not our seeing and hearing ourSELVES”?

Is anyone tired or hearing themSELVES? Or just tired of hearing…me?? Ha I know the answer to that one.

Journey on guys…

You did not answer, John. You avoid and deceive and hide from making simple and clear answers to these questions. Your lies are pitiful and you should be ashamed of yourself.

An honest man would have answered those questions the first time. You have shown yourself here to be deceitful and ashamed of your own words. Each time you reply without making those yes or no answers proves that you are a cowardly liar.

@Silver

You sound like you’re writing a thesis.

This is how I understand what you’re saying:

Man needs God. Because Man created God, he exists, but only within the minds of each person that has created what they believe God to be.

Is this right? I actually think that this idea is very close to reality, except for the part that man needs god, of course.

I’m sure there is much more that is problematic with that, but this is all I can think of at the moment:

Because of the “highly personal nature” of said created gods, this allows interpretation of each individual’s faith, and how they and their beliefs interact with the rest of the world. Because of the nature of “God” as an omnipotent father, and as someone that is judging you, this provides more opportunity for people to act on their emotions (regardless of whether that action goes against the norms of that society), and in essence can be blamed on their god, if needed. In most blatant and basic terms, “The voice in my head told me to do it”.

An example of this can be a person that was demonstrating for proposition 8 in California recently is asked by someone why they hate gay people, their response is “I don’t hate them, God does”.

Does that make sense? I’m actually not sure I answered your question. I think lack of sleep is catching up with me.

Ive been following the discussion on this thread via rss. I just want to say that not only my head but my heart tells me a god does not exist.

With my heart I have discerned that spiritual things are not only inexistent but totally worthless.

If, like John C says, the heart is the key to validate beliefs then I have proof that god does not exist. Thanks John C for giving me the tools to validate my atheism beyond all doubt.

I have made the transition…into the deep waters of my deep heart friends, and found that god does not exist.

James-

Your whole position supposes that we “cant” know more than the possibility that we “can”, why is this?

And how is it that I have arrived at a very different conclusion than yours? Did I make the mistake of trusting Him? Sight unseen?? By Faith??? Oh no.

You continue to reference tragic, deplorable historical evils that I have never disputed. What do I have to do with that? We have all witnessed man’s utter capacity for evil, it is no secret that man can behave like an animal. Why do you dwell there…in the past?

Perhaps you have fallen for the “labeling” scam. This is where everyone gets “assigned” to a certain group or name. Tell me, who was Jesus? What group did He belong to? Where did He come from? Where did He go? Do you know?

When you know this then you will know who you really are as well.

“Tell me, who was Jesus? What group did He belong to? Where did He come from? Where did He go? Do you know?”

If Jesus existed he most probably would had been a Jew, born from human parents and died like everybody else.
And not only that but I know myself even if i did not know Jesus’s bio (impressive, huh?)

My heart and my mind still tell me that god does not exist.
And how is it that I have arrived at a very different conclusion than yours John C? Did I make the mistake of not trusting Him? Sight unseen?? By Faith??? Oh no.

Brigno-

Thanks man….I appreciate your participation and time. I cant give you anything you dont want or believe….so you are right my friend…for you…there is no God.

Its kinda like Burger-King…you get it “your way”. You get to choose to be your own God.

As for me, I’ll take mine with extra love and mercy, it makes life so much more “flavorable” than the traditional condiments of fear and doubt. They leave a bad taste in my mouth. LOL

Peace B…seriously…may 2009 be awesome for you.

Imagine if God was this guy:

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc268/EncasingTheAshes/burger-king.jpg

@John C:
Upon re-reading your answer concerning OT laws I realize that you were indeed trying to tell me something with your references to love and fear, but your answer eludes me, and for that matter I don’t see it as a sensible answer.

I’d still very much like to hear if you have an answer to what purpose the OT laws served, so here are my follow-up questions again:

How do laws like “people working on a sabbath must be put to death” or “don’t eat shrimp” or “sacrifice a pigeon when you’re menstruating” in ANY way relate to NT’s message of love, and how do they in ANY way bring you closer to God? What conceivable purpose did they serve if they are indeed, as you say, just BS rules? How does following BS rules prepare you to follow a message of love and tolerance which contradicts most of the old rules?

Please explain this to me. I presume you’ll repeat something about the covenant of OT being a precursor to the covenant of NT, but in that case please explain HOW they relate to each other, rather than just saying they do.

Brigno-

You are gifted…bright, funny. I’m just glad I was able to be so helpful to you tonight…lol.

That love in you, that YOU possess within yourself and manufactured OF yourself. Can you tell me where the parts came from? You see I need to order some more and am looking for a good…Source, Supplier? I’m fresh out…thanks Brig.

All this love-talk reminds me of a song “enclosed by you’ by the band Telecast with the line “love is the soil by which our nature grows”.

Maybe I can just “plant” some of that love seed Brig…send me a seed or two would ya?…just dont let the postmaster find out. lol

You…cool.

oops…my bad…right band wrong song…Infinite Worth, not Enclosed by you…just for the record not that anyone cares I know.

@ John C

“James – Your whole position supposes that we “cant” know more than the possibility that we “can”, why is this?”

You are dripping with intellectual dishonesty

If you have trouble understanding atheism :

Consider: every devout Muslim has the same reasons for being a Muslim that you have for being a Christian. And yet you do not find their reasons compelling. The Koran repeatedly declares that it is the perfect word of the creator of the universe. Muslims believe this as fully as you believe the Bible’s account of itself. There is a vast literature describing the life of Muhammad that, from the point of view of Islam, proves that he was the most recent Prophet of God. Muhammad also assured his followers that Jesus was not divine (Koran 5:71-75; 19:30-38) and that anyone who believes otherwise will spend eternity in hell. Muslims are certain that Muhammad’s opinion on this subject, as on all others, is infallible.
Why don’t you lose any sleep over whether to convert to Islam? Can you prove that Allah is not the one, true God? Can you prove that the archangel Gabriel did not visit Muhammad in his cave? Of course not. But you need not prove any of these things to reject the beliefs of Muslims as absurd. The burden is upon them to prove that their beliefs about God and Muhammad are valid. They have not done this. They cannot do this.

CAN YOU????

Muslims are simply not making claims about reality that can be corroborated. This is perfectly apparent to anyone who has not anesthetized himself with the dogma of Islam.
The truth is, you know exactly what it is like to be an atheist with respect to the beliefs of Muslims. Isn’t it obvious that Muslims are fooling themselves? Isn’t it obvious that anyone who thinks that the Koran is the perfect word of the creator of the universe has not read the book critically?

Isn’t it obvious that the doctrine of Islam represents a near perfect barrier to honest inquiry? Yes, these things are obvious. Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way devout Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions.

John C

“You may not yet realize it but you are actually making progress my friend…yes…you have taken the first steps on an amazing new path…the path of life and light!

You have made the discovery of states…that there is one place, that being reason and another realm, that being of the heart…or the spirit world. And not only that but that that they have two distinct languages”

How you got that, from me saying I don’t understand a word you’re saying, I have no idea.

This God stuff is quite a drug, and you are hyped up on it my friend. Big time. Perhaps it clouds your judgment?

You seem to have missed that I said “if God can not be known through reasoning, then I do not want to know him.”

James-

I appreciate your post, I really do and I read every word carefully, thank you. It helps me to understand you and your position better. I tried to find something I could “live on” but I could not, im sorry.

That’s because there is no “life” in religion. It is a burdensome “system” of external rules and endless rituals. As I have stated previously and bluntly…religion sucks, its oppressive and contrary to our (original) nature which was birthed in love and freedom. Thankfully, that is not what Christ came to bring…quite the opposite.

As far as me “dripping with intellectual dishonesty”, nothing I have stated is derived from the “intellectual” plane, but rather the heart or spiritual realm. Not sure what to say to that.

What is not “apparent” is that this King I speak of reigns inwardly, from the throne of our hearts…yet completely, fully. His kingdom is one of righteousness, peace and joy. Is that something you are interested in James?

I have one suggestion for you if you care to know. One of the more fascinating descriptions of how a man comes to know himself, to know God, etc is found in the autobiography of George Fox. He tells, in plain language how this occurs in a man, inwardly speaking. His story, and the movement it spawned is fascinating from both a historical and personal viewpoint. You may enjoy reading it if you like things like that.

Best to you James.

Simply amazing.

As I said last night when you first popped up, John:

I can’t even imagine the kind of delusional mind it takes to spout such unintelligible sentences.

And now I can’t imagine the kind of mind it takes to try so hard to avoid a question.

You’re no longer entertaining.

Mcblog-

Im tired, what question have I missed? I have several things going on at once…please tell me I missed it…literally.

Thx

John: As I told James, this “inward kingdom” is one founded on righteousness, peace and joy”. After all, that’s what He promised it would be like.

Which is kind of strange since my heart has all of the above with out any king or kingdom. Much less a god my heart has proven does not exist.

“what question have I missed?”

James’ last comment, seen here:
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/12/29/believers-make-your-best-case-for-god/#comment-7322

((John C to Aor))

“I understand where you’re coming from, Aor, I really do. And I love you for it.
Did I answer your question?”

I imagine him a preaching version of Richard Simmons, with the short shorts and everything.

John: You are doing a good job of describing what is called “duality”, or the knowledge of good & evil. This too, is a result of the “fall of man”.

Not really. I’m talking about hate and love and how humanity is the source of both. And my heart also tells me that man (as in humamity) has not fallen from anywhere. Again, you need to open your heart more John.

John: In the spirit, that is in Christ there is no “duality” no good and evil, no potential for evil.

Which again is strange since i do not have any spirits (which again my heart proves as non-existent) and i have no potential for evil either (since I constantly decide that will not be the case). Don’t believe me? Maybe you should open your heart more. Heck, I’ll even be your friend even if you don’t do what I tell you to do.

How does that sound? Much more love and freedom than John 15:14.

Ask John. Keep knocking. Do not stop the search.

Aor-

You hit the nail on the proverbial head! Here is the secret…you ready? Its your lucky night!

THE POWER OF GOD IS THE LOVE OF GOD. That can also be reversed. What does LOVE demand?

“Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity, we shall harness for God the energies of Love. Then, for the second time in the history of the world, we will have discovered fire.” Chardin

Love is the most powerful force in the universe.

And remember HE IS LOVE. Do you see it?

So then, what does LOVE (GOD) want? You. It’s your perception of Him that Jesus asks us, begs us to change…from a monstrous to a loving Father. Its your perception of power (love) that needs mending.

I addressed the issue of Atheists (why do you insist in taking upon yourself an identity that the Father has not given you) and love to some extent in one of Brigno’s comments.

LOVE is not a thing, something abstract or vague…it is a PERSON. To the degree that you or I “love” is to the degree that we are imitating our original “source” which is LOVE itself…so naturally, since you were made in His image and likeness…you have the capacity to demonstrate to a degree your original paternity, or spiritual heritage. The degree that you have this capacity is determined by the condition of your heart, your “likeness” of the original mold.

Does everyone love the same? With the same intensity? No. When we come to Him, to LOVE, in love then He pours it out on us and in us.

Love is a light. God is light and in Him is no darkness. So that’s why he says to “walk in the light as He is in the light”.

You are on a path, a journey into the very heart of LOVE (GOD) whether you see it or not. That’s what LOVE does, it…LOVES…get it?

Hang in there Aor!

John: Love is the most powerful force in the universe.

Maybe it is because of the midi-chlorians. LOL!!! Love is a feeling dude, a description we give about our state when our brains experiments certain chemical compounds.

John: And remember HE IS LOVE. Do you see it?

But only if you do what he tells you to do. Really conditional from what I can read in the bible…

JOhn:Its your perception of power (love) that needs mending

It is your perception John that needs mending. Open your heart John (and brain too. It can only help).

JOhn: LOVE is not a thing, something abstract or vague…it is a PERSON.

Which is totally ridiculous since a feeling and a person are not synonymous. By your assertions hate should be a person too.

John “To the degree that you or I “love” is to the degree that we are imitating our original “source” ”

And by the same token the degree you or I “hate” is to the degree we are imitating the original “source”. Nice!!!

JOhn: Love is a light.

Love is a feeling My light is a candle when the power goes off. Or a flashlight.

John: God is light and in Him is no darkness.

Which is kind of dumb since we can see light but not darkeness. Has anyone seen god? Hmm….

Hang in there John!!! Open your heart!!! You can do it.

Brig-

Your cynicism taints your attempts to prove your point…that point being that in YOU is all YOU need and are self-knowing and ALL (self) sufficient in and of….yourSELF? I do not “hear” the authentic voice of LOVE in YOU. But SELF or the EGO is plainly communicated thru YOU.

While I have at times I employed various communicative “techniques” to include puny attempts at humor, fairy tale descriptions, etc…I have never been cynical or mean-spirited or just plain…ugly to you or to any of your online brethren.

You give the impression of being youthful, chronologically speaking.

This forum, this site is called “Unreasonable Faith”. Daniel has gone to great lengths to ensure the integrity of the dialogue is one of a civil and sincere nature, regardless of your viewpoint even inviting people of “unreasonable faith” (like me) to share, however disparate and “unreasonable” a particular “view” may be.

So please…lets continue on in that same high…dare I say…”spirit” of superior dialogue and not let it “devolve” into a tit for tat type of thing. Let us take the “high road”…together. Then we can have an “intelligent” conversation even if you think my words are quite…unintelligent.

Thank you.

So when I say that you are placing limits on the abilities of your omnipotent god, and you say I hit the nail on the head, you are openly admitting to have the power to limit the abilities of your god?

The arrogance. The foolishness. You astonish me.

Do you really understand what your beliefs say about you?

To believe in saving people implies that people are better when saved. There are the saved, and the unsaved. That means unsaved people are less than saved people because being saved is better. This is called bigotry. Discrimination based on religious belief. Your beliefs are based on a completely bigotted concept. Us and them. Christians and heathens. All religions that have the concept of ‘being saved’ are bigotted religions. You not only are bigotted, you go around trying to turn other people into bigots as well. On top of that you are apparently too deluded to see how true all of what I said is and will just go off on another long winded diatribe about magical father figures.

Your ignorance and self delusion is horrifying.

Aor…I spoke only about LOVE in my last post. How did you miss that? I did not say anything about “saved” or “unsaved”??? Where did that come from?

Goodnite Aor

@McBloggenstein –

If I sound thesis-like, it’s because I’m officially agnostic about the matter of existence, non-existence, and who the being(s) in charge are. I’m trying to throw a few actual ideas and evidence into the mix, instead of pontificating about how everyone here needs to find Jesus and accept him as the personal savior of the world.

I like the created-gods theory, myself, for many of the reasons you detailed, plus it makes the most sense to me about why religions change over time – if there were a constant objective deity over time, one would think that history would repeat a certain type of deity across all cultures and peoples – even if there was only one supposedly chosen people at a time.

So what about the idea that there are miracles, things that apparently defy the laws of nature? These days the medical ones tend to be the ones that get the press, where people are cured of diseases without apparent medical explanation. (Have we had any of those recently?) Do those make for some amount of God-proof?

@John C

James-

“Did you ever think to simply “believe” what Christ said? This is not so complicated, but as usual it always comes down to the trust issue.”

WOW That is the answer we finally get to…….. The topic is:

Believers: Make your best case for God.

Quite frankly after ALL we have heard from you I expected more. Just “simple belief.” Very disappointing, and the worst case for God made on this thread. The burden is upon you to justify your beliefs about God Jesus Etc.

Religious ‘Truth’: Here is the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?

The Scientific Method: Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?

Please answer what evidence you give for why you:

1 Aren’t Muslim & Don’t believe Muhammad also assured his followers that Jesus was not divine (Koran 5:71-75; 19:30-38) and that anyone who believes otherwise will spend eternity in hell.

2 Aren’t a Scientologist
3 Aren’t a Zeus Worshiper
4 Believe what you do about Jesus etc

I would like to know EXACTLY the evidence for your beliefs & what is the reason in your mind that has convinced you beyond doubt that the things you claims are true.

Nothing Irrational…… Nothing Anti Rational…….. Evidence & logic only please……..

JOhn: I do not “hear” the authentic voice of LOVE in YOU. But SELF or the EGO is plainly communicated thru YOU.

Well by the same token I do not hear the voice of love in you even less. You are the one communicating self and ego.

JOhn:You give the impression of being youthful, chronologically speaking.

Really? Does hijacking your arguments to support my atheism make me youthful? Maybe it is because your argumentation suffers from undue youthfulness.

John: we can have an “intelligent” conversation.

Sure. Let us know when you are ready….Endless blah about heart and love does not cut it. I told u before. My heart tells me the contrary position to you is true.

JOhn: And you have the audacity to admit that you are essentially a “seeker” or a “searcher”.

Do you have the same audacity John? If you still have it we can help you!!!

John: He is “jealous” for…us in a good way. Exodus 20:4-6.

Exactly. Like when god in a fit of jealousy killed 24,000 Jews who followed Baal (Numbers 25:9) . Love god or die!!! Love god or burn!!! The god is jealous in such a “good” way!!! WHOOHOOO!!! Death and pestilence never sounded better. Nice!!!

John: Only after one “knows” the author…LOVE (God), can he interpret well the text because…he knows the nature, heart or character of the one who wrote it.

Exactly. I know love and found it to NOT be god. My heart, again confirmed it.

John: Does that make any sense to you at all?

Sense has nothing to do with anything. One just has to look into our own hearts and understand LOVE baby. Don’t try to go all rational on me John. That is not the way.

John: The best way for me to describe to you the true “new birth” experience is to defer to George Fox’s autobiography.

A much better, and more entertaining one can be found in the life of George Carlin. Nothing like the un-birth experience. Search in youtube his last HBO show. Beautifull!!!

John: Remember, the letter (old external law) kills, but the spirit (His within us) gives life

Exactly. The law people say the Jewish god gave kills. Can you imagine all the lives that could have been saved if the spirit would have been given first instead of some murderous laws?

What a nonsensical god. Although it does not matter since my heart has proven that all of it is false.

OK, I admit I couldn’t read through all 500 comments. But during the first 10-15 it didn’t seem anyone actually posted what you asked for. There were excuses and there were commentaries on why you shouldn’t have written this post. Hmm.

In the last 2 years my sheltered Christian viewpoint has been “enlightened” by blogworld. My standard answers of why I believe what I believe don’t cut it as they used to. When I grew up, the existence of God was a given. It wasn’t questioned. What you did with that info was another story. With our current global culture, not only can you decide to believe (or not) in God, but there are a variety to choose from.

I’ve read books including Josh McDowell’s More Than A Carpenter, C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity and have heard Lee Strobel (The Case For Christ et al) and others speak on evidence. To be honest, its been 20 years and I haven’t really revisited the evidence in depth where I can rattle off hypothesis and support. I know what I believe and have personal experience–what you may call circumstantial evidence–to enforce my faith.

What I appreciate Dan, is that you welcome true dialogue and through your blog and other atheist or skeptic blogs, I am challenged to see faith through YOUR eyes without agenda. So, I may just have to go back through my evidentiary materials and see if there is something relatable that I can discuss with you. So I’ll get back to you on that!

@McBloggenstein

One of things that I’ve noticed that separates believers from non-believers is the ability to answer a question with I don’t know the answer to that. This often occurs in using the answer god works in ways we cannot hope to understand which has to be the biggest cop out of all time. Can you actually imagine any other ‘intellectual’ discussion which this would be offered as a reason why something is true and no further explanation is required. Possibly this is related to the reason why you so often see a believer’s line of reasoning that if you can get the other side to say they don’t know something or admit a theory is not perfect it means that it must be god that did it and that’s a fact. Maybe as I’ve never believed in god I’ll never get to understand this line of reasoning.

So now your claim is that atheists have less innate ability to love than christians. That is a clearly bigotted statement. Indefensible. That attitude spreads hate.

Once again you disgust me.

Daniel-

Thank you for you kind hosting during my brief “season” amongst you and your extensive online community. There are some great guys (and gals) to be found here. I appreciate the candid, sometimes blunt but always “authentic” discourse from the majority, from all but one.

You have asked me many questions in your recent post. If I were to try and satisfy all of them in one, (very long) post it would be self-defeating and you and I both know that no-one would actually read it. And neither would I. LOL. This one response will be long enough in and of itself.

So, with that being said…lets parcel out a couple (brief as possible) responses, then we can pick it up later or in piece-meal stages if you like.

Lets start with the “arent you religious? Don’t you attend church, follow Jesus? etc, etc question. It requires a little “background” if you are willing.This is the best, sincerest way I know to answer you:

I used to attend the traditional “church” but after coming to know Him (inwardly and intimately just as He said we could) and the liberty He imparts I find it difficult to “sit” under oppresive “religious” doctrines devoid of LOVE with their emphasis on “doing” “religious” “things” as opposed to simply allowing Him to “be” Himself in us, and as us.

This is part of the “mystery of the ages” that Paul spoke about, that being “Christ IN YOU”. That is the only authentic “Christian” experience as Christ In YOU is our ONLY possible fruitful “ministry”. And the only “law” now is the law of LOVE for in it, that is rightly placed at the head, all the others are naturally fulfilled. This is why Christ (love) is the “head” of the “Church” of those who have His DNA (spirit of love) abiding in them.

But because we refuse to actively “employ” the spirit-sensitive capacities of the heart, we miss out on the life that He longs to restore and impart…within us. This is why LOVE says “above all else…gaurd your heart, for out of it (your heart) spring forth the issues of LIFE”. But instead of gaurding, giving attention to it, treasuring it and yes even following it, we dismiss it entirely as “untrustworthy” and fall back on our physical senses, what we can “see” in the physical, sense realm limiting ourselves to mere “reasoning”. The simplicity is a stumbling block to many I know.

If you owned a Ferrari and only drove it in school zones under 20mph…you would be severley limiting its full, intended potential to a mere fraction of its fullness. This is what we do when we “insist” on living in one mode only, the realm of the intellect, reason. Reason has its purpose and I employ it in all reason-requiring activities. For example, when I balance my check book I actually use a calculator with proven mathematical formula’s. And when the light goes from green to yellow I begin to brake…you get the point.

Following this line of thinking Jesus says “that which is of the flesh (natural realm) is flesh, but that which is of spirit (spirit realm) is spiritual”. The LIFE is in the spirit realm…unseen by natural, earthly eyes. It is nonetheless “less” real.

I used the following little example to help to illustrate my point to Mcblog yesterday, perhaps you missed or dismissed it, thats fine but it speaks directly to our current challenges within our individual consciuosnesses that we are attempting to muddle through. My apologies in advance if it is redundant.

“Tell me, how many apples fell from the orange tree today? The answer of course is none. And so it is with faith and reason”.

LOVE is not reasonable therefore it (HE) can not be discerned by it. But He can be known in you and by you. Why would LOVE tell us otherwise if this “life” He offered was imposssible for us to receive?

Transitioning….now there a a few “ministry” models that to me, seem pure-hearted, authentic. However, these are not the mega-church, “power” ministries that so often steal the spotlight of modern “christendom”. I have never been “told” as you put it to say I am not religious. The only One I follow, my “leader” as you put it is the LIGHT of Christ within…again, just as He said. I am not here to judge “ministries”, I just dont want to miss out on the authentic experience of LIFE that He offers in the spirit.

Unfortunately most “churches” are tied to “systems’ and have not been “liberated” themselves so we have the proverbial “blind leading the blind”. The end-game being conformed to His nature, His image which is truly ” spiritual” or free as opposed to “system” and performance based.

I give as I feel “lead” to give, not under compulsion, and not scheduled for then the motive would not be one of love, but rather duty. Do you see this? It always comes back to love and freedom which more accurately constitutes His offer.

Our problem is that we have never really seen truly spiritual people, so we confuse them with “religious” “folk” for lack of a better term and lump them (and Him) in with the whole lot. This is regrettable and the cause of much division in and out of “christendom”. This is also why they couldn’t put a “label” on Jesus and why the world still cant put a “label” on His real followers today. They are “in this world, but not “of” this world having a heavenly “citizenship”. Strangers and aliens in a “foreign” land with no SELF identity being found only IN HIM. I have been labeled, called every name in the book, its ok. Its ok because you cant offend a dead man….right? I died with Him, in Him and now my life is hidden with Christ in God. I have no reputation or identity to preserve. This is a mystery I know. Paradoxical paternity.

Religion…the attempt to assuage a supposed angry God by trying to adhere to an endless list of laws and rules to earn His acceptance that are contrary to our nature…stinks, is dead. We need a new nature.

So you tell me, am I religious? Does this describe a religious person or life? The negative connotations that are tied to the very word “religious” are frustrating our discussions here. Life, the liberated life will always be opposed, ridiculed in this physical realm.

As I have written in other texts, I believe the best, literal description of the inward light and new, spiritual rebirth experience is best described in the journal and autobiography of George Fox ironically “penned” by William Penn in the 1700’s. Its online…somewhere if you care to “hear” it.

He came to restore the “whole” three-part man which includes your “intellect” as you call it which is from your soul (mind, will, emotions) so when you know with the heart (spirit) your head will take its rightful place and the internal “war-ing” in your mind will come to an end…peace will reign…if you want HIM to.

Now, regarding some of James’ questions that you referenced. The TRUTH must come to be known individually in each of us. I can only fellowship with it in others, not live it for others. Read the FOX thing.

While you relish the questions themselves because they are “snares” meaning there is no possible way for me to answer them to your satisfaction or to James’ satisfaction. That is in part, why they were asked in the manner in which they were. Keep in mind, that this same approach keeps one wondering in the desert of human reasoning…endlessly.

The only “reasonable” response to a portion of his question is this: “you shall know them by their fruits”. That is the fruit of their lives. What are the nine “fruits” of the spirit-led life? Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. Do you see these actively in a person? Then perhaps he is a product of the tree of life and not from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Can you love your enemies, those who hate you without cause, who spit on you, mock you and call you names? LOVE is a POWER.

So…you win, you got me, game over. I cant (satisfactorily to your end) answer all his questions.

Daniel…in spite of this identity you have assumed (atheist) you claim to still be on the “journey”. While you may have some understandable resentment, some lingering disappointment tied to your previous, unfullfilling “religious” experience, nevertheless the “journey”, your journey to the center of LOVE continues. This is due to the merciful nature of LOVE ITSELF, not tied to you saying “i dont see” therefore I dont believe…so its all over. Does this make any sense at all? I say journey on…you are impressive.

Thanks for “birthing” this awesome forum. I commend your creative, net-savvy site here and I love the name…unreasonable faith.

John

Daniel-

Thanks…as you have heard, it takes a child to “see” the kingdom…and you are all grown up. But I know you see this from a position of strength. When you see your “maturity”, your impermeable fortress of reason as a limitation rather than a garrison…then the Kingdom will begin to be revealed to you and in you.

So, from your high-tower of reason…you are right, again and always will be till the child ascends the high wall and slays the Goliath of reason.

I hope we can stay in touch as you continue your search for “proof”….you dont have to look very far for the child is in the middle of the middle of you.

John

“So, from your high-tower of reason…you are right, again and always will be till the child ascends the high wall and slays the Goliath of reason.”

Nice metaphor, Religion will make us stupid.

Religious person:
Noun
1. religious person- a person who manifests devotion to a deity

Don’t even pretend not to be religious. Its laughable.

Aor-

Thanks, I have been free from the burden of “religion” for so long now I had forgotten what it meant…thankfully.

And I have a definition for you my friend:

What you refer to as a deity is actually Father, and His name is LOVE, “deity” is impersonal, rigid, and deaf.

Reason is good for some things Aor…but its not a panacea in and of itself…its view is limited to one plane only.

There is more…does your heart ever whisper this to you? In the night, when all you hear is…nothing?

Or have you so suffocated the life of your inner man with the pillow of reason that his pulse is so faint you can barely hear him struggling, gasping, calling for….you.

You have a heart Aor…I know you do my friend.

Let it breathe…please…take the pillow off (i just heard your heart say that to me) LOL Relax…I’m joking, joking…Aor

Dude, your heavy, lighten up.

Keep’em comin bro…

You are clearly deluded. You fit the definition of a word perfectly and yet deny it. Or, pretend to deny it. I find that much more realistic. Given your history of lies, that is.

Why do you choose those methods? When confronted, when doubted, a person who has a solid faith would have no need nor reason to lie or evade or deceive in any way. Yet again and again you choose to avoid the truth as if it were the plague. Judging you by your actions leads to the conclusion that you are an unreliable witness.

Read those last two words carefully, let them have a few moments to sink in.

You came to witness, and showed yourself to be unreliable. How does it feel to fail at a task that is so important to you, to be so incompetent at it that you are quickly exposed as a liar on multiple threads?

If you truly believe that your god wants to to witness, then he set you up to fail.

I have met your kind countless times. You are quite common.

Most theists I have discussions with rely on lies and evasions, like you. Most refuse to take firm positions when confronted, like you. Most attempt to redefine terms to suit themselves, like you. The rare ones are those who realize how poorly they come off and gradually learn to at least attempt to use some form of reason.

I’m not calling you names, John. I’m describing your actions. You showed yourself to be a liar. You showed yourself to be a bigot with a bigotted belief system. If you don’t want to be those things, the power to change is yours and only yours. I’m not the one making you lie. I refuse to accept the blame for that, John. You want to make others appear guilty in this to avoid your own responsibility. Yet another despicable character trait. Just another sign of the shame you feel for how you have behaved here. Doesn’t your god call you to behave better than that? Isn’t there some part of you that wants to maintain a higher standard than you have shown here to us?

@Jabster

I’ve seen lots of people saying that death is God’s will, usually when deciding time of death more than method, but there are a lot of really repulsive “christians” who are all about proclaiming that people die because they’re unbelievers or because the nation aren’t all their denomination, shunning all others. Fred Phelps is one of them, but so is James Dobson or Jerry Falwell.

I’ve also seen lots of stories in the news about what happens when prayer takes over for medicine – most of them end up with death, especially in the children who are forced to be prayed over rather than looked after by a doctor.

May as well take up a little bit of what John C was going after, but perhaps more succinctly. Most True Believers are convinced of the veracity of their scriptures, or at least their God-given-ness, regardless of which God we’re talking about. The presence of so many holy books might disprove each other’s claim to being the true divinity.

What about the possibility that with so many stabs at trying to define what a divinity is, we’re bound to get one right at some point, whether in history or in the future? Not that we’ll know which one it is, considering that nobody has come back and can tell us, yet.

@ John C

I recon you saw, heard and felt something considered supernatural, like a ghost. You’ve decided to absolutely believe in what you’ve just experienced as real. You might say, “I know what I saw, I know what I heard and I know what I felt. I know what I know. I wasn’t hallucinating nor was I delusional. I don’t know how to prove it but I know it was absolutely real! It was what it was! Period!”

You may have family and friends who share your beliefs. After all, that’s where beliefs usually come from. With the above confident declaration, you seek out other individuals who had the same or similar experiences.

You also find articles and other “facts” and “evidence” that would support what you’ve experienced. When enough “facts” and “evidence” are gathered, you convince yourself further that such experiences are in fact real.

These practices lead to self-delusion. This is what happens when you conclude something first, and then work backwards to find facts and evidence to support it.

@Silver Adept

You put christians in quotes as though they are not following the lead from the Bible in god commanding people to be put to death. Yes it’s repulsive but only serves to demonstrate how easy it’s to read into the Bible what a person wants to read or ignore and dismiss other parts. How often have you heard the phrase used “not a proper Christian”. Well I bet Fred Phelps thinks he’s a proper Christian and I bet he’s got proof in the Bible to back up his ideas.

On your last point I’m not really sure what you’re getting at here as you seem to be assuming that “a divinity” exists otherwise it’s a non-question or it’s already been answered by every book that says there isn’t one. To me you could just have well asked surely if we all start writing Harry Potter books then one day we’ll get to the true story of Hogwarts. Even if you assume there is one (which I don’t) I can’t begin to imagine just how unlikely it is that someone will just guess the right answer even with the many thousands we’ve churned through in such a short space of time. If this is ever used as an argument for why “my faith is true and yours isn’t” then I don’t see that being any different to blind faith which essentially is what religions have now to prove the truth of their path.

@Jon C

Yep here’s an reply why doesn’t Marc think it’s ipso facto proof of any one of the other thousands of gods the humans have also made up?

Or please explain why god has created beauty and for the answer to this I’m expecting a full explanation which isn’t just because he does or your normal blah … blah … blah … Jesus … blah … blah … love … blah … blah … blah … quote from Bible even though you claim you’re not religious or a troll.

If you could just answer the above that would be fine and dandy.

@John C

“We are back to “religious, “troll” and “blah” and I thought you were above the *others* my friend.”

Yet you claimed that you had enjoyed conversing with all expect one – more of your lies I see.

So back to your question – why is that after a few pints of lager I really get a hunger for a vindaloo washed down with even more pints. A hunger for a vindaloo is surely ipso facto proof that God does not exist. Why would such a loving creator give us a hunger for something that is so unenjoyable and frankly painful at times? The only reason I have come up so far is that he is giving us a taste of what pain there is in the “ring of fire” in hell – well in the morning anyway. Why do you think. Is this a sign from god?

@Jabster

“A hunger for a vindaloo is surely ipso facto proof that God does not exist. Why would such a loving creator give us a hunger for something that is so unenjoyable and frankly painful at times? The only reason I have come up so far is that he is giving us a taste of what pain there is in the “ring of fire” in hell – well in the morning anyway. Why do you think. Is this a sign from god?”

Lol – Good one!

I have love, mercy and freedom without a god. All John’s verbose nonsense is totally unnecessary. I suggest the rest of the nice people here stop wasting energy on an individual that redefines every single word used in discourse to the point that they are meaningless and worthless.

When a person that believes a god exists, that has written the bible and that Jesus is his son denies being in or having “religion”, one realizes there is no use. When someone is so deluded that the meaning of simple words escape him, there is no point in trying to have a sensible discourse with.

Aor and McBloggenstein, do you have blogs of your own? Let me know so i can add them to my rss feed. If not you guys should have one.

God’s bosom doesn’t interest me. I’m not into man boobs.

Guys-

GENERAL:

After many, enjoyable discussions and my attempting (not to your satisfaction I know) to answer you numerous inquires…not one of you responded with any sincerity or depth to the only real question I asked in return? Why is this?

SPECIFIC:

@JAMES-

Thank you, at least your posts have some breadth and continuity to them. I appreciate that in you. I do understand what you wrote to me, thank you. Please know I am not special as you put it, the only “”enlighted” one but, just as He said…it IS possible for us to know divine TRUTH. This is a wonderful part of the “good news”…we CAN know, can receive. This is an aspect of the big picture you struggle with. I wish you wanted to know this but you are where you are…for now. Thanks James for bearing with me and actually reading, considering my responses regardless of your conclusions about them.

@JABS-

You were not “the one” I eluded to when I said that I enjoyed my many discussions with all…except one. The “hunger” you described was in the physical, fleshly realm. Our Flesh man/bodies get hungry for (food, water, sex, etc) and so our spirit man has a different kind of hunger, but since we can not simply run to local “spirit tavern” we end up ignoring and self-medicating ourselves in hopes of drowning out forever the deep longings we all feel which originate from the spirit realm. Fortunately, it will never go completely away…beacuse LOVE always continues to call for us until we are…no more. So, hope remains.

@TRJ

You are “hearing” a letter from a Writer whose heart (nature) you do not (yet) know…you have got the proverbial cart before the horse my friend. You are majoring on the minors and have allowed this to bring you to an abrupt, incomplete and faulty conclusion. Your lens excludes the good…will not (currently) permit the light to shine IN you. Yet, even still, I hear the faint voice of the seeker, the heart-life alive in you. This is only and always tied to our degree of and desire for LIFE, for TRUTH itself. I hope you can maintain that small crack in the hollow of your inner man, in the middle of the middle of you. The letter (law) truly kills, but the Spirit (within) gives life…you are familiar with this verse I know…but the Author…He remains a nobody to you so how can a nobody write a…some thing, huh? I hope the New Year bring fresh revelation. Thanks for being patient with my (most unhelpful to you) response the other night, it took me too long to get back to you, i apologize. Have you looked at it thru the lens of my (unusual) explanation of what the bible actually is? If so, then what part of the eternal process, which parcel of land in the desert are you currently plodding along at right now. Not that I have fully “arrived” either. Thanks TRJ-Truth Reigns Joyfully.

@AOR-

Nothing, not a thing in the world. Not your objections, your disbelief, your utter rejection or words of despise and disgust can keep you from the power of God, His love for you. He has spoken to you…appealed directly to you. You reject Him, still, He loves. When the power of love finally overwhelms you, reaches to the very depths and you are humbled, awed, perplexed, astonished by it…then, that will be the day you remember forever…the day when the LIGHT of love shone into YOU, your spirit that is. It warms…literally warms up the frozen-over chill of the previous winter’s remaining ice and frost that hinders the sprouting seeds of life within. Spring is coming my friend, can you hear the birds (singing voices of morning glory) beginning to awaken you, to herald the dawn of a new day?

@MMBLOG-

Im sorry, its the best I can do in the one plane…to show there are actually two…that being the natural and spiritual. So, one last time…I know you love it so much, so here goes…”tell me Mcblog, how many apples fell from the orange tree today? The answer of course is…none. And so it is with love & reason. Press on my friend into another realm, the realm of the heart…the spirit where love is very…reasonable”.
I’m the only nut that fell from the nut tree I know, lol. Thanks Mcblog for journeying with me a little, even if you think we never “went” anywhere, I appreciate your willingness to go “nowhere” with me.

@DANIEL-

Dear Daniel, your resentment, the sense of having been “duped”, made a fool of by the religious “law-keepers” of the past has driven you, still drives you on with inverted passion to “undo” your prior foolishness, NEVER AGAIN you proclaim (in your mind) will I be led astray. Not only that, but I will MAKE SURE, TAKE ACTION, POST A SENTRY so as to protect others from ever making such a terrible, foolish mistake, from venturing into the realm of…unreasonable faith. I admire you, your passion, your zeal, it is commendable but is also a “dead work” and thus it brings forth from its own (dead) kind. But fortunately, there is One who can bring to life that which is dead…and LIFE has not rejected you and never will. The more you fortify and defend your high wall of reason with the dressings of disbelief and negativity the more you attract the FORCE of lOVE (the negative attracts the positive) on you and all you do. But certainly you already know this, the physics, the science, the quantum. Oh the paradox, the irony. LOVE is like that…it never quits. You cant make it quit, thankfully. So go ahead, build up, strengthen, fortify your castle of contentment with the hard rocks of reason. Oh, you forgot…spirit is not limited by matter..and you my impressive online friend “matter” very much to Him.

I sense my time, at least for now should come to end amongst you. This, I am sure is very welcomed news by all..lol.

You have made some good “points” thank you. But it is not commentary or points that I am after in the end, and neither are you….really.

So, you have the remainder of this day to bash, criticize, ridicule or simply…ask questions. After today I have to get back to a more “reasonable” activity, ie the job…you know that realm where we “struggle for the legal tender” to borrow an old line from Jackson Browne.

Thanks guys…for trying, and for putting up with me to the degree that you have…I love you for it.

John

Jabs-

What about the Fairy Tales? What do they mean? Where do they come from? Imagination? What is it? Where does it come from anyway? No one ever had one, not one introspective thought, response to that question? Considering the long, rich history of fairy tales and fables I thought that at least one of you “learned” men would have at least some kind of thought about them?

Was there (ever) a “once upon a time”, if so what was it like? Was their (ever) a romance, a great loss, a “separation” and most importantly will there be a “happily ever after”? I mean really, are all these centuries of story’s just that…story’s? Not one response from the educated ones, I dont get it.

And no, I am not writing a book…I really “live” this. I know that is disappointing to you…but again reason does not portend to the realm of LIFE, its actually a barrier. The only “reason” is where LOVE says “come, let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them as white as snow”.

Now thats my kind of reason…unreasonable!

Be good Jabs…no just be His…lol

Oh sorry, I forgot…and what about song, poetry, music?…why does it “move” us as so (inwardly speaking). What are they (song, poetry, music) saying to us, to our hearts…collectively?

Here’s a secular (your kind) of song for this experiment. If you saw the little foriegn hit film “ONCE” there is a song on that soundtrack that captures a bit of what was lost…paradise. Its not really even in the words…its “heard” in the totality of the song, the rythem, the mystery of the tune itself…where did “that” come from? She (the singer is not a self-professed crazy deist-worshipper). It also “longs” or desires for the restoration.

The song is titled…”If you want me” by Marketa Irglova. I hear the residue of a past love, a past paradise calling for its lover…do you “hear” anything…or anyONE in this “secular” song?

If anyone owns up to actually listening to it please share with us your “heart-felt” conclusions, that being how it “moved” you or not.

Fairy tales, song, poetry…hmm, what is HE saying thru them? And can we hear the voice of LOVE calling for its…long lost LOVER to return to…paradise, the kingdom lost…but here…and now.

Or is this our problem…

For the heart of this people has grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their heart and turn, so that I should heal them. Matt 13:15

There are “hints” everywhere guys…

@John C

Unfortunately for many believers who want to put it forward as proof, the Jesus story doesn’t have corroboration or narrative accounts of his resurrection outside the community of believers that already takes it as fact that he did so. The only people who witnessed the resurrected self and chose to wrote about it were those who already believed in the prophecy and found it fulfilled in him. Had he, say, presented himself to several people outside the cult and had them witness the marks, the story, and the rest, then there might be a chance of “death and resurrection” as an event that happened, rather than a claim made to prove the divinity of the Jesus figure.

So, nobody has come back in a way that would satisfy the conditions to be an event rather than a religious belief. The Jesus story parallels Mithras and a lot of other gods who die and are reborn.

@Jabster

Mm. Thank you for pointing out the underlying assumption. Consign another attempt to the scrap heap. As for the individual nature of Christianity, you’re right there, too.

Stepping into a different definition of divinity, perhaps, what about theories like Gaia consciousness and others that posit that planets, or perhaps the universe itself, is sentient in some manner and acts accordingly? Might fall more under the Clarke definition of sufficiently advanced science rather than the existence of a being outside the natural universe, but if such things could be proven to exist, would they be accorded godhood status (at least, until we caught up?)

I guess I’m looking at the possibility of god/gods being aliens or us being the appendages of a larger entity (the Earth-as-computer theory, thanks, Douglas Adams). Is that an improper redefinition of the God we’re looking for here?

John C,

I’d like to continue our conversation.

You theorize that (paraphrasing) “each human has the law within themselves, therefore the events of the Bible are descriptions of eternal processes taking place within the ‘soul’ of humanity”. If the Bible really is about these eternal processes, then which humans does the Bible apply to? Does it apply to the Gentiles who lived before the coming of Jesus? Why didn’t your god start caring about them until the last 2,000 years or so? Your theory doesn’t account for all the people who have been excluded from this series of “eternal processes”. Therefore, it is not a “game changer” even when viewed through a “lens of love”: it is really loving to exclude so many people???

You say that the OT was your god showing man its sinful, “ridiculous” view of the Biblical god, and that Jesus is a “true” “revelation” of the nature of the Biblical god, no?

However, why would your god set up the events of the OT in this “legalistic” manner which you acknowledge to be “ridiculous”. You are almost where I am, John — you said that the OT is merely (paraphrasing) “a flawed concept of god” — and I am saying that the OT is a flawed concept of morality. We both agree on this idea. So based on that premise, what is more likely to you — that a Jewish tribal society came up with this “legalistic” “ridiculous” system of law, or that a divine being came up with this system? The Bible says that this system was introduced by your god. You must acknowledge that your god is responsible for this divine plan if you want to continue to make your case for the Truth of your Bible — however, you could just acknowledge that it is far more likely that these OT laws are the laws of men, and not the laws of a divine being, as I have.

Jesus of Nazareth says that he came not to change the law, but to fulfill it — and that the law could never be changed. So if the law really was “ridiculous”, then wouldn’t you say that Jesus also stood for the “ridiculousness” of the law? Is he really any better than the OT? Why would your god wait so long to care about the Gentiles, anyway? This seems to be a pretty important omission.

You say that Jesus is the end of the law — but think about this: Isn’t Krishna the end of the law? How do you know that the end of the law is Jesus and not Krishna? There are many similarities in the doctrine of grace mentioned by Christianity and some of the things claimed about what Krishna does for humanity. For the Jews, they had all of the complicated, legalistic laws — for the Hindus, they also had all of these rituals and directions for how people ought to live — but Krishna says “bring me your failure”, just like Jesus of Nazareth says “bring me your sin”. I think it is far more likely that our human religions evolved, given these remarkable similarities. What do you think?

Neither trust nor faith are five-letter dirty words, but “blind” is a five-letter dirty word: blind faith and blind trust are not positive things. I have faith in things that can be validated and tested and things which have evidence, and I have trust in my family and friends that have shown love for me — trust which has been actively rewarded. This is not blind faith or blind trust: I know what I have. I realize that you believe that you know what you have, as well – that you believe you have a spiritual trust in a higher power. I agree with you that there is no higher power in our existence than love or faith, but I see that love and faith in my fellow human beings, and you see it in the form of a creator god. I look at the supernatural explanations, and I see no evidence of their truth. I look at the evolution of religions, and the “legalistic” “ridiculous” nature of much scripture and religious history, and I think it is more likely that these things are man-made. If there were a deity, I would not want to insult him or her by ascribing them these things. I do know what love is — we are thinking about the same thing, are we not? We just have different names for it. You don’t need your religion to feel this way, to do these things.

Do you want to know my opinion of fairy tales? I think they’re valuable, and they illuminate our history, but why would I believe them? We think about such stories as “Hansel and Gretel”, when families could not feed their children. Yes, this story has a realistic context, and it is probably a metaphor to explain rhetorically the suffering people encountered at a particular point in time. But why would anyone take this story as any kind of literal truth?

You ask, why do song and poetry and music affect us so profoundly? I like to think about what music would’ve sounded like thousands of years ago at the beginning of the development of instruments. The first music for humanity would’ve been the sounds of nature — and then, we managed to build instruments that could recreate these sounds at will, and even create new sounds. Sound resonates (har, har, har) with us and has meaning because it has always been an important part of our existence. Evolutionarily speaking, it makes sense that music and song would affect us so profoundly, when sounds make up such a critical part of our environment and our existence as humans.

Fairy tales, songs, and poems are all tributes to human love and human existence. We long for the love of our mothers, for the love of our spouses, for the fellowship of our friends, and the devotion of our children. You long for a paradise — some of us just long to be held in our parents’ arms (subconsciously at least) — or we want to go back to simpler (seeming) times: we always want to be “innocent” — we humans have this strong, profound urge to return to “simpler” times. We have these ties to the people and things and places we love that are cemented in the earliest years of our lives and continue to be cemented throughout our lives, and yet these things are constantly being altered and changed. It is our human nature to seek sameness and avoid change. Our artworks and art forms express these longings.

You suggest that our hearts have grown dull, but if this is the case, our hearts have never changed. Religion has never been able to change the fundamental qualities of our existence. People believe across all religions and all forms of spirituality that some sense of the sacred has intervened and changed our human existence, but I see no proof of this in our lives. You say the hints are everywhere – but I have this feeling that they’re in the same places they’ve always been. Religion is one way to deal with the problems we have, and I don’t necessarily object to it — but I wish people would realize that it is a means to an end, and not an end in itself. Love has always softened hearts with or without religion or spirituality, and as long as we are here it always will. In spite of all this apparent spirituality and religion, we humans are a lot like we were a long time ago, even before the development of religion and spiritual traditions. My religious teachers told me that there was a new love in the world since the time of Christ — Hindu teachers would’ve told me that there was new love since the revelation of Krishna to Arjuna — Buddhist teachers would’ve told me that there is new compassion in the world since the revelations of Buddha. Yet everywhere I look, I witness the same love and the same hopes and fears and “sins”, and the same human story.

Christians and other theists often say that there is “larger reality” that atheists and others “ignore”, but I contend that our reality is larger than all of the individual traditions and concepts of any spirituality or religion. We have our own story, as humans, that is important enough by itself, which religion has added to and detracted from at various points, but it has not changed the fabric of our existence significantly.

Ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the…TRUTH.

blah,LOVE,blah,TRUTH,blah,PEACE,blah,MERCY…

Sorry, but I got the blahs today! lol

(ok Brig…go ahead and throw it all right back at me in some childish, retribution-like fashion, bring it on man like you always do I can take it cuz Im wearing my “brown” pants today so all the BS doesnt look so poopy) LOL I’m full of it I know. lol

Im pickin on you…your my new Fav Atheist…sorry McBlog…love you still man. I hope that doesnt melt your snowmans heart.

Daniel-

Any thoughts?

@John C:

you left out the life verse that originally accompanied the post at the bottom of it? Why…that was the whole point.

Sorry, I used Marc’s original post. I didn’t realize you wanted a comment to your addition.

And I don’t think I have one, really. You know us atheists, we don’t care for bible verses; they don’t persuade us one way or another. At most they are irritating background noise. Preaching to the choir. Sanctimonious self-indulgence.

Because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:19-20).

I see nothing original in this quote. It appears to argue that since we can see the world around us God must have created it. “The evidence is all around you” as believers like to say. It’s the archetypal God of the Gaps argument and a classic non sequitur.

@John C:

What if the “ugly” as you call it is a consequence of our own making, our choosing to rebel from paradise and the Oneness, now being a divided state where there is both good & evil, as opposed to only good, you know that “tree” of SELF which its fruit we were warned not to “digest” less it birth into our (perfect) existance a duality of dire consequence?

I had a feeling it would come to this. You propose the classical utopian Eden where everything was perfect and beautiful, until we humans went and ruined it all by eating some fruit. So everything ugly in this world is of our own doing. God never had anything to do with it.

I don’t know if you subscribe to the metaphorical Eden where the Fall of Man is simply a story describing our inherent wickedness, or if you actually believe in a literal Eden with talking snakes and whatnot.

If the latter case, the following will insult you deeply, but I can’t really say it more diplomatically than this: If you believe in a literal Eden you are willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest, not to mention plain stupid.

I expect that is not the case with you. However, the metaphorical Eden holds its own problems. A metaphor doesn’t absolve God of creating ugly things, because a world truly without ugliness is a paradoxical state with no resemblance to reality, so it could exist as a metaphor but not in the real world.

If you’re insisting diseases or horrible death didn’t exist on the pre-human earth you’re no longer using a metaphor to explain ugliness. But if you are using a metaphor you must accept that your beauty/ugliness duality is false and thus God created ugliness as well as beauty, regardless of the metaphor.

@John C:

What if (metaphorically) the “fruit” was…knowledge, or self-knowing over…Innocence, trusting the Source, the Father in whom was…ALL? That is all that “we” ever needed.

Well, that works nicely as a metaphor. But as I said, a metaphor doesn’t explain away that God must have created ugliness.

— And with that I’m off to bed. I’m running GMT+1 here. I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to calculate which time of night that is. Nighty-night.

@John C.
What if, metaphorically, you start making some sense? Haven’t I already shown you that your words do not mean what you think they mean? You deceive yourself, and you attempt to deceive us.

Have you stopped denying that you are a religious person? It would be nice if you retracted the more obvious lies.

You avoid dealing with the issues I and others have raised. We can see you avoiding those answers, and the only conclusion is that while you claim to have the truth, you aren’t even able to convince yourself. Your behavior is shameful.

For those happy to indulge John C. a little further you can find the song he mentioned on YouTube:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8YzDQLz57yY

I’m not sure it’s going to convert anybody though, especially when divorced of any context the film adds to it. I thought it was a nice song but not anything life-changing.

Taken at face value the lyrics suggest it is about somebody missing a lover, not craving the love of God that we’ve all lost. That the ear (and mind) of the listener plays a big part in the interpretation would seem to support the secular, personal view more than the general, spiritual one.

Aor-

You had the best line of the night…”John, what if metaphorically you started making some sense”

Now that was brilliant, funny, beautiful! I love it!

The rest of your post? Not so much…couldnt “hear” any LOVE in it bro.

Thanks

Benny-

Thanks for posting that youtube clip…but that song is just one I have “heard” that has that element in it, dont put all the marbles in one pocket…but there is a certain “ring” a paradaisical “calling” that accompanies its nature and I “hear” it…Why? Cuz I’m just nuttier than a fruitcake man…lol

(seasonal reference for ya there, thought it might be appropriate…in more ways than one…ha)

But seriously, The LOVER calling to LOST LOVER in the spirit realm is a powerful, powerful “thing” Benny.

But if you are seriously interested in “hearing” more of such things I have a list across media lines, certain songs (both secular and what’s termed “christian”) and books, films that all carry this mystical quality in one capacity or another….the faint but distinct voice of LOVE calling, longing, aching for its LOVE.

What is GOD saying to us through (yes secular) media today?? Can you hear it, have you? Cuz once, if just once you “heard” and “knew” that voice that you were originally “immersed” and soiled in you could find your…way back there…to…HOME.

I know…just more…BS.

Now go ahead and “quit yourselves like men”. LOL

I’m not interested in impressing you John. I just want to get you to start acting like atheists are your equals and not the prey in some supernatural game of hide and seek.

Your deception does not go unnoticed. Don’t you think that your god would notice it too? Considering how much words like truth and love come out of you and your ilk (I like that word, ilk) wouldn’t you have to conclude that your god does not approve of your lies? If your god is truth, then you cannot be a follower of your god since you have shown a disrespect for the truth, thereby disrespecting your god. Do you understand that? Your lies imply that you are not what you claim to be because you violate the belief system you come here to convert us to. So by believing what you believe, you do not believe what you.. oh wait now I sound like you.

Aor-

There is no status or competition, no “class system” no hiearchy (sp?) here Aor. Its not like that. There is no “striving for significance” or status in the spirit realm. So, I dont understand that comment.

If, however I have said anything that caused you to feel “less than” in any way then please accept my sincere apologies, that is really not my intent, really. Im sorry if I offended you, inadvertantly.

As for the other aspects of your post, here is something that will shock you…TRUTH is a PERSON Aor…do you “hear” that…TRUTH? And HE is incapable of lying…its just not in HIM…his nature to lie…that is from the other.

As for ME? My old SELF, the EGO that DIED, was crucified w/HIM…sure he (SELF) can lie his $@% off cuz he has always been a liar and he (your ego, false personality, self) is still lying…to you..do you get it? WHO ARE YOU AOR?

You are more than you know my friend. I am just trying to get you to see your own immense value, then maybe you will want to search out this “pearl of great price”, this “treasure buried in earthen vessels” . Your body is the “earthen vessel” and your body is not…you.

Here’s a “reasonable” clue for you to consider please:

Just where is it that gold, and precious, brilliant, sparkling diamonds, emeralds and rubies are found AOR? Where? Are they not “mined” from inside the…EARTH?? So, with that in mind, what, or Who is inside you AOR? Is there anything worth mining?

How much do you WANT to know TRUTH AOR? Or what can you be appeased by? What is it that can pacify you from asking, seeking, knocking?

Is it sex, alcohol, power, money? What are you going to allow to stand between you and…LIFE?

IF YOU HEAR NOTHING ELSE I SAID HEAR THIS: YOUR BODY IS NOT YOU.

Thats a good, albeit giant I know first step.

Take care AOR

@Silver Adept

Just to cover the god/gods being aliens thingy. I’ve seen many variants of this ranging from microbes from space, to fully fledged aliens to races that can create whole universes. To my mind the way to think it about it is two fold. Firstly what fits, at least partially, with what we can observe and what sort of makes some sense with what we already know. So if for example you take the ‘microbes’ from space – yep we can observe debris in space that lands on Earth but as yet haven’t discovered the necessary (or what we think is necessary) build blocks of life. This still doesn’t cover where life can from though as how where these ‘microbes’ created in the first place. Moving on to the advanced aliens. This I find the less reasonable as I’ve never seen convincing answers of where are the ‘creators’ are now and why did they create such minor life forms on this planet. The last I find fascinating but something stops me find it reasonable as it’s just so different. What if the complete Universe was created as an experiment by a highly advanced race into how Universes are formed – this would certainly fit technology as god mould. I’ll leave you to think about all these but my money is still on the mundane one of life formed by some as yet unknown process on Earth.

As to being a proper definition of god – well gods by their definition are supernatural so if we really discovered what they are then they become part of our world and would have to leave the supernatural world to the ghosts and Feng Shui!

James-

I have not “claimed” to “know” anything that HE said we couldn’t know.

Btw…the origin of the term to “know” is of an intimate, yes even sexual-type of expression. Like when Adam “knew” his wife and the result was a SON. I think he “knew” her pretty well wouldn’t you say? You get my point.

So, in “light” of this He said that “knowing” HIM was tatamount to life eternal for He is LIFE…and that HE would be IN us and WE in HIM. Do you see that? And that is the only way we can know HIM, that being IN us.

We are not describing some fleeting, flimsy, esoteric (while it is mystical) “religious” experience but rather a tangible substance of spirit INVASION of our own dark territories within. This is how the kingdom comes to expand within us, by vanquishing our, former dark…ness. Darkness reigns where light is…not. But we have to let the LIGHT in us so it can dispell the dark realms and “enlighten” our darkness so until…our EYE BE SINGLE (meaning all the darkness gone) then our whole SELF (body, soul, spirit) will be FULL of…light.

The light of LOVE and LIFE literally bursting into the realm of death and darkness…He having delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His…LOVE.

So, when you “KNOW” LOVE the result is always a Son…of LOVE. Do you see that?

Now, I have given you guys a nice term to “play” around with…did you notice I said “substance of spirit”? How is that? What world, what realm is the “real” one…of substance?

WE CAN KNOW….JUST AS HE SAID WE COULD.

I hear the LIGHT INFANTRY, the INVASION has begun.

As always…thank you James.

@ John C

“I have not “claimed” to “know” anything that HE said we couldn’t know. …..Cue WHITE NOISE”

Ok look, its time to call it a day. There is only 2 possibilities here, and either are of little interest.

1 You are clever…… Delusional but a clever, calculating troll who doesn’t believe what he posts, but knows he can successfully & endlessly wind up rationalists.

2 You really believe the things you say.

Based on your posts I know you are genuine any more. You are a fake & I’m tired. I am convinced of that.

It would be a shame for this thread to end, as i like it and think it can help people who are genuinely searching for new perspectives but that is not something you are interested in.

From now on i will still check this tread but will not read/respond to your posts & would advise others to do the same.

Daniel-

Thanks for the plain response…its better than I can often muster myself according to most of your “faithful” ones.

Your experience, your journey is…your’s after-all and so while I can not fully appreciate every aspect of why mine (for me) has been one way and yours took another trail, I still appreciate your recognition of the mutual “journeying” through life that we nonetheless…have in common.

Thank you.

McBlog-

As I look again at my earlier post…I dont like it very much. It does not come off well at all…so, the thought I was getting at was not articulated well enough to justify a response from you, not that you owe me one anyway…lol.

So, sorry if you had to plod thru all that only to get to…this.

I’m sure my acknowledgement of my shortcomings with that particular post will ignite a firestorm or sorts tied to previous posts…thats ok, I had to say to you what I just now said…at whatever the cost to me.

Pappa told me to, said I was being demanding, petty, not enough of HIM in there (the post) for Him to sign off on it, my bad.

Thanks, John

John: “Thanks for the plain response…its better than I can often muster myself according to most of your “faithful” ones.”

-I propose Daniel to be elected as the new pope of atheism. The atheist “faithful” support you.

LOL.

Holy flaming hell!

@Aor:
Yes, we’ve seen the likes of John C. before. Ridonkulous, thy name is Kemp.

How refreshing to have a contender for the crown. I have rarely seen more delusional, tailchasing, rhetorical nonsense as has been put out here by John C.

However, I’m not engaging him. He has no rational point to make and no way to answer questions in any logical, coherent way.

In fact he nicely sums up his own bizzarre worldview in saying:

So, from your high-tower of reason…you are right, again and always will be till the child ascends the high wall and slays the Goliath of reason.

So first we must kill our brains, then we can enfold the maybe-messiah into our blood-pumping organs.

Makes more sense than anything else I’ve read from him.

“Wow, I’m honored. I’ve always wanted to wear a robe and a crown without people laughing at me.”

We’ll have the ceremony in the morning. Given our contentious nature, I suspect we’ll have the Atheist Reformation shortly after lunch.

Damn it, trj, it’s a CROWN! I demand a CROWN! Hats are for Terry Pratchett.

AOR-

You are right my friend, I am all washed alright…in the precious blood of Jesus, precious I tell you…but its a very, very, very childish thing such as is the nature of TRUTH and is therefore too…truthful to be seen by the….RICH. Tell me AOR…who are the RICH? What is the meaning of this, non-sensical, mystical little morsel? And why must I speak to you in parables, have you (entirely) lost your heavenly…hearing? The language of the…heart and not the…head?

GUYS…

Now come on, what would the holidays have been like without having me to kick around…now really. You know that you require some routine “validation” by which you continually measure your ever increasingly hardened hearts of stone against the….Chief Cornerstone…no? After all, what’s a little holiday without the…spirit? LOL

Metro-

Sorry, but I’m already “engaged” because LOVE…loves, its like that man, its crazy…really, really CRAZY I tell you…its just like…well…ME. Who is this Kemp character anyway?
I know nothing of philosophy or religion, neither seem to portend to…LIFE. Just how many labels, how many more boxes will you attempt to place me in within your…theology of unbelief? Tell me, where do I…fit? The LOONEY BIN or the LIBERTY BIN? Which one my thoroughly un-engaging, online, atheist-donning, lover of logic and reason? LOL

I have to go now, I see the little white men in little white suits coming to escort me to the paddy wagon of…reason.

I’m really a nice guy Metro but you dont KNOW me do you?

All in fun guys…or is it…in…TRUTH…or…as you call it…..BS?

Its Crazy, and so am….YOU?

Crazy New Year guys…

@John: Since the “Tailor” doesn’t talk to me, perhaps you could pass on that if he is grieving so much for me, all he has to do is let me know himself. Not from a 2,000 year old book, not from a preacher, not from some guy commenting on my website, but from God himself.

Is that really too much to ask? I don’t think so.

Daniel: “Is that really too much to ask? I don’t think so.”

-I agree. Especially if omnipotence is one of the attributes it possess.

[Breaks silence briefly]
Re. Monsieur Kemp: You may find him, or his essence, spewed across the page, here:
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/12/21/science-is-limited-by-its-refusal-to-make-stuff-up/#comments

[Lapses into silence again]

@Metro

I kinda agree about the similarities to Kemp’s methods. However, at least Kemp spoke a language we could all understand.

John C. talks in metaphor and takes 500 words to say what could be said in one sentence. I think that has probably at least doubled the arguing going on here.

What is this I hear? A Kemp WIN!?! :)

If God can’t be known through reason then by definition I can’t know him, for to know something requires reason.

I might be able to feel him, but without reason, I could never know what I’m feeling.

I might be able to see him, but without reason, I could never determine what I’m seeing.

Tele/Mcblog-

There is an observation in your post (Tele) that is very helpful to our discussions and ties into Mcblogs post question to his fellow Atheists. You (Tele)said “It’s just a coincidence to people like John C that Hinduism “feels right” to so many people born in Hindu families, or that Islam “feels right” to so many people born in Muslim families”.

Here is where you err…nobody is “born again” the first time, but the second. So, while one can be born a Hindu or a Muslim, by virtue of being born into a Hindu or Muslim “family” one can not be “born” of the spirit (christian as you call it) simply by being born into a so-called “christian” family. For that is the “first” birth, not the “second” or “again” birth.

That is why we read this “for that which is born of the flesh…is flesh, but that which is born of the spirit…is spirit”. The first (natural) birth being of the fleshly-kind, the second “birth” being of the spirit-kind.

One can certainly be indoctrinated into a particular religious belief-system, be it hindu, christian, whatever by virtue of their being born into that family.

But the true spiritual “birth” the second is an internal, not an external “event” and therefore it does not take place in the natural realm and can not be “seen” or witnessed by the natural eyes of reason.

So, if one were to completely extinguish all possibilities of the spirit realm’s existence then that would (naturally) prohibit one from ever experiencing this “spiritual” or “second” re-birth which is spiritual in its nature.

This is why I say (plainly as I know how) that when one completely dismisses the activity, intuition, or feeling aspect of their humanity (which is of the spiritual nature) then one obviates, or disallows the possibility of this second (spiritual) birth ever occuring in the unseen realm of the spirit.

So then we arrive back at Mcblog’s question to his fellow “Atheists”. Paraphrased: If I say that I dont want to know a GOD who can not be “known” (at least initially) only by the means of reasoning then I (McBlog) say that I dont want to know Him EVER even if He does exist (in any other possible realm) that might be…possible. McBlog wants to know if you guys agree with that rather…extreme statement.

I would be interested to hear your responses as well.

Thx

Tele-

As always, I appreciate your sincere and thoughtful response, as I have previously stated (whether to your liking I will leave that to you…lol) that I “hear” an element of the “heart” in them that I can not ascribe to many of your colleagues, not meaning that in an ugly fashion, but rather from an observational context…alone.

The “point” that I hear being the key in your response is summed up in your one statement, you said “I have tried to get John C to answer whether he accepts “spiritual” truths from belief systems other than Christianity, and it seems that he is on the verge of saying that Christianity is exclusive” Lets start here please. Can we try and define what truth is? I think that is important dont you?

Is truth, a singular, all-encompassing ONE that is only “known” through its reception and “living” it or is it more thinly…applicable and less…true? Is it better defined as we supposedly “see” it today…through a myriad of “belief systems”. Now this is a “selah”, pause and think about that kind of question, for this is of great importance to us “truly” communicating further..as we are both so sincere about “trying” to do.

So, as I have said before (not sure it was heard, lol) that rather than a “system” truth is actually a…LIVING PERSON. And living IN this PERSON of TRUTH is the only way we can “know” (intimately” TRUTH HIMSELF. Now, I realize that makes me sound, to you as some very “elite” man. But TRUTH said we can all “know” HIM (the truth), so the difference being that I “believed” that I may “know”.

But, to get to the actual “knowing” part IT (HE) must first be “received”, humbly as it were by the laying down of the natural faculty of reason in a response to His spirit calling for our spirit…yes by this “tugging on the heart that you so despise”….? So, you are at the proverbial impasse if TRUTH is literally a PERSON (“I, Christ AM..TRUTH”) if out of the LOVE of TRUTH for YOU HE has spoken to you TRUTH and yet since the heart-realm is discounted…you are not able to receive HIM…TRUTH itself…now I know that may offend, but please understand that is not why I described it in such a fashion, but rather I attempted (once again, im sure I fell woefully short) the reception “process” as best I can of the impartation of TRUTH, that being in the PERSON of Christ…HIMSELF as opposed to a belief “system”. Do you see the difference?

So then, what is the culmination, conclusion of all I have said frrom the above paragraph’s perspective? Is it not this “YOU shall KNOW the TRUTH (HIMSELF) and the TRUTH (CHRIST) shall…SET YOU FREE”.

I know you see this as being from (my) perspective…but I am asking you to see truth (himself) from a literal and personal context, not through the lens of a belief “system”. Remember, I didnt say it, the One who says that “He has no greater JOY than to see that WE are walking in TRUTH” for truth (HE) is always liberating, freeing. How can we (literally) “walk” in TRUTH unless we are IN HIM and HE IN US…again…just as HE said?

Thanks Tele for continuing on…

Metro-

Thx…I appreciate your input and will be as short as possible while yet doing it (your insightful question) justice, at least hoping to anyway.

Lets break your two-part question down..FIRST “God calls to us all” MY answer is YES, Although you would get some opposition to that within the “traditional”, that is institutionalized “church” unfortunately.

The SECOND question “…but you have to stop thinking first”.

It, I believe is best answered through this ancient quote:

“It is God’s nature (desire) to give HIMSELF to every virtuous (longing) soul, know then that HE is bound to act, to pour HIMSELF out INTO you as soon as HE finds you…ready (empty).”. I would add…of yourSELF.

Now, maybe (if you read it) you understand the metaphoric post I asked of AOR yesterday? Who are the RICH?

God has not given to man the faculty of reason for…no reason, a high intellectual “capacity” is a wonderful thing, yet remains a mere and limited individual apart from the whole, until it is RENEWED and the whole man is made WHOLE…again.

Only 182 words! (in the above portion) sorry, but I tried lol

THX Metro

John will never concede a point. Yet another sign of deceptiveness.

Daniel-

Thanks, I appreciate your accomodating my continued, but diminishing presence, I will go away soon…I promise.

_____________________________________________

You said…

“If God can’t be known through reason then by definition I can’t know him, for to know something requires reason.

I might be able to feel him, but without reason, I could never know what I’m feeling.

I might be able to see him, but without reason, I could never determine what I’m seeing.

_____________________________________________

If the light bulb is in the lamp, and the electrical cord is properly attached to the power Source then everything is “in place”….but there is still no…light. However the POTENTIAL for light manifesting is very very…real, is it not?

So, in this simple analogy we are the lamp (our body) that has a spiritual component, the bulb that remains hidden, unseen being “covered over” by the lampshade (body).

Then how is the bulb…illumined or light’ed within us?

It would seem like a natural thing right? Since the lamp and bulb were created for this explicit purpose, that being to express light (love). But since, for us our “own” light (which compared to God’s is as moonlight is to sunlight) or dark, yet is all we have ever known so to us it is as true…light.

So that is why we hear these true (if we want to hear, because that is how it is always…heard, by the wanting to) words, “if your eye be single (in Him) your whole body (remember our analogy here) will be full of (His) light, but if your (own) light be dark….how great that darkness will be”.

So, we “reason” that we..see. But we only see by the..light of the moon (our own dark…light) until the SUN-LIGHT BREAKS FORTH because we WANT it to & TRUST the Source (of LOVE) to…enlighten…our bulb. The bulb, your inner-spirit man bows to the power Source…longing to be…illumined and the Source longs to impart the TRUE LIGHT.

But, we are mostly content to live by…the light of the moon. So the room of our inner life stays…dark with…mere moonlight…until until we stop saying that we “see” of our own (dark) light and humbly say Lord, I CANT SEE, but I WANT TO SEE, please help me to see. Then LIGHT can enter within IF it (LIGHT) finds us…empty or dark enough, that meaning not content to live by our own little…dark…ness. But as long as we say “we” see…we…dont.

Then the light and spirit of wisdom come IN and begin to illumine the WHOLE man to include his (now enlightened) faculties of reason. So we hear (if we want to) “be ye RENEWED in the spirit of your MIND”.

So, responding to your comment that we “might be able to see Him but w/o reason we could never know what or who we are seeing” that is…unless we were to SEE by HIS light and not by our OWN…dark…light.

I know, “when exactly is it that you are leaving my forum John!! Soon…I know, not soon enough! LOL

Thx for putting up with my illogical…love.

John

Aor-

Can we just simply converse? Now (according to you) I am being purposefully deceptive? No, I really am being sincere in my heart. Why dont you stick to the kinds of labels that your fellow-men do like calling me…delusional….at least that has a ring of…innocence to it. lol

Thx A

I am trying to converse, John. I ask you questions, you avoid answering. I have caught you in lies on this thread and on another.

You claim to not be religious. You do this by redefining what the word means. Blatant deception, which you repeat for any term you want to steal out of the public domain and redefine for yourself.

Each time I raise these points, you avoid and evade and run as if you were ashamed of the answer. Why not answer simply and clearly? At this point nobody expects the truth from you. Your pattern of behavior is clear and your credibility is gone.

Metro-

One of the more commonly-held and limiting misconceptions about God, in my humble opinion is that God is a mere “Sky God”, being separate, or outside of us. We “reason” like that. But Jesus taught just the opposite. That’s why we hear things like “the kingdom of heaven is within…you”.

This is why Paul (the “apostle”, a man like us, full of His Spirit of love) says this is the big “mystery”, that being “Christ IN YOU”, in fact going so far as to call it the “mystery of the ages”. What does that mean?

How could you possibly know a God who lives in the sky? You cant, but you can know one who lives in YOU. How could you…not?

So, I used the following example in my post to Aor the other night in my attempts to communicate this “mystery” of the ages, the natural world (the seen world revealing the unseen) clues.

Ex: where do we find gold, sparkling, diamonds, brilliant sapphires, emeralds, silver, “precious metals”? The answer is of course…deep in the earth, buried right? So we have to “mine” it to actually “see” it but we know it is down there, somewhere in all that hard and crusty…earth.

Now, we hear (again, if we choose to) that we “carry this “treasure” (His spirit)) in our own earthen vessels” meaning our body, which is “of” the earth or natural realm, the flesh realm, you know the old dust to dust, ashes to ashes as our “body’s” simply return to their original…state…of earth and decay.

Then we hear “that which is of flesh is flesh, but that which is of the spirit is spirit. The first, natural birth being one of a fleshly human nature, the second being of a spiritual (God) and unseen nature.

So, I ask you the same question, is there anything, or any”one” IN YOU worth mining, worth digging for? Does IT sparkle? Shine? Is it more precious than…gold?

So now you understand (or maybe just can appreciate why I would say) that one of our problems is that its just “too good” to believe and so we…just dont, but oh if we…do.

Ok, I’m not even going to count the # of words I used that time but you have to admit I’m getting better? Or worse depending on your view, lol.

Thx if you made it this far…

John

Aor-

Your right, “religion” is flawed…terribly. Thats why the TRUTH had to do away with the LIE.

——————————————————————–

Do you wear prescription glasses, contacts?

If so, I hope they give you lenses or contacts for “each” eye cuz we have two…eyes…and two ears but only one…mouth.

Why is this Aor? Could it be that we need to “hear” and “see” twice as badly as we need to…speak?

———————————————————————

Clue this time: I am referring to the “unseen” realm of the spirit and not to you personally when I say this…so dont get all offended and take it that way…please.

Im going to go eat now…so that way I will finally shut up!

I know that makes you all happy! lol

John C,

We obviously have different answers about whether or not this “spiritual” element exists.

From what we know, from what we have observed, there are so many wildly differing interpretations that your concept is losing much of its meaning.

When we ask you simple questions about religion, and you say that your spirituality is not in the form of religion, but it appears to be suspiciously identical to the tenets of Christianity, then our suspicions may be aroused, indeed.

Your spirituality walks like Christianity, it talks like Christianity, and it smells like Christianity. Are you religious or are you not religious?

You suggest that there is a form of “LOVE” out there for all of us, but you say that we have to accept your explicit form of spirituality to access it.

John C reminds me very much of a cartoon from atheistcartoons.com.

There are two mountain climbers. One says to the other, “you know, I am a simple seeker of truth”. There is an enormously large, almost immovable box tethered to the mountain climber.

His friend asks what the box is, and the box says “dogma”.

The mountain climber claims that it’s “just a few supplies”.

Without this dogma, we would all be our own seekers of truth, free to come to our own conclusions. Without the writings and trappings of your traditional faith, John C, how do you know that you would come to the same conclusions?

Why don’t you just set the “dogma” to the side for now, and try a more open-minded approach instead?

John C,

In Greek mythology, doesn’t Persephone eat six seeds from the pomegranate while she is in Hades, thus originating the cycles of winter and summer?

That’s one interpretation I’ve heard; please pardon me if I’ve gotten part of the details wrong on this.

The words, they kill brain cells.

…OR THE SOURCE OF THE WORLDS PROBLEM.

John C. I have no respect for your words because you have shown yourself to be a liar and deceiver.

What can you gain? You are following your call to witness, which you lied about in the past on another thread. What reason does a troll have to troll? They enjoy the process, as you do. The fact that you have not converted anyone doesn’t stop people like you from hoping. You enjoy arguing, you enjoy feeling like you are having some sort of effect, good or bad or meaningless, you simply enjoy the process.

But this is just another attempt on your part to distract.

Its been a long time since anything you said had any effect, John. The ones still participating in this conversation saw through you long long ago.

Guys-

Im sure you will be happy to hear I had a great dinner! I had chicken fried steak and vegee’s. Hey, why do they call it “chicken” fried steak when its really just ground up steak…fried steak anyway? Hmm maybe things are not always as they appear?

So after I ordered my food the waiter asks me the most profound question…I EVER HEARD…he says “so, what are you thirsty for”?

Exactly.

————————————————————————-

And no, I dont want to hear about your fav ale at the micro-brewery either…lol

Thirsty John

Aor-

Relax, pls. I did not put words in anyone’s mouth, much less Daniels who, by now knows me better than you…and why is that Aor? Since you and I have shared more posts than anyone else?

If anything, i was paying him a complement not that it means anything coming from me….to him…to him. Did you catch that one?

Anyone who runs a business or website or whatever where they have to deal w/the public on a daily basis, like Daniel does knows what I was saying.

I may be foolish, but mean-spirited? Me thinketh…not.

@ Silver Adept

I agree with you that there are many positive things which we can learn from these mythologies and traditions, but I disagree that we need to believe them in the same way which someone “believes” a movie plot to receive positive benefits.

There are positive lessons in Aesop, but I don’t worship him. Perhaps that would be a more appropriate analogy?

Tele-

Thank you for the cordial nature in which you routinely respond to my…non…sense, I really appreciate you.

So, if the “Greeks” made it up…then where did THEY get it from? Its kind of like that old Breck shampoo TV commercial if you are old enough to remember it…”and she told two friends and she told two friends and she told two freinds and…so on and so on to infinitum…

So, where do they (lore, myth, fable, and yes fairy tales) really, originate…from. How far back to you have to go?

Oh the Root, of Jesse…now there is an ancient tree.

J

John C,

You raise an interesting question about the origins of lore, myth, and fable. Indeed, how far back do we have to go?

Humans have evolved and adapted gradually over tens of thousands of years. Especially in the last ten thousand years (since the agricultural revolution), the pace of human technology and adaptation has greatly accelerated.

I have heard the hypothesis that the Garden of Eden isn’t really a story about “sin” so much as it is a story about the agricultural revolution.

I wish I knew more about the subject of mythology, but it seems that many of these stories have common elements. The Middle East (especially Syria and Iraq) is the place where the oldest remnants of human civilization can be found. It is not surprising that many stories have similar mythological origins.

Again, it just seems more and more likely to me that the Bible is a human-made book, and the OT is part mythology, part traditional teachings, and part loosely historical account. The NT in its context is a religious movement similar to Islam or certain forms of Devotional Hinduism or Buddhism or Jainism or the Mormons.

Mythology and religion, I have become increasingly convinced, have developed through humans. Religion seems like an emergent property of human consciousness. It doesn’t seem supernatural to me. That’s my interpretation of the evidence we’ve got and the lack of supernatural evidence that I have, that any of us have.

@Yasser

[[If Islam was the religion of false hood it would not have increased like it is now.]]

What does the truth of Islam have to do with the fact that Muslims have some of the highest birth rates in the world? Let us be honest. That is the reason Islam is “increasing.”

[[Speicially USA 60% of American woman are accepting Islam.]]

No, 60% of American women are not Muslim. And the United States, like Canada, the UK, France, Australia, and other Western nations hemorrhages converts, especially women as they come to see the contradictions of the Quran and Sunnah. Although anecdotal, Muslim scholars in the US estimate that anywhere between 50-75% of converts leave Islam. So just because 10 people accepted Islam today doesn’t mean Islam is growing – since 5-8 of them will leave it (sooner the better).

Tele-

Ok? So then we agree…in essense. So that means that those ancient tales, lore, fables came from “somewhere IN man, or “from” his mind…you suppose?

Because, as we know (and agree) by the law of bio-genesis that things only reproduce after their (own) kind…so HOW did the paradaisical kind (utopian) aspects come into the mind of…man when we “see” so much the opposite…kind of human..experience being experienced…today?

Where did the idea of the “perfect” or Garden life originate if it wasn’t from the garden (edenic) experience?

Just a thought…or is it? Just wondering.

Thx

@Aor:

“John C” has always been “John C”. John as a very unique way of writing that I expect would give him away under any name. :)

@Everyone:

Holy smokes 625 comments! You all are amazing. This is a new record for this blog.

@Metro-

Thx…you said “Why can’t I simply try to be the best person I can be and not worry about living to the impossible standards of a god or gods?

What if the “impossible standard” was “sown” into you…HIMSELF and there was no more “standard” or “law” to live UP^ to except the law of LOVE…who IS the Standard? Let that one sink in a little.

Your words communicate your “perception” of the very nature of this (what if) God character being of a “impossible” standard…Keeper? Can you see that? Where did THAT (flawed perception) originate? Instead, what if (IT) were…pure….LOVE in place of “standard”? How would that change things…for you?

Nothing wrong with being “moral” or “good”, the problem is, that in itself assumes a reference point…no? Then what or Who is…good? Im sorry I’m honestly not purposefully trying to talk (wierd) but that is the best way I know how to say it.

Met…I appreciate you and the high manner in which you attempt to communicate to me (the fool) lol.

John

John C

Current topic aside, I wanted to offer a tip that would help you communicate better, if you don’t mind.

I recommend that you don’t use so many “quotes” and (parentheses) when you write. Also don’t make words BIG when they don’t NEED to be.

It would make what you say about 1000 times easier to read and understand. I know you are trying to express your tone through text, as if you were talking, but it really doesn’t help.

McBlog-

Thanks, I think you are probably correct there in most cases. As I have stated, I am new to this whole blog world and am more at home within the creative allowances of WORD, thus the textual limitations here are a bit…suffocating?

So, I’m sure I have over-used, or mis-used at times, particularly given the ridiculous number of posts! In other cases, the variance or contrast may have been justified.

Thx for your constructive feedback,

John

@McBlog-

Along those lines…did you (or anyone) see the PBS piece last night on the history of the font/typeface….Helvetica? Fascinating.

Very relavent to our ongoing discussions here. The point being that “why is Helvetica so universally well-received”, what exactly is it about the shape, contours, roundedness of the font itself…sans serif’s (or jagged, sharp, edgy) lettering. Why, out of all the other fonts out there, does this ONE stand out so…kindly and invitingly?

Makes me think about things like Album Covers and why are some so…gravitational in that way? They seem to draw you in, what IS that power? Me, talking about the art of communication…how paradoxical…lol.

As we have all seen here, just because something is legible, doesnt necessarily mean its communicative. There is (apparently) more than meets the eye to the science of textual communications, graphics, etc. Maybe more than meets the mind.

Makes me wonder…with the different font’s out there, what is the Spirits font? How does He express Himself to us? What does Spirit font look like anyway?

John

I think Spirit would be a heavy Gothic, but sans serif, font.

Ha! Look at number seven here:”Spirit Medium” font.

It’s kinda gothic, sans serif. Maybe it’s the medium we’re looking for? After all, the medium is the message, right?

And who better than a medium to connect us to the spirits?

Although I myself find a bartender more effective and cheaper in the short term.

Bi Polar.

John C-

Perhaps you should consider changing your screename to “Loony” since the moon does not have any light of its own.

Like all your analogies, this one is a mayor FAIL.

Thx Loony, lol