Clearing the Fog: ‘Christianity Doesn’t Need Evidence Because Faith is Blind’
Many atheist critiques of Christianity claim that faith is blind, irrational, stupid. In his book The God Delusion, leading atheist Richard Dawkins asserts that faith opposes reason, and calls faith a “delusion,” which he describes as “persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence” (p. 28).
A common example used to show that the Bible denigrates evidence is the story of doubting Thomas. In The Selfish Gene, Dawkins writes, “Thomas demanded evidence. … The other apostles, whose faith was so strong that they did not need evidence, are held up to us as worthy of imitation” (198). Was Jesus repudiating an evidence-based faith?
In the updated Evidence that Demands a Verdict, my father and I point out three problems with this assertion by Dawkins:
First, Jesus predicted his resurrection on multiple occasions in the presence of the disciples. Thomas should not have been surprised at the return of Jesus. Second, Thomas heard eyewitness testimony (evidence) from the rest of the disciples and yet still refused to believe. (The vast majority of scientific knowledge we possess depends upon trusting the conclusions of other scientists, which is true for virtually all disciplines.)
Third, Jesus did many miracles during his ministry as proof of his identity. In fact, right after the story of Jesus scolding Thomas, John said the miracles of Jesus were recorded “so that you may believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:30-31).
Christianity Values the Life of the Mind
Despite what Dawkins claims, Christianity values the role of the mind, which includes the proper use of reason and argumentation. Jesus said to love God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind (Mark 12:30). The Lord said to the nation of Israel, “Come now, let us reason together” (Isa. 1:18). Scripture and church history emphasize the importance of the role of the mind in discipleship and evangelism.
Christianity values the role of the mind, which includes the proper use of reason and argumentation.
In the Old Testament, God showered Egypt with miracles before inviting Israel to follow him into the wilderness. Rather than asking Israel for blind allegiance, God’s miracles through Moses gave them good reasons to trust him. Exodus 14:31 makes this clear: “Israel saw the great work which the Lord had done in Egypt; so the people feared the Lord, and believed the Lord and His servant Moses.” Miracles preceded the call to belief, laying the foundation for a rational step of faith.
Faith is Not Blind
Even so, many Christians use the term “faith” to mean “blind faith” rather than biblical faith. But Christianity itself does not demand blind faith. In fact, quite the opposite: when Jesus Christ and the apostles called upon a person to exercise faith, it was not a “blind faith” but rather an intelligent faith. The apostle Paul said, “I know whom I have believed” (2 Tim. 1:12, emphasis added).
Christianity does not demand blind faith; in fact, quite the opposite.
Jesus specifically performed miracles to show who he was, and, as a result, many confidently placed their faith in him. During a trip to Capernaum, Jesus healed a paralytic. After forgiving the man’s sins, Jesus said to the crowd, “‘But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins’ — He said to the paralytic, ‘I say to you, arise, take up your bed and go to your house’” (Mark 2:10, 11). Jesus healed the man so people would know he spoke with authority from above.
Christians are often accused of taking a “blind leap into the dark.” However, my father Josh set out to disprove the Christian faith historically, but instead found the evidence powerful and convincing. So, when he became a Christian, it wasn’t a blind leap into the dark, but a knowledgeable step into the light. He placed the evidence onto the scales, and in his estimation, it tipped in favor of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, resurrected from the dead.
You may be convinced by the evidence. On the other hand, you may find it wanting. But the claim that “faith is blind” simply ignores the biblical and historical evidence. In fact, only someone who hasn’t truly weighed the evidence could make such a claim. If you haven’t considered the evidence yet, maybe now is the time. https://stream.org/hold-clearing-fog-christianity-need-evidence/
Tags
Ditto. Except I was in my 50s when I encountered Jackol, TiG, Gordy, katrix, and The Jackel and Artie...and Grisham.
I did more reading than interacting because as a lifelong evangelical Christian all I had to counter their knowledge of science was my "faith" (evangelical indoctrination) that had taught me that any science that contradicted a Christian Bible was the work of none other than Satan, himself.
However, none of the aforementioned folks appeared to be demonic in any way. In fact, they all seemed far more reasonable, logical and intelligent than my fire-breathing evangelical brethren.
No, but I've seen your brother. He hangs out on my front porch every year. Pretty cool dude. Not nearly as scary as he looks.
At first, I mostly read, too. I didn't get to interact much with Grisham. Tim S. was another who was a big influence, as was Gedde. I miss them.
And, no, not demonic at all. If anything, they were less excitable than their opponents in debate. More reasonable. Less likely to stoop to personal insults, veiled or otherwise.
I never got to meet JackOl, but I have met katrix a few times. No horns or forked tail. Her eyes aren't red. She didn't eat babies for lunch; we shared some hummus, IIRC.
Glad to see y'all celebrating my birthday in proper fashion.
all I had to counter their knowledge of science was my "faith" (evangelical indoctrination) that had taught me that any science that contradicted a Christian Bible was the work of none other than Satan, himself.
I was in an odd position. My college degree is in biology, so I knew the science, although I hadn't stayed up to date on some of it, especially the advances regarding evolution. I compartmentalized my knowledge of science from my religious beliefs, because they were so disparate that I had to.
But, yeah, I came from the same tradition. Folks in my church literally taught that everything I needed to know was in the Bible, and that education takes us further from God. Eventually, I saw those for the red flags that they were, but it took some work to get over my fears.
I wonder if they hope their doctors only studied the Bible in med school.
My college degree is in biology, so I knew the science, although I hadn't stayed up to date on some of it, especially the advances regarding evolution. I compartmentalized my knowledge of science from my religious beliefs, because they were so disparate that I had to.
Mine is in the Mathematical Sciences. The program required a "minor" in a specialized area which I chose biology. I compartmentalized it, also. Religion does that to you.
More reasonable. Less likely to stoop to personal insults, veiled or otherwise.
Definitely. It was the ability to communicate clearly with documentation instead of rancor that made me read their comments and their documentation.
I can't say that I was exactly pleased about being lied to all of my life by people that I had trusted. But then I realized that they had only taught me what their parents had taught them. There were varying degrees of belief in what was true and what was false among my family and friends, but all were evangelical Christians who did not like the basis for their beliefs questioned - the Bible was the infallible word of God and if anyone questioned the existence of God, then Jesus Christ, himself could not save them! They were a worthless abomination and a minion of Satan!
Access to the internet gave me access to information and people that I would not have ever encountered in my area. I feel extremely lucky to have randomly wandered into a blog site that had such interesting discussions. I am hoping that we can continue to do the same thing here.
it took some work to get over my fears.
Fear? Yes, all that fearmongering tends to be a more powerful tool than love/forgiveness to keep the sheep in the fold.
I compartmentalized it, also. Religion does that to you.
That is why I equate indoctrinating children into the Christian religion to child abuse.
It shuts down our ability to take in and process material that contradicts the Bible without the Christian bias filter that we were taught as children.
On Newsvine, I encountered Jackol, TiG, Gordy, katrix, and The Jackel,
I was free long before NV, This is my first encounter with Jackol, I think. All these discussions just reinforced my position that it just doesn't make sense. Sandy will remember the old COL who wrote letters to our local paper years ago. Good to have some friends here.
The problem is, religious "minds" are already indoctrinated, so it's hard to change them. But then, atheists aren't really out to actively change anyone's mind. Only logic and reasoning can do that.
Sandy will remember the old COL who wrote letters to our local paper years ago.
I do, and he was quite an influence on me, too. Very eloquent, and a good man.
Good to have some friends here.
Ditto 
Don't forget the heavy father fixation and how religions love to feel prosecuted, and last but not least "the guilt trip."
Yup.
I remember katrix wrote an article on NV about how God (or those who would convince us to worship him) use tactics remarkably similar to those of an abusive spouse. Fear. Guilt. Destroying the victim's self-esteem. Isolation.
Very eye-opening.
last but not least "the guilt trip."
We must remember that agnostics/atheists "can't understand" the Bible. Only the people who worship Yahweh can "understand" the Bible.
And it never matters how many times the believers are told that most agnostics/atheists were raised Christian and were Christian for decades, we are still denounced at heathens who "can't understand" the Bible.
What an empty life it would be for a kid if his/her imagination could not have been developed by listening to and reading fairy tales, i.e. lies. Would artists, composers, authors, poets, have happened if they lived a cold empty life without the colours and sunshine of those lies?
When we grow up we leave the fairy tales behind though. Well, except for one!
What an empty life it would be for a kid if his/her imagination could not have been developed by listening to and reading fairy tales, i.e. lies. Would artists, composers, authors, poets, have happened if they lived a cold empty life without the colours and sunshine of those lies?
Exactly.
The greatest creative geniuses have, among other things-- a strong imagination. (Which means that often they see things that don't yet exist-- that can't yet be proven! They are3 possibilities-- the creators have to havbe a vision ofn whatb they want to create-- yes, they have to take it on faith). Some of the rigid, pedantic, "purist" overly literal thinking expressed in this column reminds me of a poem by Ogden Nash:
When we grow up we leave the fairy tales behind though.
Yes-- exdcept for the creative geniuses of course.
Because they have to be creative. To see possibilities-- of things that haven't been created yet. That are impossible to "prove" scientifically (until they create them, of course)>
These people would not do well on NT-- because they don't conform.
LOL (for the poem). Thumbs up for the comment.
What an empty life it would be for a kid if his/her imagination could not have been developed by listening to and reading fairy tales, i.e.
Please tell us that you really don't buy into a notion that atheists don't let their young kids have their fairy tales.
I was simply replying to jbb's coimment and neither of us said anything about atheists.
I was simply replying to jbb's coimment and neither of us said anything about atheists.
What an empty life it would be for a kid if his/her imagination could not have been developed by listening to and reading fairy tales, i.e. lies. Would artists, composers, authors, poets, have happened if they lived a cold empty life without the colours and sunshine of those lies?
I totally agree. Sometimes these attempts do go too far.
It reminds me of an epic poem by Ogden Nash:
| The Purist by Ogden Nash | ||
|
I give you now Professor Twist,  |
The reality of our temporary existence is rather cold and harsh. Every animal has a strong survival instinct and man is no different, we don't want to die. Those who are able to delude themselves into thinking they will escape death, do. Being blind to a harsh reality does make life easier to bear.
We are eternal, but our consciousness isn’t. When one dies they don’t disappear, they simply dissolve into the landscape and the molecules they borrowed get loaned to something else. Rinse and repeat.
We are eternal, but our consciousness isn’t.
Link?
We are eternal, but our consciousness isn’t.
What an arrogant-- and self-righteous position! (In plain English-- being a "Know it all").
Why do you think that you are so much smarter than other people? What makes you think that you know what happens after death?
And Ironically, those traits that in fact you so strongly exhibit happen to be the same things you say you don't like amongst religious people!
You bash believers because they claim things that they can't prove-- yet your feeble attempts at pretending you can prove that you are so much smarter than we are (because you claim that you can prove your beliefs) are quite transparent to thinking people here.
MEH!
Have you called any believers who tell us definitively that we have eternal souls arrogant? If not, why not? Is that not just as arrogant an assumption?
These constant threads arguing the pros and cons of religious belief and atheism only show us how little there is to say on the subject that hasnt been said a million times already.
Here's a million and one - the OP uses the Bible (scripture) to prove the worth and veracity of scripture, which is of course ridiculous.
There was a street preacher who used to come up to me at the commuter train station. He would say "the Bible says..." all the time . I would ask him how do you know what is in the Bible is true. And he would answer, in all sincerity, "because it's in the Bible. The Bible is the word of God".
These constant threads arguing the pros and cons of religious belief and atheism only show us how little there is to say on the subject that hasnt been said a million times already.
Ditto any other subjects we discuss-- from politics to how cute our pet kittens are! (Or perhaps in the case of some people here, their pet Piranhas or venomous snake pets).
Perhaps it is time to ban discussion of anything that's been discussed before?
the OP uses the Bible (scripture) to prove the worth and veracity of scripture, which is of course ridiculous
Nope. That's not what he was doing. He was answering the oft-made accusation that faith is blind and people of faith have abandoned reason to hold to their beliefs. He used scripture to demonstrate that the Judeo-Christian tradition, at its core, invites inquiry and reasoned analysis. It does not demand blind allegiance but rather points to experiences that some people had as evidence of God's presence and commitment to his people.
Apparently, you didn't actually read what the OP wrote. The irony of these discussions is that very often the militant atheists - who claim to be focused on evidence and reason - often lash out at the believers with unfounded and unsupported accusations of irrationality.
Well, it was crammed down my throat for most of my formative years. However, it never did take. As you get older and wiser the more you can understand the nonsense and illogic of it all. Joseph Campbell pretty much sorted it all out for me, and my eyes finally opened a couple of decades ago.
It's a very old and large Universe, the Earth is about 4.54 Billion years old, and Evolution is how it all happened. Dawkins explains it very well in "The Ancestor's Tale"
Religion is no more divisive than any belief on any subject because belief in anything inherently divides those who believe from those who do not. Those who argue that life should be ordered solely around that which can be proven are often the same people who will argue just the opposite when they “believe” it’s fair and just to do so (the arguments on same sex marriage is a case in point). Fairness and justice are not provable with facts or science. They are judgments we make based on belief.
As JR said the existence or non-existence of God is not provable and as Krisna said absence of proof is not proof of absence. Whether God exists or not, I do know that the world’s main religions have been the single greatest influence in making the world a better place. They effectively civilized the world and introduced or promoted the basic concepts of fairness and equality that we take for granted today.
The notion that we are all equal in the eyes of God and that all answer to God (even kings) helped eliminate notions that “might makes right” or that “mercy is for the weak” or that “the conquered are ours to do with as we will” or “your human rights exist only on the whim of the king” or “even death won’t free a slave because he will be a slave in this life and the next.” From Ancient Rome to Saudi Arabia to China to India, there was a great spiritual awakening that motivated people to see a higher good and to stand up for it. In Rome, thousands of Christians met their deaths as they chose to be torn to pieces by lions as entertainment for a bloodthirsty crowd rather than give up their faith. Their devotion helped spark others to believe and, collectively, they changed Rome. And, yes, there were many abuses of the masses by those in these religions but, on the whole, these religions contributed far more benefits than detriment.
The notion that we are all equal in the eyes of God and that all answer to God (even kings) helped eliminate notions that “might makes right” or that “mercy is for the weak” or that “the conquered are ours to do with as we will” or “your human rights exist only on the whim of the king”
I disagree.
The Abrahamic religions all view women as inferior to men.
They all allow for slavery - Judaism and Islam condone it outright.
Judaism and Islam both spread by the sword.
The Hebrews were commanded to enslave virgins among those they conquered as wives.
I disagree.
The Abrahamic religions all view women as inferior to men.
They all allow for slavery - Judaism and Islam condone it outright.
Judaism and Islam both spread by the sword.
The Hebrews were commanded to enslave virgins among those they conquered as wives.
These religions did not eliminate slavery or treat women as equal but they certainly extended rights to them that they did not previously have. But that’s not the point. If these religions had not changed the world for men, then life would not have changed for women or slaves either and everybody would be worse off.
How, by commanding spread by the sword, condoning or even commanding slavery, and commanding misogyny, did they introduce
the basic concepts of fairness and equality that we take for granted today.
They didn't do any of that. They opposed it. The thrived on "might makes right". Literally, the "conquered were theirs to do with as they pleased". And they claimed it was because god was on their side.
They did pretty much the opposite of what you give them credit for.
In Rome, thousands of Christians met their deaths as they chose to be torn to pieces by lions as entertainment for a bloodthirsty crowd rather than give up their faith.
You may want to reexamine the veracity of this story.
How, by commanding spread by the sword, condoning or even commanding slavery, and commanding misogyny, did they introduce
Have you actually read the Quran? I have and it does not command that Islam be spread by the sword.
the basic concepts of fairness and equality that we take for granted today.
They didn't do any of that. They opposed it. The thrived on "might makes right". Literally, the "conquered were theirs to do with as they pleased". And they claimed it was because god was on their side.
You are ignoring the good to focus exclusively on the bad but it doesn’t make the good disappear simply because you won’t see it.
In Rome, thousands of Christians met their deaths as they chose to be torn to pieces by lions as entertainment for a bloodthirsty crowd rather than give up their faith.
You may want to reexamine the veracity of this story.
I’ll be as quick to do that as you’ll be to re-examine your views.
Oh and thank you for sharing your “beliefs” and basically proving that those who eschew religion because it’s not based on fact often make arguments themselves based entirely on belief when it suits them.
Have you actually read the Quran? I have and it does not command that Islam be spread by the sword.
The Hadith do.
You are ignoring the good to focus exclusively on the bad but it doesn’t make the good disappear simply because you won’t see it.
You are exaggerating good. I can see some good - the Golden Rule (an idea that works just as well without any deities), acceptance (ditto, and one you might want to examine with regards to your attitude toward LGBT people), rejection of hypocrisy (ditto, no need for a deity there), and charity (ditto, and see the article about megachurches requiring attendance and "tithing" in return for their "charity"). None of that requires religion. All it requires is empathy and decency.
You can't explain how a religion that spread by violence and the destruction of cities that opposed that conquest (Judaism), rape of conquered women (also Judaism), condoning of slavery (all three Abrahamic religions), and treatment of women as inferior (all three Abrahamic religions) gave rise to concepts of equality and fairness. There's a reason for that. They didn't. They did the opposite. The idea of monarchs being "annointed by god" - religious, obviously. Hardly a push for equality. "Manifest destiny" = "might makes right", with some god thrown in.
What arguments have I made based entirely on belief? Did any of those religions condone slavery? You admit that they did. But you somehow equate that with promoting equality. You admit the same about treatment of women as inferior, and somehow cling to the same claim - that treating women as inferior somehow promotes equality and fairness.
The logic is...illogical.
Have you actually read the Quran? I have and it does not command that Islam be spread by the sword.
The Hadith do.
Really, which one and how does it dictate for all of Islam?
You are ignoring the good to focus exclusively on the bad but it doesn’t make the good disappear simply because you won’t see it.
You are exaggerating good. I can see some good - the Golden Rule (an idea that works just as well without any deities), acceptance (ditto, and one you might want to examine with regards to your attitude toward LGBT people), rejection of hypocrisy (ditto, no need for a deity there), and charity (ditto, and see the article about megachurches requiring attendance and "tithing" in return for their "charity"). None of that requires religion. All it requires is empathy and decency.
And none of your views of charity and hypocrisy is based on fact or science. It’s based purely on your personal belief. And, no religion does not have to be directly involved in your views but it is indirectly involved because it’s at the root of our society. You “believe” differently but your view is no more supported facts and science than is a belief in God. And my view toward homos is as charitable as I think is warranted but feel free to re-examine yours.
You can't explain how a religion that spread by violence and the destruction of cities that opposed that conquest (Judaism), rape of conquered women (also Judaism), condoning of slavery (all three Abrahamic religions), and treatment of women as inferior (all three Abrahamic religions) gave rise to concepts of equality and fairness. There's a reason for that. They didn't. They did the opposite. The idea of monarchs being "annointed by god" - religious, obviously. Hardly a push for equality. "Manifest destiny" = "might makes right", with some god thrown in.
I can easily explain it but it wouldn’t prove anything to you because your belief, like every other belief, is not rooted solely in facts. And that, my dear, is why it’s a complete waste of time to argue that beliefs not based in fact are unworthy of belief when your yourself undermine your own argument by basing it on a belief that you can’t prove.
I can easily explain it
Then please do. You made the assertion, but you seem unable to back it up.
And none of your views of charity and hypocrisy is based on fact or science.
Morality contributes to the continued survival of our species, scientifically speaking. We are social creatures. Figuring out ways to deal with each other fairly and cooperatively makes it more likely that we'll reproduce, rather than destroying each other.
And none of your views of charity and hypocrisy is based on fact or science.
Morality contributes to the continued survival of our species, scientifically speaking. We are social creatures. Figuring out ways to deal with each other fairly and cooperatively makes it more likely that we'll reproduce, rather than destroying each other.
Morality is not based in either fact or science. If reproduction is the basis for your morality, then of what use is a same sex marriage to the survival of the species? So based on your reasoning, same sex marriage should be prohibited as a matter of simple logic.
I can easily explain it
Then please do. You made the assertion, but you seem unable to back it up.
At the end of the history/philosophy lecture (which involves conclusions drawn from fact), you will still cling to your “beliefs” and say how foolish it is for other people to cling to theirs.
Are children the only contribution necessary for our species to survive? No. LGBT people are quite capable of contributing in other ways, such as providing food, building shelters, providing medical care.
By your logic, nonfertile people shouldn't be able to marry, either.
So, you can't. Understandable, as I said. The opposite of fairness and equality rarely does foster fairness and equality.
So, you can't. Understandable, as I said. The opposite of fairness and equality rarely does foster fairness and equality.
No, as I explained, I decline to engage in an exercise that would leave us where we started. As for fairness and equality, they have no scientific basis. All you have is a “belief” and it’s no better grounded in science than a faith in God.
As for fairness and equality, they have no scientific basis. All you have is a “belief” and it’s no better grounded in science than a faith in God.
According to you. I've explained why morality can develop without religion. We see it in social animals - rules that govern the group, that contribute to the good of the group. You choose not to believe that, but propose that slavery, "might makes right", misogyny, and violence promote fairness and equality, but refuse to support that proposal.
I submit that much of what we see as fairness and equality came about in spite of such religions, rather than because of them. Women had to fight for the right to vote, be educated, and own property, because they were considered to be under the rule of their husbands as commanded by religion. The American South supported the practice of slavery in part because it was condoned by religion. We are no longer subject to a monarchy because we objected to the idea that our rulers were annointed by gods, as claimed by religion. We no longer burn women at the stake as witches, because we decided that maybe "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" was a bit harsh, even if it was prescribed by religion.
As for fairness and equality, they have no scientific basis. All you have is a “belief” and it’s no better grounded in science than a faith in God.
According to you. I've explained why morality can develop without religion. We see it in social animals - rules that govern the group, that contribute to the good of the group. You choose not to believe that, but propose that slavery, "might makes right", misogyny, and violence promote fairness and equality, but refuse to support that proposal.
I don’t agree. Morality is, by definition, a judgment regarding right and wrong. Knowing what’s right and wrong requires basic principles and those basic principles in western civilization come straight out of the Bible (as opposed to jumping into existence on their own). Animals have no sense of morality whatsoever. Those animals that adopted behaviors that perpetuated the species were able to thrive; others disappeared. There is little to learn from an animal. And I never said that slavery, “might makes right”, misogyny and violence promote fairness and equality. Religion helped eliminate those things by providing the platform for the view that everyone had basic rights granted by God, not a sovereign.
I submit that much of what we see as fairness and equality came about in spite of such religions, rather than because of them. Women had to fight for the right to vote, be educated, and own property, because they were considered to be under the rule of their husbands as commanded by religion. The American South supported the practice of slavery in part because it was condoned by religion. We are no longer subject to a monarchy because we objected to the idea that our rulers were annointed by gods, as claimed by religion. We no longer burn women at the stake as witches, because we decided that maybe "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" was a bit harsh, even if it was prescribed by religion.
And I submit that it’s the opposite. Women wouldn’t have achieved a thing without the support of men and men supported it because women argued that they are as much endowed by their creator with inalienable rights as men are. The notion that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights, rather than rights given at the whim of a king, is based on religion. Yes, the south used religion to support slavery but religion in the North was the backbone of the abolitionist movement that ultimately ended slavery.
I further submit that, if religion is bad, then atheism is worse. Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot all made it a point to suppress religion so that morality would not impede total state domination. That, in turn, led to the deaths of millions.
Believe as you like. But your belief is just your opinion and it is no more grounded in fact and science than anybody else's.
Morality is, by definition, a judgment regarding right and wrong. Knowing what’s right and wrong requires basic principles and those basic principles in western civilization come straight out of the Bible (as opposed to jumping into existence on their own).
Really? So societies not exposed to the Bible have no morals? Interesting.
Women wouldn’t have achieved a thing without the support of men and men supported it because women argued that they are as much endowed by their creator with inalienable rights as men are. The notion that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights, rather than rights given at the whim of a king, is based on religion.
Perhaps you can quote those inalienable rights granted to us in the Bible, and their application to women in particular. Please explain how this doesn't contradict women being denied the same inheritance rights as men, denied rights of conscience (a woman's oath could be countermanded by her father or husband), instruction to women to submit to their husbands, hold their tongues in church, and prohibition of women from having authority over men. All of those are explicitly in scripture, but we are to believe that that same scripture supports equality? Sure it does /s
Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot all made it a point to suppress religion so that morality would not impede total state domination.
Hitler most certainly did not suppress religion - the Nazi party embraced Christianity. He suppressed Judaism, but not religion in general. Stalin and Pol Pot suppressed religion so that religion would not impede state domination, not morality.
Morality is, by definition, a judgment regarding right and wrong. Knowing what’s right and wrong requires basic principles and those basic principles in western civilization come straight out of the Bible (as opposed to jumping into existence on their own).
Really? So societies not exposed to the Bible have no morals? Interesting.
I specifically mentioned western civilization but other societies had religions of their own and morality based in their religious beliefs.
Women wouldn’t have achieved a thing without the support of men and men supported it because women argued that they are as much endowed by their creator with inalienable rights as men are. The notion that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights, rather than rights given at the whim of a king, is based on religion.
Perhaps you can quote those inalienable rights granted to us in the Bible, and their application to women in particular.
The inalienable rights are referenced in the Declaration of Independence and embodied as liberties in the constitution. According to the declaration, the inalienable rights come from the creator (God) and God is in the Bible.
Please explain how this doesn't contradict women being denied the same inheritance rights as men, denied rights of conscience (a woman's oath could be countermanded by her father or husband), instruction to women to submit to their husbands, hold their tongues in church, and prohibition of women from having authority over men. All of those are explicitly in scripture, but we are to believe that that same scripture supports equality? Sure it does /s
Women were not equal to men but, as I said, their claim to greater rights was based in the same argument that gave greater rights to men.
Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot all made it a point to suppress religion so that morality would not impede total state domination.
Hitler most certainly did not suppress religion - the Nazi party embraced Christianity. He suppressed Judaism, but not religion in general. Stalin and Pol Pot suppressed religion so that religion would not impede state domination, not morality.
Hitler silenced the church. Atheists say he was Christian; Christians say he was atheist. He clearly used Christianity when it suited his purposes but he also said, among many other things, that Christianity and national socialism cannot exist together. But I’m not going to rehash this old debate. Stalin suppressed religion so that he could replace Christian morality with Marxism. Pol Pot attacked all religions so that their morality wouldn’t create resistance to state domination. If you see it differently, then we can just agree to disagree.
Atheism is not a religion. So that flawed premise anlone blows your equality flawed post out of the water.
other societies had religions of their own and morality based in their religious beliefs.
When those religions taught different moralities, or in some cases, didn't really address morality at all? Some gods were just explanations for natural occurrences that people at the time couldn't explain. They didn't hand out morality nor emulate morality. Some, such as the Greek gods, were shown to be every bit as flawed and capricious as humans.
The inalienable rights are referenced in the Declaration of Independence and embodied as liberties in the constitution. According to the declaration, the inalienable rights come from the creator (God) and God is in the Bible.
Is the DoI a religious document? No, it is not.
Women were not equal to men but, as I said, their claim to greater rights was based in the same argument that gave greater rights to men.
Which is not found in the Bible. That's why you can't provide quotes.
Atheism is not a religion
Better read up on:
Kaufman v. McCaughtry,
Torcaso v. Watkins
The Supreme Court has ruled Atheism is a religion.
Agreed that Atheism is not a religion. It's a belief - a belief that there is no God or Creator that can be personified, and that no religions are believable.
At the end of the history/philosophy lecture (which involves conclusions drawn from fact), you will still cling to your “beliefs” and say how foolish it is for other people to cling to theirs.
Quoting beliefs is correct because you are using the term strangely in your comment. If you used the word conclusion (or even considered opinion) rather than beliefs you would demonstrate understanding of the agnostic atheist perspective.
A word game is offered to you as an argument. ( And I know you are quite aware of this. ) 
The Cultural Revolution was a disaster, having taken place at a time when a famine that was not prepared for caused many to died from starvation. Hitler ORDERED that people be killed, but I don't think that Mao ordered his Red Army to go out and slaughter millions of people, so I don't think the comparison is valid.
Quoting beliefs is correct because you are using the term strangely in your comment. If you used the word conclusion (or even considered opinion) rather than beliefs you would demonstrate understanding of the agnostic atheist perspective.
My use of the word “belief” in this discussion is deliberate.
Only to give non-believers the same legal protections as believers. In those cases, it's a legal definition, not a dictionary definition.
When those religions taught different moralities, or in some cases, didn't really address morality at all? Some gods were just explanations for natural occurrences that people at the time couldn't explain. They didn't hand out morality nor emulate morality. Some, such as the Greek gods, were shown to be every bit as flawed and capricious as humans.
The Greek religion had morality, often taught through stories.
Is the DoI a religious document? No, it is not.
The fact that the DOL is not a religious document is irrelevant. I explained why I cited it and the point still stands.
Women were not equal to men but, as I said, their claim to greater rights was based in the same argument that gave greater rights to men.
Which is not found in the Bible. That's why you can't provide quotes.
I didn’t state or imply that the rights were found in the Bible. I said that the DOL states that the Creator endowed man with inalienable rights and that God, the Creator, is in the Bible. The link from the inalienable rights to God is clear.
The court ruled atheism is a religion with respect to the law, in that it is considered as valid and protected a right as religion itself is. Not that atheism is an actual religion or religious belief, which is just absurd.
Sorry Buzz, but atheism is not a belief that there is no god. It is simply a lack of belief in any god/s. Hence the term A-theist. Atheists do not accept claims for a god.
As a historical note, Mao wanted to compete with the US on an industrial level. So many people shifted to industry work. However, they did not posses necessary skills and agriculture was ignored, resulting in famine.
Then put the deaths to incompetence and mistakes, not to genocide.
I got this from the dictionary. Perhaps we're both right:
a the ism
[ ey -thee-iz- uh m]
noun1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
The court ruled atheism is a religion with respect to the law, in that it is considered as valid and protected a right as religion itself is. Not that atheism is an actual religion or religious belief, which is just absurd.
After reading the case, I think Bruce is right. The court in McCaughtry specifically found that atheism was his religion and that the group he wanted to start (in prison) was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a Supreme being. If atheism is a religion for the purposes of protection under the first amendment, then it is virtually indistinguishable from any other religion on any basis that really matters.
The fact that the DOL is not a religious document is irrelevant. I explained why I cited it and the point still stands.
It's certainly relevant when you're citing the DoI as an example of religion promoting fairness and equality.
The link from the inalienable rights to God is clear.
No, it's not.
Some men made a declaration proclaiming that we were no longer under English rule. They claimed to have rights granted by their creator (whom they do not name), but they have no support in their scripture for such a claim, if they wish to attribute those rights to God.
God anointed and supported kings. Jesus told us to "render unto Caesar" - obey the law of the land. Nowhere in scripture are we granted "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Slavery was allowed, condoned, even commanded in some cases. All men certainly were not created equal, according to scripture. Even firstborn sons were worth more than their brothers, by law.
Frankly, saying that religion in any way supports the rights claimed in the DoI is a stretch, to put it mildly.
I'm in agreement with you there Buzz.
they murdered because they were Communists with an agenda
Murder requires INTENT to murder, and although I don't know whether or not Stalin had intent, I'm sure Mao did NOT.
If only the Freemason rule can be applied outside in general too. There might be a lot less arguing about such things.
I remember the HC Ancient Aliens, although I never got into it. Life After People was an interesting 'what-if' scenario series.
What about B5 vs BSG (reboot)? Perhaps I'll write an article about the best sci-fi series and present it tournament style.
Wow, two (or is it 3) agreements in one article. We're on a roll.
From what I can glean from your post (and simplified), the basic problem is the extremes of any ideology (Far right/left). If that is the case, then I tend to agree. Meeting in the middle, or a rational dialogue at the very least, would be preferable and probably yield more solutions than problems.
Don't get me wrong, I liked B5. It also had a good theme song, even with the varations (except for season 3 if I remember correctly). It didn't stick with me as much as DS9 did. As far as which series is better among the 3, I try to look at the series as a whole rather than separate seasons or episodes. Although, even The best series has an episode or 2 that really brings the series down as a whole. Remember Spock's Brain from ST: TOS?
The fact that the DOL is not a religious document is irrelevant. I explained why I cited it and the point still stands.
It's certainly relevant when you're citing the DoI as an example of religion promoting fairness and equality.
It’s an obvious example because the document specifically relies on the Creator as the source of the right.
The link from the inalienable rights to God is clear.
No, it's not.
Of course it is.
Some men made a declaration proclaiming that we were no longer under English rule. They claimed to have rights granted by their creator (whom they do not name), but they have no support in their scripture for such a claim, if they wish to attribute those rights to God.
The Creator and God are one in the same. It requires no citation or explanation because all knew what was meant.
God anointed and supported kings. Jesus told us to "render unto Caesar" - obey the law of the land. Nowhere in scripture are we granted "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Slavery was allowed, condoned, even commanded in some cases. All men certainly were not created equal, according to scripture. Even firstborn sons were worth more than their brothers, by law.
They based their declaration on the idea that they have God given rights and that these rights cannot be abridged by a king because they were not granted by a king. They needed no specific Biblical citation to act.
Frankly, saying that religion in any way supports the rights claimed in the DoI is a stretch, to put it mildly.
There’s no stretch at all. They wrote it down in plain English for all to see the connection so there could be no question.
They based their declaration on the idea that they have God given rights and that these rights cannot be abridged by a king because they were not granted by a king. They needed no specific Biblical citation to act.
So, they were making up religious doctrine as they went, then.
Ok.
Now that we are talking, and not debating,
I'm not used to this. LOL.
I think I am finding out that I actually like you.
I guess it depends on the subject of discussion. Don't worry, I'm sure we'll enter another heated topic and start hating each other again. 
This might actually be 6 (or even 7) agreements here.
I'm losing count. I didn't expect to get past 1 or 2.
It was Communism, not Atheism;
The problem is, people will often confuse or equate the two.
Politics and Religion are the worst topics for discourse;
That's an understatement.
History Channel jumped the Shark;
Which is really unfortunate. Some of their series, like Enterprise, were really good and informative, and even entertaining in their own right.
Enterprise 360 is their best original docu series; Sci-Fi is great; and the Far Right and Far Left both suck.
Agreed, agreed, and agreed. Oh man, these agreements are starting to freak me out. 
B5 did have a good theme song, I think it may have been a better opening than DS9's,
DS9 had a "slower" pace to its theme. B5 had an "action" feel to it, which sort of pumped you up.
but it is unarguable that the musical score of ST has always been top notch, and DS9 is no exception.
Going all the way back the TOS. I even liked the theme to ST: ENT.
B5 created a universe that felt as if it was well lived in, with a well thought out story arch, great character development and actors.
This is true. If you're a sci-fi uber-nerd like me, check out the "Spacedock" channel on YouTube, which discusses various spaceships from different popular sci-fi shows and movies. They discuss the B5 Starfury fighters and Omega class destroyers. They even go over BSG colonial fighters. Although, Star Trek and Star Wars ships tend to be the favored topics of discussion, given the sheer number and varieties of chips involved with those respective universes.
Where as DS9 had the benefit of an already established universe and overlapped with TNG and Voyager very well.
Yes, but DS9 was a spinoff which managed to stand on its own and develop its own identify and place in the ST universe.
B5 was more serialized and mattered very much which order you watched it in, where as DS9 had more one-off episodes in the beginning, making it seem as if the order didn't matter until the main war began (season 4/5-ish).
The problem with story arcs or storylines which required viewing in order is that it's easy to become confused as to what happens when an episode is missed. It requires more devotion to watch regularly. Back in the 90's, before Ti-vo, DVRing, on demand access, ect, missing an episode or 2 was quite frustrating and can put one off on a show if you couldn't keep up with what was going on. Or you had to wait until the episodes repeated in between seasons. I remember that if I knew I wouldn't be able to see an episode, I would set my VCR (yes, I'm dating myself) to record the show.
Yeah, I remember Spock's Brain. What a load of malarkey.
That was TOS "jump-the-shark" moment, and an indicator as to how the rest of the 3rd season was going to progress. Although, there were still a few good episodes in that season.
You can't remove someone's brain surgically by touch, nor can you survive without a brain
Ok, like me, now you're over analyzing it. I remember watching that episode in my youth and thinking the same thing. It was particularly funny when Scotty was watching McCoy implanting Spock's brain and saying that McCoy was working at warp speed. While surely an exaggeration, it didn't help given the already absurd premise of the episode.
(some US presidents being the only exception haha).
Snicker.
That is an accurate summary of my summary.
I'm glad I got it correct.
You've been added to the group of people here on the Left who will now get fair treatment and respect from me in the future.
I am honored.
It's not a long list yet,
And I am also not surprised, LOl
The thing that irritates me most about the two extremes is their Identity politics.
It isn't just the politics. It's also the inflexible viewpoints, which also happens to be connected to politics. Everything is either right or left, and nothing else. It's a black and white perspective which does not allow any grey area or compromise. And that separation and division only seems to have widened over the years, with anyone in the proverbial grey area viewpoint being caught in the middle.
I find it disgusting and intolerable.
And it is. The far right is no less innocent either. Whatever happened to just being nice and respectful, just for nice and respectful's sake? Perhaps I'm just getting old, or too idealistic. the worst part is, exposure to such extremes can be toxic.
I think too many people fail to distinguish between the extremes and see them as representative of the whole.
See two statements up.
Most people on the Right are not racists, and most people on the Left are not Looney Tunes.
True, although such portrayals seems to be the only thing presented nowadays.
What we have done here may be the best solution to ending the great divide in our country's discourse, which is to talk to the other person to better understand them.
Therein lies the problem: no one wants to talk or is unwilling to listen.
The old adage has been "Respect must be earned". Maybe that is the wrong approach. Perhaps in a country where we are all suppose to be neighbors, respect should be given until it is found to be undeserving.
Or perhaps a little bit of both.
Trust, however, is still something that needs to be earned.
And there seems to far too little of it going around.
These religions did not eliminate slavery or treat women as equal but they certainly extended rights to them that they did not previously have. But that’s not the point.
Religion has fought against equal rights for women and ethnic and social minorities. The Abrahamic religion has never been a force for equality.
If these religions had not changed the world for men, then life would not have changed for women or slaves either and everybody would be worse off.
Your claim is nonsense. Societies regress when theistic religions are in places of political power. The most religious countries and states are also the most regressive.
Religion is no more divisive than any belief on any subject because belief in anything inherently divides those who believe from those who do not.
I agree-- discussing religion can be divisive-- as is discussing any belief system-- including a belief that God doesn't exist, or a belief that Conservativse or Liberals are right (and a belief that opposite political views are very bad..and wrong!)
(And perhaps worse yet is the stupid CoC that states that we must spend time actively participating in discussions that we don't like! 
I think George Carlin was spot on when it comes to religion / belief.
Well George Carlin is certainly entitled to believe whatever he wants. And he certainly has the right to mock and make fun of anyone who disagrees with him.
Plus when he puts down people who have different views than he has, he's really funny (whenever I watch his videos I have some good laughs).
Please do not use the original tab unless you have written something yourself.
Have you called any believers who tell us definitively that we have eternal souls arrogant? If not, why not? Is that not just as arrogant an assumption?
Have you called any believers who tell us definitively that we have eternal souls arrogant? If not, why not? Is that not just as arrogant an assumption?
An excellent question!
First of all, I have absolutely no problems with people on either side of the issue. Unlike so many people, it really, really doesn't upset me if anyone has a different belief system than I do.
But what does annoy me is when some people get so self-righteous about their beliefs-- especially when they know so little about a subject, but never-the-less insist they know better than everyone else.
When people are so sure they are right-- and that anyone who differs is wrong.
And worse yet, when then spend a lot of time and effort prostelytising, trying to convert others to their beliefs..
As far as I'm concerned, I have no problem with people who believe in a diety-- just as I have no problem with those who don't. But what does annoy me is when people in either camp get so righteous and condescending-- because they're so sure they're right!
So to answer your question more directly, yes-- I feel that "Beleivers who tell us definitely that we have eternal souls" are indeed just as arrogant as those who tell us the opposite.
So why don't I spend as much time critiicising them? Simple-- because both here and on NV, the evangelical Atheists by far outnumbered the evangelical Believers. So on these sites they annoy me more. (On NV the ratio between the two groups was probably 10:1 or more. Very few comments there by the greatly outnumbered believers. But those actively prostelytizing Atheism were constantly preaching to us...its really was getting to be a pain in the a$$)
Two more things I'd like to mention:
1. My personal views on certain things are often quite unusual. For example, I deeply believe that there are some things we may never know for sure in this lifetime-- and furthermore, that's perfectly OK with me. (In fact it can be very empowering).
2. Personally, I do not like conventional religions at all-- I feel they are not consistent with what I believe nor consistant with my values..ut that being said, I don't feel the obsessive need to bash who think differently. IMO religion might work well for many people--and I'm OK with that.
3. I know that there are other aspects to reality, and other dimensions of consciousness than what most people believe to be true. And some of those other dimensions operate by different rules. And just because some things have not yet been proven by science, that does not mean that something isn't true.(Incidentally I started out as a nerd-- a real science type).
(On NV the ratio between the two groups was probably 10:1 or more. Very few comments there by the greatly outnumbered believers. But those actively prostelytizing Atheism were constantly preaching to us...its really was getting to be a pain in the a$$)
First, I disagree with your estimated ratio. Second, most of those comments were made in response to proselytizing by some believers, or in defense of the First Amendment, when some believers would trample on it.
Proof that God Exists
To some it might be E=Mc^2 Minus 1% ( Mass defect.
All Scientist and all those that know the basics in Physics will agree with the following.
" Energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only change from one form to another "
That begs the question, " Where did that energy come from "? And, even a more pertinent question... Can energy Become Sentient ( Self Aware ) The Fact that we are here. proves that " Energy can and did become Sentient "
This math numbers shows why God Then Proceeded to " create "
10^ 50 Anything greater is Improbably
10^80 All Atoms in the Universe ( do not ask me who counted them )
10^ 29345 The odds of ONE Living cell coming about by Accident ( Amino Acids X Proteins ), and at LEAST Two of those have to come about Simultaneously, and they have to be Compatible with each other for life forms to begin!
So that be 10^29345 Square Root of 10^29345.
Now for a different " Path to the same conclusion "
Can Humans at some time in the future Terraform Planets, and genetically modify Life to suit?
Most if not all would say Yes, so then to the " new Lifeforms " what would that " Man " Be if not God?
Hence, if we can see the possibility of that existing by OUR Hand, why could it not have taken place in the Past?
All Scientist and all those that know the basics in Physics will agree with the following. " Energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only change from one form to another "
I would phrase that a bit differently:
Knowing what we currently know at this point in time, All Scientist and all those that know the basics in Physics will agree with the following. " Energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only change from one form to another ".
But of course since scientists and other researchers are constanty learning new things about the nature of the Universe, what is currently believed to be fact can-- and will!-- change over time....
But of course since scientists and other researchers are constant;y learning new things about the nature of the Universe, what is currently believed to be fact can-- and will!-- change over time....
E.A what part of MY Comment was about the " Unknown Future "?
Those that can not possible accept the Possibility of a Devine one, seem to have no problems with scifi and all the hints of such an entity there!
E.A and to " Rub some Salt in the Wound " those that seem to think that those of faith only have their writing to help them see the following terminologies!
" Make Sure of ALL things Hold fast to what is fine "
" From the WORLDS Creation onward, all that is be known is made evident in the Creation so their ignorance is inexcusable "
" Go to the ANT you lazy one and learn from ITS ways "
But of course since scientists and other researchers are constanty learning new things about the nature of the Universe, what is currently believed to be fact can-- and will!-- change over time....
Which means that:
1. Just because we currently can not prove that something exists....that does not prove that it actually doesn't exist. (It might exist but we might not yet know about it yet).
2. Just because we can't prove that something exists, that in no way proves that we will never be able to prove that it exists! (And of course it also doesn't prove that we will be able to prove it exists some day. Currently, there's no proof either way, Some things are unknowable at this point in time..which of course makes some types of folks very,very uncomfortable).
(In terms of a God, or "Higher Power" or the like-- its seems pretty clear to me that currently there is no Scientific proof that God exists. But there is also no Scientific proof that God does not exist either.).
E.A well lets start with the simple things:
1 BB what went Bang.
2 Did Gravity exist, if it did,, then FIZZZLE no BB
3 If Gravity did NOT Exist,,, then ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzz No Spin and hence no congealment for Matter to Form.
4 If it did and it was Turned OFF for a PicoSecond and then back ON, who/what/when/how Link Please :-)
5 The Dust bunnies that formed, well they were just that what FORCED them to get to over 10.000 Celsius to Melt and form Protoplanets
6 Show a Scientific Paper that show how protoplanets form ....
#### Infinitum!!!!
Those that can not possible accept the Possibility of a Devine one, seem to have no problems with scifi and all the hints of such an entity there!
We can accept the possibility. We see no evidence to declare it to be the truth. And we have no problem with it in scifi specifically because it's fiction - as such, it doesn't claim to be reality.
Hence, if we can see the possibility of that existing by OUR Hand, why could it not have taken place in the Past?
That is an interesting idea which I will think about
That is an interesting idea which I will think about
E.A I say now not just you but just about ALL Scifi fans and more!
Everything is made up from atoms. whatever arranged the atoms to be all that they are is what I call my GOD, other than that I know nothing and I dont believe any living person does either.
PS: I've read the old testament, the new testament, the Book of Mormon and some of the Koran. All religious books written by men seemingly mainly to manipulate other men.
No thanks !
Who is online
85 visitors
Faith is not required to believe what is true. The reason faith is so important is that there is no logical reason to believe in the first place.
Actually its more accurate to say that faith is not necessary to believe what's easily proveable by conventional means.
However faith is required to know that which is not yet possible to prove by conventional means.
Shakespeare is one person who was quite familiar with this concept:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio
To put it another way-- just because you can't prove that something exists...that is no proof that it doesn't exist!
(It may exist and you just haven't discovered it yet. In fact, that happens quite frequently in science).
If you can't provide evidence, you only believe. You don't know.
Nobody is claiming as much. We're just saying that without evidence, there's no reason to believe, and certainly no reason to live as if we believe.
In the realm of science (and logic) in order for something to be tested for accuracy (or truth) it needs to be "falsifiable," i.e. be subjected to rational analysis. By definition, something that's supernatural, i.e. not subject to the laws of nature, cannot be so subjected or tested. So, again by definition, the existence of supernatural beings (gods or any other "spirits") cannot be tested. The claim of their existence must rest on belief alone.
How is that rational?
That is not how the burden of proof works. Christians are claiming that God exists, so the burden of proof is on them to empirically prove their claim to be true. An absence of that proof we relevant to the fact that it doesn't exist.
The fact that I cant prove that 3 headed unicorns don't exist doesn't mean that they do.
The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Faith is what you have when you do not have evidence. Faith is a decision made on emotion and not fact. Faith can't make god exist.
How can you possibly have a relationship with something that you can't prove exists? You just described a self-induced delusion.
You have the right to believe in anything, but the fact that you believe doesn't mean that your actions or beliefs are logical.
But to be fair if someone asserts that no god exists, the burden of proof also applies. An opinion (or belief) does not carry a burden of proof but a claim of certainty does.
Not really evidence of absence, but it makes for a good argument in some cases. Certainly the absence of evidence of extraterrestrials is not evidence that they do not exist. But in cases where something has been offered as true for thousands of years (such as the existence of a specific God with specific attributes) the absence of evidence is a highly significant point. Not technically evidence of absence but certainly a legitimate cause for skepticism.
Or delusional.
Where is the evidence that God exists? I am saying that there is no empirical evidence that god exists. Belief is a decision that is made on am emotion and not fact so belief in God doesn't prove that God exists.
TiG isn't claiming that there's evidence of god's existence. Just that the lack of evidence isn't evidence of nonexistence. It suggests nonexistence, but isn't evidence of it.
There is no credible evidence that God exists. Why are you asking?
Yes, and I took that as a given. Read my post.
Correct, mere belief in God does not prove God exists - it is not even evidence that God exists.
None of this applies to the point I made. Did you read my comment? Here is the operative part per your response:
Note my usage of the phrase 'absence of evidence'. Here I am explicitly positing that there is no credible evidence and stating that this is a highly significant point that justifies skepticism.
I am well aware that he wants to turn the concept of burden of proof on its head in an attempt to claim that atheists have to positively prove that god doesn't exist for the idea to be true.
No, he himself is an agnostic atheist. He doesn't believe god exists, but as we have noted, we can't prove a negative, and therefore we can't be certain.
Nobody can positively prove that something doesn't exist. I can only say that their current argument is fallacious and that as of now there is absolutely no empirical evidence that god exists. If empirical evidence of god is discovered in the future then the argument will need to be revisited.
The gap that god can possibly exist is in becoming smaller and smaller as our knowledge grows so I am not expecting evidence of god to be found.
You and TiG are, I believe, in complete agreement on this point.
I do? Invest a minute to read what I actually wrote.
What can one say when faced with such an absurd claim?
Agreed. Run with that.
Agreed.
Now, try a little harder to genuinely read the comments of others. Try to understand what we are writing and do not simply insert wild presumptions and pretend they are true.
Proof that God Exists
To some it might be E=Mc^2 Minus 1% ( Mass defect.
All Scientist and all those that know the basics in Physics will agree with the following.
" Energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only change from one form to another "
That begs the question, " Where did that energy come from "? And, even a more pertinent question... Can energy Become Sentient ( Self Aware ) The Fact that we are here. proves that " Energy can and did become Sentient "
This math numbers shows why God Then Proceeded to " create "
10^ 50 Anything greater is Improbably
10^80 All Atoms in the Universe ( do not ask me who counted them )
10^ 29345 The odds of ONE Living cell coming about by Accident ( Amino Acids X Proteins ), and at LEAST Two of those have to come about Simultaneously, and they have to be Compatible with each other for life forms to begin!
So that be 10^29345 Square Root of 10^29345.
Now for a different " Path to the same conclusion "
Can Humans at some time in the future Terraform Planets, and genetically modify Life to suit?
Most if not all would say Yes, so then to the " new Lifeforms " what would that " Man " Be if not God?
Hence, if we can see the possibility of that existing by OUR Hand, why could it not have taken place in the Past?
Regardless of the answer we always wind up with something being eternal. You simply choose to deem that something 'God' yet that something could also (and more logically) be existence itself. Think of it this way: there has always been 'stuff' and that 'stuff' has and continues to interact with itself which causes forms (of the stuff) to emerge, undergo change, and eventually degrade back into mere 'stuff'. We observe this happening all the time. We have never observed a God.
What you presented is not even evidence of God much less proof of same.
E.A Only to those that are Prejudiced, and at times even Bigoted.
So do YOU deny the validity of this Math ::
This math numbers shows why God Then Proceeded to " create "
10^ 50 Anything greater is Improbably
10^80 All Atoms in the Universe ( do not ask me who counted them )
10^ 29345 The odds of ONE Living cell coming about by Accident ( Amino Acids X Proteins ), and at LEAST Two of those have to come about Simultaneously, and they have to be Compatible with each other for life forms to begin!
So that be 10^29345 Square Root of 10^29345.
Resorting to personal attacks simply shows you have no argument.
Your comments suggest you do not understand what the terms 'proof' or 'evidence' mean. If you do understand then let's see the evidence.
E.A Why/What Math is a " Personal Attack "?? Who would have thought That! Let " The reader use discernment "!
You know, or should, that TiG was not referring to your math. He was referring to your characterization of him as prejudiced or bigoted, a jab you have also aimed at me.
Some friends and family members of mine identified as atheists.
Almost all are educated and intelligent enough.
However Intelligence and Wisdom are NOT one and the same.
Education is not a guarantee of knowledge of all things either, though some think it is.
So based on what the Scriptures say and after yrs. of dealing with them. And in spite of their education and intelligence, their behavior, conduct and ways leave much to be desired, it all have led me to conclude that atheism is ACTS = A bsolute, C omplete and T otal S tupidity.
Ps. 14:1a The fool says in his heart, There is no God.
Ps. 53:1a The fool says in his heart, There is no God.
OM G I'm going to be Flagged for that!
Oh, you've been flagged all right. Only not for what you thought.
I certainly will NOT lose any sleep over that.
It is going to take more than that fallacious argument for this secular humanist to report you.
To be clear, after reading what some people wrote 2,000 yrs ago, your own interpretation of the actions of a few people, and reaching inside your own head, you have made an assumption. Judge away, your own Lord will condemn you.
Stop on the Christianity. If you don't believe, I don't care.
If you do believe.....ok.
No more of this for me!
You like this stuff, Mango, that's why you're here!
Then perhaps Singled Out should stop posting about Christianity. We have been told repeatedly that this is not an echo chamber. If he posts articles with which we disagree, we are free to post comments indicating our disagreement.
I believe that if he wants an echo chamber, there are private groups in which he can post where he will find exactly that.
You could skip these threads you know. You are not compelled to post.
Aiming for an echo chamber?
No, I'm glad NV died.
profanity and many cuss words
Deflection noted, as is your participation on the Vine right up to the end.
I'll go on making sure NT doesn't become an echo chamber. It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it
your not either
why are you here then?
And there are also people who want to live in their own private Idaho.
(B-52s - Own Private Idaho)
Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .
Ours, too, it seems. An invitation was extended to all of us when the Vine announced its imminent closure.
♫Oooooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ♪ Boom, boom! Bang! Shake, bump. Kick, shuffle. I think you just wanted to play this kicking song! I heard the music and could not help myself stopping in. Whew! Kick Ass!
Gotta love B-52. Some people dress to kill, B-52 dresses (and plays music) to laugh.
Why should I pass these threads by? I could skip them but why should I?
It's closer to
Regardless, belief or non-belief is personal. It should be kept that way.
Since you feel that way about peoples' religious belief systems, I am wondering: do you feel that way about peoples' political belief systems as well?
I am also wondering-- do you think we should discussing any controversial topics here?
Since both are founded in half truths and lies....
Sadly, sometimes those who do believe allow those beliefs to impact the lives of other. Discussion is the best way to ensure we have freedom from religion.
The discussion is almost impossible. Look at most of the discussions about religion here on NT. Somebody mentions a bad aspect from a religion (in a lot of times using that religions own dogma) and the believer goes into a tantrum thinking they were just physically assaulted.
Yes, I agree. A calm and reasoned discussion regarding the topic of religion is almost impossible .
However, it is important to have those discussions nonetheless. There is too much in today's world driven by people in authority who are religious but do not keep their religiosity to themselves.
So, maybe you've gained some insight as to what it's like to be constantly bombarded by believers wanting to force their beliefs onto the public spaces everywhere.
This shows up on the front page, you know.
Because this is the only type of forum where you get to comment BACK at the news otherwise all you have is to call the spouse in to read and agree it's a great well thought out segment, or yell at the radio or T.V. (NOT the spouse if you want to stay married) and yelling at a newspaper just looks like you're ready for the rubber room.
It did not make sense to me at 6, and 50+ years later it makes less sense
Well, if anything proves it-- that certainly does!
Very sadly, for me it was the other way around from a timeline perspective.
sorry it took so long
Kudos for freeing yourself from superstition. Most people never achieve that.
These threads are the "Groundhog Day" of Newstalkers.
And you are one of the main characters JR!
I have only been here a little while, but when I see negativity your moniker is often attached to it. Compare the number of times you respond in a thoughtful manner with substance vs. the number of times you respond as above.
How many minds have you changed with your atheist rants ?
I'm guessing not many.
I don't rant.
How many minds have you changed with your religious rants? I would guess none.
One. Mine.
I was raised Baptist. In my teens, some things in the Bible started seeming...off. Unfair. Immoral. Some were downright abhorrent, and they were acts committed by the supposed good guys.
But I was afraid to doubt. Losing faith meant damnation.
In my thirties, I finally had the courage to doubt, and think more critically about my religion. To judge it on its own merits, rather than cling to it because it was familiar and comfortable. And it didn't look good.
On Newsvine, I encountered Jackol, TiG, Gordy, katrix, and The Jackel, and after really taking in their arguments, finally decided to let go of my beliefs. I became so much happier. No longer felt guilty just for being a flawed human being, like all other human beings. No longer worthy of death and damnation just for being as I was, when I knew I'd never really done anything very bad. No longer doubting of my worth because I was a woman, and therefore "less than".
Now, I just try to be a good person, and I flatter myself I always have been, for the most part. I feel that I'm a more generous, less judging person these days.
Eh, don't listen to me. What do I know?
It was Newsvine, along with Dawkins and Hitchens, which help me lose my religion. I feel a