August 31st, 2012
03:24 PM ET

soundoff (1,077 Responses)
  1. David

    One key difference between science and religion:
    Science seeks the truth. When a contradition or error is found, the science is adjusted to reflect that.
    Religion has determined what the truth is. When a contradiction or error is found, great effort is put into either discrediting the discovery, or finding a way to explain it while maintaining the predetermined truth.
    That is, the agenda of science is finding the truth. The agenda of religion is defending a "predecided" truth.

    September 4, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • mlblogs1972pastime

      This right here ladies and gentleman, is what you call "hitting the nail on the head." Thank you, David.

      September 4, 2012 at 11:26 am |
    • oxkarbaz

      You have a very naive and idealistic definition of science, David. I'll probably bet you're an aspiring scientist or even an enthusiastic graduate. Unfortunately, not only your definition is wrong, but also even contradictory.

      Religion doesn't determine what truth is. In order for humans to determine any truth beyond it's own existence, it needs some unfounded premises. Religion is the preservation of premises through tradition. Science is the preservation of premises through their degree of success in achieving technical advancements. Modern science clashes with religion not because it has the truth, while religion only affirms the truth, but because it wants to impose unfounded premises that exclude others as truth.

      The agenda of modern science, since the 17th century, is not finding the truth. To even think science is capable to do that is proof you have no idea what you are talking about. The agenda of modern science, and thanks for using the term agenda, makes it a lot easier, is to find explanations that fit within the materialist and mechanicist model of reality. In other words, the belief that given the state of a system in a particularly given time, there's a set of laws that can fully determine all of his past and future.

      The only branch of modern science that doesn't fit that is, not by coincidence, is quantum physics, which is inherently non-deterministic. The desperate efforts by physicists to integrate it with the other materialist and mechanicist model has nothing to do with truth, but purely ideology. As you put very well, an agenda.

      Actually, modern science put a lot more of effort into discrediting discoveries that point to validity of claims made by religion, than the opposite. Basically, the whole of XX century cosmology is an attempt at providing an alternate nonsensical explanation to empirical evidence that demanded a very close God. This is very well explained even by recreational scientific literature.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • David Larimer


      Hardly. That's a bunch of hot air. Your words resemble english, but on closer examination don't say anything. David got it right in his succinct post.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      If you don't understand and think they say nothing, it's not my failure. Until you point exactly what's wrong and why, you are the one saying nothing at all.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      David indeed nailed it. oxkarbaz simply provided an example of what David just described: great effort put into discrediting, or finding a way to maintain the "predetermined truth."

      It reminds me of a great political cartoon that compares the scientific method (here's the facts, see what conclusions you might draw from them) to the religious method (here's the conclusion, see what facts you can find to support it).

      September 4, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
    • Ben

      You know that you sound exactly like the UFO conspiracy guys, don't you? Scientists are covering them up too. 🙂

      September 4, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      If you can't understand my explanation above and see that as an attempt at discrediting, without pointing out where exactly it's wrong, then there isn't much more I can do, other than hope one day you'll learn something.

      Unfortunately, this blog comment format isn't adequate for maieutics, which would be the easiest way to show you where exactly you are wrong, as both Davids above.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      You know that you sound exactly like someone who doesn't even know what he's talking about? A conspiracy presumes secrecy and a hidden plan of action, and I'm talking of a public agenda, very well know by everyone, and even nominally defended by some major icons. Just refer to page 41 to 46 of Stephen Hawking's last book, The Grand Design, for a clear example. For instance, he promptly admits Copernicus never proved the Ptolemaic model wrong, despite what people think. It's just a model adopted on ideological grounds.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • oxkarbaz

      By the way, Hawking's book is a great example at how David's passionate view that Science is adjusted to reflect flaws and contradictions is nonsense. After almost a century trying to conform the quantum empirically proved non-determinism to the classic Cartesian model, instead of finally trashing it and appealing to a classical metaphysics, Hawking appeals to a solipsistic view of model-dependent realism. I think that's the greatest joke of modern science.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:56 pm |
    • Ben

      How can the scientific community be spreading misinformation about the origins of the universe and life on this planet, as you suggest, without there somehow being some conspiracy to hide the "truth"? If there's no conspiracy, then things really are exactly as the scientists are suggesting. Any "public agenda" they may have revolves around educating the world about the latest discoveries.

      BTW Copernicus was ages ago, so I don't get what your point was in mentioning him.

      September 4, 2012 at 11:44 pm |
    • takawalk

      David at times I see evidence that so called scientist do the same thing. It is a human nature thing i think.

      September 5, 2012 at 8:19 pm |
  2. Carlos

    Pi has been explained, but what about these?

    1 Corinthians 11:14 (Men should not have long hair)
    1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (Women should remain silent in church)
    Deuteronomy 13:6-16 (Death penalty for Apostasy)
    Deuteronomy 20:10-14 (Attack city, kill all men, keep women, children as spoils of war)
    Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (Death penalty for a rebellious son)
    Deuteronomy 22:19-25 (Kill non-virgin/kill adulterers/rapists)
    Ecclesiastes 1:18 (Knowledge is bad)
    Exodus 21:1-7 (Rules for buying slaves)
    Exodus 35:2 (Death for working on the Sabbath)
    Ezekiel 9:5-6 (Murder women/children)
    Genesis 1:3,4,5,11,12,16 (God creates light, night and day, plants grow, before creating sun)
    Genesis 3:16 (Man shall rule over woman)
    Jeremiah 19:9 (Cannibalism)
    John 3:18 (He who believes in Jesus is saved, he that doesn’t is condemned)
    John 5:46-47 (Jesus references Old Testament)
    Leviticus 3:1-17 (Procedure for animal sacrifice)
    Leviticus 19:19 (No mixed fabrics in clothing)
    Leviticus 19:27 (Don’t trim hair or beard)
    Leviticus 19:28 (No tattoos)
    Leviticus 20:9 (Death for cursing father or mother)
    Leviticus 20:10 (Death for adultery)
    Leviticus 20:13 (Death for gay men)
    Leviticus 21:17-23 (Ugly people, lame, dwarfs, not welcome on altar)
    Leviticus 25:45 (Strangers can be bought as slaves)
    Luke 12:33 (Sell your possessions, and give to the poor)
    Luke 14:26 (You must hate your family and yourself to follow Jesus)
    Mark 10:11-12 (Leaving your spouse for another is adultery)
    Mark 10:21-22 (Sell your possessions and give to the poor)
    Mark 10:24-25 (Next to impossible for rich to get into heaven)
    Mark 16:15-16 (Those who hear the gospel and don’t believe go to hell)
    Matthew 5:17-19 (Jesus says he has come to enforce the laws of the Old Testament)
    Matthew 6:5-6 (Pray in secret)
    Matthew 6:18 (Fast for Lent in secret)
    Matthew 9:12 (The healthy don’t need a doctor, the sick do)
    Matthew 10:34-37 (Jesus comes with sword, turns families against each other, those that love family more than him are not worthy)
    Matthew 12:30 (If you’re not with Jesus, you’re against him)
    Matthew 15:4 (Death for not honouring your father and mother)
    Matthew 22:29 (Jesus references Old Testament)
    Matthew 24:37 (Jesus references Old Testament)
    Numbers 14:18 (Following generations blamed for the sins of previous ones)
    Psalms 137:9 (Violence against children)
    Revelation 6:13 (The stars fell to earth like figs)
    Revelation 21:8 (Unbelievers, among others, go to hell)
    1 Timothy 2:11-12 (Women subordinate and must remain silent)
    1 Timothy 5:8 (If you don’t provide for your family, you are an infidel)

    September 4, 2012 at 12:28 am |
    • mama kindless

      I know – and if we have these kinds of things today:

      Southern Living 1.1 – Coffee is bad for you
      Washington Post 1.1 – the health benefits of coffee
      Dr. A – egg yolks are bad for you
      Dr. B – the complete egg has components when taken together are healthy for you

      then how in the hell are we supposed to believe anything from a couple of thousand years ago? My goodness.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:45 am |
    • ManOfUnderstandingAndTrueLogic

      Ahem...didn't you spend a great amount of time typing scriptures? Did you correctly put the right message in those parenthesis of the messages? I wonder, also, who you, I, or anyone else gets the authority over God to question Him? Hey, have fun typing, because, maybe one day you'll be God's typist in heavon. Or wait, were you mocking The Almighty? I wouldn't want to be you right about now...
      PS: Tell your ape ancestors and evolutionary friends: thanks for your fantasies. You keep proving how foolish men can be, and how great God really is.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:04 am |
    • truth be trolled


      LOL – No – I don't think anyone here will wind up being a typist in heavon. They don't pay enough, and I for one tend to shy away from typing jobs where I have to use a lot of capital letters.

      September 4, 2012 at 8:58 am |
    • LJH


      Is god a mac or windows kind of guy? Or is he old school and uses a typewriter? I imagine him to look like Hemingway with a glass of single malt and an ashtray of cigarette butts.

      September 4, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
  3. Rufus T. Firefly

    Creationists trying to disprove evolution are like children throwing rocks at a jetliner passing overhead. Though you may throw with all your might, the only threat you pose is to those around you who are in danger from poorly-thrown rocks.

    September 4, 2012 at 12:02 am |
    • Gaylen

      I wonder then why Mr. Nye is wasting so much oxygen complaining about the great "harm" the teaching of Creationism does to children......though I may not personally agree with the tenets of Creationism, I do believe in the right of parents to pass their personal religious beliefs on to their children- whether those beliefs are Christian, Hindu, Muslim, etc.......

      September 4, 2012 at 12:18 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      RUFUS! I was just wondering where you were! Miss seeing your posts, dear friend! Hope all is well.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:21 am |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      The harm, in case the metaphor is unclear, is that those rocks (which do nothing to undermine the reality of evolution) are falling back down on all of our heads. Education suffers, research suffers, we all suffer the consequences of people adamantly insisting upon teaching arguments that were dismissed by science 150 years ago.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:24 am |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      Thanks, Tom Tom! That's nice to hear.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:26 am |
    • Ben

      Rufus T. Firefly
      They're more like primitive tribesmen throwing their spears at the passing jetliners.

      September 4, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
  4. Blane

    Christians, I implore you, don't argue with these atheists! There hearts are hard, and they will never know what it is like to have been called by God. They are to be pitied.

    September 3, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's "Their hearts", retard.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:41 pm |
    • Gaylen

      Nope....Pity an over-the-hill former " kiddie" tv host desperately trying to stay relevant....

      September 3, 2012 at 11:58 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      Christ said it's not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. Who you think you are to say anyone here is to be pitied? You think you can judge that? Sorry, but only God can do that.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:47 am |
  5. 2357

    I have a question about the miller-urey experiment.
    Why didn't they keep the mixtures stewing for, say, 30 years? Just to see what else would emerge, you know? I heard Bada has taken it up again, but why did they stop it in the first place?

    September 3, 2012 at 11:34 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Well, they stopped it because they got positive, repeatable results. And, well, that was the purpose of the experiment in the first place.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:56 pm |
    • 2357

      Miller boiled the mixture for ONE WEEK, and produced several amino acids and methane. My instinct would have been to boil hundreds of slightly varied mixtures for several years, and go for ALL of the components necessary for a simple microbe – fatty acids, protein complex, heck a primitive helix! Why in the world did you shelve your experiment Dr. Miller? Did you run out of rent money? Why are we digging barren ricks on Mars, when your stinky pizzpots could have spared us $billions, not to mention all this vitriolic nonsense?

      September 4, 2012 at 12:46 am |
    • Dan

      2357: Did you know that money that went into the Mars Rover wasn't magically launched off of the planet? Did you know that when you pay engineers and materials providers, the money doesn't magically evaporate, it stays here on Earth?

      Just saying

      September 4, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
  6. Atheists get out

    atheists get the hell out of my country!!

    September 3, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Idiots get out of mine!

      September 3, 2012 at 10:59 pm |
    • Colin

      We would, but you see, the World is only 6,000 years old, so plate tectonics have not yet provided us with anywhere to go.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:01 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Sorry, dear. It's not "your" country. It belongs to all citizens, just as the founders intended. However, is you want to live in a theocracy, I recommend you move to Iran. That way, you can enjoy the sort of government that comes when religion replaces law.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:03 pm |
    • mama kindless

      What?? We don't live in the Vatican. My oh my that pope is paranoid. I guess after the butler thing, he doesn't even trust his Swiss Guard. My goodness.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:04 pm |
    • Atheists get out

      we need to round up all athiests and give them the chance to convert or else damn filthy athiests

      September 3, 2012 at 11:05 pm |
    • Atheists get out

      good idea! put them in iran and let them slice you heads off blasphemers

      September 3, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Who's "we", honey? You and your gerbils?

      September 3, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Oh, you silly troll. If only you were half as interesting as you think you are.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The putz would STILL be a complete and utter bore!

      September 3, 2012 at 11:13 pm |
    • Chad Daly

      Sorry Atheist I am glad you are all Citizens of this country! The Founders who were largely Christians and maybe one or two deists would have wanted the free exchange of ideas, so although I don't agree with the Atheists I am glad America is free for everyone. As they keep restricting my right to practice my faith I hope that one day when laws are passed to limit my freedom they will remember that I will still stand up for theirs...

      September 3, 2012 at 11:32 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      How the fvcking fvck is ANYONE "restricting" your religious freedom, you simple-minded dolt?

      September 3, 2012 at 11:36 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Chad, while I appreciate the thought, exactly how have they restricted your ability to practice your faith? Be specific please.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:48 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Be specific, please." That'll be a first. Along with "be honest, please."

      September 3, 2012 at 11:52 pm |
    • Gaylen

      Really, Tom/Piper....? Are you out of your teen years? I rather wonder, when the only contribution you make to a discussion is to call people names (and very unoriginal ones at that)-it's past your bedtime........

      September 4, 2012 at 12:08 am |
    • Gadflie

      Gaylen, since you wrote "Nope....Pity an over-the-hill former " kiddie" tv host desperately trying to stay relevant...." about 10 minutes before your whine here, I have to say that we appreciate you not bothering to conceal your hypocrisy.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:31 am |
    • sai

      You, sir, are the same as the radical Muslims who attacked on 9/11 and who continue to practice non-acceptance of other people. You preach about your religion but don't practice any of the empathy your scriptures teach.
      You're going to die and stare in bewilderment when your god casts you out for being such a horrible person. Whatever happened to Love They Neighbor? I don't recall it being "Love thy neighbor if they're white and the same religion as me."

      September 4, 2012 at 1:11 am |
    • gabber

      Okay, for those of you who don't get it, Atheists get out is actually an antagonist of creationists trying to make Christians look bad – he/she is likely an atheist. If you don't see this from his/her first posting, then I would have to question your ability to discern anything else.

      September 4, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • Ben

      Atheists get out
      Sure, we'll get out of Iran, ... or is it Pakistan where you live?

      September 4, 2012 at 11:31 pm |
    • takawalk

      Damocles number 4 free will is a a simplistic answer but think about it. But in the end game they will be neutral.

      September 6, 2012 at 7:50 am |
    • takawalk

      Strike that lol i posted to the wrong thread

      September 6, 2012 at 7:51 am |
  7. Miss Charis

    Hurrah for Mr. Nye! He made it straightforward and simple: TEACHING CREATIONISM IS LIKE TEACHING THAT THE WORLD IS FLAT God gave him the gift of clarity.

    September 3, 2012 at 10:23 pm |
  8. niknak

    Now that I think of it, I bet the fundie deep down inside really still believe the earth is flat.
    I bet when they turn this country into a christian version of Saudi Arabia the world will be taught as being flat.
    Just look at their creepy creationist museum being opened in the bejebus belt, where it has human actually riding dinos.
    A mind is a terrible thing to lose, to religion.

    September 3, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
    • Chad Daly

      Sorry Nik Nak, I respect your opinion but I don't agree. The more you learn the less you know for sure! Small minds cannot separate organized religion from a personal relationship with a Creator. There are major differences with Christianity and Muslim beliefs. What added and enhanced learning was Christianity. The first book printed was the Bible and this led to many learning to read and write. Almost all the Universities in the US and Europe were created by Christians..We still do believe in the freedom of choice. Think about what you are saying, Christian society flourished with Science and Math because it was encouraged. Liberals often believe that Christians want to create an American Taliban but that could not be further from the truth. We have always believed in Freedom of choice. There have always been evil men that have tried to use Christianity for their own benefit asserting control over organized Religion and using it for evil. Most Atheist today cannot separate Religion from Christianity. They are at times mutually inclusive but are also often mutually exclusive.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:46 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Chad, sorry but the first printed books were in China several centuries before the Gutenberg Bible was printed. And, it's nothing but your own hubris that makes you separate religion from your beliefs.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:27 pm |
  9. Chad Daly

    These evolutionists are comical. I am sorry but when I was a child I walked into the Smithsonian and there was a skeleton of a Wooly Mammoth. The beautiful plaque in front gave specific details about the age of the Mammoth and I was amazed! Loving dinosaurs was part of my childhood and I still enjoy learning about archeological discoveries. After several trips a couple of years apart to the Smithsonian I arrived one day to see the plaque was changed. It said this Skeleton was previously thought to be a wooly mammoth but we now know it was a giant elephant... HMMM! They were sure it was a Mammoth but now it was an Elephant. Then there were the numerous articles on how Scientist found a new fossil of the oldest human and they were off by Millions of years. Working in the Pharmaceutical industry I learned how exacting science can be Double Blinded Randomized Placebo controlled trials that give you statistical significant P Values, Hazard Rations and Confidence Intervals. Yet after achieving all off this 95% certainty there are many cases that the statistics don't have the power to vet out side effects that can impact the lives of patients. This is an area man can largely although not completely control and there are still errors. Let's take an area where there is little to no control. Being certain about the foundations of the earth. The Big Bang Theory has many revisions, there are many top statistical experts that have calculated the odds of Creation from a supreme being being Millions of times more likely than everything magically falling into place. Atheists in the 16th and 17th century used to rail about Biblical facts that were incorrect, these things proved there were no God... One big one was that Israel no longer existed as a Nation on the earth... Well I bet they were rolling over in their graves when miraculously the nation was re-created in 1949! Ooops how did that pop back on the map. Or the Atheists who also wrote about how there was a list of all the egyptian rulers from the ancient times and no mention of Jacob who the Bible said co ruled with Pharaoh during the time of great famine. And then a short number of years ago they discovered this evidence. Then there was Nasa running computer models of the stars in reverse over thousands of years but the numbers were off despite their best efforts until someone remembered that in the Bible the time was altered twice. The sun was moved back a number of degrees. When those calculations were added the numbers came out correct HMMM! I know it's all coincidence and their will always be doubt because belief in God must come through faith and not facts because that is the way God wants it according to his word. I love Science and believe that when all the facts are fully understood it will justify Creationism. A supreme being with enough power to create the world can certainly hide the facts from us if he wishes for reasons beyond our understanding and an evil power seeking to dissuade the masses from the creators existence may have the power to alter methods used in calculating time on earth. Could an evil power alter carbon loss from fossilized remains??? Can our best minds control for everything or only that which we know now? Keep searching but don't be so proudly sure when they really do know???

    September 3, 2012 at 9:57 pm |
    • Miss Charis

      You are terribly long winded.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
    • tallulah13

      So what you are saying, Chad, is because science is willing to use facts to correct itself in the quest for truth, you don't trust it. You prefer believing something for which there is no proof, because it doesn't try to correct itself and you don't have to think about it.

      It's kind of lazy of you, but it's your choice.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:25 pm |
    • klyptomaniac

      Religion is illogical because it lacks the evidence in the god they say appointed there religion as "the one". God belief goes beyond bipolar.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:51 pm |
    • What IF

      Chad Daly,

      Waaaay too much to wade through there, but I did spot something in the middle for dispute:

      "... Atheists who also wrote about how there was a list of all the egyptian rulers from the ancient times and no mention of Jacob who the Bible said co ruled with Pharaoh during the time of great famine. And then a short number of years ago they discovered this evidence."

      I think you meant Joseph (not Jacob)... and are referring to some "coins" or "scarabs" that were found a couple of years ago. There is no certification to date about their meaning. Even Christian Evangelicals are wary:

      –Two evangelical archeologists have expressed caution in evaluating reports that ancient Egyptian coins bearing the name and image of the biblical Joseph have been discovered among unsorted artifacts at the Museum of Egypt.

      - "The scholarly community will need to see the full report and images of the artifacts to make a judgment in regard to the interpretation of these objects as coins," Steven Ortiz, associate professor of archaeology and biblical backgrounds at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, said.

      - "It is more likely that these are amulets or jewelry. The initial reports are probably based on an initial zeal to support the koranic verses that mention coins associated with Joseph rather than a comprehensive study of the finds," Ortiz told BP."

      - "Based on what he knows at this point, Griffin [Robert Griffin, an ancient Egyptian history scholar at the University of Memphis] said he would hesitate to say the artifacts are definitive proof of the existence of Joseph in Egypt."


      September 3, 2012 at 10:56 pm |
    • Chad Daly

      I am glad Science uses facts and I am glad that it corrects itself but when are you ultimately sure. You say there are no facts to back up Christianity and that is not factual. I invite you to read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel A Yale atheist who seeks to disprove the Bible but changes his mind at the end of his investigation.... Also The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict.. Christian Answers for the 21st Century

      September 3, 2012 at 11:14 pm |
    • What IF

      Chad Daly,

      You are not finished if you haven't read the (several) rebuttals to Lee Strobel's books.

      Here's one:

      September 3, 2012 at 11:21 pm |
    • John

      Hmmm, I thought it was Joseph that co-ruled with Pharaoh, and elderly Jacob immigrated eventually. It is amazing how often religious people don't even read the Bible properly.

      Regarding the NASA missing day story this is well known to be an urban myth that has been around for decades. The story is highly implausible and only a gullible person would fall for it. In ancient history we hardly know times to within a few decades let alone to within hours or minutes.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:31 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Speaking of funny, I'm sorry Chad but there is still a Wolley Mammoth skeleton. And, they have never had one labeled "Giant Elephant". Why do you have to be so dishonest? Aren't facts enough to make your point?

      September 3, 2012 at 11:31 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Oh, another obvious lie. "there are many top statistical experts that have calculated the odds of Creation from a supreme being being Millions of times more likely than everything magically falling into place.". Anyone who knows statistics at all understands that it is always impossible to show the statistical likelihood of events in the past. They are always either 1 our of 1 or 0 out of 1. It's really that simple.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:36 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Chad, Lee Strobel did not have a SINGLE argument in any of his books that was not either an obvious logical fallacy or an equally obvious misuse of statistics. I'm not surprised you find them convincing though.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:38 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      @Miss Charis: Chad doesn't know about Phazyme. Perhaps you should tell him about his (ahem) problem with *gas*.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
    • Barstool

      "Could an evil power alter carbon loss from fossilized remains??? "
      ....Really? Bwaaaaahahahahaha......

      September 4, 2012 at 8:47 am |
    • Hmm

      I got bored reading your post but find it interesting that you were in a Pharmaceutical field. Aren't those drugs directly related to science? Or did God just happen to pop them into a pill bottle and have them magically appear in front of you?

      September 4, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • Chadwatch, a public service

      Didn't Chad claim earlier to be a mathematician working in finance? O, the tangled web....

      September 4, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
  10. a voice in the crowd

    The logic which religion uses is based on a belief, and is the equivalent of determining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It may be very tightly focused and may take a great mind to pursue, but nevertheless is based on a belief in the first place. The logic of science is one that starts with the acknowlegment that beliefs do not provide a solid bedrock for logic. The logic of science also acknowledges that any one person can make errors, so therefore all knowledge gained via experimentation and observation must be repeatable by others. Sometimes even by others who disagree with our hypothesis. In essence, the logic of science is uncertain and questioning, but charged with perseverance, while the logic of faith is built on certainty and demands compliance with dogma.

    September 3, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
  11. Tom K.

    At the moment of creation there was nothing time included. If you believe in God, why do you feel that God has to work on your concept of time. Why can't God take his/her time and create what ever, when ever and where ever hr/she/it wants. God is certinaly not beholden to you, or me or anyones concept of the universe.

    September 3, 2012 at 9:55 pm |
  12. Loren

    Just one point. I have heard on two occasions Bill Nye state that the earth is loosing 100,000 species each and every year. Yes 100,000 per year! Now lets add up the number of new species we gained last year. Hmmm I think that number is ZERO. Sounds like a problem to me. How many years do we have left before they are all gone? How many years can we extrapolate backwards until we have ZERO species. My guess it won't be millions of years.

    September 3, 2012 at 9:49 pm |
  13. Tom K.

    Creation is still evolving! Isn't it wonderfull

    September 3, 2012 at 9:37 pm |
    • niknak

      Sure it is, especially when you can just change the rules and make the Sh_it up as you go.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:46 pm |
  14. oxkarbaz


    1. You obviously don't know what logic is, you just cherish the word. Validity of the premises has nothing to do with valid reasoning, buddy. You may disagree with the premises of religion as much as you want, buddy, but the reasoning and conclusion leading to religious doctrine, especially catholic doctrine, are among the best works in logic in the history of mankind, made by men a lot more skilled in it than most who live today, I dare say.

    2. To say there's no logic in it, it makes clear you actually never studied a single word of it. As I hate to assume malice when ignorance is enough of an explanation, I give you a chance: just point me to any logical error in any of the major religions.

    3. God, these boutique atheists never get tired of this argument. Buddy, technical achievement has nothing to do with real truth. That a medication works has nothing to do with real knowledge of its essence. Treatments based on absolutely wrong ideas also worked centuries ago, for reasons other than the one imagined.

    September 3, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
    • niknak

      Look, "buddy," your religion is losing ground everyday to science.
      How your stupid book was interpreted 500 years ago is totally different then how it is interpreted today.
      And in 500 years, it will not even resemble how it is used today.
      Wanna know why?
      Because science will keep obliterating the line in the sand that you fundies keep drawing.
      Take ID, it was totally smashed as a viable alternative to evolution.
      It only existed because you fundies have to have your god coeficient in the equation somehow.
      Your ilk will come up with yet another version of it, and it too will be discredited.
      But why do I even bother argueing with you, you and your fundie comrads only understand a clenched fist.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:43 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      Ranting in order to preserve your ego after all the nonsense you throw at me won't save you. Also, if you barely have any idea of what logic is, do you really expect me to take seriously your ideas on comparative religions, religious syncretism and biblical hermenutics? Come on, go back where you came from.

      If you wanna be taken seriously, just answer my question. You said religion isn't logical and you can't reason with me. I'm giving you a chance on that.

      Just point me to one single logical error in any of the major religions, I'm not even restricting you to catholicism, which would be very unfair. Any one, christianism, judaism, islamism, buddhism.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:52 pm |
    • niknak

      Take any major science discipline, and they all contradict any of the major religions ( and minor ones too).
      The worlds relgions make a claim as to the how, the why and the when of how that natural universe came to be and how it works. Nothing, and I repeat nothing is stated in any religious work can be backed up with anything that comes close to being provable.
      THAT is why is it called "belief."
      And not called fact.
      And why would you use any other religion to back you up?
      Aren't they all false as only your religion is the true one?

      September 3, 2012 at 10:04 pm |
    • Carlos

      I'll bite on logical fallacies in Christianity. God says that Pi=3, source: 1 Kings 7:23

      September 3, 2012 at 10:05 pm |
    • Carlos

      Just to elaborate on the pi issue, to make a measurement of a circle with diameter of 450 feet and make a mistake of 45 feet is a very big deal! Considering that Eratosthenes calculated the radius of the earth with uncanny precision, I'm not very impressed with an error like this. If God makes a mistake of 4.5% in all his calculations then it's no wonder the world is a big mess! LOL!

      September 3, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      Quit the nonsense babble against the religion. You are starting to prove you are the one I can't reason with.

      Being contradicted by a science isn't a logical error. Being wrong in giving answers to natural phenomena isn't a logical error.

      You said you can't reason with me, and that religion is illogical. I am for the third time giving you a clear cut chance at reasoning with me by pointing a single logical error in any religion, and you keep coming with your childish rants.

      If logic and true are so dear to you, please, honor your balls, if you have them, and answer the question you asked for.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
    • tallulah13

      The bible frequently contradicts itself. Where I come from, that's an epic fail of logic.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Gee, oxymoron, I thought you were so far above all this. Why, pray tell, are you still here, instead of "debating" with those you deem worthy of your intellect?

      September 3, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Then there's that verse about dragons and unicorns.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      I have lots of fun. It's like playing with kids.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:48 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm sure, ox, that it is. Why would you be satisfied with doing so, if you're such an incredible intellectual?

      Why not go where others are a real challenge to you? Or are you a coward?

      Really, dear, try "The Perfect World." If you're truly an intellectual giant, you'll be far more entertained AND challenged there. Guaranteed.

      Unless you're a pus sy.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:52 pm |
    • Carlos

      Oxkarbaz, I'm still waiting for your explanation of how a circle of diameter 10 cubits measures a perimeter of 30 cubits...

      September 3, 2012 at 10:57 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      Hey Oxen!

      Is this you I found out there in cyberspace?

      "My self-summary
      Put equal parts of Ivan Karamazov, Travis Bickle and Henry Chinaski. Add a little of Prince Michkin. Add some Edward Hyde or Tyler Durden if not available. Add extra insomnia if your Travis Bickle never met Iris. Add lots and lots of ice. Shake, do not stir! Serve in a long-drink glass decorated with benzodiazepines, gunpowder, chocolate and coffee. Handle with care.

      I am obscure, polite, and sarcastic
      I’m looking for

      Ages 22–46
      Located anywhere
      For new friends, long-term dating"

      September 3, 2012 at 11:17 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      I answered, but for some reason the site isn't publishing the answer.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:23 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      Wow. You're actually googling me around? I'm flattered, really.

      Yeah, that's me, a few years ago, I guess. I actually met my wife on that website. Very good one. I'm lucky my wife isn't as obsessed with me as you has become. If she finds that still online, she'll be mad.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:27 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Awww, poor little oxtard, Guess the censors have caught on to your immense intellectual prowess and determined that such a brain as yours poses too much of a threat to allow free access here!

      Aren't you proud, you little Napoleon?

      September 3, 2012 at 11:28 pm |
    • Helpful Hints


      Did you perhaps use the word 'circ-umference' in your post?

      September 3, 2012 at 11:29 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      My pleasure. I wrote a careful explanation to you, but unfortunately the site isn't publishing it. Maybe it's too long.

      Just read the Book of Kings a little more carefully (you actually did that and didn't just get that one from some atheist militant website, did you?) and it will say the basin's border was around a hand th ick. If you take an average hand from each border of the diameter, you end up with a 540 / 172 inches, which is within 0.001% of pi.

      So, it's not an error. It's just giving the measurement of the inner circ-umference, and the outer diameter. This is a lot more clear in the original hebrew, but it's the kind of thing that get's mes-sed up easily on translations. It's also clear by the description of the basin itself. It says it was cast with ornaments on its outer rim, so the outer diameter would be mes-sed up by that.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:30 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Good lord, what an embarrassing post!

      How is it you haven't figured out how to delete it, oxymoronic dufus?

      September 3, 2012 at 11:31 pm |
    • oxkarbaz

      Thanks for the hint, I guess that was it.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:31 pm |
    • oxkarbaz

      I don't find that embarrassing at all, Tom. I met my wife there because she liked that description and we had fun talking about it, today we are very happy and blessed by God with a wonderful child, and hopefully more to come.

      VocalAtheist should be embarrassed at being so obsessed with someone he never met, to the point of googling them around because he can't argue with them to defend his own ideas with anything but schoolyard social skills. Poor guy.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:41 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I feel more pity for your wife, oxycontin, although I do believe women get what they deserve. Too bad she lost out getting stuck with a droob like you.

      Pity that you two bred.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:44 pm |
    • Carlos

      Your math is wrong. If you take a hand off along the perimeter, you have diameter= 10 cubits- 2 hands = 450 ft – 8 inch. = 450*12 – 8 = 5392 inches diameter which gives a perimeter of 16939.5 inches, which is 1411.62 ft. BUT the bible specifies 30 cubit perimeter which is 1350 ft. So there are still 61.62 ft still unccounted for in the bible which is still a 4.3% error instead of 4.5% per my original post...

      September 3, 2012 at 11:44 pm |
    • oxkarbaz

      Thanks Tom. You're such a sweet guy. Do you need a hug?

      September 3, 2012 at 11:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm not a "guy", you fvcktard. I'm female, married for over 30 years and straight.

      Let me know when you and your little wife manage to maintain YOUR marriage beyond a couple of decades, you little wuss.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:48 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      Just type "cubit" in Google and it will give you 45.72 centimeters or 18 inches. I don't know where you got 30 cubits = 1350 ft.

      That's even proof you never actually read the Book of Kings and just pinched that one somewhere, because how a 450 ft diameter basin would be at the porch of Solomon's Palace?

      Please, be more careful.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:52 pm |
    • oxkarbaz

      Wow. I am wrong in assuming someone with the nickname, Tom, the piper's SON is male? Oh God, when will I learn.

      So, You're a female, married for 30 years? Now I know how you got so mad! I'll let you know, sure, if you're still alive.

      See Tom, that's why I love these things and every once in a while spend some hours here. It's incredibly funny sometimes.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:55 pm |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      Religion is illogical because after thousands of years and many attempts to prove that any gods exist there is not one bit of verifiable, independent, objective or factual evidence to support the existence of any god. In any other domain, such claims would have been shelved if not dismissed outright, but religion enjoys a free pass, hopefully not for very much longer.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:55 pm |
    • oxkarbaz

      Oh God, when will these kids learn.

      The criteria of logical validity doesn't apply to the validity of the premises, only to the reasoning. You're pointing to premises, which you may agree or not, not to the reasoning.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:59 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      Hey Catholic from Brazil!

      Me embarras*sed? No way possible, I'm way too old for that.

      A little more insight on our friend here:

      He is more pure than the average cupid.
      He is more old fashioned than the average cupid.
      He is a little more aggressive than the average cupid.
      He is less kind, less s*ex-driven and less compassionate than your average cupid.

      Yes, you're right, these forums can get funny at times can't they?

      September 4, 2012 at 12:01 am |
    • Carlos

      Yes, I had the wrong conversion for cubit, my bad! Do you have a source for how they measured this circular piece of cast metal in more detail? with the correct numbers it appears the bible is quite precise in the measurement only when considering "hands off" claim! It's good I learned this today... Very nice explanation from bible scholars to fix a pretty obvious mistake...

      September 4, 2012 at 12:05 am |
    • Gadflie

      Oxkarbaz? Just one? Ok, here you go. They are all based on a significant and glaringly obvious logical fallacy. An "Appeal to Authority".

      September 4, 2012 at 12:09 am |
    • oxkarbaz


      A little clarification for you since you're still obsessed over me and seems to have orgasmic reactions over any piece of knowledge about me. First, I'm not Catholic, actually I don't follow any religion. Second, I'm not from Brazil, I worked in Brazil from 2008 to 2011. Third, machine learning social website profilings don't give insights about people, only about what they say about themselves. I guess that's a little hard for an atheist to understand, for obvious reasons.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:10 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      If the premise is illogical or unsupported no amount of susequent logical reasoning can justify the premise. Fantasy role playing games are very logical but that does not mean they are the least bit valid in the real world. Religion is based on unsupported claims and perfectly logical beliefs based on the assumption that some god exists cannot excuse that fact.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:10 am |
    • oxkarbaz


      I don't know of any in-depth explanation.

      As I said, it's just a little more clear from the etymology used in original text, which gets lost in translations. For instance, the word used for the basin's edge, משׁפתו (pronounced sahfah) is usually translated as edge, but in this case it might be the inner or the outer edge. Since the word is often used in biblical text to refer to a coast or seashore, and the bronze basin itself was named "The Sea", it's clear that in the original text it referred to the inner edge, and the math proves it's correct.

      I think there isn't much more than that to it, but maybe there's some detailed explanation somewhere, some book or article about Solomon's Temple. I don't know.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:19 am |
    • oxkarbaz


      The validity of the premise has nothing to do with the validity of the reasoning! Have you actually ever studied logic? I'll give an example:

      Bears like honey.
      Cars are made of honey.
      Therefore, bears like cars.

      The premises that bears like honey might be disputed and put under evaluation, and the premise that cars are made of honey is obviously wrong, but the syllogism is perfect. There's nothing illogical about it. There are wrong premises, which is an entirely different thing.

      Another example:

      God loves everyone, even dumb atheist kids who insist on talking about things they don't know nothing about.
      You are a dumb atheist kid who insist on talking about things you know nothing about.
      Therefore, God loves you.

      Again, you may disagree with any of the premises, you may disagree that you are dumb, that you don't know what you are talking about, that God exists and loves everyone, and fine, even if the logic is perfect, the conclusion isn't valid for you, since you don't agree with the premises. I agree with the premises and think they are true, so the conclusion is valid for me.

      You may say as much as you want that religion is based on unsupported claims. Fine, it's based on premises you don't agree with. No problem with that. What you can't is say that it's illogical because you don't agree with the premises. To say that, you have to show where is the logical error, assuming the premises are true.

      Got it?

      Now, you said the premise may be illogical. That's wrong. You don't put in question the logic of the premises in a proposition. You may discuss that in another proposition. If you keep doing that for all propositions, questioning if all premises are true, moving progressively to more primitive ones, you'll reach a point where you can only reach conclusions based on existence itself, not on attributes of existent things. That is a little thing called metaphysics, the knowledge you can have of things based on their existence itself.

      If you keep pushing your luck, you will inevitably reach a point where the only thing you can know for sure is that you exist. because the only thing you can know for sure is that you are thinking if you know anything else for sure. You probably know that famous quote by Rene Descartes, a very smart guy who lived in France in the 17th century: I think, therefore I am.

      After you know for sure that you exist, the next important question is how you can know that anything else but you exists. This is a state of mind called solipsism. This is the most interesting point for you atheists, because there's no way to get out of this but accepting by faith the premise that not only God exists, but also is good and won't fool you.

      After this, that I assume is news for you, If you can show to me for sure how I can prove anything else but my own mind exist, without God, I'll happily become an atheist again.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:42 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      Thanks for the education. You win. Religion is perfectly logically. Now please explain why the only way out of solipsism (a philosophical idea, not a fact) is to accept that god exists and is good.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:06 am |
    • oxkarbaz

      Thank me later, when you actually understand it. Sarcasm won't help you.

      What's a fact? We got to solipsism by doubting all premises, including the premise of a distinction between fact and idea. A fact may be defined as something that occurred in reality, but at the solipsist state you can't talk of any reality beyond your own conscience, so the way you made yourself ready to dismiss solipsism as a philosophical idea, not a fact, simply doesn't make any sense. If you think it does, it means you didn't understand a word. Got it?

      There's no way for you to know through pure logic if you are in a real world, with other people, or if you are the only conscience that exists. Understand that? You need another premise, other than that you exist. Think about Matrix, the movie. There's no way for you to know through logic if you are in the Matrix or not.

      Now, to your question, you can just read Rene Descartes' Discourse on Method for this, but I'll try to answer anyway.

      The only way to escape this state is accepting some external premises on faith. The obvious one is that the world and other people don't exist only in your mind, but as an external reality, that transcends your conscience and theirs and therefore can't be a product of it, but of a higher conscience. The second one is that this reality won't change arbitrarily, but will stay as it is and allow you to know it, so you have to assume this higher conscience isn't fooling with you, and so on. In the end, you have a bunch of unfounded premises, accepted on faith, and to make it all short, we call them God.

      Now, this is the most atheistic friendly position. Many thinkers tried different solutions to the problem, but most of them depend even more on God, in one way or another. There are some attempts by atheist thinkers to solve this, but they are a real mess. For instance, Stephen Hawking's last book, The Grand Design, is nothing but another failed attempt at getting out of the solipsist state without God, although he doesn't acknowledge this, and I doubt he even realized it.

      Of course, nobody thinks of this in their daily life. Maybe that's what you meant when you said it's a philosophical idea, not a fact. You call yourself an atheist, but you don't worry if you're in a Matrix when you go brush your teeth. You just assume in good faith the world exists and will stay as it is. When you do that, you're not an atheist, no matter how much you say you are, and how convinced you are. If you really wanna call yourself an atheist, you can't depend on the idea of God for anything, no matter how you call it, and that's very, very hard to do.

      Of course, 99% of the so called atheists don't realize this and aren't atheists at all. Real atheists are incredibly rare. Stephen Hawking for instance, actually tried honestly to put that in logical terms and failed, but he's sincere in it and know what he's talking about. But when a dumb kid says he's an atheist because religion is illogical and God is a fairy tale, he has no clue what he's talking about.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:14 am |
    • Damocles


      Good stuff you have there, very thought provoking.

      A few questions, if I may ask and see where the conversation goes from there:

      1) Do you believe that god is 'everything'?
      2) Do you think that god is the only eternal creative force out there?
      3) If god is 'everything', is there something about it you don't like?
      4) If there is an 'everything' force out there, would not the opposing forces render themselves neutral?
      5) If you say that the only reason you are here is because of god, am I to as-sume that one of your parents was god? (thats not a snarky question)
      6) Isn't the premise that god is 'all good' or 'solely good' illogical?
      7) Would an all powerful eniti-ty need something like evolution to create?
      8) If we can only truly be aware of ourselves, how can we be aware of a deity?
      9) Was the value of Pi known before the bible was written? If so, was it laziness that saw it rounded to 3?
      10) If there's a group of 10 people and 5 say 'X is right' and 5 say 'X is wrong', is X right or wrong?

      Answer any, all, or none of them, doesn't really matter I guess, I'm just curious.

      September 4, 2012 at 3:54 am |
    • oxkarbaz


      So, those aren't genuine questions, just an attempt at conversation? I'll assume those are the best questions you can ask then and answer accordingly, but if you are actually downplaying what you really know, let me know.

      1. This depends on what you call God and what you mean by everything. What I call God isn't a matter of belief, and can't be known except by negation, or by negate in Him the attributes in creation, so it's quite the opposite. To put in your terms, God is what's left when you remove everything.

      2. Again, this depends on what you mean by God and creative force. I think you're asking in a gnostic sense, suggesting there might be a good and an evil God creating things. Is that it?

      3. The question doesn't make sense. I can't like or dislike, any more than I can like or dislike existence itself.

      4. What opposing force?

      5. Causality is a chain, not an atomic occurrence. My parents are one of the reasons in the long causality chain that results in me being here, but they were caused as well. The prime cause, for which no cause is needed, is called God.

      6. As an explained at lengths above, a premise can't be considered logical or illogical inside the proposition using it. If you want to dispute the validity of these premises (and I'm not saying they are or aren't valid), you have to put that in another proposition, with the premises and reasoning that lead to them.

      7. We can't possibly know how God creates, because you have to be Him in order to do that. Evolution is just an human abstraction to attempt understanding some real phenomena, following an ideological determination to do it in purely materialist and mechanicist terms.

      8. That's a tricky question. First, we can't. That's the point. We can be aware of His necessity, but not of His being. On the other hand, our actuality is derived from God's pure actuality, so, in a sense, being aware of us is being aware of a part of Him.

      9. I think you're referring to Kings 1 7:23. So far, you seemed to be a bit better than that, buddy. Carlos came up with this one a few posts above, check my answer to him.

      10. The question doesn't make sense, since only in a purely poethical narrative the number of adherences may be relevant, yet you can't talk of it in terms of right or wrong. Other than that, the number of people defending something has no relevance at all.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • Damocles


      Good answers.

      So in your answer to question one, are you saying remove 'everything' which allows for no deity, or remove *everything* except your deity? In question two, I don't have a 'good' deity and a 'bad' deity since the deity you descibe would have to be both good and evil to be everything, meaning you can't say your deity is everything and then disallow it to BE everything. With an 'everything' deity you have opposing forces... good/evil, hatred/love etc etc, to me, this would make it impossible for said deity to do anything, it would create as fast as it destroyed, it would love you one second and then hate you before the thought of love was completed.An everything style deity would have no compulsion to create simply because it is 'everything', it needs no justification, no worship.

      This is a being who would value nothing because everything would have equal value. Nothing would stand out. It couldn't value one emotion or thought over another, it wouldn't raise one species over another because it simply couldn't. Heh, it could almost be a claim for absolutely pure communism.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      You're hitting far from the target. It's hard to explain without the proper terms, which demand some philosophical training. I'll give it a try again.

      1. No, I mean everything that exists not for it's own reason. Everything that 'has' being, not 'is' being. For instance, a circle is just a geometric figure where each point has the same distance from the center, but knowing that isn't enough to make a circle exist. That's just potential for a circle, not an actual circle. So, potentiality needs to be put into effect by an act from another being which already has actuality. If you do this reduction progressively, removing everything, you end up with a necessary pure actuality, who acts on a necessary infinite potentiality, and doesn't need to be put into effect. We call this God.

      2. Now you made a real mess. Sure, in the terms you put, your argument is correct. This deity you are referring to would destroy itself in the moment it starts existing, but this deity is not the pure actuality we are talking about on #1. If it has opposing parts in itself, it's a part of creation, not the creator. Remember my previous answer to #1: you can't know any attributes of God but through negation of the attributes of creation, so He is what everything else isn't.

      Also, if you were not appealing to gnosticism, then you can't make that point before defining clearly what's good and what's evil. For instance, if evil is just the absence of good, like darkness is the absence of light, your argument bursts immediately.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:41 pm |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      Ok, you've shown that religion is logical within itself, and that you can use many words to explain a philosophical idea. And you apparently have convinced yourself that god must exist largely by redefining what god is. That being said, for all your words, you have not demonstrated that a god as understood by believers exists.

      September 4, 2012 at 11:46 pm |
  15. RydMizar

    why dont you masonic son of a child molester jesus worshipers come to my site on http://www.thewhitetruthmatrix.net and find out the real truth instead of denouncing science with jesus child molester rhetoric.

    September 3, 2012 at 9:26 pm |
    • takawalk

      Where does the child molester thing play? all those priest having been exposed? many religious people are not Christians, and even Christians who are still only human get distracted by the flesh and do stupid or you could say evil things. Another thing I have been wanting to say is this. With serious questions such as where did God come from. Sometimes we get partial understanding of things like this, but the more you understand the harder it is to communicate the limited understanding or "revelation " you have had. Human communication has it's limits.

      September 6, 2012 at 8:20 am |
  16. Fill

    Religion comforts people by explaining the unexplainable. But, inevitably, more can be explained using logics and facts as time goes on and sometimes those new conclusions contradict dogma. So then you have the poor folks that have grounded everything in their religion forced to question just what else might be incorrect in the dogma. If your world view and faith is so fragile that you can't accept even a basic flaw in your religion, you probably have greater problems than just trying to explain away a scientific theory. Those who have a healthy view (IMHO) in their faith can except that science can explain things more accurately than what some people may have made up and included in the dogma in the past. It was a priest who actually came up with the theory of the Big Bang (Georges Lemaître). He was confident enough in his faith to not see how science could undo what was important in religion even though the Pope at the time tried to twist his ideas into a convoluted 'proof' of Creationism which Lemaître resisted.

    September 3, 2012 at 7:35 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      1. Religion has many roles. Your idea that religion is a comfort for the unexplainable is childish and naive, not to mention contradictory. How can it be a comfort to know that your misdeeds in life can condemn your soul to eternal suffering is beyond my hardest stoic conviction.

      2. Science is as dependent on dogma as religion, you just haven't learned that yet.

      3. Religion is as based on logic and fact as Science, as above, you just haven't learned that yet.

      4. Your idea that religion has flaws that science can correct, and that science provides better explanations to whatever you think, is an exhibition of a fundamental lack of comprehension and the scope of both. Science can only provide explanations on phenomena that can be subject of inquiry under the scientific method, which is a very limited scope of reality. Those with a healthy view (IMHO), are not trapped in this epistemic closure, to believe that science dictates reality and not the opposite. Unfortunately, it's obviously not your case.

      5. Since you mentioned it, I'm glad to point that the Big Bang is just a way to dodge the facts and logic conclusions made by Edwin Hubble in his Observational Approach to Cosmology, pointing that Earth was in a privileged position, in the center of universe, which obviously has to be done for a purpose, by whoever is responsible for the Creation. It's one of the greatest ironies of modern science how the attempt to push an obvious proof of God to the attic was done by a priest, in the name of his commitment to science, and then miscredited. At least you gave credit where it's due.

      5. By the way, Lemaitre was a diocesan, not a member of the Church. I'm not sure if you suggest the Pope tried to use his authority over him, but I prefer to be on the safe side.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:02 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You know what, oxtail? I just learned that an old friend of mine died. She leaves a husband and a daughter (who is still in high school) behind. This was a woman for whom the Catholic church did NOTHING whatsoever. I suspect that same church will follow suit as concerns her husband and her teen-aged daughter.

      You and your god suck dead priests.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:11 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist


      You were a fu*cking idiot yesterday, you're still a fu*cking idiot today and I'd bet my last breath you will be a fu*cking idiot tomorrow.

      So sorry for you loss TT.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:15 pm |
    • niknak

      Religion is as based on logic

      Did you really just post that?!?
      If you believe there is logic in 2000 year old goat herder fables, how can anyone reason with you.
      Your god is a myth, and not a very original one at that. The bible was ripped off from earlier religions from the region.
      If you want to believe in it fine, but don't go to a hospital and see a doctor when you are ill, as they would use the same science on you that they use to prove evolution.
      But being the hypocrit that you are, you will blindly use science when it benefits you while clinging onto your stone age fairy tale to the bitter end.
      Enjoy your long slide into oblivion.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:15 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      You had a chance at an educated answer and couldn't cope with it. It makes me think the only kind of answer you are capable over something that challenges your so cherished believes is an emotional response as childish and immature as this. For someone who claims to be rational, you are as dumb as a goat.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
    • oxkarbaz

      Well Tom, I tried to reply to you twice, but the site won't post my answer. I guess feeding trolls isn't allowed.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:39 pm |
    • Helpful Hints


      If you post is not appearing, perhaps you have run into the automatic word filter...

      Bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to get past the CNN automatic filter:
      Many, if not most, are buried within other words, so use your imagination.
      You can use dashes, spaces, or other characters or some html tricks to modify the "offending" letter combinations.
      ar-se.....as in ar-senic.
      co-ck.....as in co-ckatiel, co-ckatrice, co-ckleshell, co-ckles, etc.
      co-on.....as in racc-oon, coc-oon, etc.
      cu-m......as in doc-ument, accu-mulate, circu-mnavigate, circu-mstances, cu-mbersome, cuc-umber, etc.
      ef-fing...as in ef-fing filter
      ft-w......as in soft-ware, delft-ware, swift-water, drift-wood, etc.
      ho-mo.....as in ho-mo sapiens or ho-mose-xual, ho-mogenous, etc.
      ho-oters…as in sho-oters
      ho-rny....as in tho-rny, etc.
      hu-mp… as in th-ump, th-umper, th-umping
      jacka-ss...yet "ass" is allowed by itself.....
      ja-p......as in j-apanese, ja-pan, j-ape, etc.
      koo-ch....as in koo-chie koo..!
      o-rgy….as in po-rgy, zo-rgy, etc.
      pi-s......as in pi-stol, lapi-s, pi-ssed, therapi-st, etc.
      p-oon… as in sp-oon, lamp-oon, harp-oon
      p-orn… as in p-ornography
      pr-ick....as in pri-ckling, pri-ckles, etc.
      ra-pe.....as in scra-pe, tra-peze, gr-ape, thera-peutic, sara-pe, etc.
      se-x......as in Ess-ex, s-exual, etc.
      sm-ut…..as in transm-utation
      sp-ic.....as in desp-icable, hosp-ice, consp-icuous, susp-icious, sp-icule, sp-ice, etc.
      sp-ook… as in sp-ooky, sp-ooked
      ti-t......as in const-itution, att-itude, t-itle, ent-ity, alt-itude, beat-itude, etc.
      tw-at.....as in wristw-atch, nightw-atchman, salt-water, etc.
      va-g......as in extrava-gant, va-gina, va-grant, va-gue, sava-ge, etc.
      who-re....as in who're you kidding / don't forget to put in that apostrophe!
      There's another phrase that someone found, "wo-nderful us" (have no idea what sets that one off).

      September 3, 2012 at 11:03 pm |
    • Helpful Hints


      September 3, 2012 at 11:04 pm |
    • Helpful Hints

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son,

      Much sympathy and condolences to you on the loss of your friend. It hurts.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Thank you.

      I appreciate your thoughts.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:10 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oxenazzhole, I guess this site just discriminates against fvckwits like you.

      Maybe you should take the hint and go elsewhere, moron.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:12 pm |
    • oxkarbaz

      Don't worry Tom, I'm leaving tomorrow. Just one more day, hold it, girl.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:24 am |
    • Fill

      Should I lose my trust in God because science seems to contradict part of my dogma? Or can I except the difference and continue believing?

      September 4, 2012 at 3:07 am |
    • Fill

      Should I lose my trust in God because science seems to contradict some of my faith? Or should I except the difference and continue believing?

      September 4, 2012 at 3:10 am |
    • takawalk

      Tom Tom sorry I didn't offer you condolences earlier. I hope someone in that church steps forward for her love ones. If you are in a position to help please try to do so. God judges the heart, many that claim him don't know him. It could be that you do and just don't know it. Not preachin jus sayin do what you can do dude.

      September 4, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
  17. justin

    The earth is at least 13 billion years old. Fact, the dinosaurs existed 65 million years ago...human civilizations can be dated back from 1200 bce and earlier. Religious zealouts have held back human advancement for centuries, thanks for the dark ages...

    September 3, 2012 at 7:29 pm |
  18. Spaceflightengineer

    .gotta love how Nye, abject hater of all things NASA, now suddenly is a backer of them and the media embraces him as some new Sagan spokesman to the layman for science. Keep in mind only clowns wear bowties....


    September 3, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
  19. Richard Barrett

    Fundamentalists put their Faith in Science Everyday ! Every time you use a phone, turn on TV, get in car / plane , or go to Doctor ... you are putting faith in Science. All of mankind has benefited from Science, but Dogmatic Folks weaned on Religion refuse to accept anything that threatens beliefs. Indeed, many great Scientists have been persecuted or killed for expanding our knowledge.

    September 3, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  20. MrMr

    Depends, some bridges are more expensive than others.

    September 3, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.