home
RSS
April 29th, 2013
10:51 AM ET

New film examines science vs. religion

(CNN) – Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins discuss religion in the modern world and debate science in their new film.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Atheism • Belief • Science

Next entry »
soundoff (1,595 Responses)
  1. catholic engineer

    An increase in knowledge will not necessarily lead to better human behaviour. Carl Jung, one of the premier minds of the 20th century, noted that "Nothing influences our conduct less than do intellectual ideas".

    April 29, 2013 at 5:21 pm |
    • Science

      A little backfill on those stoney irom meteorites !.

      Grains of Sand from Ancient Supernova Found in Meteorites: Supernova May Have Been the One That Triggered the Formation of the Solar System

      Apr. 19, 2013 — It's a bit like learning the secrets of the family that lived in your house in the 1800s by examining dust particles they left behind in cracks in the floorboards.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130422111246.htm

      April 29, 2013 at 5:30 pm |
    • Science

      By the way CE..........education is fun with a pocket full of chondrites !

      April 29, 2013 at 5:41 pm |
    • Science

      Gravity wins ..........splat goes a fairy in the sky

      Einstein's Gravity Theory Passes Toughest Test Yet

      Apr. 25, 2013 — A strange stellar pair nearly 7,000 light-years from Earth has provided physicists with a unique cosmic laboratory for studying the nature of gravity. The extremely strong gravity of a massive neutron star in orbit with a companion white dwarf star puts competing theories of gravity to a test more stringent than any available before.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130425142250.htm

      April 29, 2013 at 5:51 pm |
    • Religions

      I think that's the problem with comparing science and religion. Religion is a temporal lobe process and science a left hemisphere process. Carl Jung, parables and the like are in a different category of the human experience.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:53 pm |
    • Science

      CE...............add carbon 14 to the mix !

      April 29, 2013 at 8:14 pm |
  2. Chad

    New film examines science vs. religion

    A false dilemma (also called the fallacy of the false alternative, false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of the excluded middle, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be completely different alternatives.

    Science: the study of Gods creation.

    April 29, 2013 at 5:20 pm |
    • Colin

      In that case Chad, scienc is the study of the creation of one of the following gods.

      A non-exhaustive list of gods that various human societies have believed in at one time or another includes Azura Mazda, Angus, Belenos, Brigid, Dana, Lugh, Dagda, Epona, Allah Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Atehna, Demeter, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Gaia, God, Hades, Hekate, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Pan, Poseidon, Selene, Uranus, Zeus, Mathilde, Elves, Eostre, Frigg, Ganesh, Hretha, Saxnot, Shef, Shiva Thuno, Tir, Vishnu, Weyland, Woden, Yahweh, Alfar, Balder, Beyla, Bil, Bragi, Byggvir, Dagr, Disir, Eir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigga, Heimdall, Hel, Hoenir, Idunn, Jord, Lofn, Loki, Mon, Njord, Norns, Nott, Odin, Ran, Saga, Sif, Siofn, Skadi, Snotra, Sol, Syn, Ull, Thor, Tyr, Var, Vali, Vidar, Vor, Herne, Holda, Nehalennia, Nerthus, Endovelicus, Ataegina, Runesocesius, Apollo, Bacchus, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Juno, Jupiter, Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Isis, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Endovelicus, Anubis, Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, Maahes, Ma’at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, Ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, Thoth, An, Anshar, Anu, Apsu, Ashur, Damkina, Ea, Enki, Enlil, Ereshkigal, Nunurta, Hadad, Inanna, Ishtar, Kingu, Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nanna, Nergal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Utu, Mitra, Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fukurokuju, Jurojin, Hotei, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac, Pachacamac or Zaramama.

      It is NOT the Judeo-Christian sky-fairy or nothing.

      April 29, 2013 at 5:27 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "... science vs. religion
      A false dilemma..."

      Hey, I agree with that!

      April 29, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
    • Chad

      "Hey, I agree with that!"
      🙂

      you should consider (if you havent already), reading "There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind - Antony Flew

      I am re-reading it now. Really, really, really interesting. He does a broad survey of a lot of the topics we've been cordially (NOT) discussing lately , determinism, free will, materialism, positivism. I like the part where he walks thru his de-conversion from compatabilism and why logical positivism should be rejected.

      note: Flew did not die a Christian, rather he was a deist. He rejected the notion of a creator who intervenes in history.

      April 29, 2013 at 5:53 pm |
    • Chad

      @Colin "In that case Chad, science is the study of the creation of one of the following gods."

      =>Since the God of Israel is one of the gods on your list, I agree with your statement.

      So, I have presented some of the case for the God of Israel. Which god do you think did it, and what is your evidence?

      April 29, 2013 at 5:55 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad, You never provide evidence beyond "the bible says my god done it". Why did you reject all the other gods and religions? Atheists just reject one more god than you (but for the same reasons).

      April 29, 2013 at 6:20 pm |
    • Chad

      @santa "Atheists just reject one more god than you (but for the same reasons)
      @Chad "you reject all gods because the God of Israel says He is the only god?
      That doesnt make sense.. If your reasoning for rejecting gods is the same as mine, why are you then rejecting the God of Israel?

      =====
      @Santa " You never provide evidence beyond "the bible says my god done it".
      @Chad "cant imagine how you missed this list, but I'm happy to reproduce it. Note that very few of these arguments rely on the bible for anything at all.

      Evidence from human experience
      – Objective morality exists
      – Free will exists (it doesn’t in the atheist/naturalist/determinist view)
      If you believe in free will, how can you be an atheist? Is it even possible for an atheist to argue for the concept of free will? How?

      Historical evidence
      – no historical detail in the bible has ever been proved to be incorrect
      – Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth
      – Historicity of the empty tomb
      – Origin of the disciples belief that they had met a resurrected Jesus, a belief they held so strongly that they were willing to go to their deaths proclaiming the truth.

      Scientific evidence for the God of Israel
      Fossil Record.
      From the late 1800's thru 1972 the notion of "Darwinian gradualism" held the world captive. The notion that purely random mutation preserved in the population by natural selection would produce a gradual change, which over time would create the complexity of life we now observe (phyletic gradualism).
      Then, in 1972 the publication of "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism" by Stephen Gould (atheist) finally forced the scientific world to accept the reality that the fossil record does not show the gradual change over time that Darwin proposed.

      Instead, what the community was forced to acknowledge, is that the fossil record reflects stasis and rapid change.
      This supports the theistic evolutionist claim that God used natural processes to develop life on this earth, as pure chance can never explain the grand paroxysm of necessarily interrelated mutations that are required to occur to accomplish this rapid change.

      Origins of the universe
      For most of scientific history, the universe was thought to have always existed, directly refuting the theistic claim that the universe had a beginning, and a creator.

      Then, a series of discoveries resulted in a complete transformation of thought, we now know that our universe has not always existed, rather it had a beginning, confirming the theistic claim:
      – 1929: Edwin Hubble discovers red shift (the stars and planets are all moving away from each other. The universe is expanding in all directions)
      – 1965: discovery of microwave cosmic background radiation (the echo's of the big bang)
      – 1998, two independent research groups studying distant supernovae were astonished to discover, against all expectations, that the current expansion of the universe is accelerating (Reiss 1998, Perlmutter 1999).
      – 2003: Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin's Past-Finite Universe proves our universe had a beginning

      Fine Tuning of the universe
      In the past 30 or 40 years, scientists have been astonished to find that the initial conditions of our universe were fine-tuned for the existence of building blocks of life. Constants such as gravitational constant have been found, the variation of which to even the smallest degree, would have rendered the universe utterly incapable of supporting life.

      "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." - Paul Davies

      "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the mas ses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life - Stephen Hawking

      “As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.” - Professor Freeman J. Dyson of the Insti tute for Advanced Study in Princeton

      ”The big bang appeared to be a very peculiar kind of explosion. Just imagine a pin balancing on its point. Nudge it slightly in any direction and it will fall. So it is with the big bang. A large universe sprinkled with galaxies, like the one we see around us, is produced only if the power of the primoridial blast is fine tuned with incredible precision. A tiny deviation from the required power results in a cosmological disaster, such as the fireball collapsing under its own weight or the universe being nearly empty” – Alexander Vilenkin

      Now, neither Davies or Hawking is a believer in God. They both believe in fine tuning, they just posit natural reasons for it.

      April 29, 2013 at 6:40 pm |
    • Lisa

      Chad
      Funny how Antony Flew only seems to have changed his mind after he got old enough for senility to be a real possibility, and after he started working with a "co-author".

      April 29, 2013 at 6:41 pm |
    • Lisa

      Again with this cut-and-paste stuff Chad? I've seen this exact same thing from you at least a half-dozen times now, and people have patiently broken down your points every time. You're as boring as Reality. Maybe you're the one going senile?

      April 29, 2013 at 6:45 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Same old dance Chad. You get responses to that tired list each time showing its flaws. As to the original question – you reject all other gods because you choose to believe the holy book of one religion over all others yet you can provide no reason. All other religions have similar statements that their god(s) are the only true god(s) yet you don't believe them – that's the answer I was looking for – why you reject them but accept yours. You say atheists don't have reasons yet you can provide no reason for your choice.

      April 29, 2013 at 6:48 pm |
    • MarkP

      Science has not concluded that any gods were responsible for the universe, or life.

      April 29, 2013 at 6:51 pm |
    • Chad

      @Lisa "Funny how Antony Flew only seems to have changed his mind after he got old enough for senility to be a real possibility, and after he started working with a "co-author"."

      =>A. wishful thinking on your part
      B. ad-hominem
      C. Antony Flew personally refuted that nonsense.

      print:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/a r t s / 1 7 f l e w . h t m l
      video: http://www.youtu be.com/watch ? v=f b yT w m a J A r U
      from atheists themselves: http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/a r t i c l e 3 6 9 . h t m l

      April 29, 2013 at 7:04 pm |
    • Chad

      @MarkP "Science has not concluded that any gods were responsible for the universe, or life."
      @Chad "Science HAS concluded that there is a non-natural cause.
      God is a non-natural cause.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:06 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad. Do you have examples of science proving that a god did it?

      April 29, 2013 at 7:10 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Ah, new items. We of course have discussed the errors of your "Historical evidence", but how do you support these new ones?

      "Evidence from human experience
      – Objective morality exists
      – Free will exists (it doesn’t in the atheist/naturalist/determinist view)"

      April 29, 2013 at 7:28 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      When will you get something other than the same quote mines and misrepresentation that has made you a joke to any person on this forum with more than half a brain?

      April 29, 2013 at 7:32 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      I can't understand how you think posting the same refuted bullshit ad nauseum can possibly illicit a different result. Wait a second, isn't that a definition of insanity? Well it's official then, Chad is now known to be completely insane.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:36 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II,

      Do you believe in either objective morality or free will?

      If so, on what basis?

      April 29, 2013 at 7:39 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "Do you believe in either objective morality or free will?"

      What does my belief have to do with anything? Don't you have to show that they exist and then show that their existence supports your theistic premise? My belief should be irrelevent.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:55 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad ""Do you believe in either objective morality or free will?"

      @ME II "What does my belief have to do with anything? Don't you have to show that they exist and then show that their existence supports your theistic premise? My belief should be irrelevent.

      @Chad "I"m quite happy getting the atheist to the point where they are forced to not acknowledge as true, that which they know is true, because they know that by doing so they expose the weakness of their position.

      I'm fine with that 🙂
      The atheist that believes in free will, does so in contradiction to their belief that God does not exist.

      April 29, 2013 at 9:58 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Nonsense, Chard. People have free will whether or not they believe in a god and whether or not a god exists. You continue to post crap that has nothing whatever to do with reality.

      People do not need to have a belief in a god to be moral, and you have never shown any difference between objective morality and any other sort; in fact you have never even spelled out EXACTLY what your version of "objective morality" is in specifics. You have not shown any evidence that people behave any better when they believe in a god than they do if they don't.

      Just stop. You're a bore.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:06 pm |
    • Saraswati

      I see Chad is back on #s 5 and 7 which means we can expect numbers 1-4 and 8-10 very shortly.

      I'm happy, too, to see a repeat of #s 13 and 15 as well. At this point it's sort of like an untrainable puppy who keeps chewing on the same pair of shoes and having little accidents in all the same places.
      =======================

      Gospel of Chad:
      (Updated list derived from history of Chad conversations.)

      Atheism:
      1. All atheists agree with everything Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins say, even if it is unrelated to atheism. Hawking and Dawkins disagree on free will, however, but you should ignore this conflict or any atheist who says they disagree.
      2. All atheists agree with one another on everything even if it has nothing to do with atheism. See #1 for models from which you can derive all their beliefs.
      3. The definition of atheist includes anything that any atheist I disagree with believes or anything I feel like tossing in there. Ignore any definitions in pesky places like dictionaries and philosophical encyclopedias.
      4. If one atheist somewhere on the internet said something, then, since all atheists agree with him/her, I can use that randomly selected example as an argument to address all other atheists.
      5. The definition of atheism includes not just materialism but strict deterministic materialism. Non-believers who might be Buddhists, believe in probabilistic physics, see consciousness as prior to the physical world, believe in, say, witchcraft aren’t really atheists.
      6. No atheist has ever read the bible. I mean, obviously, they’d be Christians if they had, right? OK, so a few have proven to me – OK, multiple times – that they have read the bible. See #11 (just lie).

      Free will:
      7. All people who use the term “free will” really mean the same exact thing by that term, which matches my personal use of the term “free will” (unless backed into a corner, then I just declare all other meanings irrelevant)
      8. Fatalism and determinism are the same thing. It has been pointed out to me that historically these terms have been used with different meanings, but I find it more convenient to make up my own definitions, as with atheism and free will.

      In fact, I brilliantly argued “If a person is a determinist, how in the world does deterrence even come into the picture? Determinists believe in an ever marching set of deterministic outcomes based on an existing set of antecedent conditions. Those conditions march back to the origin of the universe, no way to change the past, so no way to change the future. (On April 17, 2013 at 6:20 pm)

      After reading a bit more about fatalism and determinism I decided to change my tune to a claim that determinism leads to fatalism (and to pretend this was what I was saying all along). I’m sticking to reading easy pop philosophers, though, and selective websites on the topic as anything more complex makes my head hurt. I have read snippets from a couple of websites now so that ought to put me on par with people who’ve read dozens of books on the topic, understand neurobiology and have written on both the philosophical and cultural aspects of free will and people’s belief in the topic. Oh, yeah, I know what I’m talking about!

      9. A determinist cannot believe that humans can change. This would, of course, mean that nothing can change. Which would mean…oh…crud…better put my head back up my ass.
      10. A determinist cannot believe in punishing people for crimes. This is because…well…it doesn’t matter. Just keep repeating it.

      Telling lies:
      11. It is ethical to lie so long as it promotes Christian beliefs.
      12. Speaking of telling lies, a really good way to do this is to rephrase what your opponent says and then keep repeating the misquote in hopes that he or she will get bored and leave your lie as the last statement. Then you win. You can do this either by rewording as a supposed paraphrase or pulling lines out of context and reordering them. God really loves this and gives you extra endurance to sit at the computer all day and keep repeating it.
      13. One way to use this super endurance to your advantage is to keep posting the same questions over and over again even after they’ve been answered 50 times. Just pretend they haven’t been answered and act self-righteous about it. It’s really cool if you can ask this same thing on multiple threads and then claim it was never answered forcing people to waste time on the same thing over and over and over.
      14. In particular don’t forget that whatever someone says you can respond with “What investigation have you done into…”. Especially good is to ask what investigation was done into the truth of the God of Israel. When the non-Christian comes back to ask how much research you did to prove other gods aren’t real answer “I don’t need to do any because I proved the God of Israel is real and that negates all other gods”. When asked how you proved that repeat the words “empty tomb” over and over until divine light shines on the souls of the heathens.
      15. When they refuse to play your game or you don’t like the answer add some sarcasm, but use an emoticon to soften it so they’ll know your snide remarks are all in good fun.
      16. Consider asking completely nonsensical questions that can’t even be understood, let alone answered. Best yet include something the person didn’t say as a premise. For example, you might ask an atheist opponent “You say you like murdering small children on Wednesdays, could you explain how this fits with your beliefs about string theory?” Then when your question is ignored accuse the person of avoidance and make up wild hypotheses as to why they are avoiding you.
      17. Above all else keep asking questions while avoiding answering any yourself.

      Science, math and psychology:
      18. If one scientist says something that backs me, then I can assume all scientists agree with that statement.
      19. If atheist scientists say something, even if it is the view of the majority of people in that science, it should be ignored. See #11.
      20. Atheists are ruled by confirmation bias. I am free of it – it’s just great luck that everything I read and all the “data” around me confirm my strong religious convictions. See #19 on ignoring anything else.
      21. Infinity = all finite numbers according to the Chad. Thirty or forty years of constraint is the same as eternal torment.
      22. Rehabilitation and deterrence are the same thing. Yep…convincing a drug addict not to use drugs in case they are shot dead and getting them off the addiction would be the same by my wondrous Chad logic.

      General truths about the CNN belief blog:
      23. All non-believers are, by definition, idiots so you can use illogical arguments and they’ll just fall for it.
      24. If I post a quote that has a few key words in it from our discussion I can claim it backs my point even if it actually says the exact opposite thing from what I’m claiming. Atheists, as mentioned above, are too dumb to notice. Best yet is to post a link or reference a book which actually says the opposite of what I’m saying and just assume no one will look at it.
      25. There is a huge mass of fence sitters out there who are eagerly reading CNN blog comments in order to decide whether or not to believe in God.
      26. I will personally save all those mentioned in # 25 because I, Chad, am super smart. I know this because I get away with all the above mentioned lies and manipulations. Sometimes people think they are pointing these things out but they really aren’t. Or the stupid atheist masses aren’t reading them anyway.
      27. Phrase everything as if it’s a lecture so you look like you know what you’re talking about. See #23 about atheists being idiots and #24 about people not reading anything you post you’ll see that the silly atheists will fall for it every time. In particular they won’t look back to the earlier part of the discussion to see how I’m contradicting myself. This is very well aided by another tactic:
      28. As soon as you make an ass of yourself break the conversation into a new thread. That way all the newcomers (see #25 on how they are waiting to have their souls saved) will not bother to read back and see how ignorant you are.
      29. If someone points out to you that citing Wikipedia is not an adequate source for the discussion at hand you can always find a good undergraduate philosophy paper to cite instead.
      30. Never question another Christian no matter how incorrect or offensive their position.
      31. Just remember that you can define a term any way you want and you are always right!

      April 29, 2013 at 10:11 pm |
    • Chad

      @saraswati,

      your inaccurate ad-hominem and avoidance of dealing substantively with the issue under discussion leaves people wondering why..

      April 29, 2013 at 10:23 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      The only thing people wonder is why you're so dishonest.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:26 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Saraswati's devotion is touching. We all want only the best for you, Chad. Chin up. You'll get over this God thing. I'm encouraged by your progress.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:27 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Chad wrote: "your inaccurate ad-hominem and avoidance of dealing substantively with the issue under discussion leaves people wondering why.."

      Which indicates he either doesn't know what an ad hominem actually is or doesn't understand that the point is precisely that he's a bat-ass crazy, dishonest, delusional loon. Gee...what would be an ad hominem in trying to make that point?

      April 29, 2013 at 10:33 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad "I"m quite happy getting the atheist to the point where they are forced to not acknowledge as true, that which they know is true, because they know that by doing so they expose the weakness of their position."

      What are you talking about? You made a claim and when asked for evidence you throw out a red-herring.

      If you want to actually back up your claim of evidence then, great.

      Otherwise, we can disregard your claim and ....
      ""I'm fine with that :)"

      April 30, 2013 at 9:34 am |
    • Rupert

      @Chad
      If god is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient as the bible says there can be no such thing as free will because all events are predestined to happen. We are nothing more than god’s marionettes playing out his story.

      If he isn’t omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient then he doesn’t sound very godly anymore, and unlikely able to grant free will to anyone other than himself.

      April 30, 2013 at 10:07 am |
    • Chad

      @Chad ""Do you believe in either objective morality or free will? If so, on what basis?"

      @ME II "What does my belief have to do with anything? Don't you have to show that they exist and then show that their existence supports your theistic premise? My belief should be irrelevent.

      @Chad "I"m quite happy getting the atheist to the point where they are forced to not acknowledge as true, that which they know is true, because they know that by doing so they expose the weakness of their position.

      @ME II "What are you talking about? You made a claim and when asked for evidence you throw out a red-herring."

      @Chad "ah, lol, nice try.

      that's why I always go back and get the entire conversation, providing context to readers so that they dont have to try and figure it out from all the posts.

      so
      1. It is very difficult to prove free will, as one can always say after the fact that "well, that choice was done deterministically"
      however
      2. Everyone knows they do in fact have free will.

      You see, the problem for the atheist.
      – If they claim there is free will, they have no possible way to demonstrate how there could be.
      – If they claim that there is no such thing as free will, they do so in contradiction to their own conviction that they have it. If there is no such thing as free will, you are immoral for coming on this board every day and condemning anyone for anything.

      that's why you refuse to even discuss the notion of free will, either way you lose.

      I demonstrate that their is free will by your actions. You are my example 🙂

      April 30, 2013 at 11:00 am |
    • ME II

      @Chad,

      "ah, lol, nice try.
      that's why I always go back and get the entire conversation, providing context to readers so that they dont have to try and figure it out from all the posts."

      "ah, lol, nice try." but, the conversation stated with your claim of evidence at "April 29, 2013 at 6:40 pm"

      And my asking you to back up your claim:

      @Chad,
      Ah, new items. We of course have discussed the errors of your "Historical evidence", but how do you support these new ones?

      "Evidence from human experience
      – Objective morality exists
      – Free will exists (it doesn’t in the atheist/naturalist/determinist view)"

      April 29, 2013 at 7:28 pm

      Again, what does my belief have to do with your claims?

      "2. Everyone knows they do in fact have free will."

      Textbook example of Argumentum ad populum.

      "You are my example :)" of bad logic.

      April 30, 2013 at 11:27 am |
    • ME II

      stated -> started

      April 30, 2013 at 11:31 am |
    • Chad

      @ME II

      your post is a dodge 🙂

      now, unlike those who accuse me of dodging and NEVER actually say what I have actually dodged, here is how your post is a dodge:
      You have refused to address this issue specifically:

      You see, the problem for the atheist.
      – If they claim there is free will, they have no possible way to demonstrate how there could be.
      – If they claim that there is no such thing as free will, they do so in contradiction to their own conviction that they have it. If there is no such thing as free will, you are immoral for coming on this board every day and condemning anyone for anything.

      now, you will continue to dodge, demonstrating my point. How do you rationalize that?

      April 30, 2013 at 11:39 am |
    • ME II

      @Chad,,
      "your post is a dodge :)"

      Seriously? You made a claim and I asked how you supported that claim. You dodged the question, not I.

      "now, unlike those who accuse me of dodging and NEVER actually say what I have actually dodged,"

      The dodge was you asking me what I believed, which shouldn't have any bearing whatsoever on your evidence / support for your own claim.

      April 30, 2013 at 11:48 am |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      As to your silly conundrum...

      1) Free will may be irrelevant. If it is not real, we would not be able to tell.
      2) I think, although I cannot "prove", that the randomness at the quantum level and the complexity of the emergent property we call the mind may be sufficient to enable free will. I am not certain of this however (see #1)
      3) Even if free will does not exist, it would seem necessary to act as if it does. Primarily, because we would not have any choice in the matter.

      April 30, 2013 at 11:55 am |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Now back to the claim:

      "Evidence from human experience
      – Objective morality exists
      – Free will exists (it doesn’t in the atheist/naturalist/determinist view)"

      What evidence do you have that Objective morality and free will exists?

      How does that evidence support your claim that God exists?

      April 30, 2013 at 12:10 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II,

      A. randomness at the quantum level doesnt in any way shape or form equal anything other than accidents. It doesnt get you anywhere near freedom of choice.

      B. You seem to at some level acknowledge that, but you essentially seem to feel that it really doesnt matter. There is no harm in acting like you have free will even if you dont, so why not!

      C. That is what I have labeled the "ignorance is bliss" defense

      D. You refute your own position every time you argue with me.

      If it is true that nothing is freely chosen, then those who believe in the existence of free will do not do so by choice – so what is the point of trying to convince them otherwise? Indeed, what is the point of trying to convince anyone of anything if all events are determined
      - http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_freewill.htm

      As concepts like free will are not empirically testable, it can not be demonstrated in that fashion
      A. BUT, as logical positivism is rejected, that doesnt mean free will cant exist. The lack of an ability to prove something is true is not in and of itself a demonstration of the truth of something.
      B AND, as it can be experienced, I can make a claim that we have free will.

      That is my proof.
      1. we experience free will
      2. you demonstrate that you believe in free will every time you attempt to influence someone.

      April 30, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      A. Randomness, I would think, eliminates determinism, often part of the whole free will discussion.
      A1. Self-awareness, an emergent property of the complexity of the brain, may enable freedom of choice. i.e. the ability to examine one's own motivations may enable one to choose to ignore those motivations.

      "B. You seem to at some level acknowledge that, but you essentially seem to feel that it really doesnt matter."

      There you go again with your mind reading.

      "C. That is what I have labeled the 'ignorance is bliss' defense"

      cute... I label it the "ignorance may be mandatory" defense. i.e. is there any way to know whether we have free will or not?

      "D. You refute your own position every time you argue with me."

      I don't see how since I'm not claiming a position in this case. ("every time"? hasty generalizations?)

      "...that doesnt mean free will cant exist."

      I never claimed that it didn't. Again, you made the claim, now support it.

      "That is my proof.
      1. we experience free will
      2. you demonstrate that you believe in free will every time you attempt to influence someone."

      1) So you claim, why should that convince anyone?
      2) As I implied previously, perhaps I am determined to believe that I have free will when I really don't OR perhaps it just makes sense to act "as if" I have free will, regardless of whether I actually do or not.

      Here's my "proof".
      X. we experience a lack of the existence of the "God of Israel".
      Y. you demonstrate that you believe this every time you commit a "sin".

      April 30, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "I don't see how since I'm not claiming a position in this case"
      @Chad "I agree you arent claiming a position 🙂

      @ME II Here's my "proof".
      X. we experience a lack of the existence of the "God of Israel".
      Y. you demonstrate that you believe this every time you commit a "sin".

      @Chad "A. that fails because I experience the existence of the God of Israel.
      B. That also fails because the bible says every one sins, that cant be an indication of the lack of existence of God. God is the ent ity that DEFINES sin.
      C. It further fails, because one of the primary ways to demonstrate a lack of a belief in God, is to claim that you dont sin (a frequent atheist claim)

      3 strikes..

      -
      you can not claim my proof fails unless you are prepared to claim that you dont experience free will. Thus far you have failed to state a position wrt free will, as you pointed out 🙂

      April 30, 2013 at 2:19 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      If you want to "corner" me into a self-contradiction, I don't think this is the way.

      1) I'm not convinced that we actually have free will nor am i convinced that we don't. Ultimately, we may not be able to tell.
      2) I have presented what I think may be natural explanations of some level of freedom of choice.

      So, If we don't have free will, then everything is moot.
      And, if we do, it may very well be from natural causes.

      Now, objective morality?

      April 30, 2013 at 2:24 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "you can not claim my proof fails unless you are prepared to claim that you dont experience free will. Thus far you have failed to state a position wrt free will, as you pointed out "

      Fine, for the sake of argument, I don't experience free will.

      April 30, 2013 at 2:27 pm |
    • @Chad

      @Chad

      Why do you bother posting here?

      Every time you do, your ‘arguments’ are summarily dismantled and handed back to you with a happy-face sticker and a ‘Nice Try’ note. Yet you never learn a thing. You continue to come back in hopes that one day you’ll be right, only to find out that today, like every other day, is not that day.

      April 30, 2013 at 2:30 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "Fine, for the sake of argument, I don't experience free will."

      =>and that is where the argument really terminates.
      To maintain a coherent position, the atheist is forced to claim that they dont experience free will.

      The same is true of objective morality. To maintain a coherent position, the atheist is forced to claim there is no such thing.

      I can not "prove" either, but what I can do, is leave the atheist with the unsettling knowledge that their position FORCES them to deny that free will exists, and deny that raping a child is objectively wrong.

      April 30, 2013 at 2:33 pm |
    • @Chad

      @Chad
      Free will and an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity cannot co-exist so one or both don’t exist. Which one is it?

      April 30, 2013 at 2:38 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "To maintain a coherent position, the atheist is forced to claim that they dont experience free will."

      That is incorrect. As I stated, natural freedom of choice is not self-contradictory.

      April 30, 2013 at 2:38 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Is Chad really still trying to lie his way into being right?
      That's just so pathetic.

      April 30, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "As I stated, natural freedom of choice is not self-contradictory."

      @Chad "and you are left with the unsettling knowledge that there is simply no data that you can bring to bear to support that statement.

      quantum indeterminacy isnt a reflection of our choices, it is just indeterminacy. Unpredictable actions dont equate to free will.

      The idea is that “freedom” of the will is simply the fact that human behavior is unpredictable, and that this unpredictability is a consequence of the random character of “quantum processes” happening in the brain… To be subject to random mental disturbance is not freedom but a kind of slavery or even madness. - (Professor of Theoretical Particle Physics at the University of Delaware, Stephen Barr, 178)

      April 30, 2013 at 2:53 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "and you are left with the unsettling knowledge that there is simply no data that you can bring to bear to support that statement."
      I am not unsettled by the unknown. You may be projecting.

      "quantum indeterminacy isnt a reflection of our choices, it is just indeterminacy. Unpredictable actions dont equate to free will."
      Try reading what I actually said, not what you wanted me to say.

      April 30, 2013 at 2:59 pm |
    • An Atheist With Free Will

      I'm an Atheist, and I have free will. svck on that Chad. Please note that nothing you say can change my mind as I have chosen of my on free will to ignore you starting right now.

      April 30, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      People love Chad. They can't help themselves

      April 30, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Me II isn't this what you said? Elucidate?

      2) I think, although I cannot "prove", that the randomness at the quantum level and the complexity of the emergent property we call the mind may be sufficient to enable free will

      April 30, 2013 at 3:15 pm |
    • ME II

      @Bill Deacon (if that is you),
      Yes, and later:

      "A. Randomness, I would think, eliminates determinism, often part of the whole free will discussion.
      A1. Self-awareness, an emergent property of the complexity of the brain, may enable freedom of choice. i.e. the ability to examine one's own motivations may enable one to choose to ignore those motivations."

      April 30, 2013 at 3:23 pm |
    • JMEF

      Bill Deacon
      Is irrelevant. Billy is an obsequious papal apologist troll...and
      Is a self confessed murderer.
      Your Chad worship, birds of a feather. Any papal atrocities/news we may have missed since Friday?

      April 30, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "Self-awareness, an emergent property of the complexity of the brain, may enable freedom of choice"

      =>that is a very circular statement.
      Like saying "the objects blueness may enable it to be blue"

      – If "consciousness" is merely a material phenomena, then of course there is no free will any more than a proximity sensor on your car imbues it with free will.
      – If you view "consciousness" is more than purely a material phenomena then of course you are claiming that you have free will, your consciousness being the result.

      so, the issue remains: free will yes or no.
      To maintain a coherent stance, the atheist is forced to claim 'no'.

      April 30, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Why do you think an equivocation fallacy and constant reassertion proves your point?

      April 30, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "=>that is a very circular statement.
      Like saying 'the objects blueness may enable it to be blue'"

      Are you saying that self-awareness is the same thing as free will?

      "- If 'consciousness' is merely a material phenomena, then of course there is no free will any more than a proximity sensor on your car imbues it with free will."

      "Of course"? What is free will a property of exactly?
      Also, a proximity sensor does not have a brain, nor is it self-aware. False analogy.

      "- If you view 'consciousness' is more than purely a material phenomena then of course you are claiming that you have free will, your consciousness being the result."

      "of course", again? Are you saying that consciousness is a property of free will?

      "so, the issue remains: free will yes or no.
      To maintain a coherent stance, the atheist is forced to claim 'no'."

      Actually, the issue was how you show that free will exists, as you claimed, and how that supports your God.

      April 30, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
    • fintastic

      @sarasw.... "4. If one atheist somewhere on the internet said something, then, since all atheists agree with him/her, I can use that randomly selected example as an argument to address all other atheists."

      My favorite chadism..

      April 30, 2013 at 5:29 pm |
    • Paul

      Well at least it seems that Chad isn't trying to tie the concept of free will to a soul anymore. Maybe he realized that there is no proof that anyone in all of recorded history has, or had a soul, and so he has changed tactics?

      April 30, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
    • Chad

      Read it again, proximity sensors do indeed have a brain (CPU) which in the material view is same as the human brain: executing deterministically.

      – If 'consciousness' is merely a material phenomena, then of course there is no free will any more than a proximity sensor on your car imbues it with free will."

      – If you view 'consciousness' is more than purely a material phenomena then of course you are claiming that you have free will, your consciousness being the result."

      so again, since "consciousness" can be articulated either way, it is not a term that is useful without fully elaborating what you mean (that's perhaps why you are avoiding clarifying it).

      Free will, yes or no. That is the question, and the quandary for the atheist.

      April 30, 2013 at 6:01 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Seriously, why do you think constant reassertions and equivocations prove your point. I really want to know why you put so much stock into dishonest tactics.

      April 30, 2013 at 6:06 pm |
    • oOo

      Nonsense for the thousandth time, Chad. It's not a "quandary" for the atheist because it's a concept tied to, and evidently necessary for your belief system as is objective morality. You've still failed to provide evidence proving either one. Without such proof, you are left as we are with some theories and a bunch of unknowns.

      April 30, 2013 at 6:15 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "...proximity sensors do indeed have a brain (CPU) which in the material view is same as the human brain: executing deterministically."

      Seriously incorrect. A CPU is not the same as the massively parallel neural network that partially comprises the brain. Other components included hormones, neuro tranmitters, chemicals, etc. False analogy.
      Complex and chaotic systems can and do produce non-deterministic results.

      "so again, since 'consciousness' can be articulated either way, it is not a term that is useful without fully elaborating what you mean (that's perhaps why you are avoiding clarifying it)."

      Avoiding clarifying it? You brought up 'consciousness', not I.
      Just because you can "articulate" it either way does not mean that either way is actually correct. False dichotomy.

      "merely a material phenomena, then of course there is no free will"
      "more than purely a material phenomena then of course you are claiming that you have free will"

      If I understand what you are saying, you are assuming, or claiming, that free will is not a property of the material world. Why do you think so?

      April 30, 2013 at 6:35 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad "...proximity sensors do indeed have a brain (CPU) which in the material view is same as the human brain: executing deterministically."
      @ME II "Seriously incorrect. A CPU is not the same as the massively parallel neural network that partially comprises the brain. Other components included hormones, neuro tranmitters, chemicals, etc. False analogy."

      @Chad "lol, differences in capacity and components dont change the reality that the deterministic instruction execution by a central processing unit is the same.. 🙂

      ===========
      @ME II "Complex and chaotic systems can and do produce non-deterministic results."
      @Chad "non-determinism is not free will..
      quantum indeterminacy isnt a reflection of our choices, it is just indeterminacy. Unpredictable actions dont equate to free will.

      The idea is that “freedom” of the will is simply the fact that human behavior is unpredictable, and that this unpredictability is a consequence of the random character of “quantum processes” happening in the brain… To be subject to random mental disturbance is not freedom but a kind of slavery or even madness. – -(Professor of Theoretical Particle Physics at the University of Delaware, Stephen Barr, 178)

      ======
      @ME II "If I understand what you are saying, you are assuming, or claiming, that free will is not a property of the material world. Why do you think so?"
      @Chad "where does free will come from? When did it "evolve"? You have some serious reading to do on materialism, naturalism, determinism 🙂

      “Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behavior automatic and within the realm of scientific law? Is it only multicelled organisms that have free will, or only mammals? We might think that a chimpanzee is exercising free will when it chooses to chomp on a banana, or a cat when it rips up your sofa, but what about the roundworm called Caenorhabditis elegans—a simple creature made of only 959 cells? It probably never thinks, “That was damn tasty bacteria I got to dine on back there,” yet it too has a definite preference in food and will either settle for an unattractive meal or go foraging for something better, depending on recent experience. Is that the exercise of free will?

      Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets
      . Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws.For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.”
      — Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design

      April 30, 2013 at 7:18 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      So, you really don't have anything other the equivocations and reassertions. No wonder you post nothing else. It's the only thing that you have. You need to lie to keep your own ego of "I can never be wrong" intact.
      It truly is a sad existence you live.

      April 30, 2013 at 7:33 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "lol, differences in capacity and components dont change the reality that the deterministic instruction execution by a central processing unit is the same.. "

      You are incorrect. Neural activity is not digital processing they activate on potentials, chemo-electric differentials. They are different at a fundamental level.

      "non-determinism is not free will.."

      I didn't say it was. I was responding to your assertion that the brain was deterministic.

      "where does free will come from? When did it 'evolve'? You have some serious reading to do on materialism, naturalism, determinism"

      All you have are questions. You claim we have free will, and yet provide no evidence. You claim it of non-natural origin, any yet provide no evidence.

      I'm saying that we don't know, and in the case of free will we may never be certain. Emergence is an hypothesis, but we don't know yet.

      May 1, 2013 at 9:56 am |
  3. ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

    "As it said by truth absolute GOD, hindus, deniers of HIM, they are dumb, deaf and blinded." – logical fallacy, just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we are deaf, dumb, or blind. any more than you are deaf, dumb or blind for disagreeing with me.

    Proof is right in front of hindu secular s, ignorant self centered, but they deny HIM, in their hindu Atheism, ignorant self center ism.

    April 29, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
  4. Trance

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKxk9TvyJrs&w=640&h=360]

    April 29, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
  5. Dyslexic doG

    Christianity: a religion based on an invisible sky daddy that impregnated another mans virgin wife to recreate itself then "sacrifice" itself to itself to atone for a faulty creation it made but knew full well before hand that it's creation would be faulty.

    April 29, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      "Poke and puke" relativisms are but childishness euphemisms adding nothing of specialized interest.

      April 29, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
  6. Colin

    Oh my creationist friends, proof of evolution is all around you. Now, before you declare me “stupid,” “evil” or part of a worldwide conspiracy to deny the truth of your talking snake theory of life on Earth, please take five minutes to read this.

    The classic definition of a species is that two members of the same species can breed and produce fertile offspring, but cannot mate with members of a different species. A human of any race can mate with a human of any other race, but none of us can mate with a chimpanzee, for example. So, all humans are in the same species, but we are all a different species to chimpanzees. Easy stuff.

    Indeed, it is often easy to tell that two organisms are of different species just by looking at them. Compare, for example, a dog to a horse. Where it gets a little complex, however, is where you have two organisms that look very similar, but are of different species, or two different species that look very similar. Dogs are a great example of both. Compare a lighter-coated German Shepherd to the wolf. They look very similar, but are of a different species (or sub-species, depending on the definition one uses). Likewise, a Great Dane looks very different to a Corgi, but they are of the same species Canis lupis familiaris, the domestic dog.

    Why are Great Danes and Corgis considered to be the same species (along with German Shepherds) but wolves and German Shepherds not? For the same reason as humans. Great Danes, German Shepherds and Corgis can and will mate and produce fertile offspring, but none of them will mate with a wolf, absent human intervention. However, and this is where evolution kicks in, all breeds of dog alive today descended from wolves. In fact, it is likely that they all descended, ultimately, from a small pack of wolves that were domesticated in the Middle East some 10,000 years ago. Some research suggests Manchuria as the location, but I digress.

    What happened was that humans noticed that certain, less aggressive wolves were handy to have around. They ate pests and garbage and alerted the camp when predators lurked nearby. So, humans began to intentionally feed and try to tame them. The tamer, less aggressive wolves were less afraid of human interaction and less likely to harm their human hosts. They, therefore received more attention, food and protection, which gave them a breeding advantage, and they passed on this favorable trait, call it “tameness,” to their offspring.

    These tamer offspring were constantly chosen (probably unknowingly) for care and support and the wilder, more aggressive members of the litter discarded, perhaps for biting or avoiding humans. After hundreds or thousands of years of inadvertent selection for “tameness” the camp wolves started to become dependent on their human hosts and to even look different to their still wild ancestors. They lost the extreme aggressiveness that helped them in the wild, became less streamlined and tooled for the kill and had less adrenaline that causes aggression. In other words, they slowly became, in a sense, fat, dumb and happy. Doggie dough-boys. Girlie-men compared to their wild cousins, still red of fang and claw.

    These first domestic dogs were so popular with humans that their “use” spread and humans all over the globe – from Australian Aboriginals, New Zealand Maoris and other Polynesians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans all began to use dogs. Then something else happened. Humans actually noticed that, if there was a specific trait you liked about your, say male dog, you could breed it with a female with the same trait and the offspring would inherit that trait. If, for example, a hunter-gatherer only ever allows the fastest male dogs to breed with the fastest female dogs, after many years of such selective breeding the resultant dogs would differ so much in body shape, leg length and, perhaps, lung capacity from their ancestor as to be considered a separate breed.

    No one set of offspring would differ greatly from its parents, but it will differ a little more from its grandparents, and even a little more from its great-grandparents etc., until we go all the way back to the original dog, which will be quite different in appearance.

    Bang – dog breeding was born. Humans selected for speed, resulting in the Greyhound, smelling and tracking ability (Bloodhounds) ability to herd sheep (Collies and Australian Shepherds) appearance (Dalmatians and Pomeranians) size (Chihuahuas and Great Danes) and a host of other traits.

    As with most human activities, as our knowledge increased, dog breeding improved and exploded in the 1900s. There are now 600 or so breeds of dog, all of which descendent from the original wolf. Many breeds of dog alive today evolved over the past few decades and did not even exist as late as 1900. But, every last domestic dog, from the Teacup Chihuahua in Paris Hilton’s purse to the Great Danes of European car advertisements, are the end result of selective breeding down different paths from the original wolf.

    Most breeds of dog do not (and likely cannot) breed with wolves for a variety of reasons, including allopatric and/or human induced separation and mating rituals. Those that do only do so under controlled, monitored conditions. Not only that, but put almost any domestic dog in the wild and it would not survive a month. A wolf is much more likely to eat a Shih Tzu than bonk it. They are separate sub-species. In the struggle for life, the domestic dog species originated through means of selection as a favored race from the original wolf.

    If this last sentence sounds familiar, that is because it is. It is essentially the full ti.tle of Charles Darwin’s seminal work: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.

    So there you have it, my Bible-cuddling friends. Evolution in motion. Undeniable; living in every suburb, licking our faces, fetching our sticks and messing on our sidewalks. Macro-evolution. A well recorded, understood, DNA mapped and uncontroversial case of evolution of one sub-species – Canis lupus lupus, the Eurasian wolf, into another, Canis lupus familiaris, the domestic dog.

    There are many, many others examples of evolution all around us by the way. Even the most cursory of research into any branch of horticulture or animal husbandry quickly reveals that the size, variety, health, longevity and resistance to disease of most of our domesticated plants and animals were the thing of dreams as recently as 100 years ago. Indeed, biotech companies like Monsanto would quickly fall behind the market if they did not spend millions each year on Darwinian selective breeding programs. Why do you think horse breeders spend thousands of dollars to have a fast male racehorse mate with their mare?

    Wheat is another great example, as are gra.pes. The species of wheat that we in the West use for bread only developed in the last few thousand years as a result of two episodes of sympatric speciation (different to selective breeding, but an agent of evolution none the less). Likewise, the various Shiraz, Char.donnay and Pinot Noir gra.pes we enjoy today, in the form of wine, were all developed and perfected in the last 100 years or so.

    So, Adam or Eve, the next time you kneel down in your church and take your weekly dose of the body and blood of your dead pan-handling Iron Age Jewish hippie, you might like to reflect on the fact that you are actually eating proof of evolution and washing it down with proof of evolution.

    “Body of Darwin?”

    Amen!

    April 29, 2013 at 5:04 pm |
    • Cyle

      R'amen.

      May the FSM cuddle you with his marinara warmed noodly apendages.
      Remember, he boiled for your sins, so wash it down with a nice Merlot.

      April 29, 2013 at 5:07 pm |
    • Answer

      The Fox Farm Experiment

      link: http://www.abc.net.au/animals/program1/factsheet5.htm

      ===A great study that backs up the point.

      April 29, 2013 at 5:09 pm |
    • Colin

      @Answer. Indeed. It should be mandatory reading for any biology student in 10th grade. We studied it at school. The speed with which the selected traits "took over" is astonishing.

      April 29, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
    • lol??

      What being domesticated you and what took so long?

      April 29, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
    • OTOH

      Colin,

      Yeah, compare breeding methods to:

      Genesis tells us that Jacob was able to breed striped goats by breeding them in a striped environment. He did this because Laban had promised him that any such goats would be Jacob's.

      Genesis 30:37-39:
      Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted. (ESV)

      April 29, 2013 at 5:19 pm |
    • Athy

      Great post, Colin. I always enjoy your comments. You're obviously very intelligent and erudite to boot. Another example of "human-directed" evolution by selective breeding, which I'm sure you're aware of, is the transition of the ancient maize (corn) plant to our modern corn, forced by the indigenous people of South and Central America who saved the kernels of the largest ears for planting for the next crop and eating only the smallest ears. Sad that the religies can't see the truth.

      April 29, 2013 at 9:23 pm |
  7. Dyslexic doG

    When did I realize I was God?

    Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized that I was talking to myself ...

    April 29, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
    • ME II

      lol, nice.

      April 29, 2013 at 5:04 pm |
  8. lionlylamb

    What say one? Are we (our bodies) nothing more than atomized cellular cosmologies living upon a celestial cosmology we call earth? Who can say otherwise?

    April 29, 2013 at 5:01 pm |
    • Answer

      Pseudo-crap.

      April 29, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
    • catholic engineer

      Interesting point, lionlylamb. But how could nature, left to its own devices, ever produce a "machine" like us who can ask these kinds of questions.

      April 29, 2013 at 5:04 pm |
    • Colin

      Even more interesting, how could nature create a God? If man is too complex for the Universe to create, then surely God must be, right? So, what made God?

      April 29, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      catholic engineer,

      The atomized cellular cosmologies that make up all celestially based life formations anywhere within the celestial cosmos are yes, mechanized structures wherein said machinery there are living embodiments, perhaps the Gods and perhaps not Gods, but rather mortal beings just as we are.

      Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

      1Corinthians 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building

      My belief in the kingdom of God being upon all celestial life formations is one of faith brought about thru my desire to understand scientific resolve alongside religious scripture that told me to first seek out the kingdom of God instead of God's relationships with our being. May you have peace to be found amid all the noise and waste that many dire socialisms and cultures impart.

      April 29, 2013 at 5:23 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      The same pseudo-intellectual nonsense.

      April 29, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
  9. lol??

    Jhn 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed.

    April 29, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
  10. Cyle

    Believe whatever you want in the privacy of your own mind, but don't force fairy tales on the children. Gods and devils should be discussed with the same sense of amusement and entertainment as any other mythological beings. Too clearly I remember spouting the nonsense of creationism and the biblical fantasies as factual events before rational thought began to guide what I understood to be true.

    It all boils down to emperical evidence, if someone offers to sell you a bridge, it's only reasonable to require proof of the existence of the bridge and the sellers right to transfer ownership. The same can be said of gods. Before I, again, give my life and decision making capabilities over to a deity or other supernatural power, I want proof.

    April 29, 2013 at 4:56 pm |
    • lol??

      Too late to have the same standards for the god gubmint.

      April 29, 2013 at 4:59 pm |
  11. ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

    Truth absolute LORD GOD of universe can be realized but can never be visualized by any means, beyond human capacity, A plane cannot fly without constant, truth absolute of being, can not be seen, but always realized as a source for a plane to be, neither any project can be accomplished without realization of constant, truth absolute of project. A known fact by scientific community and people of general knowledge. One has to be a hindu ignorant, in hinduism denial of truth absolute in his hindu atheism, blinded self center ism, like a primate, secular, self centered by nature, to deny existence of truth absolute GOD. As it said by truth absolute GOD, hindus, deniers of HIM, they are dumb, deaf and blinded.

    April 29, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
    • Answer

      I, slam, the, one, that, goes, boom.

      April 29, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
    • Cyle

      "Truth absolute LORD GOD of universe can be realized but can never be visualized by any means" – like many other imaginary things including leprechauns, djinn, dragons, fairies, and mermaids

      "A plane cannot fly without constant, truth absolute of being" – actually there are several whole science behind flight mechanics including Physics and Avionics, no gods needed

      "like a primate, secular, self centered by nature, to deny existence of truth absolute GOD" – we are all primates, this much has been an established fact for more than a century. no evidence of gods though.

      "As it said by truth absolute GOD, hindus, deniers of HIM, they are dumb, deaf and blinded." – logical fallacy, just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean we are deaf, dumb, or blind. any more than you are deaf, dumb or blind for disagreeing with me.

      I simply require proof of something before I am willing to believe in it – is that so bad?

      April 29, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • Stephanie

      Wow, not to be disrespecful, but can you restate this in a simpler way?

      May 1, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
  12. catholic engineer

    If an we stumbled across something that "proves" God's existence, that would most certainly not be God. God does not exist the way everything else exists. God is the source of all existence. Scientific instruments and human logic can observe what exists, but are incapable of detecting the source of existence. We would probably not recognize evidence of God's existence if we saw it. If God exists as a person, there is only one instrument that can discover Him: a person. But personal experiences of God's indwelling are not admissible as scientific evidence.

    April 29, 2013 at 4:23 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      catholic engineer,

      Is it not written for us to, "Seek First the Kingdom of God"? Why then are the religious seeking God? Is it not also written stating, "The Kingdom of God is 'inside' you"? It is also written that we are God's husbandry and God's buildings. Should we all not seek the kingdom of God first and foremost and not bicker and banter as to want God is or isn't?

      April 29, 2013 at 4:37 pm |
    • ME II

      "But personal experiences of God's indwelling are not admissible as scientific evidence."

      Finally! Thank you!!

      April 29, 2013 at 4:38 pm |
    • fred

      ME II
      Would you agree also there is no scientific evidence that "no god needed" ?

      April 29, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
    • ME II

      @fred,
      I'm not sure I understand your question.

      April 29, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @ME II

      Don't bother with fred on this topic. He literally knows no bounds of dishonesty in defense of his fallacies.

      https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/24/opinion-the-appeal-of-islamic-radicalism/comment-page-1/#comments

      That's his entire lie filled argument when it comes to this. Just read the thread on there and skip waiting for fred to be dishonest.

      April 29, 2013 at 4:44 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Truth absolute LORD GOD of universe can be realized but can never be visualized by any means, beyond human capacity, A plane cannot fly without constant, truth absolute of being, can not be seen, but always realized as a source for a plane to be, neither any project can be accomplished without realization of constant, truth absolute of project. A known fact by scientific community and people of general knowledge. One has to be a hindu ignorant, in hinduism denial of truth absolute in his hindu atheism, blinded self center ism, like a primate, secular, self centered by nature, to deny existence of truth absolute GOD.

      April 29, 2013 at 4:44 pm |
    • Colin

      Which, by remarkable coincidence, is EXACTLY what the situation would be if there were no god.

      By the way, your same logic applies to all other gods man has believed in at one time or another, including Azura Mazda, Angus, Belenos, Brigid, Dana, Lugh, Dagda, Epona, Allah Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Atehna, Demeter, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Gaia, God, Hades, Hekate, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Hestia, Pan, Poseidon, Selene, Uranus, Zeus, Mathilde, Elves, Eostre, Frigg, Ganesh, Hretha, Saxnot, Shef, Shiva Thuno, Tir, Vishnu, Weyland, Woden, Yahweh, Alfar, Balder, Beyla, Bil, Bragi, Byggvir, Dagr, Disir, Eir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigga, Heimdall, Hel, Hoenir, Idunn, Jord, Lofn, Loki, Mon, Njord, Norns, Nott, Odin, Ran, Saga, Sif, Siofn, Skadi, Snotra, Sol, Syn, Ull, Thor, Tyr, Var, Vali, Vidar, Vor, Herne, Holda, Nehalennia, Nerthus, Endovelicus, Ataegina, Runesocesius, Apollo, Bacchus, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Juno, Jupiter, Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Isis, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Endovelicus, Anubis, Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, Maahes, Ma’at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, Ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, Thoth, An, Anshar, Anu, Apsu, Ashur, Damkina, Ea, Enki, Enlil, Ereshkigal, Nunurta, Hadad, Inanna, Ishtar, Kingu, Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nanna, Nergal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Utu, Mitra, Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fukurokuju, Jurojin, Hotei, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac, Pachacamac and Zaramama.

      April 29, 2013 at 4:52 pm |
    • fred

      ME II
      Hawking is constantly attempting to "fill in the god of GAP's" such that acceptable evidence can show that there is "no god needed" in the creation of the universe. Hawking's was hit hard with the mathematical improbability of life given certain accepted fine tuning realities. Now, as I look over the biological evidence (including evolution theory) and the physics of causation (pre big bang quantum gravitational phase period) I agree with Stephen Hawking in that science cannot prove that there is no god (supernatural as Hawking is very opposed to any form of god or personal god) needed to explain intelligent life on our planet. Hawking does not address evolution only alternative models to get around the impossibility of our very existence.

      April 29, 2013 at 5:04 pm |
    • Science

      Fred.............come on grow up !

      https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/12/where-do-morals-come-from/#comments

      To easy fred

      April 29, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
    • ME II

      @fred,
      First, science doesn't deal in "proofs".
      Second, science cannot show the non-existence of god(s). It can, however, sometimes show how phenomena can be explained without the need for supernatural intervention. But our knowledge, thus far, is not complete.

      April 29, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
    • fred

      Science
      You cannot extrapolate evolution theory (social evolution in particular) based on current chimps DNA similarities to cross the gap even to Stromatolites yet alone RNA. Even your soup argument falls flat in the face of the early heavy bombardment period. You have zippo! All you have is a belief that there cannot be God. All I have is a belief that God is.
      Not one person has offered any evidence from your camp as to why we exist.

      You need to come to grips that science only hopes to some day answer the question of origin of life or causation.

      April 29, 2013 at 5:37 pm |
    • fred

      ME II
      I agree our knowledge is not complete but exactly what is the difference between an atheist who believes that there is an answer other that supernatural and like Hawking's has hope in achieving knowledge in that which is not visible and a believer that has hope in that which is not visible?
      At the core is quantum gravitational phase at the moment for causation to the atheist and goodness that simply expresses itself in creation for the believer. Both rely on identical anthropic reasoning and both create alternate realities dependent on underlying assumptions. Hawking may sound great basing multiverse on relative amplitudes of neighbouring geometries but it is just abstract musings at the moment. Believers see the reality of God thanks to the Holy Spirit.
      We are both addressing the same unknown with the tools given by God. Your tools reveal the necessity of an alternate reality and our tools reveal the alternate reality.

      April 29, 2013 at 5:59 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      fred, Do you and Chad take alternate shifts? If by reason you mean design, why does there have to be a reason? If you just want the science, as has been posted to you and others many times, the odds against human life may (or may not) be improbably high; that is irrelevant as it clearly happened (so they can't be impossible odds). There is no evidence that a god was involved since the Big Bang so why suppose that a god caused the Big Bang?

      April 29, 2013 at 6:15 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Santa

      Because arguments from ignorance and god of the gaps is the bread and butter for fred to self-delude.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:19 pm |
  13. {*}

    It seems that atheists and faithful are both arquing against something imaginary. The atheist argues against an "imaginary sky god".
    But apparently "scientists now think" that the universe had a beginning. But no human existed at that time and so no human witnessed the event. Consequently, the beginning can only be imagined. What would it look like? The creation or beginning that the atheist imagines is therefore inadequate. He's arguing against something that his imagination has to create.

    April 29, 2013 at 4:14 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      "no human witnessed the event"
      And yet you believe the superstitions of Bronze Age goatherders over scientific discovery?

      April 29, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
  14. ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

    Science is medium to conform physical form, constant of hypothesis, nothing more, nothing less, such as creation, fundamental belief of followers of truth absolute GOD, proven very recently by scientific experiment in Switzerland by scientist, by use of science as a medium,

    PROOF OF TRUTH OF CREATION BY SCIENCE. A SLAP ON FACE OF BELIEVERS OF HINDU EVOLUTION, BY HINDU ATHEISM, SELF CENTER ISM BY FAITH.

    By
    quantum physics, everything is dependent on dark matter or program, otherwise
    known as Spirit, truth of human to be in physical form. Spirit, programs appear
    in male body after reaching age of puberty by will of Allah, TRUTH ABSOLUTE LOR GOD OF UNDIVERSE, certain matter
    from blood of man is attracted to spirit on 125 volts. produced by
    function of human body, after attachment of matter to spirit, matter.
    takes form of sperm, a living being, transferred to woman's body to grow into human form according to
    spirit, program, otherwise known as seeded, not physically but spiritually programmed.

    April 29, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
  15. Apple Bush

    Do us all a favor.

    Cut out my tounge.

    I am a Christian.

    April 29, 2013 at 3:58 pm |
  16. Apple Bush

    Christians are the children born with mental birth defects on the planet. They are their very existence to atheists. Atheists are kind and understanding.

    April 29, 2013 at 3:55 pm |
    • Thoth

      We are all born atheists. As children we are often taught the religion of family tradition. That is not a mental disorder, it is indocrination. If you were taught the sky was green growing up you would insist it was green. There are plenty of very intelligent religious people. IMHO they choose to reduce cognitive dissonance by compartmentalizing logic. This is not a mental handicap, but merely the human condition from which we all suffer – believer and non-believer.

      April 29, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Odd, my honest opinion is that atheist lack a certain ability to perceive God. I think of it as a mental defect or cognitive deficiency.

      See how subjective reality works? Now we get the best doctors on our respective sides and the biggest guns and see who gets to write history.

      April 30, 2013 at 2:49 pm |
    • The Demon Deacon

      Bill Deacon
      Is irrelevant. Billy is an obsequious papal apologist troll...and
      Is a self confessed murderer.
      Yes, well, Billy maybe those doctors will be able to tell you if you have been rehabilitated rather than redeemed by some mythical deity. Do not relapse Billy you are a danger to your fellow man.

      April 30, 2013 at 2:58 pm |
    • fintastic

      @Bill........... "my honest opinion is that atheist lack a certain ability to perceive God."

      I don't think so Bill...... I think an atheist has the ability to perceive anything a believer can. When I'm reading a book of fiction, I perceive the characters to be real while I'm reading the story... but I know after I put the book down, it is in fact, a book of fiction because there is no evidence to indicate the characters are real. Just like the stories in the bible.

      April 30, 2013 at 5:46 pm |
  17. stevep44

    Religion, sure of everything, requires proof of nothing.

    April 29, 2013 at 3:51 pm |
  18. Honey Badger Dont Care

    P1. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a being which has every perfection.
    P2. Existence is a perfection.
    C. Therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

    April 29, 2013 at 3:46 pm |
  19. Apple Bush

    Christians are like the little kids with snotty noses running around on the playground. They are missing their frong teeth. They have not vocabulary. They poop their pants. Yes somehow they all theing they are right and the grown ups owe them something. They are just plan old icky.

    April 29, 2013 at 3:41 pm |
    • lol??

      You're upside down on who does the judging. The groom is not impressed.

      April 29, 2013 at 3:45 pm |
    • {*}

      Snotty noses kids? And yet whose finger would you rather have near a nuclear trigger:
      1) An atheist who believes that a million citizens of Tehran are only biochemical machines produced by evolution?
      or
      2) A Christian who believes that those million are children of a benevolent God?

      April 29, 2013 at 3:46 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Well, you elected Bush. Which one was he and what happened to all those Iraqi children?

      April 29, 2013 at 3:48 pm |
    • The real Tom

      "An atheist who believes that a million citizens of Tehran are only biochemical machines produced by evolution?"

      What atheist believes any such drivel, you ninny?

      April 29, 2013 at 3:49 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @{*}

      What else does the atheist identify as? Atheism is merely a stance on whether or not there's a god.
      Are they a secular humanist? Maybe a Buddhist?
      What about the Christian? What if he were from Westboro Baptist, or from the Army of God group?

      Here's the point, "atheist" and "Christian" tells you almost nothing about what they actually believe or think.

      April 29, 2013 at 3:51 pm |
    • lol??

      The consti*tution was supposed to stop reckless executives.

      April 29, 2013 at 3:54 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      {*}
      You do realise that Iran is not a christian country? So wouldn't your petulant god consider them as not its children?

      April 29, 2013 at 4:08 pm |
    • Brian

      Snotty noses kids? And yet whose finger would you rather have near a nuclear trigger:
      1) An atheist who believes that a million citizens of Tehran are only biochemical machines produced by evolution?
      or
      2) A Christian who believes that those million are children of a benevolent God?

      Considering Christian's track record... I'd rather have an atheist.
      A Christian: "It's illegal to kill, except in cases x,y,z"

      April 29, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      (*)
      The atheist is the one I would trust, first off because they do not see things the way you described, and secondly,the christians have already proved they are willing to use nukes.

      April 30, 2013 at 3:28 pm |
  20. Thoth

    Science debating religion is absurd. One evolves as new evidence emerges and remains under global scrutiny; the other holds rigid correctness to ancient creeds drafted by men over various periods of time and does not welcome evidence which counters their beleifs. Case in point – a 'scientist' for the Creationist Museum responded to the question "what do you do when the evidence runs contrary to the bible?" – with "we go with the word of god". Translation: You can show me it's wrong but I still choose to believe it.

    April 29, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
    • Science

      Thoth ..............it is like debating the fire pit of hell !

      Ancient Earth Crust Stored in Deep Mantle

      Apr. 24, 2013 — Scientists have long believed that lava erupted from certain oceanic volcanoes contains materials from the early Earth's crust. But decisive evidence for this phenomenon has proven elusive. New research from a team including Carnegie's Erik Hauri demonstrates that oceanic volcanic rocks contain samples of recycled crust dating back to the Archean era 2.5 billion years ago. Their work is published in Nature.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130424132705.htm

      April 29, 2013 at 3:46 pm |
    • Thoth

      2 billion years? But that can't be....the christian scientist told me that the earth is only maybe 6000 years old....and he can't be wrong because he based that on the word of god ;-}

      April 29, 2013 at 3:50 pm |
    • Science

      Thoth

      Like the LEAD to GOLD ISSUE ?

      Where Does All Earth's Gold Come From? Precious Metals the Result of Meteorite Bombardment, Rock Analysis Finds

      Sep. 9, 2011 — Ultra high precision analyses of some of the oldest rock samples on Earth by researchers at the University of Bristol provides clear evidence that the planet's accessible reserves of precious metals are the result of a bombardment of meteorites more than 200 million years after Earth was formed.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110907132044.htm

      Chondrites are fun to find !

      Peace

      April 29, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
    • Thoth

      @science – don't be crazy dude....everyone knows the devil put gold here to tempt man.....pfft....meteorites...you must be off your meds. Those aren't real. Just fear-mongering scientific manifestations.......

      Disclaimer: yes, this is sarcasm.

      April 29, 2013 at 4:08 pm |
    • Science

      Thoth ..........thanks for the reminder about my meds !

      Ca-nabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) – National Cancer Insti-tute

      http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/.../page4

      Mar 21, 2013 – [1,2] These plant-derived compounds may be referred to as phytocannabinoids. ... have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors. ... In lung cancer cell lines, CBD upregulated ICAM-1, leading to ...

      Good stuff !

      Peace

      Mentioned somewhere in the book of nasty !

      April 29, 2013 at 4:32 pm |
    • Science

      Thoth.................... education is fun with facts and a pocket full of chondrites !

      A little backfill on those stoney irom meteorites !.

      Grains of Sand from Ancient Supernova Found in Meteorites: Supernova May Have Been the One That Triggered the Formation of the Solar System

      Apr. 19, 2013 — It's a bit like learning the secrets of the family that lived in your house in the 1800s by examining dust particles they left behind in cracks in the floorboards.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130422111246.htm

      April 29, 2013 at 5:37 pm |
    • Science

      Thoth then mix in gravity and a fairy goes splat !

      Gravity wins ..........splat goes a fairy in the sky

      Einstein's Gravity Theory Passes Toughest Test Yet

      Apr. 25, 2013 — A strange stellar pair nearly 7,000 light-years from Earth has provided physicists with a unique cosmic laboratory for studying the nature of gravity. The extremely strong gravity of a massive neutron star in orbit with a companion white dwarf star puts competing theories of gravity to a test more stringent than any available before.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130425142250.htm

      April 29, 2013 at 6:20 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Next entry »
Advertisement
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.