 |
|
|
|
|
October 9th, 2013
02:27 PM ET
Creationists taunt atheists in latest billboard warBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN)– A new video billboard in New York's Times Square has a message from creationists, "To all of our atheist friends: Thank God you're wrong." The video advertisement at 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan is one of several billboards going up this week in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, paid for by Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis is best known as the multimillion-dollar Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum outside Cincinnati. The museum presents the case for Young Earth creationism, following what it says is a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, which says the Earth was created by God in six days less than 10,000 years ago. Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, said the idea for the advertisements came from an atheist billboard in Times Square at Christmas. During the holidays, the American Atheists put up a billboard with images of Santa Claus and Jesus that read: "Keep the Merry, dump the myth." “The Bible says to contend for the faith,” Ham said. “We thought we should come up with something that would make a statement in the culture, a bold statement, and direct them to our website. "We're not against them personally. We're not trying to attack them personally, but we do believe they're wrong," he said. "From an atheist's perspective, they believe when they die, they cease to exist. And we say 'no, you're not going to cease to exist; you're going to spend eternity with God or without God. And if you're an atheist, you're going to be spending it without God.' " Dave Silverman, president of the American Atheists, said he felt sad for creationists when he saw the billboards. "They refuse to look at the real world. They refuse to look at the evidence we have, and they offer none," Silverman said. "They might as well be saying, 'Thank Zeus you're wrong' or 'Thank Thor you're wrong.' " Silverman said he welcomed another competitor to marketplace, noting that after atheists bought a billboard two years ago in Times Square that read "You KNOW it's a myth," the Catholic League purchased competing space at the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel for a sign that read "You KNOW it's true." "I would suggest, if they're actually trying to attract atheists, they should talk about proof and reason to believe in their god, not just some pithy play on words," Silverman said. Ham says part of the goal of the campaign is to draw people to the website for Answers in Genesis, where he offers a lengthy post on his beliefs for the proof of God. Ham insists that this campaign is in keeping with their overall mission. "We're a biblical authority ministry. We're really on about the Bible and the Gospel. Now, we do have a specialty in the area of the creation account and Genesis because that's where we say God's word has come under attack." Ham said Answers in Genesis made the decision to split its marketing budget for the ministry between a regional campaign for the museum and this billboard campaign, rather than a national campaign. IRS filings for the ministry in recent years have shown a yearly operating budget of more than $25 million. Ham said the marketing budget is about 2% of that, about $500,000 a year. Though they are waiting for all the bills to come due for this campaign, he said he expected it to cost between $150,000 and $200,000. Silverman noted that his billboards were not video and cost approximately $25,000 last year. He said another campaign was in the works for this year. "They're throwing down the gauntlet, and we're picking it up," Silverman said, adding that his group would "slap them in the face" with it. Ham said that despite criticism from other Christians for being negative and the usual criticisms from secularists he received on his social media accounts, the advertisements have been a success. "We wanted people talking about them, and we wanted discussion about this. We wanted people thinking about God," Ham said. The Creation Museum and the theory of Young Earth creationism are widely reviled by the broader science community. In a YouTube video posted last year titled "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children," Bill Nye the Science Guy slammed creationism, imploring parents not to teach it to their children. "We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future," he said. "We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems." The museum responded with its own video. For the past 30 years, Gallup Inc. has been tracking American opinions about creationism. In June 2012, Gallup's latest findings showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution. For as long as Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years. The Creation Museum said it recently welcomed its 2 millionth visitor since its opening in 2007. soundoff (8,748 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Next »
« Previous entrySenate chaplain: Shutdown is 'madness'
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
Hey fred do you like ?
Atheists: Nobody Needs Christ at Christmas
by American Atheists posted on December 04, 2013 10:24PM GMT
American Atheists launched a major billboard display on Tuesday that declares Christmas is better without the Christ. The huge 40′x40′ digital billboard is located in Times Square in Midtown Manhattan. Using motion graphics, the billboard proclaims, “Who needs Christ during Christmas?” A hand crosses out the word “Christ” and the word “NOBODY” appears. The display then says “Celebrate the true meaning of Xmas” and offers a series of cheery words: family, friends, charity, food, snow, and more. The commercial ends with a jovial “Happy Holidays!” from American Atheists and displays the organization’s website,
Oh, yes that sounds like a godless Christmas spirit alright and should bring great joy over the holidays.
Let not him that is deceived trust in vanity:
for vanity shall be his recompence.
"What if God were not exactly truth, and if this could be proved? And if he were instead the vanity, the desire for power, the ambitions, the fear, and the enraptured and terrified folly of mankind?"
Atheist organizations aren't very good at campaigns promoting their views - mostly they just attack beliefs, and when people feel attacked they get defensive and dig in deeper. I'm an atheist, but I think humans have a profound need for an emotional attachment to their existence. Atheists would do better to promote why science is both a reasoned and poetic path to understanding the world, one that brings peace and inner meaning to existence, than to be attacking Christ in Christmas.
I agree. When I heard about the Christmas billboard, I thought it was a pretty stupid idea. Perhaps they are trying to normalize atheists, since many believers assign the "sad, empty existence" label to us. I'm just not sure that's what people are actually taking away from it.
The vast majority of atheists don't belong to any atheist organizations and so are not properly represented by those organizations.
Ah yes, the tireless claim that atheists do nothing but "attack their faith". Saying that there is no evidence for god is not an attack, it's a fact. Saying that the bible is unverified and takes blind faith to believe is not an attack, it's the simple truth. People get offended because they've been indoctrinated into a literalistic view of the bible or their religion and they are emotionally connected to it as a result. Again, please refresh my memory, when's the last time an atheist or science interrupted your church rituals and insulted your faith? When's the last time an atheist tried to make laws in the name of no god or fought to have atheism taught in a science class? When's the last time and atheist told you you were going to burn for eternity for not following them? Atheists have been historically repressed for thousands of years. They have every right to speak out against religions that were founded and enforced by the sword, and only alive today because of psychologically damaging children at young impressionable ages via indoctrination. Without that, nobody would chose religion. It is forced on people, I'm just happy I was one of the few who thought for myself and broke the cycle.
All you people attackin science need ta stop. Jesus taught compassion an' empathy. Love your enemy. Remember that? Jesus didnt attack his adversaries, he loved them and taught them what love is all about. It's a personal relationship with god, not a public one. Do yall really think Jesus would be attacking science and atheists? Of COURSE NOT!
@Christian Farmer
No one is attacking science. Sciece is just a tool we use to help us understand and evaluate the world around us.
I don't consider atheists to be enemies. I see them as prisioners of war. I keep opening the prison gates for them, but for some reason they prefer to be locked up and they close the prision gates again. I'm not attacking the atheists personally, I'm just challenging their worldview. There's a difference. Did Jesus challenge people's worldviews? Of course he did.
"No one is attacking science."
Evolution is based on empirical physical evidence from every relevant discipline. Creationists require that not only our understanding of biology be fatally flawed, but also our understanding of physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, etc, so that they might preserve their mythology in the face of an ancient earth and a far more ancient universe. Every time you try to discredit evolution, you are trying to discredit the entire modern scientific enterprise, despite the readily apparent validation of all these branches of science in daily application.
Again,
1) Is there any evidence which could convince you that evolution (i.e. common descent, humans from non-human ancestors, etc) is true?
and;
2) Is it possible that the God of Bible doesn't actually exist?
By denying longterm evolution, you ARE attacking science, which is way worse than attacking a religion, because at least you know the science can be verified by evidence. It is essentially putting your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist. At least when people deny the bible, they have a good valid logical reason to. To deny evolution today you have to be insane. I could understand back in the late 1800s, but in 2013 it makes you delusional because all of the issues that Darwin raised about evolution have been solved since then. Not only have thousands of new transitional fossils been discovered, but studying genetics shows the same exact pattern of slow change over time.
"God loves you, for all are sinners, we all fall short of the glory of God. Christ is my saviour and yours!!"
Good news for Christians. This was in Ariel Castro's final note. If he has truly repented, then another Christian is in heaven with God right now.
Gotta love Christianity. You can live your life devoid of any morals or values and be a tyrannical dictator with no empathy at all, but on your death bed you can repent due to fear of death and all of a sudden you have a free heaven ticket What a joke.
Rest assured, Ariel Castro is in hell. You cannot live your life for the devil and then repent in your final hours and be saved. God is no fool. Salvation doesn't work like that….
According to the bible, that's EXACTLY the way it works. Of course the bible is wrong in a lot of places.
God of the gaps. It's an expression to denote what theists use to "fill in the void" for the unknown.
As astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson explains in his talk The Perimeter of Ignorance, throughout history many of the great minds give virtually no mention to any god for their discoveries and explanations. (Ptolemy, Isaac Newton, Laplace, Huygens, Galileo.) That is, until they reach the problem they feel they cannot and will never fully tackle.
Perhaps that is all God has ever been – a placeholder for discomfort or frustration over the unknown; an excuse of last resort when, for one reason or another, one gives up investigation. It is at that point of discomfort over the unknown when one should remember what humanity has already witnessed: that today's scientific explanations were often yesterday's gods.
What is the effect when man relies solely on his gap-filling gods? Consider this:
Two-thirds of star names have Arabic names. They came from Islam's fertile period (AD 800-1100.) During that time Baghdad was the intellectual center of the world, open to people of all or no faiths. During that time were some of the greatest advances known to mankind: engineering, biology, medicine, mathematics, celestial navigation; this is the time and place that gave us numerals we use, terms like algebra and algorithm.
Enter Imam Hamid al-Ghazali in the 12th century. The fundamentally religious period of Islam begins, and so begins the steady decline of free intellectual expression in that area of the world. Some would argue that it has since never recovered.
Of course the effects of such reliance touches us today – even in the U.S. We see some who refuse medical care for their children for instance.
And then of course there is freedom....
"[If] the nature of... government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope." –Thomas Jefferson
Perhaps gods started as a source of answers for unanswerable questions, but there is something more about the idea, insidiously so. People want more than answers, they want guarantees of things like justice and life, and they want it from something like a person. So God was contrived. God the person wants things. It is unrestrained in that because all of its attributes are imaginary. Our history with God has consisted of trying to keep up with what we think it wants. God's wants are open-ended until we realize God was never real and any fears we might have that we can't satisfy it are just part of what was imagined up.
Worship goes back to earliest recorded history of man. You have a few years of thought behind your opinion. Best let that thought evolve.
Jesus had 3 years of ministry and impacted the whole world for the last 2,000 years. Something much more powerful about Jesus based on simple observation.
Moses lived 120 years yet his impact was to lay the foundation1,400 years and succeeded.
I think the odds based on results are not in favor you your opinion
fred, all that worship was mostly of gods in stories that conflict in myriad ways with your own god story, although your story did "borrow" a lot of bits of those others (some would say, "steal"). Your story will go the way of those others, into history as myth, as humankind advances. It's kinda sad that you can't appreciate that.
You decide the truth of something by the probability that its true, fred? Do you claim that the probability that something is true derives in some large part from how many people believe that it's true?
Tina
There is no way of knowing which oral tradition came first so stealing or borrowing of ideas is pure speculation. It is also speculation that God will go the way the way of myth. Mankind has never lived in the absence of God (real or imagined) so we do not have a clue as to what such a world would look like. Your speculation goes against the pattern of man since all recorded history.
fred
"Mankind has never lived in the absence of God (real or imagined) so we do not have a clue as to what such a world would look like. Your speculation goes against the pattern of man since all recorded history."
That is YOUR speculation.
Tom, Tom, the Other One
No, truth is not based on probability. Pilate asked Jesus what is truth yet he already knew in his heart. I suspect you know that what you just said is an opinion (i.e. god of social evolution) and the truth is very different.
What kind of truth are you talking about, fred? Absolute truth from your god? Or some other kind?
Then I'm not sure how to interpret this, fred –"I think the odds based on results are not in favor (of) your opinion"
Observer
No, we have no experience existing in a world absent of God (real or imagined). That is not speculation.
Reality is that which is regardless of your opinion or my opinion. Reality is that we only know existence that includes God (real or imagined is immaterial). You may not know God but you have not escaped the affect. Just look at your life of posting if you doubt.
I won't speak for others, but something is true if it is logically impossible for it to be false. Does your God hold up to that, fred?
fred
" No, we have no experience existing in a world absent of God (real or imagined). That is not speculation."
If you could PROVE that, you would have done that LONG ago.
Pure SPECULATION until you can find some PROOF. You'll be the FIRST. You seem completely confused by the words "speculation" and "proof". Please try using a dictionary.
fred I have to assume that when you capitalize god, you mean the Abrahamic God. Certainly there have been people born in different parts of the world who have never heard of the Abrahamic God, or didn't consider it anything of importance if they ever did during their lives. So when you say "we have no experience existing in a world absent of God (real or imagined)", certainly "we" is just a subset of civilization, or am I missing something?
fred, you are deceitful, and a bit of a coward, I think, and maybe even dishonest with yourself.
Do you really think those early god myths are not older than yours? Seriously? I don't think that you do. And furthermore, what do you think of the conflicts between any one of those other god myths and your own?
TomTom
The result of Abrahams faith was the Jew and the Muslim (sons Isaac and Ishmael) who have been at each others throats as prophesized at their birth. God said I will make a great nation out of both these sons and one will be against the other. We have the second largest religion in Islam.
The result of Jesus faith, Pauls faith and Peters faith was the Christian faith that extended from Isaac through the Jew. This is the second largest religion today.
Your faith in social evolution has not produced any results. Now, would you put your money on a football team that has never produced a single touchdown yet speculates that it can or on a team the has a proven track record?
That sounds a bit like an Argument by Consensus of Argumentum ad Populum, fred. You may know that. Is that why you are using it to try to persuade people that what you say is probably true?
Doris
Mankind (civilization) as a whole has never existed in the absence of God (The God of Abraham, God of Christians). God is revealed or the revelation of God is understood by mankind (civilization) in many ways an many names or forms. The connecting strand is worship. Man worships and looks to a higher source outside of self right up to this day and age where 87% of the world population does not believe we are here without purpose or meaning greater than ourselves.
This identifies us as a species. We do not have any experience in an existence where we believe purpose and meaning is an extension of an accidental event without purpose and meaning out of an abyss and into an abyss
Much speculation there, fred. I still see your god as the god of the gaps that Dr. Tyson describes in my OP.
Tom,Tom, the other one
It takes something greater than Argument by Consensus of Argumentum ad Populum, reason and logic to believe you understand what the talking serpent in Genesis really said. I may have some of the details wrong but the contrast between the way of the serpent and the way of Christ leaves little doubt as to truth. The contrast between the two criminals on the cross next to Christ leaves no doubt between those destined to join Christ and those who reject the way.
What about everyone else? Everyone else is simply indifferent and the Bible is full of historical accounts of those who are indifferent (the majority). A life of indifference is bland at best never having experienced God (real or imagined matters not) seems a waste.
The gods of the hindu pantheon are older than your god, Fred, and the gods of the Sumerians even older. You are making a lot of empty claims based on what is your own opinion. Basically, you are lying.
Talluluah 13
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth sounds like pre Big Bang cosmology to me. Not sure how any of the gods you suggest could come before that. My God is eternal so time and space as we know it do not apply. Men have run to their own image of God since the beginning and you are no doubt referring to some of them.
What we do not know is anything about time and space outside of our own. 14 billion years is something we have come up with based on how we segment time past, present and future in our known universe. If you wish to believe there is something or nothing that you call the unknown un-supernatural outside of our accidental appearance within an accidental time and space construct that we count as 14 billion years that is your minority opinion. Most likely you are indifferent in your thought about how right or wrong this belief of yours is. I cannot be indifferent because I have experienced God.
I see a vast gulf between the gods of man and the God of man. My God cannot be described but we do the best we can based on revelations presented by the account of the Chosen Ones in the Bible and Jesus together with those who knew him at the time. My God is a living God and has been present in their lives and my life. I was once agnostic and know the difference between living in and out of the presence of God.
I pray you may see the God I love some day and experience the wonders I have seen.
fred is just trying to be an intellectual. All he is saying is that throughout recorded history, someone, somewhere believed in some god, regardless of whether or not that god was real or imaginary. In other words, we have always lived with gods and have no experience living without them. He is probably correct but so what? fred, and most believers, especially the ones here, will say anything to maintain the status quo (religion continues to get a free pass) 'cause they know the gig is almost over. Too many people are asking too many questions about the basics of believer delusions and believers have no actual evidence or answers.
Atheistic forms of Buhhism and Taoism have been around far longer than Christianity.
Quite possibly true, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't was some cretin, somewhere, hiding in a cave perhaps, that had his own set of imaginary playmates, gods in his mind. That's all fred needs to "win" his argument 'cause he is also claiming that all gods are faces of his god and that they could not have been perceived before his god was done creating everything – the cretins just got the timing, names and quanti.ties wrong.
LOL at Fred. As if any of that can be verified or proven in any way shape or form. Keep preaching, nobody's listening.
Hey Fred, could you please show me evidence of who man worshiped 100,000 years ago? Didn't think so. People credited gods with functions and weather patterns of planet earth because they were ignorant of the actual facts. Today that ignorance only fits in a tiny gap and that is where god seems to be. No evidence is no evidence.
Logical Default
"People credited gods with functions and weather patterns of planet earth because they were ignorant of the actual facts."
=>Oh, I see you believe in social evolution yet when it comes to understanding God evolution does not apply? You logic is betrayed by your default to bias against God.
=>The greater our knowledge and scientific advances the more obvious Gods presence becomes. Now that we see time and space without fixed boundaries that man can comprehend the eternal is not an impossibility but a self evident reality. The fact you are more comfortable with the label of "Unknowable" or unknown because it fills your prideful heart allowing the knowledge of man to be the highest wisdom known does not give it any more weight than my label of God. You choose you label to fit your needs and I choose my label to fit my needs.
My needs are common to man and thus man has worshiped something greater than self for all recorded history. Both of our needs have been well cared for the only difference is honesty. I need God yet you have an excuse and claim you do not have needs common to man. My need is filled and I rest assured in the peace provided by God. Your need is empty and it best will leave you with an unknown and that you have done unknowingly. If I did not know better I would think you are nothing more than a modern day Pharisee holding tight to the tradition of naturalism.
"=>Oh, I see you believe in social evolution yet when it comes to understanding God evolution does not apply? You logic is betrayed by your default to bias against God."
I have no bias against god. I am agnostic. Basically, I'll believe it when I see it, or if evidence is presented and shown to prove it. I'm not against faith or belief in god, only people who promote it dishonestly as fact or use it as a means to attack science or incorporate it into law or into science curriculums when you can't even provide a single piece of objective evidence for it. I believe science denial is pure delusion and it's a very dangerous mentality.
Social evolution is NOT biological evolution and both have absolutely nothing to do with one another. You claimed that man has ALWAYS worshiped a god of some sort, but we have no recorded history of anything like that going back more than 12,000 years or so. Humans have been on the earth 200,000 years. Modern religions have been created relatively recently when looking at the grand scheme of things. Could they have had other religions or gods back then? Sure. Can you prove it? Nope. Claiming man needs god is a farce. You may THINK you need god, but if you look at things outside the box, there's no reason to make that asumption.
Sorry about the mutliple responses. This site censors too many words that aren't bad or offensive in the least, so I'm posting it in sections because it's too difficult to determine which words it doesn't like in a huge response. It's ridiculous.
"=>The greater our knowledge and scientific advances the more obvious Gods presence becomes. Now that we see time and space without fixed boundaries that man can comprehend the eternal is not an impossibility but a self evident reality."
Actually it's the exact opposite. The more we learn, the less we find that god is required for any working fun_ction of the universe. You can guess about it, but science DOES NOT point to god, because not one single piece exists to verify or even hint at a god like ent_ity existing.
"The fact you are more comfortable with the label of "Unknowable" or unknown because it fills your prideful heart allowing the knowledge of man to be the highest wisdom known does not give it any more weight than my label of God. You choose you label to fit your needs and I choose my label to fit my needs."
You must not understand what pride is. Belief in god is egotistical because it claims that humans are direct creations of god in his image. Everybody wants to feel special, so they are easily susceptible to the pipe dream that is Christianity. Admitting that I don't know the answer about god is simple logic, and most creationists can't even consider it. If we don't know the answer, we don't know the answer. Pride is pretty much the only reason people keep believing in religion/god. I do not have a big ego, hence I am willing to admit I don't know the answer. ARE YOU? I doubt it very much.
"My needs are common to man and thus man has worshiped something greater than self for all recorded history."
Man has also practiced slavery for almost all of recorded history. That doesn't make it right. Appeal to popularity is a fallacy.
"Both of our needs have been well cared for the only difference is honesty. I need God yet you have an excuse and claim you do not have needs common to man. My need is filled and I rest assured in the peace provided by God. Your need is empty and it best will leave you with an unknown and that you have done unknowingly. If I did not know better I would think you are nothing more than a modern day Pharisee holding tight to the tradition of naturalism."
First, each person's individual needs are different. Second, religion/god isn't a NEED, it's a WANT. It helps you sleep at night and makes you feel that you life is ultra important. You want it to be true because it satisfies your ego. The thought of not being specifically designed by god frightens you. You have faith that it is true. Nobody cares about "needs common to man". It differs all over the world. It does all boil down to honesty. You don't know whether god is real. I don't know whether god is real. You can't prove that anybody on earth NEEDS god to survive. You may think you do, but that's in your head and can't be verified.
"...they want guarantees of things like justice and life"
Tom–you're on to something there. One question theists often ask of atheists is about justice–what happens to people who do terrible things like Hitler–they want perfect justice. The want objective morality. They want purpose imposed upon them from without, while still maintaining they have free will. They want to avoid death, not just for themselves, but for their loved ones as well. These are all tough. I'm sure it's a fine sedative to imagine a perfect being meting out perfect forms of love, justice, morality, and so on that will become accessible when we die, but I've come to realize it's wishful thinking.
The truth is, we have to do the hard work of figuring out justice, morality, and purpose ourselves. We cannot be lazy and hope a magical being does this for us. And we have a limited life in which to do the best we can.
Many (most, all?) believers are hypocrites. Moral objectivity is what they impose or judge someone else by, not what they follow. Look at abortion for example. 70+% of all abortions performed in the USA are had by believers. That's over 700,000 believers per year ignoring their cult's crystal clear rules about the morality of abortion. Now we're going to hear about sinners, free will, blah blah blah – a zillion words to rationalize the assumption of moral objectivity and actual behavior.
"God of the gaps. It's an expression to denote what theists use to "fill in the void" for the unknown."
I'm not sure why you keep reposting that straw man argument. Our beleif in God is based on what we know, not what we don't know.
Evolution is based on the observation of the progressive fossil record, phylogenetic analysis of extant and extinct forms, the known molecular mechanisms which generate novel genes and novel functionality, and the known mechanisms which produce speciation events. Creationists can point to no evidence indicating a testable, predictable or verifiable mechanism for their claims. Their lack of any identifiable mechanism is filled in with "God did it" which is the classic example of a God of the gaps.
Again,
1) Is there any evidence which could convince you that evolution (i.e. common descent, humans from non-human ancestors, etc) is true?
and;
2) Is it possible that the God of Bible doesn't actually exist?
My question to atheists is, why can't biochemists demonstrate your belief that amino acids and polynucleotides can actually come together and form even the most primitive archea-bacterium under some known "natural" conditions? PROVE to us, that God did not do it.
JIm,
Prove that a committee of zombies or Zeus didn't do it.
No answer, eh?
Jim,
Yep. NONE of us can PROVE anything.
We can prove a few things in mathematics and logic, but nope, nothing in science. Anyone who thinks science involves proofs doesn't understnd science.
You challenged atheists to prove a negative – that your god did not do it. Ignoring that that is generally considered to be an impossibility, *you* introduced an actor into your straw man argument that *you* have not proven to exist. That is, you have not provided any actual evidence for your or any god. Prove your assumptions and then we can talk about what your god might or might not have done. We're waiting. . .
To HotAirAce. The evidence for God.
There is no conflict between evolution and creation. The Bible tells us there WAS a beginning. Science later confirmed it with the big bang event. The Bible tells us that the waters were divided. Science later confirmed that waters exist in every galaxy and ARE divided by great distances. The Bible tells us that God created life FROM THE EARTH and that plant life formed from these seeds of life. Science later confirmed that life WAS brought forth from the earth and photosynthesis began, which generated enough oxygen in the atmosphere to allow higher creatures to evolve. The Bible tells us that all the creatures were brought forth abundantly from the waters. Science later confirmed this occured during the Cambrian explosion. The Bible tells us; let earth to bring forth the cattle and beasts after their kind. Science later confirmed that there WAS a great diversification of mammals following the extinction of the dinosaurs, that led to the modern day cattle and beasts that we see today. And finally, The Bible tells us that man was formed at the very last, at the very end of the very last day of God's creation. Science later confirmed that man DID indeed form in only the most recent geological period. The days of creation were in reference to the original source of light created on the first day, not our sun. God created the sun on the 4th day of HIS creation, from HIS perspective of time to provide man with his perspective of time in days and years. Further, no scientists has been able to replicate the formation of life from natural chemistry. And no life has been discovered outside the earth.
Sorry, Jim. Forcing a square peg into a round hole isn't evidence of anything. I agree the bible is probably metaphorical, but talk about forcing meaning. None of that is evidence for a god.
Experiments have created primitive life. There is no evidence for a god and the evidence we do have points away from the gods described by religions. We don't need to prove there is no god, you're the ones claiming a god – show some evidence (not the circular god-bible-god).
Last I heard those experiments creating life required a great deal of man made equipment and elements combined in a way that was known to be an impossibility in our known world. Man is not a god however just like Stalin who needed to get rid of God will find that the State is a poor substitute.
Mixing apples and oranges there much, fred?
Also, since when does using what is current a method for learning how something could work rule out the possibility that it didn't in fact happen that way?
Doris, it does not rule it out and there are those who believe some aliens cooked us up in lab much in the same manner. In the same way one cannot claim there is no God. We accept the historic revelations of God not because of the millions of claims over thousands of years but because these same revelations became real to us as they did to those before us.
If you are agnostic you claim you do not know yet your life reveals a pattern where you believe the revelations of God are false. Thus you are an atheist yet an atheist cannot eliminate the possibility of God (however remote). You are the one who believes in a known false premise. The believer may be wrong but does not believe in what is known to be false.
If ANYONE could prove that God exists, there would be virtually no atheists nor agnostics. Still NO proof.
fred: "If you are agnostic you claim you do not know yet your life reveals a pattern where you believe the revelations of God are false. Thus you are an atheist yet an atheist cannot eliminate the possibility of God (however remote). You are the one who believes in a known false premise."
fred that just didn't make sense to me at all. Understanding that most mainstream atheists are agnostic, and don't hold belief in the Abrahamic God based on lack of evidence, where do you get a false premise from that?
Observer
Problem is that you demand proof that fits a materialistic world view. That is not the reality we live in. We live in the reality where God is (real or imagined does not matter) not a reality based on the absence of God past, present or future.
You may want to live in a dream world where there never was God, is God or can be God but that is just your dream.
fred
"Problem is that you demand proof that fits a materialistic world view. That is not the reality we live in. We live in the reality where God is (real or imagined does not matter) not a reality based on the absence of God past, present or future.You may want to live in a dream world where there never was God"
A materialistic world IS the world of REALITY. It's the one we live in. Yours is the world of dreams of unproven existences.
noun: reality
1 the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
"he refuses to face reality"
synonyms: the real world, real life, actuality;
•a thing that is actually experienced or seen
synonyms: fact, actuality, truth
2. the state or quality of having existence or substance.
Observer
Sorry, but you cannot escape the reality that you exist under a world view that God created the heavens and the earth. You may live under a rock but reality remains that our world view includes God and that is the cold hard fact of reality the meets up with your definition.
The worlds superpowers are well aware of the foundation of God present in our way of life and thought. Even though some would rather it was not so they too must live in that reality. No president of the United States has ever been elected since its founding without claiming a love for God. That is simply a reality. Welcome to the real world
fred
"Sorry, but you cannot escape the reality that you exist under a world view that God created the heavens and the earth"
World view is an OPINION. It is not necessarily the same as REALITY.
PLEASE invest in a DICTIONARY or at least learn how to use one on the Internet. You can make intelligent statements, but you lose all CREDIBILITY with your failure to understand the definition of words. YOU don't DEFINE words. They are already defined by the time you hear them. You just keep embarrassing yourself because of your shortcomings in knowledge of English words and their DEFINITIONS.
Observer
No, people live their lives according to the their world view. A godless individual will respond to their core belief just as the Pope responds according to his core belief. The end result is reality which is comprised of the actions people take not their opinions about an action taken. Their opinions may impact future actions but past and present actions (real molecular movement with physical attributes not opinion and feelings about what could have been) are the reality. You can continue to think whatever you want but reality is taking place while you study your navel.
Doris
"If you are agnostic you claim you do not know yet your life reveals a pattern where you believe the revelations of God (all gods) are false. Thus you are an atheist yet an atheist cannot eliminate the possibility of God or gods (however remote).
Let me put it this way. Your life reflects that you believe all revelations of God or gods are false yet you know this belief is in error (you cannot eliminate the possibility of God or gods). Godlessness is a false life.
Belief in God results in a life built on what is known. Our life reflects what we believe and what we know this is truth.
fred: "Your life reflects that you believe all revelations of God or gods are false"
Not true. You still don't seem to understand mainstream atheism.
"Belief in God results in a life built on what is known"
If you are claiming that god is known, you need to show evidence of that. If not the agnostics and atheists are right. There is no objective evidence of god. Only blind faith in an ancient texts. Remember I can still be open minded to the possibility of a god and reject yours and other man made religions. Many atheists would accept god if proof were given, but there is nothing even close to that. There are only preachers and fundamentalists who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, because their mommy and daddy said so. And the mommy and daddy believe it because their parents said so. It's a tough cycle to break because kids are indoctrinated at young impressionable ages, and it damages their psychological development, forcing an emotional connection to a faith that might be complete BS. Until kids are given the freedom to chose their own religion instead of being forced, I have every right to speak out about it.
Former Xtian
"Belief in God results in a life built on what is known"
=>this statement stands on its own. What rational mind would build a life upon a known falsehood? If you do not believe the word of God and understand Gods presence in your life why in the world would you build your life on it?
"f you are claiming that god is known, you need to show evidence of that."
=>That is not the problem there are millions of observed consistent events and testimony. The problem is putting what is not of this world into a box made by man.
"the agnostics and atheists are right."
=>Impossible they build their life upon the unknown and admit to it. The end result is unknown which follows their belief. Just how right does it really sound to claim our impossible origin is unknown, purpose is unknown and final disposition is unknown. That is the result of godlessness and summation of a godless existence.
"There is no objective evidence of god."
=>So all the presidents of the United States since its founding were liars? Most of them even claim to know God and talk with God. Objective evidence is overwhelming that thought, prayer, conversation takes place between a supernatural presence and man. Objective evidence is overwhelming that man worships this presence. Objective evidence is overwhelming that God is of substance and power that cannot be measured or confined by mans greatest minds to date. Objective evidence is that God is not a God of the dead but a God of the living (awareness of the supernatural has been with every civilization since time recorded).
"Remember I can still be open minded to the possibility of a god and reject yours and other man made religions."
=>your not being open minded you are admitting that you sense something greater than the known is a reality.
"Many atheists would accept god if proof were given"
=>no, those who demand proof they know cannot be given will never accept the proof that is given.
"mommy and daddy believe it because their parents said so. It's a tough cycle to break"
=>no, 75% of kids that go to college dump religion if it is only based on tradition without knowledge. There is a difference between knowing about God and knowing God.
"=>this statement stands on its own. What rational mind would build a life upon a known falsehood? If you do not believe the word of God and understand Gods presence in your life why in the world would you build your life on it?"
No it doesn't stand on its own, because nobody KNOWS whether god is real or not. People have faith and believe it. People like to have hope, and it stems from fear of death. The ego can't handle the idea that life ends at death. They want more. They want to be special and live forever. Belief is much different than "what's known". God is not known. People have guessed about him.
"That is not the problem there are millions of observed consistent events and testimony. The problem is putting what is not of this world into a box made by man. "
Can you please post some of these "millions" (LOL) of observed consistent events that prove god? Lack of evidence IS a problem. Most people that claim they speak with voices in their head or imaginary friends are put into mental hospitals, but religious folks are always given a free pass.
"=>Impossible they build their life upon the unknown and admit to it. The end result is unknown which follows their belief. Just how right does it really sound to claim our impossible origin is unknown, purpose is unknown and final disposition is unknown. That is the result of godlessness and summation of a godless existence."
No, the result is logic. I don't build my life upon the unknown. I live based on what is real, tangible and verified, and unfortunately god does not fit the bill. You have a big ego and can't even admit that you MIGHT be wrong or that you don't know the answer. That's the problem. I admit I don't know, and move on to reality, I'm not going to 'play it safe' and believe a religion just in case. You get held up on it, and can't fathom not knowing what happens after death, so you fall into the illogical trap of irrational belief. There's nothing wrong with believing and having hope, but it becomes a problem to me when folks of your mindset deny science and promote their faith as fact, which is seems you are doing.
"=>So all the presidents of the United States since its founding were liars? Most of them even claim to know God and talk with God. Objective evidence is overwhelming that thought, prayer, conversation takes place between a supernatural presence and man. Objective evidence is overwhelming that man worships this presence.
They weren't liars, they had faith that a god existed. Faith doesn't make you a liar, it just means you are believing something without proof. The founding fathers were masons who believed in freedom of religion for everyone regardless of how they defined god, even the subjective view that the universe = god or that a great collective consciousness exists fits the masonic god concept. Talking with god via prayer isn't talking. You can't have a conversation with one person, and we all know god doesn't talk back when people pray to him.
And again, you are confusing objective evidence with subjective evidence. Duh, we can objectively see that many folks worship god, but there is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that he exists. HUGE difference. You are basing a belief on somebody else's belief. Where's the scrutiny?
"Objective evidence is overwhelming that God is of substance and power that cannot be measured or confined by mans greatest minds to date. Objective evidence is that God is not a God of the dead but a God of the living (awareness of the supernatural has been with every civilization since time recorded). "
Absolutely false. If you claim the objective evidence is overwhelming, then please post the objective science experiment that points to god. You just don't know what objective evidence means. Look it up. It doesn't mean, "Oh wow, like cells are totally complex so it must be god", or "I totally feel god's presence! Don't you see how beautiful nature is". That is subjective and can be interpreted thousands of ways.
"=>your not being open minded you are admitting that you sense something greater than the known is a reality."
No, I'm not admitting that at all. I'm open minded to many possibilities. That doesn't mean I blindly believe them. I think of god's existence as a maybe. I have no special feelings that "feel god's presence" or anything of the sort.
"=>no, those who demand proof they know cannot be given will never accept the proof that is given."
So the proof cannot be given, yet they won't accept the proof? Which is it? Is there proof or not? If there is, I'd LOVE to see it.
"=>no, 75% of kids that go to college dump religion if it is only based on tradition without knowledge. There is a difference between knowing about God and knowing God."
It's much less than 75%, but yeah it figures that the more educated folks dump religion, right? Something like 70-75% of America is Christian. If 75% of college kids were dumping it, the religious stats would have dropped off exponentially over the years. Which god are you referring to? How do you know him? Do you have him over for dinner once a month or what? Oh wait, your definition of knowing god is based on an ancient story book from thousands of years ago. You KNOW THAT, NOT god himself. Don't play yourself.
First of all Jim–that's not necessarily our belief. I would say it's fair to say that atheists believe abiogenesis was almost certainly a natural event. But we don't know how it happened yet. There are millions of ways it could have happened, and just because scientists are not omniscient, doesn't mean we should jump to supernatural conclusions in the absence of any hard evidence.
At one time, people thought the sun was a god. What other explanation was there? No one could explain it. It seems likely to me that scientists will eventually figure out ways abiogenisis can happen. We may be close, or far away still. But I think we'll eventually figure it out. We have a lot of clues and indicators already, but it's one big puzzle.
When we do figure it out, that's one less dark hole for god to hide in. What role for god if we find that life came into being naturally? Will he go the way of the sun god?
Lazarus walked out of the grave. Take it or leave it.
Personally–I'll leave it. No one has ever presented hard evidence that zombies actually exist, in spite of the never-ending movies Hollywood generates, and various camps devoted to training on how to survive the zombie apocalypse.
But let's suppose Lazarus did rise. Lazarus wasn't divine–right? So Christians need to stop claiming that Jesus' resurrection is proof of his divinity.
Dandi, those were 2 different types of resurrections. The one Lazarus experienced was tailor made for the Frankfurt School and Darwin.
People used to be declared dead all the time but came back to life. This is because older practice of medicine was extremely primitive. They even put bells connected to people's coffins just in case they woke up. That is where the expression 'dead ringer' comes from. They just didn't have the same understanding of medicine that we have today. If Lazerous existed he may not have even been dead.
Former Xtian, you can't die in 4 dayz?? What's wrong witcha??
Jhn 11:17
Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already
Not to worry though, others will have yer pwoblem.
Rev 9:6
And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
Do you have proof that the bible is true or that this event even happened at all?
Think of it this way. The problem presented to biologists seeking the answers to abiogenesis is like a baker who has all the ingredients for a cheese soufflé but not a recipe. He can try mixing the ingredients in varying proportions till the cows come home and still not get the desired result. Intermediate steps, such as pre-cooking certain parts before adding the remaining ones, are unknown. The conditions that led to the first bits of anything that we would consider life were totally toxic to life that exists now. No oxygen, acid water, high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane, furious lightning, enormous tides, belching volcanoes and earthquakes. The various constituents of life were stirred, heated, cooled, combined and dissolved in innumerable combinations over unknown periods of time in an earth sized petri dish. And all it would take is just one tiny microbe in one statistically insignificant locale to emerge in a veritable ocean of lifeless sludge to get the ball rolling.
The faith of an atheist revealed.
When an artificial organism is made, and that's inevitable as molecular and cellular biology converge with nanotechnology, what will that mean for your faith, fred? Shouldn't you pin your hopes for God on something else?
fred, explain how you think that involves any faith. It seems merely a statement of how something could have happened. I'm really curious how you pull faith out of that.
I really think you are struggling to make a point when you have none.
The only faith scientists might be adhering to is that given time and the scientific method, they can unravel the mystery of whatever they are looking into. That's much different than a delusional believer clinging to their faith that their alleged god(s) and their unfounded holy books represent reality.
HotAirAce
Your claim that given enough time science can know everything is the inverse of reality for physics, cosmology and biology...... The more we advance the greater the unknown. Try again
Jm, it only been about 150 years since science showed that diseases are caused by bacteria and viruses and not evil spirits or disobedience against a god, and you expect scientists to be able to create life? Be a little patient. It will happen.
In the meantime, be happy that scientists are working hard to find treatments for diseases that you or your loved ones may someday need and technology that makes your life easier and more interesting, besides exploring what makes up the elements of life.
However, science doesn't claim proof of anything. It shows more evidence or less evidence that something is true, that's all. And when science doesn't have evidence of a cause, it merely states "We don't know" rather than "We don't know, so that means goddidit".
Jim, if science had discovered that you wouldn't even know about it. Some parts of the abiogenesis process HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED. It's been proven that comet impacts can create amino acids. All science points to a naturalistic explanation for earth, while nothing tangible whatsoever points to god.
"Sometimes the alternatives to killing a fetus are even worse."
So that makes the killing OK?
FYI: fetus is a Latin word that means "baby."
"Outlawing abortion means that if you have a frail 11-year-old girl who is r@ped and needs an abortion to save her life, YOU apparently would just tell her "tough luck."
You should seriously stop trying to do some mind reading. You failed miserably. My position will end up being another topic of conversation. You brought up the topic – All I did was ask you how you determine right from wrong.
Pau,
So if you had a frail 11-year-old girl who is r@ped and needs an abortion to save her life, would you just tell her "tough luck." or do you SUPPORT abortion?
Answer please.
My answer to the question has nothing to do with how you determine right from wrong, which is what I asked.
You also didn't answer my question.
"Sometimes the alternatives to killing a fetus are even worse." –Observer
So that makes the killing OK?
Paul,
lol. STALL. STALL. STALL.
Still COMPLETELY STUMPED or JUST AFRAID?
When the greatest conscious wellbeing is promoted with the least conscious harm. Killing a worm is less bad than killing a dog. Killing Hitler less bad than shooting a room full of school children. A fetus is less conscious than any lower primates and in early stages less conscious than the chicken or lobster most people happily eat.
But that in itself is not enough to justify destroying it as we protect people see as human in part to protect our own sense of security. However, because none of us are in the position of ever suddenly becoming quasi or non conscious fetuses, this is not an issue. Instead, we calculate the weight of a worm, lobster or chicken's consciousness against that of the mother, in addition to considering whether that worm might suffer if it became what we consider a person.
Obviously Paul's a preacher who knows next to nothing about science and logic. He dodges every single question that comes his way and offers no evidence of his side, he only attacks science like a child. If you don't want to have an adult conversation, you should find somewhere else to post. I can't count the amount of times the question about what prevents small changes from adding up over time, has gotten ignored and/or dodged. He doesn't want to have an actual 2 way conversation. He just wants to preach and ramble on about his own delusions, probably because he's insecure of his own faith and is subconsciously looking for an alternative.
Do you even folla Jesus, Pauly? I mean, shoot, didnt he say to treat others as you want ta be treated? Would Jesus attack people he disagreed with or would he sit down and explain to them folks 'bout love an' compassion? I reckon that you barkin up the wrong tree.
Paul
" FYI: fetus is a Latin word that means "baby."
So when a woman is pregnant TODAY, as opposed to when Latin was created, do we say she "has a baby" or that "she is GOING TO HAVE a baby"?
Latin translation or not, an acorn is not an oak tree, not even a sapling . . .
Fetus does not mean 'baby' in Latin dumbass... 'infant' is the Latin word for baby...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRBHxJBUv_A&feature=player_detailpage
wowzers, that is unbelievable!
We now know that chart, which has been taught to millions of students, is wrong. The common ancestor of man and chimp already walked upright. The chimp actually evolved to slump. The chart is backwards.
Jim,
Scientists are always looking for facts. They will change and admit their errors. The Bible doesn't.
The Word of God is without error thus no correction ever. Some translations may vary but the truth revealed does not.,
Really fred? How do you know this? How many stables did Solomon have?
"The Word of God is without error thus no correction ever. Some translations may vary but the truth revealed does not."
Translation: My preferred interpretation is without error, thus no correction ever. Some translations may vary but the truth revealed as I interpret it does not.
You guys, stop using logic. Fred was there at the time of creation and directed witnessed these events. You can trust him, he knows. LOL
Link or it didn't happen.
Creationists wouldn't bug me so much if they just kept their stupidity to themselves. It's when they try to spread it to others like a plague of insanity that I get irritated.
Agreed. It just blows my mind that there are so many such stupid people out there – are they from this century?? Really??
How many centuries has man been around?? You just NOW discovering evolutionism?? Have you discovered s*ex yet??
What is evolutionism? Sorry but creationists making up terms doesn't make evolution less valid. Evolution isn't an "ism" that requires belief. I see a car in my driveway that doesn't make me an automobilist or that I follow automobilism. It's a proven fact. Get over it, it doesn't match your fundamentalist interpretation of the bible. Why are you so afraid of evolution? Why couldn't god use evolution as a system of creation? People are so adamant about evolution being wrong because they worship a book of stories, NOT GOD. Where do you place your faith? In god himself or a compilation book written BY MAN when 90% of people were illiterate? Make your choice. If your choice is god, then why do you limit his power claiming he couldn't use evolution as a tool? If your choice is a textbook, then hell, I have a few more you might be interested in. I also have keys to heaven for sale at a great discount rate. Evolution should make god greater, not disprove him. I just don't understand why people attack science over an ancient unverified storybook. There's no reason at all they can't both be true.
Into philosophy, Logical Default?? Some people drive behind the wheel. Some people ride behind the wheel. Some people fight with the copilot, err wife while behind the wheel. But, and this is a very big but, gramps died peacefully in his sleep. However, that didn't help the terrified grandkids in the back seat!
Is in the Bible! Written more than 2,500 years ago when unbelievers (atheists) were saying basically some of the same gibberish. THANKS GOD HE doesn't sugar coated it. There is no need to waste time and words arguing with atheists. Because atheism is Total stupidity all over, anywhere, everywhere, here and there, anytime, all the time, every single time and forever more.
Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.
Psalm 53:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God," They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; There is no one who does good.
How about those who are not atheist but have different religious beliefs than you? Is everybody who believes differently than you stupid?
Cease and desist using my moniker, reported.
There's no need to waste time arguing with atheists, yet here you are spamming this same insulting message over and over again every day, multiple times a day for well over a month. Somebody needs to get a life. Prove the bible is correct, then we'll talk about your circular logic.
Psalms 118:8 – It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
So Salero, do you place your faith in god or man? The bible was written by men, so by blindly believing that it is the word of god, you are placing your faith in man, not god himself.
@Observer
"Society has determined the current morals before we were born. I try to determine right from wrong by using every bit of my knowledge to evaluate the effects of my actions on society and myself and try to maximize the benefits to both."
Do you think abortion is OK because someone determined that it's legal? If you try to maximize the benefits, how does the abortion benefit the unborn child? Would you say you subscribe to utilitarian ethics?
"Morals certainly aren't set by God since everyone can find "immoral" commands in the Bible."
Are you going by what someone before you determined to be immoral? Are you going by what you determined to be immoral?
Here's the moral argument for God:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Paul, You start with an invalid proposition – there is no evidence of a god, morals do exist, so morals do not need a god or religion.
Both premises 1 & 2 are unsupported. An objective morality may exist absent or in spite of a god (e.g. Euthyphro's Dilemma). There is no discrete "objective" moral position which cannot be confounded by some hypothetical situation.
Still waiting . . .
1) Is there any evidence which could convince you that evolution (i.e. common descent, humans from non-human ancestors, etc) is true?
and;
2) Is it possible that the God of Bible doesn't actually exist?
Euthyphro's Dilemma is a false dilemma.
Still no answers so trying the old deflect trick.
Paul–why is it false?
@Dandintac
It's a false dilemma because it only presents two options when there's at least a third option. Hence the fallacy of a false dilemma.
Feel free to explain the third option. And then feel free to move on to:
1) Is there any evidence which could convince you that evolution (i.e. common descent, humans from non-human ancestors, etc) is true?
and;
2) Is it possible that the God of Bible doesn't actually exist?
I'm feeling a little impatient tonight, so here's the response to your third option which is likely the "nature of God" response. This is a poor rephrasing of it's good because God says it's good with the added flawed argument by definitional fiat that God is inherently good (why? just because). In other words, God could say butchering children and infants is good, e.g. 1 Sam 15:3, and it is good solely because God says it's good. Again, the idea that God is a divine source of absolute morality is confounded in the failure to correct the practice of owning foreign born slaves as personal property in addition to any number of other examples, particularly when mere mortals have come to recognize these various morally repugnant practices.
Oops. Should have read, "particularly when mere mortals have come to recognize these various practices as morally repugnant." Like I said, a little impatient . . .
Paul,
NO ONE likes abortion. Sometimes the alternatives to killing a fetus are even worse. Outlawing abortion means that if you have a frail 11-year-old girl who is r@ped and needs an abortion to save her life, YOU apparently would just tell her "tough luck". Anti-choice people ignore that abortion will end one life, but often lead to another life. Planned parenthood often results in the birth of a child later that is planned for, loved, and will have a FAR better life.
"If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist."
Thoughtless nonsense. Where did you get your moral values to decide that slavery endorsed by the Bible is IMMORAL or do you support slavery? Where did you get your moral values to decide that MAYBE it's IMMORAL for someone to allow TEN CHILDREN, numerous servants, and THOUSANDS of animals to die so someone could win a BET? Where do Christians get their moral values from when they decide it's IMMORAL to beat their helpless children with rods for discipline?
You certainly haven't thought things through at all. Wake up!
"Sometimes the alternatives to killing a fetus are even worse."
So that makes the killing OK?
FYI: fetus is a Latin word that means "baby."
"Outlawing abortion means that if you have a frail 11-year-old girl who is r@ped and needs an abortion to save her life, YOU apparently would just tell her "tough luck."
You should seriously stop trying to do some mind reading. You failed miserably. My position will end up being another topic of conversation. You brought up the topic – All I did was ask you how you determine right from wrong.
Paul
"Are you going by what someone before you determined to be immoral? Are you going by what you determined to be immoral?"
I answered your question. Apparently you were too busy copying-and-pasting it to read it. Here it is again:
"Society has determined the current morals before we were born. I try to determine right from wrong by using every bit of my knowledge to evaluate the effects of my actions on society and myself and try to maximize the benefits to both."
Sounds like you're answering "yes" to both questions. That's contradictory.
Why can't one do both? Why is this necessarily contradictory?
Paul,
Did you miss all my questions?
Why are you so much of a COWARD to not answer them? I've asked several times.
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. – that is a complete guess, not a factual statement.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. – You can't prove that. You say "objective values", however quite often it is subjective, for example the whole eating pork thing or not eating meat on certain days. Morals exist to prevent unnecessary suffering to others. Eating meat on Friday does not cause suffering to others, therefor it is subjective. Abortion can also be subjective along with many other things. Every situation is different, and you don't need a bible to tell you that intentionally harming somebody else is wrong.
I've always thought the moral argument was one of the worst for the god claim, but then there are so many bad arguments for God. Here's are some problems with the moral argument. First of all, it depends on two unsupported assertions a) god exists, b) objective morality exists. Then uses a) to try to support b), and b) to support a).
Now–I will concede objective morality exists if it's defined in a way that is observable and measurable. Sam Harris does this by defining questions of morality as questions of human well-being. I think that works. However, Christians don't like this definition, for good reason. If god is all-powerful, he inflicts a great deal of immorality. The Bible–especially the OT, is simply stiff with genocide, slavery, human sacrifice, murder, looting, war–either condoned by or actually commanded by God. So human well-being is not how Christians like define "morality". They usually say that by Objective Morality, they mean unchanging.
Christians run into a problem though–a big one that they usually ignore. When confronted by the horrors of the OT, they usually say something like this: "well-that's out of context! It was okay for the Israelite tribes–it's not okay now", or "we have a New Covenant now!" Another argument is that it's okay if God says it is (divine command theory).
Okay–if so, then how is morality objective and unchanging then?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ-aqnDHqqA&w=420&h=315]
Paul,
Completely STUMPED AGAIN?
LET's Religiosity Law #6 – If you routinely ignore physics, geology, astronomy, biology, etc., and are happy with “god did it” then you are mentally retarded.
Go to hell right now!!
LOL... you first christard...
“A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”
Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki
I don't have enough "faith" to be an evolutionist!
You found one quote that supports what you want to hear and use it as an excuse not to believe what is supported by an overshelming amount of evidence. I'd say you simply lack the courage to accept te reality of evolution.
Bad iPad. Overwhelming, not overshelming.
And yet you have faith in creationism for which there is no evidence, when there is a vast amount of evidence for evolution. You seem to believe that evolution says one day a chimpanzee became a human – no, the last common ancestor was 3 million years ago and each branch has evolved. Fossils are generally not preserved so that limits the amount that will be found, but intermediary fossils do exist. Do some research – evolution is fact.
"the last common ancestor was 3 million years ago and each branch has evolved."
So you believe something that you've never observed?
We have "observed" the fossil records. DIRECT evidence. What is your evidence to support what you have NOT seen? A book???....
Paul,
DNA traces our descent back through apes, mammals in general, back to fish and further.
If you don't believe something that you've never observed – why do you believe the Genesis account of creation?
There is evidence such as Big Bang, evolution, etc. that can be observed and verified, as opposed to the myths of Bronze Age goatherders.
This is like saying–"I don't have enough faith to be a gravitationist".
Teach the controversy! Intelligent Falling 🙂
The billboard reads better this way,
To all our atheist friends:
Thank God for His creation!
Al Gore: I am here to educate you about the single biggest threat to our planet. You see, there is something out there which threatens our very existence and may be the end to the human race as we know it. I'm talking, of course, about Manbearpig. It is a creature which roams the Earth alone. It is half man, half bear, and half pig. Some people say that Manbearpig isn't real. Well , I'm here to tell you now, Manbearpig is very real, and he most certainly exists—I'm serial. Manbearpig doesn't care who you are or what you've done. Manbearpig simply wants to get you. I'm super serial. But have no fear, because I am here to save you. And someday, when the world is rid of Manbearpig, everyone will say, "Thank you Al Gore—you're super awesome!" The end.
yes...Benaitja did a good job creating everything, right?
Never trust an atom...they make up everything.
That is a bit more positive, and sounds less insecure. Although as an atheist I find myself completely untaunted by the original. Both are better than the Hellfire and condemnation present on other Christian billboards around the country. Sure–put up whatever you want.
Lol, I live near one of those in one of the most secular parts of the country. It always gets a good laugh, but is generally agreed not to be as entertaining as tthe old anti-evolution billboard.
Mark Cazrnecki's credentials are a mite questionable, my friend.
Perhaps while quote mining, you should have read the rest of the article from which the statement was taken.
He says in that same article that Darwin stated his theory relied on random genetic mutation – but genetics were discovered 50 years after Darwin's death.
Transitional fossils abound. Before it was even discovered, evolutionary biologists predicted that a creature like Tiktaalik existed and would be found. Sure enough, it was found where paleontologists from teh University of Chicago predicted.
The 5 laws of Darwinian Evolution are the basis of modern biology.
They are applied daily by countless scientists in many disparate fields.
“Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to doc.ument a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.” –
Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University
Evolutionism is not about where the evidence leads one to, it's about having "faith" in your belief.
@Frank
Darwin's law of gradualism has been amended to include the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.
Look, you have to follow where the evidence leads you to believe, the fossil records prove evolution except where there are gaps, then you got to rely on your faith.
😉
Modern Evolutionary Synthesis does not rely exclusively on the fossil record.
The current paradigm draws together information from fields like genetics, cytology, systematics, botany, morphology, ecology and paleontology to bolster the veracity of Darwin's original postulates.
Originally put forward in the 20th Century, early applications of the theory proved that Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics were harmonious and served to solidify both fields of study.
As you can well imagine, Darwin never dreamed of the wonders that Watson and Crick would discover and what finally decoding the workings for DNA would mean – to us in the modern world, DNA genotyping has further confirmed the accuracy of evolution and demonstrates how all life on Earth shares a common genetic ancestry.
Frank, There is no evidence for creationism and a mountain of evidence for evolution. There may be some gaps in our knowledge of evolution (after all it's been happening for billions of years and we've only had knowledge of it for a few hundred years) but that is not evidence of creationism. As I said, there is no evidence for creationism and a mountain of evidence for evolution. Evolution is fact.
“I know no rigorous way to transcend the arbitrary in trying to define the permissible interval for punctuational origin. Since definitions must be theory-bound, and since the possibility of recognizing species as Darwinian individuals in macroevolution marks the major theoretical interest of punctuated equilibrium, an analogy between speciation and gestation of an organism may not be ill-conceived. As the gestation time of a human being represents 1-2 percent of an ordinary lifetime, perhaps we should permit the same general range for punctuational speciation relative to later duration in stasis. At an average species lifetime of 4 million years, a 1% criterion allows 40,000 years for speciation. We recognize that such a span of time would be viewed as gradualistic – and extremely slow-paced at that – by any conventional microevolutionary scaling in human time; and we also acknowledge that the same span represents the resolvable moment of a single bedding plane in a great majority of geological circ.umstances; then we can understand why the punctuations of punctuated equilibrium do not represent the de Vriesian saltations, but rather denote the proper scaling of ordinary speciation into geological time” (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, p. 768). S.J Gould
Say again, takes how long? A few nanoseconds, before it becomes non observable, eh? 😉
HINT:
Evolutionary Biologists don't use the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution.
It's akin to calling a raindrop "micro moisture" and an ocean "macro moisture".
Matters of degree, not principle.
The terms were made up by Creationists who found themselves backed into a corner in which they could no longer deny the reality of evolutionary changes and had to find some new means of doublethink.
Frank, Are you saying that an apparent gap in our knowledge of evolution is evidence that the creationist story inherited from ignorant Bronze Age Middle-Eastern goatherders is correct. If so I think you need remedial science, logic, and reasoning.
Wow Frank. I haven't read that much stupidity in quite a while. Thanks again, for helping convince people everywhere that creationists are idiots. You are doing the atheists work for them and don't even realize it. The planet must be freed from illogical fanatical religious beliefs. Thanks for your help in this endevour with your denial of proven science. You can't tell science it is wrong without evidence of your side, and quite FRANKly, there is none. Just you denying science like a complete ignoramus.
For people like Frank a new fossil doesn't fill in a gap it just creates two new gaps for him to complain about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTOla3TyfqQ
Frank is the ape professor in this clip.
False. There have been hundreds of intermediary fossils found.
Frank's quote mines confuse me. He starts with a reliance on classical gradualistic Darwinism then quotes Gould explaining PE. Gould's quote properly addresses the issue as one of scaling, both in time and the relevant biological taxonomic level. Nonetheless, Gould himself noted that although the fossil record is dominated by PE, there are clear examples of classical gradualism (e.g. the Foraminifera). As for "faith," well, as Doc pointed out, this is the same tired false equivalence trying to project and conflate the theist's "faith" (i.e. absent supporting empirical physical evidence) with the known mechanisms underlying observed speciation events in extant forms.
Frank, Great points proving, fossil record does not show a gradual evolution and therefore does not provide evidence for evolution,paucity of fossil record that show gaps in just about every phyletic series and
Gould's PE is a classic example of how the though process on evolution has evolved from there are plenty of transitional fossil records to prove evolution to the current claim that one cannot expect to find transitional because the time frame from initial niche variance to optimized, long-term stasis would be very short in evolutionary terms.
Problem just about every corner in the theory of evolution, when challenged by intelligent minds the theory stands very little chance in the long run given the gaps in the record.
@Handel T – Apparently, you failed to appreciate the notion of scaling, i.e. we don't (generally) see smooth transitions between species, but the progressive order of the fossil record, replete with intermediate/transitional forms is clearly observable at higher taxonomic levels. But don't take my word for it, here's creationist Kurt Wise:
"Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation – of stratomorphic intermediate species – include such species as Baragwanathia (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation – of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates – has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation – of stratomorphic series – has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series, the tetrapod series, the whale series, the various mammal series of the Cenozoic (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the t-itanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series, and the hominid series. Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds."
Still, feel free to explain the progressive order of the fossil record, i.e. first fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then birds . . .
The problem lies with how people define "transitional" and "intermediary" species. People expect a common ancestor to be similar to an exact 50/50 mix of the 2 species, but that's not how evolution works in the slightest. You aren't going to find a half man half ape as the common ancestor for man and ape. It will be something different. Evolution isn't a linear process. An ancient ape like ancestor could have gone one way, then another, then another and then back to the first direction many times. It all depends on the environment. The speed also is never constant. An environment could be ideal for a certain organism for millions of years, so you won't see any big change other than the slight genetic drift, but then suddenly it drastically changes and the creature will appear to go through a quicker accelerated evolution. Such is the case with the Cambrian explosion and the emergence of mammals after the Triassic extinction.
"I would suggest, if they're actually trying to attract atheists, they should talk about proof and reason to believe in their god, not just some pithy play on words," Silverman said.
Abortion MUST immediately be Aborted.
Anyone who spares a Life
it shall be as if he/she spared the lives of all the people! (The Testament)
And here is The Ultimate Proof and Reason:
http://www.holy-19-harvest.com
==UNIVERSAL MAGNIFICENT MIRACLES
Hi Good News
Can you answer the questions from redoza below, seems like paul does not want to.
GOOD NEWS,
The Bible NEVER mentions abortion, but actually offers more in support of it than against it.
A person has to be really ignorant to deny evolution in 2013! Even very religious people have to understand that most sacred books are just ancient myths, and the most important part of a religion is not the "bible", but its doctrine.
Religious people read the bible and other sacred books in a literal manner, are always wrong. The biblical genesis describe the evolution process, if the reader change days for eras, Even Pope John Paul II recognized the reality of evolution. He even said that human beings are the result of evolution, but the initial spark of life was given by god. He recognized the earth real age, (not 10 000 yrs).
The Mayan Popul Vu (Mayan bible), describe that before the modern human beings, there were people that were similar in some ways to monkeys..
I mean...Christians are never under the scalpel of ruthless new-atheism attacks...
btneumann,
Atheists aren't the ones trying to deny equal rights for everyone or calling doctors "murderers" for performing LEGAL operations.
Do you think that just because something is legal it makes something right? If you do, you have a pretty sad system of ethics.
How do you determine right from wrong, Observer?
Paul
"How do you determine right from wrong, Observer?"
Society has determined the current morals before we were born. I try to determine right from wrong by using every bit of my knowledge to evaluate the effects of my actions on society and myself and try to maximize the benefits to both.
Morals certainly aren't set by God since everyone can find "immoral" commands in the Bible.
No, just because something is legal is it necessarily right, but the current law allows abortions and doctors shouldn't fear for their lives doing what they are trained for and is legal. If you don't like a law, the right thing to do is get the law changed, not take the law into your own hands. That being said, if believers really wanted to do something almost immediately with no change in the law, they would simply stop having abortions. That alone would eliminate 70+% of the abortions performed in the USA each year.
Paul enjoys applying the Socratic Method in his Belief Blog responses (no doubt the product of his particular education), yet, when presented with two very straight forward questions, he has repeatedly refused to respond. I've already conceded that I could be wrong with respect to evolution and the existence of the God of the Bible. Again, my questions are:
1) Is there any evidence which could convince you that evolution (i.e. common descent, humans from non-human ancestors, etc) is true?
and;
2) Is it possible that the God of Bible doesn't actually exist?
Why, pray tell, would these questions present such an obstacle to an honest seeker? Given Paul's expressed love of logic, his arguments against evolution based on alleged evidentiary deficiencies, and the deep intellectual integrity and humility that must invariably accompany such clearly well-reasoned faith, truly, his reluctance to respond is a mystery.
I only wish he would enlighten me, even if this requires my confronting some cognitive dissonance I may be struggling with in my attempt to protect my fragile "worldview." Perhaps he's selflessly sparing me with his silence . . .
Paul seems typical of many Christians. They tell everyone how they should live their lives. They claim they have all the answers, but hypocritically run away if you ask them questions.
My good Observer, let's not be too hasty. I'm sure Paul has legitimate reasons for his reluctance to respond. As for myself, I'm certain that, because we lack his impenetrable faith, he "knows" something we don't 🙂
redzoa
"My good Observer, let's not be too hasty. I'm sure Paul has legitimate reasons for his reluctance to respond."
My comments were not based on this thread, but rather his history and the history of other Christians on here. I have yet to find a Christian on here who will respond to ALL the tough questions. They either bail out or constantly avoid the question by pretending it was something else being asked.
And others answer but "speak in tongues" which may be understandable by them, but for which I, at least, need help to understand and reach their level of enlightenment.
Certainly not, Paul. Christianity is legal and it is certainly wrong. That's why people are protesting it and speaking out for all the innocent folks murdered in god's name.
@Logical default
"Certainly not, Paul. Christianity is legal and it is certainly wrong. That's why people are protesting it and speaking out for all the innocent folks murdered in god's name."
So you believe in objective moral values, right? Otherwise you couldn't be certain if something was certainly wrong. How do you determine right from wrong?
What do you think about all the people that have been murdered in the name of science?
@Paul – Again,
1) Is there any evidence which could convince you that evolution (i.e. common descent, humans from non-human ancestors, etc) is true?
and;
2) Is it possible that the God of Bible doesn't actually exist?
I'm not talking morally wrong. I'm saying it's logically wrong and doesn't make the least bit of sense. So Jesus wants people to pretend to eat his body and drink his blood in a cannibalistic cult like ritual in order to stay faithful and get to heaven? Really?
Dear god, protect me from your followers.
Fair play it seems.
Christianity: An alternative to cannibalism!
People in stone houses shouldn't throw pieces of them at glass illusions.