 |
|
|
|
|
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.  |
|
|
|
This is petty from both sides, but more so from Christians. You are commanded to turn the other cheek, not to retaliate – even verbally. I guarantee you this billboard and it's pathetic quip have not changed the heart of any atheist, but I would bet it has turned a few people even further away. You are not doing God's work with this message.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYfnjDykI74#t=2
It's funny that Atheists don't seem to consider that people of faith have logical, intelligent minds also. We know that God isn't sitting on a throne at the Capitol and didn't place an obelisk claiming ownership of thr universe somewhere.
We can see what you're thinking and it's limitations. We've moved beyond that paper bag you're stuck in.
I guess you could say we have evolved:-)
"We can see what you're thinking and it's limitations."
what limitations? i see none.
religion places limits on humans, by humans and not for human benefit.
Exactly, you see none.
Plenty of believers have intelligent rational minds. Unfortunately they are over shadowed by the fundamentalists who believe YEC and all sorts of nonsense while at the same time denying science and trying to force their views into laws and schools. This is what atheists are fighting against, not simply the right to believe in god. Faith is faith, nothing wrong with it, but science is based on evidence and fundamentalism is a dangerous mentality in any religion or belief system. Atheists simply want to be heard. This society has been dominated by the religious for thousands of years where atheists were oppressed. Now they are speaking out. It's not as big a deal as most people think. For every atheist billboard there are tens of thousands of Christian ones.
Fair enough Xtian. But I kindly ask other atheists not to insult my beliefs by calling them fairytales or claiming believers are dumb to believe, etc, etc. If you doubt that happens, just browse this thread, there are enough examples.
Generally speaking, the responses like that are aimed toward the fundamentalists and those that deny science and insult atheists or wrongly claim that their religion is fact. It goes both ways. If atheists weren't constantly belittled, or threatened with hell fire, they wouldn't be so defensive. If somebody promotes willful ignorance and lies, they deserve to be ridiculed. People are referring to fairytales because some folks believe the bible is 100% literal, which is an absurd notion. AIG (the sponsor of the billboard) supports these literal YEC views of the bible, which is why atheists are so adamant about calling out their BS. They are not only attacking a vital pillar of our modern society (science), they are self righteous and think their way is the ONLY way. This is why atheists are so quick to attack. They are vastly outnumbered and probably have been surrounded by religious folks their entire life.
"But I kindly ask other atheists not to insult my beliefs by calling them fairytales or claiming believers are dumb to believe, etc, etc. If you doubt that happens, just browse this thread, there are enough examples."
Let's talk about this, and show you what's wrong with your original claim about many believers being intelligent and rational.
This, along with all of the other VERY common assertions by theists, is OBVIOUSLY flawed. I continue to be fascinated by the inability of the supposed intelligent & rational theists to see it!
It doesn't matter in the least how intelligent you are if you defend a belief for which there is no evidence! Every argument in defense of gods fails, and this is demonstrated every time one of you attempts one.
Granted, some are much sillier than others, but ALL of them fail. And the reason for the insults you hear is that these failed arguments are repeated >constantly<, as if no one was aware that they'd been solidly refuted. (Also, keep in mind we'd have to put in a lot of overtime for the next several years to catch up to the insults theists have hurled at atheists for so long.)
Now, a good number of theists are simply unable to recognize poor arguments, as is regularly shown here; atheists bat theist arguments around like giants swatting at gnats. Is it any wonder that we get exasperated at the ignorance, the obtuseness, & unwillingness to actually think about how absurd your claims are!?
The bottom line is, theists have no good reasons for belief, whether they think themselves "rational" or not. Intelligent people are just as capable of self-deception due to emotional needs as anyone else.
Seriously, chikkipop, you seem to have delusions about your superior intelligence and atheists ability to swat the theist ideas like flies. Billions of people are all deluded because you disagree/ that's not even scientific.You marvel at your hero Dawkins , but I find him bitter, obsessed and foolish. Not at all impressive.
You are like a deaf person, who hearing no sound, is certain sound does not exist.
Right on cue, just as I said!
Shall we count the standard-issue theist "reasoning" in this one? I won't offer the easy rebuttals they call for, but I will say, if you objected to my calling the rebutting of theist's arguments like swatting gnats, you should not have replied by sending more gnats!
"you seem to have delusions about your superior intelligence "
That one. Again.
"Billions of people are all deluded because you disagree..."
That one. Again.
"You marvel at your hero Dawkins"
That one. Again.
"I find him bitter,....."
That one. Again.
"You are like a deaf person, who hearing no sound, is certain sound does not exist."
That one. Again.
You have demonstrated exactly what I said in my comment above. You can't take the time to learn how utterly weak your comments are, and this is why you repeat them. Then, you wonder why people get contemptuous!?
Please consider a course in critical thinking. It would do you some good.
Wait a second, Virgil, weren't you JUST talking about how atheists shouldn't insult believers, but here you are insulting atheists.
Young Earth Creationism is demonstrably false. Yes, that idea has been debunked over and over and over again, it does not hold up to any type of science or scrutiny whatsoever. People aren't attacking your faith, they are attacking blatantly false lies being spread based on religion, like the idea that man and dinosaur walked the earth together or that there is evidence for god.
Wow, chikkipop, you really swatted me again. I'm starting to get the sense that some atheists have filled their need for place in the universe with an unwarranted impression of themselves as superior intellects. Must be comforting. But sad.
Bzzzzzzzz......
SWAT.
Superior!
Feel better? Have a place in the vast empty cosmos gnat swatter? Thought so
Feel better!?
I didn't feel bad in the first place!
The "vast empty cosmos" is your problem, judging by the lengths you go to self-delude.
I kinda like it, though I wouldn't be so sure it was empty.
Virgil,
It is indeed true that we could all be a bit more civil to each other on Internet blogs. There's no doubt about that. In my entire 50 years I have never seen people treat each other in a more shoddy way than in this type of forum.
I want to point out that this door swings both ways. We tend to not see it as much when it's not aimed at us. Have you paid attention to Salero's rantings?
Furthermore, I think the folks on here who are discussing religion are far more civil that the political blogs. Holy Guacamole–you want to see some vitriol? Whewee–the political realm is absolutely toxic in this day and age. I think both you and us have a long way to go before we're that bad. Let's try to keep from getting that bad.
Also, there's something else going on here. Imagine a group of people who insist that Superman is an actual real person. Do you think this might provoke some ridicule? This is why you may see remarks like "invisible sky fairy"–many of us find the idea of God patently absurd. We do not feel the need to be "respectful" toward bad ideas.
I think a limited amount of ridicule is okay if it's confined strictly to THE IDEA, and is not directed at individual people themselves. Also, I think it should be confined mainly to those who are themselves not exactly civil.
If you see me being disrespectful toward a PERSON, tell me. If I agree, and the person was being civil, then I may apologize. I will never apologize for being disrespectful toward a bad IDEA though.
Thanks
There is so much wrong with this post it's not even funny. It literally makes no sense. You think you're intelligent because you know God doesn't live in the capitol with an obelisk to own the universe? Are you trying to connect Obama as being an atheist's god or am I just trying too hard to find reasoning in your stupidity?
You have not evolved, sadly.
Ok Brian. Nope, no Obama reference. Otber than that I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Guess I'm not as evolved as you. Pfffft
"We can see what you're thinking and it's limitations. We've moved beyond that paper bag you're stuck in."
Really? What am I thinking now? How about now? Now? And now? What about now?
What an arrogant ass you are.
Touched a nerve? Sheesh, what I was merely trying to say was that we get where you are coming from but find it a limited outlook.
LOL, no, you fool. But what do you expect when you tell someone "I know what you think and it's wrong?" You have no idea what anyone thinks but yourself.
Ok, let me see if I can get this through your thick head. I understand Atheism because I see the same evidence atheists do. Ergo, I know what they're thinking.
And scientifically, I can confirm my belief because they spew those thoughts incessantly.
"I understand Atheism because I see the same evidence atheists do. Ergo, I know what they're thinking."
That is just hilarious!
Do you understand botany because you see the same evidence they do? How about chemistry, geology, endocrinology, nucleonics, or oceanography?
It isn't a matter of seeing the same evidence; it's a matter of knowing how to think about things, & understanding the difference between a poorly reasoned view and a well-supported one.
If you understood what atheists were >actually< thinking, you wouldn't say the comical things you say!
This is the point - theism would be reduced to a small cult tomorrow if all of the gullible were to disappear, leaving only the more thoughtful but emotionally needy types, who recognize how bad their arguments are, but cannot bring themselves to let go.
Which is worse? Those who know better, or those so gullible as to believe absurd stories they should long ago have outgrown?
Okay let me try to get this through your thick head. You have no idea what anyone thinks but you.
Specifically what limits? Atheists see no evidence for a god and many fields of science have given us knowledge that is contrary to the creation myths of all religions. What science, logic, or reasoning do you have that provides evidence of a god.
"It's funny that Atheists don't seem to consider that people of faith have logical, intelligent minds also."
Vmoore–you have misjudged us. It's not that we don't think you have logical, intelligent minds, it's just that you suspend your logic and intelligence when it comes to your religious beliefs. This is what you do when you say "I have faith" when someone asks you for evidence.
"We can see what you're thinking and it's limitations. We've moved beyond that paper bag you're stuck in."
If we are stuck in a bag–it's a bag called "logic and evidence". Has it occurred to you that you are in a bag also? It's called "faith", and it's impervious to any evidence that might pierce a hole in that bag.
As far as living
"Athiest" is another masking word for Zionist Jews. This is yet ANOTHER attack on Christianity, by Jews. Stop TOLERATING their monstrous behavior, Christians!
Ok, what??? It wasn't the Jews ok, it was all of humanity, leave them alone already Mel.
Tonight on 'Trolling with Racists', Denise spews pointless vitriol in an attempt at race baiting.
She is currently in the running for ti/tle of "Master Baiter".
So Jews are atheists now, even though they believe in the same god?
What in the world...?
The USA god apparently needs a ton of wealthy church leaders, TV and radio shows, dozens of different versions of a bible, and missionaries upm the wazoo, all to spread "the word" only among about 10% of the world's population.
Yet the same god managed to cook up essage rainbows, to everyone, everywhere, all on his own. . . . .
Typo:
make that "message" rainbows
I bet you like Rainbows, don't you?
Nothing says, "I love you" better than a nice happy rainbow after god drowned the entire world in a flood. 😆
yeah, yeah, just remember God knew the alternative was worse. We will next complain about God's fire and brimstone and turn around and nuke ourselves out of existence!
The majority musta claimed superior swimming ability.
"yeah, yeah, just remember God knew the alternative was worse."
You mean there's something worse than drowning every living thing because you created it wrong?
Virgil,
If we nuke ourselves out of existence, it will at least be over with pretty quickly. The fires will come, many people will die instantly, some will die of terrible lingering deaths. Horrible.
But better by far, than Hell. In Hell, described as "unquenchable fire" by Jesus, and a "lake of burning fire" elsewhere in the NT, the burning doesn't stop. It goes on and on forever and ever and ever, for all eternity. And based on some passages in the NT, and also what Christians constantly claim, the sure ticket to Hell is to not believe. Anything else, even mass murder, is forgivable through Jesus.
I think, if forced to choose, I would take the nuclear fires.
When atheists redicule "personal experience" as proof for God's existence, I have to wonder how they manage to live their own lives. Another term for "personal experience" is "subjective experience". All human experience has a "subjective" component. Its hard wired into us. When the atheist dismisses "personal" or "subjective" experience, he assassinates a large part of his own humanity and remakes himself into nothing more than an instrument whose only use is making observations.
Interesting. I know of Hindus, Muslims, Australian Aboriginals and Buddhists who claim personal experiences with their own gods, ghosts and spirits. I guess they all exist then, hey? Christians do not have a monopoly on personal experiences. I also know people who claim personal experiences with dead relatives, ghosts, UFO aliens etc. I suppose all these characters thereby exist too.
Nice try....
I had a big orange Manx cat that I called the manxman. He was a great cat. It makes me sad that his name is being used by a person who does not recognize how easily human emotions can be manipulated by events or individuals.
I can understand affection for a pet cat. Is love and affection valid? After all, love and affection are subjective. I don't think you can put such things into a test tube.
Affection between humans and animals is observable and tangible. I wouldn't pretend to know the motive of the animal, but I suspect it has something to do with the survival instinct, or in the case of dogs, pack mentality.
Religious experiences are, as far as I can tell, personal and emotional. Thus, any evidence is strictly anecdotal. Chemical reactions in the brain can be monitored in a lab setting and responses to outside stimuli can be recorded. It has been discovered that religious ceremony can create endorphins. Endorphins produce a sense of well being and euphoria, which sounds oddly like the feelings described by believers when they speak of their religious experiences.
Manx,
So would you accept "personal experience" is preferred instead of hard evidence? How about in a murder trial? Is it okay to just say "I know because of personal experience" and allow that to trump hard physical evidence? How about if I told you about the invisible dragon in my garage that is incorporeal? I'll just say I know it's there because of "personal experience". No evidence required.
You see, for some claims, "personal experience" is valid. When you are making a claim about how you feel about something–I'll accept "personal experience"–or a claim that is specific only to you, and is not valid to anyone else. But this is not what believers claim about God.
It is claimed that God is objectively real. He creates morality, watches us, has a plan for us, is all-powerful, we should all believe and worship him. He is this, he is that, he knows this, he won't do that, and on and on. And oh by the way–you will burn in an "unquenchable fire" forever if you "reject" god and don't believe. Oh–and I know this based on "personal experience." These are huge sweeping claims.
Can you not see how this is in an entirely different category from "I love my cat"?
^Exactly. It's the self righteous att_itude that turns people off to religion. People keep stating it as fact when it's not. They try to find excuses to claim that their faith is not faith. Most theists don't have this att_itude, it's just the fundamentalists giving everyone else a bad name. Most people can admit their religion is faith based, but some people are just so emotionally invested the thought that there is no proof of god or anything in their religion frightens them. When you take an ancient myth as literal truth that's what is going to happen. I mean why don't people hold the same absolute truth mentality when referencing the Egyptian or Greek gods? Why don't they believe that Egyptian mythology is the absolute literal word of Horus? Basically they are stuck in a box and can't even consider thinking outside of it. Honestly, fundamentalism boils down to poor parenting and nothing more. Jesus taught to treat everyone equally and show empathy, even for your enemies, yet 90% of these so called literalists don't even follow that.
^Exactly. It's the self righteous mentality that turns people off to religion. People keep stating it as fact when it's not. They try to find excuses to justify their faith, but hard evidence does not exist. Most theists don't have this mentality, it's just the fundamentalists giving everyone else a bad name. Most people can admit their religion is faith based, but some people are just so emotionally invested the thought that there is no proof of god or anything in their religion frightens them. When you take an ancient myth as literal truth that's what is going to happen. I mean why don't people hold the same absolute truth mentality when referencing the Egyptian or Greek gods? Why don't they believe that Egyptian mythology is the absolute literal word of Horus? Basically they are stuck in a box and can't even consider thinking outside of it. Honestly, fundamentalism boils down to poor parenting and nothing more. Jesus taught people to treat everyone equally and show empathy, even for your enemies, yet most of these so called literalists don't even follow that.
Arg, sorry about the double post. I thought it didn't go through so I reworded it a bit and didn't realize it actually did.
Such experiences are dismissed becuase subjective divine, psychic experiences are as unquantifiable and undemonstrable as a schizophrenic hallucination, and yet some believers want to offer them as tangible proof of the truth of their beliefs.
Religion is an ultimately unprovable hypothesis by its very belief-based nature. Religion is a belief, and belief is inside our heads. Subjectivity is special, but it is not separable from objectivity without creating a serious problem.
The people with the need to prove their belief these are the ones who leave behind them warped school systems and thwarted arts and science funding.
The world doesn't work how we want it to work. The world is. We can only describe it, and chronicle its workings. God is an explanation for the reason behind the Universe's existence, something which is unknowable and has no relation to what happens in the Universe.
A take "personal experience" as proof of anything as seriously as a court of law does.
What about personal experience with UFOs, aliens, bigfoot, Lochness monster, astral projection, remote viewing etc etc? Are you trying to tell me those all count as evidence for the suggested phenomena? The problem is that humans lie and most do it constantly. There's no way to tell whether people lie, have mental issues, or hallucinated the experiences. Human experience is simply not a realistic form of evidence because it cannot be verified. Muslims, Jews, Christians pretty much all religions have people that claim divine experiences. Which one is right?
As long as atheists polemics are focused against the book of Genesis, they'll never ask the important questions. They are against Intelligent Design. I never hear them ask where intelligence itself come from. Blind, stupid, evolution can't produce intelligence no matter how much time you give it. It takes intelligence to produce intelligence. Intelligence behind nature is one issue. Intelligence behind intelligence is another. It seems that intelligence and consiousness must have come from above, not below, ourselves. How did mechanistic evolution, left to its own devices, ever produce a being like humans. Meaning, for example, is not found under a microscope. Yet the need for meaning is hardwired into humans and has been for a very long time. How did this happen? The need for meaning is a particular problem for atheists.
Like all humans, the need and desire for meaning is built into the atheists. But while the atheist's brain tells him that there is no meaning, his very nature demands meaning. His thoughts oppose his very nature. No wonder he is angry.
It boggles me how it seems the only argument to ever get thrown at atheists is the creation vs evolution one.
Atheists do not have a dogma, no doctrine. Beyond not believing there is a god, they may have nothing in common, including what they believe about how we came to be.
If intelligence can only come from intelligence as you are claiming, where did the first intelligence come from? You can not argue that it simply existed without negating your premise.
@myweightinwords "If intelligence can only come from intelligence as you are claiming, where did the first intelligence come from? You can not argue that it simply existed without negating your premise." When you argue this way, you are projecting youself and your assumptions onto the universe. The god proposed by the great religions is outside our constraints. People like Richard Dawkins will redicule all the various gods though history. A person who actually understands religous thought, however, would say: it is blasphemous to say that "there are many gods", or "there is only one god". God is not a material object and so is beyond numbering of any kind. When an atheist rejects God, he is usually rejecting only his own projection onto the cosmos.
I believe the question back to you was: if intelligence can only come from intelligence, what produced the first intelligence? I don't see any actual response, though I'd bet any you offered would involve an argument by definitional fiat. As it stands, the premise you based your prior argument upon is unsupported . . .
The original intelligence, God, did not need to be created, He is not a thing. He obviously would be 'self generating', it's a God thing.
"The original intelligence, God, did not need to be created, He is not a thing. He obviously would be 'self generating', it's a God thing." – Which is, of course, a pure argument by definitional fiat; special pleading to excuse the preferred "intelligence" from the premise that all intelligence must come from pre-existing intelligence.
"When you argue this way, you are projecting youself and your assumptions onto the universe."
What assumptions have I made? I was simply following your premise.
"The god proposed by the great religions is outside our constraints'
The various gods presented by the religions of the world, large and small are all constrained by the fact that they were made to reflect those who created them. We can not fathom that which is outside of our existence, outside the constraints of who we are.
" People like Richard Dawkins will redicule all the various gods though history. A person who actually understands religous thought, however, would say: it is blasphemous to say that “there are many gods”, or “there is only one god”. God is not a material object and so is beyond numbering of any kind."
What you are arguing is philosophy, not religion.
When an atheist rejects God, he is usually rejecting only his own projection onto the cosmos.
Likewise, when a theist believes in god, it is only ever the god of his own projection.
vmoore,
The original poster said “It takes intelligence to produce intelligence.”
You, on the other hand argue, “The original intelligence, God, did not need to be created, He is not a thing. He obviously would be 'self generating', it's a God thing.”
Clearly both can not be true. This was my point.
"The original intelligence, God, did not need to be created, He is not a thing. He obviously would be 'self generating', it's a God thing."
So you believe that humans are things? How is something self generating? Please explain how something could create itself.
Yeah Redzoa, a pure definitional fiat. Actually it's logical, the supernatural does not need to be created like the natural. If you're looking for a lab experiment I guess you'll be disappointed.
But, on the other hand, you apparently have no trouble accepting that the entire universe can sit idly by in a nonexistent space until a quantum fluctuation awakens it from its slumber. No doubt at the same time the perfect multiverse that contains the minute likelihood of having the perfect conditions necessary for intelligent life to form by chance bubbles along.
Yep, Piccolo humans are things, subject to the laws of physics, made from flesh and blood from elements cooked in the stars. God has gifted us a soul in my belief, but that is in addition to the body.
And God did not create himself, He is not a thing. How He came to be is a mystery. Not sure if "I am, that I am" is a biblical quote or just from the movie, but that is as much explanation as I've seen. But I don't see a problem with the possibility once you think outside of the limits of laws He created for His creation.
I understand that that is your belief, but it makes no sense. You said that the original intelligence did not have to be created. Why? Why did it not have to be created, yet all other intelligence requires creation? It's a self refuting argument. Anyways, technically humans are not things, they are biological intelligent beings. If you are suggesting a being outside of the natural universe exists, the burden of prove is on you to show the evidence for god OR even that god COULD exist. You are suggesting an eternal being, existing outside of the universe, who is all powerful, but no evidence at all suggests those qualities are even remotely possible. Yes, it's faith, but yes, there is no evidence at all and the argument that intelligence must come from intelligence is illogical.
@vmoore – whatever I think or don't think about the possibility/probability of those scenarios is immaterial to the continuing fact that the premise remains unsupported, i.e. excusing a preferred "intelligence" from the premise that "all intelligence must come from prior intelligence" by defining a preferred intelligence as somehow beyond the confines of the premise is the very definition of special pleading.
"Actually it's logical, the supernatural does not need to be created like the natural. If you're looking for a lab experiment I guess you'll be disappointed."
Thank you for this amusing mash-up. By your reasoning, anything is "logical" if only we assign it to the category of supernatural (which is, as you appear to readily concede, conveniently beyond any actual validation). I think you're conflating "logical" with "what I desperately hope is true." Well, perhaps I should at least be thankful you didn't drop a Pascal's Wager in there too . . .
Energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only change forms. This basic principle explains big bang, emergence of galaxies, solar systems, comets, amino acids, abiogenesis, RNA evolving into DNA, and modern evolutionary synthesis in one big package. It's simple, yet effective. It also goes against the idea of a universal creator. The universe is constantly changing. Changes add up over billions of years. We can measure up to the big bang, but before that we simply cannot determine how long it took to even get to that point. 1 year? 1 trillion years? I'd be lying if I told you I knew the answer as to what happened prior to the expansion. So would anybody else that claims they know. Creationists most often deny that they do not know the answer for sure. Faith by definition means you do not know for sure, but people won't admit it!
@Piccolo
"I understand that that is your belief, but it makes no sense. You said that the original intelligence did not have to be created. Why? Why did it not have to be created, yet all other intelligence requires creation?"
Because it's impossible for there to be an infinite number of past events. Something has to be the thing from which everything else comes. A first cause. A Prime Mover. The logic makes perfect sense.
1. Whatever begins to exist, must have a cause.
2. The universe exists.
3. The universe has a cause.
But atheists always ask: Then who created God. But read premise 1 closely. Whatever BEGINS TO EXIST, must have a cause. Since God is the Prime Mover, the thing from which everything else comes, He doesn't need a cause. He exists by the necessity of His own nature. The universe doesn't exist by the necessity of its own nature, so it requires a causal explanation.
@Paul – You're simply engaged in the same special pleading by defining your preferred cause (absent any support) outside the scope of your premise. It's the functional equivalent of a front-loaded true scotsman fallacy. Given your purported love of logic, one might think you'd appreciate this . . .
@Paul – "Because it's impossible for there to be an infinite number of past events." At what number of events is it "impossible" to have a preceding event? You keep stating this, but you never respond . . . Shocking, to say the least . . .
@redzoa,
google "Hilbert's Hotel"
Yes, I saw your youtube post before. You didn't answer this question then either (again, shocking). At what number of events can there be no preceding event?
Paul,
Logical inference does not work like that. #1 is a statement that requires full knowledge of all things that exist. It is not a verified statement, and science cannot verify anything prior to big bang, therefor it negates your conclusion. You cannot prove the universe began. If you agree that it has to come back to a prime mover, then how did they get there? Where did THAT intelligence come from? You saying that the universe HAS to have a beginning is the same as someone else saying that god HAS to have a beginning. If intelligence only comes from intelligence, then where did it first come from? Again, it negates your premise because if that were true, obviously the intelligence that is god did not come from intelligence. You are just playing word games. I've seen it a million times. Try using actual evidence instead of this subjective philosophy and extremely poor use of logic. Why the need to prove a belief? Isn't it faith based?
"Whatever BEGINS TO EXIST, must have a cause. Since God is the Prime Mover, the thing from which everything else comes, He doesn't need a cause. He exists by the necessity of His own nature. The universe doesn't exist by the necessity of its own nature, so it requires a causal explanation."
Well then it's not true that all intelligence must come from intelligence. But again, you still need an explanation. How does something exist out of the necessity of its own nature? How can you prove the universe began? How can you definitively even say that god exists? Sorry Paul, you can't prove a single thing you've said. It's all just guesses and speculations.
Evolutionary Neuriscience is still in its infancy as a scientific discipline, but great strides are being taken in understanding the development of cognition.
You can pick up a textbook from MIT ti.tled "Evolutionary Cognitive Neuroscience" if you're interested in learning current theories.
So, let me get your logic straight. You honestly believe that you have scientific proof that the most widely accepted explanation for biological diversity in the World, which is supported by overwhelming evidence in the Worldwide fossil record, completely independently verified and validated by genetic mapping and taught in every college and University in the World – is wrong.
The greatest, most esteemed biologists in the World have been wrong for the last 160 years and the true, correct explanation for biological diversity can be found in a late Bronze Age book of Jewish mythology.
You honestly believe this?
Well, I would suggest that you immediately publish a scientific paper with your findings because you are certain to win a Nobel Prize. This would be the most remarkable event in recent scientific history.
I did not express my opinion about evolution. You have imposed your conclusions onto my thoughts. Please try to be more........scientific.
Manxmen in glass houses, shouldn't stow thrones.
Would you like to share your opinion on evolution?
"I did not express my opinion about evolution."
Manx: " Blind, stupid, evolution can't produce intelligence no matter how much time you give it."
That sounds like an opinion on evolution to me. Unfortunately you cannot prove that statement, and the fact that you call evolution "blind" even further demonstrates your lack of knowledge about evolution. If intelligence can only come from intelligence, then the first intelligence had to come from another. There is no logic whatsoever in your viewpoint.
"How did mechanistic evolution, left to its own devices, ever produce a being like humans."
Read a biology book. They explain it quite thoroughly. Dozens of human ancestors have been found dating from the past 7 million years or so. Please explain those findings.
What is "mechanistic evolution"? Evolution's mechanisms are genetic mutation and natural selection. Just because you don't fully grasp your broad generalization of evolution, doesn't make it false.
"Yet the need for meaning is hardwired into humans and has been for a very long time."
Looking for meaning is not a need, it's a want. Humans WANT meaning to their lives because it makes them feel better. Thinking that an all loving being created you is satisfying to the ego, it makes you feel special. Calling it a need is flat out false because plenty of people have survived without it.
"Like all humans, the need and desire for meaning is built into the atheists. But while the atheist's brain tells him that there is no meaning, his very nature demands meaning. His thoughts oppose his very nature. No wonder he is angry."
Not only is that a complete guess, you are definitively wrong. Atheism only means lack of belief in a god. Many atheists believe their life has meaning, it's just not related to a god. Buddhism is an atheistic world view, try to tell them that their life has no meaning and they'll probably be insulted. The fact that you pigeon hole all atheists into the same generic meaning shows your true intentions here. Stop attacking atheists and scientists. That is certainly not what Jesus would do.
The original poster is making a lot of claims based upon nothing more than his opinion. Is such arrogance a gift from god, or is this person just a Poe?
Atheists aren't angry...why would they be? Facts are representatives of truth....fact is fact. Nothing to be angry about. The only thing atheists get angry at are people who think they are "learned men" and can't string together a verified fact or arguement for their ID idea. The Universe is not a fun place to be in it's naturalness....hardly an ID. Each species EATING one another...hardly ID...wake the hell up already!....hahahah
It's comical the way they constantly paint atheists as angry god haters, when it's obvious that they are actually the angry ones. Their old archaic religion is dying a slow death. If I was emotionally invested in that faith, I'd be angry too. Not believing in your worldview doesn't mean we are angry. It means that we think your view is wrong, and in all likelihood it is, since there is zero evidence whatsoever.
@MxM: "Blind, stupid, evolution can't produce intelligence no matter how much time you give it."
well thank you for explaining where religious people come from.................THEY EVOLVED! LMAO
i really have no clue where to start to explain how ignorant that one exert from your post makes you sound. XD
Manx–I'm curious as to how you define "intelligence". Verbally you treat it as if it's black or white–you have it, or you don't.
But there are degrees of intelligence. There's the intelligence of an earthworm. Limited, but they do have a central nervous system. Can they have evolved into that maybe? How about the intelligence of a shellfish? How about a lizard? At what point is divine intervention required? When you get to primates? Or up to verterbrates or mammals? Where do you draw the line?
Your statement, that intelligence can only come from non-intelligence is an unsupported claim. Smaller things, can grow more complex and give rise to more complex forms over time. A small pebble triggered by the rains can create a much larger and more complex avalanche.
Hey Paul and fred what do you say ?
Discovery of 1.4 Million-Year-Old Fossil Human Hand Bone Closes Human Evolution Gap
Dec. 16, 2013 —
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131216154902.htm
It's a mixture of fact and speculation.
Again, feel free to explain the progressive ordering of the fossil record. Say, for instance, the progression from pre-hominid up through modern hominid forms?
Paul
You are stuck in the soup I see from your post below .
Too Funny.
Dude, it's all made up! Your faith in science shall be your downfall.
"They refuse to look at the real world.
They refuse to look at the evidence we have, and they offer none," Silverman said.
Here is The Ultimate Evidence in favor of Big bang (=Cosmic Evolution) and Biologic Evolution
for all atheists and theists alike, who sincerely seek The Truth!
http://www.holy-19-harvest.com
UNIVERSAL MAGNIFICENT MIRACLES
Hey Good News you have the same intelligence as the discovery insti-tute – they did not do well in Texas.
When Creationists Collide with Stephen Colbert | The Daily Beast
Staffers at the Discovery Insti-tute, an intelligent design think-tank in Seattle that supplied one of the Board’s expert reviewers, complained that Texas was failing to teach its kids critical thinking, and alleged that the state was suppressing scientific debate, failing to teach students “to think independently,” and making a “capitulation to dogma.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/15/when-creationists-collide-with-stephen-colbert.html
Science says the universe is flat. Heard that one before. No thanks.
Go back to school. In geometry the curvature of space can be described as flat, concave or convex. In curved space parallel lines will either converge or diverge. Since parallel lines in our universe don't exhibit this deviation we can assume that space is flat.
Exactly. The earth is flat subst*ituting earth for space. Measurement errors exist.
So basically, anything you don't fully understand in science, you instantly deny. Good to know.
It's not literally flat like a pancake. It's more like a 3D rectangle. Do a little bit of research and try actually understanding something before blindly attacking because you can envision it.
Rectangles only appear to exist and are totally theoretical.
Yep, the earth is hollow, gravity is a lie, atomic theory is just a guess, 1+1 doesn't equal 2 and the moon is made of cheese. Science is pretty much all made up on the spot!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ogXibFU88L0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxmRCV82ip4
It actually scares me that nearly half of Americans ignore science completely for tales from one book, written by men, translated by men, and supported by no other writings. And another third try to merge evolution with there childish need to 'believe'.
It's less than 1/3 now that deny science for the bible and is steadily declining.
What are your beliefs, Horus ?
"It actually scares me that nearly half of Americans ignore science..."
Not true. They understand observational science just fine. They ignore the "science" that says "milllions of years ago in the unobservalbe past, everything had a common anscestor."
I love how theist authorities pass down talking points that everyone regurgitates, no matter how dumb!
You always hear the one about how "no one was there to observe", which is utterly laughable to anyone with a basic understanding of science.
Then, of course, the long-ago observations of people, no matter how ignorant, naive or untrustworthy we know them to be, are to be trusted when they tell us stories we want to hear about miracles and magical, invisible "higher" powers. Never mind that such stories come by way of other people who wrote about the observers, and these writings came long after the observers observed, and were translated and retranslated......
Some humans will go to great lengths to protect their cherished beliefs. Fortunately, others care more about what is true.
So you don't have any counterarguments? Just your personal opinion about theists?
Counter arguments to what? You haven't present anything except a claim that creationists ignore dating science. We already know this.
And yet they believe the bible stories from unobservable past!
DNA and evolution are not unobservable in the way theists try to discredit it – we can trace back to a common ancestor.
DNA can indeed be traced back to a common ancestor. In fact, man's dna can be traced all the way back to that ONE original organism that was quite literally CREATED from the clays of the earth !
Jim, If you're referring to the Genesis account, there's no evidence of that. The DNA shows evolution through fish, mammals, apes to humans.
To Santa: Exactly ! Adam evolved from a previous hominid that evolved from a previous primate, that evolved from a previous mammal, that evolved from a previous reptile, that evolved from a previous amphibian, fish, worm, bacterium all the way back to that one original organism that was “quite literally” formed (Created) from the clays of the earth. There is no conflict with what Genesis describes.
So you consider amino acids to be "clays of the earth"?
People are not made of clay. But rna, the stuff people ARE made of, is now known to form chains in clay.
Again, Paul's distinction between "observational" and "historical" science indicates that a DNA paternity test is inherently unreliable unless directly corroborated by the technician's having also directly witnessed the act of conception. Because evolution is supported by physical evidence from every relevant scientific discipline (i.e. physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, etc, etc), creationists require the entire practice of science be fatally flawed simply because it contradicts their preferred religious belief; yet, they clearly recognize its validation in daily application. Truly "miraculous" the degree of cognitive dissonance they exhibit . . .
The progressive order of the fossil record is an acknowledged directly observable fact, even among creationist groups like ICR and AIG. Paul has been invited numerous times to explain how this progressive ordering is consistent with "flood geology," but for some reason, he invariably fails to even take a stab . . .
"Again, Paul's distinction between "observational" and "historical" science indicates that a DNA paternity test is inherently unreliable unless directly corroborated by the technician's having also directly witnessed the act of conception."
There you go making assumptions again.
"Because evolution is supported by physical evidence from every relevant scientific discipline..."
Once again, that would depend on what you mean by "evolution"
"...creationists require the entire practice of science be fatally flawed simply because it contradicts their preferred religious belief; yet, they clearly recognize its validation in daily application. Truly "miraculous" the degree of cognitive dissonance they exhibit . . . "
You still don't get it. Science is completely compatible with religious belief. There is no cognitive dissonance. The conflct lies with your interpretation of the evidence which is based on your presuppositions.
"The progressive order of the fossil record is an acknowledged directly observable fact, even among creationist groups like ICR and AIG. Paul has been invited numerous times to explain how this progressive ordering is consistent with "flood geology," but for some reason, he invariably fails to even take a stab . . ."
I would provide it, but you've already uindicated that you will automatically reject it based on the source.
@Paul – This is a non-response to: 1) the DNA paternity distinction between "observational" and "historical"; 2) evolution in the same sense I've indicated multiple, multiple times, i.e. humans from non-humans, etc; 3) the direct observation of a progressively ordered fossil record. I have previously indicated, for your benefit in constructing a response, which arguments are incompatible with the direct observations of forms with similar density, similar niches and similar geographic distributions separated by many, many layers of strata (i.e. "hydrodynamic sorting," "eco-zonation," "differential escape," "floating biomes"). Your inability to respond with a reasonable defense of these or any other creationist "model" is your own failure. Unlike yourself, if you present the argument or question, I will respond. I would, however, ask that you, Paul, actually present the argument rather than simply linking or cutting/pasting. This allows me to confirm your basic understanding of the relevant science and in turn, allows me to respond appropriately. There's little point in providing a scientific response which you are unwilling or incapable of comprehending. Let's take another look at my questions that you have continually avoided:
I concede that I could be wrong regarding evolution (humans from non-human ancestors, etc) and I concede I could be wrong regarding the existence of the biblical deity, i.e. evolution could be false and biblical deity could actually exist. (See, this is the starting point for any intellectually honest discussion).
1) Is there any evidence which could convince you that evolution is true?
2) Is it possible that the biblical deity does not actually exist?
Or, feel free to present your "flood geology" argument/evidence which accounts for the progressive ordering of the fossil record.
Yeah, sorry Paul, but that DOES count as denying science. We have measurements for determining how long something has been fossilized. If you are suggesting the methods are wrong, or isotope decay rates have changed, you need evidence of this. We have several dating methods and oddly enough each one confirms the other. If they were wrong you could expect them to all show different rates, but alas they do not.
I don't deny science. I love it. That's exactly why I believe in ID Science rather than this complete guess known as evilution.
It's no wonder that we have difficulty having citizens take issues seriously – over half of them are focused on the afterlife instead of the here-and-now.
By that reasoning, the other half is focused on imagining what happened millions of years ago in the unobservable past.
Dude! The events of the bible occurred in the unobservable past, yet you believe them blindly!
@Logical Default
I believe them, but not blindly.
Could you provide some objective examples that justify your faith logically? To say that faith is not blind, is a flat out lie. That's exactly what it means. You believe it. Some people believe the Egyptian gods instead. Heck, there is the same amount of evidence of them as there is for the Christian god. There are just ancient stories. We don't have a clue what's eyewitness and what's not. None of it is verified.
I'm yet to see a part of the Bible that instructs people how to conduct themselves well in the afterlife.
The Scriptures said so! More than 2,500 years ago it was written that atheism is Total Stupidity all over, here there anywhere everywhere, anytime all the time every single time and forevermore.
It was written that long ago!??
OK.
You got us.
It must be true.....
I'm....soooooo...embarrassed....
Could you post a quote?
Psalm 14:1a The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."...
Psalm 53:1a The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God,"...
So the bible tells you that you're a fool not to believe in the bible?
Seems legit.
Oddly enough it also says in Psalms not to put your confidence in man and to trust god. But funny enough, this guy is putting his absolute trust in man who wrote the bible that says within itself that it's true! You are trusting man and not god!
It was written that Salero21 is Total Stupidity all over, here there anywhere everywhere, anytime all the time every single time and forevermore.
Preach on, brother! There is infinitely more evidence for god than not god. These atheists are total losers always posting their so called facts and evidence! LOLZ
A curse on both their houses - they make a joke of belief AND of non- belief.
Nothing wrong with pointing out how bad an idea is.
If your beliefs can't stand up to scrutiny, why would you hold on to them?
"If your beliefs can't stand up to scrutiny, why would you hold on to them?"
That's exactly why I reject primordial soup-to-people evolution.
Ok, let's move forward in time beyond abiogenesis or the "primordial soup" stage. The fossil record clearly shows a progressive ordering or pro-hominid through modern hominid forms. How did this progressive ordering take place? What is the morphological characteristic which provides the dividing line between "actual" humans and "non-humans"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
Again, for your benefit in constructing a response, cranial capacity won't fly . . .
Oops. "progressive ordering of 'pre-hominid' through modern hominid forms."
Paul,
At least be honest–okay? You don't reject evolution because it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You reject it because it suggests your Bible and your religion is probably wrong. Evolution demonstrates that the Biblical account of creation is not correct. This is the real reason why Christians have a hard time accepting evolution.
Some Christians try to accept both Creation and Evolution using the grease of calling Genesis "metaphorical" or "what is a day to God", but this is an uncomfortable fit at best.
If this were about beliefs "standing up to scrutiny", you would believe evolution and reject the God claim. Evolution has massive evidence that can be observed, tested, verified. God has none beyond an ancient book and the "personal experience" of believers.
Paul is intellectually dishonest. He keeps rehashing the same arguments over and over again, even though people have presented plenty of counterpoints and debunked them all. He's just regurgitating what is on the AIG website. No scrutiny is involved in his view whatsoever. He reads the bible, he believes it, it's automatically true. He reads the AIG website, believes it and it's automatically true. He won't listen to opposing viewpoints, scientific research or counterpoints. To him blind faith trumps scientific research. He keeps saying stuff like "Oh yeah, it depends on your definition of evolution" or "it depends on how you interpret the evidence". NO. Scientific evidence is not subjective and up for interpretation. It proves things. I find it even funnier that he accused somebody on this page of not providing any counter argument, when his entire premise is based on deflecting and ignoring counterpoints. Come on, Paul. At least be honest. Denial isn't a valid form of debate.
@Dandintac
"At least be honest–okay? You don't reject evolution because it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You reject it because it suggests your Bible and your religion is probably wrong."
I'll be honest: I reject primordial soup to people evolution because it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It's never been observed which violates the scientific method.
"Evolution demonstrates that the Biblical account of creation is not correct. This is the real reason why Christians have a hard time accepting evolution."
If by "evolution" you mean small changes and variations within the same kind of of animal, then that is perfectly in line with the Bible.
@Paul – "I'll be honest: I reject primordial soup to people evolution because it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It's never been observed which violates the scientific method."
First, as illustrated with the DNA paternity example, direct observation is not a requirement to apply the scientific method to a given set of facts. Second, if you are now deciding to be "honest" then please answer the questions:
1) is there any evidence which could convince you that evolution (yes, you know of which I speak) is true?
2) is it possible that the biblical deity doesn't actually exist?
After all, "honesty" is a reflection of what is said and what is purposefully omitted . . .
@redzoa
"...direct observation is not a requirement to apply the scientific method to a given set of facts."
You're the first atheist I've met to admit this. Would you say that you're making an inference based on observable evidence?
@Paul – First, what makes you think I'm an atheist? Second, if you read closely, my DNA paternity example distinguishes between the observation of the DNA test and your requirement that the technician must have observed the act of conception. In the former observation, there is no inference required, i.e. that the DNA matches or doesn't is a demonstrable fact. But o respond directly, yes, there is an inference of paternity from the fact of the DNA match. Admittedly, the inference could be incorrect, which is why the DNA test itself is rigorously controlled and subsequently replicated. Science can never provide certainty; however, it can provide validated application (i.e. the proof is in the pudding, so to speak). In other words, no inference can be claimed absolute, but then again, some inferences are clearly inferior in light of their lack of supporting evidence. In the case of creationism, the inability to test or falsify the alleged mechanism and the inability to remotely account for directly observable facts.
Now. Quid pro quo.
1) Is there any evidence which could convince you that evolution (humans from non-human ancestors, etc) is true?
2) Is it possible that the biblical deity does not exist?
or alternatively;
3) How did the fossil record come to display the progressive ordering of forms?
If you again refuse to respond directly to any of these questions, it will be clear to all that you are at best, hopelessly disingenuous, at worst, hopelessly dishonest to both yourself and those you engage here at Belief Blogs.
Redzoa, as a christian fundamentalist, I will be happy to answer your questions
1) Is there any evidence which could convince you that evolution (humans from non-human ancestors, etc) is true?
No there is not. God hand designed humans and it says so in His Word. I do not believe that He is a liar.
2) Is it possible that the biblical deity does not exist?
No, it is not. I am defined by the strength of my faith and I feel that faith can move mountains. I'm set in my ways. Any science that disagrees must be either be interpreted improperly or put there to test our faith.
3) How did the fossil record come to display the progressive ordering of forms?
Because God designed it that way. The fossil strata is God's personal record of all the life He created.
@Crazed Fundamentalist – Thank you for your honest and direct response!
Charles Darwin wrote –
"Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a first cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man, and I deserve to be called a theist."
Now I believe in evolution, but don't tell me how silly it is to believe in God. You just sound ignorant.
And now for the rest of the quote. (Theists have a habit of selectively quoting): "This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt–can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.
I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."
Of course, much more important than what someone said 150 years ago, and more important than what anyone says, any time – is what evidence they bring to the table. If a famous scientist has an emotional soft spot for the religion of his childhood, but nothing in his science points to the validity of the claims of that religion, his opinion is of no more value than that of the ordinary person on the street.
Still, theists should quote more honestly.
Good job Chikkipop! Theists do indeed, quite frequently, selectively quote famous figures to draw misleading conclusions. I've seen this done not just with Darwin, but also with Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen J Gould, Stephen Hawking, Obama (and other presidents), Richard Dawkins, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers, Jesus, and the Bible–just off the top of my head.
Umm,, and atheists don't find random obscure quotes from the Old Testament to prove God is a big meanie?? Yeah, right
Actually, the full passage is better if they go together as it shows how a reasonable person can be torn. So if your hero cannot deny God, you look pretty silly calling the Bible a fairytale, etc, etc
vmoore, So you think the Noah story is not true? Or taken out of context to look as though god was being cruel? No matter how you spin it, it's pretty mean killing pretty much all life on earth.
Actually, God, in the story of Noah, is starting over again. Noah was found to be a good building block the others were destined to self destruction of the human race.
Get it? Tough love. Just as in many passages. Seriously, you can believe or not, but if your take on God is that He is vindictive and cruel rather than amazingly patient, forgiving and loving then you just don't get it. And maybe no wonder you can't believe.
I know the context of the story of Noah. That in itself is incredible – this omnipotent being cannot get its creation right and of the many options to correct it, chose to destroy almost all life on earth including the vast majority of humans, animals, and plants. You can't tell me there weren't better ways., like getting it right in the first place, preventing breeding of those it disapproved of, or even just killing only those humans it disapproved of.
I could believe if there were any evidence of a god.
you forgot one thing with that........because he was practicing : tough love"....fk these people are idiots
People are asked to quote or cite their sources to bring some form of credability to their arguement. ONLY if your source has published some works and has passed peer reviews though. How else would you propose advancing a sound credible arguement?
Vmoore–you are trying desperately to spin it, but your efforts are vain. Killing everyone on the planet–man, woman and child–is cruel. It is mass murder on a scale never before seen before or since (if it were true of course). This is not a patient and loving god. (Oh, he's just starting over!) Yeah, tell that to the terrified people and their children as the flood waters rush over them. Ever seen video clips of the Asian Tsunami? Imagine that happening everywhere, and tell those people that "God is just starting over..."
When we point out passages in the Bible that illustrates God's horrible cruelty–it's not out of context, as Christians complain. It's right there IN CONTEXT! When God tells people in Exodus 21:20-21 that they cannot beat their slaves so that they die in a day or two, but otherwise it's okay because it's their money, there's nothing out of context about that. There's nothing above or below that explains it away, or where he reverses it or clarifies it. Christians like to say–"well, because of Jesus, we have a New Covenant", but the problem with that is that it's supposed to be the same God, this God is supposed to be responsible for morality, which is supposed to be objective and unchanging, Jesus tells us he's there to fulfill the law, not overturn it, and he also admonishes slaves to obey their masters.
I know you want desperately to try to fit this square peg into this round hole, but you can't. The immorality and evil is there, for anyone to read. It is not "out of context" when we point it out.
Vmoore–you are trying desperately to spin it, but your efforts are vain. Killing everyone on the planet–man, woman and child–is cruel. It is mass murder on a scale never seen before or since (if it were true of course). This is not a patient and loving god. (Oh, he's just starting over!) Yeah, tell that to the terrified people and their children as the flood waters rush over them. Ever seen video clips of the Asian Tsunami? Imagine that happening everywhere, and tell those people that "God is just starting over..."
When we point out passages in the Bible that illustrates God's horrible cruelty–it's not out of context, as Christians complain. It's right there IN CONTEXT! When God tells people in Exodus 21:20-21 that they cannot beat their slaves so that they die in a day or two, but otherwise it's okay because it's their money, there's nothing out of context about that. There's nothing above or below that explains it away, or where God reverses or clarifies it. Christians like to say–"well, because of Jesus, we have a New Covenant", but the problem with that is that is it's supposed to be the same God, this God is supposed to be responsible for morality, which is supposed to be objective and unchanging. Also Jesus tells us he's there to fulfill the law, not overturn it, and he also admonishes slaves to obey their masters.
I know you want desperately to try to fit this square peg into this round hole, but you can't. The immorality and evil is there, for anyone to read. It is not "out of context" when we point it out.
Ooops–sorry for the duplicate. It looked like it was not going to post, so I made a few minor changes and tried to repost, and then both of them showed up.
"Actually, God, in the story of Noah, is starting over again. Noah was found to be a good building block the others were destined to self destruction of the human race."
Unfortunately modern genetics says this is impossible. Noah's family would have had to practice all kinds of incest to repopulate the earth and the gene pool wouldn't survive. I can imagine the looks on their faces when god told Noah's sons they all had to have se_x with their mother to continue their family lines. Then they'd have to have se_x with their own children / brothers and sisters 15 years later. Either way it's not pleasant and we know that incest leads to genetic deformities.
"Get it? Tough love. Just as in many passages. Seriously, you can believe or not, but if your take on God is that He is vindictive and cruel rather than amazingly patient, forgiving and loving then you just don't get it. And maybe no wonder you can't believe."
LOL at tough love. The guy didn't know this ahead of time and couldn't have just started with a good hand designed building block in the beginning? He created everything knowing full well it wouldn't work. Sorry god, but you failed because the world is just as corrupt today. Why go through the whole flood thing and kill all life on earth except a handful when he could have just designed it properly in the first place. I'm also curious as to how Noah and his family was able to collect all of the creatures from the other side of the planet, and after the flood how they all got distributed back to their respective countries, even the Australian marsupials. None of it makes the least bit of sense. God is all powerful, why does he need Noah to collect millions of creatures and put them on an ark for a year when god could just snap his fingers and make it so?
This proves god is either not all knowing, not all powerful. OR not loving. Humans inhabited a very small portion of the earth at that time, so god just gets angry and killing them all in a giant over reaction? He's all powerful, why couldn't he just prove his existence to the other people and change their hearts? Instead he drowns the entire earth? The great flood is a story about scaring people into believing, nothing more. Very few Christians even take the story literally, because simple common sense shows it is not possible, not even remotely.
Belief in a god is not silly. What IS silly, however, is telling folks that it is absolute fact or that proven science is wrong STRICTLY BECAUSE of your belief or lobbying to make laws in support of a belief / complete guess. There are rational theists and there are irrational fundamentalists.
It is true and very true that there is the only one GOD, our LORD GOD, who is a creator of the world and things we see now, including a Human Being. Evolution come after the world created by LORD GOD for 6 days. On the 6th day, GOD created a Man (Adam) and a woman (Eva). Genesis 1:27, then He told them to reproduce... Genesis 1:28, 24. Is REPRODUCTION a topic in Biology (a study of living and non living things) or not. are we not the creatures from reproduction. (Reproduction (Kuzaa/Kujifungua in Swahili language) is the act or process of producing babies, young animals or plants). Science is a study of existing world including Biology (so do evolution) , for the purpose of improving, or reproducing, to fill the world, as Holy Words from the Bible said in Gen 1:27. 'Thus I can say Science is the applied GOD's theories'. Atheist should be encouraged to read a lot and understand, to educate themselves widely, ( though education is expensive) so as to understood the Holy Word not only Hollywood.
Hi Ailine
Education does work for most people but some creationists just can not wrap their brain around facts.
First Partial Skeleton of a 1.34-Million-Year-Old Paranthropus boisei from Bed II, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0080347
What "Holy Word"!?
How in the world, in the 21st Century, does someone quote an ancient book & believe it to be anything other than the writings of people!?
There is a real world out there! Why waste your life believing childish stories instead of learning about it?
When your government declares that you will be executed for not believing, it creates a big reason to believe and to teach your children that it is true and to never question it. Now, after thousands of years of indoctrination, this poor mentality is still around today, when it was originally imposed by the sword. It's difficult to break the cycle of indoctrination when you are taught at a young impressionable age that the bible is the absolute word of god, developing a psychological emotional connection to it causing you to do the same to your kids. Indoctrination is a sad, amoral practice. No parent should allow it. They should let the children evaluate and decide for themselves like every other decision made in the real world.
"It is true and very true that there is the only one GOD, our LORD GOD, who is a creator of the world and things we see now, including a Human Being."
No, it isn't "true and very true". It is your belief that it is true. It's not everyone's belief.
OMG, it's true AND very true. And here I was all this time that truth required facts or anything whatsoever to verify it.
"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.
Here is The Ultimate Proof and Reason, Mr. Silverman!
http://www.holy-19-harvest.com
==UNIVERSAL MAGNIFICENT MIRACLES==
I mean please, enough with arguing for the reality of myths, already. Just, please. In any other sphere it would be reason for confinement to an asylum.
Right just listen to you, right? Why didn't you tell us you had all the answers? All hail Basho!
Yeah, sure.
Cuz if someone questions ancient myths for which there is not the slightest evidence, it must mean they have all the answers.
Nice reasoning.
Merely questioning, huh? Read his post again. His poor magnificent brain is pained that we mere mortals entertain the myth of God.
Nice try though.
vmoore, The point was that you wouldn't accept those statements on face value in any other aspects of your life: you wouldn't purchase an investment without verifying that it exists, that the seller is legitimate, and that the asking price is reasonable. Yet you're happy to accept the word of Bronze Age goatherders despite current knowledge showing that the foundation of the bible is incorrect which surely must raise insurmountable doubts about that and the rest of the bible.
Old atheists never die. They just scream away.
Much like old mental patients...no wonder you have first hand knowledge.
So both sides went from having a few clever billboards here and there to assaulting the senses of everyone with an ongoing war in which ever more billboards in ever more prominent places are purchased. The billboard companies should refuse to sell them the space.
Ironically, atheists are like flat-earthers. Their senses and logic tell them the earth must be flat, but the reality was something far more complicated and amazing than tbey could comprehend.
Odd....most atheists I know will tell you that they are not certain.
Since no one has ever been able to show the presense/existance of any of the thousands of gods men have worshipped, and the fact that all people are born atheist and have to be taught about god....doesn't that say anything to you?
Wow! Can anyone not understand yet, why I keep saying that atheism is Total stupidity?
Salero...its you who WONT understand. Evolution admits it doesnt have all the answers. Creationism claims to have ALL the answers but gives no evidence. Creationism doesn't provide the Atheist with evidenced proof to change the Atheist mind and wont until that evidence actually ever shows up other than in philosophical words. The evolutionist theory has PREDICTED the fossil record to be as it is without one fossil showing up in a time era where it shoulnt be. No creationism can explain that......try studying some real books will ya.
The only thing to understand here is what a wonderful argument for the infantilizing effects of religion you provide.
Keep up with your posts! You're embarrassing fellow believers, but giving atheists yet more proof of the vacuousness of it all.
Where on earth did you come up with that hogwash? Flat-earthers don't rely on science to make their claims. Religious people don't either. They believe because they choose to believe, not because of evidence. In fact, faith is probably the biggest part of the judeo-christian religions.
Science for sale or rent,
Want a flat earth??
fifty cents
Glauber, where did you come up with your hogwash? Atheist rely on their "science of the gaps", to make up for the lack of answers. All they have is we just don't know yet but science will one day tell us. Abiogenesis, the design of the universe, science cannot give us an answer for so non-believing scientist must come up with theories that are almost laughable. Panspermia, multi-verse, etc.
Sorry Pal, but you can insult atheists and scientists all you want, there isn't a single tiny piece of evidence to suggest a creator or creation process. Atheists just reject YOUR belief system because it's stupid. You rely on blind faith! At least atheist go with the logical default. I don't see any creationist ever providing any kind of tangible evidence, they just cite what science hasn't fully learned as evidence for god.
" Flat-earthers don't rely on science to make their claims. Religious people don't either. They believe because they choose to believe, not because of evidence. "
That's a straw man argument. Religious people DO use science. Newton, Kepler, Galileo, James Clerk Maxwell, James Prescott Jewel, Carolus Linnaeus...and so on. Even modern scientists are religious. They believe BECAUSE of the evidence, not in spite of it.
@Paul – Is there any evidence which could convince you that evolution is true?
That's not a straw man. He wasn't saying that theists don't use science. He was saying that the theists don't use SCIENCE when determining their world view, and this is dead on accurate. It's pure blind faith and to describe it any differently is dishonest.