home
RSS
June 17th, 2014
02:36 PM ET

'Cosmos': the creationist version

"Creationist Cosmos" has an answer for all the mysteries of the Universe: God did it.

Sharp satire or offensive stereotyping? Weigh in below.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Uncategorized

soundoff (1,386 Responses)
  1. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    I want to comment on this article please @Daniel Burke... http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/20/us/ohio-bible-stops-bullet/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

    Pretty please.

    June 20, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
    • Akira

      My goodness.
      "Polar Bear"? Baloney.

      June 20, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
  2. ragansteve1

    This video is imply c r a p and not worth a serious response. Let's see if this one gets posted.

    June 20, 2014 at 12:31 pm |
    • ragansteve1

      Amazing selectivity. Give a serious response and it is dropped. Give this kind and it gets posted. Simply weird.

      June 20, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
    • gulliblenomore

      Why....because it goes against your belief? Gotta do better than that.

      June 20, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
      • ragansteve1

        No, because satire is funny and stereotypes require some semblance of similarity to the intended victim. This guy looks more like a supermarket carry out than a Baptist minister. And many of the supposed beliefs offered are blatantly inaccurate.

        June 20, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Yeah, but what is funny to one may not be funny to others. That does not necessarily mean it is c-rap. I found parts of it funny. I think South Park is hilarious, my wife....not so much.

          June 20, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
        • Akira

          Take this guy out and put my MIL in place instead, and this would be spot on, because this is exactly what she believes.
          She doesn't like mini-vans though, so it would probably be a bus.

          June 20, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Akira,

          What is "MIL"?

          June 20, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          /Moms I'd like'

          June 20, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
        • G to the T

          "MIL" = Mother-in-law

          June 20, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Mother-in-law? OOOooo....I bet that is entertaining.

          June 20, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
  3. ragansteve1

    testing

    June 20, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
    • ragansteve1

      So, it does work sometimes. I've posted twice before and it didn't.

      June 20, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
      • Akira

        You've probably run into the infamous word filter.
        Any fragment of what WP considers a dirty word will cause it not to post, for instance, t.it in Consti.itution, and c.um in docu.ment.
        The word filter obviously has a juvenile sense of humor.

        June 20, 2014 at 12:32 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          Apparently you are correct. I wonder if "parent" will be a problem.

          June 20, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
        • redzoa

          ar-se.....as in ar-senic, coa.rse, etc.
          Ch-ardonnay
          co-ck.....as in co-ckatiel, co-ckatrice, co-ckleshell, co-ckles, etc.
          co-on.....as in racc-oon, coc-oon, etc.
          crac-ker…
          cu-m......as in doc-ument, accu-mulate, circu-mnavigate, circu-mstances, cu-mbersome, cuc-umber, etc.
          ef-fing...as in ef-fing filter
          ft-w......as in soft-ware, delft-ware, swift-water, drift-wood, etc.
          ho-mo.....as in ho-mo sapiens or ho-mose-xual, ho-mogenous, sopho-more, etc.
          ho-oters…as in sho-oters
          ho-rny....as in tho-rny, etc.
          inf-orms us…
          hu-mp… as in th-ump, th-umper, th-umping
          jacka-ss...yet "ass" is allowed by itself.....
          ja-p......as in j-apanese, ja-pan, j-ape, etc.
          koo-ch....as in koo-chie koo..!
          ni-gra…as in deni-grate
          nip-ple
          o-rgy….as in po-rgy, zo-rgy, etc.
          pi-s......as in pi-stol, lapi-s, pi-ssed, therapi-st, etc.
          p-oon… as in sp-oon, lamp-oon, harp-oon
          p-orn… as in p-ornography
          pr-ick....as in pri-ckling, pri-ckles, etc.
          que-er
          ra-pe.....as in scra-pe, tra-peze, gr-ape, thera-peutic, sara-pe, etc.
          se-x......as in Ess-ex, s-exual, etc.
          sl-ut
          sm-ut…..as in transm-utation
          sn-atch
          sp-ank
          sp-ic.....as in desp-icable, hosp-ice, consp-icuous, susp-icious, sp-icule, sp-ice, etc.
          sp-ook… as in sp-ooky, sp-ooked
          strip-per
          ti-t......as in const-itution, att-itude, t-itle, ent-ity, alt-itude, beat-itude, etc.
          tw-at.....as in wristw-atch, nightw-atchman, salt-water, etc.
          va-g......as in extrava-gant, va-gina, va-grant, va-gue, sava-ge, etc.
          who-re....as in who're you kidding / don't forget to put in that apostrophe!
          wt-f....also!!!!!!!
          x-xx…
          There's another phrase that someone found, "wo-nderful us" (have no idea what sets that one off).

          June 20, 2014 at 12:44 pm |
  4. new-man

    BatC,
    this is another # that you or your friend can call re: his grandson.
    1. 1-888-293-6351 this one posted below.
    2. 719- 635-1111

    The video I'll post below is associated with the 2nd number provided. Have dad/g-dad watch the others so they know what to do.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGTibB6ItCk

    June 20, 2014 at 11:54 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      I would sooner call a Witch Doctor....

      June 20, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
      • Alias

        Kind of the same thing, isn't it?

        June 20, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Witch Doctors have cooler outfits...more of a show too...

          June 20, 2014 at 4:01 pm |
  5. Dalahäst

    My pastor constantly reminds me: whenever we draw a line in the sand and say "us" and "them", God is asking us to love "them".

    And I try to argue with her and explain to her what "them" do. And she just smiles and says "love them".

    When I hate somebody, that is poison that eats at me. And often doesn't bother the one I hate. If I pray for God to bless them, or give them what I would want for myself; which is hard – but it starts to work. And I start to get better.

    The person I hated might stay the same. But I get better. That kind of prayer works.

    I know people who are not very religious who follow other ways to practice this kind of spiritual approach. So they might meditate or think good thoughts about someone that angers them. And they say it works for them.

    June 20, 2014 at 1:31 am |
    • realbuckyball

      Thanks for admitting it's all you, just talking to yourself.
      Whatever floats your boat.

      June 20, 2014 at 5:45 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Your adversary is never a villain in their own eyes.
      Remembering this may offer you a way to become friends.
      If not, you can dismiss them quickly – and without hate.

      June 20, 2014 at 8:07 am |
    • bostontola

      Prayer, meditation, thinking calming thoughts. You might be surprised how much, and how deep the science is on that. And I'm talking about hard science, neuro-science, brain chemistry, etc.

      When people are in a conflict, physical or even just a verbal conflict, primal brain reaction takes place. If you feel threatened, anger, fear, or a host of other emotions trigger the amygdala to release chemicals that actually suppress the frontal lobes. Your own brain makes you dumber! This was an evolutionary reaction to allow humans to be more instinctive under threat. When the tiger attacked, that wasn't the time to do a comprehensive trade off analysis to determine the optimal course of action. Stop thinking and act, in a sense, return to primitive mode.

      These chemical states don't clear that quickly. In fact, they can get out of control easily and self escalate with people getting very aggressive or have paralyzingly fear. The science shows that the frontal lobe can wrestle control back. Just thinking calming, happy thoughts can reset the amygdala, stopping the secretion of the frontal lobe suppressing chemicals and returning the brain to a normal state. Meditation, thinking happy thoughts, remembering comforting memories, etc. all work. This has been measured and visually seen in brain scans correlated to real time chemical analysis.

      So when prayer helps you, thank your frontal lobe for taking control and getting your brain chemistry to a comforting balance.

      June 20, 2014 at 9:26 am |
      • bostontola

        Btw, this brain architecture and chemical system strongly corroborates evolutionary development and is objective evidence against intelligent design. The instinctive mode of our brain is very similar to other mammals. It clearly worked well while we were in the wild in small family units. It is very poorly adapted, 'designed', for complex society environment. We have learned to control it better through culture, and even religion. This brain architecture has all the fingerprints of evolution through our history, no fingerprints of intentional design, and definitely not intelligent design.

        If someone designed our brains this way, they would have to be called cruel. We easily get out of control. When we are out of control, our will is driven instinctually rather than intellectually. If God wants us to be good, why would he design us with these systems that suppress our higher thinking and ability to consider goodness under stress when we need it most? No, our brains evolved and all the objective evidence is in its chemistry and architecture.

        June 20, 2014 at 9:43 am |
      • Dalahäst

        And God has been telling us to do that before the science was there to prove the benefit.

        June 22, 2014 at 7:29 am |
    • colin31714

      I have never understood how Christians can believe that a being powerful enough to have created the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies (“God”) monitors their thoughts (or “hears their prayers” as they put it) and intervenes in human affairs to answer them. Religion allows millions to believe things that, if only one person believed them, would result in that person being called crazy.

      “The God Delusion” is a very prescient ti.tle. Dawkins hit the nail on the head.

      June 20, 2014 at 9:29 am |
      • bostontola

        I don't understand how an activist God and free will can be compatible. The instant God intervened, free will go out the door.

        In fairness to Dalahast, he didn't say God intervened, but many Christians imagine God intervening.

        June 20, 2014 at 9:48 am |
        • colin31714

          He wanted God to "bless" somebody. Is not 'blessing" somebody an intervention? It it isn't, what is the point of a "blessing?"

          June 20, 2014 at 9:51 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          Colin....you are correct. I still don't understand why we stupidly say "bless you" after somebody sneezes. I know that the phrase came about hundreds of years ago when the ancients thought that your heart stopped when you sneeze and that god blessed you when you continued breathing. Silly mythological statements that many people still adhere to. Goes to show the idiocy that some people maintain because "that's the way my momma taught me"

          June 20, 2014 at 9:59 am |
        • bostontola

          I know your question was rhetorical, but I'll answer anyway, I have no idea what a blessing is. I'm sure there are about as many interpretations as there are believers.

          June 20, 2014 at 10:02 am |
        • bostontola

          Gesundheit (good health).

          June 20, 2014 at 10:07 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          You're soooooooo good looking....

          June 20, 2014 at 10:17 am |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "but many Christians imagine God intervening."

          I think virtually every Christian believes God interacts with them if not intervenes on their behalf on a regular basis. The fact that studies have shown the same efficacy of prayer as a placebo proves there is no interaction. If there was even the slightest influence one way or another it would show in the statistics, one religion having more prayers seemingly answered, one religion where some supernatural force seems to be guiding it past conflict and roadblocks. But instead, you see the same results no matter whether you are a Hindu praying or Muslim or Christian, all get the same exact result which is the same as if you prayed to a sugar pill.

          June 20, 2014 at 10:58 am |
      • Dalahäst

        I'm not crazy.

        And I'm not suffering from a delusion. Just because you read it in a philosophy book you like doesn't make it so. And you parroting his misconceptions and logical fallacies and thinking it proves something intelligent seems to be your delusion.

        June 22, 2014 at 7:31 am |
    • G to the T

      I take the Buddhist view that Love and Hate are not opposites as both involve an attachment to the subject. Rather than hate, I culture indifference.

      Hate isn't a good enough reason to be dragged down by someone else, Love, however, often is.

      June 20, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        That is the Christian view, too.

        June 22, 2014 at 7:32 am |
  6. truthfollower01

    Good night all.

    June 20, 2014 at 12:45 am |
    • observer

      truthfollower01,

      Yep. Just another night of hiding from answering questions. Why not spend some time actually READING a Bible?

      June 20, 2014 at 12:49 am |
      • truthfollower01

        "Just another night of hiding from answering"

        Are you seriously looking for answers? It seems to me you are not. Speaking of not answering questions, you failed to address the following.

        Just like Christians, atheists can be “good” or “bad”.

        What determines if something is morally good or bad?

        "Like EVERYONE, they get their morals from a variety of sources."

        What if two people use different sources and come up with different conclusions? One thinks something is morally good while the other thinks the exact same thing is morally evil? Who's right?

        So what about the HORRIBLE morals in the Bible?

        On atheism, why is anything horrible or good?

        June 20, 2014 at 12:54 am |
        • observer

          What does "on atheism" mean? Can't you write proper English?

          June 20, 2014 at 12:56 am |
        • truthfollower01

          The above are questions the skeptic needs to face.

          June 20, 2014 at 12:56 am |
        • Doris

          @truthf: Regarding this question "On atheism, why is anything horrible or good?", nojinx points to the answer further down with "Euthephro's dilemma".

          As people have pointed out to you many times before:

          1. Atheism does not describe a moral attribute of anything. It simply describes the non-belief in god(s). Atheists, on the other hand, may give different answers on what they find morally important and where and how they arrived at their opinion.

          2. In claiming objective (divine) moral truths, you are putting the cart before the horses. Unless you can prove the existence of your God, I think I can fairly say that atheists will assume you too are obtaining your morals in the same subjectively-influenced, opinionated manner as them, only under the guise of something that represents an unsubstantiated source.

          And really, tf, can't we just look across the over 41,000 denominations of Christianity to clearly see the evidence of the subjectively-influenced, opinionated views on morality?

          June 20, 2014 at 12:57 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          There are no completely universal morals and if they had existed, they certainly wouldn't come for the Bible,.

          The best we can hope for is overwhelming support for certain morals that most societies support.

          Now you can answer if you don't RUN AWAY. Do you support all of the list of morals I gave from the Bible?.

          Let's see if you are AFRAID to?

          June 20, 2014 at 1:02 am |
  7. Dalahäst

    ssq41

    What does it mean when you refer to a fellow human being as "questionably human"?

    I'm sorry, but I'm sensitive to that kind of language. The Nazis used to call Jews subhumans. And questioned whether they were real humans.

    Too many people accepted that kind of talk as ok. I won't.

    Can you please clarify what you mean?

    June 19, 2014 at 11:42 pm |
    • new-man

      Dalahast,
      tfollower possess the peace of God (whom ssq41 and his ilk deny) that transcends their carnal mind/understanding.. you are correct that no one is losing sleep over the continued insults of a so-called Israelite in the Philistine camp.

      Jonathan and his armor bearer alone took on the whole camp of the Philistines. This in itself was remarkable, but what was of more note was that there were Israelites in the Philistine camp fighting against Jonathan and his armor bearer.

      this is- ssq41 who claimed to have once been a Christian, but all you see is him coming to this board to fight against and slander believers while blaspheming the God of Israel. He has nothing constructive to add to any conversation.

      as John said: They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

      June 19, 2014 at 11:54 pm |

      June 19, 2014 at 11:59 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        To not know God is a sad thing. We should pray for him.

        I've actually been praying for a lot of people on this blog.

        Even Colin.

        Imagine the shock when I was searching the web and found this:

        http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/06/08/3920829/saunders-a-conscientious-server.html

        It is that Colin from here. I'm not saying my prayers had anything to do with that. But somehow that story was revealed to me before he told us about it on this blog.

        God loves Colin. And ssq41.

        June 20, 2014 at 12:06 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Just curious as to how you know that is the same Colin?

          And if this is a sign that god loves Colin than that same god hates my friend's grandson...he was just diagnosed with inoperable brain cancer...

          June 20, 2014 at 12:31 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Colin talked about it on here last week. It really is him, and he told more about the story on here.

          God loves your friend's grandson. I will pray for him. Let me know if I can help in any way.

          June 20, 2014 at 12:38 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          I figured you must have put more together than just the story. Thanks for posting it.

          As to the grandson, I appreciate your genuine concern. While I don't always appreciate how you argue issues Dala, I do think you sincerely care about you fellow man regardless of affilliation...believe it or not, I do to.

          God has a funny way of showing it....

          June 20, 2014 at 1:19 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I think we all have good intentions.

          Sometimes things come across wrong online. I sometimes get worked up over what 1 guy tells me I somehow imagine all people agree and are preaching that. And then I realize that is wrong. Eh, human nature. But thanks. And I do consider what some of the more reasonable people like you, Boston, GOPer – eh, even Kudlak and others share and appreciate it.

          June 20, 2014 at 1:24 am |
        • Dalahäst

          http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/10/meet-an-atheist-who-believes-in-god/comment-page-12/#comments

          search newsobserver to find the thread. It is an interesting story from Colin's viewpoint

          June 20, 2014 at 1:36 am |
        • truthfollower01

          Blessed,

          I have prayed for your friend's grandson tonight.

          June 20, 2014 at 1:23 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          tf,

          A lot of people are, they are Christians and my heart goes out to them.

          June 20, 2014 at 1:42 am |
        • new-man

          BatC,
          please, have your friend call this # for his son: 1-888-293-6591. and or you can do it for them.

          Also, this is one way to pray for him- it's not the only way, but it's an effective way.
          "cancer, I curse you and I command you to die from your roots, and leave "his name" body, in Jesus Name."
          this is a prayer that can and should be prayed as many times per day as possible.

          God did not give this precious child cancer, only to turn around and then heal him.

          also I would recommend you have him (dad) watch the following so he knows he can do it himself – this is just to give him confidence, I would still suggest he calls the # provided.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJrM_b573bE

          June 20, 2014 at 10:38 am |
        • gulliblenomore

          new-man.....the fact that you are saying proclaiming that speaking a phrase is an effective way to cure cancer is a clear indication of how far off the nut you have fallen. Have there been any peer reviewed studies showing the effectiveness of those that had the 'prayer' done vs those that have not? Do you have medical records citing the cure rates for those that had this 'prayer' done for them vs the overall cancer cure rates?

          June 20, 2014 at 10:48 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          new-man,

          I have heard sacrificing a Chicken is effective...

          June 20, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Cheese....I have a friend that had stage 4 cancer and his wife gave him flaxseed oil and cottage cheese. She swears by it, but of course, the scientific study is inconclusive. And yet...I would take that over the nonsense that new-man is spouting. I'm guessing new-man does not own a calendar and just doesn't realize what century this is.

          June 20, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Well at least flaxseed oil and Cottage Cheese have nutritional benefits....Blessed be the makers of that Cottage Cheese!!!

          June 20, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        "He has nothing constructive to add to any conversation."

        I find this very funny. The Christian claiming non-believers have nothing constructive to add. Well sure, we have nothing to add to a theocracy. We have nothing to add to help make your religion the only religion or the true religion (nothing can help it become the true religion).

        We have plenty to add however, when it comes to constructing a peaceful secular society for all mankind. Someday we just may see the Federation of Planets realized, but not with religion dragging us back to our most primeval base conflicts of arguing who's right about the universe. We don't have to prove your religion wrong, there are far to many religions to spend any time trying to prove any of them wrong. The religions need to prove themselves right if they want to be believed, and so far not a single one can do anything that the others can't so they are all in the same boat, Islam and Christianity, Hindu and the rest, none can prove their case. If none can prove their case, why would you want non-believers adding anything "constructive" to your ideology? I would think you would want to work hard to prove your own faith instead of waiting for us to be "constructive" about it.

        June 20, 2014 at 10:50 am |
    • ssq41

      In the English language, dala, a conjunction connects two words or phrases.

      You conveniently chose to ignore "mechanical and..." Ignoring...qualities of one as dishonest as you...but they do continue to describe your posting strategy here.

      "Sub-human" was never used...again, your dishonesty is anticipated.

      I once accused truthfollower of being a recording in the basement of W. L. Craig repeti.tively announcing the same old prhases and questions.

      Your fault for taking it to a level never intended.

      Now, we could discuss the de-humanizing of Muslims my fellow soldiers and airman do to Iraqi and Afghans humans, while prasing JEsus at bible study the night before an op.

      Better yet, lets just visit the local Evangelical church and learn how to de-humanize the ho.mose.xual.

      I thought you were smarter than that....oh, wait, dala! Just another one of your strategies...

      and I like how you posted it out of thread.

      I know...I know...it was a mistake....(one a liar would make).

      June 20, 2014 at 12:12 am |
      • Dalahäst

        Is TruthFollower equal to you?

        Would you fight for his right to disagree with you?

        June 20, 2014 at 12:16 am |
      • Dalahäst

        "Mechanical" also seemed to be dehumanizing term.

        Is it easier to make insults and demean people when you describe them with terms that seem to strip away their humanity?

        June 20, 2014 at 12:18 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Sounds more like the use of a metaphor to me Dala....I think you are being a bit over dramatic.

          June 20, 2014 at 12:37 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I can't figure that dude out. If I make a mistake he calls me a liar. Is that a metaphor.

          He also says my relationship with God is like a woman who gets beaten by an abusive husband, yet stays with him. Which is an insensitive metaphor.

          Observer says he is patrolling for religious offenders.

          Imagine I'm doing the same, but for people swinging the other way.

          June 20, 2014 at 12:44 am |
        • Dalahäst

          And have you read what he posts?

          Is there any part of you that wants to call him out for being over-dramatic? Or was it just me? Does the fact that he does not believe in God, like you, motivate you to ignore his over-dramatic language, yet call me out for mine?

          Sorry if that is annoying. People ask me questions like that all the time on here. If you don't like that I'll stop.

          June 20, 2014 at 12:53 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Oh I admit I am biased and often overlook comparable questionable posts from non-believers and yet may issue a response to a similar post from a believer. That is human nature and I don't fault you for doing the same from the other side. I have read many of ssq41 posts and he is blunt but I have not seen him being overly polemic or trollish.

          And I did side with devin last night in response to a trollish post from someone on "my side".

          I also agree with the idea of CHristianity being an abusivie relationship with "god". You may find it insensitive...but I think. as a former christian, it is more than applicable.

          June 20, 2014 at 1:09 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Eh. That is like saying atheists have no morals. And since I used to be an atheist, I can say that with confidence. (which I don't believe)

          Actually describing a relationship with God as like a female being in a relationship with an abusing male does not sound like someone who knew God. Would you say you just knew about God, but never actually knew God when you were a Christian. Apparently there is a big difference.

          I have a loving God. And I'm free. I'm not bound by fear or threat of abuse. No threat of eternal punishment or other such notions.

          June 20, 2014 at 1:21 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Dala,

          There are as many definitions of "knowing god" as there are christians....to the point that the phrase and concept becomes meaningless. I can tell you I believed...truly believed.

          Here is the point on the abusive relationship issue. Christianity teaches all men are inherently flawed. And before you start with "I don't believe that", I am talking about Christianity in general terms. I don't know what you believe and I am not addressing your beliefs personally.

          Since we are all flawed sinners in need of salvation, we have to find salvation with the one who set up the rules and the situation...

          Just today I passed 2 churches in my community....

          "Mercy Church" whose tagline is "A place for sinners"

          and

          "Ransom CHurch"...."setting captive free"

          I find that awful.

          June 20, 2014 at 1:37 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I didn't have anyone teach me that I was captive to my own desires. I experienced it for myself. I still experience that today.

          I also experienced that being possessed means are possessions possess us. We don't possess them. Again, I experienced that as a fact in my life. And in church I found people that said "we have experienced that, too. Here is how we deal with it."

          My pastor told me she was shocked at what the coach was telling the kids at another denomination's basketball camp she sends her kids to. Maybe I've just found a good community.

          June 20, 2014 at 1:48 am |
        • Dalahäst

          *I also experienced that being possessed means my possessions possess me. (I said that wrong, just meant me, I know others don't have my problems like that)

          June 20, 2014 at 1:52 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Dala,

          Possessions can be a problem I agree. When I bought my house my friend said to me..."You don't own that house and land...you are just it's current caretaker". It was a good concept and puts things in perspective. There isn't anything specific to Christianity in your reply though.

          I am more addressing the core foundational concepts of christianity. Sin, salvation through belief...ect.

          June 20, 2014 at 2:06 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Being a slave to desire, being possessed by possessions is sin to me. I have many other issues, too. I couldn't pull myself up by my bootstraps so to speak. And I found salvation from these defects that were plaguing me from God. Jesus saves those who can't pull themselves up.

          "When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that He was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they said to His disciples, "Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?" 17And hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.""

          I think I belong to a church that has unrighteous sinners who are sick and need help.

          June 20, 2014 at 2:14 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          Going to bed Dala,

          I will check back tomorrow if you want to cintinue this discussion. g'nite

          June 20, 2014 at 2:13 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Yes, later! I wasted more than half of the work day, so probably will not be on tomorrow as I will have to work my butt off the next few days catching up at the job.

          June 20, 2014 at 2:17 am |
        • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

          "I think I belong to a church that has unrighteous sinners who are sick and need help."

          Dala,

          My point exactly...

          June 20, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Uh, everyone in my church freely admits they are sinners. Even the pastor. What is your point? That we admit we are flawed and often do the wrong thing despite our best intentions?

          We are spiritually sick. That is what the church is for.

          When I'm physically sick I go to a hospital. The hospital is for people who are sick that need help.

          June 22, 2014 at 7:37 am |
  8. observer

    truthfollower01,

    How can you have the gall to claim that atheists have no morals while you support a book that advocates;

    Discrimination against women
    Discrimination against the handicapped
    Slavery
    Selling 6-year-old girls to strangers for their use as slaves
    Beating helpless children
    Forcing people to get married even if they hate each other.
    etc. etc.

    Still STUMPED?

    This is usually the time when you run away and hide so you don't have to answer the question.

    AFRAID to answer?

    June 19, 2014 at 11:25 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      That book describes those things. It doesn't advocate them for me.

      The book advocates I love my enemies and pray for those who mistreat me. And to bless those who curse me. To turn the other cheek when someone strikes me. If someone steals my shirt, give them my coat. To stop harming others. To take care of those without a voice. To take care of the poor, the widowed, the orphaned and the imprisoned. That we are all equal. And to treat others well.

      June 19, 2014 at 11:30 pm |
      • observer

        Dalahäst,

        It's admirable that you seem to choose to follow the Golden Rule, but that doesn't change anything when it comes to the Bible supporting all that I mentioned. NOWHERE does it condemn ANY of them.

        June 19, 2014 at 11:43 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          The Golden Rule is to treat others how you want to be treated.

          What the Bible teaches is intentional kindness. It takes it further than what any religion or secular organization teaches as "The Golden Rule".

          In Jesus we are free of condemnation.

          "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."

          God wants us to be people that do the right things because we are good. Not because we are trying to please some sky fairy. Or trying to earn our way into paradise. Or trying to avoid eternal punishment. Or proving our group is morally superior to other groups.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:48 pm |
        • observer

          Dalahäst,

          I am in favor of Christians (or anyone) who supports the Golden Rule,

          My issues are with Christian HYPOCRITES who ignore it so that they can CHOOSE other verses as excuses to deny equal rights to others or to pretend the Bible ever mentions abortion,

          June 19, 2014 at 11:53 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          That sounds like living in direct violation of God's will.

          Jesus said: "If someone says, ‘I love God’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen”." So, he doesn't support hypocrisy, either.

          Jesus advocates we love our enemies. Which is more than just following the "Golden Rule".

          June 20, 2014 at 12:01 am |
        • observer

          Dalahäst,

          When you look around and see Christians collecting tens of millions of dollars to fight against equal rights for everyone, then you can see the massive number of Christian hypocrites that I am calling out.

          June 20, 2014 at 12:04 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I am not stopping you. Just sharing.

          June 20, 2014 at 12:08 am |
        • observer

          Dalahäst,

          I believe everyone should be free to practice whatever religion they like as long as they don't try to force it onto others or use it to deny others their equal rights.

          Far too often, this is not the case. That's why I am here.

          June 20, 2014 at 12:15 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Yes. Because if we can't express our right to free speech, even if it isn't popular, then we all have lost.

          I think that is why this message board exists. So we can change the world and fight for our rights, even in the message board of a story about a parody of The Cosmos on the religion blog of the CNN website.

          June 20, 2014 at 12:22 am |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          You can express your right to free speech, even if it isn't popular, but that doesn't shelter you from the consequences. Remember the Dixie Chicks?

          June 22, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
    • Athy

      He'll weasel out of it somehow. They always do.

      June 19, 2014 at 11:32 pm |
    • truthfollower01

      Observer,

      We would need to look at things in context. Concerning the list you cite, I have answered multiple of these in depth in the past including the issue on slavery (though I can't remember if I addressed this directly with you) and what you refer to as "Selling 6-year-old girls to strangers for their use as slaves" (though if you are referring to the Exodus passage it doesn't say the girl is 6 as we have discussed in the past. You seem to like to add that in there. I have to be watchful with how you present these things). I would invite you to revisit those past posts however from our previous encounters I doubt you are really looking for answers. Below was my opening statement regarding the Exodus scenario:

      According to Paul Copan, "As we've seen earlier, this is another example of case law (casuistic law). Such regulations don't assume that the described states of affairs are ideal. Case law begins with specific examples that don't necessarily present best-case scenarios: "if two men quarrel" or "if someone strikes a man" are examples of case law. So the law here instructs Israelites about what should be done under certain inferior conditions ("If a man sells his daughter...")"

      I invite you to go back and read the entire post as well as my posts on slavery.

      I'm not sure of the exact verses you are referring to concerning other scenarios you listed but I would invite you to read a book by Paul Copan enti-tled, "Is God a Moral Monster? Making sense of the Old Testament God". It will shed some light on things for you if you are truly seeking answers.

      "Just like Christians, atheists can be “good” or “bad”.

      What determines if something is morally good or bad?

      "Like EVERYONE, they get their morals from a variety of sources."

      What if two people use different sources and come up with different conclusions? One thinks something is morally good while the other thinks the exact same thing is morally evil? Who's right?

      So what about the HORRIBLE morals in the Bible?

      On atheism, why is anything horrible or good?

      June 19, 2014 at 11:53 pm |
      • observer

        truthfollower01,

        The Bible talks about "when you SELL your daughter in slavery".

        There is ZERO RESTRICTIONS in the Bible. Your daughter can be 6-years-old or 4-years-old,etc.

        This concept is SO SIMPLE that you have NO EXCUSE other than mental deficiency for not understanding that. Do you have a mental deficiency?

        June 19, 2014 at 11:58 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          It's case law. The law here instructs Israelites about what should be done under certain INFERIOR CONDITIONS (“If a man sells his daughter…”)” Concerning the age, read the full passage in context.

          Also, are you going to answer my questions?

          June 20, 2014 at 12:34 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          No answer. God not only DIDN"T call selling your 6-year-old to a complete stranger an abomination, he NEVER said that it was a sin or anything wrong with it.

          God supported selling 6-year-old girls to strangers.

          Do you support all the horrible commands I listed?

          YES or NO? Still COMPLETELY STUMPED and HIDING, You are just embarrassing yourself.

          Why SO AFRAID?

          June 20, 2014 at 12:38 am |
        • Doris

          @truthf: Regarding this question "On atheism, why is anything horrible or good?", nojinx points to the answer further down with "Euthephro's dilemma".

          As people have pointed out to you many times before:

          1. Atheism does not describe a moral attribute of anything. It simply describes the non-belief in god(s). Atheists, on the other hand, may give different answers on what they find morally important and where and how they arrived at their opinion.

          2. In claiming objective (divine) moral truths, you are putting the cart before the horses. Unless you can prove the existence of your God, I think I can fairly say that atheists will assume you too are obtaining your morals in the same subjectively-influenced, opinionated manner as them, only under the guise of something that represents an unsubstantiated source.

          June 20, 2014 at 12:52 am |
        • Doris

          And really, tf, can't we just look across the over 41,000 denominations of Christianity to clearly see the evidence of the subjectively-influenced, opinionated views on morality?

          June 20, 2014 at 12:55 am |
    • ragansteve1

      If you are really looking for an answer, which I am pretty sure you're not, then read the entire paragraph. These rules were meant to protect children in a world of many worse options than being a servant. There is even the option of becoming an adopted daughter in these rules. If you open your mind, you may see the love shown here in contrast to a world culture of real slavery and even human sacrifice.

      Exodus 21:

      "7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money." (NIV)

      June 20, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
      • gulliblenomore

        Meaningless. Just like these nuggets about slavery. Exactly why do you people cherry-pick the passages you like while conveniently neglecting those that don't fit your ideal?

        Leviticus 25:44-46

        As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

        Exodus 21:20-21

        “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
        Ephesians 6:5

        Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,

        Exodus 21:16

        “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

        June 20, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          I am not cherry picking anything. The passage I provided is the one under discussion as far as I could tell. If anyone is cheery picking it is not me.

          Your first and third verses above simply recognizes the world system in place at that time. The second a fourth verses provide more protections for the slave and his owners. None of them show that slavery is "approved" by God or Jews and certainly not by Christians. It simply recognizes that the world is what it is. Evil exists and we do the best we can to protect the poor, disabled and children. Again, the other options in the world at the time were much worse than being a servant, or even a slave, in the Jewish nation.

          It does no good to deny the reality of the world then, or around us now. In case you missed it, there is still slavery, poor people and so on today in many parts of the world (NO, in every part of the world). We need to do the best we can to protect them. But saying we will eliminate them in this world is fantasy, and does neither the poor slave or society any good.

          June 20, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          ragan....oh, I'm sorry. I made the as-sumption that since the bible was supposedly 'divinely inspired' and 'written by god', that it was also 'approved by god'. I have no idea how I could have made that connection. Oh I know how...because every one of you bible thumpers says so!

          Don't tell me about 'worldviews'. That is complete nonsense. A book that was indeed 'written by god' would allow for future 'worldviews'. Are you saying then that your god was so shortsighted as to not include....in just one passage...that to own other human beings was bad? He certainly made a point about not forgetting the Sabbath day. What is wrong with you people....really? Your delusion has gotten the better of you.

          June 20, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          Well for some reason there is no "reply" button for your last post so I will insert it here.

          Yes, the Bible was inspired by God. But it is also a history book. History is history. It records what happened, not what we wish would have happened. Being inspired by God, does not mean that everything that happened in history was approved by God. God then, as He does now, takes us where we are and helps us become better. We have free will to choose evil or good. Unfortunately, many Jews, as do many people now, chose evil often.

          And BTW, God does very clearly say He is against slavery, for how can one make another a slave if he loves the other person. Notice the last sentence.

          Matthew 22

          "37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

          Finally, in response to your previous post, please look at the next couple of verses after Ephesians 6 that you quoted. It clearly offers protection, once again, for slaves.

          Ephesians 6
          9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

          June 20, 2014 at 2:39 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          ragan....it is a history book to you, not to me. History books are history books. And, for times when there was no recorded history, we must depend on science to accurately illuminate the historical record.

          There are 65 references about slavery in your 'book'. Not one single passage points out that slavery is an abomination. Coveting neighbors goods is in there, but owning other human being, nope.

          You can talk all you want about your 'book', but to me, the entire thing was written by man, therefore the fallacies of men and the biases they have were incorporated into the written word. Just like I don't believe that Joseph Smith read golden tablets out of his hat and Xenu did not drop frozen corpses into a volcano, I don't believe that your religion is any more accurate.

          June 20, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Jesus was against slavery?

          Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
          Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

          June 20, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Doc....how is it that you can hold a dollar bill up into the face of a person, point out that it is a dollar, show them the lines of the bill, turn it over to show both sides, and they will still say to you...."get that banana out of my face".

          June 20, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          Again, this post is not directly attached to docvestibule but that is the intended recipient. I hope it lands somewhere close to his post.

          I have to ask, did you read my post? Jesus was speaking in the Matthew quotation. Clearly He does not like, or approve of slavery. But he came here for a spiritual purpose and not to change the governmental systems. Can someone make a slave of another he loves? I doubt it.

          And the fact is that God could have made us all slaves by not giving us any choice in our actions. But He did not. He provided us with a free will, which allows us to choose good or evil. As I said above, unfortunately many choose evil now just as many chose evil in those days.

          June 20, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          ragan....nowhere in the bible are the words 'free will' it was a concept made up much later than when the bible first went to press. It Is one of the many pat answers that Christians trot out in order to explain the absurdity of the written words. My personal favorite is "it's all part of gods plan" when people ask how could a Tsunami wipe out 130,000 people in 30 minutes.

          There is no way an intelligent person could ever buy into this nonsense.

          June 20, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          doc and gullible,

          Well, apparently some part of some word I used in the last post didn't pass the censor. So, let me just say this.

          gullible, as I suspected you really don't want any answers from me. So, clearly I am wasting my breath, at least in the short term. I hope you let go of your anger one day soon.

          doc, the verses you provide give slaves some protection because disobedience could end in death in those days. That doesn't mean Paul approved. But he was wise. What do you think might have happened if Paul had counseled revolt of the slaves. Likely both he and the slaves would have been killed. Ever see the movie Spartacus?

          If you're an itinerant missionary in ancient Rome, you do not counsel revolt against the empire.

          June 20, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          ragan....you're right about one thing. Stupidity always makes me angry. I will probably not get rid of it until all religions are abolished. You do not have the answers....you do not. I just told you there are 65 passages about slavery in the bible. Not ONE says "slavery is bad....do not own other human beings". You can not avoid that by claiming you are wasting your breath. There is no explanation for that. 65 passages, and not one claiming slavery to be an abomination. Shellfish, yes, but slavery, no. There is NOTHING you or anybody else can say that would justify that missing element of your 'holy book'.

          June 20, 2014 at 3:17 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          ragan....you're right about one thing. Stupidity always makes me angry. You do not have the answers....you do not. I just told you there are 65 passages about slavery in the bible. Not ONE says "slavery is bad....do not own other human beings". You can not avoid that by claiming you are wasting your breath. There is no explanation for that. 65 passages, and not one claiming slavery to be an abomination. Shellfish, yes, but slavery, no. There is NOTHING you or anybody else can say that would justify that missing element of your 'holy book'.

          June 20, 2014 at 3:19 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          OK one last wasted breath–What do you think the choice in the garden of Eden was about? Adam and Eve had the choice to do good and obey, or do evil and follow Satan. THAT is free will. They chose evil and we are living with the natural consequences of that choice.

          June 20, 2014 at 3:14 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Oh....I get it now. You are a creationist. Sorry...the earth is not 6000 years old, Adam and Eve were not real people, a snake did not talk, a 600 year old man did not float a zoo full of 2 of every animal on the planet for a year, nobody was resurrected from the dead, and none of the other countless crazy things that your book espouses happened. There is no proof. I do not accept words as facts....there must be proof. Again, sorry.

          June 20, 2014 at 3:23 pm |
        • ragansteve1

          First, not all creationists believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. And I don't believe the Bible supports that view, although many do.

          Second, I did not respond to observer to prove to you that I am smart. And until you attacked me and my beliefs verbally, I did not respond to you at all. I have been trying to provide you with my perspective. If you think that is stupid, then fine. Have a nice day.

          June 20, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          ragan....I'm afraid that you misunderstood me. I really don't care what people believe. It is the justification behind the belief that is revealing. Creationism is stupid. Sorry, that is really a fact. They ignore peer reviewed conventional scientific theory because it flies in the face of their belief system, while they are using those same scientific principles in every day life. That is insane.

          My whole family is Catholic and believes heavily in god. But, they are not idiots enough to fight the legitimate questions about the bible and claim it's infallibility. Again, that is just stupid to claim that the bible is infallible. Noah is just a story...one that was told over 400 years earlier about Gilgamesh. Believe what you want, but don't try to defend the bible against a non-believer. You will lose every time.

          June 20, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @ragan
          The passages speak not only to Christians who are slaves, but also to Christian who are slave owners.
          There is no moral outrage at the concept of slavery – while it may not be an endorsement of the insti.tution of slavery, it is at least tacit approval.

          June 20, 2014 at 4:28 pm |
      • ragansteve1

        Gullible, I can already tell that you don't care That's unfortunate. But know this–I only lose if I stop believing. And I believe that science will one day support much of what is written in the Bible. There is some evidence of that even today. But I am sure you don't care.

        doc. Let me ask, where is the outrage today at killing millions of babies worldwide and hundreds of thousands in America? They are being sacrificed to the god of choice, or governmental convenience, or jsut plain lack of care. Where is the outrage today at the hundreds of thousands of kids in inner cities living in poverty, using and selling hard dr ugs, being ra ped and abused? Where is the outrage for government enslavement for poor people by creating a culture of dependency and denying them the opportunity to move forward in education, work and life in general?

        You want to accuse and condemn a group (the Hebrew people) of not feeling outrage at sla very when every nation and people in that world viewed it as normal. (And accuse them when in fact they did more for the poor, foreigners, servants and yes slaves than any other nation at that time.) And yet, there is no real outrage, at least not enough to prompt real solutions, for today's evil.

        Evil can only be eradicated by individuals with changed hearts. That is what real Christianity is about. And I maintain that the Bible does indeed speak to that issue, even if it does not do so in the way you think it should. We could argue this forever, but that would solve nothing. You folks have made up your minds that the Bible is fiction at best and myth at worst. So, we will solve nothing here.

        Thanks for the conversation. Have a nice day.

        June 20, 2014 at 10:42 pm |
  9. whippstippler7

    "Belief in God is not the same as the belief in leprechauns."

    Actually, belief in a god is sillier than belief in leprechauns. Leprechauns are very limited in their abilities, unlike a god. Which is more likely: a life form with limited abilities (like every other life form on Earth) or a life form with unlimited abilities (for which there is no analogue)?

    June 19, 2014 at 9:26 pm |
    • truthfollower01

      Whip,

      Do you believe objective morality exists?

      Objective morality is morality that is valid and binding, independent of personal opinion. As an example, to say that the Holocaust is objectively morally evil is to say that it is evil even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was morally good. Even if the Nazis had won World War II and either killed all opposers or brainwashed everyone into believing that the Holocaust was morally good, it would still be morally evil.

      June 19, 2014 at 9:40 pm |
      • whippstippler7

        Objective morality, in that regardless of any imaginable circ-umstances, it is still moral (or immoral, as the case may be)?
        No, I don't believe in objective morality.
        Or leprechauns.
        Or gods.

        June 19, 2014 at 9:45 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Answer this for me. If Hitler thought what he was doing was morally good by killing millions of people, was he wrong?

          June 19, 2014 at 9:50 pm |
        • observer

          whippstippler7,

          truthfollower01 keeps spamming this copy-and-paste apparently claiming that it would come from God, but they have no clue where the morality comes from that convinces believers that there are immoral commands from God in the Bible.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:51 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          On atheism, nothing is morally good or evil so what's the problem?

          June 19, 2014 at 9:53 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          @ truth: false dichotomy. There are an infinite number of possible circ-umstances in which the killing of 6 million people occurs, and it is not difficult to imagine a situation where there are some who would say that yes, it was moral, in that, for example, it saved a gazillion people.

          But what does the concept of morality – objective or otherwise – have to do with my original statement that it is sillier to believe in a god than a leprechaun?

          June 19, 2014 at 9:56 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          @ truth – Atheism is simply a response to the proposition that a god or gods exist. It has nothing to do with morality or a moral code. You;re trying to muddy the waters by mischaracterizing what atheism is.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:57 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Atheism is not believing in a god or gods. NOTHING MORE.

          It has no more to do with morality than rocks do.

          This shouldn't be so difficult for ANY ADULT to comprehend. Please try to improve your educational level.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:58 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          " There are an infinite number of possible circ-umstances in which the killing of 6 million people occurs, and it is not difficult to imagine a situation where there are some who would say that yes, it was moral, in that, for example, it saved a gazillion people."

          Your dodging the question. We are dealing with the Holocaust, as it occurred. If Hitler thought what he was doing was morally good by killing millions of people, was he wrong?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:00 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          @ truth: your question was, did I believe in objective morality. Answer – no. Do I believe that what Hitler did was immoral? Of course. Did Hitler think what he did was immoral? I don't know – not being inside Hitler's brain – but I would guess that Hitler thought that what he was doing was not immoral.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:02 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Whip and Observer,

          Atheism carries huge implications on one's view of the world.

          "Atheism is not believing in a god or gods. NOTHING MORE."

          Actually, you are severely mistaken. To clarify, atheism is the view that there is no God. It is not merely “the absence of believe of any deity”. If you are an atheist, you should be prepared to give support/evidence to validate the view.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:06 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          TF....you're mistaken. Atheism is nothing more than the absence of belief in any gods. That's it. Because there is no proof, and that's all.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:24 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          @ truth: I believe there is no god, because I have seen no evidence whatsoever to lead me to believe that there is no go. This is not the same as saying that I KNOW there is no god. I don't know that, and I bet that precious few atheists would make such an impossible to prove claim.

          Now, do you believe that there is a god, or do you know that there is a god?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:09 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Why are you so OBSESSED with Hitler?

          When that self-professed Christian go done with his killing spree, he never came REMOTELY REMOTELY close to leaving ONLY 8 PEOPLE alive like God did after his monstrous killing spree..

          June 19, 2014 at 10:09 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Whip,

          Think about this. On atheism, your view of what is morally good and evil and Hitler's view of what is morally good and evil carry equal authority. You could say the Holocaust was morally evil. Hitler could say it was morally good. Who's right?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:10 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          Why, on atheism, is anything morally good or evil?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:13 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Morality exists in every religion and none at all.

          Look up the definition of atheism if you are CLUELESS about whether it has anything to do with morality.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:14 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          @ truth: you're making the implicit mistake that atheists don't have morals. this is incorrect. I believe that i am right. However, getting back to the "objective morals" question, I can imagine someone whose moral code goes something like this: Humans are a scourge to all other life on the planet. humans are poisoning the air, and the oceans, and the lands. They are wantonly slaughtering billions of animals. They are destroying plant life. Anything – including the Holocaust – which leads to the deaths of humans is a good thing, and therefore moral, because it lessens the number of people on the planet.

          Now, I don't subscribe to this view, but I would bet that a few people do. According to them, their morality is correct.

          Let me ask you this: do you eat meat?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:16 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Whip, (no disrespect on shortening the name. Just easier to type)

          "Now, do you believe that there is a god, or do you know that there is a god?"

          I know there is a God. God has given me knew life and new desires, Godly desires. The Holy Spirit dwells within me and testifies with my spirit that I am His child. I once lived in rebellion to God but He had mercy on me and saved me. This gift of life can be yours as well.
          Answer a few questions for me if you would.
          1. How many lies would you say you’ve told in your life?
          2. Have you ever stolen anything regardless of its value?
          3. Have you ever used God’s name as a curse word? (called blasphemy)
          4.have you ever looked at a woman/man lustfully?(if so, Jesus said you have committed adultery with that person in your heart.)
          If you’re like me, you are a self professed lying, stealing, blaspheming adulterer at heart or some form thereof. A holy God must punish wickedness, otherwise He wouldn’t be just. Given your confession, will you be guilty or innocent? If you’re like me and everyone else on this board, you are guilty. However, God provided a way for salvation through the blood of His innocent Son who took the punishment on the cross, that we might be declared innocent. Think of it like this. You’re in a court room. you’re guilty as you’ve professed. Someone walks in and pays your fine for you. Now the judge can legally dismiss your case and let you go. This is the gospel message. What you must do is repent (turn from your sins) and follow Jesus as Lord. This following is enabled by God when He gives you new desires and a heart that wants to please God instead of the flesh.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:19 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          @ truth (no probe with the short name – I do it to you)
          We part company on the belief vs. knowledge aspect.

          I believe there is no god, but I don't claim to know there is no god. You claim to KNOW there is a god. I find that a very curious thing to claim. I believe that you are very, very sincere in your belief that a god exists, but how can you – or anyone – know? How do you know that you;re not delusional, or suffering from a really convincing mental illness? Many people hear voices; people kill their children and say that god told them to do it.

          I'm not doubting your sincerity; I just question your claim to know.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:24 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          How can you have the gall to claim that atheists have no morals while you support a book that advocates;

          Discrimination against women
          Discrimination against the handicapped
          Slavery
          Selling 6-year-old girls to strangers for their use as slaves
          Beating helpless children
          Forcing people to get married even if they hate each other.
          etc. etc.

          WAKE UP! Quit your THOUGHTLESS cut-and-paste SPAMMING and actually READ a Bible.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:25 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Whip,

          "@ truth: you’re making the implicit mistake that atheists don’t have morals. this is incorrect."

          I certainly am not. Atheist's can certainly act morally. The question is, what is the foundation of your morals?

          "I believe that i am right."

          But if Hitler believes he's right, who is wrong between the two of you and why?

          However, getting back to the “objective morals” question, I can imagine someone whose moral code goes something like this: Humans are a scourge to all other life on the planet. humans are poisoning the air, and the oceans, and the lands. They are wantonly slaughtering billions of animals. They are destroying plant life. Anything – including the Holocaust – which leads to the deaths of humans is a good thing, and therefore moral, because it lessens the number of people on the planet."

          On atheism, the person who thought the above scenario morally good would not be wrong. That's scary!

          "Now, I don’t subscribe to this view, but I would bet that a few people do."

          They wouldn't be wrong on atheism.

          "Let me ask you this: do you eat meat?"

          Yes. Why?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:26 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          @ truth – only got to half your post. The second part: yes, I've done all of those things – lied, stolen, looked lustfully at women (every day, especially in the summer – yum, yum!)
          Do i think that I will be judged by a god? No, and certainly not the god of the bible, who, as described in the bible, is a horrible monster, a genocidal murderer who advocates r-ape, child abuse, slavery, and a host of other nasty things. I know – Old Testament. But look up Matthew 5:18 – what jesus said about not a letter of the old law will be changed.

          As for the whole "Jesus as sacrifice" story, it really makes no sense, and it is, in and of itself, immoral. If I do something wrong, I should have to pay the penalty, not someone else. With your version, all Hitler has to do is accept Jesus and despite the fact that he oversaw the murder of 6 million people, he's going to heaven.

          How is that right?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:29 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          Atheists can act morally. I didn't see an answer to my question. Why, on atheism, is anything morally good or evil?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:31 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          @ truth; re: eating meat. Many, many people consider eating the flesh of another sentient being to be a terrible, horrible, immoral thing to do. Are they right? Are they wrong? We don't need to eat animals; we can survive fine without eating them. Given that, how can it be considered moral to kill and eat another living, breathing, sentient animal?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:32 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Yes, even SELF-PROFESSSED CHRISTIANS like Hitler can be monsters.

          You keep SPAMMNG the same pointless comments.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Whip,

          I can safely say that there is nothing morally wrong with eating, say cow meat on both the atheistic view and Christian view.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:37 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01

          So do you support all of the HORRIBLE morals in the Bible that I listed?

          YES or NO?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:40 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          @ truth: gotta call you again on it. Atheism is not a world view, or a moral code. it's a response to a single question. And there are many Atheists – as I'm sure there are many Christians – who believe that eating meat is immoral. Doesn't a cow have feelings? Emotions? Doesn't a cow have a right to live? They're not the brightest animals going, but so what? Why should they be slaughtered, when we don;t need to eat them'

          June 19, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          You seriously need to do some research and see what Hitler thought of Christianity later in his life. Also, remember, just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't necessarily mean they are one.
          Again, why, on atheism, is anything morally good or evil?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
        • Doris

          yes, truthf, how would you answer observer's last question. I'm curious.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:45 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Just like Christians, atheists can be "good" or "bad". Like EVERYONE, they get their morals from a variety of sources.

          Atheism has NOTHING to do with morals. What is your comprehension problem?

          So what about the HORRIBLE morals in the Bible? Do you support all of them? YES or NO?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:46 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Whip,

          "Atheism is not a world view, or a moral code. it’s a response to a single question."

          That response carries HUGE implications.

          "And there are many Atheists – as I’m sure there are many Christians – who believe that eating meat is immoral."

          On atheism, it's just their opinions and each's opinion is just as valid as the next concerning what is moral. One says eating meat is morally good. Another says it's morally evil. Who's right? One person says child abuse is morally evil. Another thinks it morally good. On atheism, each view carries EQUAL AUTHORITY. This is scary indeed! If you want to affirm that things like child abuse and the Holocaust are objectively morally evil, you need God to do so. What Christians believe eating meat is immoral?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:50 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01

          Whip,

          One says "eating meat is morally good. Another says it's morally evil. Who's right?"

          LOL. LOL. The Bible says eating scallops, lobster and Alaskan crablegs is an ABOMINATION.

          Then it says it ISN'T.

          lol. Get serious.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:53 pm |
        • Akira

          There are no vegan Christians?
          Ah. Good to know.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:57 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          "There are no vegan Christians?
          Ah. Good to know."

          What does this have to do with whether it's moral or not?

          June 19, 2014 at 11:16 pm |
        • Akira

          What Christians believe eating meat is immoral?

          The Christian vegans would consider it immoral. You are implying there are no Christian vegans. That would be incorrect.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:53 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Observer,

          Concerning the list you cite, I have answered multiple of these in depth in the past including the issue on slavery (though I can't remember if I addressed this directly with you) and what you refer to as "Selling 6-year-old girls to strangers for their use as slaves" (though if you are referring to the Exodus passage it doesn't say the girl is 6 as we have discussed in the past. You seem to like to add that in there. I have to be watchful with how you present these things). I would invite you to revisit those past posts however from our previous encounters I doubt you are really looking for answers. Below was my opening statement regarding the Exodus scenario:

          According to Paul Copan, "As we've seen earlier, this is another example of case law (casuistic law). Such regulations don't assume that the described states of affairs are ideal. Case law begins with specific examples that don't necessarily present best-case scenarios: "if two men quarrel" or "if someone strikes a man" are examples of case law. So the law here instructs Israelites about what should be done under certain inferior conditions ("If a man sells his daughter...")"

          I invite you to go back and read the entire post.

          I'm not sure of the exact verses you are referring to concerning other scenarios you listed but I would invite you to read a book by Paul Copan enti-tled, "Is God a Moral Monster? Making sense of the Old Testament God". It will shed some light on things for you if you are truly seeking answers.

          "Just like Christians, atheists can be “good” or “bad”.

          What determines if something is morally good or bad?

          "Like EVERYONE, they get their morals from a variety of sources."

          What if two people use different sources and come up with different conclusions? One thinks something is morally good while the other thinks the exact same thing is morally evil? Who's right?

          So what about the HORRIBLE morals in the Bible?

          On atheism, why is anything horrible or good?

          June 19, 2014 at 11:54 pm |
        • Doris

          I personally know Christians who believe it is immoral to kill any kind of animal for human consumption. For some, this includes fish.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:58 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          "I personally know Christians who believe it is immoral to kill any kind of animal for human consumption. For some, this includes fish."

          For them it would be a sin if they have doubts. However, the Bible to me is clear on the matter.

          Acts 10:9-15

          9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
          14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
          15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

          June 20, 2014 at 12:43 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          It seems a bit ridiculous for you to quote from the Bible when you are admittedly unaware of so many commands in it.

          June 20, 2014 at 12:47 am |
        • Akira

          TF,
          Are you suggesting that Christian vegans who believe killing and consuming animals morally wrong are sinning?
          That by not eating meat they are acting immorally?
          This is precisely what people are talking about when they say not all morals are found in the Bible.

          June 20, 2014 at 1:09 am |
        • truthfollower01

          I'm not sure if a valid case could be made concerning eating meat with blood still in it (ex. Steak cooked rare) as I haven't given much thought to this.

          June 20, 2014 at 1:21 am |
        • observer

          truthfollower01,

          Still AFRAID to answer questions. Pathetic. Don't expect anyone to be impressed with your credibility.

          June 20, 2014 at 1:24 am |
        • Akira

          I guess that just proves that morals can be derived from other sources than the Bible and God.

          June 20, 2014 at 1:30 am |
      • nojinx

        Euthephro's dilemma

        June 20, 2014 at 12:21 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        It's time for another installment of:
        Doc Vestibule's Primer in Moral Relativism

        Effective cooperation is a learned skill and the successful religions recognize this.
        Christianity reveals this truth about ourselves most poignantly in the character of Jesus Christ. His message is one of peace, charity, modesty and forgiveness – the traits most important to develop when living in a society.

        But moral relativism is still a truism. Ethical codices existed prior to the Abrahamic religions and have evolved independently since.
        People are inherently selfish. We instinctively do that which is least painful. Children do that which is least painful to themselves. Maturity comes when we are able to put aside our own immediate comfort and do that which is least painful for the group. Were it not for our ability to reason this out and cooperate, our species would not survive. As individuals, we are prey animals – soft, squidgy, slow and bereft of in-built offensive capabilities. As a cooperative group, we have become the dominant species in nearly every eco-system on Earth.
        But it takes a mighty big stick to beat the selfishness out of us! Historically, it has been a God sized stick capable to inflicting unimaginable devastation in this life and the hereafter.

        A prime example of the reality of moral relativism is cannibalism.
        Our culture has a very strong cannibalism taboo, but it cannot be "human nature" or something "written on our hearts by God" to feel repulsed by it as virtually every branch of the human species has praticed it at some point in their development.
        The Aztecs believed in transubstantiation. They consumed their human sacrifices in the belief that the dead literally became a part of the God to whom they were given.
        Binerwurs in India ate the sick amongst them to please Kali.
        The Karankawa, an indigenous Texan tribe, ritualistically consumed their enemies to gain their strength.
        The Wari, The Kuru, Fore, Caribs, Fijians, Popayans, Serengipeans, are all fairly modern examples (within the last 500 years).
        Indeed, Christians from the 1st Crusade consumed the fallen Arabs at Maarat.

        Sociological evolution is leading us away from religion – not because Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc are negative in and of themselves, but becuase they are necessarily sectarian and divisive.

        Universally accepted ethics can never be based on the supernatural. Any proposition that relies on faith can and will be twisted by unscrupulous individuals for their own gain. Its just far too easy to manipulate those who are willing to suspend critical thinking and accept something without evidence.

        June 20, 2014 at 8:46 am |
    • Dalahäst

      How many leprechaun believers master a science, lead a movement that frees Americans from oppression or would you trust to perform surgery on your body?

      Because there are a lot of believers in God that have and currently do those things.

      Can you do anything like that.

      Also, the leprechaun analogy was a complete joke. It is not meant to be taken seriously. I can only assume you are telling more jokes?

      June 19, 2014 at 10:02 pm |
      • whippstippler7

        @ Dal: so what? People can do great things in certain aspects of their lives yet, because of early childhood indoctrination, and ongoing societal pressure, believe in a god. That doesn"t make their belief in a god any more reasonable or rational. It merely shows just how powerful this early indoctrination and conditioning is.

        June 19, 2014 at 10:07 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Your committing the genetic fallacy. What one is taught by one's parent does not determine if it is true or not.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:12 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          TF.....then why are nearly all people born in the mid-east Muslims? And nearly all people born in India, Hindus? And why are 75% of all people born in this country Christian? It is indoctrination.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:31 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Yea. Like a person can master a science. But when he writes a philosophy book saying all belief in God is delusional or like being leprechauns, which is actually just due to ongoing societal pressure to not believe in a god, he writes something that embarrasses reasonable atheists. It doesn't make his claim that belief in God is delusional justified – it just shows how some people can master a science, yet be completely irrational and unreasonable in their opinions and beliefs.

          But, I was also just curious if belief in leprechauns was like belief in God. It is not. It is just a joke. It doesn't prove that indoctrination or societal pressure causes belief in God.

          It certainly doesn't in my case. Most believers in God are given the choice.

          That is how it should work.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:14 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It is a logical fallacy, too. Good point.

          It is probably due to his childhood and societal pressure he makes mistakes like that.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:15 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          @ truth: did you actually read my reply? Of course what someone is taught by their parents i.e. that there is a god – doesn't make it true.

          The example was used of people doing great things who believed in a god. My point – the fact that they do great things has no bearing on whether a god exists or not.

          I assume you believe in a god. May I ask why?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:20 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Gullible,

          "TF…..then why are nearly all people born in the mid-east Muslims? And nearly all people born in India, Hindus? And why are 75% of all people born in this country Christian? It is indoctrination."

          What they are taught growing up does not determine if what they are taught is true.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:34 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          TF....nope, it doesn't make it true. Yet....nearly all of those people, depending on where they are born, believe exactly what they have been told since birth. And, invariably, it's not true

          June 19, 2014 at 10:46 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I was an atheist for 20+ years. I believe in God because He has revealed Himself to be real.

          I even find that many people who were raised in religion do not believe for the reasons you theorize. In fact they are just as skeptical and inquisitive as non-believers.

          I've been shocked to learn how many religious people give their children a choice. They teach them other viewpoints and send them to secular schools and encourage them to interact with people of other faiths and non-faiths.

          No, not all are like that. But not all atheists are anti-religious and preachy like so many on this blog.

          Some of what the anti-theists preach on this blog is not true in my experience. It seems like they read it from an authoritative figure and decided it must be true.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:38 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Why are so many atheists privileged, young, white males?

          I'm sure we've all been to an atheist convention. Wow.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          What if belief in God is more like a cultural belief linked to national identi.ty, like the Irish leprechauns and Icelandic elves?

          Certainly, to the people who speak of America as a "Christian Nation", God is linked to the land and people of the USA, forming part of their national ident.ity as God's new "people". For them, to be a "real" American is to believe in God, right? It's what sets them apart, like the particular beliefs of these European peoples.

          June 20, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          – For them, to be a "real" American is to believe in God, right?

          I don't know. Ask them. I've never heard anyone in my church say something like that. It is not what I believe. I'll let you speculate about them and leprechauns.

          June 22, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
      • kudlak

        Dalahäst
        As I listed in our last discussion on this, most Irish people seem to admit believing in leprechauns, as most Icelanders claim to believe in elves. These people believe enough to pass laws protecting the little folk, at some considerable inconvenience to themselves. Surely you are not claiming that there are no scientists, doctors, and other learned people amongst these believers?

        If the leprechaun analogy seems like a complete joke to you, maybe you should reconsider how your beliefs appear to others?

        We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things. And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us.
        Mark Twain – Following the Equator

        June 20, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It IS just a joke.

          It is not a very good argument technique.

          "You May Be Atheist Fundie…

          6. You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique."

          Maybe you should reconsider how your beliefs appear to others?

          June 22, 2014 at 7:44 am |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          What else do you consider just a "joke"? Native American beliefs? Reincarnation? Other people's gods? Islam? Mormonism? Catholics?

          June 22, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Most Irish do not believe in leprechauns. You cited a "study" done by a distillery in celebration of St Patrick's Day. It was a joke.

          I'm pretty sure the Iceland piece is actually about people trying to stall the road construction project.

          June 22, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          I'm not sure if I'd call it a joke just because it was a survey conducted by a distillery. The Guinness World Records book was also started by a brewing company, and is usually considered serious.

          If you categorically stating that you believe no percentage of Irish people would actually admit to believing in leprechauns, I'd like to see your sources.

          Yes, the Icelandic people were trying to stall the road construction project, but they listed their belief in elves as the reason. How is that nay different than any of the political manoeuvrings in the USA done in the name of God?

          You're still dodging this. Are you going to call all non-Christian beliefs a joke too, just to say that there is nothing to compare your beliefs to? How about the people who believe they were abducted by aliens? That a joke too? How about traditional Native American beliefs, or reincarnation, or the Hindu gods, or Mormon beliefs, or Scientology?

          June 23, 2014 at 3:21 pm |
      • colin31714

        Dala:

        Some educated people still believe in the Judeo-Christian god. Lemaitre, A Catholic priest, took a step in the development on the big bang theory, many Jews were instrumental in the formulation of atomic energy, Hindus have made important steps in computing theory and Muslims developed algebra and were largely responsible for many breakthroughs in early astronomy.

        So what!

        It doesn’t validate any of their underlying beliefs. None of them claim they made their discoveries because they prayed or because Allah, God, Vishnu or Krishna told them the answer. They all made their respective discoveries through scientific experimentation and a rigorous application of the scientific method.

        This methodology, when applied to religion, pretty quickly reveals that the gods are a figment of our imagination. Geology and biology shows that no god created the Earth, astronomy shows that there is no heaven or hell we can see and medicine reveals no soul in any part of our body. An application of the principles of historical analysis shows that the supernatural acts attributed to Buddha, Mohammed and Jesus never occurred, and psychology and sociology explain quite neatly why we believe in gods, ghosts and angels (both individually and collectively).

        No, I’m afraid science and logic has been, is and will continue to be the killer of the Christian god and his Jewish and Muslim alter-egos as well as the Buddhist and Muslim gods. It shines like a penetrating light into the dark recesses where these beings used to hide, flushing them out and causing them to scurry off to the next dark corner we are yet to fully understand. They went from lurking just outside the glow of our primitive ancestors’ campsites to the only place reside now – in the soft, simple minds of the remaining believers.

        June 22, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          A lot of educated people believe in God. There are people that believe in God that do things within the fields of science that you are incapable of doing.

          Like, you have to use faith to believe in most of what you know about science. You don't have the education, tools or resources to conduct the experiments and test the claims yourself.

          As a non-scientist you philosophize about science. You admire it. It gives you comfort. You imagine it kills God.

          You are not a very logical thinker. There is a reason why you preach in the message board of religion blogs. Not many people take you that seriously.

          June 22, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          A lot of educated people don't exercise, have lucky socks, think they can get away with cheating on their spouses, or even murdering them too. There are doctors who smoke as well. James Randi tells an amusing tale of how he was invited to join MENSA, but quit once he realized that there were members who believed in ghosts, or some such. Neither intelligence nor education will protect you from beliefs you cannot justify or from getting conned. Only a healthy, equally-applied skepticism can do that for you.

          June 23, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
  10. truthfollower01

    What is the skeptics opinion of the following quote by George Sim Johnson:

    "Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces."

    June 19, 2014 at 6:44 pm |
    • Akira

      Isn't he a Catholic apologist? With no background in science?

      June 19, 2014 at 7:02 pm |
    • ddeevviinn

      I have discussed this issue of teleology with more than my share of "skeptics" over the years. It is arguably the single most debated question upon which logic, reason and rational thought goes out the door for the skeptic. I have yet to find any cogent thought that even begins to provide meaningful rebuttal. And it's not that attempts have not been made, it's just that you can't get blood out of a turnip.

      June 19, 2014 at 7:12 pm |
    • realbuckyball

      Fallacy of the false analogy.
      It's not "random forces". But thanks for the proof neither you nor he has any clue how Evolutionary Biology, selection pressure, and DNA mutation works.

      June 19, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
    • neverbeenhappieratheist

      My opinion is that just because something is complicated does not mean it has to have been crafted by sentient forces. The fact is there are other less complex structures like RNA that shows how through selective trial and error can add information to the RNA strand so its not just about turning on and off whats already there. DNA is just a much more complex version of this with chemical and biological triggers called epigenetics that makes small minute adjustements to our DNA over time. Did you know the average human is 4 inches taller than humans were just 1000 years ago? Was this from total random effect? No, we see natural selection at work.

      The old creationist reasoning was that a monkey couldn't type out all of shaksepear no matter how much time he was given which is pretty much true, however nature does not throw out every page or even every line but can retain them when the money types "To Be" until later when he may inadvertantly type "or not". This means nature is far more selective than the random attributes creationists claim evolution must be and has nature creating life in far fewer steps than ever before imagined without any God being needed. Look at so many of the patterns of nature and of waves which inundate the universe. Check out this http://www.wimp.com/risingtone/ and explain if that is God drawing those patterns or if maybe, just maybe, nature is more organized than you thought with no intelligence required.

      June 19, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        It's not that it's just complicated. It is organized intelligent information. Given the above quote, would you not automatically assume extraterrestrial intelligence?

        June 19, 2014 at 8:09 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Again ... it's a false analogy. It's not "intelligent" information. Each step builds on the previous one. You DO NOT understand Evolution, or Genetics. YouTube – Harvard – Dr. Jack Szostack's series. Watch it and learn something.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:14 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Bucky,

          Richard Dawkins indicates that the message found in just the cell nucleus of an amoeba is more than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica combined.

          Do you honestly believe that the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation produce this?

          June 19, 2014 at 8:21 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Things completely evolve with no intelligence or purpose behind their changes all the time.

          That is why so many atheists on this blog believe in fairies, leprechauns and moons made of green cheese. These things just keep happening. Out of nowhere.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:21 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          "Do you honestly believe that the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation produce this?"

          1. Yes I do. Once the process is under way, it's no longer just "random". Again you did not watch the video, (he's a Nobel winner). What I "believe" is irrelevant. It's been demonstrated in the lab. You can hide your head in the sand if you choose. That's your problem.

          2. Even IF if were to require an "intelligent designer" (and it doesn't and it has MANY MANY flaws an "intelligent designer would NEVER have done), it in no way leads to "oh god done it". Many things "go wrong". Where do you think cancer comes from ?

          3. Intelligent Design is an inherently "unfaithful" position. A real (omnipotent) god could make life work, no matter how it's designed.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:33 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          That is why so many atheists on this blog believe in fairies, leprechauns and moons made of green cheese. These things just keep happening. Out of nowhere.

          Reducio ad absurdam. Good one.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:34 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Sometimes logic and reason can govern the mind of a famous scientist – out of nowhere! It just happens. And he can write philosophy that is error free. You either can accept that or be a delusional idiot.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:35 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Wait. Am I guilty of reducio ad absurdam?

          Or are the atheists who argue leprechauns/fairies/Green Cheese Moon guilty of reducio ad absurdam?

          Surely you... no. ...you don't ever commit logical fallacies do you?

          June 19, 2014 at 8:38 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          "Or are the atheists who argue leprechauns/fairies/Green Cheese Moon guilty of reducio ad absurdam?"

          You're lying. And you lost. No one is REALLY arguing that. It's a damn joke, (as you were told, and purposely ignored).
          Your position is so patheic, you have reduced yourself to arguing against the most obvious strawman ever seen here.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:48 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Bucky,

          1. Are we talking about Macro or Microevolution? If Macro, can you provide evidence of. Change in kind (ex. Cat to dog)?

          2. In my opinion, the fossil record puts the debate to rest. If Darwinian Evolution were true, there should be millions of so called transitional fossils.

          3. Due to sin, there are many things in the world that are not good, such as cancer.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:48 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          TF.....there is only evolution. There is not micro and macro evolution. Those terms were made up by creationists. Life forms are constantly evolving, and it is an excruciatingly slow process. You will not find a half pig, half man skeleton...the process is just too slow and occurs over millions of years. That....is evolution, and that....is a fact.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:09 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Your argument that belief in God is just like belief in a moon made of green cheese doesn't hold water.

          So, yea, it is a joke.

          Belief in God is not the same as the belief in leprechauns. To say so is a joke. To write about it in a philosophy book as a fact is an embarrassment.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:53 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Do you keep committing logical fallacies as a joke, too?

          June 19, 2014 at 8:53 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          .Are we talking about Macro or Microevolution? If Macro, can you provide evidence of. Change in kind (ex. Cat to dog)?

          -– Hahahaha. NOT ONE scientist buys that false division. No cat ever once turned into a god. But thanks for PROVING yet again you have NO CLUE how Evolution works.(Seriously THAT old nonsense ?) NOT one university in the entire world doubt Evolution is essentially correct. You're demonstrating you ignorance and lack of education.

          2. In my opinion, the fossil record puts the debate to rest. If Darwinian Evolution were true, there should be millions of so called transitional fossils.

          -- 99 % of all organisms do not die in places where fossils can form. There are many transitional fossils. More proof you know nothing about science. You need certain very specific conditions to form fossils.

          BTW, today..Google Spanish Cave DNA - NPR. More PROOF Evolution is true. 6 dating methods used. All agree.

          3. Due to sin, there are many things in the world that are not good, such as cancer.

          -- Seriously ? Seriously ?
          1,2,3,4 and 5 year old children get cancer from "sin" ? You are sick.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:05 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          oops. Freudian slip... cat into DOG. (or a god either).

          June 19, 2014 at 9:06 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          "Do you keep committing logical fallacies as a joke, too?"
          -– Really ? Exactly where ? Put up, or shut up.

          This little interlude has been very interesting. I don't spend all that much time here. The level of discussion here is like about 3rd Grade. Ta ta folks. How sad the US education system produces THIS.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:08 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You can't be serious? You are very immature. And you are quick to accuse others of posting logical fallacies. When someone suggests you do it, too, you resort to:

          ad hominem

          Can you not see that?

          June 19, 2014 at 9:14 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Gullible,

          You really need to do your homework. See below.

          Microevolution is evolution on a small scale — within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life. – http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_37

          Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale — what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction – http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_47

          June 19, 2014 at 9:18 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Sorry TF....don't buy it. Evolution is evolution. There are no macro and micro evolutions. You really need to do your homework. No eminent evolutionary scientist would agree with you.

          Fortunately I do not believe everything that I read.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:26 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          Bucky

          1. I didn't see anything of informational value in response to my post. Please cite evidence for a change in kinds. I was giving an example of what a change in kind is. I wasn't actually asking for evidence of a change from a dog to a cat.

          2. There should be millions of transitional fossils if Darwinian evolution were true. How many do you know of?

          3. We live in a fallen world due to rebellion against God, a world in which things like cancer and death inhabit.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:34 pm |
        • observer

          truthfollower01

          "We live in a fallen world due to rebellion against God, a world in which things like cancer and death inhabit."

          How could a "loving" God be so BRUTAL to CREATE cancer to plague mankind? Nice guy.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:43 pm |
        • truthfollower01

          A loving God gave you the choice to hate and rail against Him as you do. Sin has consequences. However, the loving God of the world sent His Son to die on the cross for us, even while we lived in rebellion and as enemies against Him.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:49 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          TF....a loving god supposedly wiped out every living thing on the planet. Nice god you worship there.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:03 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You wouldn't be here if God didn't wipe out that wickedness, according to that story.

          The US and our allies deemed the Nazis to be wicked and we had to wipe them out to protect the good that was left in the world.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:19 pm |
        • redzoa

          @TF – With all due respect, these arguments have been directly addressed before. It's rather disingenuous to keep posting them hoping they'll gain some apologist traction among those unfamiliar with your prior conversations:

          "1. I didn't see anything of informational value in response to my post. Please cite evidence for a change in kinds. I was giving an example of what a change in kind is. I wasn't actually asking for evidence of a change from a dog to a cat."

          Evidence for a change in "kinds" is the presence of transitional fossils bearing traits which bridge the alleged specially created kinds, e.g. tiktaalik bridging fish-tetrapod, archeopteryx bridging reptile-bird. Add to this the phylogenetic evidence from examining both extant and extinct forms which corroborates the progressive order observed in the fossil record. Add to this Lenski's E. coli which, when viewed appropriately in light of bacterial biodiversity, was effectively a change in "kinds."

          "2. There should be millions of transitional fossils if Darwinian evolution were true. How many do you know of?"

          You can google or search wiki for lists of transitional forms. Fossil formation is an extremely rare event. Preservation of a fossil within strata is also a rare event (i.e. high probability of destruction via geologic processes). Discovering a fossil when its encasing strata becomes re-exposed to the surface is again a rare event. We simply do not expect to see millions of transitional fossils; then again, we don't need to. All it takes to undermine literal special creation is one transitional fossil and we have many more than just one.

          Regarding the information storage of our genome, yes it is impressive. But betraying an "intelligent design" in its production is the presence of a significant proportion of parasitic elements, tandem repeats, pseudogenes, etc. We know that non-trivial portions of a mouse genome can be removed with no observable defects. As I've noted before, humans (placental mammals) have a defunct gene for egg-yolk protein. The loss of functionality for this gene (but not the gene itself) maps and corroborates the evolution from egg-laying to placental forms. Our 2nd chromosome bears a superfluous centromere and superfluous telomere portions. Etc, etc. Suffice it to say that our genome does not reflect what we would expect if it were "intelligently designed"; rather, it's what one would expect from a long process of trial and error, and compet-ition between a host and molecular parasites.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:58 pm |
        • ssq41

          Dear, dear, dear truthfollower01 was heard to say:

          "A loving God gave you the choice to hate and rail against Him as you do. Sin has consequences. "

          Well, TF, you just run (don't walk) on down to your nearest Creation Research Inst.itute Laboratory and join your eminently qualified "scientific" colleagues and docu.ment the mechanism your God purportedly used to create cancer, co.ck roaches, thorns on rose bushes, etc., etc. from the "consequences of sin."

          I breathlessly await the peer reviewed article....

          What, they don't do research? Oh, so sad.

          I know you feel all warm and fuzzy inside and corageous reading and re-reading the heroic fictive writings of N.T. Wright and Clive Staples and your Creator Willy L. Craig so you don't actually have to do something to prove your fantasies.

          Hocus pocus, TF!

          June 19, 2014 at 11:06 pm |
        • ssq41

          Sadly, redzoa, that's because TF has never displayed any measurable measure of integrity.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:08 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You don't need a peer reviewed study to know love. Or compassion. Or mercy.

          Yet I know about those things.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:13 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I'm impressed with truthfollower01.

          He usually doesn't resort to insults. And he has a lot of insults directed at him.

          Most people, like me, attack when provoked. Both sides do that. He has a level of maturity I wish more on here would display.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:17 pm |
        • ssq41

          No, dala...he's mechanical and questionably human.

          And I'm disappointed in you for being so deceptive when we last talked. Your latest posts clearly show that your comments a while back were simply dishonest.

          You play a good game. Like most in the Body of Christ, "thou shalt not lie" is merely a recommendation until it conflicts with your agenda.

          Just can't take the "lie" out of the Believer.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:22 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You need to learn how to disagree with someone without resorting to insults and claiming they are liars.

          Nobody will ever lose sleep because an angry sounding guy like you says you are disappointed to them in the message board of a religion blog. I have no idea why you are talking to me like that.

          Look:

          I don't agree with everything truthfollower01 says, either. But I can admit he holds himself well.

          Somebody who can do that in this environment has something going on inside himself that many of us are lacking. He is not subhuman or inferior or whatever you are suggesting by saying he is questionably human. Sorry, but that reminds me of what Nazis said about the Jews and Christians who didn't bow down to the SS.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:39 pm |
        • new-man

          Dalahast,
          tfollower possess the peace of God (whom they deny) that transcends their carnal mind. you are correct that no one is losing sleep over the continued insults of a so-called Israelite in the Philistine camp.

          Jonathan and his armor bearer alone took on the whole camp of the Philistines. This in itself was remarkable, but what was of more note was that there were Israelites in the Philistine camp fighting against Jonathan and his armor bearer.

          this is- ssq41 who claimed to have once been a Christian, but all you see is him coming to this board to fight against and slander believers while blaspheming the God of Israel. He has nothing constructive to add to any conversation.

          as John said: They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:54 pm |
        • ssq41

          ohhh, dala....nice way to not have to address your dishonesty.

          Several folks here over the years have correctly equated a relationship with Jesus/the Father with the most horrific abusive male-female relationships here in the US.

          And now you are puting the onus of the issue on me while calling me "angry."

          Again, exceptional strategy.

          Still doesn't change the fact that you have lied and continue to be a liar...apparently in Jesus' name.

          And, really, you use Nazi in your description?

          Let us go to your very first responsive words...."You need to learn...

          You, in your preachy demand (which you told tallulah you don't like preachy religionists or atheists...lied again! dala!!!) are sounding a bit totalitarian...

          dala, not a good record, whether you're using this screen name or another.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:56 pm |
        • ssq41

          Oh, new-man...cognitive dissonance is very painful...I know.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:57 pm |
        • ssq41

          Ooops...didn't finish that abusive relationship thought.

          So, dala, I noticed the propensity of abused women to blame others instead of the source of their abuse.

          I see, from your above example, that you focused and blamed poor lil' ol' me.

          There is help out there to get free from an abusive heavenly Father and Lord.

          I pray you find it.

          June 20, 2014 at 12:22 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I have a loving God. He doesn't act like you.

          I know you are going to demean me and try and make me feel small for saying that (like a woman abuser does to females). Please stop.

          Just stop. You don't have to live this way.

          June 20, 2014 at 12:24 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I support a program that works with women who are victims of the type of abuse you mention. And many of them do believe in God. And not for the reasons you mention.

          Can you find a better metaphor. I can promise you they would not be cool with a man using their suffering to prove his point and make others feel bad.

          You are crossing a line.

          June 20, 2014 at 12:28 am |
        • ssq41

          dala says: "I know you are going to demean me and try and make me feel small for saying that (like a woman abuser does to females). Please stop.

          Just stop. You don't have to live this way...."

          And then he posts: "You are crossing a line"

          Never quite pinned you as a Drama Queen, dala.

          And the savior complex...nice...another sad quality of those who are abused.

          And Christians don't see their God as an abusive lover? So sad.

          June 20, 2014 at 12:43 am |
        • Dalahäst

          You are griping at me for doing things you do.

          I promise you no woman, especially one that has been abused, thinks referring to a believer in God is the same as having a man beat the crap out of a woman and threaten to murder her if she tells anyone.

          June 20, 2014 at 12:59 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Jesus Christ refused to take part in evil. That is why he was murdered. He wouldn't lift a finger to hurt those who lied and beat him. And that was God's will.

          What you say about an abusive angry man makes no sense.

          God asks me to love my enemies. And to not harm others. That is why my church has a recovery program for women who have been beaten. And we help all women. Regardless of belief. We just want to help them live the life they deserve.

          And I respect that group and support them.

          Do you support any group like that? Do you actually meet the victims and see how tough the abuse can be to overcome?

          June 20, 2014 at 1:05 am |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          If it is, then it really should be an easy thing for you to demonstrate Reductio ad Absurdum, but all you have really done so far is dodge the subject.

          June 22, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
    • gulliblenomore

      TF....my opinion is that if you are offering to make the complexity of DNA as proof of your god, I just have to point out all the flaws that came with that complexity. How easily we get some diseases, our inability to fight off many others, the frailty of our organs, digestive system, our need for eyeglasses and hearing aids, etc, etc. Couldn't a true god have been a bit more precise in the making of man....his prime creature? He gave better eyesight and reflexes to a fly! Nope....I think I will stick with evolution.

      June 19, 2014 at 8:07 pm |
    • whippstippler7

      @truth: please indicate where in nature we can find the entire text of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

      June 19, 2014 at 9:04 pm |
      • truthfollower01

        Is this a serious post?

        Richard Dawkins indicates that the message found in just the cell nucleus of an amoeba is more than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica combined.

        June 19, 2014 at 9:38 pm |
    • nojinx

      It shows a poor understanding of reality or some presumptions regarding it. I would ask for evidence of the claims made.

      June 20, 2014 at 12:24 am |
    • kudlak

      truthfollower01
      If you were to pick up an ordinary rock that eroded from a cliffside, one about the size of your skull, it would likely take about as much information map every detail of it down to the microscopic level in order to carve a new one, but that probably wouldn't impress you, eh?

      June 22, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
  11. colin31714

    Yes, Dawkins is clearly mistaken. He insists on logic and reason to govern his thoughts. He misses the bigger picture, that the Universe may be governed by wizards and fairies. They may exist in a totally different dimension and not be susceptible to the laws of physics.

    He also, apparently, makes the same mistake about God, Allah, Shiva and Vishnu.

    Now I see the believers point. I can't understand how I missed it all these years......

    June 19, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      Hey I joined your religion! I'm in the American Humanist Association now. There in nothing in our "manifestos" (cute, hu?) that prevents talk of wizards and fairies. So I'm going to be hitting the conventions and circuits preaching about our new love for wizards and fairies. Especially sky fairies! Our favorites!

      I thank leprechauns for this man made religion: American Humanist Association.

      And we are tax exempt! How awesome is that! I can write off my research into elves and sorcery in the name of Humanism.

      Should we make any new dogmas... I mean manifestos?

      Anyone interested in joining our religion, read more here: https://secure.americanhumanist.org/join

      We can use your donations! No, this is not like when you donate to a church. Right? Well, don't worry about that. Just join us.

      June 19, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
      • colin31714

        If you had a point to make, it is lost on me.

        June 19, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          We are in the same secular religion now. I didn't realize there were so many Christians in the American Humanist Association! I'm glad we can work together in this group.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • colin31714

          What is a "secular religion?"

          June 19, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          A belief system based in faith, like our Humanism.

          Our manifesto states:

          "These affirmations [in the Manifestos] are not a final credo or dogma but an expression of a living and growing faith."

          June 19, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Sorry. Our Manifestos. Not little m manifestos.

          June 19, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
        • Mayer

          Humanism isn't a religion. It is a relationship with the Universe.

          June 19, 2014 at 4:51 pm |
        • kudlak

          Mayer
          I like to say that my skepticism is actually a close, personal relationship with reality.

          June 22, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      "He insists on logic and reason to govern his thoughts."

      And fails.

      And resorts to circular reasoning to maintain that position.

      I can't understand how you miss that.

      June 19, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        And yet you failed to point out even one little example.
        The moon is made of green cheese.

        June 19, 2014 at 4:50 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Logic and reason do not govern Richard Dawkin's thoughts. He makes too many logical fallacies to claim that.

          And he is susceptible to human nature, like everyone else.

          Although he has never claimed logic and reason govern his thoughts. He is not that arrogant.

          June 19, 2014 at 4:55 pm |
        • flightfromfrostmtn

          "Logic and reason do not govern *every one of* Richard Dawkin's thoughts."

          There, fixed it for you:)

          What logical fallacies does he make btw?

          June 19, 2014 at 6:20 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          https://www.debate.org/debates/Richard-Dawkins-The-God-Delusion-has-embarrassing-logical-errors/1/

          June 19, 2014 at 6:53 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/Dawkins%20Debunked%20Summary.htm

          "Logic and reason were not governing Richard Dawkin's thoughts when he authored this book. But he did make a boat load of money off of it!"

          June 19, 2014 at 6:55 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Again. Not one example. Fail yet again.
          The moon really is made of green cheese, apparently.

          June 19, 2014 at 7:20 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          But he did make a boat load of money off of it!"

          Red herring.

          You have any idea how much William Lane Craig charges for a conference hook up ?

          June 19, 2014 at 7:21 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          But thanks for agreeing it was very popular.

          June 19, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Do you honestly believe the moon is made of green cheese?

          June 19, 2014 at 7:24 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          i do. I do. Praise Jebus I believe.

          June 19, 2014 at 7:26 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          popular? argumentum ad populum!

          June 19, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You honestly believe the moon is made of green cheese?

          Can you point to any people in history or Nobel Prize winners that believe the moon is made of green cheese?

          June 19, 2014 at 7:28 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          You can't be serious ? Have you no sense of humor ? What do you think ? Saying the moon is made etc...is the equivalent to
          The claims of beliebers.

          YOU said it made him a lot of money. That means it was popular, as YOU said.
          I never said anything about the validity of any argument. ONLY then would the "argumentum ad populum" come into play.
          I see critical thinking is in short supply there.

          June 19, 2014 at 7:59 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I was making fun of you for saying "Red herring".

          I didn't say the fact that he made money off of it proved anything.

          And how is your statement "The moon is really made of green cheese" not a red herring?

          Also, are you saying the logic in the book "The God Delusion" is sound? There are no logical fallacies or errors?

          June 19, 2014 at 8:25 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It is a logical fallacy to say your statement that the moon is made of green cheese is the same as statement made by believers.

          For starters, you don't honestly believe the moon is made of green cheese.

          Secondly, you are just using an argument technique popularized by "The God Delusion" – which can't be proved. Just like your green moon statement.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:30 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Some believers in God have flown to the moon to see it wasn't made of green cheese.

          You can't say that.

          Has any believers of your Green Moon flown to the moon?

          June 19, 2014 at 8:32 pm |
        • flightfromfrostmtn

          Norman J. Lund, Ph. D. An ordained Lutheran minister.

          Dalahast, did you read that article you posted? if so would you agree he had to do a lot of reaching in his critique? EVERY single point he had was a huge stretch.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:44 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You mean just like the book, The God Delusion?

          "Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant. (He was just this when, thirty years ago, Mary Midgeley went after the selfish gene concept without the slightest knowledge of genetics.) Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group."

          http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2009/08/michael-ruse-on-why-the-new-atheists-are-a-bloody-disaster/

          Can I show you atheists that point out the logical fallacies Dawkins makes?

          June 19, 2014 at 8:50 pm |
        • flightfromfrostmtn

          If you can find one that disputes his work:)

          You and I are as qualified to speak on the nature of the supernatural as Norman Lund or any other theological expert because there are absolutely no rules or facts involved.

          Richard Dawkins bases his opinion on real, proven science. Not something he pulled out of the ether. If he was incorrect or making his case on false data – he would be called out by the entire scientific community not just creationists as junk science is a waste of time.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:03 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It was a philosophy book.

          Not a science book.

          There are atheists, scientists and philosophers that state that.

          Nobody has ever posted his works from science to me on this blog. They always quote his philosophy.

          Philosophy. Not science.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:17 pm |
        • flightfromfrostmtn

          Based on his work....ill take someone's opinion backed by solid evidence vs somebody's opinion based on mythology.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:43 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          There are some well respected atheists that call his work in that book embarrassing.

          He is a good scientist. That doesn't make him a good philosopher. Like, he probably isn't a good plumber, either. So I would call a plumber not him if I wanted to know about plumbing.

          He should have wrote a science book. But he wrote a philosophy book. Probably because it would make more money.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:05 pm |
        • flightfromfrostmtn

          His reasoning is solid – did he lie? did he stretch the truth? what did he get wrong? What doesnt he understand about theology and creationism that Mr. Lund does? Over and over we hear "you just dont understand" " you dont get it" "you re not qualified"
          Well what is it that we dont get?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:17 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Mr Dawkins is completely wrong when he states I believe in a "sky fairy". Mr Dawkins does go on to admit later that God may not be a delusion. That's good.

          Mr Lund isn't a Creationist.

          Mr Dawkins just wrote an opinion piece. It is fine you agree with it. But it isn't science or completely logical.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:25 pm |
        • flightfromfrostmtn

          Dr. Norman J. Lund and his wife Judith reside in Kenmore, a suburb of Seattle, WA. They have three daughters and have been homeschooling since 1985. Judy has a degree in education from Seattle Pacific University. Norm completed his B.A. in religion and philosophy at Northwest University in Kirkland, WA. He holds two master's degrees from Luther Seminary in St. Paul, MN and is an ((((ordained Lutheran minister.)))) He did his Ph.D. in systematic theology at Wycliffe College, Toronto, working with Dr. Oliver O'Donovan, a renowned scholar in Christian ethics. O'Donovan is currently a professor at New College, University of Edinburgh. Previously Dr. O'Donovan was on the faculty of Christ Church at the University of Oxford (1982-2006), and before that at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford (1972-77) and at Wycliffe College, Toronto (1977-82).

          Lutherans arent Creationists?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I'm a Lutheran. And I'm not a Creationist.

          We fully embrace science at my church. Most scientists have no problem with our stance on science. We have actually had scientists (possibly atheist ones, we don't discriminate) teach at my church.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:43 pm |
        • flightfromfrostmtn

          Soooo Christ is who to you? How does he fit into the picture if you arent a creationist?

          June 19, 2014 at 10:51 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Jesus Christ is the way to our Heavenly Father – the Creator of the universe.

          Most Christians are not Creationists.

          June 19, 2014 at 10:58 pm |
        • flightfromfrostmtn

          So You believe in god...but he isnt the creator? You believe in Christ – say hes the only way to an afterlife but evolution is how it actually unfolded .. Dalahast, it seems you, the Lutherans, the Catholics and the rest of Christianity make this stuff up on the fly.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:15 pm |
        • flightfromfrostmtn

          a massive game of lets pretend – with sometimes lethal consequences for picking the wrong plan.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:18 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No. You misunderstand.

          I believe God is the Creator of the universe. We study his creation with science. That is why as a Christian I embrace science. The more we learn from and about science, the more we are learning about God.

          We can't fully know God. But He has revealed truths about Himself and how He wants us to treat each other. There is a purpose to this life. And there is more to life than meets the eye. That is why we have 2 halves to our brains. A logical and imaginative side. When we use our whole brain we can find God.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:23 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Like Richard Dawkins is criticized for getting the theology completely wrong in his book.

          He was arguing things that believers don't believe. That is why his book fails on a theological and philosophical level.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:25 pm |
      • kudlak

        Dalahäst
        We can only ever try to live up to the standards we choose to live by. You are the one who keeps saying that Christians are still sinners, and that none can achieve perfection, right? Why the double standard then? Why expect Dawkins or any atheists to be perfect?

        June 22, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          All people are sinners, or people who fail to live up to their ideals.

          I have no problem with Richard Dawkins the scientist. When he plays philosopher and makes logical fallacies I will criticize that. Especially when I have to listen to so many people parrot something very similar to his philosophy and insist it is factual.

          I know Dawkins is not perfect. And I know atheists are not perfect. Atheist just means you don't believe in God. It has nothing to do with being perfect.

          No double standard intended. I'm pretty much saying we are the same.

          June 22, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • igaftr

          dala

          The dictionary according to Dalahast.

          Sinner: Someone who does not live up to their ideals.

          Of course you will ONLY find that defintion in the Dalahast Dictionary of Alternate Meanings that no one else uses.

          June 22, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          I've read through the debate you provided on
          https://www.debate.org/debates/Richard-Dawkins-The-God-Delusion-has-embarrassing-logical-errors/1/

          and it appears that Dawkin's book does include errors, but the question of whether they are his errors or someone else's errors he repeats seems unsettled. Point taken, Dawkins in no logician.

          However, the argument that a designer god would still need a designer is still sound. Designer gods are not unthinking Laws of Nature.

          June 23, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
  12. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    “Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger.”

    June 19, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      “The hands of the king are the hands of a healer, and so shall the rightful king be known.” – Ioreth of the Houses of Healing.

      June 19, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        LOL... How much more Tolkien do you think we can get away with posting before the Sauron sees us?

        June 19, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        How much more Tolkien do you think we can get away with posting before Sauron starts oppressing us?

        June 19, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        Didn't think that posted the first time...

        June 19, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        Yes, concealed within his fortress, the lord ... sees all. His gaze pierces cloud, shadow, earth, and flesh. You know of what I speak, LET: a great Eye, lidless, wreathed in flame.

        June 19, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          The Eye was rimmed with fire, but was itself glazed, yellow as a cat's, watchful and intent, and the black slit of its pupil opened on a pit, a window into nothing.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        False, tricksy atheiststss....

        June 19, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Don't go toward the lights...no precious...mustn't look at them....no. atheistss will go down with the dark ones and light little candles of their own

          June 19, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
  13. Salero21

    Once you know and understand the absolute, complete and Total NONSENSE of atheism the rest follows.
    Atheists are extreme hypocrites, compulsive and pathological Liars. Once you understand and know these Facts that are clearly seen daily in the Belief Blog, everything else falls in place.

    June 19, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
    • Salero21

      The same goes with idolaters.

      June 19, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        Great. Now all you have to do is explain the reasons behind your (otherwise) worthless assertions, and while you're at it One Trick Pony, please explain why that is all you can ever say. Take your time.

        June 19, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
        • Salero21

          unreal buckysquare,

          You're a PRIME example of the reason and the why I say what say. And it is that atheism/evolutionism/cultism and idolatry are all Absolute, Complete and Total absurdity and NONSENSE. Atheists are extreme hypocrites, Compulsive and pathological LIARS. If you can't understand, then again that is why and the reason.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:25 pm |
    • nojinx

      Interesting. Can you provide evidence for this claim?

      June 20, 2014 at 12:25 am |
  14. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    “Still round the corner there may wait
    A new road or a secret gate
    And though I oft have passed them by
    A day will come at last when I
    Shall take the hidden paths that run
    West of the Moon, East of the Sun.”

    June 19, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      The Road goes ever on and on
      Down from the door where it began.
      Now far ahead the Road has gone,
      And I must follow, if I can,
      Pursuing it with eager feet,
      Until it joins some larger way
      Where many paths and errands meet.
      And whither then? I cannot say.

      June 19, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        “Ho! Ho! Ho! To the bottle I go
        To heal my heart and drown my woe
        Rain may fall, and wind may blow
        And many miles be still to go
        But under a tall tree will I lie
        And let the clouds go sailing by”

        June 19, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        Sing hey! for the bath at close of day
        That washes the weary mud away!
        A loon is he that will not sing:
        O! Water Hot is a noble thing!

        June 19, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        “For still there are so many things
        that I have never seen:
        in every wood in every spring
        there is a different green.”

        June 19, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        All that is gold does not glitter,
        Not all those who wander are lost;
        The old that is strong does not wither,
        Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

        June 19, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      "A day will come at last when I
      Shall take the hidden paths that run"

      Actually that death metaphor reminds me of Malbeth the Seer:

      Over the land there lies a long shadow,
      westward reaching wings of darkness.
      The Tower trembles to the tombs of kings
      doom approaches. The Dead awaken
      for the hour is come for the oathbreakers
      at the Stone of Erech they shall stand again
      and hear there a horn in the hills ringing.
      Whose shall the horn be? Who shall call them
      from the prey twilight, the forgotten people?
      The heir of him to whom the oath they swore.
      From the North shall he come, need shall drive him:
      he shall pass the Door to the Paths of the Dead.

      June 19, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
  15. Doc Vestibule

    If there's one thing to be learned from Orthodox Jews, it's that the fundamentalists never disappear entirely.
    The science denying, ho/mophobic, self-righteous evangelicals will forever be pointing their condemning fingers from a fiery pulpit and crying out that the sky is falling.
    It's up to the rest of society to keep them from unduly influencing academia and government.
    Don't let "the moral majority" control the wheel. They'd seem to like nothing more than to drive us straight back into the bronze age.

    June 19, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
    • Alias

      Our children are saving us from the hard core fundamentalist christians. They are simply not gaining any support from the younger generation. It is groups like the Mormons that wil last. They form inclusive subcultures and focus more on making religion a large part of every aspect of life. Scientology does the same thing.

      June 19, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
  16. fintronics

    "Those Jesus Freaks
    Well, they're friendly but
    The shlt they believe
    Has got their minds all shut up
    An' they don't even care
    When the church takes a cut
    Ain't it bleak when you got so much nothin'

    - Frank Zappa, "The Meek Shall Inherit Nothin'"

    June 19, 2014 at 12:45 pm |
  17. Vic

    To the Christian believer, God is explained Theologically, Metaphysically, and Naturally; therefore, it is not a leap to conclude that "God did it." When we study our existence, we use Special Revelation—Scripture, Natural Revelation—this existence, Theology, Metaphysics, and Empirical Science.

    Whatever scientific discovery pointing to God is but part of the "Natural Revelation."

    While science cannot prove or disprove God, we believe in God. God, out of His Omnipotence and Grace, has already revealed Himself naturally through His wondrous creation, this universe and life in it, hence "Natural Revelation," as well as through Scripture, hence "Special Revelation." This is done in purpose of the "Test of Faith;" otherwise, Faith/Belief is not possible.

    Whatever scientific discovery is but a part of God's "Natural Revelation" and not contrary to God.

    To wit:

    "Belief/Faith in God" explains the "Origin" of the universe and life in it, hence "God and His Creation."

    "Empirical Science" explains how God's Creation physically works, hence God's "Natural Revelation."

    Early on:
    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/17/cosmos-the-creationist-version/comment-page-2/#comment-3030198

    June 19, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
    • Science Works

      Hey Vic and Fred – Dala too – But this might be over your head maybe ?

      Evolution Depends on Rare Chance Events, 'Molecular Time Travel' Experiments Show
      June 18, 2014 — Historians can only speculate on what might have been, but a team of evolutionary biologists studying ancient proteins has turned speculation into experiment. They resurrected an ancient ancestor of ... full story

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/fossils_ruins/origin_of_life/

      June 19, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Apparently this is above your head "Science Works"?

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/christians-evolution_n_4732998.html

        Also, have you figured out how the same company that produces and distributes Fox News, also produces and distributes Cosmos? Let me know what you find out.

        June 19, 2014 at 4:21 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Science Works!

        I hope this isn't over your head:

        The public’s view that science and religion can’t work in collaboration is a misconception that stunts progress, according to a new survey of more than 10,000 Americans, scientists and evangelical Protestants. The study by Rice University also found that scientists and the general public are surprisingly similar in their religious practices.

        – See more at: http://news.rice.edu/2014/02/16/misconceptions-of-science-and-religion-found-in-new-study/#sthash.tXKmLpMG.dpuf

        June 19, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
      • Science Works

        Hey Dala – Really hilarious.- by the way Cosmos is available on Blu-Ray too.

        Science Works
        Hey Dala and topher – you get there from the front page of CNN – funny or die – hilarious !

        http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/showbiz/2014/06/16/fod-creationist-cosmos.funny-or-die&hpt=hp_c3&from_homepage=yes&video_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F
        J
        une 16, 2014 at 1:07 pm |

        Dalahäst
        Science Works,

        Does it seem strange to you that Cosmos is produced and distributed by the same company that produces and distributes Fox News? And both are categorized under the "entertainment" wing of the company.

        June 16, 2014 at 2:05 pm |

        http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/14/spain-moves-to-correct-500-year-old-error/#comments

        June 19, 2014 at 7:42 pm |
      • Science Works

        Dala fossils work too .

        http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/nearly-neanderthal-skulls-reveal-steps-human-evolution-n135206

        June 19, 2014 at 7:54 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          The Scientific Atheism Fallacy

          http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-plato-can-save-your-life/201106/the-scientific-atheism-fallacy-how-science-declares-god-is-

          June 20, 2014 at 12:14 am |
        • Science Works

          Wow dala and om my dog tags from long ago say CATH – But I tend to agree with the link below.

          Richard Dawkins Isn’t Wrong to Call Religious Beliefs Childish

          Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/06/13/richard-dawkins-isnt-wrong-to-call-religious-beliefs-childish/#ixzz34oGHy0nG

          And please remember to teach children where herpes came from and how it is transmitted – thanks.

          June 20, 2014 at 9:58 am |
    • Alias

      Vic,
      i agree that science cannot disprove god. However, it can disprove may some of the claims made in the bible. Once you start to look at the bible as a book with flaws the interpretation may change until you don't accept it at all.

      June 19, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
      • Vic

        I am a born again "mainline" Christian Protestant. I believe that the Bible might have scribal, interpretational and/or translational errors concerning some details; however, the main narrative about God, His creation and His relationship with man is quite clear. In other words, Whatever discrepancies there are, they are not detrimental to the "Existence of God" and "Faith in Him."

        I have been studying the Bible for over a decade now, and I have many unanswered questions, and I am not not done. Whenever I come across something I cannot grasp or explain, I simply lay it off and move on; meanwhile it is compelling to me that God is True.

        June 19, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Just in case you're curious, scribal additions can be found here:
          Mark 16:9-20, Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:28, Romans 16:24, and John 7:53-8:11.

          It is important to remember, however, that the verses in question are of minor significance. None of them change in any way the crucial themes of the Bible, nor do they have any impact on the Bible’s doctrines—Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, Christ as the only the way of salvation, heaven and hell, sin and redemption, and the nature and character of God. These are preserved intact through the work of the Holy Spirit, who safeguards the Word of God for all generations.

          June 19, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          And before anyone chides this as being a flaw, these are scribal notes, much like you'd see in an annotated Bible today, and they are KNOWN to be scribal additions. So if you consider these scribal additions as "errors" well then you'd better throw in every study Bible that's ever been produced into that category as well.

          June 19, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
        • Alias

          An all knowing, all powerful creator of the universe found himself in a position where he HAD TO get a married virgin pregnant and sacrifice the child. He had no other option. If he had not done this, he could not judge us based on our actions and would have had to send us all to hell.
          But science cannot disprove that, so let me point out that Adam and Eve never existed. Also Noah's flood never happened.

          June 19, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Alias,
          So... with your understanding of the gospel aside, could you then explain to everyone how a contingent universe can also be eternal? (without dipping into some laws of physics denying magic, of course)

          June 19, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
        • Alias

          "Contingent" has more than one meaning.
          The universe has natural laws. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it only changes forms. If it exists, then it has always existed in some form.

          June 19, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
        • Vic

          @June 19, 2014 at 1:11 pm | & June 19, 2014 at 1:13 pm |

          I once answered a Bible Study question about who wrote the Bible with "Inspired Apostles." I got a wrong mark on that suggesting that the correct answer is "God."

          Well, I believe the Word of God is "inerrant" while I believe that the Bible might have scribal, interpretational and/or translational errors concerning some details, which begs the question "how so?!"

          The answer is simple:

          I believe the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, is inerrant, while I believe the inspired word of God, the Bible, might have scribal, interpretational and/or translational errors concerning some details.

          With all of that, of course, it is my solid Faith/Belief that God Almighty is the Father, Son (Lord Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit, that Salvation is by the Grace of God through Faith ALONE in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and APART from the Law and its works, and that the Lord Jesus Christ is the ONLY Mediator between us and God the Father.

          @June 19, 2014 at 1:15 pm |

          I believe "How" God chooses to do things is a matter of the Divine Realm according to His Sovereign Divine Will, Wisdom & Command, whether we are able to understand it, if made capable to at all or even revealed to us, or not. I believe what most certainly is revealed to us, as explained in the OP, is the Existence of God, His Creation and the "Test of Faith."

          June 19, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • Alias

          Vic
          That is the fundamental difference between our faith.
          When you find a part of the bible that makes no sense, you blame yourself for not understanding while I blame the bible for not making sense.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • Vic

          Well, I believe it is a three-fold possibility. It is either a matter of Divine Wisdom that is not revealed to us, a lack of understanding on my part, or what might be scribal, interpretational and/or translational error.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          ""Contingent" has more than one meaning."
          -----------------
          However concrete physical reality is sectioned up, the result will be a state of affairs which owes its being to something other than itself. Every physical state, no matter how inclusive, has a necessary condition in some specific type of state which precedes it in time and is fully existent prior to the emergence of the state in which it conditions. There is not one example in the physical universe of a physical quant.ity that explains its own existence.

          And contingent enti.ties are not eternal.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Matter cannot be created or destroyed
          ------------–
          Newtonian laws of physics were never intended to make statements on cosmogony, rather, they were devised to explain occurances within closed systems. It cannot be stated, using Newtonian physics that matter and energy in the universe are eternal. Even Newton himself knew that they were not.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        • Alias

          Theo
          You are confusing its existence with its form.
          It may depend on something else for its current form, but it would have existed in some form none the less.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "You are confusing its existence with its form.
          It may depend on something else for its current form, but it would have existed in some form none the less."
          -------------–
          So before the universe created itself, matter and energy existed in a different form?

          June 19, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • Alias

          No Theo,
          If there had ever been a time when the universe didn't exist, then it wouldn't exist now.

          June 19, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • Vic

          For this universe, which is physical and ever-changing, hence finite, hence cannot be infinite/eternal, hence temporal, hence had a "beginning," to exist, there must be a cause. Since the universe had a beginning and is physical, ever-changing and finite, there must be a cause that is outside the universe's beginning, realm and time, and is not subject to it, that is non-temporal—without beginning nor end, hence NON-CHANGING, hence Eternal, hence UNCAUSED, hence Metaphysical, hence a "First Cause."

          June 19, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
        • Alias

          Vic,
          How did you jump to finite?
          Changing does not mean limited.

          June 19, 2014 at 5:36 pm |
        • Vic

          The short version:

          Basic science posits that the slightest motion in the universe (e.g. expansion, contraction, etc.) is "change," and "change" means that the universe had a "beginning" since it is expanding, hence is temporal, hence is "finite."

          There is also the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy.

          June 19, 2014 at 6:12 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      The Universe is vast and mind bogglingly complex.
      God is an explanation for the reasons behind the universe's existence – something that is unprovable, unknowable and has no bearing on what happens IN the universe.
      We can only try to describe it and chronicle its workings.

      June 19, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
  18. Robert Brown

    The oldest known living thing on earth is a tree, a 4,800-year-old Great Basin Bristlecone pine, located in Methuselah alley, Nevada.

    June 19, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
    • gulliblenomore

      Robert....wrong. A quick search of google shows the oldest known living thing in this planet is a seagrass plant that is 200,000 years old.

      June 19, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Isn't seagrass more like a colony than a single ent.ity? No single blade of grass is that old. But a single tree is 5,000 years old?

        June 19, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          The colony (located at the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea) is 100,000 years old, but an individual plant in that colony was estimated at twice that age.

          June 19, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          "This is a misleading claim, since no part of the plant actually lasts 200,000 years or anywhere near that. Only the "collective" lasts that long. Really, a sequoia is the oldest organism, as opposed to superorganism."

          quote from somewhere I read

          June 19, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Dala, your "quote" was actually a reply to this article:

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/9066393/Ancient-seagrass-Oldest-living-thing-on-earth-discovered-in-Mediterranean-Sea.html

          This reply was made by a person who uses the screen name "djcastel"

          So can you tell us the qualifications of "djcastel" and why we should consider him/her an authority on the topic? And if you are going to use the comments of others, could you please credit them? It really isn't that difficult to copy and paste the name along with the rest of the statement.

          June 19, 2014 at 5:41 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Right. I had no idea who that guy was, but I thought he made a valid point.

          So that is why I quoted it, but was lazy and didn't say exactly who it was.

          Sorry “djcastel” – whoever you are.

          I have no idea what your qualifications are "tallulah131". If that is your real name.

          Doesn't the comment make sense, though?

          June 19, 2014 at 5:48 pm |
        • tallulah131

          I am not the one pulling a quote from an unknown source and using it as a reference.

          Anytime you use a quote to support your own argument, then it's your responsibility to provide the source of that quote, and the reason why that person should be considered an authority. Simply finding an anonymous comment that supports what you want to think proves absolutely nothing.

          June 19, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          We are posting on the internet. Under anonymous names. On opinions.

          We aren't journalists or academics. It is a silly forum for people to rant and rave about religion and opinions.

          Don't take yourself and others so seriously.

          June 19, 2014 at 6:46 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Anytime you use a quote to support your own argument, then it's your responsibility to provide the source of that quote, and the reason why that person should be considered an authority. Simply finding an anonymous comment that supports what you want to think proves absolutely nothing.

          June 19, 2014 at 6:59 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I wasn't supporting an argument, I was inquiring about something new I had just learned.

          I never said it supports what I thought.

          June 19, 2014 at 7:02 pm |
        • tallulah131

          " Dalahäst

          "This is a misleading claim, since no part of the plant actually lasts 200,000 years or anywhere near that. Only the "collective" lasts that long. Really, a sequoia is the oldest organism, as opposed to superorganism."

          quote from somewhere I read
          June 19, 2014 at 12:38 pm |"

          Liar. There was no inquiry there.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:04 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          That was an inquiry. I might be wrong, but that doesn't make me a liar.

          Get off your high horse. I hate when religious/atheist people get so preachy. Don't you?

          June 19, 2014 at 9:10 pm |
        • ssq41

          ahhh....dala....I see you're lying here as well.

          Kudos! Keeping that witness for the Lord well polished.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:26 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I might be wrong.

          That doesn't make me a liar.

          We all are wrong at times. Nobody is perfect.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:32 pm |
        • ssq41

          Dala says: "I might be wrong."

          So humble.

          And yet, when it is intentional and you attempt to hide behind the facade of humility?

          Simply, dala, you're a liar.

          ...and a great gameplayer...good job!

          June 19, 2014 at 11:36 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Regardless, if the colony is that old that means it's evidence that "life" began before that, right?

          June 22, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I don't think anyone was denying that life existed before that. At least I wasn't. I'm pretty sure the OP was Catholic so he believes in evolution, Big Bang and the scientific age of the earth. If I'm wrong I'm sorry.

          I think the point was the oldest living individual thing we know of is a tree. There are forests that are older, but none of the individual trees lasted that long.

          June 22, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        gulliblenomore

        So can you tell us the qualifications of "a quick search of Google" and why we should consider that an authority on the topic? And if you are going to use the studies of others, could you please credit them? It really isn't that difficult to copy and paste the name along with the rest of your statement.

        June 19, 2014 at 6:06 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          dala....I told you yesterday....I do not reply to azzholes, and you have become one of the biggest azzholes on this site. Your god must be incredibly proud of you.

          June 19, 2014 at 7:52 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Uh, you keep replying to me. So does that mean I'm not an "azzholes"?

          Or did you forget you told me that yesterday?

          Logically if you are replying to me, that means I'm not an azzhole.

          But you said I'm an azzhole?

          Nobody ever said you were logical. Oh well.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:04 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Congratulations dala....you have moved right up into the ranks of the finisher. A little more and you could move right alongside salero. Again, your god must be wonderfully proud of you.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:39 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Gullible,

          Thanks!

          I'm dedicating this to all the atheists that insist I believe in a "sky fairy". Or my belief in God is just like believing in a "moon made of green cheese".

          And to those who preach their scientism and use philosophy, not science, to back that up.

          Can you sense sarcasm? Can you read between the lines? Do you notice hostile irrational anti-theists hate the taste of their own medicine?

          I've noticed that.

          June 19, 2014 at 8:42 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          None of us really care what god you believe in. I, and many other atheists I have seen on this site, abhor anybody with the complete arrogance to say "god is real" or "god is not real" with absolutely no proof of either. Believe whatever you want, I truly do not care. I just think it is really important to point out the fallacy of such thinking, for both parties.

          The last couple of days you have been acting like a total jerk And, if that is the way you would like to be, then fine. I am not the only person that has noticed it, by the way. I would truly hate to see you slide into the likes of Scot, salero, finisher, and several of the other nuts on this blog.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:01 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It seems hypocritical for you to be preaching your morals and standards of what is acceptable and not acceptable to know at me.

          There is nothing inherently arrogant about believing God is real. And it is quite logical and reasonable to find people that believe in God on a religion blog.

          You have quite a bit of nerve to treat me like a jerk for my beliefs you don't agree with.

          If you don't like being around people who know God and have trust and confidence in God you are living in the wrong country. Because I'm free to know and live in response to that.

          June 19, 2014 at 9:08 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Can you take a joke? Why so sensitive? And judgmental? And insulting?

          When anti-theists do the same thing you ignore it. When I do it you get preachy, judgemental and catty.

          Why, gullible? Is that a double standard?

          June 19, 2014 at 8:44 pm |
        • igaftr

          gullible
          I have noticed the very same thing. He likes to doubletalk, change the meaning of words ( I just caught him redefining sin for everyone, now he will calim I misunderstood him)

          He just said "There is nothing inherently arrogant about believing God is real." Not addressing the fact that he claimed to KNOW...not believe.
          He claimed there was a test, when called, he had no test.
          He claimed definitive proof...then next post he could have been decieved.

          I know he is very prolific, so ignoring him is difficult , especially considering the ridiculous things he posts, like above acting like he hasn't been claiming to KNOW god exists.

          You never know what kind of dancing act you are going to get out of him. He says one thing, then claims YOU misunderstood, he redefines words all the time...try to ignore him.

          June 22, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I didn't change on sin. You probably just misunderstand.

          It is difficult to talk about it because you don't believe you can sin. Sin can only exist if God exists. But generally speaking, I sin the same as others. Even non-believers from my viewpoint. We are all equal. We all need forgiveness for our errors and harms we may have caused.

          June 22, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • igaftr

          Exactly dala
          You redefined sin to mean all trangressions, not just those against god.
          I am not a sinner, unless you can show your god exists.

          Try using the correct words for things and you will not create such confusion.
          Transgression, crime... infraction...do not mean sin.

          June 22, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Sin, for me, means transgressions against God and other people. Sorry if you misunderstood.

          God wants me to treat other people well. That is what those commandments from God illustrate: how to treat our neighbor. Love does not steal. Love does not lie. Love does not covet.

          When I don't do that I sin against others, and God.

          June 22, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • igaftr

          No one can understand you if you change the defintions of words to suit YOUR idea.

          Sin is a trangression against GOD.

          There are MANY words that means against man. Sin does not include man, unless the transgression against "god" is a rule about the treatment of man.

          Use the correct words, you will be understood.

          June 22, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You seem certain you are right. But you should consider this:

          We are transgressing against God when we harm other people. Loving others is a divine commandment. How we treat others, is a reflection of how we treat God.

          Not all agree with this. But it is what I believe. You should probably ask, not tell me what I believe.

          June 22, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          And it is not MY idea. It is God's idea. It is in the Bible.

          June 22, 2014 at 2:57 pm |
        • igaftr

          And men wrote the bible. In it they make claims about "god" and it is also claimed that "god" inspired it, but that also comes from men. There is no indication any gods were involved. That is only belief.

          June 22, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          There is indication that God is involved. Some of the stories were pretty sophisticated for uneducated, bronze age goat herders.

          June 22, 2014 at 6:54 pm |
        • igaftr

          "You seem certain you are right."

          I am certain I have checked many definitions...all require a god.

          Unless you can show this god, or any for that matter, you cannot show sin exists.

          June 22, 2014 at 3:21 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I know sin exists. I am a sinner. I don't have to prove things to you in order for them to exist.

          June 22, 2014 at 6:55 pm |
      • Akira

        http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-02/200000-year-old-patch-seagrass-worlds-oldest-living-organism

        June 19, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Thank you!

          June 19, 2014 at 10:07 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      That means the tree was around 400 years older than Noah's oldest son Ja.pheth when the flood happened.
      I wonder how that tree survived the global flood that killed every living thing that couldn't fit on a 400ft floating zoo?

      June 19, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
    • igaftr

      Not the 5,500 year old antarctic moss, or the 9550 year old spruce?

      Best do some checking there...also...note oldest KNOWN thing.

      June 22, 2014 at 3:03 pm |
  19. Robert Brown

    Some food for thought when discussing the age of things:
    Ancient history is the aggregate of past events[1] from the beginning of recorded human history to the Early Middle Ages or the Postclassical Era. The span of recorded history is roughly 5,000 years, with Sumerian Cuneiform script, the oldest discovered form of coherent writing, from the protoliterate period around the 30th century BC.[2]
    The term classical antiquity is often used to refer to history in the Old World from the beginning of recorded Greek history in 776 BC (First Olympiad). This roughly coincides with the traditional date of the founding of Rome in 753 BC, the beginning of the history of ancient Rome, and the beginning of the Archaic period in Ancient Greece.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_history

    God picked a good time in recorded human history to send his son.

    June 19, 2014 at 11:55 am |
    • fintronics

      "God picked a good time in recorded human history to send his son."

      Present your evidence for this claim...

      June 19, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      Interesting.

      June 19, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        Do you think we have better access to God today then the Ancients had? And not because of mass media. But how God has revealed Himself recenlty?

        June 19, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
        • Robert Brown

          yes, except if you were one of the 12.

          June 19, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Yea. I used to think it would be better if I had the obvious signs that the Jews had. But somebody pointed out they just took those for granted. And they didn't have access to God like we do now. Should we meet in heaven – they might be curious as to what it was like for me to live with that access.

          June 19, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
        • kudlak

          You guys seem to be forgetting that all the ancients had stories of close access to the gods. Zeus disguised himself as various things in order to bed human women, Mars was often sighted on the battlefield, and goddesses would often appear to people pleading for their help.

          Of course, you could just say that those were stories, but so's the Bible. Neither of you have any idea whether the accounts in the Bible actually happened, or whether the real Jewish people who lived at that time experienced anything different from you do presently.

          June 20, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Uh, what?

          Do you have any objective evidence that all the ancients had stories of close access to the gods? And that their belief was just like mine?

          Oh, wait. There is no objective evidence to support that.

          June 22, 2014 at 7:48 am |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Read some other mythology and compare it with the first books of the Bible.

          June 22, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Babylonian mythology made gods out of the moon, water, animals.

          The origin story in Genesis said, uh uh. Those things are not gods. Our God created those things. And those things, like the sun are powerful. But humans are powerful in a different way. In that we are created in the image of God. So we know the sun exists. But the sun doesn't know we exist.

          Of course I've read other mythology and compared it with the Bible. We even do that in church.

          June 22, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
        • tallulah131

          According to Greek myth, Aphrodite won a contest among goddesses, judged by the mortal Paris (also known as Alexander). Aphrodite rewarded the Trojan prince with the most beautiful woman in the world, Helen, despite the fact that Helen was already married to King Menelaus of Sparta. When Menelaus (spurred by big brother Agamemnon, King of Mycenae) brought the consolidated armies of several kingdoms to Troy to get his wife back, it began what was known as the Trojan war.

          According to the accounts of Homer, the gods took sides during this war to the point that the King and Queen of the god, Zeus and Hera, were on opposite sides. The children of gods, including Achilles and Sarpedon, fought on both sides. In fact, Zeus had to struggle with the decision to allow his son Sarpedon to die, but in the end it was his fate and Zeus was forced to allow it. Aphrodite saved Paris from death in battle, and spoke with Helen on more than one occasion.

          So, according to Homer and the Iliad, the gods were active in the lives of humans. In the 1800s, Heinrich Schliemann used Iliad to find the historical city of Troy. Therefore, the Greek pantheon must be real and they must have dealings in human lives.

          June 22, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NbBjNiw4tk

          4:45

          By the year 2100 we will have the power of those Gods, according to Michio Kaku. Maybe they were looking into the future.

          June 22, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
        • igaftr

          in case you missed it dala, Daniel Burke ( Editor) said that all videos are banned. Do not post any more videos.
          He will delete them if he looks and sees them.

          June 22, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          There are videos on here. They've been here for a week. If he needs to remove it he can. I don't mind.

          June 22, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
    • gulliblenomore

      God picked a lousy time, actually. Days of mass communication would have been much better. Much easier to corroborate all those 'stories'

      June 19, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
    • kudlak

      Robert Brown
      "The span of recorded history is roughly 5,000 years"
      Well, that rules out any accuracy to the idea of a earth only 6000 years old, eh? That first 1000 years of generations from Adam must be pure conjecture then.

      June 20, 2014 at 4:06 pm |
    • igaftr

      "god" did not pick a good time. It is no surprise that some of the first things written were peoples beliefs. Still lends no credibility to what was written. There has never been any verification of any of the supernatural claims of any religious text, ever.
      NOW would be a good time, where we have instant communication around the world, the ability to examine information from many points of view. Appearing then obviously shows it was a very BAD time, since , if this "god" exists, so many do not believe it, and with good reason. A simple check of those things written at that time show there were many, many fanciful stories, myths and legends, and most had some moral of the story. The bible is just a collection of those same stories, with a belief sewn into those stories. Completely the work of men, and no sign of any gods.

      June 22, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
  20. bostontola

    Crazy beliefs don't seem to always impede success. Many Scientologists are very successful. You might call this stuff mental illness or not, it doesn't keep those people from thriving.

    The Church of Scientology holds that at the higher levels of initiation (OT levels) mystical teachings are imparted that may be harmful to unprepared readers. These teachings are kept secret from members who have not reached these levels. In the OT levels, Hubbard explains how to reverse the effects of past-life trauma patterns that supposedly extend millions of years into the past. Among these advanced teachings is the story of Xenu (sometimes Xemu), introduced as an alien ruler of the “Galactic Confederacy.” According to this story, 75 million years ago Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and detonated hydrogen bombs in the volcanoes. The thetans then clustered together, stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to do this today. Scientologists at advanced levels place considerable emphasis on isolating body thetans and neutralizing their ill effects.

    June 19, 2014 at 10:22 am |
    • gulliblenomore

      Bostonola....I assert that is not crazy beliefs; that is nuts. We are too politically correct in this country to call believers in silly stories like this (with no proof) what they really are.

      June 19, 2014 at 10:39 am |
    • Dalahäst

      Nicely put. The "New Atheism" movement (ever read "The Good Delusion" or visited some of their websites?) is another good example of that phenomenon. They have spawned such success stories, especially in book sales and presence online – but they hold some crazy ideas.

      June 19, 2014 at 10:39 am |
      • bostontola

        I assume you meant God Delusion. Please provide me examples of their crazy ideas. The ones I provided from Scientology are certainly crazy to me.

        June 19, 2014 at 11:29 am |
        • Dalahäst

          He describes himself as a “philosophical naturalist . . . who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles . . .”

          No scientific experiment can prove or disprove this claim.

          Dawkins undermines his own demands for scientific knowledge and relies on an unproven and unprovable assumption.

          How do we know there is only one true explanatory mode for all possible phenomena?

          He makes so many logical fallacies and errors in judgement it is no surprise most atheists try to distant themselves from him and the movement he inspired.

          Why has the "New Atheist" movement birthed so many people that have changed "Jesus" bumper stickers for "Proud Atheist" bumper stickers and Christian religion for secular humanist religion? Instead of praying at church and doing nothing, now they just talk or "pray" on message boards and do nothing.

          Crazy. Internet fad.

          June 19, 2014 at 11:48 am |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          If science hasn't proven that something exists yet, how is not believing that it exists a violation of scientific knowledge?

          June 19, 2014 at 11:53 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I am a violation of scientific knowledge. Yet I know for a fact that I exist.

          Science doesn't prove things exist. Scientists use science to prove things that fit in the realm of their scientific knowledge. If you only want to accept scientific knowledge in your life that is fine. But then you have to reject The God Delusion because it is philosophical knowledge lacking in other forms of knowledge to back it up.

          Also, in the book Dawkins suggests I believe in a 'sky fairy'. I don't. And I can't prove to him I don't. It seems like only his understanding is the right one – even if it isn't based in science. But he sure does insist he is right, hu?

          Also, Dawkins recently stated God might actually NOT be a delusion. So... the book kind of now fails from just reading the cover.

          June 19, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
        • fintronics

          "Yahweh: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unplesant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindi-ctive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, ho-mophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

          — Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion)

          June 19, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
        • fintronics

          ""It is often said, mainly by the 'no-contests', that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"
          — Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion)

          June 19, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Philosophical musings. And a bit short-sighted.

          June 19, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
        • fintronics

          Unlike your belief in a sky fairy LOL

          June 19, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          "“Why there almost certainly is no God”" Richard Dakwins in the "God Delusion"

          And now he is starting to back off that claim and admit he isn't that certain.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I don't believe in a 'sky fairy'. So I agree that is a delusion. I only hear anti-theists talk about sky fairies. And leprechauns. None can show me any sky fairy or leprechaun believers mastering science or leading nations, though.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          I assume you are a human being, so why do you think you are a violation of scientific knowledge?

          Also, science can't prove that Dracula, Superman, or the Tooth Fairy don't actually exist either. Nor can it disprove reincarnation or animal guide spirits. We haven't mapped the whole ocean floor either, so maybe Atlantis is happily parked just off the Grand Banks. If you want to play the "science doesn't know everything game" why stop with defending just your own pet beliefs? There's plenty of aluminum foil to go around.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • kudlak

          alahäst
          "And now he is starting to back off that claim and admit he isn't that certain."

          That's because it's impossible to claim with absolute certainty that no version of God exists anywhere in the universe, or beyond.

          By the way, it's also impossible to claim with absolute certainty that God actually does exist. Even if you are sitting in a cabin having tea with all three members of the godhead right now, how can you prove that you're not delusional, or that the three aren't just powerful aliens deceiving you?

          June 19, 2014 at 2:15 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Science doesn't do anything. Scientists do it.

          I had an auto-immune disease that appeared and then recently disappeared. My doctor said there is no scientific explanation for it leaving. People rarely go off medication like I have. He said whatever I'm doing – keep doing it. I've taken a spiritual approach to healing. Prayer, meditation and serving others. He said such things are a phenomenon. Observable but not explainable within the realms of science.

          I know God exists. Science doesn't know that. Some scientists do know that. And some scientists do not.

          There is a lot I know that science doesn't know.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          He should have called the book "God Might Be A Delusion. I Really Can't Say For Sure. Oh, Look Fairies!"

          How come nobody ever quotes his science on this blog? Only his philosophy? And his philosophy is rejected by most atheists – at least it appears there is some major backlash.

          One atheist told me Hitchens was a scientist. Now that was crazy!

          June 19, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
        • fintronics

          "And his philosophy is rejected by most atheists "

          More lies for jeebus......... how sad... how deluded

          June 19, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
        • fintronics

          "I know God exists"....

          Again with the confusion of "know" and "belief"?

          June 19, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          So, you're criticizing Dawkins for being intellectually honest where many believers are not?

          Nice story, but the placebo effect could make prayer appear to work just as effectively as if an actual deity were listening in. What he was actually saying is "I don't know", which is perfectly reasonable. Almost all science begins with "I don't know, but lets see if this answers your question".

          You know that God exists, but what you don't know is whether that belief is accurate.

          The rest of your rant against Dawkins is more like the usual troll dribble one usually sees here. Too bad, you use to be one of the more reasonable apologists here. I miss the old Dalahäst.

          June 19, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8885481/after-the-new-atheism/

          "Atheism is still with us. But the movement that threatened to form has petered out. Crucially, atheism’s younger advocates are reluctant to compete for the role of Dawkins’s disciple. They are more likely to bemoan the new atheist approach and call for large injections of nuance. A good example is the pop-philosopher Julian Baggini. He is a stalwart atheist who likes a bit of a scrap with believers, but he’s also able to admit that religion has its virtues, that humanism needs to learn from it. For example, he has observed that a sense of grat.itude is problematically lacking in secular culture, and suggested that humanists should consider ritual practices such as fasting. This is also the approach of the pop-philosopher king, Alain de Botton. His recent book Religion for Atheists rejects the ‘boring’ question of religion’s truth or falsity, and calls for ‘a selective reverence for religious rituals and concepts’. If you can take his faux-earnest prose style, he has some interesting insights into religion’s basis in community, practice, habit."

          The people still preaching "sky fairy" and "intolerance" toward religion basically just exist on message boards of religion blogs. And we love you! But you might look at what the young atheists are doing.

          June 19, 2014 at 3:26 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          "What distinguishes the newer atheist is his admission that non-believers can be just as immoral as believers. Rejecting religion is no sure path to virtue; it is more likely to lead to complacent self-regard, or ideological arrogance."

          I miss that Kudlak that would say stuff like that.

          June 19, 2014 at 3:27 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          I don't know who you're thinking of, but I still say stuff like that. You're comments, of late, are just not that inspiring.

          June 19, 2014 at 3:51 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I still am scratching my head over your autism comments.

          June 19, 2014 at 3:55 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          fintronics believes atheism is science. Why don't you talk to him about that?

          June 19, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Either you were trying to complement atheists by associating us with higher functioning autistics, or you were trying to insult us by associating us with low functioning autistics. Since the later would have meant you were being an insensitive jerk, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Was I wrong to?

          June 19, 2014 at 5:24 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Hey dala? There's just one kind of atheism: The kind that doesn't believe in a god. You can refer to all the opinion pieces that you want, but it doesn't change the fact that atheism has only one meaning.

          June 19, 2014 at 5:29 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You are wrong.

          I was trying to suggest the OP was being an insensitive jerk. I was playing devil's advocate.

          Unless you didn't correct him or comment on his comment because you think associating believers with higher functioning schizophrenics is a compliment?

          June 19, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
        • bostontola

          I haven't seen 1 crazy idea yet. If your criteria for crazy is that someone offers an idea that hasn't been proven scientifically, then every theory of gravity is crazy. Actually, almost every idea would be crazy by that standard. Lots of unproven ideas are very sane. Ideas that conflict with objective evidence are suspect, if they conflict with many bodies of objective evidence in multiple fields, they become crazy. That isn't the case for Dawkins. He may be a boor, but his ideas aren't crazy.

          June 19, 2014 at 5:44 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          tallulah131

          I know what atheism is.

          Unfortunately some atheists do not. They believe atheism is science.

          June 19, 2014 at 5:45 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Please site the your reference that someone thought that atheism is science, because the only person I've seen on this blog making that claim is you.

          June 19, 2014 at 5:48 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Do you think fintronics needs to cite a reference that shows I believe in a sky fairy?

          Or is there a double standard?

          Why do you let some people just make up things about others? Is that because of your personal understanding of atheism? Which to you is more than just not believing in God?

          "Just like your belief in atheism as science Lol."

          June 19, 2014 at 5:57 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Anyway, ask flintronics. He is the one that believes atheism is a science. Lol.

          June 19, 2014 at 6:00 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          bostontola

          You, like Richard Dawkins, simply believe atheism is a science. That IS crazy. And crazy can't fix crazy. Your atheism delusion makes your opinions not valid. Sorry.

          June 19, 2014 at 6:03 pm |
        • bostontola

          "You, like Richard Dawkins, simply believe atheism is a science. That IS crazy. And crazy can't fix crazy. Your atheism delusion makes your opinions not valid. Sorry."

          I must assume someone has hijacked Dalahast's screen name with a rant like that. That is a very poor impression of Dalahast. 1st, Dalahast would never presume to know what I think/believe. Since I have stated many times that science and atheism aren't the same, aren't even in the same category, he would not say that. 2nd, crazy can't fix crazy is childish, Dalahast isn't childish. 3rd, he wouldn't call atheism a delusion. Not believing in something that you have no evidence for is not delusional. 4th, he would never say someone's opinion is invalid. Very weak.

          June 19, 2014 at 6:17 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Surely, I don't have to tell you not to sink to somebody else's level, do I? Not to sound too much like your mother, but there's nothing forcing you to respond to jerks at all, let alone in kind. I try avoiding all the trolls here. You might want to give that a try.

          June 19, 2014 at 6:30 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No, it is me. I'm just playing devil's advocate. Sorry if that was offensive.

          But imagine – having people tell you you believe in a sky fairy, when you don't. And if you object, they claim you have a delusion.

          Or telling you you believe atheism is a science, when you don't. And if you object, they claim you have a delusion.

          And instead of backing any of it with science, they back it with philosophy. And some logical fallacies. Like, Dawkins takes people's quotes out of context. They talk about God – and he writes extensively how their quote doesn't prove God. They didn't say it proved God. They were just talking about God.

          It kind of sucks having people talk about you that way, hu? Imagine 8 people talking to you that way in 8 different way in 8 different threads.

          No, you don't talk that way. But way too many atheists on here do. And it is crazy talk. And it goes unquestioned way too much.

          June 19, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          kudlak

          One part I didn't like about the "God Delusion" is that it appears Dawkins ask people to sink to the level of the zealous religious people.

          And unfortunately many zealous atheists took him up on that challenge.

          June 19, 2014 at 6:36 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          When it gets to be too many voices all talking at you once, just say you have to go for now and take a break. It's not your or my job to post here, right?

          June 19, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
        • bostontola

          Dalahast,
          I'm with kudlak, you set a good example as a nice person. Using the tactics of mean people doesn't come through on a board, it is too easily construed as your personality. I don't act like Salero, finisher, etc. to make points, I'd feel dirty if I did. I like the real Dalahast. But it is your choice.

          June 19, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
        • bostontola

          I had an Econ prof that was an absolute jerk. And he was brilliant.

          I don't agree with all of Dawkins science, I really don't agree with his demeanor. But that doesn't make him crazy by any means.

          June 19, 2014 at 6:43 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Oh I get it, Dala. You can't cite a reference because you are lying. Not only are you lying, you are using the same falsehood repeatedly. Is this something that you learned in your church?

          June 19, 2014 at 6:43 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          kudlak

          Good idea.

          I'll get called a dodger, liar and avoider. But people like that don't know what they are talking about.

          June 19, 2014 at 7:03 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          bostontola

          It does feel dirty. But feelings aren't the true gauge of reality sometimes! I've been seeing what would happen if I did what the majority of atheists do to me. I'm glad you are not like them!

          Dawkins is brilliant in science. But The God Delusion isn't science. It is philosophy. And it is filled with logical fallacies. It is not a brilliant book.

          It made me feel dirty as an atheist to read it. And embarrassed.

          June 19, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          tallulah131

          No I didn't learn that in church. I learned it from watching some of the atheists on this blog. I was curious if they would like the taste of their own medicine.

          June 19, 2014 at 7:11 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Even if you think someone else is a liar, Dala, it does not mean that you have to be a liar. It's not about double standards. Your integrity is your own to keep or lose - and you have thrown yours away as if it burned you.

          June 19, 2014 at 7:12 pm |
        • bostontola

          Dalahast,
          I agree the God Delusion is not science. I wouldn't even call it philosophy. It is his opinion, delivered in an often boorish manner.

          June 19, 2014 at 7:17 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Tallauh

          I'm not somebody who irrationally believes that atheists believe atheism is a science. Or that all believers in God believe in a "sky fairy".

          Think of it as I was acting.

          We are posting about faith and belief on a religion blog. In the opinion piece.

          You've never made one nice or positive comment toward me. You usually post derogatory and demeaning messages at me. I'm sorry my little act further shattered your feelings toward me. Hugs!

          June 19, 2014 at 7:20 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Oh, poor baby, Dala. I always respond in kind to the original poster. If my comments to you were negative, it was because you set the tone. But I never deliberately lie on this blog, I never deliberately misrepresent what another poster has said and I have never posted the words of another without crediting those words. My integrity is intact. Yours appears to be a lost cause.

          June 19, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Exactly. It was often delivered in a boorish manner.

          Oh, hey Tallulah.

          June 19, 2014 at 7:33 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Sometimes you just got to try something different and daring. Even if it is wrong. I hope I'm wrong often, so I learn often.

          Tallulah, you might hate me now and judge me as inferior to you. But God forgives and loves me. He is a loving God rich in mercy and grace. And He wants me to love you.

          June 19, 2014 at 7:39 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Actually, last time I checked, you were still kinda dodging my question on the other tread about what the difference was between your belief in God and someone else's belief in leprechauns; and you're so cryptic about what you and your church actually believe that I have suspected that you were making it up as you go just to win arguments. So, I can actually see where people can get frustrated with you and feel like you're being disingenuous. Sorry Buddy, but that's the way I see it.

          June 20, 2014 at 8:33 am |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      I am convinced Hubbard was an atheist and wrote Dianetics as a joke to expose how people will believe any dumbass thing that you tell them... kind of like the bible

      June 19, 2014 at 11:16 am |
      • kudlak

        The popular story is that Hubbard was a science fiction writer who was fed up with being paid on a penny-per-word basis, so he would say something like "If you really want to make a million, the quickest way is to start your own religion", and so he did, making substantially more than just a million.

        June 19, 2014 at 11:49 am |
        • tallulah131

          I have heard that he tried to sell his early theories to the scientific community, and after being laughed off, decided to form a religion. Anyway you look at it, scientology was created whole cloth by a mediocre science fiction writer. It's amazing that anyone fell for it.

          June 19, 2014 at 5:50 pm |
        • kudlak

          tallulah131
          I actually remember liking Battlefield Earth. Well, the first 300 pages of it. the rest was just padding for the penny a word rate he was getting.

          June 19, 2014 at 6:32 pm |
1 2 3 4
Advertisement
About this blog

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