Hey God, reveal thyself!

Tedd says:

07:39am | 10/05/11

“free will” is just a fanciful notion for non-religious choice.

sproket says:

07:45am | 10/05/11

Stop crediting imaginary people for real things

Budz says:

08:12am | 10/05/11

Can you prove that with evidence instead of only your words?

That’s like me saying there are unicorns on Pluto. Without evidence it doesn’t mean anything.

Stephy says:

08:29am | 10/05/11

Budz - then you find a horn on Pluto. Bloody hell! There’s life there after all! Did it come from a unicorn? Who knows? But it’s a horn and it’s one step towards finding out the truth.

There is the equivalent down here. There ARE records stating Jesus lived and died, and the record of his death ruled by Ponitus Pilate. It’s the horn on Pluto. You never know. Steps, itty bitty steps. You’ll never find the cross, or the “holy grail”, the shroud of turin is a fake, and the tomb could be any one of the tombs found. That doesn’t mean there isn’t evidence to suggest there’s at least a shred of truth written down in the Bible. Landmarks, events recorded elsewhere that correspond with the Bible, etc etc all point to the possibility the Bible isn’t bullsh**. But hey, y’know, you’ll believe what you want to anyway, regardless of any facts or evidence found.

Sad Sad Reality says:

09:26am | 10/05/11

Evolution has already revealed itself in you Brendan, including having fashioned your intelligence and free will over hundreds of thousands of years to accept of reject the idiocy of the weak and fearful. Marvelous really.

Sad Sad Reality says:

09:28am | 10/05/11

Evolution has already revealed itself in you Brendan, including having fashioned your intelligence and free will over hundreds of thousands of years to accept of reject the idiocy of the weak and fearful. Marvelous really.

Matt says:

10:06am | 10/05/11

This is where religion falls down for me. God is supposed to be omnipresent. As such, He would know *everything*, including what each of us will do with each second of our lives before we’re born. But then, people argue that we have free will! So, either God is either not omnipresent, or we have no free will. If it is the former, why do we worship God? If the latter, whether we worship or not, are a good person or bad has already been pre-ordained.

Budz says:

10:12am | 10/05/11

@Stephy: If you believe everything that is in the Bible (which is an ancient religious text), then how come you don’t believe in all other religious texts and other gods? Has nothing to do with indoctrination does it?

Why not believe in Zeus, Thor and other gods?

And also, how many people do you think would believe in god if they were introduced to the concept at an age they had the ability to differentiate between fairly tales and something that makes logical sense? I ask this because it is pretty clear that you can make kids believe anything. I refer to Santa, tooth fairy, imaginary friends etc.

Silver says:

11:50am | 10/05/11

@Stephy Actually there are no non-Bible primary sources indicating that Jesus was a real person.  According to the Gospels, Jesus’ fame had already spread far and wide during his lifetime, so the fact that no contemporary historians recorded any details of his comings and goings is very suspicious.  There is no non-Biblical records of events that should have been noticed by competent historians, like Luke 23:44, a worldwide darkness, or Matthew 27:52-53, the walking dead.  It isn’t like we don’t have the works of historians of the time.  Several works of people who should have been contemporaries of Jesus, in both time and location, have survived, yet do not mention him at all.  Philo of Alexandria, for example, is known to have lived in Jerusalem at the supposed time of Jesus, was sympathetic to offshoots of Judaism, and wrote extensively about Pontius Pilate, but did not mention Jesus at all.  The first non-Biblical accounts of Jesus doesn’t appear until about 90 CE, well after his supposed death, and there is strong evidence that these are forgeries.

The authorship of the New Testament isn’t as well studied as the Torah, or Old Testament.  There is widespread agreement among Biblical scholars that there were several primary authors (none of whom were Moses) whose work was merged into what we now know as the Old Testament.  This explains why there are two creation stories in Genesis, and several of the changes in writing style throughout the work.  The New Testament has only recently started to be studied in the same way.

The point is, Jesus, as described in the Bible, is unlikely to have been a real person.  There just isn’t enough evidence to make the claim that he really lived.

Em. says:

02:27pm | 10/05/11

@ Slver:

Yes there are non-biblical accounts of the existence of Jesus, the Roman author Tacitus discusses in a letter the influence of Christ upon the Christians as he seeks to blame someone for the burning down of Rome.

Silver says:

03:10pm | 10/05/11

@Em - Yes, but as I said, those works were written around 115 CE, almost a hundred years after Christ’s death.  My claim was that there were no non-Biblical contemporary accounts of Jesus (~7 BCE to 36 CE), and the earliest known mentions of Jesus are not only written well after his death, but are almost certainly forgeries (eg Josephus’ account in The Antiquities of the Jews).

Jotun says:

06:05pm | 10/05/11

Stephy, there is some vague non-biblical evidence of a man like Jesus living at that time - as there was of many men running around the world claiming to be messiahs and gods sent to Earth. They just weren’t paid attention to, nor supposedly had a book written about them.

Maybe Jesus was the first Benny Hinn?

Tedd says:

07:10pm | 10/05/11

Em. says (@ 02:27pm)

” .. Tacitus discusses in a letter the influence of Christ upon the Christians as he seeks to blame someone for the burning down of Rome.”

Yes, the influence of belief in the stories about Christ.

Cly says:

07:34pm | 10/05/11

Stephy, there is no contemporary historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. No records of his execution were recorded either at the time and they were sticklers for recording such things. You obviously aren’t aware of these facts.

Big J says:

11:41am | 11/05/11

Great discussion. I have found this website to be really informative on the evidence and proof that God does exist. Would love to hear what people think. http://www.peterkreeft.com

Syl says:

01:08pm | 11/05/11

Whether Jesus existed or not is besides the point.  For the sake of argument let’s say he did, his existence does not prove christianity in any way shape or form, you have to prove that he was born of a virgin, the son of God, performed miracle, died and rose again.  Proving the existence of a man does not prove the existence of God.

I personally think a man named Jesus existed, but I believe he was a charismatic nutter who got a lot of people to follow his cult.

Empire says:

01:36pm | 11/05/11

@ Silver
Philo also never mentions Annas, Caiaphas, Herod Antipas, Archelaeus, Hillel, Shammai, Gamaliel I, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, John the Baptist, or any of the various millenarian and quasi-messianic figures mentioned by Josephus.

Also ALL of Philo’s extant works except for his Flaccus and his Embassy to Gaius [Caligula] were written between 5 and 30 AD, before he ever might have heard of Jesus.

AC says:

01:30pm | 12/05/11

There are unicorns on Pluto. Pink ones!

silvio mazzacca says:

01:23pm | 14/05/11

10 out 10 great reading

sproket says:

07:49am | 10/05/11

show me something charitable that an religious does that is not provided in similar form by an atheist organsation.

You will be working very, very hard to find anything.

Budz says:

08:15am | 10/05/11

Paul, just because atheists don’t make their own charities under the banner of an ‘atheist’ charity it doesn’t mean they don’t run plenty of charities.

Paul Sunshine says:

08:40am | 10/05/11

Absolute rubbish Paul and sadly so typical of the if-you-are-not-with-us-you-are against-us narrow minded, bigoted brigade.
When I converted to atheism I continued to carry out my Lifeline volunteer work, my Meals on Wheels schedule, community work as a Rotarian.  I just stopped going to church and listening to the unsubstantiated claims and unrealistic promises.
I am certain many of my community minded colleagues are also atheists. It really doesn’t matter.

Alf says:

09:29am | 10/05/11

Paul, why bother responding to another pointless atheist rant of blah blah blah they must prove themselves to me blah blah blah?

Prediction: the comments section will be peppered with “you must believe in santa & tooth fairies”, “you don’t have to be religious to be a good person - look how fantastic I am”, etc.

All pointless unless you feel other must follow your own beliefs.

Trevor says:

09:43am | 10/05/11

The fundamental problem with your argument Paul is that atheism is not something that you join. You don’t get christened into the “church” of atheism as you seem to believe. To be an atheist all you have to do is accept the fact there is no credible evidence for anything supernatural in the unvierse. You don’t even have to declare this aloud or make any special pledges. That is all there is to atheism, there are no secret societies plotting a New World Order. Secular Humanism on the other hand does also offer a world view and activily engages in the types of activities that you see as the exclusive domain of the religious. How truly narrow minded and arrogant can one person possibly be!

Economist says:

09:45am | 10/05/11

This is the issue isn’t. You think your morally superior. Learn your history, the Church has also worked with corrupt states and dictators to secure and hoarde wealth. Yesthey have fed the poor, but it could be argued to indoctrinate or reward those who were believers.

The athiests in the local community are government.  Governments provide these services without the moral judgement. Try getting an abortion in a Catholic hospital. As for charites MSF, UNICEF?

Bubbles says:

09:58am | 10/05/11

Unfortunately Paul, your typical atheist believes the government should provide charity by taxing the middle class, just like in Cuba. Atheism and communism are in a very meaningful relationship.

Communism can’t exist without atheism just as freedom can’t exist without religion.

Luce says:

10:13am | 10/05/11

Paul, you believe in a religion because it is practical: I believe in being a good person, being good to others and approaching life in a rational way because it is practical. Believing in something which has every sign in life pointing to its non-existence really only hinders the growth and prosperity of society because its so restrictive on one’s thinking.

p.s. there are few specifically “atheist” organisations because most atheists understand that religious or non-religious belief has no place in public life.

Economist says:

10:37am | 10/05/11

Yes, Bubble the Catholic Church actually used to collect taxes, so there goes your argument, and if you gave extra donations you got special treatment. Perhaps the statement should be Corruption can’t exist without religion.

Sad Sad Reality says:

10:58am | 10/05/11

“freedom can’t exist without religion.”

Tell that to the Muslims holding placards screaming, “Freedom go to hell!”

Seems strange to me that freedom can’t exist without submission - the exact translation of the word Islam.

Harquebus says:

12:21pm | 10/05/11

I can’t see any sense in worshiping a zombie or, convincing someone to.

JK says:

12:31pm | 10/05/11

You’re absolutely right there, I’m sure none of those impractical atheists would have risked their lives and endorsed a facist dictator in return for 109 acres of land. Poor Mussolini would have been severly bereft of holy support if not for god’s earthly institution “involving themselves in the community”.

You can thank science and secularism for your long, comfortable life and thank religion for institutionalising deceit, opression, corruption and abuse.

There are no overtly atheist charities because they recognise that it’s the good in people that matters, not their rationalisation of their morality. I volunteered for a St Vinnie’s soup van because it’s a good thing to do, not to build up enough frequent giver’s points to earn a trip through the pearly gates. You too should recognise the good in you and take credit for that, to give god that credit is a self-deprecating misappropriation.

Brett says:

01:07pm | 10/05/11

Religions have to run charities. They take in billions in donations worldwide. They use a fraction of it for charitable purposes and invest the rest. The Catholic church, for example, is one of the wealthiest corporations in the world. Every cent of that worth was donated by poor suckers thinking it would go to help people in need.
They need charities to make it look like they’re doing what they’re supposed to, and since no-one is allowed to look at their books, they get away with it.
Check out Christopher Hitchen’s book about Mother Theresa. The millions donated to her work, and the tiny fraction of it that actually went where it was supposed to.
Sickening.

Luce says:

01:48pm | 10/05/11

Brett, they’re the wealthiest corporation in the world AND not a cent of it is taxed. Imagine how many people the government could help with that kind of tax revenue!

Emil says:

02:39pm | 10/05/11

I hate to break it to you but I’m an atheist and have been a volunteer life-saver for several years and am now going to be training the Nippers shortly. I have done this without having to show god(s) how I am a good person. I do this because I enjoy it and the ability to help people and make them happy is all the reward I need, I don’t need a heven or a hell to persuade me to do this.

On top of that i don’t donate to religous organisations because they do not represent the care I believe should be shown to people. I have heard of churches that will feed the homeless, only if they sit through a service. I think anyone that should be care equal to everyone religious or non-religious

LC says:

03:09pm | 10/05/11

@Bubbles,

The whole idea of religion is to supress and control others. Christianity did this during the dark ages. Science was supressed and the rule of the church was law. People who were found to be atheists, or even people who questioned this religious rule, would be declared heretics and punished accordingly, in a way which, if done in this day and age, would see us go to war.

Fast forward to today, and we have members of a certain religion still supressing women and human rights and killing dissenters. Even at home, we still have religous morons trying to supress rights (a religious group is the biggest stakeholder in Labor’s mandatory internet filtering scheme) and deny people life changing/saving medical treatments (not only abortions, but also research into stem cell treatments which offer life changing benefits, such as allowing paraplegics to walk again).

Religion = Freedom my arse.

And here I was thinking conservatives stopped doing the reds-under-the-bed routine when the Berlin Wall fell. Silly me.

Bubbles says:

05:05pm | 10/05/11

@ LC,

And go back a few decades and the atheists wiped out 100 million people. Christians aren’t against medicine, they invented modern medicine inspired by hope and respect for all humans. Christians are against the harvesting of embryos, but adore adult stem cell research which is actually proven to be far more effective than embryonic stem cells and doesn’t treat human life like potatos on a farm.

Tanya says:

05:41pm | 10/05/11

Secular charities;Red Corss, Doctors withour Borders, PLAN, Kiva, Amnesty International, The Fred Hollows Foundation, UNICEF, OXFAM International, Nature Conservancy, SHARE (Secular Humanist Aid & Relief) to name a few.  I am sick to death of the arrogant religious people claiming that they are the only ones that do charity work.  I work my arse off everyday to protect people like you, and I aint doing it in the name of a religion.  You will note that all of the above charities also do not waste millions of dollars handing out bibles as well.  There aint no sermon before the soup with these guys.  We just dont brag like you guys feel you need to.

Chris L says:

07:23pm | 10/05/11

“And go back a few decades and the atheists wiped out 100 million people” - Are you talking about Stalin’s Russia, Bubbles? Did you forget the church was reinstated during WWII and that Stalin himself studied in a seminary? (Maybe that’s why he went crazy)

Servaas says:

10:43pm | 10/05/11

Tanya, in who’s name are you doing it? Just guilt driven? Having that strange thing, compassion, get the best of you? Strange behaviour this helping weak thing you’re busy with? You have an explanation for all this charity work you’re doing or you just following instinct and helping those less comfortable than you? You give them food because you believe it unfair that you have and they don’t? Maybe you should stop doing it.

sproket says:

07:47am | 10/05/11

Mate, atheists are a-theists, i.e. without faith that a theistic entity is responsible. ( a deity who takes interest in and influences human affairs)

Seperate from an deist, who believes that a deity is involved, but that there is no evidence thatthe deity is tinkering in human affairs.

Atheists dont claim to have the answers, they just know that the God-botherers don’t have any greater claim on the answers than anyone else

sproket says:

07:59am | 10/05/11

all science asks is to be distinguished from faith. That reason be distinguished from revelation. Unfortunately, in the current environment, we often have people who cannot achieve even that.

sproket says:

08:00am | 10/05/11

all science asks is to be distinguished from faith. That reason be distinguished from revelation. Unfortunately, in the current environment, we often have people who cannot achieve even that.

Rev says:

08:42am | 10/05/11

@sproket

Err, I’m not debating the definition, but (most) atheists appear to have the answers when it comes to religion…when in actual fact no-one actually knows with certitude. 

As for certain people confusing science and faith, reason and revelation - why are you surprised?  Have you turned on your TV lately?

Tubesteak says:

08:44am | 10/05/11

Rev, those are great questions and I would love to know the answer to them, too, and I hope to live long enough so that I’m around when we discover the answers to those questions.

religion only exists because the intellectually bankrupt made the leap of logic by asking those questions and then deciding that it was a sky-fairy that made them without any evidence because it was easier to believe that than admit that they do not know the answer (but should endeavour to find out). They took the easy option.

You shouldn’t be afraid to admit that you don’t have all the answers….yet….and it seems that tyou aren’t afraid to admit that. But one does not lead to the other.

I’m an atheist because I know that religion does not have the answer, or any answer for that matter. It is pure dogma with no rationality or factual basis. But I do not believe that science is a religion. Science is the pursuit of answers when you know there is no end to the questions. Science must prove itself beyond all reasonable scrutiny. Religion just posits some “facts” and then tells you to believe and if you don’t you’ll go to “hell” which they invented anyway. Religion is a social control device used against the weak.

Rev says:

10:02am | 10/05/11

@Tubesteak - I agree (in particular) with your final paragraph, and that the scientific process is fundamentally sound.

Perhaps we should start a ‘discover the myths of the universe club’.  That stuff truly blows my mind, and reluctantly accept the fact that it probably won’t be answered in my lifetime.  I’d go as far to say that we will nuke life on earth into oblivion before finding out…

Tubesteak says:

01:12pm | 10/05/11

Rev: follow the research by Stephen Hawking and co. It is truly fascinating and precisely what you’re talking about.

No, we probably won’t know everything and never will and will probably nuke ourselves into oblivion sometime soon, but the process and the learning between now and then is awe-inspiring!

MikeH says:

02:09pm | 10/05/11

@Tubesteak: Given that in discussing ‘scientific determinism’  in his latest book, Stephen Hawking tells us that “... it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion” how could we take any of his research seriously? He’s apparently only writing or “discovering” whatever it is that physics has pre-determined he should. What if physics has pre-determined that he should be way off track?

Tubesteak says:

03:45pm | 10/05/11

MikeH
Hawking is 100% correct in stating that we are biological beings. Our free will is framed by our biological needs. To try to act through your free will and deny your biological needs will always end in disaster. Also, it is probably correct to say that he isn’t discovering physics. It’s like saying Capt Cook or the Aborigines discovered Australia; they didn’t, it was always there. Hawking and co will uncover things that exist.

MikeH says:

04:06pm | 10/05/11

@Tubesteak: “Discover” / “Uncover” - splitting hairs. If Hawking says everything we do or think is pre-determined by physics (scientific determinism), how can we trust anything he has to say? And if we do trust him, then it’s pretty pointless anyway, because it’s only “scientific determinism” causing us to trust him. For that matter, why do we bother having these online conversations, since neither of us is free to choose our position on theism anyway?  BTW, Hawking is clearly a brilliant physicist, he probably should have steered clear of philosophy though.

Tubesteak says:

04:45pm | 10/05/11

MikeH
The thing about science is it is not an absolute. All of it is open to scrutiny and everything is just a theory. It’s just that some theories have much more evidence to support them than others, eg, string theory vs gravity.

We discuss these things because we can.

Hawking is as much a valid philosopher as Plato, or you or me. Philosophy does not rely on the quantifiable or evidence. It merely posits theories. SImilar to the way religion posits “truths” it never has to come up with the evidence to back it up.

grumpy says:

10:24pm | 10/05/11

The answer I would give, and im quoting Stephen Hawking here in my own words….

“because of evolution and naturalism, god doesn’t need to exist. He is irrelevant because of what the laws of physics provide….”

Further more,i think studies into multi-dimension theory will answer the questions you have asked eventually and they will certainly be more convincing than anything in the bible, they already are.

Most Scientists would sooner admit that they really dont know the origins of the universe far sooner than any religious person would! But atleast they figured out the origins of what is present in the universe unlike the bible

If you want an insight into the questions you have asked i would suggest reading a brief history in time by stephen hawking.

Empire says:

11:19am | 12/05/11

Well I certainly don’t claim to have all the answers, but this is my opinion.
You either believe in nothing, believe in a supreme being, or you believe in evolution.
The way I see it if life is going to spontaneously create itself, why cant it be super intelligent right from the beginning.
Atheists in my opinion, believe in gods. (us)
The only difference I can see between our beliefs, are that you think life started off simple, and became more intelligent.
I think it started off intelligent, and after some time created ( with superior knowledge of the laws of the universe) more life, both simple and intelligent.

sproket says:

07:58am | 10/05/11

“Religion and beliefs will remain with us always as long as we do not have full knowledge about life. “

In other words, you are saying that it is ignorance that breeds and sustains religion.

Congratulations, you are now an atheist!

Servaas says:

09:51pm | 10/05/11

No sproket, that is not what I’m saying and I don’t see how you deduct that I am?

Ignorance is when then there are more than enough evidence to consider something true but one refuse to take note of it or change the subject, you know, like atheists always do?

And why would you think me an atheist?

sproket says:

08:30am | 11/05/11

“Ignorance is when then there are more than enough evidence to consider something true but one refuse to take note of it or change the subject, you know, like atheists always do?”

atheists certainly do take note of the possibility, but recognise there are there are thousands of concievable possibilities, from Jusus christ to Shiva to wotan to Zeus to sky-faries. However they do not go to a church expounding one of these possibilities and tithe parts of their income to it as a show of absolute faith in the truth of that particular explanation, as most religious do. That is the differance

MikeH says:

01:23pm | 10/05/11

@sir ron etc.: “one thing they are is predictable” Surely the pot calling the kettle black.

Come on, we all know you just copy-and-paste these pearls of wisdom from a text file you have saved on your desk-top. (“Hmmm… will I use put-down #2 today?. No, I think I used ‘sky fairy’ yesterday.”)

sir ronald bradnam says:

05:16pm | 10/05/11

Mike H,  I use sky fairy everyday along with a few others, dont take it personally I dont give a shit what you think about my beliefs to be honest and all the insults, name calling and anything else the believers want to think or throw at me, I couldnt give 2 f….s.
I know Im a good person and I help and treat others well thats all that matters to me.

jec says:

08:19pm | 10/05/11

Sir ronald bradnam ... so you think you “treat others well” do you?  I don’t think so, the way you’ve spoken through your comments to MikeH.

Servaas says:

10:21pm | 10/05/11

Haha, a good person. Whatever. People always ask: “show me god, show me god!” But I say: “Show me a good person and I’ll become an atheist.”

MikeH says:

09:54am | 11/05/11

@sir ron: You are an absolute gem. Have you ever thought of your TV show: “Sir Ronald Spits It”?

sir ronald bradnam says:

11:20am | 11/05/11

mikeh/servaas/jec….you guys are all a little thin skinned me thinks.
Sky Fairy is the term I adopted years ago to use in place of your word ‘God’ no different, I dont tell you to stop using the word for your supernatural dictator so Sky Fairy will stand until someone can prove there is such an entity(never) as god.
Sir ron spits it, has a ring to it I suppose, maybe as a section on the 7pm project I might just email them now for their feedback on that one, thanks Michael.
Im comfortable with who i am so what anyone else thinks doesnt bother me one bit.

Muttley says:

08:45am | 10/05/11

Nah BTS, thats been done. Its about time we get another one on the selfishness of parents. Or the selfishness of people who arent parents. I forget which one is next. Bugger it, lets jump straight to smoking.

PatC says:

01:05pm | 10/05/11

Or how about all those evil people driving 4WD’s in cities. That should be good for a week or 2.

Kika says:

09:54am | 10/05/11

Original Sin.

TChong says:

10:15am | 10/05/11

Kika - have you ever stopped to think what an awful idea “original sin” is.?
People are born “bad “to begin with.
WTF!!!
What an awful philosophy / mindset to fave.- you. ,I , everyone are evil, unless “saved “by a deity.

Kika says:

10:47am | 10/05/11

Well the world is full of misery, humans haven’t shown to be the most wondeful peaceful loving creatures on the planet and I know more than anyone that pain and suffering is part of life. So be it. We were born outside of the grace of heaven so until then we must do what we can to make good what we have.

Plus my personal opinion is that the original sin was wiped clean by the sacrifice of Jesus. That’s my opinion.

Macon Paine says:

11:48am | 10/05/11

@ TChong

It was the devil that did it!

@ Kika

So we are all guilty sinners because Eve took a bite from an apple that was offered to her by a talking snake (that damn devil again!) in the garden of eden 10,000 years ago? Me thinks your trolling.

Servaas says:

12:36am | 11/05/11

TChong, just read the Bible, it’s all writtem in there. It is the book foundational to the Christian faith. Can’t believe you’ve before heard of it or read it !? There’s also many commentaries available from others who studied it and the history surrounding it.

Syl says:

01:19pm | 11/05/11

Servaas

Just because it’s in the bible, doesn’t mean it makes sense.  Or is real.  The bible was written by men afterall, even if you do believe in the bible, surely you can accept that it was edited to benefit certain groups (namely the heads of the church)

Servaas says:

10:53pm | 11/05/11

Syl, I said nothing about it being real because it’s in the Bible.
TChong mocked the ‘God of the Bible’, and mentions some of His characteristics as presented in the Bible but do not consider the God of the Bible’s reason for evil, sickness, etc.

Syl says:

11:35pm | 11/05/11

Uh yes I understood that Servaas.  My point is that the reasons given in the bible don’t make sense.  Original sin? please.  An imaginary women who was tempted to bite an animal by a talking snake is hardly a reason to believe that everyone is a sinner who needs saving.  It reeks of entrapment and control.

The bible is full of contradictions and blatantly obvious attempts at controlling the masses.  It is neither factual, unbiased or even a good source of a moral code, especially if you follow the whole bible, and not just cherry pick the “feel good” verses.  As a historical document it is certainly interesting and informative, as a document of history it is laughable at best.

And before you claim I haven’t read the bible or am ignorant, I have read the bible, I grew up in a reasonably devout family and even when I did believe I knew to take the bible with a grain of salt as those who compiled it clearly had their best interests in mind.

Servaas says:

08:53pm | 12/05/11

I hear you Syl, I’m not going argue further then. Hope you find truth.

Budz says:

08:33am | 10/05/11

I think people should watch some clips on here, especially Matt Dillahunty. He does some talks on secular morality too.
http://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistExperience
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAtheistExperience?blend=1&ob=5

Stephy says:

08:48am | 10/05/11

Er, wrong religion. We don’t do virgins. Or bombs.

Economist says:

09:48am | 10/05/11

Stephy, Mary the IRA? So you do virgins and bombs, but use them different as tools or propoganda. Christians are more about using these tools and punishment rather than reward.

michael j says:

06:43pm | 10/05/11

@Budz-yeah watched the first one Thank God for comic relief,,,

Watched 20 min of the second one ,i found it amusing that Greg Paul is a palaeontologist ,,i went to a lecture at QLD Uni many years ago
Evolution vs Creation the bloke giving it was a dinosaurs man who had become a strong Christian and he had decided that Dating technique’s
used were
not strong enough to deny the existence of GOD and when told to keep the Faith about the technique used He decided he would have Faith in God instead ? in the end he was barraged with Dino ? so i left,,,,,,,,

Jason Todd says:

09:27am | 10/05/11

See Also: Circular reference.

God exists because he ordained that we would not believe he would exist!

QED.

Economist says:

09:30am | 10/05/11

And you’ve just proven why people are sceptical. Why are Moses and the prophets revered? If he spoke to Moses why can’t her speak to the rich? Why should we listen to Moses and the prohets? Where is the evidence God put them in charge? I didn’t realise God was so judgmental that when none of the prohets are women! Are women ever aloud to speak on gods behalf?

When I read the verses you’ve referenced it basically says to me that Gods representative, the church, speak on his behalf and shouldn’t be questioned. It reads like manipulation and control.

Sad Sad Reality says:

09:31am | 10/05/11

“The climax of the pericope has the rich man ask Abraham to send Lazarus (not the one Jesus rose from the dead) back to his brothers. Picking it up from verse 27;”

Said Abraham to Ezekiel. Now if Ezekiel would provide three yaks laden with broad beans he could attain his place in heaven. So said Heremaia the third twice removed to a fish God hath laden in his place of worship.

And so you see that proves no sex before marriage.

Listen to yourself mate. It’s embarrassing.

Matt says:

11:39am | 10/05/11

I’m confused. So, he *did* send a dead man back, not to the five brothers, but to someone else to document this as a cautionary tale? The story said that no one was sent back. How then was this story passed on? Seems a bit sketchy to me…

Michael says:

01:50pm | 12/05/11

Sorry Economist.  Deborah was a prophetess and Phebe was a deaconess.  Guess God’s not so sexist after all.

Jason Todd says:

08:26am | 10/05/11

I’ll take a slice of that action.
Do you want the over or the under?

Danny B says:

08:28am | 10/05/11

I’ll say closer to 400.

AliceC says:

08:41am | 10/05/11

Nah, maybe 250-300?

Elphaba says:

09:19am | 10/05/11

I guess 362 comments.

Jason Todd says:

10:01am | 10/05/11

417.
It does depend heavily on there being a rolling comment war. We’re off to a heck of a start though.

Bitten says:

11:26am | 10/05/11

AliceC and Elphaba to battle it out, methinks.

Naverly Klitgaard says:

11:37am | 10/05/11

My money’s on 666, but that’s a sentimental bet.

James1 says:

12:02pm | 10/05/11

Can I come in late on this one?

I reckon 400-410 by Friday, and that comments will still be coming in over the weekend.

Furthermore, I think that True Believer will make at least 20 assertions completely lacking any basis, and four commenters will remind us that Hitler was an atheist.

Elphaba says:

12:38pm | 10/05/11

@James1,

Well now you’ve just ruined the ending!

Hehehe

Jason Todd says:

12:40pm | 10/05/11

Come on James1, now you’re taking all the mystery out of it.

Likes Joining Dots says:

01:02pm | 10/05/11

Gambling is the work of the devil.  Put me down for 330-340 by Thursday

Kevin says:

01:53pm | 10/05/11

I can confidently predict how many posts from either side of the debate will have any influence on anyone from the other side.  Zero.

St. Michael says:

12:19pm | 13/05/11

@ Elphaba:

“@James1, Well now you’ve just ruined the ending! Hehehe”

No, that would be John.  He wrote the Book of Revelation.

Tedd says:

09:14am | 10/05/11

So the Bible stories say.  There were dozens of stories, and versions of stories, over hundreds of years.  The ones that aligned with the OT were the most popular.

Tedd says:

08:38am | 10/05/11

It was pretty trendy to be an atheist in the late 19th century too, George.

George says:

12:05pm | 10/05/11

@Tedd

There must be a reason why aetheism went underground!

Chris L says:

07:38pm | 10/05/11

To avoid being executed by the religion of love.

Jason Todd says:

02:08pm | 10/05/11

I would ask, origins aside, does it matter? Both make sense.

bob says:

04:37pm | 10/05/11

It used to be “free rain”, but then farmers got charged for it.

sludger says:

09:03am | 10/05/11

Nicely put Andrew.  It does surprise me that those so quick to condemn people who have faith do not understand the meaning of the word itself: Faith is belief in the absence of proof.  Now, there are many who scoff, mock and ridicule.  I wonder why, they are not being hurt.  And it is absolutely laughable the arrogance with which they demand God reveal himself.  Why should he if he doesn’t feel like it?  Anyway, I am sure we will read lots of things like “Sky Fairies” and “Imaginary Friends” etc ad-nauseum.  Really, it becomes tedious.

Tim the Toolman says:

09:05am | 10/05/11

“Nomus is correct, the greatest testament of God is your existence, intelligence and free will to choose to reject God. “

Well, with all due respect, that’s pretty crap evidence.  Why do you attribute this to the christian god?  Why not the thousands of other creation myths you so casually dismiss?

“God is the Great I AM, not the God WE DEMAND. “

Getting a hint of the Wizard of Oz from this statement….he was a fake when the evidence came to light too.

Budz says:

10:02am | 10/05/11

Do any of you guys believe based on faith in any other area of your life than religion? And why do you think believing something based on faith is a good thing?

Do you take a medicine prescribed by a doctor based on their faith and not evidence as a good thing?

Tedd says:

11:28am | 10/05/11

Who doubts facts, Andrew?  What sort of facts are doubted?

Budz says:

08:34am | 10/05/11

Just one piece of evidence will be enough for me thanks.

Luce says:

10:42am | 10/05/11

Stephy, the same thing can be said about religious folk: the most logical arguments against religion and the existence of god can be presented and some believers would still not sway. Its pretty obvious they’ve made up their mind regardless.

You don’t need ‘faith’ to believe things for which there is evidence.

Budz says:

08:36am | 10/05/11

So do you think it’s good to believe anything on faith (which is belief without evidence)?
Why don’t you apply faith into other aspects of life? Start crossing the road with your eyes shut etc.

sir ronald bradnam says:

09:06am | 10/05/11

Peter…where do I start so much bullshit and misinformation in such a short couple of paragraphs.
Dont get me wrong I do like christians..I think its fantastic that there are adults around that still believe in magic.
Democracy is a freedom to to practice your faith and no one is denying you that, just as I as a rational sane person choose not to believe as I know there is no such thing as any sort of sky fairies.
What i object to is the allowances made to believers and their organisations by Governments and society as a whole when there is not one shred of evidence to prove that there is such a thing as God who runs our lives and created us.
There are many people in society who give time, money and themselves to non religious charitable organisations. Contrary to your opinion religion does not hold the monpoly on charity, morals and doing good in the community. I just choose not to go around broadcasting the fact that I am an atheist doing charitable work, I dont need the recognition, the simple fact that I do this is enough for me.
As for Nihilist doctrine, that sounds to me like something one of your commandants told you at sunday school on the weekend and you have decided to use it to try and impress people with your literary capabilities and knowledge. Here is a bit of an eye opener for you, dont believe what your commandants say it is all shit, I am perfectly capable of giving and receiving love. I dont need an omnipresent dictator to be looking over my shoulder and validating it constantly.

Phil says:

09:18am | 10/05/11

“Nobody’s stopping atheists from believing in nothing. Yet it’s clearly very difficult for many of them to extend the same courtesy to those who choose otherwise.”

Bingo

/Thread

Oliver says:

09:29am | 10/05/11

It always amuses me when atheists are labeled nihilist. Just because we don’t subscribe to a particular flavour of delusion does not mean we do not appreciate the world around us. To the contrary, it becomes so much more impressive when you drop the blinkers of creationism.

Peter says:

10:08am | 10/05/11

@Budz old chap, as to your question, which I suspect is rhetorical “So do you think it’s good to believe anything on faith (which is belief with evidence?”  I say yes, I do and I’ll choose whatever I want to believe in. It hasn’t held me back in life. I’m almost 50. I have a successful career. Nor am I trying to impose my faith on anyone else so why do you or any of your fellow atheists care? You don’t seem to subscribe to the philosophy of live and let live.
@Sir Ronald. You claim everything I say is bullshit and provide not an iota of refutation, convincing or otherwise. You say you don’t believe because you know there’s no such thing. How do you know? Because there is no evidence? Does that mean your argument is: If science can’t prove something, it doesn’t exist. Really Sir Ron? So you’ll be telling the physicists at CERN to stop wasting their time seeking the Higgs Boson or any other hypothetical particle for that matter?
As to the alleged allowances governments provide, again not a jot of supporting material any reader could independently verify. You should apply for a job at the ABC. I receive no such “allowances” so the motivation for your aggravation would seem to be elsewhere. Why not be honest and tell us what’s really bugging you.
On your other points, you have not identified a single atheist running a not-for-profit or charity. That said, I agree with you that there are undoubtedly loads of atheists doing good work. But I never said otherwise. You misunderstood Sir Ronald. I said atheism does not have the same record of inspiring good works as Christianity or Islam. I have actually looked. There is no charity I can find that states that the wellspring of its benevolent motivation is atheism. If you can find some, great. I’m not saying they are a bad thing if they exist. This brings me to another interesting point and that is that most atheists posting on this thread don’t seem game to include Islam in their critique. Is that because of your chattering class commitment to multiculturalism?
@Oliver: Nihilism: “The rejection of all religious and moral principles”. Source. The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary. I concede you may claim to have retained certain moral principles. It would be interesting to know if any of your retained moral can’t be sourced back to an ancient religious text. I think we both know it’s unlikely.  God bless you all.

sir ronald bradnam says:

12:26pm | 10/05/11

Peter…..“no charity I can find that states that the wellspring of its benevolent motivation is atheism”.
What a stupid statement my motivation is to do good in the community and to help others whatever there colour or nationality if they need help I will do what I can and I dont advertise the point to try and score a few brownie points that will get me a better seat next to my sky fairy when I head to the afterlife.
Glad you brought up CERN a group of scientists that are trying to prove or disprove the ‘god particle’ at least they are making an effort to explain a concept that is in theory only…unlike readers of a certain book who take everything as fact because it fits their belief system.
Multiculturalism .... yep we are a multicutural society and I treat everyone as an equal, from the sound of it Im not sure your to hot on the idea, would hate to think that a sky fairy believer wasnt embracing and accepting of all human beings.

Rhino says:

12:32pm | 10/05/11

@Peter
You dropped a load, so I will try and sort it out for you:
No governmental allowances:

The school chaplains, a federally funded scheme putting jebus lovers in place to violate childrens minds with lies and bullshit, is not granting allowances to your faith?

None taxation of religiously owned corporations, churches not being charged rates on the land they own. Nope, not allowances either.

I could go one, but if you looked, you would have found this evidence.

Goodless charities, look up MSF, a godless charity run by godless people. They do good because they can, not becuase some god tells them to, i think that is more noble than doing it becuase a deity said you should. If you looked, you would know this.

But, as a believer, you train yourself not to look for the evidence…

Oh, FYI atheists don’t discriminate, we don’t believe in any god. I don’t care if it is god, allah, thor, zeus or the cargo cults of the south pacific its all bullshit.

Oh and please don’t say dog bless you, I find it offensive.

undertow says:

01:20pm | 10/05/11

Nihilists… I think of The Big Lebowski.

“Walter Sobchak: Nihilists! F*** me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.”

“Donny: Are these the Nazis, Walter?
Walter Sobchak: No, Donny, these men are nihilists. There’s nothing to be afraid of.”

Reid Wright says:

04:09pm | 10/05/11

Peter, i have listed a few points that i feel are relevant to your post;
- at what point does faith (belief in the absence of proof) become stupidity (a poor ability to understand from experience) ?
- I must say i find religious folk pushing their beliefs on to me a whole lot more than atheists pushing their lack of belief on to me.
- I’m sure you will find that not all charities are set up by religious groups.
- The fact that you insinuate that only religious people are capable of inspiring love is absoloutely ludicrous and goes against the basis of several religious beliefs.
- I’m pretty sure hypocrites go to hell.

Bloggs says:

05:25pm | 10/05/11

OK, so we need faith, but so do the Muslims in their Quran, and the Jews in the Torah, and so does every other faith.  What makes you guys right and them all wrong?

I recall the lad explaining to me that Allah built the Earth almost like it says in Genesis that God did it (Are these gods brothers or the same bloke? or the same sheila?).  Anyway, when I asked about dinosaurs that have been here long before the 7 days of building, I was told Allah put them there to test our faith.  Where did the bones come from I asked?  And the answer was that they came from pigs and Jews…..

I mean fair dinkum, fair suck of the old sauce bottle…... and we’re supposed to believe that stuff???

You guys keep your imaginary friends if you like, no worries, but don’t go pulling triggers about it, because it’s all nonsense.  When Jesus comes abck and smacks me, and Allah sends a bolt of lightning down to fry me…. then, and only then, will I concede that you might have a point!!!! 

Until then, I will make like the agnostic, dyslexic insomniac… and lie awake at night wondering if there is a dog!

jec says:

08:56pm | 10/05/11

Sir Ronald Bradnam ... how many times can you refer to God as the “Sky Fairy”?!  You are getting unimaginative using that description over and over - or perhaps you are imaginative because you keep saying that God is in the sky when that is not where a Christian believes God is!

sir ronald bradnam says:

11:37am | 11/05/11

Jec… that is like me saying God is becoming a little lame. The continued use of that name for a mythical entity from a fairy tale is well past its use by date but you continue to use it.

Kika says:

09:58am | 10/05/11

To an atheist they are one and the same. Let them scream. It’s an insecurity obviously for them to constantly bang on about it because they have posts in here every week.

Sad Sad Reality says:

10:36am | 10/05/11

Kika, the really insecure people are those who cannot deal with reality. True insecurity is inventing a security blanket and excuse for savagery, projecting it into the sky and then trying to kill anyone who attempts to bring you back to sanity.

Kika says:

10:44am | 10/05/11

OK that’s fine SSR. Keep your opinion, and I’ll have mine thanks.

philip says:

10:58am | 10/05/11

kika im not an atheist I do beleive there is something there but seriously I see him her or it as the ultimate scientist and we nothing but microbes in a universe that is akin to a petrie dish

Sad Sad Reality says:

11:00am | 10/05/11

Yours isn’t an opinion, Kika, it’s a result of conditioning. Opinions require independent thought.

iansand says:

11:11am | 10/05/11

Actually, a true atheist would understand the perils of standing on a prominence wearing a conductive suit during a lightning storm.  Any reluctance to do so would be based on evidence and sound scientific principles.  A deist, on the other hand, would do so in the sublime confidence that they would be looked after by the deity of their choice.

Kika says:

12:27pm | 10/05/11

No conditioning with me SSR. I was not raised a ‘Christian’ or went to Christian schools. I used to be an atheist but realised I was wrong. Thanks for assuming though. You’re good at that.

LC says:

03:38pm | 10/05/11

Phillip, doing that would mean on some level they acknowledge that there is a god there to acknolwedge your (greivances?)

Since atheists do not belive that there is any god, I cannot picture any of them doing so

Tim the Toolman says:

09:09am | 10/05/11

“You have the choice to believe in what you want, why do you want to take that away from others?”

Pot, meet kettle.  Why do religions constantly want to interfere with others, calling for laws to further discrimination etc…?  Actually, worse than just pot and kettle….so atheists make fun of religions. Big deal.  At least we’re not killing/beating others because they don’t meet with some old book we base our lives off.

Oh, that’s right.  It’s respect others, but only when it suits you.

Jason Todd says:

09:50am | 10/05/11

It is fine if you want to believe in whatever god you wish and to take that on faith without any evidence at all. That is your right. Where it starts to irritate me is when religious sorts (not specifying any one faction) insist that their faith is fact and should be afforded the same consideration as fact.

Noone can tell you what to believe, but everyone should have the right to their own beliefs. When it comes to issues such as gay marriage and other hot button topics, it just starts to irk me that religious folk come out and say “Gay marriage is wrong because the bible says it’s wrong!”.

Phil says:

10:00am | 10/05/11

@Tim the Toolman

Its not just religions that want to constantly interfere, its people.
Some religions take it far to far, other non-religious “others” do the same thing.
Atheists participate in war and killing lets tell it how it is, for atheists its just done in another name or for something else (land, oil, money, power, fear, control).
Does it make a difference if people are killed in the name of a God or in the name of “Freedom” or some other lie so those in control can live like Gods off what they have taken.

As a general rule i try respect others all the time, not when it suits me, that has nothing to do with religion its how i was brought up, something parents dont bother teaching their kids these days.

Burko says:

11:52am | 10/05/11

I dont really subscribe to either newsletter, but this statement strikes me as slightly odd
“There are many things that happen in this world that religion or science are unable to answer.”
Very true,but, there are millions of things that science can explain but I cant think of one that religion can

Seano says:

01:03pm | 10/05/11

I have to agree Tim. Also if the religious want a level playing field perhaps their organisations should consider doing the right thing and pay taxes.

mike j says:

02:10pm | 10/05/11

“Faith doesn’t require evidence.”

Certainly doesn’t.

Unless you’re kind of expecting the thing that you have faith in to bear any resemblance to reality.

Paul Horn says:

01:37pm | 11/05/11

So Toolie you reckon that at least atheists are “not killing/beating others because they don’t meet with some old book we base our lives off.”

Really? Ever heard of the league of militant atheists?  Well toolie here’s a little snapshot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Godless. This rancid bunch existed in Stalins Russia and were inimical to religious belief.

They were a “Government” organisation intrinsic to the central tenets and core philosophies of Communism. Without atheism Communism would cease to exist!

Strange though is it not that Stalin who orchestrated rounding up religious leaders for extermination turned to the Chuch in Russias greatest hour of need - invasion by the Germans! He sanctioned religious practice as a means of engendering patriotism and hope to a nation facing complete and utter extermination.  Somehow it helped.

And why if Christianity is based on a complete furphy has it survived for thousands and thousands of years whereas the vast percentage of all other religions have disappeared off the face of the Earth?

Sickemrex says:

09:01pm | 11/05/11

@ Paul Horn, I don’t know about that, Judaism and Hinduism seem to have been ticking along nicely for thousands of years.  Or are Christianity and Judaism one and the same, for the sake of the argument?  Speaking of arguments, (I came here for an argument, no I didn’t yes I did) the question about the validity of other religions has already been posed with no answer, but I’ll ask again….

Do all of the various gods exist to the believer?  Or just the one (or dozens) you believe in?  How do you establish which is the one that is real and which ones are made up?  Can a Christian and a Hindi both argue for belief in their god/s based on faith and both be right?  I probably sound facetious but I haven’t actually had a religious person reply to this question.

Kyra says:

01:14pm | 10/05/11

if it takes faith it’s not evidence. I don’t need faith to believe penicillin works because there is plenty of evidence. I’m guessing the kind of evidence that would stand up to a double blind randomised control study but hey a tv appearance of the deity of your choice should suffice.

Grumpy says:

10:45pm | 10/05/11

Same, well anglican and then catholic school. It just felt wrong. I dont like being lied too and i think im pretty good at telling the difference.No teacher could answer my questions and i was usually punished for questioning it.

Kika says:

12:52pm | 10/05/11

So we send them to bed after watching a man breaking his leg after getting smashed in a tackle in a rugby union game, after a day of playing Grand Theft Auto or Halo and watching Katy Perry videos. Yes, the 21st Century is definitely much more on the high moral ground.

Bubs says:

01:16pm | 10/05/11

True, Kika - there’s also a lot of abortions these days (go watch one). And some atheists even want to create embryos so they can be harvested for experiments. How do we tell kiddies that story?

James1 says:

03:26pm | 10/05/11

I would tell my children about that shortly after I read the rules for selling daughters into slavery in the Book of Exodus.  That way the whole harvesting embryo thing will seem pretty tame by comparison.

remlap says:

03:38pm | 10/05/11

Kika - you do realise that Katy Perry professes to be a devout Christian don’t you?

Kika says:

04:52pm | 10/05/11

Selling daughters into slavery is pretty tame in comparison to some fairy tales - Hansel & Gretel, Little Red Riding Hood and Rapunzel are a few that stick in my mind to be quite frightening for little kids.

James1 says:

07:06pm | 10/05/11

Difference is, Kika, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone telling their children that Little Red Riding Hood is something they should live by.  The Bible, on the other hand…

The Original Oz says:

11:47am | 10/05/11

Still waiting….

waiting….
waiting….
waiting….
waiting….
waiting….
waiting….
waiting….

St. Michael says:

02:23pm | 10/05/11

God uses a 56k modem.  Be patient.

:D

Seanr says:

02:30pm | 10/05/11

NBN where are you when he/she/it needs you

Sad Sad Reality says:

11:52am | 10/05/11

“Personally I do believe in God. I see him everyday in everything. In a smile, the stars, birds, in love, in sadness, in fear, in joy, in charity, in the homeless, in the ignored and oppressed,  in everything.”

A beautiful sentiment. It’s just a shame you can’t see the things as they really are. Truth is the most beautiful thing of all. 

“And you know, no one can explain what was before the big bang so until then I still believe that God (whatever force or dimension he comes from) is responsible for everything.”

This completely disproves your belief in god. You admit that you are only believing in god until someone can explain the big bang. Can you really believe something exists if you are already preparing yourself to stop believing in it? A true believer wouldn’t care what science reveals. It would change nothing to them. You use god like a baseball catcher to catch all the stray pitches of reality you can’t comprehend. You are not comfortable living in a world where not everything is understood. You fear uncertainty. And if no god existed to allay your fears, you would create one. Such is your mortal dread.

KIka says:

12:34pm | 10/05/11

SSR - once again assuming and paraphrasing. Wonderful research tools there. What makes you think I would ever change my mind and what makes you think I base my whole faith on that point alone? I don’t have to justify my faith to you or anyone.

Sad Sad Reality says:

01:12pm | 10/05/11

Your words do, Kika.

“And you know, no one can explain what was before the big bang so until then I still believe that God”

Until then indeed.

Sad Sad Reality says:

01:25pm | 10/05/11

“I don’t have to justify my faith to you or anyone.”

And yet you take every opportunity to do exactly that.

Burko says:

01:51pm | 10/05/11

@ Kika, I draw your attention to this statement “once again assuming and paraphrasing” Now lets have a look at this"So we send them to bed after watching a man breaking his leg after getting smashed in a tackle in a rugby union game, after a day of playing Grand Theft Auto or Halo and watching Katy Perry videos. Yes, the 21st Century is definitely much more on the high moral ground.” All your statements,yes? This has never happened in my house. We dont own a gaming console or watch Rugby and my daughter has no interest in Katy Perry or any one of her ilk. As stated before I’m neither here nor there on the whole God non-God issue, but I am a firm beliver that one should never berate someone of doing something they themselves are doing. Perhaps next time you should research before making assumtions.

Andrew says:

04:15pm | 10/05/11

Yes Kika, we knock you, for very good reasons.  The very same reasons that you would deride and think poorly of a fully grown adult who still believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the tooth fairy, or leprechauns.  Oh, but actually there is significantly MORE evidence pointing to the existence of these things - after all, there’s eggs in my basket every easter, right?  We ridicule you because despite seeming to possess intelligence, you profess a view that is absurd.  Despite a veritable mountain of evidence refuting the existence of something, you continue to believe.  You call it ‘faith’, we call it stupidity.

You see god every day, hey?  Well, I’ll submit because that you ‘see’ god because of your own personal delusion.  Here’s my proposal - A giant purple rhinoceros created the universe just a few years ago, before that there was NOTHING, not even the rhino himself (amazing paradox, I know, but he’s all-powerful, this rhino).  He was very clever, and gave us all the memories that we WOULD have had if we’d actually been born years before (amazing, isn’t it!).  Of course he is totally invisible, and no matter how hard you try you won’t be able to find a shred of evidence to support his existence because he’s far too clever to do that, but he DID make everything in the universe!  So every time you see a flower, or a tree, or a sunset, or love, or joy, or stars or birds, that’s the work of good old purple rhino, our magnificent creator!  Why I know it must be true, because look, everything EXISTS, just as it would if he had made it!  Amazing!  Oh, just as an aside, if you don’t believe that the purple rhino made the universe, you’re going to be tortured for all eternity - praise the rhino!!

Have I convinced you, or do you perhaps think I’m a bit soft in the head?  Would it help if I wrote a long, rambling, inconsistent and contradictory book and called it ‘holy’?  No?  Well congratulations, you now understand exactly how ridiculous we think you are…

Snake says:

04:19pm | 10/05/11

Quite frankly Kika, even if someone came up with an explanation for you, I don’t believe you’d be satisfied.

You see the problem with religion is that the Jew beleives only Jews can go to heaven, the Muslim believes only Muslims can go to paradise and the Christian believes only Christians can go to heaven. How is it possible that all these gods reward and punish different sets of people? What a completely ignorant viewpoint… Absolutely nonsensical. But I guess if you are seeing these gods in all those things, logic isn’t your forte.

Kika says:

04:41pm | 10/05/11

I bet any of you wouldn’t personally go up to someone and be so arrogant and rude to their face. You vent your personal opinions on these pages so you can remain anonymous and let out your deep rooted prejudices and biases to make yourself feel good about yourself. Well done.

Well, whoever you are.

Here’s something to learn. To paraphrase means you directly take something from a passage and put it in your own words to suit your purpose. My statements did not paraphrase or assume anything, I used real live examples of where our society is and what we expose children to on a daily basis.

I don’t base my faith purely on that gap in science but for much greater obvious reasons. I am not discussing it with you because it’s personal and has nothing to do with you.

Sad Sad Reality says:

07:30pm | 10/05/11

You’re right, Kika. In public I would laugh at you behind your back.

Chris L says:

08:11pm | 10/05/11

“Every week you atheists are out there knocking people with faith for whatever reason” - you actually had to click your mouse on this article in order to read it Kika. You also decided to post your own view, is that allowed?

I pass two churches on the way to work each day with big billboards advertising messages (sometimes quite clever). I find this advertising unavoidable, unlike a web site. Occassionally there are deranged individuals shouting about whichever god they favour on a street corner in the city. Hard to avoid that too. Not that I feel the need to go up to them and tell them off for having an opinion. I find it within me to forgive them and leave them behind. Thankfully I haven’t had god botherers knocking on my door for a few years, which is a “blessed” relief

AliceC says:

11:10am | 10/05/11

‘He cannot prove God does not exist’

It is not up to him to prove that God doesn’t exist, it is up to the believers to prove God does exist.

sludger says:

12:47pm | 10/05/11

I tend to disagree Alice.  I read it that he is saying God needs to prove himself.  What gets me confused is people slamming believers of any faith for having faith (belief without proof)  yet are willing to have faith there is no god.  Odd really

Tim the Toolman says:

01:20pm | 10/05/11

“What gets me confused is people slamming believers of any faith for having faith (belief without proof)  yet are willing to have faith there is no god.  Odd really “

No, not odd.  Why do you not believe in Thor, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, the omnipotent furry hamster of the Andromeda galaxy?

Let me put it this way.  There is an infinite (or so close to make no difference) number of possible “things” in the universe.  You are not actively disbelieving in all of these simultaneously, you simply ignore them as there is no evidence of them existing.  Atheists do the same.  We’re not actively ignoring evidence, there simply is none.  We only exist as an identifiable group because of religious groups pushing to spread their faith (whether people want it or not).  We have no faith there is no god, in the same way we don’t have faith that there is no omnipotent hamsters or sentient bicycle overlords who inhale stars for breakfast.

michael j says:

01:21pm | 10/05/11

@TB once again you are right ,the article is pretty stupid,
FAITH to me had nothing to do with Beliefs,it is a substance by its self
it is an active part of the Conscience that people use every day without knowing NOT to be confused with some pentecostal people who went to bed believing they had a toothache any woke the next morning with not only no toothache but a GOLD filling as well,power of prayer,,,,,,,,,

Burko says:

01:59pm | 10/05/11

@ Sludger. The wisest words spoken on here all day

Paulb says:

03:54pm | 10/05/11

TB you godbotherers are the ones making the ridiculous claim.  It is not up to us to disprove anything, it is up to you to support your claim.  Evidence would be helpful.

LC says:

03:57pm | 10/05/11

It’s not his job to prove that god DOES NOT exist. Just like it’s not your job to prove you HAVE NOT commiteded a crime in a court of law.

And I’d still be prepared to bet that even if he showed you 50 studies that proved god does not exist, you’d still say “What about the 51st study?” or “What about this perticular situation that you haven’t tried yet?”

AliceC says:

03:58pm | 10/05/11

‘What gets me confused is people slamming believers of any faith for having faith (belief without proof)  yet are willing to have faith there is no god.  Odd really’

I find it strange that people are willing to have faith in a supernatural being based on no evidence, which they read about in a story book written thousands of years ago by a group of men. Odd really.

Chris L says:

08:49pm | 10/05/11

There is some preliminary evidence that prayer does not work. Not conclusive by any means, but evidence continues to compile.

http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/178

St. Michael says:

03:41pm | 10/05/11

Either that or s/he doesn’t say yes to every prayer that’s asked.

Just a note, not an argument.

LC says:

04:02pm | 10/05/11

I think “speck” is a bit of an understatement

LC says:

04:03pm | 10/05/11

Out of curiosity, what is the dominant spieces on the planet?

HappyCynic says:

04:45pm | 10/05/11

Bacteria of course

There are more bacteria living in the human body, for example, than there are cells in the body.

AliceC says:

11:12am | 10/05/11

@Thomas Anderson

I challenge you to prove God does exist. Surely if God exists, there should be plenty of evidence around.

Trjn says:

01:19pm | 10/05/11

The burden of proof lies with whoever makes the positive claim. If you want to claim something exists, you need to show that it does. If you claim that something exists, it is not up to someone else to prove that it doesn’t.

Just look up Russell’s Teapot.

Even if you could prove miracles, how do you prove that they are caused by the entity you claim? There’s just as much evidence that the God of Christianity is responsible as there is for Thor being responsible.

Kyre says:

01:26pm | 10/05/11

rules of evidence: In court if someone is on trial for a crime the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. e.g if you say a murder happened you need to prove it. analagous to religion if you say any god exists it is up to you to prove it.

In terms of scientific evidence, god does not exist is the Null hypothesis, which should be accepted until proved false.
What Does Null Hypothesis Mean?
A type of hypothesis used in statistics that proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations. The null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables, or that a single variable is no different than zero. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative hypothesis.

Thomas Anderson says:

02:09pm | 10/05/11

Thank you for the lectures, I did complete a law degree, and my commerce degree did include statistics at a basic level.

Precisely, whoever makes the allegation should have the burden of proof. I made no statement one way or the other. The author made the allegation by his attempt at humour that God does not exist. He further repeatedly asked for evidence. Only fair to provide some yourself, first.

The truth is, humans will never prove either way. There would not be any test of faith if God made a clear sign of his existence. This is something we have to find out for ourselves. I know what I believe in and I have enough proof of it to satisfy me. I know that trying to convince others is a waste of time and effort, unlike Mr Brown and seemingly most atheists who write books and articles on the subject.

James1 says:

02:59pm | 10/05/11

Thomas, I challenge you to prove there is no giant teapot behind the moon.  Surely if there is no giant teapot, there will be plenty of evidence around.

And don’t give me the whole “people have seen the other side of the moon, and we know there is no teapot there” routine.  All that proves is that the giant teapot is moon-coloured, and thus blends in perfectly.

Thomas Anderson says:

03:53pm | 10/05/11

Dude, I’m not saying there’s no giant teapot on the Moon, for all I know, there might be!

James1 says:

04:27pm | 10/05/11

Indeed.  All hail the giant moon teapot.

Thomas Anderson says:

05:24pm | 10/05/11

What are the teachings of the giant teapot? If it is to drink Dilmah tea, I refuse to follow them!

Grumpy says:

10:56pm | 10/05/11

i challenge you to prove that god NEEDS to exist. it has been proven he doesnt need to exist. Thats more than you can say for religion.

Jason Todd says:

11:49am | 10/05/11

If that is the case, I cannot wait for 2000 years time, when we have Seinfeldians walking the earth.

“And yea, the great Kramer did slide across the void, and spake thus “These pretzels are making me thirsty”. And amongst those assembled, there was much rejoicing”

James1 says:

03:01pm | 10/05/11

Or the Book of Simpsons:

“And yea did the prophet Ralph of the speak unto the gathered people: ‘Mine cat’s breath doth smell of cat food’.”

HappyCynic says:

10:28am | 10/05/11

Christians over the centuries have adopted a form of duotheism, basically a belief in two gods (without actually saying so explicitly), G-d is supposed to be good and lives in heaven, while they explain away evil as being the work of some devil or Satan or whatever who lives in hell instead of believing that evil is the work (and creation) of G-d (as true monotheists believe).  Unfortunately Christians have also got their theologies very muddled up because they’ve been busy mixing and absorbing other faiths and adopting different practices to “appeal” to a wider base.  This is why you’ve got such an incoherent dogma when you start getting down to the nitty-gritty details.

In the end just choose what to believe (or not to believe) and ignore the rest, it’s easier on your sanity and if there really is a G-d the dude won’t mind too much so long as you haven’t been a very naughty boy. 

St. Michael says:

11:32am | 10/05/11

The Dude Abides.

Tim the Toolman says:

01:28pm | 10/05/11

“As for amputees miraculously growing legs back”

How convenient that its only the people who lack the technology and social structure of critical thinking are the ones who are most likely to claim something impossible happened…

“I just think our greed and jealousy are not conducive to any kind of spirituality…. “

This is based on…..what?  You just made it up.

Elphaba says:

01:41pm | 10/05/11

@Kate, God is supposedly a jealous and vengeful God, so if you ask me, jealousy appears to be the epitome of spirituality…

LC says:

04:17pm | 10/05/11

So the only people who have grown back severed limbs are those living in remote islands, where they convienently lack the technology which they can use to record the(by 1st world standards) impossible happening?

How convienient.

Grumpy says:

11:01pm | 10/05/11

“remote/island cultures seem to be more connected to their spirituality (good and bad) than westerners…”

Doesn’t that tell yo something about people who dont have much to do with little to no access to education and all the access in the world to bibles and camp fire stories?

undertow says:

12:27pm | 11/05/11

“I just think our greed and jealousy are not conducive to any kind of spirituality…. “

Tell that to Hillsong.

Kate says:

09:12pm | 13/05/11

Far out you guys are cynical!  My reasoning is that greed and jealousy make us think about ourselves (in comparison to others), its very selfish and self-centred - I just can’t fathom how someone who is extremely self centred can be spiritual, ie thinking about/believing in something other than themselves?!  I’m sorry, but after 25 years of religeon slammed down my throat (and subsequently deciding what I believe for myself)  I just love to stir the pot!

Luce says:

11:15am | 10/05/11

Weather patterns are not god, they’re simply weather patterns, for which we have quite detailed explanations.

I’m sure god has wisdom enough to appreciate that some people are not prepared to put their belief in something for which there is no evidence, and would be a little understanding on judgement day. After all, being such a smart guy himself, I’m sure he’d appreciate having people in heaven who can hold a proper conversation instead of just agreeing with everything he says for the rest of eternity. How boring would that be.

Geoff - Brisbane says:

10:48am | 10/05/11

I think it was something like 1 in 10 (correct me if i am wrong) children do not know their true biological father. Did you get the DNA test?

Are you sure that girl is yours?

randomscrub says:

11:06am | 10/05/11

pics or video please ...

The Reverend says:

11:07am | 10/05/11

Geoff, you do realize that you are accusing my wife of infidelity, don’t you? Pretty low act. Just face facts mate, there are things in this world that cannot be explained by science or human “reasoning”.

And, for the record, all four of my children look like me. There can be no mistaking their parentage.

iansand says:

11:15am | 10/05/11

Regrown fingernails don’t count.  Nor does nose hair.

Tim the Toolman says:

11:18am | 10/05/11

“By the way, have you ever seen a missing body part reappear? I have. “

I suggest you visit a different kind of doctor…one who specialises in the other end of the body to your miraculous foot.  Honestly, if any of what you said was true, science would be having a field day working over it.

As for the x-ray, I had a bone scan once and it looked like there were nails through my wrist where it was broken!  It was the power of Jesus I tell you!

monkeytypist says:

11:20am | 10/05/11

Similarly, the god of the bible, particularly the old testament, behaves looks, speaks, and behaves suspiciously like a human being, so there can be no doubt of its parentage.

(Alright, alright, so it behaves, speaks and acts as a nomadic inhabitant of iron-age palestine with no scientific knowledge and flexible notions of causality would expect it to behave and act, fine.  But now I’ve spoiled my quip).

killerbee says:

11:23am | 10/05/11

What missing body part?
Are we supposed to believe all your stories because we have “Faith”?
I’m sure that if your broken bone was healed miraculously that we would have heard about it in a medical journal.
PS. have you had a NA test done on your daughter yet?

Geoff - Brisbane says:

11:35am | 10/05/11

The possibility that your wife has cheated on you is very real there mate. You didn’t even get a DNA test to prove that those kids are yours. I have been cheated on, all my mates have been cheated on and yet there you sit claiming it’s impossible for it to happen to you.

Have you seen the maury show? The episode about the two brothers and one has a kid with the other ones wife. Of course the kid looked like the husband, but it wasn’t his kid.

Six medical professionals told you that more likely than not your kids and yet you blindly do not seek the truth (DNA test). And this can be carried into religious beliefs. Athiests have pointed out very valid arguments and still you do not seek the truth. You have already made up your mind and nothing anyone says can change it dispite the level and credibility of their evidence.

HappyCynic says:

11:37am | 10/05/11

@The Reverend

No disrespect intended but if you really wanted to face facts, looks are not as conclusive as DNA and all humans are flawed, your wife is just as susceptible to those flaws as anyone else.  The other signs you give can also have scientific explanations if you choose to look for them.

You don’t search for the scientific explanation, preferring a more metaphysical one that suits your beliefs, it’s your choice not to face those particular facts but don’t accuse them of being beyond scientific or human reasoning just because you either don’t understand them or choose not to understand them.

Oh and as for growing body parts re-appearing, sure I’ve seen it before, it’s not particularly remarkable in the natural world, it’s common in reptiles to drop a tail as a defense measure and regrow it within a few days, or to regrow a damaged limb.  It’s been hypothesized that humans have the potential to do this but given the complexity of our bodies and the energy requirements to regrow a complex limb it’s highly unlikely that any humans have done it beyond the tip of a toe or a finger tip and even then it’s highly disputed.

For the record I’m still kind of religious, I just prefer a more rational, cynical and logical approach.

Budz says:

11:39am | 10/05/11

Why must the proof of god be things that science cannot YET explain? Back in the day people used to think that all things that happened in nature were god showing how happy or angry he was at us, now we know better.
And also if those are all miracles of god, how about the opposite? When people get struck down by terrible diseases and die a horrible death? Is that not proof too?
Does that not show that good and bad things happen with no apparent reason?

The Reverend says:

12:24pm | 10/05/11

Look, I realize I am talking to people that won’t believe in God even if He were to come up to you and wiggle His huge finger in your face. I’ll bet you are the same bunch who want to see Osama’s “head shot” and video of his burial at sea. I don’t care, to be honest, how intellectually superior you feel you all are with your oh so incredible arguments to refute my testimony. The fact remains, however, that I have seen miracles. You want to know what body parts I have seen re-appear? Here’s a notable one - a friend’s womb was removed due to complications in her pregnancy. Not a part of her womb - her whole womb! She gave birth to a beautiful baby boy 18 months later. Scans showed a womb where there was none a year before. 

And you want to know why we don’t see these things in medical journals? Because the doctors are scared of being sued for malpractice or are afraid of ridicule, just like I am receiving, for even suggesting that something outside of the realms of our intellect occur in real life. The doctor that operated on my foot was very afraid that I would sue him for malpractice. With no other explanation he had to put it down to a misdiagnosis, although he did admit to me that I wasn’t his first patient to have a miracle occur. He had a patient with inoperable and incurable arthritis, confined to a wheelchair and in constant pain turn up to his office without the aid of his wheelchair or walking stick, standing upright and with no obvious sign of discomfort and told him he’d been completely healed the night before in a church!

I have seen the blind see, I have seen the deaf hear, and I have seen the dead raised. Don’t believe me? So what!

Elphaba says:

12:35pm | 10/05/11

“Scans showed a womb where there was none a year before.”

@The Reverend, why does a miracle have to be attributed to God?  Just because things we don’t understand happen, it’s automatically attributed to God.  Strange things happen, it’s proof of God.

Why is the unknown so scary?  What if what happened to your friend was possible because of some obscure bodily function we haven’t worked out yet?

Why must the extraordinary be attributed to God? 

Oh, and I think you’d find most atheists would happily welcome God’s fat finger in our face.  Because hocus pocus ‘I can’t explain this, so it must be attributed to God’ anecdotes aren’t worth the blog they’re written on.

St. Michael says:

01:47pm | 10/05/11

@ Elphaba and everyone else: Basically, what you’re all arguing here is a flawed theological argument called “the God of the Gaps”.  It was first crystallised by a Holocaust survivor (whose name escapes me right now) who basically said that simply saying that the unexplainable must be attributable to God is an unsatisfying argument, because it necessarily involves retreat as scientific knowledge grows:

“God causes the sun to rise!”
“Um, I think that’s actually the rotation of the Earth that makes it looks that way.”
“Oh.  Well, God made the sun!”
And so forth.

The point being, and I think it’s a decent one: you either posit that God is present in every event in the universe, or s/he is present in none.  Saying that God’s responsible only for the things we can’t yet explain via science is a God of the gaps—and an unimpressive God, at that.

True Believer says:

01:53pm | 10/05/11

@The Reverend
You speak the Truth, you and I know it.  God tells us in His Word - “the fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God.’”

He also tells us “Do not cast your pearls before swine.”

These poor lost souls think they are rich in knowledge but as God tells us “they are naked, poor and blind.”

They belong to an arrogant new breed of aggressive atheists. They have no hope, nothing to offer to their fellow human beings by way of hope, no purpose for their lives. They think they “know” their ancestors crawled out of a swamp and hung on trees.

How can one try to explain treasures such as knowledge of our Lord to people who are so satisfied with being “evolved” from swamp dwellers.

I am sure individually there are some really nice people among them, but collectively they make about as much sense as a comic book, but sadly are not as entertaining.  Leave them to their folly. As God told us “a fool returns to his folly as a dog returns to his vomit.” 

We waste the Truth on such as those who revel in darkness and blindness

Elphaba says:

01:55pm | 10/05/11

@St Michael, thanks for putting a name to it.

RobJ says:

02:09pm | 10/05/11

“Geoff, you do realize that you are accusing my wife of infidelity, don’t you? “

Erm, it’s more plausible than your claim that God made you fertile (after being sterile) More likely the doctors were wrong, I have a friend who was told he’d never father children after testicular cancer, the doctors were wrong, he’s not a believer so why would god reward him with offspring.

Or on another note, why did your god give my wife a miscarriage, an ectopic and a stillborn daughter?

He’s fickle your God, and if he had anything to do with the issues my family have faced I want nothing to do with him!

I reckon people convince themselves that there is a God because they can’t get their heads around dying. I see no other rational reason.

RobJ says:

02:19pm | 10/05/11

“The fact remains, however, that I have seen miracles.”

Evidence? Actually if it’s a fact you’ll be able to provide proof. Then again you’re happy to believe in a god so your ‘facts’ could mean anything.

“Don’t believe me? So what! “

I don’t but I do wonder why your making an effort if you don’t care what the rest of us think.

RobJ says:

02:25pm | 10/05/11

“They belong to an arrogant new breed of aggressive atheists.”

I’m an agnostic myself because I realise I don’t know everything. If there is a god I doubt he’d be anything like the nasty piece of work depicted in the Holy Bible, if he was, like I say I’d want nothing to do with him.

According to Christianity I’m already damned to hell for eternity because there’s nothing that’s going to convince me that Jesus is the way, god being omniscient knows I’m going to hell too. On the other hand, Myra Hindley, the despicable child torturer and murderer is in heaven, because she was born again. Sod that, god can forgive her because she saw the light, me on the other hand, condemned to hell!

James1 says:

03:22pm | 10/05/11

TB, just a note.  In his “word”, your god also tells us the rules for selling our daughters into slavery.  Did you listen to that part, as well as the pearls bit?

LC says:

04:22pm | 10/05/11

“By the way, have you ever seen a missing body part reappear? I have.”

You’re gonna need to provide stonger evidence than just your word for that. Sorry.

Oh and I thought men of god (y’know, priests, reverends, bishops) were supposed to remain celibate.

grumpy says:

11:13pm | 10/05/11

i dont believe any of those things are acts of god. Nor are they any proof at all. Maybe you change to boxers? i dont know…Divine intervention in child birth, that old chestnut. I beleive if a woman has the choice between lying and telling the truth she will lie every-time. You are choosing to believe they are acts of god, they are clearly not, healing bones and child birth lol cmon mate… Why did you even go to a doctor if god could help you? you’re obviously leaving out important details, or denying them to yourself to help promote your beliefs or control over your constituants. Just stop lying to people.

Tedd says:

10:42am | 10/05/11

Time and effort are not worth losing, even for Pascal’s Wager

Elphaba says:

10:49am | 10/05/11

Who says he hasn’t already?  You assume atheists reject the idea of God without having investigated it.  He might have believed, he might have prayed, he might have attended Church, and felt nothing.  He’s supposed to just keep believing in it because it ‘might’ be true?

This is what I mean - you hedge your bets.  Of course you have nothing to lose, but is that the only reason you believe?  Because you’re worried that if you don’t, you’ll burn?  Should you believe in something just because you fear it?

Not exactly ‘God is love’ huh?

Mensur Cehic says:

11:53am | 10/05/11

@Katemonster

You know..all the research on adults with imaginary friends points to medication. Perhaps we should “choose” to do more for mental health in this country.

Luce says:

12:25pm | 10/05/11

Katemonster, the reason the majority of atheists don’t believe is exactly because they’ve investigated and thought about it a lot (I’d even go so far as to say more then many religious people), and the evidence just doesn’t stand up to reason.

Brett says:

01:12pm | 10/05/11

You can’t “choose to believe” something.

Geoff - Brisbane says:

10:52am | 10/05/11

Jesus Christ….....

Spiritual Calculus says:

10:55am | 11/05/11

Okay, so God’s the derivative of good. I guess the integral of good would be peace, and the second derivative of good (being the derivative of God) would be religion. But - wait a second - if God changeth not then his derivative would be zero. Ye gads, I think we’re onto something!

Kika says:

12:42pm | 10/05/11

Barry - I am religious. I don’t like abortions, but I support a system which offers them. I am more inclined towards “live and let live”.. it’s up to an individual person to decide what is good or right for them and I oppose any state legislation to oppose what someone wants to do with their lives. I know what you’re trying to say though, that we need laws to decide what we consider morally right and wrong but as for those certain morality issues I think it’s best left to the individual person as they have to deal with the repurcussions afterwards not us or the government.

Bubs says:

12:29pm | 10/05/11

I don’t understand why atheists think Christians are forcing them to do anything - it’s a choice, if you don’t like it, leave it. But yet atheists don’t see that the State is the only thing that can force them to do what it pleases under threat of imprisonment. How would atheists survive if they didn’t have their big government telling them what to think and how to behave? And that they’re forced to act and think this way really contradicts the whole free thinking atheist mythology.

Slick says:

01:29pm | 10/05/11

Bubs - I do not understand how what you said had anything to do with my post. I did not say anything about Christians forcing me to do anything.
Personally I attend church quite regulary. I love a lot of the people there and some of my best memories are there. I go to bible study (not so much in the last year as we moved but for 3 years previously) and I enjoy having a healthy debate with others, who in turn thank me for making them think deeper and question their faith, which in turn makes them stronger in their faith. But at the same time, there are a lot of Christians I dislike due to the “holier than thou” attitude that they use, because they were raised in a Christian household, went to a Christian school, waited til their wedding night to have sex with their high school sweetheart, yet are arrogant, selfserving, pretend people. They would rather suffer a painful death than admit that something was wrong with them and that they may possibly have failed at something.
Then there are the beautiful people from church, who do not judge, they accept you for who you are, which is the way the bible teaches Jesus was. They are the ones that I do not begrudge their faith. They do not try to push their beliefs onto me, they are just happy to be able to be a part of my life.
There are people who will refuse medical treatment because they believe God will heal their child, then the child dies, and they say it is God’s will.
My in-laws, who have a firm Christian base, have even started to question lately due to family problems and the loss of 2 children and permenant disabilities of a 3rd.
I may believe in god, but I do not believe in religion and the bible. They are man made products, open to corruption.
Just look at all the Catholic priest that abused their position.

Tim the Toolman says:

01:55pm | 10/05/11

“I don’t understand why atheists think Christians are forcing them to do anything”

Urggh…this again.

No R18+ rating for games.  Thankyou religion.
No Voluntary euthanasia.  Thankyou religion.
Restrictions on various forms of research:  Thankyou religion.
Restrictions on who can and can’t marry:  Thankyou religion.

Should I go on?  This is just the current state of affairs as well.  Let’s just ignore the long loooong history of religion using its “god given” right to abuse and discriminate.

We aren’t free to choose…your fanatical half-wittery is busy buying politicians to push your views on the rest of the unwilling population.

Elphaba says:

11:38am | 10/05/11

Erm… here’s your opportunity.  Email the Punch team.  Don’t bleat aout it, do something.

Budz says:

11:41am | 10/05/11

I’m with you there. Turn this into a proper debate of ‘does god exist?’. You know why they can’t and won’t do it? Because there is no evidence to support the existence of a god.

michael j says:

02:03pm | 10/05/11

@Budz-you ask a ? on Faith
FAITH to me had nothing to do with Beliefs,it is a substance by its self
it is an active part of the Conscience that people use every day without knowing, NOT to be confused with some pentecostal people who went to bed believing they had a toothache any woke the next morning with not only no toothache but a GOLD filling as well,power of prayer,,,
Meditation as practice’s by some Hindu’s is a good place to start your search for Faith,you already have it otherwise nothing would exist
sound silly already,, remember the gold filling ,,the meditation should be done with someone to take you through it,,it involves emptying you head of all thought by concentration on sounds and then removing them till none are left,, sensory deception may have a similar effect,haven’t try it,,
Remember you are not looking for GOD you are searching for FAITH
What your goal is ,,To be aware of nothing,,,tree in the forest shit ,NOPE
when you have had your aware of nothing experience,you will probably
look for TRUTH , there is no easy way to explain this ,,it has nothing to do with the Tibetan book of the dead ,,which is a hard read in itself,,
You want Knowlage of true FAITH before you can look any further,

iansand says:

04:48pm | 10/05/11

I like the theory that god created the world with a sufficient level of complexity to baffle and awe people with a bronze age level of knowledge.  This ensured that its people remained in awe of it for quite a while and he sat back and rested because it was good. 

God’s problem was that it also treated a bunch of people with vast curiosity, and they began to see through some of the flimsier parts of its creation, and it was not good.  So god got to work, patching the flimsy bits by creating greater complexity to keep the curiosity at bay.  Over the last couple of centuries god has had to work like the proverbial one armed paperhanger, creating increasingly complicated levels of complexity to keep the curious critters busy.

And that, children, is why we have quantum physics.  When god finishes M Theory all the bits necessary to discover it will have been created, and it will be accepted as a valid theory.  When god has tidied up the edges the Higgs boson will finally be there to be discovered.  And so it goes.

stephen says:

01:00pm | 10/05/11

Then again, if someone were to ask me to prove the teapot to others, knowing that I believe it to be there, why should anyone doubt me, or its existence, if I decline ?
Russell got his Atheism from his father, then John Stuart Mill, then quickly married his first wife…a Quaker.
I think we can say that, in his case, love may have been blind.

Truthseeker says:

03:33pm | 10/05/11

Sorry Nathan, but that’s quite a lot of BS. That’s the good ol’ “mine is the default position” argument that atheists use to avoid having to prove anything - which is fine for the ‘non-theists’ who truly don’t believe in anything since they have nothing to prove. But most argumentative atheists clearly have a positive belief that there is nothing whatsoever in existence except that which can be quantified. Most will deny it because they know it can’t be proven, but most will argue as if it’s a given fact. That’s the atheist’s faith. And that’s what makes atheism just another faith-based religion.

Also, on the teapot (or the spaghetti monster); when an atheist ‘proposes’ the existence of such a thing, it’s understood by all and sundry that he doesn’t believe any such thing at all. My young children soon worked out for themselves that there’s no Easter Bunny and lost their beliefs in fairies after only a few weeks. But they are certain that there’s a God. For some reason that idea resonates with them. I have explained to them that there’s no evidence, and Science can’t prove whether there’s a God, but they seem quite settled. You can’t claim the lack of belief in any gods as the default position when the human psyche so clearly resonates with the idea and instinctively ‘feels’ it to be true. And you can’t quantify that either.

Andrew says:

04:48pm | 10/05/11

@Truthseeker: it’s basic psychology.  They believe it because YOU believe it, and they automatically believe whatever you tell them.  It’s their genetic programming.  Which is why they believed in the easter bunny and santa for all those years, until one of their friends at school told them it wasn’t true, and they noticed that you really didn’t go out of your way to assure them it was.  Plus, the easter bunny and santa have a very provable existence - they WILL bring eggs and presents if they exist, and if they stop, or your children spot you under the tree putting them there, their existence is undeniably false.  Religions are much more cunning, however, and don’t claim to do ANYTHING verifiable - the benefit doesn’t come until after you’re dead, when it’s too late for you to take your money back from the collection plate.  Very cunning indeed.

The whole point is that there COULD be evidence, but there ISN’T.  It seems like ‘god’ was down on earth every few minutes back in the good old days, talking to people, making shrubberies explode into flames, carving stone tablets, parting sea, smiting the poor Caananites yet again, flooding the world, healing the sick, turning a few fish and some moldy bread into a feast for millions, etc, etc, etc.  But in the last few thousand years, strangely quiet.  Oh sure, he gets the credit for lots of things - things that, quite remarkably, happen through perfectly natural reasons at EXACTLY the same probability as they do when prayed for.  Amazing!

No, your children ‘believe’ in your god for the same reason other children ‘believe’ in other gods, the same reason roman children believed in the roman gods, Egyptian children believed in their gods, and so on - because to them, it was normal and expected, and more importantly it was what their parents did.  If I were feeling particularly mean and vindictive, I’d say it’s the same reason that victims of child abuse so commonly go on to become abusers themselves - to them, in their subconscious, it’s just normal behaviour.

Psychology CAN explain almost fully why people believe what they do.  It explains the social and mental facets of religion perfectly, from group behaviour theory to the dilemma of existence itself.  History tells us the same thing, as do experiments with apes and other primates - they behave in EXACTLY the same way as humans do when faced with similar mental stimulus.  So either apes can have ‘religious experiences’ as well (caused, in this case, by a bunch of bananas), or its just the way our brains work..

stephen says:

07:03pm | 10/05/11

The things that make us sane, or immoral, come from external stimuli, (unless there is a psychiatric diagnosis) so what kind of inclusive elements of our environment Andrew, is psychology so certain it can fully explain ?

Truthseeker says:

09:02pm | 10/05/11

Andrew, your assertions would be true if your imagined background facts (such as my beliefs, my assurances to them or lack thereof) were true. But they’re not. Your assumptions are incorrect.

My own explanation is that they ‘feel’ or ‘sense’ that there should be some kind of prime, or purpose, or originator, and so they instantly accept the idea of God because it suits their inner sense of how things ought to be. Sure, they would have as readily accepted the idea of “their ancestors’ spirits” or something. But the point is they were naturally receptive - even expectant - of something essentially spiritual.

As I said, I can’t accept the atheist’s claim to owning the ‘default position’ when it appears that the huge majority of humans are wired to expect some kind of ‘greater’ or ‘bigger’ or ‘purpose’ that goes far beyond the dead-ends that rationalism lead to. All atheism can offer is a kind of desperate “You’re all wrong. Please stop thinking like that.”

St. Michael says:

10:30pm | 10/05/11

Personally, I’m actually thinking I’d like a cup of tea right now.

Andrew says:

11:28pm | 10/05/11

@Stephen: sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you just said, or what the question you asked me was supposed to mean.  Perhaps you could rephrase it into a more intelligible form?

@TS: Regardless of ‘your’ particular beliefs, your children have been exposed to these ideas from trusted sources - either you, your partner, their teachers, or from other respected adults whom they trust, or have been told to trust.  And you’re completely right, humans are born with some fundamental desires and motivations, and wanting to know more about the world they live in, and about how they fit into that world, is one of the most important.  It’s a desire that has led to our success as a species, because it made us seek out new information about the world, learn new things, and try to explain why things are the way they are.  Unfortunately, it’s not possible to know everything, so in order to satisfy this desire, we made things up.

The second great psychological commonality we share is the need to socialise with others, and to fit in with the society we keep.  This inbuilt desire is why we find it so hard to understand those who don’t share it - sociopaths, those with autism, etc.  We find them strange and out of the ordinary because they don’t, or can’t, fit in.  So combine these two behavioural primitives, and we have a strong desire to know everything, and an equally strong desire to fit in with those around us.  What does this lead to?  It leads to a VERY strong desire to accept what others around us believe.  This is especially true at a young age, as a survival mechanism.  When a child’s parent tells them “don’t go and jump off that cliff, it’s bad”, a child believes it, even though they have no experience of falling and don’t know it will be painful for them.  When they hear “The great god Zeus created the universe and makes the sun come up every day (or was that apollo?)”, they believe that as well, because it it fulfills their need to know why that happens.

I could go on and list the other core desires that humans have, and quite a lot of them lead us to accept religion for what it is.  The desire to be controlled, and to feel like we in turn have some control over our surroundings.  The desire to live forever.  A very strong desire for things to ‘make sense’.  Sadly, this doesn’t make religion true, just desirable for us to believe in.  But we have now evolved past the point that these things are useful.  Believing in imaginary friends no longer serves a useful purpose, but rather just drains resources from other, more useful purposes.  I’m quite sure you’re a good person, and a good parent, as I’m also quite sure most christians are good people.  But they would still be good people without their beliefs - perhaps even better people.  And rather than donating their time and money to a silly religion which uses 90% of it for self-perpetuation, and a tiny fraction for actual good works, ALL of their time and money could be spent advancing humanity, or fixing some of the myriad of problems that it currently faces.  None of which I see ‘god’ doing anything about at the moment..

Sorry for ranting, but this is a topic I feel quite strongly about.  When you see the staggering sums of money spent on religion, and what that money could be used for instead, it just boggles the mind.  Put that money towards finding a cure for cancer, or funding alternative energy sources, and we’d see real advancement, real progress, real improvement in our lives.  But instead, we have dogma and religion holding us back in the dark ages for as long as it can, suckling at the teat of our productivity, and continuing to spread like a virus amongst every new generation.  It is immensely frustrating to anybody who can see the full extent of the damage that is being done.

Kika says:

12:36pm | 10/05/11

Move to China. You will fit right in there.

Bubs says:

12:49pm | 10/05/11

Not everyone’s as strong as you, Liam. That atheists like you are so comfortable with death and it’s emptiness is very commendable. Perhaps, you could enlighten people of faith about what your values are and where they came from. I’d love to know what you think happens to us when we die, particularly the mind - is it like a light switch being turned off, if so where’s the switch? Also, tell us what makes the choice of religion more evil than the oppression of communism and the 100 million lives lost under 20th century communist regimes…

Liam says:

01:02pm | 10/05/11

I’d like to go to China, Kika. My cousin lives there and loves it. As the Koran (49:13) says - “We have made you into nations and tribes so that you might come to know, to enrich one another.” How wondrous it is the differences of the world’s cultures. And how exciting that we are now able to meet each other - to learn from each other and move forward.

There are some good stories in the world’s religious texts, but there are good stories in every library. Indigenous Australians have 100,000 years worth of stories. We’d do well to leave the concept of religion behind now and work on righting the wrongs in the world. It’s an amazing place - don’t waste your time!

Liam says:

01:22pm | 10/05/11

Bubs, i’m no more comfortable with death than the next person. And how could i propose to know what happens when we die? My values come from my parents, my education and my life experiences.

I think any form of oppression is evil. If there is a creator, which my human brain tells me there must be, I couldn’t propose to know the nature of that creator. And I don’t think that creator would care about/approve of the evils that have been committed under the guise of religion.

I’m not attacking “the creator” when i say religion is a cancer. I’m attacking the human concept of religion and its tyranny. I’ve always found the Christian imagery of a shepherd leading a herd of sheep sadly ironic.

A “religion” that was conceived a couple of thousand years ago and has brought hatred and evil to millions of people around the world is one thing - having faith in a greater purpose is another.

killerbee says:

01:28pm | 10/05/11

Bubs
You already know what happens after death as you have already experienced it.
It’s exactly the same as before you were born.
Why is this such a mystery?

St. Michael says:

01:36pm | 10/05/11

@ Liam: “I’d like to go to China, Kika. My cousin lives there and loves it. As the Koran (49:13) says - “We have made you into nations and tribes so that you might come to know, to enrich one another.” How wondrous it is the differences of the world’s cultures. And how exciting that we are now able to meet each other - to learn from each other and move forward.”

The irony of your post being that had you been in China you probably wouldn’t have been able to make it without a few uniformed gentlemen turning up on your doorstep a couple of days later to “re-educate” you about it.  The Chinese government seems to have a problem with cultural exchanges when it involves this little cultural thing called “democracy”, for example.  On the other hand, they seem quite generous in sharing their culture, much as the Spartans did, with people who would like a little more democracy.

Perhaps that’s why it’s you and not your cousin who’s testifying to the awesomeness of China?

randomscrub says:

01:49pm | 10/05/11

@ Bubz

It does not follow that atheists are comfortable with death and emptiness. Death is an empirical inevitability. I love my family and my friends and enjoy living and the thought of this ending some day does trouble me from time to time. I can’t change that.

I don’t know what happens to people after they die. I just don’t know. I don’t think there is anything wrong with this. Not one human mind in the course of our collective history has known either AND THAT IS OKAY.

As an atheist I have chosen not to restrict my view of existence by adhering to a particular religion or set of religious morals. Instead I talk to people, read books - particularly philosphy both religious and otherwise, think about living, other people who have lived and are living and how they chose to live their lives. I think about moral propositions and what it is to be a citizen within a societal structure, what my duties are and what is and is not reasonable within the frame of my existence and understanding.

Evil is evil regardless of whether it has developed from a secular or religious source.

The thing about death is that it is preceded by living and it is that living part that is more important to me. If you want to live your life by a set of principles grounded in a supernatural belief, well good luck to you. As for me, I live in a point in history where noone will put me to death for calling bullshit on those principles.

Reason and science have a better track record for producing repeatable, reliable outcomes that faith doesn’t. Reason and science proceed from the basis of assumed ignorance and gather evidence and information until a hypothesis can be confirmed.

I would argue that religion makes assumptions that are not borne out in reality with these assumptions grounded in socio-political motives of control.

Liam says:

03:14pm | 10/05/11

St Michael, I said my cousin lives in China and loves it. It was in response to Kika’s brilliant one-line response. Hayes (my cousin) was back in Perth over Christmas, and he tells us his experiences in China have been very positive overall. No doubt the Chinese Government has its faults, but we’re in a global era where we can work to eliminate these faults. Call it the era of enlightenment!

St. Michael says:

03:31pm | 10/05/11

@ Liam:

“No doubt the Chinese Government has its faults, but we’re in a global era where we can work to eliminate these faults. Call it the era of enlightenment!”

They roll tanks over unarmed protesters in Tiannemen Square (again, people who were trying to address a minor fault with China’s system of government, i.e. that it’s a communist oligarchy), and you say the Chinese government “has its faults?”

What was 9/11 by that analysis? Bad day at the office?

And the Chinese government doesn’t want your notional era of enlightenment.  That’s why they block Google and pretty well any site that doesn’t say nice things about the government.  It’s also why nobody’s got a clear picture of the precise state of the Chinese economy and exactly how much of a Ponzi scheme it is or might be.

Dan says:

04:14pm | 10/05/11

Not quite sure what bible you think you read. Firstly, the Bible has Jesus preventing the stoning of an adultress - not by using force, but by challenging the bigotries of those holding the stones. Not quite sure where you got your child-stoning fantasy from.

If it’s true, that would make Jesus the one who warned us about the existence of hell, since you don’t “make up” true things. If it’s not true then it’s the author, rather than Jesus (who would obviously be fictitious) who made up hell. Either way, you can’t fault Jesus on this point.

Fairly anachronistic of you to judge the behaviour of a middle-eastern boy toward his mother 2,000 years ago based on today’s expectations.

If the God of the Bible is real then he’s real whether we like him or not. The “nasty, nasty, hateful, vengeful, horrible God” number is really just an irrelevant rant.

Brett says:

12:53pm | 10/05/11

That’d be funny if it had anything to do with atheism, but it doesn’t. And even if it did, a believer would just substitute the god of their choice for the words “for no reason”.
Does that make it any better? You may as well substitute the words “the tooth fairy”.

Bubs says:

01:01pm | 10/05/11

Nice, statiscally it’s impossible for life to exist without a creator.

HappyCynic says:

01:12pm | 10/05/11

Nonsense.  Your understanding of the Big Bang Theory must be 20 to 50 years out of date, at least.  Not to mention oversimplified to the point of ridiculousness.

Try starting with string theory (a branch of theoretical physics), brane cosmology (a subset of string theory) and the cyclical universe theory if you want to learn something (or if you’re intelligent enough).

Having said all that, none of it disproves the existence of G-d so it’s certainly not an atheist belief, it’s just science.

Tim the Toolman says:

01:35pm | 10/05/11

“Nice, statiscally it’s impossible for life to exist without a creator. “

WHOA!!!!  Get yourself over to collect that Nobel prize, right now!!!  You, sir, have just settled everything!  Well done!

Oh, wait…you just blurted out some crap that came into your head, or that you read on the internet somewhere.

MikeH says:

01:39pm | 10/05/11

@Rich: That’s a little bit tough, I think. I’d put it more like “Atheism is the belief that the universe and life came into being for some very good scientific reason, which we don’t know yet but have absolutely every faith that one day we will. Oh, and it definitely wasn’t caused by an outside agent, even though that is the most obvious explanation according to everything else we know about science and the universe.”

James1 says:

04:31pm | 10/05/11

Mike, why does everything need a reason?  The universe exists.  I don’t care why, indeed I don’t think there even is a why.  It seems you believe because you want to feel significant.  Others, many of them atheists (the balance probably Buddhists) can cope with their insignificance.

MikeH says:

10:07am | 11/05/11

@James1: Actually, I was focusing more on “how” than “why”. Isn’t this the same question that science is trying to answer? My belief has little to do with a need for significance. It is centred more on logic and relationship. I was a pretty satisfied atheist for more than half of my life, until I became convinced that my non-belief was incorrect. Once I reached that conclusion, I became a theist. To do otherwise would have been illogical.

Brett says:

01:20pm | 10/05/11

That sentence was very popular for a while. Many, many women died because of it.
Praise the Lord!

Elphaba says:

01:45pm | 10/05/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

HappyCynic says:

01:54pm | 10/05/11

Selective compliance is the only way religion works coherently, not everything in life is meant to be treated literally or with such absolutism.  You’ll never find a person who literally believes every word in the bible, word for word, and if you do they’re probably nuts.

Hilariously, there are parts of the major religions’ texts that do deal with selective compliance and most in fact encourage it (though not widely publicised), so if accepting every word of the bible as being the word of your deity and there’s a clause allowing you to adopt selective compliance and only accept those rules that work for you then what?  I mean you’re only following your religion to the letter

MikeH says:

03:16pm | 10/05/11

@Al:  Romans 6:14 “For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.” By which the writer (Paul) meant that those who accept Christ (i.e. Christians) are not subject to the Old Testament Jewish law, which would include your law about witches.

So, the Word of God, in the New Testament, says we’re not under the Old Testament law. The old law was specifically superseded by Christ. Not selective compliance at all.

James1 says:

04:24pm | 10/05/11

How do you know that Mike?  Did Paul tell you so?  Or perhaps he put it in a footnote.

Chris L says:

09:09pm | 10/05/11

Romans 6:14

God must have been doing sloppy work with that first instalment. He had to work himself to death to get out a new one

MikeH says:

10:15am | 11/05/11

@James1: How do I know? Because it’s one of the major themes of the whole Book of Romans, because in the context of the times and culture that is the only interpretation that makes any sense, because it is entirely consistent with similar statements Paul makes in other Books (1 Corinthians, Galatians for example), and because it is also one of the key messages of the New Testament as a whole.

Chris L says:

12:17pm | 11/05/11

So, that would mean the ten commandments no longer apply.

MikeH says:

02:06pm | 11/05/11

@Chris L: In a sense, I guess that’s true, except that Christ re-affirmed the Commandments in, for example Mark 12:28-31. He summed up the commandments as “Love the Lord your God” and “love your neighbor as yourself”. In John 13:34-35, He told us to “Love one another”. Since these are direct instructions from Christ, they are most certainly things Christians aspire to and if we achieve them, we’re also in line with the ten commandments (i.e. if you love your neighbour, you won’t murder him or steal from him or pinch his wife). On the other hand, it’s our acceptance of Christ, not adherence to the ten commandments per se, that brings salvation.

Chris L says:

07:02pm | 11/05/11

Thank you MikeH. Obviously I was having a dig at religion, and in truth I could probably argue the point, but your response was very gracious and you have earned some respect from me (not that I pretend that is currency of any worth).

MikeH says:

09:13am | 12/05/11

@Chris L: Thanks

Brett says:

01:36pm | 10/05/11

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

HappyCynic says:

01:39pm | 10/05/11

Oh ye of little faith

How can atheists humiliate you or bully your beliefs unless you allow them to?  They have no more reasonable answers than you do, so you must either lack the faith or the intelligence to argue your own point coherently.

It really isn’t too hard to effect a stalemate in this argument.  There simply is no evidence available to confirm or deny the existence of a god or gods, therefore atheists can not ever be sure that there is not a pantheon of deities or some dude wagging his finger from a few thousand years ago.  Of course you need to accept that you’ll never win the argument either but hey at least it shuts the rabid, frothy ones up a bit.

Chris L says:

09:15pm | 10/05/11

If I multiply the number of times an atheist knocked on my door to prostelytise by one thousand it would still be significantly smaller (nil) than the number of times a religious person has knocked on my door, shoved a pamphlet at me on my way to the train station or screamed his/her beliefs at me from a street corner.

You try very hard to make us look like you.

stephen says:

01:40pm | 10/05/11

1. But i think the Jews have still been known to sprinkle a little over their parmasan.

2. tut tut…have you again been reading Old Bertie, instead of Cardinal Newman ?

Brett says:

01:39pm | 10/05/11

And you’ve completely misunderstood the sentence.

Tim the Toolman says:

02:05pm | 10/05/11

“Aquinas adopted the Platonic understanding that God is an “intellective light” which sustains all things in being.  “

*sigh*  What bearing does this have on reality?  There’s no evidence of this any more than anything else you care to pluck out of thought at a moments notice.

“according to which the world is evolving to an “omega point,” representing the radical convergence of spirit and matter.  “

That makes just as much sense.  “Convergence of spirit and matter”?  Please…there’s no evidence of any spirit, and I sure as hell don’t want the container it’s supposed to be in smacking into any other matter.

“So, my advice to you is: educate yourself about the tradition, which is now thousands of years old and involves some of the most brilliant people to have lived. “

Which is just one more reason to hate religion, if so many brilliant minds have been wasted on it.  What else could they have done if they weren’t sitting around considering whether some guy who supposedly had super powers rose from the dead in a super body or a metaphorical body?  I’ve heard more sensible debates from stoners.  Call me when religion manages to produce anything useful.  Like a warp drive, or something god should be able to toss down to us like we teach language to chimps.

stephen says:

02:17pm | 10/05/11

Mentioning Augustine, I am 35 pages into a good book about him, and I’ll give it here:
Augustine’s Confessions.
A Biography.

Garry Wills, isbn 978-0-691-14357-6.
Princeton.

Liam says:

03:02pm | 10/05/11

Chris T, as a lawyer with a masters degree in theology, you sure speak a lot of nonsense.

“God is the principle of reality and unity according to which things endure in time and change.”

Ugh, my head hurts from reading your mumbo jumbo. My advice to you is to stop occupying your time with pointless pursuits. I’m sure you could reinterpret the bible to make it suit any context - but how about we just let this make-believe stuff go!

St. Michael says:

03:11pm | 10/05/11

I must say, disclosing myself as a very lapsed Catholic, that a superficial look at Teilhard de Chardin’s Wikipedia entry does sound attractive.

Convergent evolution’s an argument I’ve run across in fiction reading (notably, William Blatty’s horror novel “Legion” and to some extent “The Exorcist” both touch on the concept) but it does have a certain tug at the heart.

It might be only a beautiful dream, but then heaven in most traditions is that, too.

Chris T says:

03:25pm | 10/05/11

Actually, Tim, the entire philosophical tradition starting, say, with Plato, has concerned itself with these questions.  The idea that there is no “evidence” for an intellective or spiritual ground of reality is nonsense, and it amounts to the suggestion that empirical data gathered by experiment is the only valid sort.  This is simply naive.  Read some philosophy.

Barry says:

04:04pm | 10/05/11

It seems somehow Chris T’s comment managed to attract all the stupid atheists to one place.  His post wasn’t proving the existence of God, it was analysing the statement by Brendan about what Christianity taught. 

What else could they have done if they weren’t sitting around considering whether some guy who supposedly had super powers rose from the dead in a super body or a metaphorical body?

Ah yeah they didn’t sit around . . . they devised some of the greatest scientific theories in history.

Chris L says:

09:24pm | 10/05/11

@Chris T. That’s a fair comment.

Mind you, all the church’s I’ve been to (a few) and all the religious people I’ve spoken to (bar about two exceptions and yourself if blog comments count) state that god does intervene in human affairs.

Therefore the statement “Christianity claims that God is omniscient, responds to prayer, intervenes in human affairs and created all the animals and plants in their present form” is actually correct for the vast majority of Christians.

I actually prefer the approach you stated, but that still means there’s no point in prayer nor abstaining from extra-marital sex nor any of the other rules that don’t have logical, intellectual reasons.

JK says:

02:21pm | 10/05/11

Who are you, who is so wise in the ways of commenting?

My liege!

Elphaba says:

02:35pm | 10/05/11

@JK, it says it all, really.

JK says:

03:53pm | 10/05/11

@Elphaba: Doesn’t it. I seem to remember A. C. Grayling mentioning the demotivational in a debate, possibly this clash of the titans (and minnows) http://www.youtube.com/freetheworldof#p/c/237DBE193B45C818/7/7fyb-6M9yN4

Elphaba says:

04:16pm | 10/05/11

That’s great JK, I’m going to have to sit down and watch the whole thing.

Likes Joining Dots says:

07:44pm | 10/05/11

That’s a keeper Elphaba - thank you.

St. Michael says:

03:04pm | 10/05/11

No, that’s Buddha.  He had the fix in with Allah and they funded their fishing boat from TAB betting on the result.

Good luck. says:

03:45pm | 10/05/11

I feel your pain, but to be honest I sincerely doubt that ‘doing away with religion’ would make much difference. People seek out meaning but rationalism cannot provide any, so religion will exist for the forseeable future. Even atheism has a strong religious flavour at times, especially when it tends toward intolerance and ridicule (i.e. in most online discussions).

Chris L says:

07:09pm | 11/05/11

Was that clip trying to say that atheists will believe an easily disprovable concept without investigating or was it trying to say that religious people refuse to accept ideas that don’t fit their belief?

I noticed that comments were enabled (rare for a religious clip) but I expect they’ll be disabled again soon since most posters are pointing out the inanity and unintentional irony of the statement being made.

St. Michael says:

03:45pm | 10/05/11

Does it? I was under the impression the Catholic Church accepted at least evolution, which would be an acceptance of structurally complex life arising from the operation of natural laws.  Anyone got a reference?

Elphaba says:

03:55pm | 10/05/11

Yep.

NEWSBRIEF: Chicago Tribune, Friday, 10/25/96, “POPE BOLSTERS CHURCH SUPPORT FOR EVOLUTION”, by Stevenson Swanson, Tribune Staff Writer, Dateline: New York.

“In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church’s position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is ‘more than just a hypothesis’ and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith. In a written message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope said the theory of evolution has been buttressed by scientific studies and discoveries since Charles Darwin ... “It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge’, the pope said in his message Wednesday. ‘The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes, in itself, a significant argument in favor of this theory…”

http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html (can’t find the original article, but since this excerpt is from a militant Christian site…)

Grumpy says:

10:12pm | 10/05/11

“I am curious as to the justification religious people give for accepting their own religion based on faith, yet rejecting all(or some) other religions. Perhaps someone should post an article posing this question and calling for answers in the comments.”

upbringing and locality,.Brainwashing, refusing the believe that they’re not special.  Simple as that.. Anyone who see’s ghosts or spirits, claims to be psychic are all liars. I for one am sick of being lied to by these people. When i was young and looking for answers i bought into some of this stuff..Religious people need to stop spreading lies. If not only their religion they are spreading complete fallacies about evolution and science. I dont think anyone who is actually religious would answer your question. i think they know inside that its not true, they feel it in their gut when they read the contradictions in the bible. they’re just scared to admit it, I was. Im glad i got over it and no longer fight myself to find meaning in things when bad shit happens. It just happens.

heres a good video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHa79ODbfcg&feature=relmfu

Chris L says:

11:11pm | 10/05/11

Sorry to be picky Matt, but many atheists are also agnostic (ie. not claiming to know if there are gods or not). The literal definition of atheism is to be without a theism. Simply not following a theistic doctrine is the only unifying factor among atheists.

I do like your point, though.

Sickemrex says:

08:50pm | 12/05/11

Matt, I asked the same question 150 or so posts ago.  Still waiting.  Might go make myself a celestial cup of tea.

St. Michael says:

10:36pm | 10/05/11

The only thing weirder than people who believe in a literal OT God resident in Israel are those who believe that his prototype angel is any more capable of manifesting in human form.

C’mon dude, just come out and proclaim yourself as a Satanist, since that’s basically the line you’re spouting.  The ensuing firestorm from True Believer and friends would be fun to watch.

Chris L says:

11:13pm | 10/05/11

Welcome to the club.

Grumpy says:

06:18pm | 10/05/11

Lol you peter, are funny…You talk about evidence and proof and then point out that -  “You want evidence for the existence of God, take a look around you and you will see it every where - the intricacies of the various life forms even ardent evolutionist marvel at the design.”...That statement is a joke, you could equally argue that god doesnt exist because of all the needless disease and death and wrong doing in the world.

Its true that there are “missing” fossils in the evolution of humans, but with genetic coding and DNA analysis, it has confirmed that something like 98% of our DNA matchesother species of primates, modern and Neanderthal. WE DID NOT COME FROM MONKEYS, we share a common ancestor, the monkeys and apes of today, like us are the end result, (and we continue to evolve) we are the modern species. Also there ARE fossils that show full transistion and every step of this for other species. It is hard to find fossils, they are rarer than any mineral on the planet, it requires alot for fossils to even exist. If a man dies in a jungle his body will be completely devoured in a few weeks by the insects and other animals leaving no trace at all, but if he happened to fall in a pit of mud because he was retarded or something, then yea maybe its possible.

The theory on evolution is deep, its so deep and complex that most people dont understand and believe false information, that usually comes from religious sources. It applies to all in the universe, including planets, stars everything. The latest one i have been hearing is that Darwin was an athiest, how rich, the guy was a priest, and along with many others became disheartened by the church and decided to leave. these people will stop at nothing to slander truthseekers. Religion believed that earth (and some people probably still do) was the centre of the universe, that the sun and planets and everything in our solar system orbited the earth and this was common knowledge, then scienctists proved this to be incorrect and changed this myth completely, including this fundmental error in religious belief. If these people had any knowledge of life and its its origins this is a pretty fundamental thing to get wrong in my opinion.But im sure they can manipulate the vague phrases in the bible to suit them anyway.

Im all for a reason for being here, a meaning to life, but the explanation in the bible defies the laws of physics and i know enough about gravity to know these laws are very real and cant be broken. everything we know about the universe, and we really do know alot, more than religion’s even thought of explaining (God did it, i dont understand so god did it). It wont be long and we will have technologies and calculations that will prove not only that god does not exist, but that life is multi-dimensional, there are already strong theories that support this stuff. There are theories that say time travel is possible, and people spend their lives building on the knowledge of their predecessors, debunking errors and correcting them and making these theories stronger. On the other hand we have religion that stopped trying to explain anything thousands of years ago. Evolution is the only thing that is eternal and unpreventable, of course its possible some kind of being created it all, but its very unlikely. Enjoy your life, live without guilt and help people in their lives.Instead religion lumps everyone into one big group and demands that their behaviours be controlled. IOnstead of prividing clean water and food for starving chidren the vatican stores trillions in asstes. Instead of helping starving children the church is more likely to molest these children and attempt to cover it up, over and over and over again. You think Michael Jackson was bad? he got nothing on these creeps. Fact of the matter is science is always trying to debunk their peers theories, evolution has not yet been disproven by other scientists, it is that strong, but religious people believe it cant be true so it must be wrong, right?

fact is not one person on this planet knows why we are here, no one, no pope, not you, not me, not darwin, not anyone not ever, and we probably never will…But we do know how we came to be, just not the why, maybe god is the why but I seriously doubt it, particurly in a biblical sense. Its just a chaotic chance of matter, gravity and form, its too complex for me but i get the gist.. Life and the universe, its diversity and complexities, nebula, suns, galaxies, everything, is far more beautiful and crazy than religion ever could have even thought up let alone attempt to explain. GOD DID IT, yea righto.

St. Michael says:

10:40pm | 10/05/11

@ Peter: “That is why scientist of old were able to make such amazing discoveries - because they followed order and were able to deduce how things worked.”

Would that include the Ptolemaic model of the universe, or are you being really hip and radical and presupposing that Galileo might actually have been right?

(For bonus points: Ptolemy believed everything in the universe revolved around the Earth, mostly because it was part of the order of the Gods.  Galileo, on the other hand, proved that the Earth revolved around the Sun—though he, too, believed the entire universe revolved around the Sun rather than the Earth.)

grumpy says:

11:38pm | 10/05/11

“Galileo, on the other hand, proved that the Earth revolved around the Sun—though he, too, believed the entire universe revolved around the Sun rather than the Earth.)”

Then he published a book which the church banned and he was blacklisted and ostracised, now the church acknowledges his work as fact, gee didnt take much for one guy to destroy probably the most fundamental basis for their religion, that being that we humans are the centre of it all…which we are clearly not. In our Solar system the sun is far more important than us, its gravitational pull, solar winds and distance from us is such that it allowed us to have life on earth nothing more. Religion is all lies. Stop telling lies. lol

Peter says:

08:54am | 11/05/11

Grumpy and St Michael may I reiterate, religion is mans thoughs of what is true and what is false. The Bible is God’s statement of how this universe and man was created - Gods version of truth. Evolution is man’s explanation of how the universe came to be - mans version of truth. Both explanations are incompatable. One is right and one is wrong. One explanation does not change. One is constantly changing. One version knows all things. The other is slowly uncovering more things.
The problem of not knowing all things makes it hard to define things such as the theory of evolution. For example you say Gentic Coding and DNA analysis show human DNA to have a 98% match with primate DNA. Well further research has reduced that 98% match rate somewhat. The Australian Centre for Excellence for Genonics say we share a greater DNA similarity with kangaroos and that we also share an approximate 50% DNA match with bananas. Now that could make you hopping mad or it could show a common designer!
You question the ‘church’ rejecting Galileos findings and accepting Ptolemaic. The thing is, which church are you referring to? The true church or the false church. For example, the Bible, which is the inspired word of God does not list the office of a pope or cardinal as one of it’s own, so I would expect that church to make doubtful decisions because it has added to and taken away from the word of God.
You talk about the myth of the earth been the centre of the universe, well humanly speaking it is because this is where we are just as we say the sun rises and the sun sets which we all know the sun continues to shine so will we bust this myth also of no sunsets and sunrises. We may say thisjust as we say for convenience the earth is the centre of our universe just as you have town centres that are not exactly in the middle of a city.
Grumpy you say that there are transitional fossils that show the transions for other species, well you best tell some of the evolutionist proponents because that is their great dispair - they have none.
You say the Bible denies the laws of physics - how? God can over rule His laws but He does not contradict himself. Miricales.
Some say why won’t God restore a missing limb - why shoul he? Remember we have told Him we know better and we will do it our own way.
But saying all that., He is a God of mercy and that is why He sent His only begotten son to this earth to redeem us from our miseries.
You have the choice to choose to believe or not to believe God’s word. So make sure you use facts and not myths in your decision.

St. Michael says:

10:52am | 11/05/11

@ Peter:

“The true church or the false church. For example, the Bible, which is the inspired word of God does not list the office of a pope or cardinal as one of it’s own, so I would expect that church to make doubtful decisions because it has added to and taken away from the word of God.”

Well, the Ptolemaic (or geocentric as it’s otherwise known) model of the universe, which was accepted as the scientific truth of the movement of heavenly bodies until Copernicus, Galileo et. al. knocked it into the wastebasket, predated Christ by roughly 600 years or so.  Since all Christian churches ipso facto postdated geocentric theories, all of them may be confidently presumed to have adopted it as scientific truth because it dovetailed with their view that Earth and man were the centre of the universe.  Luther didn’t nail his sheet to the wall of the church until 1514 or thereabouts.

So as a matter of logic, the Proddie v. Catholic debate (or false or true church) doesn’t enter into it.  All scientific thought had concurred that the universe operated on a geocentric model.  Consequently, so did the church/es.

To underline it again: the concept of the entire universe orbiting around the Sun was a scientific theory.  It wasn’t a myth.
Myth = story not verifiable by fact.  Also see: fable.  Also see: most OT stories in serious religious thought.
Scientific theorem = theorem verified by observation, open to challenge when contradictory evidence is presented.

Your quote: :“That is why scientist of old were able to make such amazing discoveries - because they followed order and were able to deduce how things worked.”

Feeling a bit silly yet?

MikeH says:

11:41am | 11/05/11

@Grumpy: “But we do know how we came to be…” Well thank goodness someone knows. Can you please enlighten the rest of us?

Matt says:

06:19pm | 10/05/11

No. No there is not.

Elphaba says:

06:21pm | 10/05/11

This is not evidence of God.  This is evidence of something unexplainable.  Please explain to me how the unexplainable is atributed to God.

Scroll up and check out St Michael’s info on God Of The Gaps.  Your theory is flawed, I’m afraid.

Grumpy says:

06:25pm | 10/05/11

Yea great job he did there saving her life…What would the world have done without her?...They pieced me back together? WHO? Doctors? who use science….Or did she pray and angels came and healed her.How about saving JFK, or Lincoln, or Martin Luther king Jr…hell what about Hendrix, or Cobain..So god lets this woman live, god allows Mugabe to live, Allows bush and co to level people who had nothing anyway, and this is a miracle. She can move her foot, WOW…

here i found you one. Sounds a bit more believable to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnzmxeZJeho

iansand says:

07:39pm | 10/05/11

But I don’t believe in Jesus, and this happened to me.  I had major surgery to my knee about 23 years ago.  Nerves were severed.  I had areas of numbness., and, weirdest of all, transferred sensation from one side of the surgery scar to the other.  I also had some limited loss of control of fine movement in my foot (although nothing very severe).  Over 3 or 4 years the nerves seemed to work it out.  There were times when things changed in a rush over about 5 minutes, accompanied by such strong sensation that I had to sit down.  Now, everything is perfectly normal.

My question - I didn’t pray.  I don’t believe in god or the divinity of Jesus.  Whatever I experienced seems to be a normal bodily process where nerves re-route themselves and form new connections.  It is not far removed from the description in that video bruised reed posted.  Why is it necessary to invoke god?

St. Michael says:

10:24pm | 10/05/11

@ iansand:

“Whatever I experienced seems to be a normal bodily process where nerves re-route themselves and form new connections.”

Because everyone seems to enjoy quoting literature in this thread, I thought I’d quote my own favourite reading:

“Mutation: it is the key to our evolution. It has enabled us to evolve from a single-celled organism into the dominant species on the planet. This process is slow, and normally taking thousands and thousands of years. But every few hundred millennia, evolution leaps forward.”
—Charles Xavier, founder of the Xavier Institute for the Gifted.

So there you go, icy   You’re not a vessel of God, you’re just one of the X-Men.

LC says:

10:39pm | 10/05/11

@bruised reed

I like the only comment on that video so far:

“Where is the? EVIDENCE of? a supernatural cure?”

Nothing but her talking for a good 2 and 3/4 minutes. I think one of the rules of logical debate has something to say about that:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Anecdotal Evidence
No photos, no videos of the healing taking place, no accounts of doctors or nurses that took care of her, not even an x-ray. Just her word.

If she tried to make a research paper out of it and submitted it to a medical journal, the editor would screw it up into a ball and tossed in the bin with a hearty chuckle.

And even if it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the cure was supernatural, it’s still is not good enough proof of the existence of a deity.

bruised reed says:

12:58am | 11/05/11

@ Elphaba
Of course it constitutes evidence for the existence of God - it’s testimonial evidence of a lady describing how God healed her.  You may argue that it’s weak evidence, insufficient to prove the case for God’s existence, and I wouldn’t take issue with such an argument; however the author and others claim there is no evidence, which imho is an assertion only maintainable by those who refuse to look for any.
This event is only unexplainable within your paradigm.  If your paradigm is insufficient to explain it, then reconstruct your paradigm. 

I’m familiar with the “God of the Gaps” theory and I don’t subscribe to it - some of my own most profound experiences of God have been through events whose mechanics were certainly explainable scientifically, but whose significance was not - God revealing himself through the ordinary so to speak.

bruised reed says:

01:10am | 11/05/11

@ LC

It’s testimonial evidence, without which our legal system would cease to function as we know it.  I take you don’t think this lady is a credible witness - do you have a particular reason for that other than your own preconceptions?  If you heard many such witnesses like this, is it conceivable that at some point you might actually abandon or at least suspend your preconceptions in this area? If so how many do you think it might take - 10? 20?  100?  1000??

Elphaba says:

07:28am | 11/05/11

@bruised reed, why would God heal iansand’s nerve if he doesn’t believe in God?

Turns out you don’t need to pray, you just need to be lucky.  Kinda like life.

bruised reed says:

01:13pm | 11/05/11

@ Elphaba & iansand

I would expect that God healed Ian through natural processes - apparently nerves can regrow to some extent if they’re not too badly damaged - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroregeneration
The lady referenced before had not recovered any function in her foot after 2 years, and her recovery was over a short period of time - a matter of minutes.  On the surface, the two cases seem qualitatively different - I would agree with you that Ian has been lucky, while this lady’s recovery is not explainable by known science.

Elphaba says:

01:53pm | 11/05/11

@brusied reed - yet.  It has not been explained by science <U>yet.</U>

Science can’t explain it, so God did it.  You profess to not subscribe to the God Of The Gaps theory, but yet, your argument says you do.

St. Michael says:

02:49pm | 11/05/11

@ “I’m familiar with the “God of the Gaps” theory and I don’t subscribe to it - some of my own most profound experiences of God have been through events whose mechanics were certainly explainable scientifically, but whose significance was not - God revealing himself through the ordinary so to speak.”

Had you confined your proof of the existence of God to your own subjective personal experience, that at least would be excusable since you can’t challenge internalised experiences.

As it is, saying that the “significance” of an event is not scientifically explainable is confusing subjective experience with objective criteria.

The “significance” of something comes wholly from a subjective value judgement by the observer.  I might find it significant that my cat chose to eat fish this morning, but my mother does not.  The significance is subjective.

The scientifically explainable is chiefly objective, i.e. measurable without reference to individual perception or value judgements.  2+2 = 4, no matter whether you’re feeling happy or sad about it.

Suggesting that the “significance” of an event is not explainable scientifically and therefore proves the existence of God is taking the God of the Gaps one step further.  It’s not a logical argument fot the existence of a deity.

LC says:

08:29pm | 11/05/11

@ bruised reed.

In today’s legal system, testimonial evidence would backed up by other evidence, whether that be police reports, forensics, photos/video etc. Not only that, but prosecution witnesses are also interviewed by the defense, who MUST see all the evidence before it presented. The defense lawyer would have an piss easy time casting doubt on witness whose claims are not backed up by other evidence. Today, any case argued solely on testimonial evidence would result in a “not guilty” verdict from 95% of juries.

Which is the point I am making here. Firstly, if something like that had happened, it would be worthy of an entry in a medical journal at the very least. The fact she just talks and talks and does not even bother to at least bring in one of the doctors who treated, or even the person performing the supernatural cure (though a doctor would be preferable) doesn’t look good. And secondly, even if it did happen, proving that God did it would be another story entirely.

Just saying “I don’t care what the science says, so and so DID happen!” doesn’t cut it in logical debate. Sorry.

bruised reed says:

02:22pm | 12/05/11

@ Elphaba

What part of my explanation did you not understand? If I choose to present evidence for God’s existence that reveal ‘gaps’ in a materialistic worldview, it doesn’t mean I subscribe to a worldview of “materialism+God to explain the things materialism doesn’t” - all it shows, is that I think I’m talking to materialists.  You seem to think I’m attempting to advance some sort of formal proof, well I’m not, I’m merely seeking to present evidence whose very existence seems to be denied.  Did I make the statement “this proves God is real”? - no!

bruised reed says:

02:27pm | 12/05/11

@ St Michael

You are seriously misrepresenting me here.  I did not put forward a proof of God’s existence, the rest of your post based on this assumption is moot.

bruised reed says:

02:37pm | 12/05/11

@ LC

I’m not arguing that other types of evidence are not important,  but how do you think things would go if testimonial evidence was inadmissible?

If you’d like an example with a few more witnesses, try the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SroD02bP120&feature=fvwrel
(part 1 of 6 - the other parts are linked from the first one, the first 4 constitute the evidence)

LC says:

05:10pm | 13/05/11

@bruised reed

Good that you cleared that business about anecdotal evidence up.

I accept that there is some medical cases which cannot be explained. You can read them from time-to-time in medical journals, and I own a book which documents a few dozen of these freakish occurrences (and it makes interesting reading). However the case you originally refereed to sounded particularly dubious because we have nothing else to go on but her word. And again, just because you can’t come up with any plausible explanations for these occurrences does not mean God or some other deity was behind it.

But I have seen no reliable evidence, anywhere, of someone growing back a missing body part, someone with full blown HIV making a full recovery, or hell, a type 1 diabetic regaining use of his/her pancreas. Any of those WOULD be a miracle. Each case I have read or heard of has been only been either:
A. Someone making a non-medically assisted recovery from a CURABLE illness/condition at the 11th hour.
B. Someone surviving through horrific injuries.
C. A baby born alive and well despite the odds being against it.
And finally, supernatural cures are absolutely no substitute for credible medicine.

bruised reed says:

02:38pm | 11/05/11

You mean something like this Brendan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda

I don’t claim to be an expert in this area, but perhaps there aren’t too many of these type of miracles as there is a corresponding paucity of amputees asking God for such a thing:  James 4:2 - “You do not have because you do not ask God”.  A significant number of amputees have given permission to doctors to amputate their limbs, the majority of the remainder have reconciled themselves that such a step was necessary & of the relatively few people who may have the faith to ask for such a miracle in this situation, it seems they may also have the faith to avoid amputation in the first place - like this guy for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFzVMkFAE64&NR=1&feature=fvwp

“Is God selective in his miracle cures?” - yes, He usually (but not exclusively) reserves them for people who ask them for Him in faith.

“Does he not want to draw attention to himself by being too miraculous?” - No, by the gospel accounts,  Jesus drew a lot of attention by being ‘too miraculous’, however there was at least one instance related where Jesus did not do any great miracles ‘except for healing a few sick people’ because of the unbelief present - people’s unwillingness to receive any such thing from ‘the carpenter’s son’.

“Are amputees less deserving of God’s healing care?” - No, and if you can provide me with a short list of any who would like to be prayed for to receive such a miracle I would gladly do my best to see that happens.

St. Michael says:

03:32pm | 11/05/11

@ bruised reed: regarding the Miracle of Calanda, you did read through to the bottom of the Wiki page which sets out the reasons for scepticism regarding the alleged miracle?

Specifically, but not exclusively, the lack of evidence to suggest the guy’s leg was ever actually amputated to begin with?

St. Michael says:

03:48pm | 11/05/11

Also @ bruised reed: “A significant number of amputees have given permission to doctors to amputate their limbs, the majority of the remainder have reconciled themselves that such a step was necessary & of the relatively few people who may have the faith to ask for such a miracle in this situation, it seems they may also have the faith to avoid amputation in the first place”

This has several logical debating (or philosophical) fallacies in it.

Your first proposition can be distilled as: “An amputee chooses not to ask for a miracle to restore the limb, and therefore does not get one”  This is Affirming the Consequent—a false argument for the consequent. (e.g.: If she’s Brazilian, then she speaks Portugese.  Hey, she speaks Portugese! Therefore she’s Brazilian.)

Your second proposition can be distilled down to: “A potential amputee asks for a miracle to avoid amputation of his limb, and consequently avoids amputation.”  This is also Affirming the Consequent, but it also an irrelevant conclusion in terms of deductive reasoning.  Saying a potential amputee has been given a miracle to avoid amputation cannot form proof that God restores lost limbs to amputees, since the person never reaches a state of amputation to begin with.

bruised reed says:

01:55pm | 12/05/11

@ St Michael

Yes I read the whole article - the skeptic’s claim that “there is no documentation or witness accounts confirming his leg was ever gone” flatly contradicts the article without giving any reasons - such skeptical ‘analysis’ should be treated with skepticism.

Re your second post, you have mistaken my intent.  In constructing a logical argument against the proposition “God never miraculously heals amputees”, all that is required is a counter-example, which was provided in the first line.  The rest of the post was an attempt to explain why there are so few, it was not couched in terms of formal logic - please note the use of the word “perhaps”.  In terms of your analogy, it would be like us overhearing someone speak in Portuguese and me saying “Perhaps they’re Brazilian” - I might have a better than even chance of being right, but I’m not advancing a logical proposition - surely you can you see the difference?

St. Michael says:

12:11pm | 13/05/11

@ bruised reed: “In terms of your analogy, it would be like us overhearing someone speak in Portuguese and me saying “Perhaps they’re Brazilian” - I might have a better than even chance of being right, but I’m not advancing a logical proposition - surely you can you see the difference?”

Except saying “perhaps” is pure speculation.  You’ve abandoned logical argument entirely in going by that direction.  Saying “Perhaps” is not based on a body of evidence or *any* train of logic.  To continue the analogy, I could response to your proposition “Perhaps they’re Brazilian” by saying “Perhaps they’re from Portugal too.  Or from France but were taught Portugese as a kid.”

You see? There’s nothing to direct the query in any particular direction, because you are simply speculating with nothing behind it.

grumpy says:

09:51pm | 10/05/11

What purpose would this serve? none. We’ve heard it all before, had it forced down our throats. Its all lies, accept that we dont care. These people cant be too intelligent if they are religious, philosophy cannot explain anything, and never has, its dead art that was never relevant in practice.

Chris L says:

11:23pm | 10/05/11

Grumpy, I think philosophy has served our species very well. It’s just when it comes with restrictive rules that it becomes questionable.

Rhino says:

03:54pm | 11/05/11

A mature person of faith would automatically exclude Archbishop Jensen, or his bum chum Bishop Pell on they grounds that they aren’t mature. Watching them cry and whinge about the ethics classes was such a classy example of immaturity cloaked as faith. Tim Costello, well I think he might be a bit busy with World Vision.

Col says:

08:45am | 11/05/11

Wow Calvin,where do I start.Congratulations,the fact that you actually believe what you have written makes me question natural selection.“Come to the logical conclusion that there was a man-maker”,“to explain your existence,you only have two options:God(of some sort)or Good Luck”,“backed up his claim by demonstrating”,just some of the highlights,not to mention your use of ‘science’ to explain ‘God’s’ existence.Bravo.

Yuri says:

10:02am | 11/05/11

Wow, Col, congratulations you manage to use sarcasm to denigrate a well reasoned argument, without actually arguing aginst any of the points or adding anything to the debate. Well done!

Out of the two options (I’ve never heard anyone claim a third option) I find that the complexity and specificity of the universe is much better explained by creation by a higher power than through the random chance of evolution.

Rhino says:

04:04pm | 11/05/11

Life is complex therefore God.

This is your argument? Excuse me whilst I dunk my tea bag in some hot water…

You left out Option three, which is natural evolution that lead to you and me (but does not explain abiogenesis aka what started it all). It isn’t blind chance or good luck but an on going a process of selection and refining. I suggest you read a little book called “the greatest show on earth” biology easily explained. Then throw in some light reading on Miller-Urey who did some experiements on primordial earth chemistry/physics and you’re a long way ahead of the curve.

But you have your poorly written little bronze age goat herders manual. You don’t need anything more. than this to tell you everything, do you Calvin?

Col says:

08:55pm | 11/05/11

@Yuri.Thank you.

Calvin says:

10:49pm | 11/05/11

Rhino

There is no option three. You yourself mentioned that evolution is an ongoing process of selection and refining. So ask yourself: How do you get options to select from? Answer: Good Luck.

Evolutionary theory tries to minimise the amount of luck necessary by pretending that only tiny advances are needed at any stage, and that natural selection will see that these are kept. Alas in the real world that is not possible, as, in the vast majority of cases, the minimum genetic advance necessary to introduce new functionality is way beyond the scope of good luck. If, as I have demonstrated, you can’t get a single average protein by chance, how are you going to get over one hundred thousand proteins necessary for human life?

You are believing in the impossible.

Oh, and Miller-Urey is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what raw materials you start with. I will give you a universe full of amino acids, and you still won’t be able to get life by natural means.

Rhino says:

07:12am | 12/05/11

Calvin:

I am not believing in the impossible, that would be believing in a kind, loving and human interested God.

You posit that we are designed. Ok, so why did the designer put a redundant component in our digestive system called the appendix? So we can run the risk of getting peritonitus and dying a horrible, painful death? Or is it a a left over from our long past cellulose eating ancestors, for whom this part of our digestive system would break down cellulose?

Not hard to see now if we are designed, the designer doesn’t mind a few fucked up jokes at our expense.

But seriously, you left out some other options for life, like life was seeded on earth by hyper intelligent aliens (Stargate style) or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster touched us with his noodly appendage or we are just a giant computer simulation (doesn’t that just suck, we are a figment of computer code!). Before, you jump in an say these are ridiculous notions, you put god in your comments as a serious statement (oh BTW i don’t care what brand of god you mean).

Anyway moving away from your stawman about there being two options for developmental evolution and that god did it cause chance couldn’t have.

Go to Wiki and look up “Gene expression” or follow my suggestion and read “The Greatest Show on Earth” and stop listening to Ray Comfort (if you ever met Ray or Kirk Cameron ask him about bananas) and co.

Paul Horn says:

01:45pm | 11/05/11

Do you believe when you look up at the stars that they are bigger than your thumb? Why? Have you personally visited them? 

Oh science tells you that that is a fact so you believe by faith that what science tells you is factual!

In the 1920’s the greatest astronomical minds were convinced that the sun was composed of iron! A young astronomer by name of Cecilia Payne challenged this assertion and eventually proved that the sun consisted of mostly Hydrogen! She suffered humiliation and ridicule because many scientists had based their entire careers on an “Iron” Sun!   

Science unchallengeable? Science beyond criticism? Rubbish. Science depends on the frailty of the human mind and therefore requires just as much faith as a belief in “Sky Fairies”!
Have a nice day!

monkeytypist says:

02:35pm | 11/05/11

@Paul I belive that the stars are bigger than my thumb because I am familiar with the general physical properties of light and refraction.  I can test many of them for myself. 

Those properties that I can’t test, I can gather information from by the experiments that others have conducted and documented, and further experiments conducted and documented by others to confirm them.  All of these documented, tried and retried experiements have left us with is a pretty decent body of knowledge that yes, is subject to refinement and modification over time as we learn more.  I don’t know if anything about your purported “sun is made of iron” story is true - but it’s interesting that the mistake was corrected and scientific knowledge moved on.  Religious “knowledge” still can’t produce experimental evidence of a god or make up its mind on whether it’s alright to kiss someone who has the same genitals as you. Until you can, get cracking! And leave the rest of us alone.

St. Michael says:

02:40pm | 11/05/11

@ Paul Horn: the principal problem being is that, depending on the given year, if you challenge a religious theorem held by a major church on a logical basis, you are liable variously to being burned at the stake, imprisoned, or tortured until you recanted your view.

In more recent times, the liability is to have your works proscribed or outright banned acrodd the relevant church, be accused of misleading people towards Hell, or getting told “You are the enemy of this church and will be expunged from it”, when most of the time you were trying to help that church develop.

Slight difference there.

sir ronald bradnam says:

02:40pm | 11/05/11

PaulH…many scientists were ridiculed and executed by the church over the years for everything from proclaiming that the earth was in fact round, official doctrine of the pope and church was that the earth was indeed flat and anybody who disagrees with us will suffer the consequences…..not much has changed since then by the looks of it.

Phil Estine says:

03:32pm | 11/05/11

“Science depends on the frailty of the human mind and therefore requires just as much faith as a belief…” So Paul you admit religious belief preys upon the frailty of the human mind?

And yes a scientific assumption is challengeable. Anyone who suggests otherwise doesn’t understand scientific process. In fact your example shows as much.

And contradictory to your assumption that Payne-Gaposchkin was ridiculed, her view was actually heavily peer-supported and was more of an accumulation of different research not yet applied to stellar bodies. Whilst her dissertation was initially rejected, by essentially one man by the way, it was only because the evidence was lacking in her original thesis. When new evidence emerged, it was accepted… which brings me back to religion. It is the lack of new evidence which the article author claims humanity and religion requires. The current ‘evidence’ is severely lacking and out-dated.

Also, if religion is older than science, then going by your misled example that would make scientists Dr Payne and the religious would be her “ridiculers”

Peter says:

07:50am | 12/05/11

I find it interesting reading some of the comments to Terry. It is difficult to find an open forum where an opposing point of view may be expressed without ridicule. Just a question, if there is no Easter Bunny or no Santa Claus, how come we have chocolate eggs in March or April and presents and lots of eating and drinking in December? Is that not evidence that the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus exist? Now for a bit of lateral thinking here, we have lots of fossils - does that not prove evolution? My point is, the interpretation of the evidence presented is open to speculation (and many scienctist do disagree on the various interpretations of fossils). The existence of easter eggs do not prove the existence of a god and the existence of a fossil does not prove the big bang theory. Just consider, it may be a matter of faith to believe which ever interpretation you choose. If you say the fossils don’t lie, well they don’t cause they can’t speak. Just to have a level playing field, being an adult discussion, if we use only fossils to support the evolution thesis, can christians use ancient texts and archeological finds to substantiate their claims? If brain washing and control mechanisms can be used by one side, they could also be used by the other side. After all we all have a common ancestery, don’t we? I mean, an open mind is required to convience a person of what is truth. Nothing like a challenge to keep the mind working!  Like the old flat earth red herring, the Bible speaks of the earth as a ‘sphere’. Last time I checked, a sphere was a round thing like a ball or a globe. Could it be that someone is spreading a bit of malicious information?

grumpy says:

12:34am | 12/05/11

1. Science has no theory to explain the very start. Lots of weird and wonderful ideas but no facts.

What is the very start? The beginning of the universe? then the beginning of the universe is explained with the big bang theory, so yes there is a theory and it is based on facts that are given to explain the creation of ours and possibly other solar systems, which have been observed.

2.  Science has Big Bang Theory to explain the current universe. But Big Bang theory is a bit of a joke. Its 10% fact and 90% fudge. It constantly invokes unknowns to explain other unknowns

Actually the life of stars is well documented, from birth to their death. People have been observing this for a while..Check out the imax film Hubble.red dwarfs, white dwarfs etc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQS14reF5D8

3. Science has no theory to explain of origin of life. It has a name, abiogenesis, and lots of wacky ideas, but nothing that comes close to a theory. The reason is simple of course. Its is utterly impossible. No facts support this notion.

it does have a theory to explain the origin of life…um evolution, it is relevant when talking about all existence in the universe along with the laws of physics.

4. science has biological evolution to explain the current state of life. However as Dawkins famously said, its never been observed while its actually happening. What is observed instead is that genetic changes are almost always detrimental in the long run, which is the exact opposite of evolutionary theory.

as for what Dawkins is saying, evolution comes from a need to adapt or mutate, i cant remember the 3 specific terms they use, but there are three causes for evolution. that is why genetic changes could be seen as detrimental, but genetics are always changing, every generation is a genetic change. We are on average alot taller than people 100-200 years ago. Ever been into a house that was build close the 19th century?very small door ways indeed and im only 5’9.

I dont really understand what you are trying to say. Im a bit tired right now, but everything you have mentioned has explanation or a theory at least. None of which is present in religion. Or did you pull this from another site that is attempting to discredit the work of scientists.

each one of your points answers the next…i dunno what side of the argument you are on? you say science has no theory, then say it has this theory? wtf? its ok if you want to think you are special. Its in our nature. Check out some Carl Sagan im sure he can do a better job of explaining the cosmos than i can.

Rhino says:

07:24am | 12/05/11

Calvin, you keep biting, silly little god botherer:

Look up Richard Lenski and while your there look up Richard Lenski and Conservapedia, that is some funny stuff to read.

Tell you what I will be a sport and link it for you:

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/ This is Richard Lenski’s university home page for his E. Coli experiment:

and the conservapedia humilation

http://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog

Note, conservapedia has a nasty habit of blocking whole swathes of IP’s so link might not work.

Thanks to Mr Dawkins who brought this to my attention.

I hope Calvin the FSM touches you with his noodly appendage and you speak like a pirate, for it is true, the FSM boiled for your sins: Ramen

monkeytypist says:

09:08am | 12/05/11

@Calvin, Calvin!  Not having the answer to a question doesn’t mean you can get away with whatever answer you please.  It’s a perfectly sensible thing to say “I don’t know” when you don’t have enough evidence to go on.  What wouldn’t be sensible is saying on the basis of not knowing “clearly this explanation that I’m just throwing out here is the only possible answer”.  I can postulate that the universe sprung into existence so that people could eat tapioca pudding, but sensible people aren’t going to pay much attention to me when I say to them “well, you can’t say that it didn’t”.  Please find some conclusive proof or refrain from speculation.

MikeH says:

11:38am | 12/05/11

@monkeytypist: Is it not the case that “I don’t know” simply isn’t good enough sometimes? Take, for example, the current debate over human-induced climate change. Clearly, there is not enough evidence on which to make a firm call (there is no “proof”), otherwise we wouldn’t be having the debate. On the other hand, it is very possible that once we have the “proof” (depending on which way it goes) it will be well and truly too late to do anything about it. Now, the observed changes in climate could be the result of background tapioca pudding radiation in the atmosphere (left over from the initial creation of the universe), but the most likely cause (if it’s caused), is human activity. We wouldn’t be irrational to act on that assumption and, indeed, future generations will judge us pretty harshly if we don’t act and the worst projections are realised.

In the case for God, there is evidence, some of which @Calvin alluded to. I take a different position to @Calvin, in that I accept the Big Bang theory. So, I believe that the universe came into existence at some point in the distant past. I also know that things that come into existence have a cause (they do not create themselves). Since, by definition, there must have been literally nothing (no matter or even time) before the singularity that “banged”, I conclude that there must have been an agent (outside of matter and time) that was the cause. In any other situation, this would be a very rational conclusion - I wouldn’t conclude that the new house around the corner “just appeared” or built itself (nor would you) - so the conclusion on the universe seems pretty rational to me also.

There are other evidences as well, which you are most likely aware of - arguments from design, morality etc. - which I won’t go into. There is also significant documentary and historical evidence, and there is my own and others’ personal experience. I feel I have plenty of evidence.

Now, I could sit on the fence and say “I still don’t know for sure”, but, as for the climate debate, I believe the stakes are too high to wait for the “proof”; it may come far too late.

MikeH says:

01:48pm | 12/05/11

@grumpy: “[Science] does have a theory to explain the origin of life…um evolution…”

Evolution is a theory to explain the the way life developed to the state it is in today (i.e. from primitive single-celled organism to human or tortoise or whatever).

As far as I’m aware, the theory of evolution is silent on the actual origins of life - i.e. how the first single-celled organism came into being in the first place.

Dr Jason Dunning says:

03:43pm | 12/05/11

Calvin,
Please stop talking you are ignorant and clearly have never studied science beyond primary school.

Religion has no way of explaining what happened before god, once again it raises the question of how does something exist from seemingly nothing?

I agree 100% science cannot offer all the answers, maybe one day it can.
However at least it’s trying, it’s discovering our universe, our DNA, the human mind and slowly giving us more and more of a picture about our true existence.
Science will NEVER be able to tell you WHY you are here, and the fact that religion does, that disgusts me.
Isn’t that the pure essence of a totalitarian god, somebody who knows all of your thoughts, and regulates every aspect of your life.
Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience.

People who believe in these fairy tales live their life under the pretense of a false purpose.
The WHY can only be answered by you, finding out about your true self, gaining knowledge and filling your own life with purpose.

Imagine what we could of achieved by now if we didn’t fund churches full of child rapists and criminals.
All of that money organized religion has could of been used to explore space.

grumpy says:

04:30pm | 12/05/11

Mike H, Im really over this, your ignorance is pissing me off frankly. The earth formed, Gravity pulled gasses and dust together because of the vacuum in space, as with all stars planets etc, our distance from the sun allowed for life, any further or closer, it wouldnt have been the case. radiation, heat, oxygen, other elements combined and created single cell organisms eventually in the earth, we had vocanic gases and lava in the oceans. people like yourself probably believe the wind on earth is generated on earth itself…WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED TO FREAKING UNDERSTAND? All you are using is a chicken and the egg argument. Prove evolution wrong. Show me how it is incorrect. Darwin wrote the origin of species 150 years ago. It was not 100% perfect, but it was damn close to, the only reason it wasnt then, is because all he had to rely on was fossils, which religious people have been clinging to since the books release. Today, we have DNA which is undeniable proof that his theory is correct. geneticist’s use coding techniques that they can see how species today and in the past had subtle mutations that created genetic advantage and disadvantage the disadvantaged die, natural selection , the basis of evolution to occur.

  Even if Darwin had not written the origin of species and had not studied naturalism that he did, our technologies today confirm evolution anyway. In other words, we can take Darwins evolution completely out of the equation, and genetic mapping would and does, millions of times over and over again confirm this, its not an isolated case. Keep your head stuck in the sand ostrich boy.Evolution is a theory that explains all life, today and in the past. Youre putting to much into what life is, the sun is alive, gravity is alive. Define life? i put that to any christians to define life. Does life have to have conscious thought? feeling? blood? oragns? no it doesnt..Plants are victims of the same evolution as all of us. I have provided many facts, no religious person here has provided one that I or someone else could not explain or find an answer for, im not saying i know everything but obviously what i do know is a hell of alot more than you.

Even if i decided to trust my gut, lose all knowledge, its not hard to see the similarities in species. Why would god bother to make an emu and an ostrich? why would god bother to make a freaking duck and a goose? i mean gimme a break. We’re just monkeys who dont like to think we are monkeys. theres a theory that our ancestors came down from trees in certain areas and ate mushrooms that changed their brains and allowed them to develop. Imagine a monkey tripping, its perfectly reasonable. It creates a mutation in the genes that is past on if it beneficial, has our intelligence not been beneficial? to you, no! You believe what you are told, i believe what makes sense to me and millions of people who are smarter than me, its a good time saver. try it.

quantum gravity monkey butt says:

08:35am | 13/05/11

There are you go Calvin : in response to scientific scrutiny of the Darwinist’s ideas , you have a strong faith statement from a pissed off evolutionist zealots “grumpy’. No wonder then that our science is in shamozzles if such as “grumpy” are runnig our schools or spread B/S evolutionionary faith ,based on hoaxes such as Piltdown Man ,in the media, as fatcs….

quantumn gravity monkey butt says:

08:37am | 13/05/11

@ Dr Jason Dunning
Dear doctor, it seem that you confused Darwinism with science.

MikeH says:

09:03am | 13/05/11

@grumpy: Wow! Sorry, but you are reading far too much into what I said. I never suggested that the theory of evolution was incorrect. The point I made was that evolution is not a theory about the origins of life, which was the claim you made to @Calvin.

As far as I’m aware, and I’m willing to be corrected, evolution is a theory about the progression of life from single celled organism to the diversity that we have today. It says nothing about the actual origins of life - i.e. about how the first single-celled organism(s) formed from the inorganic matter that comprised the Earth.

Am I wrong?

quantum gravity monkey butt says:

09:13am | 13/05/11

....and a question for learned evolutionists :
You people are saying that bones of lower jaw of a reptile became , in the process of reptile’s evolutionary rush towards humanity, 3 bones of inner ear in mammals.
Name transitional fossils showing stages of this absolutely vital for humanity ,and miraculous pilgrimage..
I will be waiting for you scientific explanations…

monkeytypist says:

10:05am | 13/05/11

@MikeH: I see where you’re trying to go with your global warming analogy, but I’m afraid it doesn’t work.  There is an abundance of good, verifiable scientific data on climate change and its correlation to human activity.  There certainly are people who proclaim themselves as “sceptics”, but in reality they are people who avoid and dismiss a lot of the very good, well-developed, peer-reviewed science in favour of vague conspiracies.

Are these blinkered denialists morally equivalent to atheists?  No, and here’s why:

“I also know that things that come into existence have a cause (they do not create themselves). Since, by definition, there must have been literally nothing (no matter or even time) before the singularity that “banged”, I conclude that there must have been an agent (outside of matter and time) that was the cause. In any other situation, this would be a very rational conclusion - I wouldn’t conclude that the new house around the corner “just appeared” or built itself (nor would you) - so the conclusion on the universe seems pretty rational to me also.”

The surmise that a house must have a builder is a good one, because it reflects what we know about houses.  It does not, however, reflect what we know about the natural world.  Mountains don’t need builders; they emerge through geologic forces.  Rain doesn’t need rainers; it happens thanks to atmospheric condensation and precipitation in a complicated albeit fairly predictable cycle.  Planets don’t need angels that hold them onto their orbits; gravity takes care of that.  Gravity is also what forms stars and planets themselves, of course.

Human notions of causality break down a bit when we’re talking about the big bang.  There isn’t a “before” the big bang, because it’s the beginning of time.  It’s a bit like saying “what’s north of the north pole?” .

I’m happy to concede that there may well be things about the early part of the big bang that we haven’t discovered or can’t account for yet.  That’s a very different prospect by saying “these things are unanswerable using science; positing a supernational agent is a rational response”.  People like Stephen Hawking who know way more about physics than I do are saying that the big bang and the expansion of the universe will probably eventually be found to be a necessary corollary of the laws of physics.

Whether or not that is true, positing a supernatural agent to explain the big bang (or any given aspect of the composition of the universe) isn’t useful, partly because it’s not testible, partly because it raises more problems that it answers (why does such an entity not confirm to existing natural laws?), and partly because it’s bad scientific practice (at every point at the history of science, when people posited a particular phenomenon as the result of supernatural forces, that position has not held in the face of scrutiny.  Science is an exercise in finding out how things work, not in proclaiming that we can’t ever know how they work).

Like I said above, I’m willing to concede that there are aspects of the craetion of the universe that we don’t completely understand.  Maybe we’ll get some answers later on (or at least understand why we can’t know certain things for sure).  But that’s not evidence in any way of any supernatual or divine agency.  People used to think the world is flat; later on they developed materials to show how it’s a sphere.  Turns out that that’s wrong as well - the earth is not a perfect sphere, it flattens out a bit at the poles.  But even though it’s not technically 100% correct to say “the earth is a sphere”, it’s far closer to the truth than saying “the earth is flat”.  We don’t know everything about how the universe began, but we do know an awful lot, and the more we know, the less room there is to find some sort of supernatural, rule-defying exemption to everything else we’ve found out.

MikeH says:

03:13pm | 13/05/11

@monkeytypist: Many thanks for your thoughtful reply. Though it’s pretty clear we aren’t going to agree on this, it’s refreshing to be able to discuss without put-downs and vitriol.
A few observations and comments: Firstly, please don’t see my earlier post as alluding in any way to the ‘morals’ of atheists. My intent was purely to use a contemporary example to illustrate that sometimes it makes sense to make a choice based on the best evidence you have, rather than wait for ‘proof’. Another example might be the smokers in 50’s & 60’s that were told there was no “proven” link between tobacco and cancer. Many of these people are nonetheless dead, despite the lack of a “proven” link. My expectation is that the only way I’ll know for sure the truth about God is when I finally meet Him (or don’t) and by then (according to my beliefs) it will be too late. People will probably cry “Pascal’s Wager!” to this.To which I say, “So what?” We make wagers all the time. I believe that both evidence and personal experience lend support to my “punt”; and at least I’m in the game, with a chance to win. My personal view is that it’s a very strong chance, but sure, I could be wrong and again I say “So what?” This grossly over-simplifies a position that is also based very much on relationship as opposed to dice-rolling, but let’s leave it there for now.
“...It does not, however, reflect what we know about the natural world.  Mountains don’t need builders; they emerge through geologic forces.  Rain doesn’t need rainers…”
As you pointed out for my climate-change example, we can only take these analogies so far. Geology and meteorology are very very different beasts to quantum physics. We are looking here for things that are outside “the natural world” as we know it. We are looking for the things that define the natural laws that operate in our universe. Yes, physicists are looking for a “natural” causes for the universe, but strings, branes and multiverses are, at present, little more than mathematical guesses. Sure, guesses by some very clever people and way beyond my ken, but guesses nonetheless. In the case of multiverses, I’d even take away the “mathematical” label. Without any evidence whatsoever, this is surely purest fantasy aimed entirely at “explaining” a finely-tuned universe without having to posit a designer. My point is that whether we are talking about God or brane theory, we are positing something that is beyond our current knowledge of what is “natural”.
Beyond that; saying we determine that any of these theories is on the money, we are still left with “Where did the strings/branes etc. come from?” Either they are eternal or they came from somewhere. If they came from somewhere, where? (I can feel a sub-string theory coming on). I’m not trying to be a smart-a**, just suggesting that these things don’t, at least to me, solve any of the “problems” you have with an outside agent. Without God, it seems to me we are talking about a rabbit out of a hat, only there’s no magician and no hat; just a rabbit appearing from nowhere.
“...why does such an entity not confirm to existing natural laws?” Because surely that is the definition of “super"natural. It’s only a problem if, in trying to prove/disprove the existence of a supernatural being, you start with a premise that the supernatural can’t exist.
“...at every point at the history of science, when people posited a particular phenomenon as the result of supernatural forces, that position has not held in the face of scrutiny.” Again, we are talking about natural phenomena, within the universe God made (imho). Those events have no bearing on what occurs outside that sphere. Sorry, but this doesn’t seem a very pertinent argument to me - sort of like saying that if I throw heads five times in a row, that means the next throw will be heads as well.

“Science is an exercise in finding out how things work, not in proclaiming that we can’t ever know how they work.” That’s not what I proclaim. I believe we will all one day fully understand the answer to this question. On the other hand, I suspect that, if I’m wrong, science will never be able to give us a complete answer - there just aren’t any test tubes that big.
So,  I’m back to: here’s something - a very complex something - that apparently came into existence at some point in the past. Everything that comes into existence has a cause. In many cases that cause is an agent. So… an agent is one of the reasonable explanations. If I add to that, this thing apparently came into existence from literally nothing, then the idea of an agent, outside of “natural” laws, becomes even more compelling. I add to that documentary and historical evidence, my own personal experience and the experience of others, and I see no “problem” at all with the position I’ve taken.

Grumpy says:

04:49pm | 12/05/11

BTW - The Christian faith is not predicated on miracles alone…

It should be, then these people will ignore science and be dead by 30 with out all that scientific research has afforded mankind in terms of sustaining life.

Peter says:

07:09am | 13/05/11

Grumpy - many of those advances in medical care were and are made by Christian Doctors and Scientist who do not believe in nor use the theory of evolution in their reserach and practice of their choosen fields of medicine. So lets seperate the medical advances made by the believers and non-believers of evolution and let those advances only be used according to which side of the fence you are on. Not compassionate is it. Than again is compassion something only shown by believers in God because evolution has ‘survival of the fittest’. Not likely.

Peter says:

07:23am | 13/05/11

Has bacteria made adaptations or has antibiotics simply wiped out some bacteria and left only the bacteria which already had the resistance? So if there were no changes in bacteria caused by antibiotics but only the removal of non-resistant bacteria, how can we say the ‘adaptations’ prove evolution?
Good to see you question things you have been taught which is a good thing because we all need to know why we believe what we believe. I see you have read some of Richard Dawkins books, how about another for you ‘The Greatest Hoax on Earth’.

quantum monkey butt says:

10:25am | 13/05/11

FIrstly you are confusing evolution in darwinian sense with variation in the created kind. Bacteria in spite “developing” resistance to anibiotics , remained bacteria and did not turn into something else.
Be careful because evolutionists , to confuse the issue, use observable change in time in living things - micro evolution and macro evolution -darwinian evolution -process of bears becoming seals or doglike creatures becoming whales, interchangeably.
Secondly resistance to the antibiotics is a result of a mutations that usualy adversely affects bacteria’s life. As a result there is loss of infomation in bacteria genome in such a cases. There is no known mechanism in the universe that actually adds new information to genomes in order for living things to become new species.
And lastly catholic schools are not fundamentalist as you described it. Catholicsm actually supports evolution. The idea of Big Bang was first proposed by beligian catholic priest Lemaitre.

quantum gravity monkey butt says:

11:21am | 13/05/11

Natural selection is a conserving mechanism and does not , unfortunately for evolutionists , have any divine capabilities of creating new species. Natural selection was actually postulated by creationist E.Blyth and Darwin just borrowed the idea and incorporated in his evolutionary beliefs. Natural selection eliminates unfit, but evolutionists have yet to prove that it creates fit.

Bron says:

11:24pm | 21/05/11

Argument from authority.
Flew became a deist, which is as close to being an atheist as you can get, while still being a theist.
And as far as i can tell his reason was based on I.D. Which is just a philosophy of ignorance. It relies on unknowns to “explain” things.

If I spouted off a few names of very smart atheists would that be evidence against god? Or is it only evidence when its on your side?