A response: Disasters do not negate the existence of God

Reg says:

07:08am | 03/02/11

Like “you have free will but if you don’t do as I say, you’ll go to hell?”

Putting it in a more aggressive manner, (as if it’s needed,) “kneel and lick my boots or I’ll blow your brains out.”

Sorry the cyclone was a fizzer, so the subject loses some impact. Now had God decided to intensify the system rather than dissipating its energy all over the Pacific, things would have been far more dramatic. But he knew that, so I guess this puts Rosie’s objection to the non-affiliated PM to rest.

Rosie says:

08:36am | 03/02/11

Reg why complicate the issue? “kneel and lick my boots or I’ll blow your brains out.” certainly doesn’t help.

Why don’t you, like the scientist leave God out of the equation and go with their simple explanation of why natural disasters occur?

Natural disasters to some of us are “faith shakers.” and for peace of mind smart people have always taken the scientist’s explanation. It is after these natural disasters that some of us find it rather odd how we become aware of 2 things, strength and vision just to carry on with life and a great sense of the imperative for practical services and love. Somehow in all this the God we believe in emerges for us as a faithful presence.

It has to be a good thing!

As for Julia Gillard our PM I am told the believers are praying for her salvation.

Tedd says:

08:41am | 03/02/11

Eric

““What He couldn’t do is give us free will,.... a God who is in control and yet give us free will;”“

Couldn’t? but did?

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

08:44am | 03/02/11

Reg :  Rather than filling one’s mind with fear , threat , subjugation and outright horror fiction , try the far more common sense view of acceptance of God’s existence , His love for all of us , giving us individual freedom of choice in the way we live and love those around us.
God gives us peace of mind - nightmares don’t exist they are a fear produced figment of the imagination , usually experienced by a person without peace of mind.

Tedd says:

09:34am | 03/02/11

Wayne,

it is ‘belief in God’ that gives believers piece of mind, not necessarily God itself.  Nightmares exist, but they are not the only “fear produced figment of the imagination”

Steely Dan says:

09:50am | 03/02/11

@ Ed

“If the Lord wants us to love Him with all our hearts, minds and soul; then this can only be done through free will.”
Comforting to know God didn’t deny Yasi, Katrina and Larry their free will.  The ‘free will’ argument (not a great one in itself) doesn’t apply to weather systems or earthquakes - or are they sentient beings after all?  Where will Yasi’s soul go when it’s downgraded?

Syl says:

09:58am | 03/02/11

Wayne

Jesus says in Mark 9:43-47,

      “And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:  and if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire”

So basically it is better to dismember ourselves than be in hell.  Sounds like horror fiction to me.  This is a direct quote (allegedly) from Jesus himself.  How much more of a “common sense” view of hell can their be?  If I was a believer this certainly wouldn’t fill me with love and piece of mind, but a fear of “Do what God says or your f****d sonny”.

acotrel says:

10:26am | 03/02/11

I think I should become an atheist!

Reg says:

11:30am | 03/02/11

Rosie I don’t know why you wish to confine me to “why disasters occur” when it was the Joel Hodge who related the reasons to God. I was only responding to the headline. The need to present the argument in another light is legitimate under the circumstances. Far too many religious choose to see their beliefs through gossamer curtains.

Alex C says:

11:30am | 03/02/11

Hang on, you’re saying the reason we have free will is because god wants to make sure we love him of our own volition?

Why this desperation for us to love him so much? Could he be any more needy?

vince says:

11:58am | 03/02/11

Syl, anyone who believes the Bible is a literal testimony rather than collection of parabolic stories meant to teach based on the era it was written in is either misinterpreting the Bible blindly or clutching at straws for an effective “physical” counter argument. Seeing as you don’t believe in the former, you obviously fall into the latter.

I’m not even religious, but I’d like you to try arguing when you have a larger knowledge base on the subject instead of sprouting stereotypical strawman angry atheist responses.

Zac de Spudnut says:

12:05pm | 03/02/11

Ed,

Can’t agree more. Finally a great response from Joel. This blog again proves the tools of science, logic and rationality alone will counter the “humans are here by chance but my car is here by design” crowd. The outspoken Ex- Atheist Antony Flew’s belief in God proves that point. He just went where the “evidence led him”

Christianity has been around for thousands of years and has been under extreme criticism, analysis, studies and under vicious attack under the guise of secularism from the Atheists, but it is still standing and billions still find peace, happiness, joy and hope in Jesus Christ.

But for Atheists like Tory, they are more concerned about the “cognitive dissonance” of Christians while deliberately ignoring the “Cognitive Dissonance” (I’ll address that in a minute) of Atheists. While she enjoys the fruits of Christian labour - western civilisation and democracy and uses it to promote her Atheistic ideology and attack Christians through blogs like Punch, she is in no mood to tolerate the response of Christians. She will only publish comments that are mildly critical of Atheists and will make sure comments that expose the absurd ideology of Atheism don’t see the daylight. She is more than happy to publish vicious comments from her Atheistic followers. Just have look at her blog; you will know what I mean. It is not a level playing field.  That tells me the miserable existence of Christians under Atheistic rule through history. What I still can’t get at, is this, if Atheists as claimed is led by rationality, science and logic, and believes in democracy and free speech what have they got to fear?   

Heaps I guess. 50 to 60 years ago Atheists after the “French Jacobin Revolution” - where they killed thousands of Christian men, women and children and burnt Churches” all in the name of rationalism and science were again at it - “killing spree”, but this time under a new names like Communism and Marxism. They were more vicious and had more modern tools and technology and went out to thoroughly root out Christianity and its followers. Millions of Christian men, women, and little kids were rounded up and wiped out, thousands of Christian’s priests were massacred, Church property was burned and looted, laws was declared to ban religion and enforced with full Atheistic might. And finally the Atheistic utopia cost humanity 300 millions lives.

More here: Atheism, not religion is the force behind the mass murders of history

http://atheisticviolence.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/atheism-not-religion-is-the-force-behind-the-mass-murders-of-history/

Atheists when confronted with mountain of skeletons they claim all the Atheist tyrants were Christians or they were acting under some political ideology in spite of clear proof that “Atheism” was the engine that propelled these men. Atheist tyrants clearly knew in what name they were committing those crimes. But some Atheists are not interested in history when it relates to them but they are on Christian history day in and day out.

To shift blame they quickly refer to some peaceful Atheists living in Scandinavian countries, what they don’t realise is the Christian society/framework they live in. And they also have the audacity to claim just because these tyrant Atheists lived in Christian country it is some how the responsibility of Christians. Reason and logic is not helping Atheists when they really need them. So what propelled these Atheists? Let’s hear (tip of the iceberg) from the mouth of the horse.

“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”
Vladimir Lenin

“The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.” Karl Marx

“Communism begins where atheism begins” (Karl Marx)

“The World has never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin and at the heart of their psychology, HATRED OF GOD is the principle driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly and just as openly put them into practice.” (Alexander Solzhenitsyn)

“Atheism, in the end, is a belief system in its own right, one in which there can be no claim that a thieving, philandering, serial murdering cannibal is any less commendable a member of the species than a selfless, hard-working philanthropist. In fact, from an evolutionist perspective, the former may well have the advantage.” - Rabbi Avi Shafran

Tubesteak says:

12:28pm | 03/02/11

vince
Please provide evidence that the bible was written as a collection of parables and not what the person(s) at the time believed what actually happened.

Seems like revisionist history to me to claim that the bible is just a collection of parables.

Syl says:

12:32pm | 03/02/11

Uh Vince

The bible is THE epicentre of the Christian faith.  And rather than stating that I have no knowledge base (laughable considering I was brought up a Christian and went to christian primary, secondary schools and bible studies) maybe you would like to explain why the ONE document that the Christian faith relies on should not be used to judge it. 

I dont believe the bible to be a literal testimony, at all.  Never said that I did.  BUT that is an alleged direct quote from Jesus himself explaining how bad hell is.

My point, in case you missed it, is that such imagery, stated by the son of God himself, does not lend itself to love and piece of mind, but “Obey me or suffer”.  Parable or not, this is the lesson.

Oh and for thousands of years Christians did take the bible at its literal meaning, some still do.  Don’t try to pretend otherwise.

Brian says:

12:39pm | 03/02/11

Reasonable article. The fact that our God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) desire to have a relationship should be something we should rejoice in rather than question. He does not need us, we need Him, and through Christ provided a path for intimacy. God is love, and His primary motivation is love. I am sure we too value relationship we have based on free will rather than enforced ..usually called subserviance. A full understanding of why God would give us free will knowing we would stuff things up…and continue to do so .. is a mystery answered only in heaven. Our own actions bring on our own consequence…something today’s societies do not like acknowledging. Mounting disasters as a result of a collapsing world through abuse of resources and each other, and sin, should not be a surprise. To top it of we then turn our back on God and say we do not need you and can manage ourselves thank…well that is what most seem to in the more wealthy nations.

Thank God that there are those who acknowledge the fact the we do “humbly rely on Almighty God” (as our national consitution states). Their prayers and His mercy explains why we have faired so well given the disaster that should have occurred given the size of this storm. A miracle - we actually gained life rather than lost any in a Category 5 Cyclone…just ponder that for a second. It is a pity the Premier of Queensland and the PM do not…and then wonder why things like this are happening. Is it too hard to ask for help from above? As leaders of the land they to have a responsibility….along with all those who believe. For those who choose to turn away, know there is always an outstretched hand….please choose that rather than man’s frailty or the other gods in society…who save nothing but cause so much pain. Complete rejection of God is something that will impact them, and (as no man is an island) often many others.

Steely Dan says:

12:47pm | 03/02/11

Again, Zac?  Really?  Do you think that ‘atheism=Stalinism’ nonsense gets more compelling the more you say it?

Chris L says:

01:12pm | 03/02/11

Zac, this assertion of yours obtained from your christian propaganda site (rather that actual historical resources) has been blown out of the water repeatedly. It doesn’t become true from repetition. I am over reiterating the facts to you so please just review the last time you tried this and read the responses.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/digging-a-hole-while-trying-to-find-god/

Reg says:

02:02pm | 03/02/11

When did a comment provide license for a full-blown sermon.. Zac ... Andrew?.

PRisoner 665524 says:

03:56pm | 03/02/11

@ Syl

My Friend,  it is not to be taken literally. Jesus does not mean cut off your hand because you decide to use it to push buttons on a poker machine. He meant cut off the poker machine because gambling is against His will. (and that is the case because a gambler believes in luck, and not the will of God, hence it is adultery and idoltary).  He spoke of limbs being cut off because like limbs, sin is a much a part of us as our own hands and feet.

Luke says:

04:10pm | 03/02/11

Thank God Joel Hodge actually bothered to write A TRUE Christian perspective on suffering instead of the normal articles that instantly dismiss Christian arguement without actually looking at Christian theology. The man has definitely done his research. Whether readers believe it or not doesn’t matter. This is a very worthy response on behalf of the christian faith. For this, I applaud you.

Syl says:

04:39pm | 03/02/11

Prisoner

Sigh…..  I have already stated that I understand it is not meant to be taken literally. 
The quote is not about cutting anything off (especially pokies WTF) it is about how bad Hell is.  I thought this was made clear.
My point, once again, is that Christianity uses Horror Fiction in order to frighten its members into submission.  The moral is “Do as God says or suffer”.
Am I really going to have to explain this again to somebody else who’s reading comprehension skills need work?

muddabikes says:

05:00pm | 03/02/11

I’m confused.

If god does not control the universe, then surely praying to god is a fruitless exercise as god has no ability to change anything.

Or, if god does control the universe, then surely praying to god is a fruitless exercise as god is going to do what god wants to do anyway.

Zac de Spudnut says:

05:15pm | 03/02/11

Chris,

The most Atheists fear is a level playing field. I have first hand experience of this when I used to debate Atheists on Facebook discussion board. Atheists used to ask me - to show up my head and where I live. That should tell you the followers of the rational religion -  Atheism - are very peaceful. Why don’t you ask Tory why she wouldn’t publish most of the comments from Christians. If her blog is just for resident Atheists she should clearly state that, so we wouldn’t be spending our precious minutes on her blog. Mind you we are NOT a secular country rather a western Christian democracy.

Punch is a public blog so let the public judge and decide what I got to say. This is democracy. It’s not just me who strongly feel about the viciousness of Atheism, Channel 4 in U.K has even aired a documentary on it. Check it out:

The Trouble With Atheism

The Trouble with Atheism is an hour-long documentary on atheism, presented by Rod Liddle. It aired on Channel 4 in December 2006. The documentary focuses on criticizing atheism, as well as science, for its perceived similarities to religion, as well as arrogance and intolerance. The programme includes interviews with a number of prominent scientists, including atheists Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne. It also includes an interview with Ellen Johnson, the president of American Atheists.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/trouble-with-atheism/

Reg says:

06:25pm | 03/02/11

By the way, I object to being classified as a atheist solely for the convenience of those who prefer classification as if it was some sort of religion. As a non-conformist I hold dear the values of not necessarily conforming. Besides, a classification as an Atheist reduces the mental confusion for the religious who are driven by the pressing need for simplification. Good versus bad.  Atheist = BAD. Christian = GOOD.  Jewish uuummm… not sure.  (Must watch that lot.) 

And yet, here we have an article that dithers. It attempts to point out the unity of God and tragedy, purely because they are so obviously in conflict. If the writer is convinced there is no conflict, then who is the article aimed at? Apparently the wavering Christians on the expectation that the result of the cyclone would have been more horrific than it was.

A blatant leaping to the defense of a mythical God in the face of transparent failure.

James In Footscray says:

08:34pm | 03/02/11

I’m so with Steely Dan.

But still ...

Zak, so this Antony Flew - his examination of religion changed his mind? Should I change my mind about everything too, because of what people say? Just let me know. This friend of mine Brian - he hated the local Indian takeaway, but now he likes it. He went there recently and had a great time! Can you believe that? It must be great!

And Christianity has been around for thousands of years, and has survived criticism! Good point. I think I’ll become a Christian but also start believing in astrology and acupuncture. Thanks Zac, you’ve made it all so clear!

Chris L says:

10:53pm | 03/02/11

Zac, you shoudn’t make false accusations against Tory just to perpetuate this victim mentality. Besides, it looks more to me like christians and muslims are the ones into censorship considering the planned internet filter, the niqab and the appoplexy you folks go into at the sight of a naked body.

I’d like to point out that Marx’s view of communism specifically ruled out the idea of concentrating power with one person, but we know Stalin’s Russia was not the civilisation he was talking about. After all Marx was also against the idea of nationalism, but this was the ideal Stalin used to motivate the masses to their acts of murder.

It still remains fact that nobody in history has ever killed in the name of atheism. Nobody has ever driven populations to invade or massacre on the premise that the origin of the universe is unknown or that, if there is a meaning to life, we don’t know it yet.

You say we benefit from the fruits of christianity, but it was the church that burnt those seeking science and knowledge at the stake. Anyone who dared to say that the Earth was not the centre of the universe was accused of blasphemy and any discovery that did not conform to scripture was rejected, it’s proponents imprisoned or burnt alive. Religion had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the modern age by those brave enough to seek facts over beliefs.

Laws against murder and theft existed before even the Torah and the idea of democracy can be traced back to prechristian Greece. Your attempts to rewrite history are easy to disprove with a little research.

So, what else do you have? The fact that christianity has been around two thousand years? All that time and still no evidence, not such a convincing case.

Some quote from a Rabbi about how bad atheism is? Not so convincing either.

What else do you have? The Jacobin Revolution? I always got the idea this revolution, bloody and terrible, was about the populace rising up against the greed and indulgence of the aristocracy and creating a Rebublic. In fact the people talking about atheism at that time were the rulers of the other European countries trying to foment distrust and hatred of the revolutionaries. Business as usual for the religious of those times.

What else do you have? That atheism is some kind of faith? For one thing I have to wonder why you would attack atheists by accusing them of using faith. For another it indicates you have yet to comprehend that it is possible to not choose a religious doctrine. It seems you are so immersed in your idea of the world that the thought of someone not following some sort of religion is beyond your ability to cope with.

Trust me, the majority of atheists don’t believe in things that are unproven. This does not mean that we believe those things definately don’t exist (some do, most don’t) but just that, without evidence, deities are as likely as vampires and pixies.

Oh, and Anthony Flew converted to deism. You know, the belief that something might have created the universe but have no further involvement. The kind of deity you don’t need to worship or obey or even acknowledge. Do you find this somehow supportive of your own religion?

What else do you have Zac? I’m enjoying the debate

Jim says:

12:09am | 04/02/11

The quicker we ban religion, the better. God, if there is one, didnt create us in his imagime but rather we created him in ours. The farcial belief of a Heaven and hell are all based on a control system of fear or greed. Surely a good person who does the right thing would go where he’s supposed to and the same goes for a bad one. Why concern yourself with the triviality of why “bad” things happened and just live in the present and the future will take care of it self. If a God didn’t want me ‘cause I didn’t believe in him, then that’s not the place for me anyway. Just get on with it.

Servaas says:

12:30am | 04/02/11

Tory

I am glad you say that because some of my posts were also not submitted under your article - both of them written in the same time period, so possibly some technical error?

LC says:

09:10am | 04/02/11

Thank you Zac for post that drivel for the 57298363723715387451265th time.

Johan says:

10:06am | 04/02/11

Ah, the re-emergence of the lunatic religious fringe, the fairies and spells belivers. Catch up people, you are still back there with those who could not explain the noise of wind through the trees and thought them spirits, who could not explain earthquakes and natural disasters and thougt the ‘gods’ were “angry”. Come back down to earth.

Zac de Spudnut says:

03:28pm | 04/02/11

Hi Tory,

I am absolutely not so sure. If you are concerned about defamatory comments, there is many from Atheists you have published on your blog. Then again I am not sure what your definition of defamatory is and if it equally applies to both Christians and Atheists. People who have complained (I’ll post a reference below) about bias have made it clear that none of their comments (including mine) were nasty or contained mean terms.  Whilst I appreciate you for publishing this response piece, it is also equally important that “Punch” makes sure readers are offered equal opportunities to air their comments. By the end of the day what matters to me is not what is said but what is done. Thank you!

The following excerpts are from your blog.

True Believer says: 07:49pm | 01/02/11
I think I am going to give up on Punch. I send a post telling the truth as I know it to be and it is not published. Others can be rude, insulting, ignorant about my Lord and the Bible and it is published. Why the double standard??  I am not holding my breath that there will be a reply, but it would be nice to know why the truth about Christianity is considered non-publishable and the hatred of it is?  Do I sense a bias?

Zac de Spudnut says: 09:16pm | 01/02/11
Can’t agree more True Believer. There certainly is a bias in how comments are published. That is my experience as well. But all the bloggers/columnists are not like that. While many jurnos make big speech about “free speech”, most don’t practice “free speech”. That is the result of secularism.  I think it is a good idea to be selective in where you post your comments. The truth of the matter is most media/publishers are dominated by leftists/secularists/Atheists and they are disproportionately represented. In some cases they hardly represent the opinion/views/values of the society they live in. So what do we do about it?

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/digging-a-hole-while-trying-to-find-god/desc/

Steely Dan says:

03:52pm | 04/02/11

@ Zac

‘Defamatory’ actually has a real, legal definition.

Zac de Spudnut says:

06:24pm | 04/02/11

Steely Dan,

Oh!! Really. I didn’t know that. And this from lefties who at the drop of a hat will label any one who don’t subscribe to their agenda racist, xenophobe, redneck etc The motive is this, it will help the minority lefties/greenies to gain upper hand in debates and policy making and hence dominate the culture. And off course will keep lawyers out of unemployment.

muddabikes says:

11:24pm | 04/02/11

I tried to post some comments on the Catch the Fire Ministries website in regards to their recent article about the cyclonic destruction of Queensland being directly caused by the athiest stance taken by our Prime Minister. My posts were questioning of their article and were not posted. In fact I could find no posts that were in any way critical.

Chris L says:

01:37am | 05/02/11

Zac, please point out which comment labels you as a racist, xenophobe or redneck.

Assuming you tend toward the right wing (and not having any problem with that) I would like to point out that, in these blogs, the name calling (eg stupid, moron, rocks in the head) seem to come from the right wing. I don’t find that much of a problem as I’ll listen to valid points (Gregg for one has made me re-evaluate my stance on asylum seekers) and will happily ignore insults, but it seems disengenuous for you to complain about being victimised in any way. Especially given your spurious accusations against atheism with have been soundly countered with the use of research and facts. You have yet to counter any of my arguments or back up the claims you make, and I have yet to call you any names.

Peace, and keep questioning!

Zac de Spudnut says:

05:16pm | 05/02/11

muddabikes

Any chance you also took up issue with the Atheist Front - “The Greens”, on their website for the recent comments Bob Brown made in regards to the floods in Queensland?

“Bob Brown’s hypocrisy is breathtaking. Another grab from Sky:

Interviewer: Is this the time to come out and make what is essentially a political point?

Brown: It’s not a political point.

Interviewer: It is a political point because the Greens are a political party.

Brown: Well, that’s your opinion.”

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/they_lie/

Zac de Spudnut says:

05:35pm | 05/02/11

Chris L,

Zac, please point out which comment labels you as a racist, xenophobe or redneck.>>>

Please re-read again and point me where I claim the “comments” label me as a racist, xenophobe or redneck?

it seems disengenuous for you to complain about being victimised in any way.>>

Victim hood or self pity party is not my strong point, however if asking to be treated fairly when publishing comments will earn such labels, so be it.

Especially given your spurious accusations against atheism with have been soundly countered with the use of research and facts.>>>

Every one has an opinion but not facts. You are right it was all sound and fury with no back ups, links, references or substantiation.

Reg says:

11:47am | 06/02/11

@Zac. ... “Whilst I appreciate you for publishing this response piece, it is also equally important that “Punch” makes sure readers are offered equal opportunities to air their comments. By the end of the day what matters to me is not what is said but what is done.”

So now having made it clear that you refer to an argument elsewhere, rather than on PUNCH, you plead to repeat yourself here?  “Not what is said but how it’s done” 

As I’ve suggested before, it is futile saying anything that conflicts with Christian beliefs because you are not concerned with “what is said,” .... only how it’s said. Now it transpires that you are also an extremist right-winger of the born-to-rule variety which fits in perfectly with the image you create of one determined to reject anything that conflicts with your beliefs.

Given your God-like intransigence, please don’t come in here expounding your views with the firm intention of declaring them non-negotiable. History is strewn with the bodies of victims of the intransigence that both you and your God display.

Reg says:

02:35pm | 06/02/11

@ Brian.  “Reasonable article. The fact that our God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) desire to have a relationship should be something we should rejoice in rather than question.”

Brian when did presumption become “reasonable” or “fact?”  Children rejoice at the thought of Father Christmas but it’s still only an hypothesis and unlikely EVER to become a theory let alone fact. Then there’s “rejoice rather than question.”  I’ll go along with that, I love cyclones for the rain they bring, without cyclones each year most states would be in perpetual drought. This year looks like being the next best for decades, to 2010 for rainfall and its distribution.  Why all the long faces.

To give the pot one more stir, mankind is only at its most recent level of evolution beyond the chimpanzee and very likely will devolve, or evolve even further. (Depending on your point of view.)  Assuming that mankind is at the pinnacle of evolution and will stay there, is, - in my opinion, -  another of those awful Christian obsessions that bears no relationship to reality. 

One final thing, how did you know God wanted to have this “relationship?”

jimmyvanilla says:

12:52pm | 08/02/11

@Reg, no mate, like - you have free will, but if you jump of that cliff you’re going to go splat.

monkeytypist says:

05:06pm | 08/02/11

@jimmyvanilla the point you’re missing there is “who wrote the law of gravity?” This bizzare ‘free will’ setup we’ve got is because God wanted it this way - i.e. he apparently thought it was OK to have people suffer infinite punishments for finite mistakes.  He created everything remember?  With full knowledge of how it would turn out.  I wonder how many billions of souls he created with the specific knowledge that those souls would end up in Hell.  Seems terribly wasteful.

Reg says:

06:10am | 09/02/11

@ Monkeytypist. “This bizzare ‘free will’ setup we’ve got is because God wanted it this way - i.e. he apparently thought it was OK to have people suffer infinite punishments for finite mistakes.”

Folks it’s more simple than that.

If, as some say, God is infinite, then by comparison, man is infinitesimal.  A sin against God is therefore considered dreadful and deserving of infinite punishment.

However, since infinitesimal is the exact opposite of an infinite God,  infinity times zero still equals zero.  Oh the waste the waste!

Marc says:

10:51am | 03/02/11

And yet, it would seem, that when it comes to the beginning of the universe, you ignore Occam and go for the least likely conclusion that fits the known facts: i.e., that the universe created itself, when it is much more logical to assume that someone created it. When you hear a knock at the door, do you assume that someone is knocking, or that the knock is knocking itself?

Adrian says:

11:10am | 03/02/11

Marc, so who created god? No, that seems even MORE logical….. Instead of there being something there that combined then burst into the universe, there was a guy (we are made in gods image after all!) sitting around thinking, “You know what, I am booored as. I know! I will create some shit.”

Then WHAMO! Universe appears, man appears, man gets rib removed, woman appears. The rest is, as they say, history. especially the part when the devil goes back in time by making up other stories in the past to discredit the fable of jesus.

Damn, I have had it wrong the WHOLE time! Thanks for the enlightenment…..

PS, i personally love the story of Lot who gives up his daughter for the townsfolk to rape instead of the angles. That really sets the pace of how to live your life! Now THAT is free will that deserves to be commended…

Luce says:

11:14am | 03/02/11

Marc, if someone created the universe, who created the creator? Its no more illogical to say the universe exploded out of an infinitely small ball of matter then it is to say it was created by someone which the faithful would say “was always there and was never created because he is the highest form of being”.

If the universe requires a creator, why doesn’t the creator require a creator?

Trjn says:

11:18am | 03/02/11

@Marc, if it is more logical to assume that someone created the universe, then wouldn’t it be just as logical to assume that the creator would need a creator, who in turn needs a creator and so on until you have an infinite series of creators?

If the creator could create himself, then wouldn’t it be just as logical to conclude that the universe could do so?

As for your comments on the Big Band theory being the least likely conclusion based on the known facts, how about you actually look up the theory itself and the known facts before commenting on that. I have a strange feeling that you haven’t.

Duff says:

11:40am | 03/02/11

I think Occam’s razor is about choosing the simplest of explanations.  The simplist of explanation to the birth of the universe is not that “someone created it”.  That requires us to explain who and why etc.  We have to write books like the Bible to explain it all and then spend our days defending what was written from logic and fact. 

The simplest explanation is, surely, that we don’t know everything yet.  How could we?  We’ve only been around for a short time.

Andrew says:

11:46am | 03/02/11

Wow Marc, your powers of logic and deduction are STAGGERING.  We don’t know how the universe was created, so we’ll just say “oh, somebody MADE it”.  Let’s think about that for a few seconds.  The biggest, most complex thing in known existence (the universe) requires an explanation (why, I’m not sure, it exists because it does - maybe we’ll know one day, maybe not), and we don’t currently have a good one, so let’s assume the existence of something FAR FAR FAR more complex to create it.  Oh, and then conveniently refuse to even think about where THAT particular being might have come from, because we’re not supposed to think about that?  The concept of a “creator” is far, far, far LESS likely than any other explanation, because it explains nothing, but rather creates an entirely bigger question.

The question of “how did the universe begin” is irrelevant.  A few hundred years ago, nobody had a clue how the sun was created, or the stars, or the moon, or the Earth itself.  So of course, the logical assumption (for those with no logic) was “somebody made it”.  Now the we DO know how it was created, since we can actually see it happening elsewhere, the creation argument has to move a little further up, to the universe itself.  Religion hides in ignorance, and always has.  It was used to explain the weather and seasons before we knew what caused that, it was used to explain eclipses, plagues, and disease before we knew the causes of those, and it is STILL, for some unknown reason, used to explain anything that science is still not 100% sure about.  Funny how people can believe that religion, which has so far been wrong about EVERY SINGLE THING it has claimed that was then tested, still clings to the very few things left that haven’t - death and the creation of the universe being two of them.  And even more bizarrely, we all know that even when those two questions have been adequately answered, with compelling evidence, the “true believers” will still refuse to admit the obvious truth.  It’s an interesting psychological fact that people, when faced with compelling evidence which contradicts their deeply held beliefs, are more likely to dismiss the evidence than change their beliefs.  This is true of politics, friendships, self-worth, and of course religion.  We’ve come a very long was as a species, but we’ve got a long way to go before we rid ourselves of this stupidity.

Marc says:

12:04pm | 03/02/11

@ Adrian and @Luce: God doesn’t need a creator. He is the first cause and, yes, He was always there. This is, of course no more unbelievable than the view that science held for a long time and many scientists still do, that the universe itself is eternal.

@ Luce: your anecdote about Lot is a bit of a non sequiter. Lot had absolute free will in the situation and the offer of his daughters to the townsfolk related to a (somewhat over the top) commitment to good manners. If you had read the passage, you’d also realise that the angels stopped the whole thing, so there was no rape.

Marc says:

12:24pm | 03/02/11

@Trjn: Where did you get the idea that I have dismissed the Big Bang theory? There is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that it is correct and it’s convinced me. Where I depart from the atheist position is that I find it difficult to believe that the Big Bang “banged” itself - i.e. that absolute nothingness suddenly produced the makings of an entire universe.

Marc says:

12:40pm | 03/02/11

@Duff: “I don’t know” doesn’t really qualify as an explanation. So if we are to apply Occam’s razor to assist in finding an explanation as to how everything came into being, my contention is that “It was made”, is simpler, than “It made itself”. The former (imho) is far simpler since it does not break every pronouncement of science and every experience of the world that I have had since birth. When I walk down a street and see a house, the simplest explanation for it’s being there, given what I know about the world is “someone built it”, not “it built itself”. Why should it be any different for universes?

Steely Dan says:

12:53pm | 03/02/11

@ Marc

“God doesn’t need a creator. He is the first cause and, yes, He was always there. This is, of course no more unbelievable than the view that science held for a long time and many scientists still do, that the universe itself is eternal.”
Of course it’s more unbelievable!  You’ve just explained the existence of a finite universe by proposing an infinite god.

Trjn says:

12:59pm | 03/02/11

@Marc, it’s simple. You referenced “known facts”. There are no known facts regarding before the Big Bang, therefore I had to assume you were talking about the Big Bang.

Saying that your god is the first cause and has always existed is inconsistent with the logic that requires a first cause. If the universe requires a creator, then why does the creator not require a creator? If the creator does not require a creator, why does the universe?

In addition to that, if the universe requires a creator but the creator itself does not, how do you know that the creator is in fact the god mentioned in the Bible? What evidence is there to prove that it is not the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any of the thousands of gods that have been worshiped in the past? Hell, it’s just as likely that a group of time travelling aliens went back to the past and left some crumbs from their lunch behind when they went back to the future. The crumbs then became the first mass in the universe and caused the Big Bang.

The only honest and logical answer anyone can give to what happened before the Big Bang is “I don’t know”. In time, we may discover it, but filling in the gaps in your knowledge with a god demonstrates nothing but faulty logic.

iansand says:

01:22pm | 03/02/11

Marc - Calling your god the “first cause” is a copout.  I have absolutely no problem with the idea that a thing - call it god or the big bang - created the universe and all the laws of physics and then said “it is good” and sat down to watch the show.  Whether that thing is called god, the big bang or the brown dog down the road is merely a matter of nomenclature.  The universe had to start somehow and what we decide to call that starting impulse is irrelevant to its existence.

It is the interventionist god that causes the problem.  The one that sent its only begotten son along and who does all the smiting and judging.  First cause tells me nothing about that god.

Luce says:

01:26pm | 03/02/11

Sorry marc, I wasn’t the one who mentioned Lot, but now that you bring it up:

“...the offer of his daughters to the townsfolk related to a (somewhat over the top) commitment to good manners.”

... I really have no words to describe how sickening that is. Yay religion!

“God doesn’t need a creator. He is the first cause and, yes, He was always there. This is, of course no more unbelievable than the view that science held for a long time and many scientists still do, that the universe itself is eternal.”

The universe is made up of matter and energy (which are essentially the same thing in different forms) which all interacts with itself by defined and observable processes. You are claiming an invisible, unmeasurable, unknowable, unprovable nothing that exists everywhere but nowhere at the same time which has ultimate power over everything by a mechanism which can never be known or measured or observed….

... Sorry man, I gotta go with reason and logic on this one. There is no need or reason for God to exist, except in the minds of those who need him.

Marc says:

01:49pm | 03/02/11

@Luce: my apology for confusing your post with Adrian’s; that’s what you get when you try to address two people in one post. With respect to the “Lot” comment, my point is that this had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the social expectations at the time - it was just really, really impolite to allow your visitors to be raped. It doesn’t make his offer acceptable in our eyes, but it’s about culture, not religion.

Marc says:

02:00pm | 03/02/11

@iansand: With respect, you seem to be changing your position a little here. Your opening statement was “religion is a load of twaddle.” You now appear to be saying that religion may have it right in some respects - i.e. there may be a creator god(s) - but you have an issue with the Christian God specifically. That’s a whole different discussion, which I’d love to have, but unfortunately, I should try to do some work today.

Empire says:

02:43pm | 03/02/11

Well the way I see it, the theory of evolution was taken straight from the bible, and maybe if it wasn’t for the narrow minded religious leaders of the time, science and religion could have worked together.(But that was never going to happen because of their love of money and power.)
There are six days of creation.
Day 1 Light.        (big Bang)
Day 2 A dome to separate the water from above & bellow. Sky. 
Day 3 separation of Earth & Sea.Creation of Plants.
Day 4 Sun Moon & Stars.
Day 5 Birds & Fish.
Day 6 Animals& Humans.
Day 7 He rested.
The Bible does not say he created earth, water or sky for that matter.
It say’s the earth was formless and desolate, covered in a raging ocean and in complete darkness.
I find that when I talk to some of my atheist friends and family about some of things I don’t understand in the bible, that their insight (that comes from science) helps to explain things, you know what they are from a scientific point of view.
Everyone has a right to believe what ever they wish, without ridicule, Religion has ruined peace, love and joy, there is no reason for you to join them in their hypocrisy.

iansand says:

03:05pm | 03/02/11

Marc - Not changing a thing.  You call it god.  I call it the big bang.  We are just applying a label. 

But when your god gets its hands dirty intervening in the way the world works, smiting here and rewarding there, lobbing offspring onto the earth willy nilly and creating laws, we have an interventionist god and a religion.  That is twaddle.  My big bang does none of that.

Duff says:

03:16pm | 03/02/11

Imagine being a good person for the sake of goodness, not because you’re trying to get into Heaven?  I actually think life will become richer and more fulfilling when we finally get to the point where we can ditch religions and start believing in ourselves.

biscuti says:

04:15pm | 03/02/11

@marc - I suggest you read “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins

Tedd says:

04:40pm | 03/02/11

Marc, we wouldn’t know about Lot if the narrative wasn’t in the Bible ....

Besides the universe creating itself, there are other theories about universes coming and going, and of course quarks, etc.  The Big Bang may have been from left overs of a previous universe that had contracted.

Marc says:

05:00pm | 03/02/11

@iansand: So now we’ve gone full circle. I have no issue with “your big bang”; I’m an absolute convert. The Big Bang does not explain the origin of space/time however. My question is, where did the singularity that “banged” come from? If it came into existence of its own accord, then I have serious problems with that. Things don’t create themselves, in my experience (nor yours, I suspect).

AJ says:

05:49pm | 03/02/11

Marc,
Waiting for your reply to Andrews point that Religions track record on explaining questions that science has not yet answered is very poor.
This line of Andrews must provoke some response
“religion, which has so far been wrong about EVERY SINGLE THING it has claimed that was then tested, still clings to the very few things left that haven’t - death and the creation of the universe being two of them.

iansand says:

06:13pm | 03/02/11

Marc - It doesn’t matter.  It’s a label.  Do you believe in a god that has intervened in the affairs of the Universe at any time after that event?  If you do your belief is twaddle.  If you don’t, welcome to the world of rationality.

I hate to be rude, but you are demonstrating that god-botherers are not particularly bright.  I suspect you have not grasped my point, and I cannot think how to make it more simply.

Reg says:

05:52am | 04/02/11

@Marc….   ” When you hear a knock at the door, do you assume that someone is knocking, or that the knock is knocking itself?”

Apart from the fact that you assume the knocking was at the DOOR, the knocking may only have been in your head. Thanks for the laugh.

Marc says:

05:52am | 04/02/11

@iansand: Do I believe in a God that has intervened in the affairs of the Universe? Absolutely. Why? Because I see evidence for it and due to personal experience.

As to me “not grasping your point”; your point appears to be “Religion is twaddle. This is demonstrated by the fact that I don’t believe in a personal God who is involved in His creation and anyone who disagrees with me is ‘not particularly bright’.”

I’ve grasped that point very well and I can’t do much to refute it since it reflects your personal prejudices. On the other hand, it’s a circular argument and not very compelling.

Your personal attack is regrettable and really does nothing to advance your position.

Have a great day.

Marc says:

06:15am | 04/02/11

@AJ: sorry, I actually have a day job and so didn’t get around to answering every post. I really had no idea how much outraged reaction you could get purely by suggesting that someone else’s position may not be the only way of looking at things.

Anyway, to Andrew’s post. I admit that all the CAPS make it seem very compelling and his general feelings of disdain are very clear. But how does one respond to his sweeping generalisation about science and scripture? I guess, maybe if he were to list a few meaningful examples… There’s no point in talking about primitive religions in this context. I don’t hear thunder and think “the gods must be angry”. My belief is that my God created the universe and everything in it, including the “laws” of nature which science is helping us to understand. I’m unaware of anything in my faith that has been disproved by science.

As to the rest of Andrew’s post, I think it’s pretty well summed up in his sentence “The question of “how did the universe begin” is irrelevant.”

I disagree strongly. I believe this question and what flows out of it is the most important question there is and the stakes are too high to just say “I don’t know”.

Marc says:

06:21am | 04/02/11

@Reg: Glad to have lifted your spirits somewhat.

If you want to believe the universe is all in your head, I guess that’s open to you, but I’m not banking on you being right.

Chris L says:

08:16am | 04/02/11

Has anyone gotten around to pointing out to Marc that no scientist has ever suggested that the big bang caused itself? Why are people debating this nonsensical premise?

Marc, there are several hypotheses over the cause of the big bang. To my knowledge none have been upgraded to theory yet. Mind you, there apparently are radiation waves that could point to big bangs that preceded the one we are familiar with.

That said, at the moment the only scientific answer to your question is “We don’t know yet”.

Ben says:

01:56pm | 05/02/11

@ Zac, Typical Christian I see. You want to take all of the good and none of the bad.

“While she enjoys the fruits of Christian labour - western civilisation and democracy ...”

This is frankly an idiotic statement and flat-out wrong. To claim that ‘Christian labour’ is single-handedly responsible for western civilisation and democracy is ludacris. Democracy had it’s political and philosophical foundations in ancient Greece. Western civilisation certainly has SOME of its foundation in Christianity, mainly in architecture and the arts but the free-thinking, rational, logical and scientific movment arguably started in the Renaissance - a SECULAR movement (I say arguably because it is of course impossible to pin-point a single period in which this movement started).

Also, many of the statistics in the OPINION piece you linked are completely fabricated and unsourced, therefore useless and unreliable. The Salem witch trials weren’t just contained within America, they happened similtaneously all over Europe (and to a much higher degree). The stats offered from the Crusades are fabricated and completely contrary to want every other historian of note has claimed.

Really, if that’s the best you’ve got you are grasping at straws mate.

Jason Todd says:

02:33pm | 08/02/11

Marc, When talking Occam, what is a simpler explanation, that the universe, which has been repeatedly observed to operate on a series of natural laws has a natural origin? Or that it subverts its pattern and has a supernatural origin.

Additionally, if God can be the un-caused cause, why do we need to have that step? If god can be eternal and uncaused, then why not excise him\her\it from the equation altogether and suggest that the universe is eternal and uncaused? Why do we need another layer?

Reg says:

07:18am | 03/02/11

Johathan - Jonathan - Jonathan, there is no place on the entire Earth that is 100% safe. Reasonable people have accepted this for generations. Why this Christian obsession with absolute safety?

Only in death do you find absolute safety. Why - some even FARM the slopes of volcanic mountains for the fact that most of the time, relative to the duration of a human life-time, the thing is NOT erupting.

Gregg says:

09:07am | 03/02/11

But Reggie, Reggie, Reggie, there are many places likely more safe than others and it is the authorities paying homage to stupidly develop at all costs that may come because of locations allowed and those reaping gains from such developments that should be crucified and left to rot on their crosses.

Tedd says:

09:38am | 03/02/11

Jonathan, people live in places for all sorts of reasons, and often places they themselves did not build.

Yes there are more certain opportunities in existence and living for that existence than there is is in the notion of an afterlife.

Trevor says:

12:21pm | 03/02/11

And yet if you are an employer and you let one of your employee’s run with scissors in the workplace and they injury themselves through their own stupidity then you are indeed held responsible and are indeed ask “Why did you let them run with scissors?”...

Reg says:

06:38am | 04/02/11

Gregg, why do you insist on being so parochial? It’s not as if God is confined to Queensland or Australia. (Why do I need to highlight that?) There are places where safety pales in significance compared with the prospect of starvation. If you and your religious friend seek absolute safety, I promise you that you won’t find it.

Steely Dan says:

09:54am | 03/02/11

Seconded.  Would anybody have felt like an automaton if Yasi had sat off the reef harassing fish for a few days until it was downgraded?

mary says:

12:06pm | 03/02/11

It is interesting to find nonbelievers blaming the God they don’t believe in.

Steely Dan says:

12:49pm | 03/02/11

@ mary

Interesting that you interpreted James’ comments as ‘blaming god’.

Reg says:

06:38pm | 03/02/11

@ mary ... you little devil, you did that on purpose didn’t you? I just wasted precious life trying to work out how you arrived at that decision. I mean,  even the point about it being “interesting.”  I even placed myself in the role of a reef-fish. Nah!

rudy says:

07:53am | 03/02/11

Check.

mary says:

12:03pm | 03/02/11

Was Epicurus asking for an eraser Jon, to erase all the evil deeds of human beings? And is the argument that we should be uset with God for not providing us with this eraser?

Sorry but Epicurus’ argument is hugely flawed.

James1 says:

02:02pm | 03/02/11

Mary, you need to at least understand what Epicurus was saying before determining that his argument is flawed.  He wasn’t saying that we should be upset with god, he was saying that there is no god, and if there is, that god doesn’t act like a god should. 

At least, not like a real god.  Not like Poseidon…

mary says:

04:52pm | 03/02/11

@James1 about Poseidon and I speak with some degree of authority since I was baptised by him aka Neptune in person whilst crossing the equator at the tender age of three weeks. Well about them, they called me a prawn and truth be known I am anything but a prawn. As anyone who knows me can assure you, I do not resemble in any way a prawn. You can call me a seahorse or a whale, a swordfish or a shark perhaps at times, but a prawn I am not. So, no, Neptune/Poseidon, real god, no. 
I even have to disagree with you on that.

Christian (in name only) says:

07:16am | 04/02/11

Flawed Mary? You mean like the Bible? According to that God did try to use an ‘eraser’ to wipe out all the evil in the world by flooding it and murdering everyone on it except some old guy,his family and some animals. Apparantly,it didn’t work. If God is all knowing he knows what we are going to do therefore we have no free will. Judas was ‘meant’ to betray Jesus,what happened to his free will?

Horse says:

09:41am | 03/02/11

” ... a life not subject to constant manipulation.”?

Stephy says:

05:53pm | 03/02/11

Horse, I’m a Calvinist, so probably not the best one to answer that. Calvinists believe in predestination (and as a christian belief it’s in the minority). Most Christians believe we all have free will. It’s not really the place for this discussion, but I thought I’d throw that out there.

Horse says:

07:56pm | 03/02/11

so Calvinists believe people are predestined to have free will or predestined not to have free will?

Marc says:

11:47am | 03/02/11

@Trevor: the vast weight of scientific opinion is that the universe has not always existed, therefore at some point it must have been “created” (Stephen Hawking affirms this, for example, in his latest book). Where theories tend to diverge is in the cause or means of that creation. Many would have us believe that the universe somehow self-created. Stephen Hawking again: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing”. Really?... that seems a little unlikely to me and I don’t see it anywhere else in science or the world around me. As the great philosopher, Julie Andrews sings in “The Sound of Music”: “Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could”.

I tend towards the more logical explanation that an outside agent did the creating. Even in the light of the eminent Mr Hawking’s assertions, I don’t believe that science has any better explanation.

kyra says:

12:09pm | 03/02/11

Marc, you probably shouldn’t take something written into a screenplay as a basis for reasoning or use it as evidence in an argument

Steely Dan says:

12:28pm | 03/02/11

@ Marc

“I tend towards the more logical explanation that an outside agent did the creating.”
How is that more logical?  You’ve just created a being who doesn’t have to obey physics or logic at all.  You’ve attempted to explain a mystery by inventing a mystery.

“Even in the light of the eminent Mr Hawking’s assertions, I don’t believe that science has any better explanation.”
Does that make ‘goddidit’ feasible?  If we don’t know how the universe came to be, why not stick with ‘we don’t know’? 
Let’s say you and I see a fridge-sized wooden box on the side of the road as we drive past, and we can’t stop to investigate it.  When a fellow passenger asks us what was in it, is my answer of ‘a small camel’ somehow a ‘better’ answer than your ‘I don’t know’?

Trevor says:

12:39pm | 03/02/11

Marc,
You are correct in your statement that science does not know how the universe came to exist. There are theories (in the scientific sense not the “it’s only a theory” sense), however,  that explain how the universe exists as it does presently. Just because science cannot explain how the universe came to exist in the first place does not automatically mean that it was “created” by someone as in the infinite leap that the religious apologists love to make. I haven’t seen any theories (again in the scientific sense) that say the universe “self-created” though everyone except creationist says “We don’t know but we are looking and hopefully one day we will find out.” not “Goddidit, so we can all relax now and stop looking because we know how it happened!”. To quote Gallileo Galilei “All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.”

Marc says:

01:27pm | 03/02/11

So… how about - “I don’t know, but for now I’m backing a position that meets my observations of how the world works.” My issue, as has been stated in posts by others, is that these blogs are filled with people who want to ridicule me for drawing a reasonable conclusion based on my own observations and study.

Of course I don’t KNOW, but I have taken a position and I contend it is no less reasonable than the atheist position. Why does that automatically make me a target for vitriol and ridicule?

The weight of comments here seems to be: “I don’t KNOW, except that I KNOW you’re wrong.”

@kyra: I understand that Julie Andrews is not really a great philosopher and I was trying to be light-hearted. Nonetheless, the words of the song state pretty clearly what we all experience in real life.

Steely Dan says:

02:00pm | 03/02/11

@ Marc

“Of course I don’t KNOW, but I have taken a position and I contend it is no less reasonable than the atheist position.”
You contend it, and it’s been refuted.  You don’t seem to be acknowledging the refutations though.

“The weight of comments here seems to be: “I don’t KNOW, except that I KNOW you’re wrong.””
Not quite.  It’s ‘I don’t know, except that I know that your explanation creates more problem than it answers, and it’s not supported by evidence.  Therefore it is illogical to accept your explanation.’

The Badger says:

02:42pm | 03/02/11

Marc
Even though I may disagree with you,
I respect you having an opinion that is different to mine.

We should be free to seek happiness and meaning in our lives through beliefs that work for us, as long as our beliefs do no harm to others.

Marc says:

02:50pm | 03/02/11

@Steely Dan: Sorry, but I must have missed the refutations. Can you point them out? I see differing opinions but no refutation to this simple logic:
1. The universe didn’t always exist
2. The universe came into existence. (These first two are, I believe, backed by the weight of scientific thinking in this field).
3. Things that come into existence have a cause (I’m pretty sure science agrees with this one too).
4. Therefore the universe was caused

I (don’t KNOW, but) believe that the cause was a “person”. Can you please tell me why that belief is illogical? The fact that you consider it unlikely is not a refutation, it is merely an opinion.

“your explanation creates more problem than it answers”.  I believe that the alternative creates even more problems. I don’t see things popping into existence by themselves and everything I’ve been taught about the world and physics supports the fact that it just doesn’t happen. Why would I believe it about universes?

Marc says:

03:01pm | 03/02/11

@Steely Dan: “and it’s not supported by evidence”. There is loads of evidence, which has been researched by far smarter and more qualified people than myself. I encourage you, for example, to look at some of the material from Dr. William Lane Craig? Take a look at his website: http://www.reasonablefaith.org or read some of his books. You may reject the evidence, but maybe you can accept that the Christian faith doesn’t have to be “blind” faith.

Aaron says:

03:28pm | 03/02/11

@Marc “@Trevor: the vast weight of scientific opinion is that the universe has not always existed, therefore at some point it must have been “created””

This simply isn’t true, current scientific understanding of the origins of the observable universe say that the universe “as we know it now” came from a singularity, which astronomers have observed (they exist in the center of a black hole) numerous times in the night sky.

Marc says:

03:47pm | 03/02/11

@Aaron: You are correct, as I understand it.  I also hear that Stephen Hawking actually now contends that there wasn’t a single singularity but a number of them (some sort of curve of singularities). The singularity (or singularities) contained all the “stuff” of which the universe is now made, and they then proceeded to explode (the Big Bang), creating the universe as we know it. Physicists do not contend, to my knowledge, that the singularity/singularities are eternal, so whether we talk of the singularities (which effectively are the universe) coming into being (being “created”) or the universe being created, is, I think, just semantics.

Steely Dan says:

04:26pm | 03/02/11

@ Marc

“Sorry, but I must have missed the refutations. Can you point them out?”
Look at my 12:28 comment.

“I see differing opinions but no refutation to this simple logic…These first two are, I believe, backed by the weight of scientific thinking in this field”
Not quite.  The weight of scientific thinking says that the universe has not always existed in this state.” 

“Therefore the universe was caused”
The scientific consensus is that there was a cause for the expansion of the singularity, but we don’t know what it was. 

“I (don’t KNOW, but) believe that the cause was a “person”. Can you please tell me why that belief is illogical?”
Sure.  It’s called the ‘null hypothesis’.  We believe in things when we find evidence for them.  Possibility is not plausibility.  Aliens ‘could’ be running UN, but nobody should believe it until somebody has demonstrated that it’s probable.  I can’t rule it out (who knows what sort of technology they could use to hide their presence), but I’d be silly to believe it at this point.

“I believe that the alternative creates even more problems. I don’t see things popping into existence by themselves”
Wait - what alternative are you talking about?  I’m saying that we don’t know what happened to ‘start’ the big bang (if that’s even a valid concept).  And if god and that straw man were the only two options - what makes one explanation that violates what we know of physics better than the other?

I’m more than aware of William Lane Craig, his Kalaam obsession, and his statement that if all the evidence pointed against a god, he would still believe.  Faith isn’t reasonable.

Marc says:

06:38am | 04/02/11

@Steely Dan: Your 12:28 comment is not a refutation. “I don’t know” is not really a position (well, I guess it’s a position on the fence); but we make decisions all the time on the basis of the evidence we have, even when it is incomplete. If we didn’t, we would achieve nothing.

Your argument still boils down to “I don’t know, but I know YOU are wrong.” Sorry, but I don’t find that very compelling. As I’ve said in another post, the stakes are too high here for me to just say “I don’t know.”

Have a great day

Steely Dan says:

09:55am | 04/02/11

@ Marc

“I don’t know” is not really a position”
Whether you define it as a ‘position’ is neither here nor there.  It’s the truth.  We don’t know.  And I don’t just mean that because absolute certainty is unattainable we can’t be 100% sure - I mean in practical terms the best scientists in the world simply do not know.  It’s a humility thing.

“but we make decisions all the time on the basis of the evidence we have, even when it is incomplete.”
And you have some evidence?  Then why not present it, instead of calling for a ‘god of the gaps’?

“Your argument still boils down to “I don’t know, but I know YOU are wrong.””
You’re not wrong, you’re just being illogical.  And being illogical doesn’t have a good track record of getting the facts right.

“the stakes are too high here for me to just say “I don’t know.””
Pascal’s Wager!

Marc says:

11:33am | 04/02/11

@Steely Dan: I’m going to stop here because I really need to earn a living, but:

“I mean in practical terms the best scientists in the world simply do not know.  It’s a humility thing.” To quote Stephen Hawking again (I think he’s meant to be a pretty good scientist):  “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing”.

“And you have some evidence?” Yes, I do and I directed you to one source of such evidence, which you dismissed out of hand. Evidences which you will, no doubt dismiss, like the teleological argument, the evidence for the historicity of Christ, evidence for the historicity of the resurrection are none-the-less evidences, even though you treat them with scorn, because of your pre-disposition.

“Pascal’s wager”: and your point? I wasn’t claiming it was an original thought. From being a very disinterested agnostic for much of my life, I’ve taken a position on this because, yes, I was persuaded that it is the most important question in life and, yes, I’m persuaded that God exists. If I’m wrong, well, I don’t expect to be, but then I’ll never know will I? And no damage done, quite the opposite really, as I’m convinced my life has become far more fulfilling because of my faith. If I’m right, then there’s all sorts of good stuff ahead.

Have a good life.

Steely Dan says:

01:35pm | 04/02/11

@ Marc

“To quote Stephen Hawking again (I think he’s meant to be a pretty good scientist):  “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing”.”
That’s right, he’s regarded as the best physicist alive today.  And he did say that.  But he doesn’t say that we know that we had nothing to start with.  Which is why Hawking - an intellectually honest atheist - doesn’t say ‘we know that there is no god’, he says “‘It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.’’  His co-author Leonard Mlodinov said this: “We don’t say we’ve proved that God doesn’t exist… We don’t even say we’ve proved that God hasn’t created the universe”.

“Yes, I do and I directed you to one source of such evidence, which you dismissed out of hand.”
No, I didn’t.  I’ve heard a lot of William Lane Craig in the past and rejected after hearing it.  The teleological argument etc is not news to me, and WLC does not have a great reputation amongst scholars researching the historicity of Jesus - not even the Christian ones.

“and your point? I wasn’t claiming it was an original thought.”
Originality isn’t the problem.  Pascal’s Wager just doesn’t work, unless you’ve eliminated all god concepts but one, and you’re sure that this god accepts works as being sufficient for salvation.

“And no damage done, quite the opposite really, as I’m convinced my life has become far more fulfilling because of my faith.”
Maybe no damage to you, that’s certainly possible.  But depending on what you believe, your views may cause you to take actions that damages others, to varying degrees of harm. 

Have a lovely life.

Austin 3:16 says:

09:51pm | 04/02/11

“people who want to ridicule me for drawing a reasonable conclusion based on my own observations and study.”

I’m fairly sure that’s not the reason for the ridicule. How about having another guess ?

Chris Richardson says:

09:33am | 03/02/11

I like this:

Theology: the exhaustive study of that which is wholly imaginary

It’s not mine but source supplied on request.

James In Footscray says:

12:02pm | 03/02/11

It’s interesting that theology, unlike other branches of philosophy, has its own discipline, schools, professors etc. Universities don’t have departments of utilitarianismology or existentialismology.

It gives belief in god status, don’t you reckon? Makes us think, ‘Hey there must be something in this’?

Reg says:

06:23am | 04/02/11

Most astute James and Barry. I have always thought that about churches as well. Apart from their obvious use for shelter, they represent an attempt to make something structurally solid to give Earthly semblance to something that is otherwise totally insubstantial. Barry, to which I would add, ” Without ever losing faith in his pursuit.” Perhaps “forever” in front of searching may have been more efficient.

I am always amazed that non-evolutionaries fail to see the commonality of animals and humans, each having four limbs, shoulders and a chest, a head and sexual members in identical positions and even internal organs in much the same place. It’s the pairing of certain nerves that proves the point. Things such as the one vocal nerve that got left behind in the “rush” to evolve. In humans as well as in giraffes.

AliceC says:

09:24am | 03/02/11

BAM!    : )

Chris L says:

08:10am | 03/02/11

Maybe the spirits of the Dream Time are rising against us for how we treated the aborigines.

Don’t mock! This belief system is about twenty times older than christianity and has about as much internal consistency.

Fred Nerk says:

08:15am | 03/02/11

Joan, get treatment.

Reg says:

08:20am | 03/02/11

Which is absolutely total bullshit relative to the mental and physically destructive forces of WWII. 

My goodness, we’ve always had every single thing you mention. Even the year without a summer was totally explained by a volcanic eruption, but since faith covers all exits, there is no point arguing.

The problem then is that you win by default and continue to spread your delusions far and wide into the mind of every innocent you encounter.

Evolution explains the reducing effectiveness of certain preparations and while I guess you thanked God when someone developed a vaccine, you probably don’t blame God when evolution reduced its effectiveness. Why not?  Because to do either is too silly for words!

James1 says:

08:43am | 03/02/11

Take heed, Ms Gillard.  This is what happens when you do not give appropriate offerings to Poseidon and Zeus.  There is no use crying to Hera now - she has no power to appease the angry gods. 

These atheists, and their fellow travellers, the monotheists, who hardly beleive in any gods at all, will be the death of this world.

Syl says:

08:43am | 03/02/11

I can’t stand Gillard (though for less petty reasons than she is godless, childless and husbandless) but this is the most ridiculous thing Ive read on this thread.
If God, the imaginary sky wizard, is so willing to attempt to demolish our country because our leader does not fit his ideal (how loving, punish everyone, even his followers), why isn’t the middle east, most of asia, india etc simply holes in the ground?  Surely he would have wiped them out by now, the heathens.
Thinking is a great tool, maybe you should try it out.

Shane From Melbourne says:

08:44am | 03/02/11

Gee, the floods in Brazil, drought in East Africa, severe snow conditions in Europe and America and cold tempertures in the Indian subcontinent are all the result of Gillard being elected. The Gods must be truly pissed…..

Elphaba says:

08:46am | 03/02/11

Goodness, Rosie spawned a twin!

AdamC says:

08:52am | 03/02/11

Joan, you are ridiculous.

undertow says:

09:16am | 03/02/11

I just wanna know what the dinosaurs did to piss this God fella off. It’d have to be something so shocking that it makes Vlad the Impaler look like a saint.

notsurprised says:

09:19am | 03/02/11

Joan’s comment reflects neither the opinion nor attitude of the majority of Christians. It is an extremely narrow minded and childish comment that should merely be overlooked.

True Believer says:

09:20am | 03/02/11

@Joan:
Goodness me if that is what your “gods” do I would be trading them in to the real God. He is for love, forgiveness and judge not lest ye be judged.

Alicec says:

09:26am | 03/02/11

How do we know that the Gods have been angered by something else to cause all of these disasters? Justin Beiber comes to mind….

rudy says:

09:35am | 03/02/11

Joan, if you want to take the p!ss, I suggest you go into a profession that handles urine samples. Your satire is too obtuse to succeed.

Matt F says:

11:43am | 03/02/11

“vote labor and god will smite you!”

well as far as political slogans go it certainly beats “great big new tax” and “moving forward”

Shifter says:

02:19pm | 03/02/11

Death, Famine, Pestilence?

Sounds like a Metallica song!

*rocks out*

Elphaba - crushing says:

03:28pm | 03/02/11

@Shifter - !!!

Die, by my hand/I creep across the land/killing first born man…

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

Vintage.  For you.

Stu says:

03:31pm | 03/02/11

@ True Believer:
“judge not lest ye be judged”. Yet you have just judged Joan and her gods (as you have done with other belief systems in this forum). Double standards again!

Joan says:

04:42pm | 03/02/11

We have multiple faiths in this country…. multiple Gods.

Kath Grant says:

09:52am | 04/02/11

Lovely irony. The sad thing is, some people probably believe it!

Trevor says:

08:08am | 03/02/11

@Tubesteak

Firstly, love the moniker, I reckon it’s hilarious.

I fully agree with you on the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of a god or gods and I would also include all supernatural as well.

But just because there is no supreme overseer that we must appease in this life it doesn’t mean that our lives are insignificant and pointless. That verges on one of the feeble arguments that religious apologists like to spout for the existence of their version of god. It goes something along the lines that if there is no god you might as well just kill yourself because your life is pointless and/or act like a total a-hole because morals and ethics can only come from Big Brother (and I don’t mean that shite “reality” TV show!)

AdamC says:

08:51am | 03/02/11

Tubesteak, did you read the article? It actually wasn’t about proving or disproving that God exists or debating the age of the universe. It was actually a really interesting reflection on the relationship between God (theoretical or otherwise) and His creation, nature and human misfortune.

Does every discussion about religion have to involve pompous atheists telling Christians how stupid they are?

Sammy Davis JR says:

08:56am | 03/02/11

If we know that religious people are not feeble minded or weak willed, the question to be asked is, Why do atheists, like Tubesteak, need to unnecessarily offend the religious? Is he afraid of realising how significant and worthwhile his life could be?

Tubesteak says:

08:56am | 03/02/11

Trevor
I meant pointless and insignificant in the sense that even after just 2,000 years there are only a handful of people whose lives are remembered with any significance and revereance. Yes, one of these people is Jesus, another would be Alexander the Great.

What if we go back 10,000 years. Any names ring a bell?

I doubt you or I will matter much to anyone after a few hundred years after we die. Do your great-great-great-great grandparents mean much to you or have much influence over the way you live your life?

If we go another 100,000 years into the future what will remain of this?

The universe will go for several billion more years. The sun has a few billion more years left in it. I doubt we’ll matter much in that scale.

Tim the Toolman says:

09:10am | 03/02/11

“Does every discussion about religion have to involve pompous atheists telling Christians how stupid they are? “

Glass houses and all that.  You can’t strut around purporting to have the answers to life, the universe and everything (and demanding others follow your rules by influencing politics) and then act offended when someone tells you you’re wrong by using basic logic.

JK says:

09:27am | 03/02/11

@AdamC. Yes, it does. Any discussion involving god is an utterly futile waste of time unless someone proves god exists. Consider arguing the relative merits of Mac and PC. Why would you have such a discussion if no one could prove that Macs exist? It’s akin to children arguing whether a tank could defeat charizard. The only reason to do it is for fun. Charizard should not have any legislative or political influence in this world. Sadly, he does, through people who think their pokeball is real.

Reg says:

09:34am | 03/02/11

WHAT? AdamC ” Does every discussion about religion have to involve pompous atheists telling Christians how stupid they are?”

The main goal of this article is to tell those who are not Christian, how stupid THEY are for not believing in fairies. Now THAT’s pomposity.

Christians don’t need to be told they are stupid because they wouldn’t believe it in any circumstances. That’s what faith does to them.

Just look at it, a vain attempt at defending God against charges of neglect. But wait, this is a product of the writer’s mind, that anyone would dare to suggest such neglect. That says to me that the writer has doubts of his own. Where’s his faith? If he has faith then he has no need to expound it unless he seeks to heap condemnation on those who disagree with him.

Adam Diver says:

09:42am | 03/02/11

@ adamC, yes, yes it does. It is hard to take someone seriously with a belief system that has so many logical black holes. If the basis of the article in particular is that belief system, then the rest of the article becomes irrelevant because the author can not claim any sort of logical consistency.

AdamC says:

09:54am | 03/02/11

Tim the Toolman, I don’t claim to have all the answers in life. I am also not paranoid about Christians controlling the political process. (They don’t). I don’t even believe in God, though I do have a strong affinity with Christian philosophy and institutions. And I can’t see anyone here telling Christians they are wrong by using basic logic, but I do see a lot of atheists sounding like pre-enlightenment Christian fundamentalists.

JK, if those sorts of discussions are so pointless, why do atheists keep initiating them?

Reg, Christians don’t believe in fairies. In brief, they believe in a single God who sent His son to earth as messiah to forgibe us our sins. And, Reg, if you had actually read the article, you would see that the author does not accuse people who don’t believe in God of being stupid.

Stephy says:

10:00am | 03/02/11

Sorry Tim the Toolman, what basic logic? Nothing I’ve heard yet has proven God doesn’t exist. No one here has offered proof He doesn’t exist, they just say He doesn’t. Anyone like to offer up solid proof? Y’know, put all us Christians to shame and whatnot? Here’s a golden opportunity for you to shine in your more superior knowledge.

Tim the Toolman says:

10:06am | 03/02/11

“I don’t claim to have all the answers in life”

Christianity does.  So does Islam.  So does every other religion.  It is their raison d’etre.
“And I can’t see anyone here telling Christians they are wrong by using basic logic”

It’s in my post that Elphaba commented on.  To be honest, it’s in the authors post if you read it with a critical mind.

“but I do see a lot of atheists sounding like pre-enlightenment Christian fundamentalists.”

Get back to me when we start sticking the feet of <insert religious demonination here> in boots of molten lead.  Or burying them up to their head and then chucking rocks at them.  Or any of those other wonderful pre-enlightenment activities.  No, I think perhaps i’ll just be at a pub with my atheist friends on Friday night.

Muttley says:

10:06am | 03/02/11

Reg, where in the article are athiests insulted or called stupid? No, the article is a counterpoint to the one posted yesterday. As an athiest, i find myself asking the same question as Adam. In your face religious types are offensive to may people, believers included. By the same token, arrogant athiests who just love telling religious types how stupid they are hard to tolerate. Disagree, fine. But where does the need to ram down their throats how stupid they are because they have different beliefs come from? It doesnt make sense to you fine. To be honest it doesnt make sense to me either. But live and let live eh?

Bilby says:

10:13am | 03/02/11

AdamC - Any father that sacrifices his child is not worthy of respect in my book. In fact he would be worthy of condemnation.

Tubesteak says:

10:48am | 03/02/11

AdamC

The fact that the article had statements similar to the following:

“God does not place a perpetual safety net on the world but allows it to function and change in freedom”
“the very fact that we have a created universe”

......does show that the article is about proving the existence of god. The title of the article is “Disasters do not negate the existence of god” and is a response to a previous article denying the existence of god.

Therefore, yes, the central theme here is the existence of god.

And if anyone is going to claim that there is a god and man has a relationship or otherwise with god then they better prove god’s existence first before you can claim that any such relationship exists.

I’m still awaiting that proof.

Syl says:

10:56am | 03/02/11

Uh Stephy

The old “Prove it doent exist” argument has been stated time and time again, and is rubbish.  It is impossible to prove something doesnt exist.

If I told you there was an invisible unicorn that live in my garden could you prove it doesnt exist?  Since you cant does this mean it exists?  Or would you think I was stupid for making such a claim.  Welcome to the world of the Athiest.  (I was raised christian until I was old enough to ask questions).

The onus of proof is on those making the claim, not those refuting it.

AdamC says:

10:58am | 03/02/11

Tim the Toolman, I suppose religions do claim to have the answers to life’s questions. And countless millions of believers agree with them. How is it that you are so sure that they are wrong and you are right.

I would also point out that atheism is hardly a restraint against atrocity.

And I don’t believe that your comment applied basic logic to this issue. Rather, you claimed that a non-interventionist God is tantamount to no God, a proposition with which I don’t agree and the author addressed in his article. The bulk of your comment was a rant about how you don’t like believers because they fight each other and oppose gay marriage.

Sorry, but it’s not exactly earth-shattering stuff.

Tubesteak says:

11:02am | 03/02/11

Sammy Davis Jr
All religion is an offence to humanity and logic. Not only do they propose the most preposterous stories but they also try to force everyone else to live life their way (abortion, condoms, euthanasia being prime examples) somehow contradicting that whole “free will” thing that the article mentioned.

Stephy
If you want proof that god doesn’t exist then I suggest you head to a library that has a lot of scientific journals. Try to see if they prove that the earth and universe was created 6,000 years ago. You’ll find that they don’t. Your entire doctrine is contained within a select few books that have little support as scientific evidence.

Marc says:

11:21am | 03/02/11

@Muttly: Well said. @Bilby: if you understood the Christian faith, you’d also understand that, according to our faith, our triune (three persons in one) God sacrificed Himself at the Cross. I know you’ll probably mock this and, yes, it is hard to understand, sometimes even for Christians, but it’s what we believe. Therefore, it was self-sacrifice He made at the cross, which would normally be regarded as laudable.

notsurprised says:

11:37am | 03/02/11

JK your comment - “Any discussion involving god is an utterly futile waste of time unless someone proves god exists,” Can be rephrased as “Any discussion involving Dark Energy is an utterly futile waste of time unless someone proves Dark Energy exists. Look it up.

Sammy Davis JR says:

11:53am | 03/02/11

@ Tubesteak

Christians don’t care about atheists as much as you think.

Bilby says:

12:02pm | 03/02/11

notsurprised - The dark matter/energy theory is so close to faith it’s not funny. We can’t explain certain celestial behaviours, but if we invent this stuff that can never be seen but can only be detected by it’s effect on surrounding bodies, well that’s pretty much the argument for God isn’t it?

Trevor says:

12:08pm | 03/02/11

So, Tubesteak, by your definition there is no point in living unless you are going to have some sort of indefinable but significant impact at a point so far in the future that the human mind can barely comprehend the magnitude of the span of years between then and now? I don’t know about you, but I can only think about what a billion years really means in a purely conceptual framework.

I am perfectly content with the fact that I will probably not be remembered beyond the memory of any grandchildren I may be lucky enough to have. In fact, I have difficulty even contemplating grandchildren as my sons are not even 2 yo yet!

As far as I am concerned, my sons have already made my life significant enough to satisfy me and I don’t really need any more than that to give my life purpose or significance.

And no, grandparents many generations removed don’t mean a single think to me but I do think that they would obviously had some impact on the way in which I live my life through the transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next. It is not only physical inheritance that is explained by the Theory of Evolution but also the transmission of other traits that are benefical to a species.

Tubesteak says:

12:25pm | 03/02/11

Sammy - considering Christians spend so much time trying to force everyone else to be like them and restrict everyone’s free will, I think they care about us Atheists quite a lot.

Steve Fielding ring any bells?

Of course, it’s not fair I pick solely on Christians here so feel free to insert the word “Muslim” above.

Or if you want to find a McDonald’s in India that serves two all-beef patties then you can insert “Hindu” in the above.

Elphaba says:

12:55pm | 03/02/11

@Trevor, I’m with you.  There’s too much pressure to have your life mean something, and an expectation that you’re supposed to leave your mark on the world.  The reality is, most of us won’t leave a significant mark on the world (and I’m talking about things like Shakespeare, or Oppenheimer, not simple procreation).  And because we’re fed this idea that our lives are supposed to mean something to the greater good (and it comes from all angles - certainly not just religion), it sparks depression when it doesn’t happen.

In the end, we’re not much different to every other animal.  We’re born, we grow up, we work, pair off, procreate, retire, and die.  We are insignificant to the universe.  But that’s not a bad thing.  It means we should just turn towards ourselves, and to others, to find meaning, rather than pin our hopes on something ‘better’.

We get one chance at this, and I can’t believe it when I hear some Christians say, after intense navel gazing “This is just a prelude, there’s something much better after this life.”  WTF?  If you’re hanging out for something better, you’ve failed to see the beauty and the potential in this life, which is just sad.

When humans eventually go the way of the dinosaurs, no one is going to remember us.  When we’re dead, we’re not going to care that anyone remembered us.  Enjoy the ride, I say.

Reg says:

02:26pm | 03/02/11

Muttley, I think if you search a little further you will find I never called anyone stupid. If you interpret my suggestion that their faith seals Christians, or any religion, off from having to re-assess their beliefs, then I do not lead from the term stupid, if anything it follows. Perhaps it was in your head?

I certainly inferred that Christians like to view their faith through rose tinted glasses and that sometimes it was necessary to jolt them into the real world. Thus the simile about belief becoming acceptable under threat of hell or death. It worked with Rosie..

And pardon me…but Rosie’s and the author’s suggestions that God may be punishing Australians for failing to “believe,” supports my suggestion that belief is based on threat.  This is Dark Age stuff Muttley.

kate says:

02:54pm | 03/02/11

If you don’t want to be ridiculed, stop believing ridiculous things

Tim the Toolman says:

03:16pm | 03/02/11

“How is it that you are so sure that they are wrong and you are right.”

Here’s two reasons:

1)  Why are _you_ so sure that your god is the right one?  There have been thousands of gods throughout history.  I don’t see you worshipping Zeus or Thor or some obscure god from 6000 years ago who has faded into obscurity.  Are you seeing a pattern?  Why do you discount those religions?  Why are you so sure you are right and then hundreds of millions before you were so pathetically wrong?

2)  As you say, there are billions of religious, yet none have produced any evidence that their god (whichever one you want this time!) exists.

“Rather, you claimed that a non-interventionist God is tantamount to no God, a proposition with which I don’t agree and the author addressed in his article. “

What are you using to determine that it exists out of the infinite (and I mean that literally) possibilities of things which may exist but for which no evidence exists?  Like spontaneously combusting hamsters who briefly hold an understanding of the entire universe and only show up for less than 10?43 seconds when a small child stands on one leg and sings the macarena at exactly 4 minutes and 31 seconds past midnight on the 16th of January every 1000 years.  Why don’t you believe in the hamster?!  Why aren’t old dudes out on the street reading from books about the all knowing hamsters?  The evidence for it is irrelevant and given that it exists for shorter than the planck unit (hey, how’s that for non-interventionist) we never can obtain evidence for it.  So, logically, my self-combusting non-detectable hamster is as valid as your god. 

“Sorry, but it’s not exactly earth-shattering stuff. “

Actually, it is for a lot of people whose lives are ruined by religious judgementalism telling people how they should live (male suicide in religious areas when they find out they’re gay for example).  For the most part, all atheists want is to be left alone and for religion to not be imposed on others.

AdamC says:

04:03pm | 03/02/11

“1)  Why are _you_ so sure that your god is the right one?  There have been thousands of gods throughout history.  I don’t see you worshipping Zeus or Thor or some obscure god from 6000 years ago who has faded into obscurity.  Are you seeing a pattern?  Why do you discount those religions?  Why are you so sure you are right and then hundreds of millions before you were so pathetically wrong?”

That may be a problem if I were a Christian (which I am not) and wanted to argue the merits of my God over, say, Poseidon (thanks James1) and his Olympian colleagues. However, the multiplicity of religions that exist or have existed don’t support the atheist contention that there is no God (or Gods) at all. Actually, it bolsters the opposite view.

The fact that so many people have sought to conceptualise and engage with the divine suggests there is actually something there. People have just given it different names. 

“2)  As you say, there are billions of religious, yet none have produced any evidence that their god (whichever one you want this time!) exists.”

What, in order to convince you? And what kind of evidence do you want, anyway? What would convince you?

“For the most part, all atheists want is to be left alone and for religion to not be imposed on others. “

Whoever is allegedly imposing theor religion onto you is doing a pretty poor job, Tim. Incidentally, who is imposing it? And how? I know I haven’t had anyone impose religion on me recently. Maybe we live in different suburbs?

Stephy says:

05:06pm | 03/02/11

Tubesteak,

Scientists proving the creation theory? No, I won’t look for that. However, a quick google search has brought up scientists who did believe in God and formed their scientific theories accordingly.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

Try those out.

If you thought Issac Newton’s theories infallible, take a step back and rethink them knowing he based his research around a God existing. Prove the Big Bang theory and Newton’s First Law can coincide without complications.

Theistic evolution was even considered by Darwin (who was a Christian for a good portion of his life). There’s no reason that adding a lot of 0’s to something means God didn’t create it.

Chris L says:

11:07pm | 03/02/11

Actually, Dark Matter is a mathematical probability (not a certainty) and proving its existence (if it exists) will greatly enhance our understanding of the universe, the laws of physics and may lead to amazing invention.

Proving any deity exists would also be astounding. I don’t know why nobody is bothering to try.

I enjoy countering those who say god exists because I see flaws in their arguments. When I’m wrong I prefer to have that pointed out. I don’t get upset or act like a victim. If someone tries to say I’m wrong, but are not very convincing I’ll engage in debate (or ignore them if they’re just being obtuse) but again I don’t get upset nor act like a victim. What’s with these accusations of “forcing atheism down people’s throats”? Are we knocking door to door? Are we lobbying for bans and restrictions on other people’s lives? Are we insisting that public school students choose between listening to our story or waste and hour doing nothing?

hot tub political machine says:

01:12pm | 04/02/11

I find this discussion weird.

The Atheists here get accussed of being rude and pompous and they are like “yes -that’s true we are rude and pompus, you ignorant caveman - now if that doesn’t make you want to agree with me I don’t know what will”

Ever consider being rude is ummm…...a less convincing line of debate than politely making your point?

Tim the Toolman says:

08:57am | 03/02/11

“I s God trying to tell us something??”

Given how much christians love their paradoxes, I suggest he’s trying to tell us that he doesn’t exist.

Duff says:

08:55am | 03/02/11

Brendan, well put.  However, I disagree with your last sentiment.  Not believing in a God does not suddenly allow us to live our lives on our own terms, in my view.  We still live together in a society that has morals, rules and codes of behaviour.  We tend to attribute these to the legacy of religion whereas I think it is quite the opposite.  Societies created religions and breathed life into them.  The “directives” are not from God, but from ourselves.  These will always be there.  However, doing away with the need for a God as a symbol of the source of ourselves means that we can view ourselves, and our place in nature and history, a bit more objectively.  Do you agree?

notsurprised says:

09:32am | 03/02/11

“...everything that happens is the result of an indifferent universe run by uncompromising laws of physics.” On a side note, that’s a bold comment. The universe as we know it runs on our current understanding of physics, but this is only relative to us. What’s to say that there isn’t a whole other completely different set or sets of principles that we either haven’t discovered or don’t understand. Modern quantum physics is challenging all our preconceptions of physics.

Duff says:

10:36am | 03/02/11

I think because if we give it up (faith in God) we have to give up the belief that we are immortal souls.  By giving our intellect full reign to determine the why and what about life and our existance, we banish the comforts of our imagination to fill in the blanks.  We, literally, take a great leap into the unknown and the thought of that is scary to most of us.  “Faith” is belief in something where there are no grounds whatsoever to justify that belief other than your desire for it to be true.

The Sandwich says:

09:09am | 03/02/11

Classic. When I read the article it came across as just a fancy way to say a lot, about absolutely nothing. All the while making a lot of excuses for why the non existent does what it does, without having ever met it.

I mean seriously, there is more evidence for UFOs than there is for a god.

Tedd says:

09:45am | 03/02/11

yep, wibble about wibble.

Pixie says:

09:38am | 04/02/11

Sandwich…..your post has been the highlight of my day…Your words ring so very TRUE about the sky fairy, but I am really amazed at how many seemingly highly intelligent people are posting ILLOGICAL bullshit on this thread…hilarious!!!~

mary says:

12:13pm | 03/02/11

What is it with nonbelievers blaming the God they don’t believe in for natural disasters?

P. Darvio says:

01:37pm | 03/02/11

Its not what atheists believe in - its what religion and its followers believe in, or claim to – nice try to twist the argument but it will not work - will you take responsibility for what religion believes in and what its followers are required, by faith, to believe in?...probably not I guess.

Sammy Davis JR says:

08:58am | 03/02/11

How is it logical to believe the universe never had a beginning?

Tim the Toolman says:

09:49am | 03/02/11

“How is it logical to believe the universe never had a beginning? “

?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Steely Dan says:

10:05am | 03/02/11

@ Sammy D

How is it logical to assume that ‘the universe never had a beginning’ is the only alternative to ‘Goddidit’?  (A: It’s not, it’s a false dichotomy)

How did the universe begin?  Is ‘begin’ even a valid concept when time may not have existed ‘before’ the big bang?  These are big questions to which the answer from the scientific community is ‘we don’t know’.  Not ‘we will never know’, ‘I don’t care’ or ‘whatever answer that makes you feel warm in your tummy’.  Until you can provide some evidence that a god poofed everything into existence, your hypothesis is as valid as ‘we’re all in the matrix, dude’.

Bilby says:

10:08am | 03/02/11

Sammy Davis JR - To me that is where it gets interesting. The idea that all matter has existed for all time is *not* logical. Even if we subscribe to the theory that the universe has been going through a never ending series of big bangs, that in no way goes to explaining how it got there in the first place. I think that’s something that scientists casually ignore as they have no way of determining an answer.

Tim the Toolman says:

10:38am | 03/02/11

“I think that’s something that scientists casually ignore as they have no way of determining an answer. “

No, they don’t ignore it, they just don’t make random crap up.

Syl says:

11:17am | 03/02/11

Sammy

Who created God?  Where did he come from?  What was there before him?

You cant claim it is illogical to believe the universe never had a beginning (which most people dont agree with, and scientists are at least trying to work out), while Christianity offers no different alternative.

JK says:

09:43am | 03/02/11

Haha one of my favourite episodes. Bang on Elphaba.

Elphaba says:

10:04am | 03/02/11

@JK, what about when everyone gets to hell in the movie and the Hell Director tells them the correct answer was the Mormons? lol

Is there anything SP can’t teach us?

True Believer says:

12:41pm | 03/02/11

@Elphaba:

Still doing the “God doesn’t exist because I said so” rap are you? 

God did reveal Himself in Jesus - some of the “clever” people then denied He was who He said He was/is and still the denial persists.

He died for you, He died for me, He died for all mankind - yes it is beyond the comprehension of the carnal mind. One has to be born again as Jesus told us to have Him revealed to them, that is one has to have their spiritual eyes opened by His Holy Spirit.

Takes a humble spirit and a contrite heart - give it a try sometime, make you a much happier person. :0)

Elphaba says:

01:01pm | 03/02/11

@TB:

Clearly you haven’t read what I wrote.  Still doing the “God exists because I say so” rap?

You’re anything but humble and contrite.  You first.

True Believer says:

01:39pm | 03/02/11

@Elphaba:

What I meant was - same words different tune. :0)

You said you wanted God to reveal Himself in the flesh and I just told you He did in Jesus, but you choose ignore that fact.

As for humility - when standing up to mockers about my God, Jesus, the Bible, Christianity - nope I stand firm and my boast is in Him and Him alone. Of myself I am no more than a forgiven sinner.  Having been an unbeliever I can understand where you are coming from, sadly at this point you cannot understand where I am coming from. But it is there for you as it was for me, free gift of life and eternal life at that. You do not have to work at it, prove yourself - not for Jesus - just ask and you will receive. You have not because you ask not. Take care.

James1 says:

01:42pm | 03/02/11

For nearly two thousand years clever people have been denying the existence of Poseidon.  However, his wrath blowing in from the Coral Sea has shown that he does exist, and is powerful (and clearly annoyed with all the infidels and non-believers like you).  Prove otherwise, if you disagree.

James1 says:

02:09pm | 03/02/11

Zeus told me that Jesus was an imposter sent by Hera to confuse the Greeks, and drive them away from true religion.  Prove otherwise, if you disagree.  My gods were here first.

Elphaba says:

02:27pm | 03/02/11

@TB, so I need humilty to accept God, but I don’t have to be humble to shove the Word down other peopls’ throats?

That’s awesome.  Not only did you recently bring up the glaring inconsistency between the leap between believing in God and not believing in something equally unprovable like astrology, but you’ve managed to show a glaring inconsistency within you OWN spiritual journey.

Love it.

I didn’t say I wanted God to reveal himself, I said if he was worried about the billions that don’t believe in Him, he would reveal himself.  Obviously, because he has not revealed himself in the way one would expect (did you watch the clip?) whether people believe in Him or not is irrelevant.

I wasn’t alive 2000 years ago.  Therefore, anecdotal accounts about someone who may or may not have existed are not good enough.  I don’t choose to be an atheist to bug Christians.  I am one though because and the idea of God makes about as much logical sense (to me) as the Tooth Fairy. 

Once again - can’t believe in something just by saying “I believe”.  Belief is a little more complicated than that.

What I do wish you would do though, is misinterpreting everything I write in order to fuel your feelings of persecution.  I have never said God doesn’t exist because I say so.  I have said that I don’t believe in God.  It has nothing to do with you, or any one else.  And I’m certainly not interested in converting anyone.  I couldn’t care less.  The Punch is opinion, I stated my opinion.  That’s all there is to it, really.

JK says:

02:38pm | 03/02/11

@TB

Pronouns are generally not capitalised even when they refer to a proper noun, so, unless god is so malevolent and petty that he’d smite thee for referring to him in proper grammatical terms, save your pinky the TrOubLe.

As for the teapot tempest you’ve had here with Elphaba (proper nouns deserve capitalisation), Heyzoos has never shown up at my front door - nor has he (see? its easy :D) at Elph’s or yours for that matter - so you can hardly claim he revealed himself to us in the flesh.

Thanks for ruining the only fun thread, we were enjoying not being cereal for two seconds. Yes, Elphaba, I’m being super cereal. ManBearPig is out there! :o

Elphaba says:

02:56pm | 03/02/11

@JK, mwaaaah!  Huge compliment, thank you!

Hopefully this will funnify (hee hee) the thread again.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/150481/too-hot-for-tv#tab=related

True Believer says:

05:44pm | 03/02/11

@Elphaba
Yes you do need humility to know God - He cannot abide pride :0)  As for “people shoving the Word down everyone’s throats” as you so delicately put it - it seems it is ok for you to belittle other people’s faith, but Cjhristians are to have no voice. Is that your stance?  Ok for you try to push your unbelief and derision about our faith down our throats and you expect no replies???

Why then do you come onto the discussions where God, Jesus, religion, Christianity are the subject matter if you do not believe in God???

For your information I do not have “feelings of persecution”. Also I do not say “I believe” because I know - there is a difference. One day you will realise that is true.  :0)

@JK :  I use capitals because I respect my God, my Lord and who He is.  I know Him, you obviously don’t.  Perhaps respect is a foreign concept to you?

“Thanks for ruining the only fun thread”

If you think ridiculing God and the faith of Christians is clever or funny you have a rather wierd sense of humour.  True comedy comes from laughing with people, not at them. 

Perhaps you would find more kindred souls in the kindergarten section of the net.  There you would not have to think deeply. :0)  Take Elphaba with you. :0)

.

Elphaba says:

07:38pm | 03/02/11

@TB - I don’t belittle faith or religion.  I question it.  Never have I belittled it.  Never have I said that religion should be wiped from the Earth.  Never have a said that people who believe in religion need their heads examined.  You twist my words.

Since when did I have to believe in God to have an opinion on it?  Seriously?  I can’t comment on this thread because I’m an atheist?  Get stuffed, I’ll comment on whatever I like!  This is an opinion blog.  Not a fact blog.  Get over yourself.

You do shove your beliefs down people’s throats.  You constantly tell me I am a deficient person because I don’t know God.  How is that ok?  You know nothing about my journey.  I don’t call you a deficient person because of your faith.  I call you a hypocrite, but it wouldn’t matter what the subject was - you clearly believe there is one set of rules for you, and another set for everyone else who doesn’t agree with you.  It’s a very narrow intolerant view of the world, no matter what your spiritual backing.

I comment on a wide variety of topics on the Punch.  If you participated on those threads, you would see that.  But you only comment on the religious ones.  Is that because you’ve got nothing else to talk about?  Weren’t you griping about leaving The Punch the other day?  I’m not going anywhere, so you better get used to it.

You continue to engage me, and then you get all huffy when you don’t hear what you want to hear, and then (even worse), rewrite what I say because you can’t actually effectively debate me on what I DO say.  So, here’s an idea: Stop enagaging me, and you won’t hear peep (directed at you, TB, personally) outta me.  Otherwise, Suck.  It.  Up.  People are going to disagree with you.  And if you want to keep engaging me on everything I say, interpret everything I say incorrectly, and expose your hypocrisy and double standards for all to see (and I’m not the first to call you on that) I will continue to embarrass you in front of all these people.

Your choice.

True Believer says:

08:45am | 04/02/11

@Elphaba

Methinks thou does protest too much.

You do not embarrass me I assure you, get it off your chest if you must. Accuse me of every old thing - water off a duck’s back because you and I know it is untrue. Cheers, have a great day.

Trevor says:

09:53am | 04/02/11

Elphaba,
Trying to have a discussion with someone like True Believer is the conversational equivalent of trying to have a discussion with someone who sticks their fingers in their ears, closes their eyes and yells “La la la I can’t hear you la la la!” at the top of their voice.

You could offer True Believer 100% incontrovertible proof (if such a thing could be produced) and the response would still be “Nope, I don’t accept that because I know better.”

Some people are just a waste of energy…

Keep fighting the good fight.

Elphaba says:

10:37am | 04/02/11

@Trevor, cheers mate.

This isn’t about what TB believes, it’s about TB’s intolerance of anyone different to her, and her double standards.  Whilst ever she continues to chase me down on The Punch because of her weird fixation on me, I will continue to expose her for the hypocritical, judgemental, intolerant, and woeful representative of the many wonderful Christians out there that she is.

If he thinks I’m bad, she needs to get a little George Carlin.  And that man was a Roman Catholic (and incidently, a serious rib-tickler).

My post was light-hearted, thoughtful, and not incendiery towards Christians or religion in any way.  But apparently, religion is above reproach.  Apparently, we can’t make a lighthearted poke at God.  I don’t think so.  I’m an equal opportunity questioner and offender. 

She can end this.  She can make friends with the scroll button.  I gave her an out.

I’ve enjoyed your posts on this topic too Trev, nice work.

True Believer says:

11:02am | 04/02/11

@Elphaba and Trevor

You guys make me laugh you really do - so typical, so predictable. No matter - keeps a smile on my face. :0)

I have probably read, listened, learned and studied more alternatives to believing in God than you can poke a stick at - but like the old advert used to say “when you are on a good thing stick to it.” Well I am sticking to my Lord cos I know He is sticking with me, in Him is life.

You cannot better what He has to offer - not religion by the way, I am not interested at all in religion (most of them are man-made). Jesus is not religion and religion is not Jesus.  Some of it may be about Him, but sadly there are many who talk about him, but do not actually know Him.

Anyone can know Him - you guys choose not to, you cling to your atheism - which really offers not much at all if anything. Your problem not mine.

I prefer the love, faithfullness, forgiveness, joy, hope, promises of being one of His.  Tis there for you too, no big works, no striving, no cleverness, just the humility to put your hand in His.  You will never regret it.

If that bothers atheists, too bad, I am not going anywhere unless He calls me Home. Then you can try to irritate other Christians. Take care, I wish you well. :0)

Elphaba says:

11:28am | 04/02/11

Hey TB - you know what they say about assumptions, right? 

See ya ‘round.

True Believer says:

12:41pm | 04/02/11

@Elphaba:

Whatever, :0) - have a great weekend. See you next blog -

Incidentally,  I do read other subjects on Punch and occasionally post, but funny as it may sound to you, I rather like the crowd who come in here, even if I don’t agree with them very often nor they with me. 

I find their reasoning interesting and not a little provocative - good start to a discussion don’t you think?  I never take it personally. Too long in the tooth for that.  :0)

Tedd says:

09:58am | 03/02/11

The adults’ question being “Why would God let bad things happen if he existed?”

AdamC says:

10:02am | 03/02/11

Tedd, how would that change the answer?

Mema says:

02:33pm | 03/02/11

Nothing doesn’t exist
The universe was created by Nothing
God created the universe
Ergo, God doesn’t exist

Luke says:

12:27am | 08/02/11

“nothing does not exist in this universe.
the universe was created by nothing
god created the universe
ergo, god doesnt exist in this universe

Steely Dan says:

04:52pm | 08/02/11

@ Luke

“ergo, god doesnt exist in this universe”
Ergo, any claim that God exists is pure speculation.  The null hypothesis sounds like a good option.

Tim the Toolman says:

09:43am | 03/02/11

“Tory seems to think that the abandonment of religion will lead to a more progressive world and some seem to claim athiesm as progressive enlightenment.”

I sincerely hope you aren’t homosexual, never need euthanasia or never need an organ transplant amongst many other things the religious hold political sway over.

Muttley says:

11:17am | 03/02/11

Tim, you seem to have missed Freemans point. Live and let live. And just because there are SOME on the other side that dont act with maturity or acceptance, how does that make it right for you to do so? Using the childish behaviour of the religious extremists to explain bad behaviour in reply is not imorving the situation. That just perpetuates the cycle of hate. I’m an athiest, but i am confident and secure enough in my outlook that i dont need to tear down others beliefs to reinforce my own..

Steely Dan says:

11:20am | 03/02/11

@ Freeman

“Religion has has helped develop civilization, values and good guidlines for life.”
Has it?  This sounds like the ‘genetic fallacy’ - religion was there all along so it’s got to be responsible for the development of society.  And I’d love to hear your take on how Deuteronomy 22:13-21 helps society develop.  The bad parts of the major religious texts are horrifying, and the good bits are unoriginal and obvious.

“If you really value tolerance then let people beleive what they want to beleive.”
I’m not forcing anybody to stop believing anything.  That’s the type of anti-secular crap you get from theocracies on one side and totalitarian communists on the other.  But I think that the world would be a better place without religion, just as Christians think the world would be a better place if everyone was one of their denomination.  We both have the right to talk about our differences, try and convert/‘deconvert’ each other, as well as the right to completely ignore comments in The Punch or turn away proselytisers from our doors.

“I feel no need to point out to beleivers that the teachings of the bible are contradicted by archeology.”
And that isn’t a disservice to archeology?  Why protect religion at the expense of archeology?  Why is any claim that invokes gods beyond criticism?

“No one can really explain what happened before the Big Bang (something caused it) so no one should be dismissing anyones beleifs.”
Therefore any answer we can think of is worthy of respect?  Come on.

I also find the ‘I’m an atheist but the religious people need god to function’ line arrogant.  I have major disagreements with some religious people, but I’d never treat them like exposing them to facts and concepts would melt their minds as if they’re all halfwits.

Syl says:

11:45am | 03/02/11

Imagine all the other things those societies could have devoloped if they didnt spend one day a week and god knows how many extra hours in pointless worship.
Religion didnt develop societies, values and guidelines, people did.

mary says:

12:22pm | 03/02/11

Thank you Freeman. More tolerant atheists should speak up so that atheists as a whole don’t present themselves as a ‘bunch of haters of everyone with religious views.’

The majority of people (in Australia and the world) believe in God and don’t hate atheists for having their own beliefs.

It’s nice to hear from a atheist who isn’t that insecure that he/she feels the need to ridicule other people’s views.

Freeman says:

12:59pm | 03/02/11

Tim the Toolman,
not all opposition to Homosexuality, transplants or euthenasia comes from religious people and there are religious people that are all for it in all three cases. and despite the fact the vatican has been vocal on these issues in the past, what influence do they really have, and just what measure are they taking to stop them?

Steely Dan,

I don’t read the bible but you can’t dispute that the majority of religions have moral codes that require ethical treatment of fellow man, no doubt from time when there was little in the way of moral code. I know that some pretty digusting things have been done in the name of religion but to be fair in most cases the religion has been manipulated and exploited by a tyrant. there has also been many attrocities commited by athiests. some of these same athiests (such as stalin) persecuted the religious and introduced the anti religious mantra that you repeat now.

Dan, You are not simply disagreeing with beleives, you are
Ridiculing them and at least some people here are calling for religion to be abandoned. I say let religion die out in it’s own time. I feel, as many surely do, that I could make a very good argument to say that god does not exist. I just don’t see the need to ridicule the religious as many here do

Steely Dan says:

01:54pm | 03/02/11

@ Freeman

“you can’t dispute that the majority of religions have moral codes that require ethical treatment of fellow man”
You mean the ethical treatment of some people, some times.

“no doubt from time when there was little in the way of moral code.”
Why do you say that?

“to be fair in most cases the religion has been manipulated and exploited by a tyrant.”
Most of the time the only ‘manipulation’ that’s required is emphasis.  Where Obama emphasises the nice parts of the Sermon on the Mount, Hitler emphasised all the anti-Jewish passages of the Bible.  I’m yet to find a way that atheism can be exploited for tyrannical ends.

“there has also been many attrocities commited by athiests.”
Of course.  Nobody suggested that atheists can’t commit atrocities, or be duped into supporting a tyrannical regime.  We’re not immune to bad thinking or atrocity simply because we don’t buy god claims.  But I am saying that I can see no causal link between not believing in a god and tyranny.

“some of these same athiests (such as stalin) persecuted the religious and introduced the anti religious mantra that you repeat now.”
The ‘anti-religious mantra’ is a lot older than Stalin!  It’s not like Karl Marx invented atheism.  Believing that we’d be better off all being atheists does not necessarily lead to persecuting religion, just as Seventh Day Adventists wishing everybody was a SDA doesn’t necessarily lead them to persecute everybody who isn’t an SDA.
I’m a secularist.  That means I support freedom of religion and freedom from religion.  Beware of people who don’t respect the separation of church and state, whether they’re theists or atheists.

“You are not simply disagreeing with beleives, you are
Ridiculing them”
I do ridicule the ridiculous, occassionally.  It happens all the time on this site, not just on religious topics.  Ridiculous statements invite and receive ridicule. 

“and at least some people here are calling for religion to be abandoned.”
I’m one of them.  I’m not going to force people to leave their religions though.

“I say let religion die out in it’s own time.”
You don’t think people pointing out the absurdity of religious beliefs and questioning believers helps?  Most people who leave religion do so at times when they move away from their religious environment - when they go to school, uni, move town etc.  Don’t expose people to new ideas and they’re very unlikely to take the effort to examine their beliefs.

Likes Joining Dots says:

02:43pm | 03/02/11

@Freeman

You have made several claims and fortunately Steely Dan has addressed those sterlingly.

Just a couple of things I have yet to get my head around - what exactly is a left wing atheist? Where was the ‘special hatred of christianity’ in what Tory wrote? Disagreement and hatred are not quite the same thing.

I’m all for tolerance of peoples beliefs, but are you sure you are the atheist you profess to be? It’s just this weird feeling of deja vu I’m picking up on.

Tim the Toolman says:

03:22pm | 03/02/11

“but i am confident and secure enough in my outlook that i dont need to tear down others beliefs to reinforce my own.. “

Nor do I. 

You’re all not getting it.  “Live and let live” is NEVER in a religious code.  Live our way or “we tax you/kill you/legislate you to behave in our way” is the religious code.  It’s all through their damn books if people just read them or watch their actions in the world.  Make no mistake, given a chance, any religion in the world would happily change a country to a theocracy if it thought it could get away with it and enforce their rules on everyone living there (or kill them, or tax them, or perhaps a little of both).

AdamC says:

03:40pm | 03/02/11

Tim the Toolman, you are clearly paranoid about religious people.

“Make no mistake, given a chance, any religion in the world would happily change a country to a theocracy if it thought it could get away with it and enforce their rules on everyone living there (or kill them, or tax them, or perhaps a little of both). “

This statement is exhibit A. Are you contending that, for example, the founding fathers of the United States were secretly atheists? Or are you prepared to retract your smear and accept that Christians are quite able to restrain themselves from creating theocracies?

Freeman says:

03:56pm | 03/02/11

Dan,

I didn’t say marx was the first athiest but stalin really did up the anti against Christians.

“You don’t think people pointing out the absurdity of religious beliefs and questioning believers helps”

not really, you will most likely just make them defensive.

Calling for the abandonment of religion is not tolerant of the religious, just like calling for homosexual activity to cease would not be tolerant of homosexuals.

Tedd says:

04:24pm | 03/02/11

How much Stalin really upped “the anti” depends on a number of views about his seminary education, the way he brought religion back into Russian society in WW2, and his own ongoing religiosity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Religious_beliefs_and_policies

Steely Dan says:

04:45pm | 03/02/11

@ Freeman

“I didn’t say marx was the first athiest”
Sorry, that bit was supposed to be tongue in cheek.

“but stalin really did up the anti against Christians.”
Sure - but that doesn’t make him the first to persecute religions, nor does it make all those who would like religion to disappear Stalin-esque.  I don’t want to ban religion or kill the religious, I want them to realise that religions make no sense.

“not really, you will most likely just make them defensive.”
I disagree.  Some theists (creationists spring to mind) are almost completely impervious to reason, but their pathetic apologetic responses often make more reasonable theists (the majority) examine their own beliefs to ensure that they don’t look as silly - and that frequently leads people to dump their religion altogether.  And many reasonable theists aren’t so stubborn that they can’t be convinced logically.

“Calling for the abandonment of religion is not tolerant of the religious”
I’m not tolerant of bad thinking.  Just as anybody who wants me to be religious is not tolerant of atheism.

“just like calling for homosexual activity to cease would not be tolerant of homosexuals”
That’s an unfair comparison.  I’m not intolerant of something that’s not a choice and, more importantly, hurts absolutely no-one.  That’s one of the reasons why I’d never bother trying to ‘de-convert’ a deist - I disagree that a deistic god exists, but a non-interventionist god doesn’t tell believers to crush the infidels, burn the gays and stone those who have sex outside of marriage.

Freeman says:

08:43am | 04/02/11

Dan,

I agree with some of your points but not all of them. I wasn’t saying that you have the same motives or approach as stalin did in your calling for the end of religion but you, like many, present a very one sided view as stalin did. you fail to aknowledge any of the good religious groups have done and are still doing in the community. I just don’t like to see well meaning people who give a lot to the community being slapped in the face by some and I find myself coming to the defense of something I have no real interest in.

Likes-joining-dots (love the name, are you friends with ‘Runs-with-scissors’?) left wing athiests are the more hysterical, vocal, left leaning athiests who see religion as a conservative road block in the path to the ultra progressive world they believe we are headed for. as you can see I like to compare them to communists. I find their agressive manner off-putting. my opinion of Tory has not been formed by any one article but over many. read over them and you may notice a bit of a theme. I.E, it’s ok to attack Christian religions but others don’t get mentioned.

Steely Dan says:

10:16am | 04/02/11

@ Freeman

“...but you, like many, present a very one sided view as stalin did.”
Like Mother Theresa did?  She hardly ever spoke publicly about the benefits or arguments for atheism.  She was very one-sided.  But you chose to align me with Stalin.  Stalin!  Can you see why I’m not happy about that?

“you fail to aknowledge any of the good religious groups have done and are still doing in the community.”
I don’t deny that religious groups can do real, non-metaphysical good for the community.  But so can non-religious organisations.  Do you really think that people who leave religion will somehow become uncharitable and immoral, so we should just leave them to their delusions just in case they start killing people once they find out there’s no deity observing them?  Again, I think that’s condescending.  I have more faith (so to speak) in human beings than that.

“I just don’t like to see well meaning people who give a lot to the community being slapped in the face”
I’m not slapping them, I’m slapping a belief they hold.  I’ve had dumb ideas slapped out of me before, and it didn’t hurt.

And I hope you notice that my responses are only as strongly worded as the comments I’m responding to.  It’s not like I stand outside churches on a Sunday morning screaming at little old ladies.

Freeman says:

01:04pm | 04/02/11

hehe,
yes Dan, I can see it is not fair to compare you to such a Tyrant. I just like to go to the opposite extremes when people such as tim the tool man get hystercical over past injustices by individual denominations and apply guilt to all faith. I can see that you conduct yourself much better than many on this thread though. you make some fair points too.

Steely Dan says:

01:42pm | 04/02/11

@ Freeman

“yes Dan, I can see it is not fair to compare you to such a Tyrant. I just like to go to the opposite extremes when people such as tim the tool man”
What’s he got to do with me?  Are you trying to teach somebody else a lesson by committing their errors with me?

Steely Dan says:

02:24pm | 04/02/11

@ Tedd

Some good points about Stalin, you’re right about his relationship with religion being complex.  It seems it’s a common thread amongst tyrants that God and the state (or leader) be meshed together, usually at the expense of free exercise of religion (excluding those who actually worship the regime-God) and non-religion alike.  Stalin flip-flopping from banning religion to insituting a state religion sounds like pure control-freak to me.

Tim the Toolman says:

03:41pm | 04/02/11

“I just like to go to the opposite extremes when people such as tim the tool man get hystercical over past injustices by individual denominations and apply guilt to all faith.”

Yes, murder, torture, genocide discrimination etc…is nothing to get upset about.  Not if you’re religious, at least.  After all, you have an afterlife, and as long as you stick to murdering your “Religion Approved Victims TM” then it’s all good!

And as for the founding fathers of the US, do your research please.  Most of them were at worst, deists believeing in an impersonal god.  They weren’t for the most part, christians.  *shakes head*  It’s the religious nutbags trying to influence politics now that are the issue, and you take issue with me for speaking out against organised groups trying to dictate to others how to live!  Bah!

Freeman, says:

10:51am | 05/02/11

Dan, it was not necessary for me to compare you to stalin but I did anyway, that’s as much of a concession as you’ll get from me. I maintain, however, that many people attack religion purely because of their socialist or progressive beliefs. Stalin first outlawed religion to allow socialism to flourish (in his view, socialism and religion could not exist in the same community and he was probably right?) and many people haven’t given up on socialism yet. Stalin ran much propaganda against religion that is not so different to the arguments that can be found on this page which in my view blames the religion rather than the people who exploited the religions. people that may well have found another excuse to go to war if not in the name of religion. Hitlers motives were racist ones. he wanted a germany free from jews as he saw them becoming all too influencial and organised in germany. in his views they were taking all the good goverment jobs and establishing their own order. the nazi’s used christianity in their propaganda but ethnic cleansing would have taken place in any case while the nazi’s were in control.

Tim the Toolman, I don’t remember making any coment about the founding fathers of the U.S.? please rememind me? as I explained above, lots of terrible things have been don IN THE NAME of religion. terrible things that may well have taken place anyway, just under a different banner.

Steely Dan says:

12:45pm | 05/02/11

@ Freeman

“it was not necessary for me to compare you to stalin but I did anyway, that’s as much of a concession as you’ll get from me.”
Thanks, Vlad the Impaler (that wasn’t necessary either, but I had to try it.  I can see the attraction.)

“I maintain, however, that many people attack religion purely because of their socialist or progressive beliefs.”
I’m for freedom of and from religion.  Is that too ‘socialist’ for you?

“Stalin first outlawed religion to allow socialism to flourish”
And later he went to the opposite end and approved a state church.  What’s your point?  You’re right, bringing Stalin into this really wasn’t necessary.

“Stalin ran much propaganda against religion that is not so different to the arguments that can be found on this page”
Guess what, Freeman?  Stalin wasn’t a bad guy because he didn’t like religion.  Not liking religion isn’t an atrocity.  Stalin is a bad guy (one of the reasons, anyway) because of what he did to religions.  What have I done to religions?  Made dismissive comments on the internet?  Gee, in hindsight the similarity between Stalin and myself is obvious.  We’re virtually the same person!

“people that may well have found another excuse to go to war if not in the name of religion.”
Of course.  But do you think it’s never been a contributing factor?

“Hitlers motives were racist ones.”
And the anti-Semitism of the German Lutheran tradition had nothing to do with it?  You don’t see that Christians believing the Jews killed Jesus may raise some inter-religious conflict?  All Hitler’s God references in Mein Kampf was just a distraction from his entirely non-religious motives?  And even if you answer ‘yes’ to the last question - the fact that an entire nation was motivated to racist imperialism partly by religion is enough to consider dumping it.

“Tim the Toolman, I don’t remember making any coment about the founding fathers of the U.S.?”
It was Like Joining Dots, TtT.

Steely Dan says:

12:47pm | 05/02/11

@ Freeman

“it was not necessary for me to compare you to stalin but I did anyway, that’s as much of a concession as you’ll get from me.”
Thanks, Vlad the Impaler (that wasn’t necessary either, but I had to try it.  I can see the attraction.)

“I maintain, however, that many people attack religion purely because of their socialist or progressive beliefs.”
I’m for freedom of and from religion.  Is that too ‘socialist’ for you?

“Stalin first outlawed religion to allow socialism to flourish”
And later he went to the opposite end and approved a state church.  What’s your point?  You’re right, bringing Stalin into this really wasn’t necessary.

“Stalin ran much propaganda against religion that is not so different to the arguments that can be found on this page”
Guess what, Freeman?  Stalin wasn’t a bad guy because he didn’t like religion.  Not liking religion isn’t an atrocity.  Stalin is a bad guy (one of the reasons, anyway) because of what he did to religions.  What have I done to religions?  Made dismissive comments on the internet?  Gee, in hindsight the similarity between Stalin and myself is obvious.  We’re virtually the same person!

“people that may well have found another excuse to go to war if not in the name of religion.”
Of course.  But do you think it’s never been a contributing factor?

“Hitlers motives were racist ones.”
And the anti-Semitism of the German Lutheran tradition had nothing to do with it?  You don’t see that Christians believing the Jews killed Jesus may raise some inter-religious conflict?  All Hitler’s God references in Mein Kampf was just a distraction from his entirely non-religious motives?  And even if you answer ‘yes’ to the last question - the fact that an entire nation was motivated to racist imperialism partly by religion is enough to consider dumping it.

“Tim the Toolman, I don’t remember making any coment about the founding fathers of the U.S.?”
It was Like Joining Dots, TtT.

Freeman says:

05:09pm | 05/02/11

“Thanks, Vlad the Impaler”
ouch, was that really warranted? Please, I prefer to be addressed as Dracula.

Urghhhh, you miss my point about stalin, socialism and religion entirely. I am not saying that everyone who opposes religion is evil or guilty of attrocity.what I am saying is that when socialists and ultra-progressives attack religion and exagerate religions role in the darkest parts of history, it is not because they wish to correct the wrongs of the past, it is because they see it as an obstruction to instilling their preferred values.
“But do you think it’s never been a contributing factor?” perhaps it has, but truthfully, communities throughout history have never really been accepting of other races, ethnicities, tribes, whoever. I would argue that they would have gone to war anyway.
“You don’t see that Christians believing the Jews killed Jesus may raise some inter-religious conflict?” probably some discussion but hardly the catalyst for ethnic cleansing or else their would of been more objection to jewish migration to begin with. the entire country was not not motivated for ethnic cleansing, Germany was hardly a democracy after the Nazi’s took power. as i understand the true catalyst was unemployment for germans during the depression and a widening class gap between jews and other germans.

religion bashing may be a fun sport but it is uneccessary.
I see religion dying out in comming generations and when it does, conservatives will still be conservative.

James1 says:

09:55am | 03/02/11

Maybe it is just Poseidon’s way of telling us that we need to drop the import restrictions on bananas, allow free trade in them, and put the agrarian socialists out of business?

Bilby says:

10:16am | 03/02/11

No James1. He is telling us that we have taken bananas for granted for too long. We must invest in a banana recovery program, possibly supported by a levy.

Reg says:

10:38am | 03/02/11

James1 I think you have paid insufficient regard to the possibility of cane-toads being representatives of the devil.

The moment has come for the uprising with the cyclone a mere blind for concealing the disembarkation of reinforcements. If you don’t believe me, then just watch as they cover the landscape with their rude incantations as the rainwater recedes.  F-uck f-uck. f-uck. times a million.

James1 says:

10:59am | 03/02/11

Bilby,

I will organise a focus group.  Maybe we should start looking into forming a Poseidon’s Will on Banana Recovery Levy Public Consultative Committee.

Bilby says:

11:45am | 03/02/11

James1 - I am humbly prepared to chair that committee, but I should warn you that my rates are exorbitant and it will take some years before we fail to reach consensus.

Bilby says:

10:21am | 03/02/11

So Satan won, and Jesus lost. Over the millenia the God team has made no impact and Satan continues to hold sway. That sounds like an omnipotent being to me. Maybe instead of Christianity we should call it Richmond AFC.

Sludger says:

10:33am | 03/02/11

No Bilby, that was not the point of the passage.  Actually in that little part, Satan lost.  As for winning overall, how would I know? I haven’t seen the end.  And I am in paricular rush to do so.  And I would rank the tussle as more St Kilda FC than Richmond (so close and yet…..)    And thanks to Grendel’s post I am now vowing never to eat bananas again.

Bilby says:

11:16am | 03/02/11

Sludger - I’m no fan of Christianity (obviously) but even I think it’s insulting to compare it to St Kilda (and they’re my second team).

Kyra says:

12:49pm | 03/02/11

But if you ascribe to the whole god being Jesus and Jesus being God, wasn’t Satan offering Jesus the world that Jesus created (as God)? So if as you say God (Jesus) passed the buck on the world to Satan, isn’t that a little like a dodgy carsalesman selling you a bomb then refusing to give you a refund when it breaks down just outside the car lot? Was Jesus (God) refusing to accept a return on shoddy merchandise?

Atheism/Theism aside, you may also like to rephrase that as an accepted hypothesis, not an accepted theory. For example it is hypothesised that god exists and handed the world to Satan to test our faith. The Null hypothesis would be that God does not exist in order to prove that God exists you must disprove the Null hypothesis. For something to be a theory it must be proven, gravity for example is a theory.

Reg says:

08:57pm | 07/02/11

@Kyra.  “For something to be a theory it must be proven, gravity for example is a theory.”  By which you understand of course, that it has been proven?

That Jesus refused rather than simply dismissed the offer, does not mean that it has been proven that Satan has the run of the world. It is an hypothesis still and the writers and interpreters have yet to prove their whimsical contention. Pretty difficult when you can’t be certain of anything written or spoken through a fallible human in a book of conflicting stories.

The Sky Fairy (Spaghetti Monster) is from a story that seeks to parallel the weaknesses of the God Delusion.

Perhaps your feeling that some are being rather hateful about all this, is because many do feel that certain religious people offend against God in the manner by which they manipulate their children by imposing their own beliefs on them. Beliefs that are at best unbelievable.

Tim the Toolman says:

09:54am | 03/02/11

“Quantum physics has shown all of this to be fundamentally true. “

Please don’t do that.  Claim whatever you want in your religion, but don’t try and drag quantum physics into this unless you’re prepared to back it up with the math.

Grendel says:

10:22am | 03/02/11

Hear Hear Tim the Toolman - I’m getting damn sick of people claiming Quantum Physics supports their viewpoint when all they know of the science is the name of the theory.

Steely Dan says:

10:24am | 03/02/11

‘Appeal to quantum physics’ needs to be formally recognised as a fallacy.  It’s used by people who don’t understand it like a substitute for ‘magic’.

Thommo says:

10:24am | 03/02/11

See you’ve made another classical assumption error. that Buddhism is somehow a religion. It is not. It is metaphysics. I could point you to any number of texts that evaluate the metaphysics of buddhism in the light of modern quantum theory. At the core is the princiapl of fundamental unity. We live in an analog universe not a discrete digital one. There are no tiny independent building blocks.

Tim the Toolman says:

10:45am | 03/02/11

“that Buddhism is somehow a religion.”

It’s a religion.  Don’t get me wrong, I dislike buddhism less than I dislike most other religions, but that doesn’t matter much.  The point is, it makes untestable claims and proclaims to hold the secrets to life, the universe and everything which exist in untestable realms (regardless of the buddha saying that you should test everything he says…).  Name one way we can empirically test reincarnation/the existence of other realms? 

As for the rest of your post, you just repeated what you said earlier in different words, but I notice a distinct lack of maths or even observational evidence that in any way links whatever form of god you’ve chosen with quantum physics.  Feel free to post the books…there’s a good chance I’ve read them already, as I do enjoy a bit of Sun Tsu’s teachings.

Steely Dan says:

10:49am | 03/02/11

@ Thommo

“I could point you to any number of texts that evaluate the metaphysics of buddhism in the light of modern quantum theory.”
Please do.  These are peer-reviewed physics articles, right?

Paul says:

10:01am | 03/02/11

Hear Hear Benrama…sort of says it all really.

Muttley says:

11:22am | 03/02/11

Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras. Three great thinkers of the period whose writings are still quoted. Shall we throw those babies out with the bathwater?

Syl says:

11:58am | 03/02/11

Muttley

They also had theories that can still be tested and proven today.  (i.e. Pythagoras).  The bible has no such basis.  These men also sought knowledge of things they didn’t understand.

Please try comparing apples with apples.

Benrama says:

12:23pm | 03/02/11

Muttley.
Of course you’re right, in that there are great thinkers from the past whose views and ideas are just as pertinent today. However, the fundamental difference between your examples and those found in religious texts is that the ideas, theories and formulas presented by Plato et al, are ascribed as their own. The books of Socrates are literally his own ideas and and modern society treats them as such. The writings of the Christian Bible or the Koran though written by men, are said to be the word word of God. There is huge difference between saying “This is what I reckon” vs “This is what GOD reckons”.

Straight Talk says:

03:06pm | 05/02/11

READ ALL ABOUT IT !

Jesus said: “if you follow my teachings you are truly my disciples. You will KNOW the truth and the truth will set you free.”  John 8.31.32

Seek, and you will find.

He is “The way, The Truth, and The Life”  John 14.6

Tim the Toolman says:

10:08am | 03/02/11

“If it’s all the same, I’ll leave infallible dependancy on a doctrine that isn’t changing daily.”

So, I’m assuming you believe the earth is still flat, that you’ll fall off if you try and sail around?  The fact that science changes is it’s strength, not a weakness.

Elphaba says:

10:41am | 03/02/11

@Stephy, science has never claimed to have all the answers, only that it is interested in finding them.  Science can be held up to ridicule, and scrutiny, and all it does is make the people behind the scenes work harder.  They don’t take offence.

Religion gets held up to scrutiny, and ridicule, and believers are up in arms and gnashing their teeth.  Why can’t it be questioned?  We humans, by our very nature, question.  We humans, by our very nature, seek for something better, as demonstrated by our ingenuity, and our refusal to accept a status quo (eg manipulating our environment to suit us).  Why must religion be exempt from our critical gaze?

Our universe is not consistent - it never has been.  Our planet and the surrounding universe is a constant state of push-pull, not an equilibrium.  How can a consistent explanation as given by the Bible possibly provide all the answers in a world that is anything but consistent?

Luce says:

11:55am | 03/02/11

Jesus Stephy, you’re displaying enormous ignorance not just about science and the scientific method, but about religion itself. Learn a bit about the history of religion and you will see that all religions (including christianity) change almost daily as well in accordance with changes in the particular society in which they exist.

A perfect example: it wasn’t until the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD (300 years after the death of christ) that it was decided BY MAN that Jesus was divine. Before this no one, not even jesus himself, claimed to be divine, he simply claimed to be delivering a divine message. Yet man changed that, changed the scriptures, and suddenly it becomes “fact”. And the reason this was done was because Emperor Constantine knew he would better be able to control the population of Rome if he declared it a Christian state rather then a pagan one, as it used to be. How very spiritual of him.

Syl says:

12:04pm | 03/02/11

Stephy

Last I heard the Christians were no longer stoning people or murdering witches.  Sounds like change to me.

The fact that you would rather blindly follow one, unproven, idea,  than be interested in a system that actively seeks the truth.  That discards ideas when they are proven false and constantly moves forward is a sad indication of the religious masses.  If you think people 2000 years ago knew more about the world than they do now you are seriously deluded.

I guess ignorance is bliss.

mary says:

12:30pm | 03/02/11

With you all the way Stephy. Science by their own admission claims to ‘know’ 4% of all there is to know.. What they ‘know’ is due to theories, deductions, propositions etc.

God tells us to treat each other with love and kindness.

I know who I’d rather go with.

Steely Dan says:

12:57pm | 03/02/11

@ mary

“I know who I’d rather go with.”
It’s the answer with the least thinking involved, right?  Science seeks truth, religions say they have it but they can’t find the receipt.

Kyra says:

01:06pm | 03/02/11

Mary, I know why we treat each other with kindness, because the “anterior insula seems to play a crucial part in the willingness to reject unfair outcomes, and reward-related circuits involving the ventral
and dorsal striatum seem to be important for human cooperation and the punishment of norm violations” (Fehr & Rockenbach, 2004)
Don’t we all love dopamine!!!
http://brainimaging.waisman.wisc.edu/~perlman/papers/AltruisticReward/Ernst Fehr 2004 Human altruism—- economic, neural, and evolutionary perspectives.pdf

Altruism is also likely to have a genetic basis
http://www.reproductive-revolution.com/comt-altruism.pdf
Martin Reuter,1,2 Clemens Frenzel,1 Nora T. Walter,1 Sebastian Markett,1 and Christian Montag.(2010). Investigating the genetic basis of altruism:the role of the COMT Val158Met polymorphism. Published by Oxford University Press.

So we are altruistic and kind because we genetically predisposed to be and this is influenced by environmental factors. That seems most likely to me.

rufus says:

02:35pm | 03/02/11

Weeeell - in Galileo’s time the church believed strongly that the earth was the centre of the universe and woe betide anyone who held otherwise.

Switch to C21st - some christian sects still ban women from the priesthood and the power structures of the church while others welcome women into the clergy and others can’t decide.

So - ‘infallible dependency on a doctrine that isn’t changing daily’? Hardly.

Stephy says:

05:11pm | 03/02/11

Kyra,

Do you believe that emotion/thought stimulates the chemicals in your brain, or the other way around? If you believe that chemicals induce emotion, then we’re nothing but functional beings. If you believe emotion fuels chemicals, then there’s a higher plane of existence other than just chemicals teeming through the body (and organs and blood etc).

When you dissect a human body, do you find any ideas?

Stephy says:

05:14pm | 03/02/11

Rufus:

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo’s telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one “proof” based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope’s favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo’s) was very offended. After the “trial” and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

Stephy says:

05:50pm | 03/02/11

From the replies I’ve received to this, I’ve got the feeling I came across the wrong way.

I’ve been made out to look like some anti-science bigot. That’s not the case at all.

Science is a wonderful thing. It should be pursued and encouraged. The many medical wonders we have access to today are a result of science. Learning how the earth moves and changes is beneficial to us. In no way is science evil.

What I DON’T like - and tried to get across in the post - is the unwavering belief in anything science comes up with. As pointed out, methods have to be tried, tested and proven to work. The fact is, most people skip the middle man and take the theories as fact before the trying, testing and proving has happened. Science is pursued (and theories founded) by humans. Humans aren’t always right, especially when dealing with the unknown. So why don’t people take scientific theories with a pinch of salt? So far, all I’ve read is “Science disproves God etc blah blah”. Science isn’t perfect. The theories provided aren’t perfect. some of them are laughable. A fair few contradict each other. So far, sounds like Christian theories, yes? But people still stand by science being “right” regardless of proof (even when contradicted with other scientific methods). Why are Christians stupid and ignorant for believing something the same way as athiests view science (and scientists)?

Elphaba says:

07:47pm | 03/02/11

Erm, Stephy, I don’t know about other atheists, but I can say for myself, that if a scientist proposes a theory, I wait for the tried and tested data to come out before I start believing it.

Science proposes plenty of theories that make my bullshit-meter sit up and take notice.  The difference with the Bible and religion as a whole, is that it says “This happened.  Trust me.” and leaves it at that.  No replication.  No revised data.  You’ve got the Bible, and that’s it.  And for many people, that’s simply not good enough.  A failing of my own (one of many), but nonetheless, embraced, just like all my flaws.

Science is not asking you to believe the theory before it’s been tested - it’s merely proposing it.  You can’t test something without having an idea of what it is you’re testing.  You come up with the idea (Iceblocks cure brain cancer, to pick something silly), then you go backwards from there in an attempt to prove it.  Occasionally, you discover something you weren’t looking for, which can make some of the most bogus research worthwhile if it comes up with something quantifiable.

And I don’t think Christians are stupid or ignorant, and my heart sinks every time I see those comments on these threads.  We just disagree.  Not much I can do about it.

I hope this clears it up for you.

Stephy says:

10:27am | 04/02/11

Thanks Elphaba

I’m happy to admit that we (Christians) haven’t ironed out the kinks properly in our religion yet. There’s still much that needs understanding, and only so much can go into a book. In some ways religion is like studying history - to get a grasp of some things written down in the Bible, the history and culture of the time must be examined. The book was written two thousand (odd) years ago and (not making it less rlevant for today, just harder to understand and apply) much of the material written in it has to be studied with the society and culture of the time. 
It makes ironing out the kinks and getting a universal agreement (in Christianity) of our belief a lot harder.

Elphaba says:

10:40am | 04/02/11

@Stephy, no problem.

Incidently, I was eating an iceblock when I wrote my post, hence the ‘iceblocks cure brain cancer’ hypothesis.

Tim the Toolman says:

10:10am | 03/02/11

Excellent comment.  The logical inconsistency is as non-existent as the comfort any sane person could derive from such mental gymnastics in the face of their child being killed.

Muttley says:

11:24am | 03/02/11

Ok Tim, what logic would YOU use to help yourself cope with the death of your child? I fail to see any rationalisisng would help. But if someone can feel better by telling themselves that their child is now in a better place then how is that bad? And if it is bad, feel free to offer an alternative.

Syl says:

12:09pm | 03/02/11

Muttley

We are talking about reality and fantasy here.  I could tell you that Elle Mcpherson is waiting at your home and wants your body.  It might make you feel better, but It doesn’t make it true.

If “feeling good” is the reason for faith, i’d suggest weed.

Likes Joining Dots says:

01:19pm | 03/02/11

Be right back

Just popping over to Muttleys place (I need actual proof).

Tim the Toolman says:

03:31pm | 03/02/11

“Ok Tim, what logic would YOU use to help yourself cope with the death of your child?”

You know what?  As crude and ridiculous as it is, two words more accurately explain existence and our place in it than all of the religious texts combined:

S*&^ happens.

I won’t wrap myself up in tangles of guilt or blame that the religious do.  I won’t try and tell myself that there was a reason for it.  I accepted long ago that based off all available evidence, we are largely irrelevant (or, at least, as relevant as anything else with our mass and ability to affect entropy) to the universe.  That, is comforting.  Knowing that sometimes, people are just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Their bodies just go wrong because nature isn’t perfect etc…no blame, no angst about how a good god could allow this to happen, or what the purpose of praying is if he doesn’t/can’t intervene.  Have a real think about it…I’ve given your side a good long think (raised a catholic).

Elphaba says:

03:44pm | 03/02/11

@Tim, I like your posts today.

Tim the Toolman says:

03:43pm | 04/02/11

Thanks Elphaba   I think we’re on the same page, but you’re a lot more diplomatic

Steely Dan says:

10:46am | 03/02/11

They had free will (if you believe they existed in the first place), but they didn’t have ‘knowledge of good and evil’.  Either way it’s hard to say that they did anything wrong.  And even harder to say that guilt is hereditary!

Sludger says:

11:11am | 03/02/11

Anita, they had free will, that was how they chose to eat.  Mind you, I really like what happened when God called them out on it.  Adam:  “the woman that YOU gave me, SHE MADE ME EAT!”  Gotta love it!

Sammy Davis JR says:

11:49am | 03/02/11

You haven’t thought about it enough, which is fine. But don’t pretend it’s a sign of maturity to be ignorant.

Syl says:

12:13pm | 03/02/11

Sammy Davis

I was raised christian.  I attended christian primary and secondary schools and I was a believer.  It wasnt until i “thought about it” that i realised the amount of rubbish I had been fed.
A sign of maturity is actually seeking the answers to the worlds questions, not blindly saying “God did it”.

Sammy Davis JR says:

11:36am | 03/02/11

Why use “sky fairies”? Are you trying to make religious people feel bad?
Why would you want to do that for?

Syl says:

12:20pm | 03/02/11

Sammy Davis

Because it has as much basis in reality as “God, the omniscient creator of all”?

I agree, some religious people may find it insulting.  But no more insulting than calling non-believers immature and ignorant.  Whats good for the goose….

  Sammy Davis JR says
  11:49am | 03/02/11Sy
  You haven’t thought about it enough, which is fine. But don’t pretend it’s a sign of maturity to be ignorant.

Sammy Davis JR says:

01:45pm | 03/02/11

“Because it has as much basis in reality as God, the omniscient creator of all”

We both know that’s not a valid reason to use ‘sky fairies’.

Obviously, that immature and ignorant atheist I was responding to was asking for it.

Syl says:

02:27pm | 03/02/11

Sammy

Such a mature response, “they were asking for it”... sigh…. 
You infer it is wrong to say these things because they “make people feel bad”.  I guess calling people ignorant and immature because they disagree with you is somehow different.

“We both know that’s not a valid reason to use ‘sky fairies’. “

No, we don’t.  I have no problem with the term at all as to me they are the same thing, although I prefer “Sky Wizard”.  Your idea of appropriate context is not shared by all, diversity is what makes the world as wonderful as it is.

Luce says:

11:39am | 03/02/11

The evolution of humans is far from over Sammy.

Elphaba says:

11:46am | 03/02/11

@Sammy, how long do you think humans spent evolving?

Umz says:

01:13pm | 03/02/11

Iam neither Christian nor athiest. It is only impossible for everyone to be “right” if your perception constructs such a belief. For me the “Godhead” is Absolute, which itself is a Jungian polarity of All and/or Nothing, so then everyone gets to be “right” even the non-believers.
Our 3D reality is a plane between the polarities of Absoluteness.

James1 says:

03:17pm | 03/02/11

“and will realize that the ancient Greeks were right”

Finally!  Someone else that can see the Truth.

Reg says:

07:33pm | 06/02/11

Not quite, Missing Philip Adams. Haven’t you noticed that the further people are physically from the observation they make, the more likely they are to be wrong?

So I’d suggest the normal state is to be “wrong” except in things like standing accurately under the shower or brushing your hair in a mirror. Greater accuracy requires a more efficient interface and religion sneers at such tools preferring ancient incantations. So it’s prayers or miracles or it’s not on. 

Being correct about anything is confined to the few who are closest to the task and in the case of an infinitely distant God, I’d suggest everyone is wrong and since everyone is wrong, why do they bother? This also explains the multiplicity of gods and the continuous bickering about which is right and which is wrong and what an atheist is.

Luke says:

11:49pm | 07/02/11

wow… what a wacky comment…
Research terms dualism, hylomorphism, materialism….
all u wrote just makes you a materialist… more importantly… nothing special…

Reg says:

10:53am | 08/02/11

Well it’s me old mate Luke. So do we interpret your comment as suggesting that, in your opinion, you of religious bent, ARE something special?  I think not.

Luke says:

10:43pm | 08/02/11

BTW reg…
I dont know you
In case you havent noticed… alot ppl can be called “luke”

Bilby says:

12:21pm | 03/02/11

Standard rhetoric used to ease people’s minds by having them believe that despite their terrible circumstances, their oppressors time will come. Once again removing the need for people to help themselves because when people feel in charge of their own destiny, they become much harder to control.

Syl says:

12:23pm | 03/02/11

Uh these things have been happening for thousands of years.  How long DOES he take to end it all?

Those Dinosaurs must’ve been bastards!

Callum says:

07:56pm | 03/02/11

Anyoone with a grasp of statistics can see that this is one of the calmest period in the Earth’s history.

Did you know 4/5 children have an education, something once reserved for the wealthy elite?

Did you know that average lifespan has been consistently rising for around a century now, and is still rising?

Did you know that death due to disease has been falling, again for the last century?

(Obviously these are all per capita as the population is larger than it used to be)

If these are the end times, then bring on the Apocalypse. Hmmmm maybe Jesus was warning about a technological singularity when everyone was educated and had their basic needs met and didn’t need to believe in him any more.

Straight Talk says:

03:02pm | 05/02/11

I am in my 6th decade on this planet. Things have certainly changed for the worst in that space of time; environmentally, socially, morally, and incidence of natural disasters in particular, which is a key thought in this topic.  Its not that these things have never happened before - of course they have. But the planet has never been reeling under a 6 billion population before or has it?  Isn’t so-called global warming supposed to be a new threat?  Surely recent events establish beyond argument that we are not in charge of our own destiny. I’m sorry to tell you this, but we’re not in control no matter how much we may like to think otherwise. I have a good grasp of statistics (Tertiary maths major) which leads me to refute the misguided claim that this is one of the calmest periods in the Earth’s history.  While its easy to dismiss Jesus prophetic description of the then distant future with shallow arguments typed on a keyboard, perhaps you can help me out?  I haven’t been able to find a time in recorded history when “...nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.”  Why not give serious consideration to the words of the greatest man who ever lived? (approx 2011 years ago)

Kika says:

04:38pm | 03/02/11

Job would have thought the same thing after everything God swung his way… But he didn’t lose his faith.

Luce says:

02:33pm | 03/02/11

There needs to be a “like” button for thepunch comments sections

Shane From Melbourne says:

07:26pm | 03/02/11

What, Tony Abbott works in a coal mine?

monkeytypist says:

01:47pm | 03/02/11

@joe, that’s all very well, but to suggest “of course human beings won’t understand God. . . ” - what exactly is the empirical difference between a universe where God’s will is ultimately inscrutable to human minds and one where he just doesn’t exist and natural phenomena occur randomly?

A perfectly neutral, unbiased mind could never rationally accept the idea that “you can’t possibly understand why this makes sense, which makes it all the more important for you to believe”.  What you’re essentially asking is for us to not think about how confusing it all is on the basis that everything you don’t understand about the god proposition will be tidied up the sequel. It’s unclear why anyone would take that on faith any more than “you can’t possibly understand the inner workings of cucumber - worship it now and it will reward you at an indefinite future point”.

PS. I have spent the bulk of my life as a believing Christian.

joe says:

04:24pm | 03/02/11

@monkeytypist
As I have already said, it will take more than a few hastily written sentences to describe the Christian viewpoint of God and creation so I won’t even try.
However, as to your question regarding the difference between the two worlds.  In a world without God, we would operate from our animal instincts, because without God, without Morality there would be no right and no wrong. There might be behaviour which is useful or advantageous to us but that is a different thing from behaviour that is morally right. We would live by the law of the jungle, dominate and procreate and do whatever it takes to achieve those goals.
As for a world with God, the Christian belife is that we live in such a world and that rather than being inscrutable, God has revealed himself to humankind throughout the centuries as being a good and loving God who loves righitiousness. Through these revelations and also through our conscience(our inate knowledge of what is right and what is wrong),
He has given us a blueprint not just for a better world but as Christians believe, for a return to perfect happiness with him. The fact that most of us fail to live according to His plan explains a lot of the misery we see about us.
I don’t doubt that this does not answer all the questions you have, however the book the “The Problem of Pain”  which I mentioned previously would go a long way to answering a great many of the common objections that arise with the idea of a good and loving God.

joe says:

04:57pm | 03/02/11

@monkeytypist
As I have already said, it will take more than a few hastily written sentences to describe the Christian viewpoint of God and creation so I won’t even try.
However, as to your question regarding the difference between the two worlds.  In a world without God, we would operate from our animal instincts, because without God, without Morality there would be no right and no wrong. There might be behaviour which is useful or advantageous to us but that is a different thing from behaviour that is morally right. We would live by the law of the jungle, dominate and procreate and do whatever it takes to achieve those goals.
As for a world with God, the Christian belief is that we live in such a world and that rather than being inscrutable, God has revealed himself to humankind throughout the centuries to a chosen few as being a good and loving God who loves righteousness. Through these revelations and also through our conscience(our innate knowledge of what is right and what is wrong), He has given us a blueprint not just for a better world but as Christians believe, for a return to perfect happiness with him. Our failure to live according to his plan has resulted in many of the miseries which we see about us.
I don’t doubt that this does not answer all the questions you have, however the book “The Problem of Pain” which I mentioned previously would go a long way to answering a great many of the common objections that arise with the idea of a good and loving God.

Trevor says:

08:12am | 04/02/11

@joe,
I call “bullshit” on your proposition that morality can’t exist without belief in some supernatural supervisor.

In “Origin of Species” Darwin clearly describes how moral and ethical behaviour is benefical to the survival and evolution of a species. There are also many examples in the rest of the animal kingdom that support this assertion. As an example, if a member of a wolf pack contravenes the rules of the pack they are ostracised, if not killed.

Imagine two hypothetical societies, one that operated on your animal instinct and one that developed a moral code that benefited the majority of that society. Which do you imagine would thrive and prosper? That which fought and squabbled and killed each other over the available resources to meet their needs or the one that banded together and work together within an ethical framework? Supports the idea that ethics are beneficial to the survival and evolution of a species.

In “Guns, Germs and Steel” Jared Diamond provides a convincing argument that is basically that those societies that did not have to struggle to meet the most basic of human needs on a daily basis were able then to advance as there was enough to go around so that they could afford to have sections of the society engaged in pursuits other than just providing for basic needs.

monkeytypist says:

09:42am | 04/02/11

@joe I genuinely appreciate your efforts to provide responses, and although I have only read a bit of Lewis I’m sure I’ll get to read the one you mention at some point.

My issue though, is that I doubt he can explain how human failure to live up to god’s ideals leads to a world where children are infected with the ebola virus, or natural disasters occur at apparently random times and places, hurting good and evil people without distinction.

Human wickedness and the essential amorality of natural phenomena are two quite different things.  Even if I could agree that the cruelty of human beings was solely ascribable to them rather than the god who created them in full and complete knowledge of what they would do, that still doesn’t deal with the natural world that we humans deal with, something a lot of theodicies ignore.

Others have already responded to your idea about morality being self-evidently based on god’s ideals.  But the trouble is that it’s not nearly as self-evident as it should be.  Humans have vicious disagreements about what constitutes ideal morality.  And frankly, explaining that morality comes from god really isn’t an explanation of where it comes from at all - it just raises further questions.  Why do our consciences differ?  Why do different religions come up with different moral solutions?  Why is it that so many people, for however hard and sincerely they try to believe, find that the teachings of Christianity don’t make sense?  It is genuinely puzzling that God would have created such a difficult world in these respects, and any Christian explanation of why that is also has to deal with a less-complicated counter-explanation, which I’m sure you can fill in without my having to say what it is .

Joe says:

02:51pm | 04/02/11

@Trevor,
It’s interesting that after saying that my answer is buls** you then go on to say “In “Origin of Species” Darwin clearly describes how moral and ethical behaviour is benefical to the survival and evolution of a species.”
The definition of moral and ethical behaviour is “right behaviour” however the immediate question which springs to mind is, what is right and what is wrong. Where does this standard, against which we unconscously judge all other standards come from? If you think that we are naturally inclined to do “the right thing” then I would ask you to picture yourself on the bank of a raging torrent when you see a man being carried along by the current. Your natural instinct is to stay safe but we know what we should do.

Joe says:

03:45pm | 04/02/11

@monkeytypist
The questions which you raise in your last reply are pretty much universal questions however they are also complex and cannot be properly addressed in this type of forum.
The book which I have already mentioned does address them. As to your doubting whether Lewis can give you the answers you desire, you will only know that when you have read the book. You see, I’m not letting you off the hook. You asked the questions and I have told you where the answers are. Now it’s up to you. You may not like the answers, you may not agree with them but at least you will have had your questions answered by one of the best modern Christian writers of our time

Trevor says:

02:59pm | 06/02/11

@joe
I called bullshit on you claim that without god there can be no morality and we would operate only from our animal instincts. In your example that you cite, about standing on the banks of a river seeing a person in distress, I agree that our instinct would be to remain safe but I never claimed that morality is instinctive.  Our instinct would undeniably be to remain safe though the moral action would be to attempt to help the person even at the peril of your own safety, as Kant says in his categorical imperative, act as though your action should become a universal law. Would you not expect that someone would help you in the same situation? The point is that all of this can continue to operate without the assumption of supernatural supervision that would expect us to help our fellow man. You seem to be supporting the commonly held opinion of the religious apologist that an atheist will only ever act in their own interest. I will give you a personal example that contradicts this position, one night I was taking a walk with my future wife when we witnessed a car accident, one car rolled down the street and ended up on its side, two young children managed to escape from the vehicle though their mother who was driving was trapped inside, the children and their mother were in extreme distress. In many peoples opinion as an atheist I would just have walked past and minded my own business. The car was leaking fuel everywhere and there was a very real danger that the car would catch fire. I moved the children to a safe distance and while my girlfriend tried to calm them I tried to calm their mother. She was very distressed but could not get out of the car by herself. I climbed into the car and to the best of my abilities tried to determine whether or not she was seriously injured, once I had ascertained that she was not seriously injured I help her from the car and to her waiting children. Would you not agree that this was the morally “right” thing to do an in fact operated against animal survival instinct? But as an atheist why would I act in this way?

monkeytypist says:

02:20pm | 07/02/11

@joe you’re right, I will go and read Lewis, and it is worth being exposed to his ideas in depth.  I will say this however - when I was a Christian, one of the perspectives that I used to defend Christianity was that it was simple to understand, and fulfilling in a way that secular philosophy could never be.  But that position later came unstuck for me, when I realised just how much ink had been spilled by theologians in covering up the holes in the god concept.  You’re praising morality as an idea that’s simple, intuitive and there for anyone to grasp - which implies that nobody should be wasting their times asking questions about it.  The fact that people do agonise, that they do have (quite legitimate) questions, asked in the spirit of an open mind, means that it’s perhaps not as straightforward as I once assumed, and that I was predisposed to think of Christian morality as instinctive and beyond question mainly because I was caught up in a climate where it *seemed* natural.  All sorts of ideas seem natural to some people - slavery, polygamy, animal sacrifice, etc. - it’s only when they are held up to be questioned by others that they start to wobble.  And the more complicated/intricate the defence is, the less satisfying to the “one simple unified whole that anyone can grasp” it is.

Luke says:

11:45pm | 07/02/11

Wow… thanks for that bland contribution…
next athiest please?

Umz says:

02:41pm | 03/02/11

I forecast that Group A would be religous with minority dissenters, either supressed or tolerated, depending on that religions response to the “splitters”. Group B would be somewhat like Australian society, do what we do while tolerating the religous ones, cause the omnipotent ones do manifest themselves to others, either the majority of Gp A or the minority of Gp B.
My mother is an example of Group B, Anglo - Celt raised in John Howard’s Lane Cove. At 18 she donned a sari and adopted Indian culture. No genetic, social or environmental inflences. “Spiritual” awakening seems like the appropriate concept. She is the only one left in her family, my granpa died in Darwin (WW2), my grandma from cancer in ‘68 and my aunty from cancer again in ‘74. Did the spiritual shift enhance her life?

Matt says:

02:18pm | 03/02/11

And yet you can’t prove he doesn’t exist…  Even science can’t prove he doesn’t exist. Can science prove the Big Bang yet? No.. Amusing you tell people to investigate their beliefs without doing so yourself..

Adam Diver says:

02:20pm | 03/02/11

Theres a saying, people spend more time researching a new car than they do picking a religion.

kate says:

02:56pm | 03/02/11

@Matt.  Presumably you can conclusively prove that Zeus, santa claus & yoda don’t exist?  No?  Then, how come you don’t believe in them?

steve says:

02:30pm | 03/02/11

Books don’t prove anything. Scientific evidence develop and support theories which then become predictive and enable us to understand this world. The fact that the koran has verses that can be interpreted as vague statements that describe ‘some’ aspects of this world is not proof or evidence for anything. Try reading some of the history of the authorship of the koran. Do you know it has no known author and date of writing? Like the bible, it is simply a collection of fictional stories from unknown authors who borrow heavily on stories someone else had already written

AdamC says:

03:03pm | 03/02/11

That comment is offensive and absurd.

I suppose you’re the exception that proves your rule ...

Tedd says:

03:41pm | 03/02/11

Randy, they’re both Catholics ...

TheRealDave says:

04:05pm | 03/02/11

Maybe we shouldn’t point out that Einstein and many other notable scientists, scholars, philosophers, mathematicians etc etc have been devout religious folk.

I’m guessing, by your own definition Randy, you are devoutly religious as well??

I am atheist after all, so I am pretty cluey about this stuff…..

Randy McCain says:

04:15pm | 03/02/11

Please see the Crocoduck for a good example of religious mind power at work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocoduck

Sorry, I should have been clearer.  Tony Abbott is known as a religious crusader to some, and used his power as Health minister to block the RU486 abortion drug based on his religious views. 

Turnbull, is much more liberal, has never expressed his religious views, if he even has any.  Turnbull supported legislation relaxing restrictions on abortion pill RU486 and he also voted for the legalisation of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (therapeutic cloning).  If he was liberal leader, I am sure the LNP would win the next election in a landslide.

Luke says:

12:35am | 08/02/11

Blah! You proved nothing randy…
Religion has nothing to do with intelligence.
A stats book called “the bell curve” proved it.

Stewart Henstock says:

02:47pm | 03/02/11

I may be inclined to believe you except you can’t prove it,so a leap of faith would be necessary.
So if im going to use a leap of faith i may as well use it to believe their is a God.

hot tub political machine says:

03:21pm | 03/02/11

I’m your huckleberry. The answer I think is – it doesn’t.

Usually the creation argument is used to show up the “blind faith” of atheists in the non existance of a God. It shows up the cognitive dissonance required to be an atheist rather than make a complete argument for a specific belief (in that an Atheist is critical of blind faith, but has blind faith in atheism that puts many religious people to shame) the first 60 pages of “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis is the best example I know of moving the argument from – Atheism is an illogical position – to the God that is most believable is the Christian one.

James1 says:

03:28pm | 03/02/11

Are you saying this:

It is all well and good to decide that something has caused the current state of affairs, and that some sort of force brought the universe into being.  How does one then attribute this hypothetical action of creation to one particular force with any certainty?  How can we be certain that this hypothesised creator has any attributes, let alone those ascribed to it by the various religions?  In that sense, god is indeed just a word, or a concept, that is used to fill a gap in human knowledge.  Everything else about it has been added by people without proof, and all of those people claim with equal fervour that their attributes/truth claims are the only ones that are correct.  However, by definition only one is correct, so how does one decide which attributes or claims to accept? 

This is a tough question, as it touches on matters epistemological and hermeneutic.  It is like asking what is the nature of knowledge, and how do we know what we think we know?

James1 says:

03:34pm | 03/02/11

Indeed.  I would like to think that the three lambs I sacrificed to Poseidon last night had some material effect on the cyclone and its severity.  Praise Poseidon!

steve says:

03:46pm | 03/02/11

So where is your god when millions of people die from cancer each year? Where is he when children are born with disfigured limbs? Why doesn’t your god heal amputees?
You can’t have it both ways.

Bilby says:

03:51pm | 03/02/11

Praise Poseidon indeed. They were delicious.

kate says:

04:03pm | 03/02/11

If you believe that, I have some elephant powder to sell you.

I have sprinkled elephant powder on my lawn every single day for 10 years, and in that time not ONE SINGLE ELEPHANT has walked on my lawn.  This is clearly DUE TO MY USE OF ELEPHANT POWDER.

Ipso facto, qed, or something.

Kika says:

04:09pm | 03/02/11

Mary - I’m with you. When I woke up this morning and heard that the cyclone passed in between Cairns and Townsville I saw this as a complete and obvious sign of a miracle. Even the US Naval Cyclone watch had the cyclone coming straight over the top of Cairns.

This cyclone was huge, and very very nasty. It’s nothing but a miracle that the level of loss wasn’t anywhere as near as it could have been.

I know somewhere out there someone heard our prayers…

don benosee says:

04:24pm | 03/02/11

Can anyone on this forum prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn’t due to the flying spaghetti monster’s intervention that no lives (so far?) were lost during cyclone Yasi? No?

Well, Mary, best you get on your knees and worship your new lord and master.

monkeytypist says:

04:41pm | 03/02/11

Of course you can’t prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt Mary, any more than you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the universe was created by a bowl of warm spaghetti.  It’s just staggeringly unlikely to be true, and completely lacking in any kind of scientific evidence or indeed common sense.

Elphaba says:

05:25pm | 03/02/11

@mary, can you prove that he did intervene?

Circular argument.  Useless, and proves bugger all.

mary says:

06:47pm | 03/02/11

All I know is that before the cyclone hit (and during the cyclone’s storming into Queensland’s coast), many people all over the world were not throwing elephant power around or meditating on the spaghetti monster or begging poseidon for mercy, no they were praying to God that no lives would be lost during this horrid cyclone. And guess what? So far(?) no loss of life but rather three new births during the cyclone in the cyclone area. God answers prayers.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/yasi-spares-qld-none-dead-and-three-born-20110203-1af0c.html

Callum says:

07:46pm | 03/02/11

In the cyclone huge amounts of dwellings collapsed. Even a former evacuation center collapsed. Yet noone died because the population wasn’t in those buildings when they collapsed. Was this the intervention of God? No it wasn’t. This was the intervention of

The Australian weather services
The SES
The army
The police
Community intervention
A statewide warning system
Broadcast media
A society who respects and trusts the rationally decided, scientific predictions of experts in the community, who advised people to evacuate.

Isn’t it curious that in the Asian tunami, thousands of lives were lost. Many of these were in countries that were far more Christian than Australia. Yet curiously enough, a lot of Christians died. Do you believe that Australians are more deserving of life?

Or is it that the tsunami was fast and government services had neither the time nor the resources to save people.

Can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that it was God? If not I think I’ll stick with the logical explanation, and thank the true heroes.

Also, do you really consider it a miracle that 1 in 3 dwellings were destroyed? You have strange standards.

Xavier says:

07:53pm | 03/02/11

Mary, could it be that no one died because of the massive amounts of hard work done by meteorologists, emergency workers and the various government organisations to be able to detect a cyclone well in advance and make sure everyone is well prepared? The credit given to a god for hard work by and intelligence of humans is downright offensive. It’s the same as the sports person who thanks god for winning a match - it isn’t god, it’s the hard work in training and your team mates. The jibes you obviously missed regarding Poseidon etc is: how do you know someone wasn’t making sacrifices to another god that meant no one died? You have no proof that it was you wasting your time praying or someone else wasting their time praying. It’s delusional and anti-productive

mary says:

10:05pm | 03/02/11

@Callum and Xavier. You are absolutely right that a lot of people were involved in keeping people safe during the cyclone.  Facts are that the majority of Australians believe in God and for that reason we can safely assume that the majority of these good people were believers praying to God for strength and help to keep everyone safe.  As no doubt did the majority of people stuck in shelters etc. Because that is what believers do, we trust in God. We don’t waste our time ridiculing non-believers, why would we? Every-one is entitled to believe in whatever it is that works for them. One of the perks of living in a democracy is that even the minority gets to voice their opinion.

LC says:

09:16am | 04/02/11

Mary,

You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

monkeytypist says:

11:14am | 04/02/11

@mary there are many countries that are more Christian than Australia that have suffered severe national disasters - Haiti springs to mind, or Colombia.  And also what about natural disasters in India?  Does Krishna save those who pray to him?  You need to offer some sort of evidence other than “the well-funded and well-prepared natural disaster response team acted as it is expected to” to show that God actually intervened in some way.  Saying that “lots of people asked him to” isn’t enough proof.  Anyway, why didn’t he turn the cyclone around and send it back out to sea without harming any property?  Not enough people asked him, or nobody thought to ask, or they used the wrong words?

muddabikes says:

12:30am | 05/02/11

It is soooo easy to claim cause and effect AFTER the event.

James1 says:

03:38pm | 03/02/11

So what happened to all of those who lived before the Hebrew god revealed his laws to Moses?  Was god patient with them?  Or did he just send them to hell for being born to early?  And what about those who obeyed the laws given by the Hebrew god to Moses, but didn’t hear about the update that Jesus gave because of the lack of internet forums?  Are they punished with hell for having the bad luck to be born before instant, or even accelerated, global communications?

Also, “its not rocket science”.  Indeed not.  Far from it, in fact…

monkeytypist says:

04:46pm | 03/02/11

Ok Wayne, so let’s say I commit fornication one night in Perth - can’t god just stop my heart or have a meteor hit my house or something?  Why is it that he has to target his punishment at people who live in Cairns in an area that is suspiciously prone to cyclonic weather patterns?  Is his aim a bit off or something, or are the people who live in floodplains always committing whatever specific sin requires punishment by flood?  Are people who live in earthquake-prone regions of the world particularly given to committing the type of sin that results in regular earthquakes? Why is it that plenty of church-going Christians get whacked in every natural disaster going?  God just got a little sloppy?

LC says:

09:24am | 04/02/11

Thar’s funny Wayneiz, I didn’t know everyone outside of Queensland and some parts of Victoria was free of sin, and thus free of punishment.

Reg says:

11:07am | 08/02/11

I like this bit ... “God is giving us fair warning.  Its not rocket science.”

And how you know that time is running out?

So why do we need theology and Biblical gymnastics to tell us what the Bible means if it’s not “rocket science?”  I’m sure the next cyclone will be along soon.

Mark says:

08:05pm | 03/02/11

Good to see some honest humility. Problem as i see things, is that texts are only as good in how they are interpreted. For example, your scientific holes may simply be a bad interpretation of an ancient document pulled out of it’s ancient civilisation. Likewise, all scientific ‘truth’ is someone’s interpretation of certain facts, and as you state, are often contradictory. It seems to come down to who you believe, the historical Jesus or the rational western man?

Joe says:

05:58pm | 03/02/11

@Mary
interesting idea. How did Akhenaten become aware of the one God?

iansand says:

06:16pm | 03/02/11

But you have to rationalise your belief in a loving, omnipotent god with the existence of said disasters.

Reg says:

08:22pm | 03/02/11

@ Wilson. “Why do questions of God existence come to such a vile bile during natural disasters while in non-disaster times, the same antagonists couldn’t give a damn?”

Because Joel anticipated a need to rescue God’s reputation in light of over-whelming losses due to the cyclone. No-one set out to prove God doesn’t exist, Joel presumes he does and chastises those who disagree by publishing his objections. Besides that my own skepticism came from a discussion such as this, that was not associated with a “natural” disaster.

An interesting use of “natural ” though

Mark says:

08:00pm | 03/02/11

Since when has ‘rational men’ become the source of all truth? Nick, you need to wake up mate and see your a bi-product of your culture and the media that feeds you. I find it so ironic that our 21st century western mind now has all the answers…pure arrogance.

Wilson says:

08:31am | 04/02/11

@ iansad, @ Reg and @ Nick:

I believe all beliefs should be grounded and be able to be explained in a rationale manner. However, you must consider that when you are discussing religion, you move into the realm of the metaphysical. While I have searched and investigated and wrestled with the questions of faith - it made me realise that as much of my belief is founded on logic and rationale, by it’s very definition Faith requires an element of trust in the unknown. Faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.

So @ Nick - I have no desire to shove my superstitious mum-jumbo down your throat - as long as you’re not shoving your self proclaimed atheist down mine and declaring with emphatic but uneducated certainty that there is no God.

@ Reg - I used “natural” intentionally because of the reciprocral use of the term “acts of God”. It never fails to amuse me that even atheist insist on using that term to describe an act of a person they don’t believe in. Btw, Joel’s article was a defense of Tory Shepherd’s.

@iansad - I have tried to reconcile this belief all my life and I believe with an open mind and heart, taking away prejudice and putting on a mind that will lead where the evidence takes it - has led me to a place where I am comfortable in my faith. I don’t have to know all the answers even as I actively seek them. My doubts don’t dispell what is real and tangible to me. As cliched as this may sound, sometimes, it’s not the destination that matters, it’s the journey.

Reg says:

09:29pm | 08/02/11

@Wilson. “you move into the realm of the metaphysical.” I am sure you cannot tell us what metaphysical is without resorting to circular arguments of faith.

I think it was my very first input to this thread where I said I was responding to the headline because argument is futile with Christians who cover all exits with faith and with whom nothing is negotiable.  Similarly I am not going to discuss what may have happened on some other web site of which I know nothing. 

What-ever I have written was not scornful but would doubtless be interpreted as such by those with whom my views conflict.

That Christians cover all exits with belief is not scornful, it is fact. Why do you or Ed have difficulty with that? You are here to sell your view-point not to adopt that of anyone else. Nor am I suggesting that you or any other adopt the attitude of one of the non-aligned. That’s for you to decide but I have stated by position. The head-line says it all and it’s that to which I respond. The headline offers a succinct precis of the writer’s intention and if it did not, he would not have approved it.

Natural?  Supernatural?  The term “act of God” does not necessarily mean a non-aligned person is referring to God. The term is one of aby-gone age and is incorporated in many documents and is probably at this very moment being edited from the pages of history. Perhaps you’d prefer “force-majure?”  Like any disaster, (subjective term) it is simply that the victims did not take sufficient regard of the steps needed to conform to the forces to be expected.  “Live and learn” is applicable here, not “guess and hope” as you would have it.

Mark says:

08:08pm | 03/02/11

A fair critique and as a Christian i wholeheartedly agree. Problem is, people love a ‘nice, loving God’ but pull away from a ‘wrathful angry God’. Biblical Christianity and Christians need to uphold both and defend both. It’s a shame that most churches and religious people don’t see the problem as you have exposed.

Likes Joining Dots says:

08:24pm | 03/02/11

@P.Darvio

It seems the author is actually saying the opposite.

‘God does not impose Himself on what He makes nor does God abrogate the integrity of creation itself. In Christianity, God promises a life of integrity, truth and ultimate purpose but not one free from risk or pain.’

I’m not saying you are right or wrong, but when you start with ‘Religious people, like this author, always claim (credit?) when something good happens’, you are doing the author a disservice by not reading the article before commenting.

Mark says:

08:16pm | 03/02/11

David, where is your emperical evidence that ‘religion was created to control the masses’?
Ironic how those w ho argue for an atheistic worldview wnat us to accept statements like these founded on zero evidence. More atheistic rhetoric showing the ignorance and foolishness of those who follow such a worldview. Truth is, it may not be the Christians who need controlling but those like yourself who have no rational worldview or base to stand on and are thus the guinea pigs of the media.

Austin 3:16 says:

09:55pm | 04/02/11

Hey Mark,

History would suggest that David might have a point. I’m fairly sure that the “divine right of kings” was a good invention from the ruling class’ point of view.

Bilby says:

11:23pm | 03/02/11

Ok then Ed. I’ll attempt to extend the same courtesy that you have extended me. I have started with a Christian education from a school chaplain that to me still epitomises what it is to be a good Christian. I am currently at a point where I believe that the God of the bible is a creation of man, but that also the questions that his creation seeks to answer are not explained in any other way. To me the lack of an alternative explanation in no way adds weight to the existance of the Christian God, which is what we’re talking about.

I have come to the same conclusion requiring the existance of a law maker. Parts of Newtownian physics are to me predicated on laws which we can’t explain. For instance we can describe very accurately the way an object will behave due to gravity, but *why* they act that way is still a mystery. Without gravity nothing we know would exist, from the big bang to the seas and rivers.

I also struggle with the discontinuity in the story of life that is the leap from non-life to life. It seems implausible that life could have spontaneously come into being.

On random mutations we sort of agree. I believe that we did evolve through Darwinian evolution, but for Darwinian evolution to occur, there must be a framework. That that framework came into being by chance is again illogical.

We partially agree on the eternal existence of the universe. Either it has always existed, which grates against the idea that “always” has never been an accepted scientific time span as far as I know. Or, it was created at a given moment in time. If it was created, there must have been a creator.

Where we diverge is your conclusion that the creator, the designer if you will, is the God of the bible. The God of the bible so contradictory that Occams Razor would suggest that he in fact does not exist. There may be a higher being, and I see more evidence to suggest it than against, but it is not God as described by man. Suggesting that we know anything about what happens after we die is pure supposition, and using the fear of eternal damnation is a psychological weapon if I’ve ever seen one. The message of peace and love is too often overridden by vengence and violence. The fallible hand of man is written to clearly for me.

Thankyou, and finally, good night.

TheRealDave says:

02:22am | 04/02/11

My mates and I were at a party once, about 15 years ago now. We got on the sauce as young blokes do and one of the boys was hitting on this really attractive blonde girl. She was a stunner. He did the gentlemanly thing and offered to grab her a drink and while he was gone another one of our rat bastard cunning mates cut his grass and started chatting the young lady up will Mate #1 was off getting a drink. Mate #2 ended up going home with said stunenr and rooting each others brains out.

Fast forward 6 months, mate #2 formerly of the rat bastard cunning persuasion that loved a beer and a ‘choof’ had dropped off the face of the earth only to drop in one night whilst a few of us were enjoying a few beverages, the odd choof and watching the footy to announce that he was getting married and would any of us like to be saved for all eternity by embracing the love that is Jesus Christ our saviour and lord. We thought it was a gee up until he started trying to hand out bibles to us all.

It would seem that the little minx he picked up turned out to be the daughter of some rabid Christian fundamentalist pastor and somehow our mate had become converted and indoctrinated within 6 months and was rabid about it.

Crying shame really. None of us were invited to the wedding (not even two of our social circle who had been his best mate since literally nappies), his parents were barely tolerated there and pushed out the door 5 minutes after the reception kicked off, non alcoholic of course. I think I’ve seen him twice in the last 15 years…..and the former hottie is now a big girl…very big….

Meanwhile Mate #1 loves to chuckle and sigh with relief that that was the one time he was glad some bastard cut his grass.

So, whats the point of my ranting diatribe?

1. Most blokes are suckers to the power of the pussy*

2. Smart of dumb, anyone can be converted with enough influence, coercion, indoctrination and a hottie enforcing rule 1 above.

Regardless of whether or not you think a PHD somehow makes your story more miraculous or meaningful than the average punter. Why do you think so many suicide bombers are supposedly highly educated young people? Educated people are just as stupid as everyone else.

*I would hope the Punch Moderator takes this as the colloquial expression as it is meant and not as a personal insult to our female readers/contributors. It is pretty common parlance and used to emphasise the point rather than being derogatory.

Ed says:

06:08am | 04/02/11

@TheRealDave What your friend did was rather extreme and it is not something that I would personally do. BTW, why do all atheists lump all christians in the same mould? I don’t go equating all atheists with Pol Pot or Stalin. And you’re partly right, although initially I was going to church to appease my girlfriend, it does not explain why after getting married I decided that being lukewarm on my faith was simply not good enough. In fact, I would say my faith is even stronger than my wife’s at this stage. Btw, did you ever genuinely take an interest on what your mate believes? Or did you simply ridicule him? And no, you’re right, , having a PhD doesn’t make me smart, but it does let me say something about science and the scientific method. Your suicide bomber argument is insulting: again, how would you like it if I lump you with all other atheists or evolutionary theory proponents including Hitler, Pol Pot or Stalin?

@Bilby Thank you for sharing that. At the very least, your doubts show you are thinking. I really have no time, christian or otherwise (and this goes for your mate too Dave) for people with blind faith; those that believe for the sake of believing. If someone can be so easily doctrinated, then they can be easily be brainwashed into something else. Bilby, there is a great book called, you guessed it “Doubt” by Os Guinness and it might help you with some of your struggles. Doubt is not the opposite of faith, it is merely a continuum between faith and disbelief. Something you said piqued my interest: you now think the bible was a creation of man, but that nothing else gives you a logical metanarrative for we came into being and the things we know. Well, doesn’t that indicate that perhaps this wasn’t the creation of man and perhaps God: how can these lowly educated men give you an account that can not be matched by anybody in 2000 years?

Bilby says:

10:58am | 04/02/11

Ed - Let me respond by quoting one of the great philosophical statements of our time.

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”

For me the answer is currently a known unknown, and before it can become a known known, I must happen upon an unknown unknown. With the evidence currently available to me, I am completely comfortable with not knowing.

I believe that if I was to take the bible as the word of God and not man, that would necessitate believing the entirety of the book as God is infallible. As a result even if I were to lean towards creationism, I still wouldn’t become a believer as there is so much more to the story than just the beginning, and frankly there are parts of the bible that are simply horrific by todays standards.

Ed says:

07:48pm | 04/02/11

hi Bilby,

your quote is a good one, but it still begs the question “how do you know that you don’t know?” You see, even then you are claiming some knowledge and awareness that can not be explained by atoms colliding or random mutations.

As for parts of the bible that you can not reconcile, may I humbly suggest a good bible study group which will put into perspective and context why God did what He did (often in the case of the Caannanites and Amalekites for example, they had plenty of time to turn from their evil practices of idol worshipping and human sacrifice, but chose not to). I have often found that this complaint against God results in a failure the fully comprehend the horror of sin. The fact that I am saved I don’t attribute to anything I did or earnt, but as an incredible act of mercy and grace on God’s through the shedding of His son’s blood.

Finally, Bilby and Trev, thank you for your interesting comments and thoughts and I will pray for God to shine His wonderful love upon you both.
(This will be my last post as I’ll be out of internet connection due to a change of providers - I’ve finally had it with Vodafone)

Bilby says:

10:18am | 07/02/11

Ed - Firstly the answer to your question “how do I know that I don’t know?”. I know, as much as I can say that I know anything, because that is where my path of reasoning has led me. I don’t have the evidence to suggest one way or the other, so the most truthful thing I can say is that I don’t know.

The justifications for the slaughter of neighbouring tribes are to me all a desparate attempt by philosophers and theologians to create order and consistency where there is none. If an acceptable answer can’t be thought up, then that brings the whole system into question so over the centuries people have tried very hard to invent acceptable answers. To me that’s all they are though. Inventions of man. In my book there can be no justification for the slaughter of children. Where we appear to differ is that I am not prepared to listen to someone attempt to explain away the indefensible. I can do nothing other than think less of that person for even making the attempt in their own mind, let alone attempting to foist it on me. Every tyrant and despot thought they were justified (and yes I put God as described by man squarely in that category), and most were able to very clearly and cleverly articulate exactly why it was ok. That has never made it right.

I think your lotto example (in response to Trev below) is fatally flawed. For a fella with an education in mathematics, why would your first thought be tampering? My first thought would be “gee… that’s unusual”. It sits entirely within the bounds of random probability and I would need evidence of a different nature (the relative of an official being one of the repeated winners for example) to worry about it. As you’d be aware, the chances of the same number being drawn each night is in fact no different to any other sequence, just as after 100 tosses of the coin that come up heads, the chances of heads in the next toss is still 50/50.

Hope your change of ISP goes smoothly and we’ll see you on the other side.

Ed says:

10:34pm | 03/02/11

Hi Trev,

I don’t know if you noticed, but your post is riddled with contradictions. But, first I’ll answer your question:

death, illness and sickness is present because of sin; simple as that. God didn’t create it that way, but through Adam, death entered the universe. You can either believe that, or you can believe that life began in pond scum from non-life; the choice is yours. And BTW, children go straight to heave, this is clearly articulated in the bible. The fact that protestants were ignorant or unsure of this a few hundred years ago doesn’t change this.

I was wondering if you could answer me a few questions though:

“Can any of you explain to me why the natural world is so arranged…”

Now, can you explain to me how something can be arranged randomly or without intelligent intervention?

“How can you reconcile a loving Creator and the chillingly efficient design of a killing machine like a crocodile?”

Its called free will, God gave it and that we means we make stupid mistakes which lead to suffering and evil (I also mentioned Adam and his exercise of free will). Now, its your turn, how exactly do you reconcile the “design” of killing machine without a designer?

Ed says:

10:36pm | 03/02/11

Hi Trev,

I don’t know if you noticed, but your post is riddled with contradictions. But, first I’ll answer your question:

death, illness and sickness is present because of sin; simple as that. God didn’t create it that way, but through Adam, death entered the universe. You can either believe that, or you can believe that life began in pond scum from non-life; the choice is yours. And BTW, children go straight to heave, this is clearly articulated in the bible. The fact that protestants were ignorant or unsure of this a few hundred years ago doesn’t change this.

I was wondering if you could answer me a few questions though:

“Can any of you explain to me why the natural world is so arranged…”

Now, can you explain to me how something can be arranged randomly or without intelligent intervention?

“How can you reconcile a loving Creator and the chillingly efficient design of a killing machine like a crocodile?”

Its called free will, God gave it and that we means we make stupid mistakes which lead to suffering and evil (I also mentioned Adam and his exercise of free will). Now, its your turn, how exactly do you reconcile the “design” of killing machine without a designer?

Ed says:

10:36pm | 03/02/11

Hi Trev,

I don’t know if you noticed, but your post is riddled with contradictions. But, first I’ll answer your question:

death, illness and sickness is present because of sin; simple as that. God didn’t create it that way, but through Adam, death entered the universe. You can either believe that, or you can believe that life began in pond scum from non-life; the choice is yours. And BTW, children go straight to heave, this is clearly articulated in the bible. The fact that protestants were ignorant or unsure of this a few hundred years ago doesn’t change this.

I was wondering if you could answer me a few questions though:

“Can any of you explain to me why the natural world is so arranged…”

Now, can you explain to me how something can be arranged randomly or without intelligent intervention?

“How can you reconcile a loving Creator and the chillingly efficient design of a killing machine like a crocodile?”

Its called free will, God gave it and that we means we make stupid mistakes which lead to suffering and evil (I also mentioned Adam and his exercise of free will). Now, its your turn, how exactly do you reconcile the “design” of killing machine without a designer?

Trev says:

09:13pm | 05/02/11

Hello Ed
The answer to questions like “what is the origin of the force of gravity?” is part of an on-going quest. It is the next step on from “why does that apple fall to the ground?” and the step before “how does string theory work?” Who knows how far this process will take us?  In my view the physical laws that govern our universe are separate and distinct from those that may derive from a “law maker”.

“And evolution has never been observed; Dawkins has himself embarrasingly admitted that macroevolution has never been observed.”  I suspect Ed, that Dawkins made this admission without the slighest feeling of embarrassment. Of course evolution on a macro scale has never been observed! It’s a bit like saying that the formation of planets around a star has never been observed. In both cases, the time scales are simply to large for direct observations to be made. That any phenomenon must be directly observable to confirm that it is true is a bit of a furphy Ed. Do you, for example, accept that atoms and molecules exist? Or that the earth revolves about the sun?

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming Ed - whether you care to accept it or not. Exposure to that evidence (through tertiary studies) transformed my thinking away from a strongly held belief in Divine creation. You talk of “intermediate forms” (as I once did) but you need to know that the fossil record is littered with examples - of which Archeopteryx is just one.

Cheers Ed and here’s hoping that your new ISP is more satisfactory.

Ed says:

10:40pm | 03/02/11

And I believe it was this same Bertrand Russell who exclaimed that Anselm’s ontological proof works. BTW, calling yourself logical and the rest slime mould. Cheap insults merely show someone’s inability to lodge a cogent case for their arguments

Naomi says:

08:46am | 04/02/11

Well said Brayden

monkeytypist says:

01:21pm | 04/02/11

So Brayden - before human beings sinned, there was no continental drift thus no earthquakes or volcanoes? No storm cells that generate by well-understood physical processes over bodies of warm tropical water?  Before human beings sinned, the earth’s gravitational field didn’t attract astronomical debris into our atmosphere so there were no comet or meteor strikes?  Before human beings sinned, the earth’s positioning relative to the sun didn’t change so that there was no such thing as seasonal changes and changes in the earth’s surface temperature prompting flood, drought or variations in rainfall?  Where is the evidence to suggest any of the states posited above actually existed?

Youcan'tbeserious says:

12:05pm | 04/02/11

Well then the Word has a bit to answer for. And he better cover the excess on my boat insurance.

Ed says:

08:05am | 04/02/11

And how exactly do these 4 forces came into being? Your idea of God is one of a God of the gaps, ie. if science can explain it, then God couldn’t have done it. I don’t subscribe to such a God.

“Adam and eve, who the bible claims are responsible for sin, did not exist when life began on this planet.”

And you know this exactly because you were there? You think its more plausible to believe that we originated from pond scum, that’s fine, that’s your belief; I disagree. The complex internal workings of a human being, as well as Earth and the universe are better explained by the existence of a designer rather than as a result of cosmic accidents, which by the way, do not explain why those accidents occur.

“Humans occupy an incredibly small fraction of the timeline of life on this planet so to claim that they are responsible for the mechanics of life is ridiculous.”

And again, you know this how exactly? Please do everyone a favour and read up on the definition of the scientific method: a hypothesis has to be tested and observable. While you’re at it, read up on the inherent bias of science and mathematics (Kuhn and/or Godel).

Have you actually read “The Origin of Species” or are you just parroting what everyone else is saying? It assumes uniformatarionism - that is, it presupposes that there have been no major catastrophic events and that the natural processes that have shaped the Earth (the formation of Earth layers, canyons, etc.) were always uniform. A pretty big claim and one that hasn’t been justified in any way shape or form. Darwin took this principle from geologigst Lyell.

In other words, you assume a hypothesis where God is irrelevant to prove God doesn’t exist or is irrelevant - circular reasoning much?

I also engage in circular reasoning, we all do. But I appeal to the fact that something created (or evolved, to put into your parlance) merits the existence of something outside time and space and independent of the creation. And please, don’t start with “well, who created God?” If God did not exist, the universe was never created, which means one can not appeal to the law of cause and effect (read A. Flew’s book if this is unclear). That is, simply put, there is not first cause and things just happen.

Kirk Cameron says:

10:48am | 04/02/11

Yeah Ed here’s some proof evolution is a load of rubbish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocoduck

No crocoduck, no way Evolution could be right.  Ed, I’m going to nominate you for The Golden Crocoduck award.  You deserve it.

Trevor says:

10:50am | 04/02/11

Ed,
I am going to have to disagree with your statement that Darwins theory is based on uniformatarionism. I have read “Origin of Species” and in Darwins response to the argument against his theory based on the lack of intermediate species in the fossil record he specifically points out it is unreasonable to expect a complete and continuous record of every species that ever existed because fossilisation can only occur under very specific conditions that do not occur consistently.

He also points out that evolution and changes in species commonly occur in response to changes in the species’ immediate environment be it natural or via migration etc. These changes cause some species to adapt while other may not and the whole basis of the theory of evolution is that those species that adapt best to the available “slots” in the natural world will thrive and displace those that do not. The whole theory is base on the fact that the initial changes do not occur uniformaly which is why some species have thrived and continued to evolve while others in exactly the same conditions failed to adapt and became extinct.

Ed says:

08:13am | 04/02/11

Ok Dave, lets take your theory to its logical conclusion. Life always was, this means nothing was caused. Thus, there is no law of cause and effect. So, although it could be argued the cause of you putting that post was in response to a theological article; the effect is null. In other words, by your own reckoning what you’ve said is either irrelevant, or if there was no cause; you actually think “nothing” prompted you to write this.

OchreBunyip says:

09:24am | 04/02/11

I’m not sure why people respond to death with fear. After all it is the end of potential pain, suffering, the cessation of hardship. It is the ultimate in nothingness, in a sense the idea of the ultimate rest. Certainly it also means an absence of being, a lack of ability to enjoy the finer things in life but, if one is dead, one has no consciousness to miss anything with. Certainly it is rational to avoid premature death and being fearful of any attendant pain is understandable but I for one would never want to live forever. In what I consider to be a rational way, I accept my death as a natural part of my life. No more and no less. I have been as close to a dead or dying person as a person gets in this modern society and it seemed perfectly natural. I feel no need to invoke a god or gods in a human’s death in the same fashion as a dead animal invokes no belief in supernatural phenomena. I miss my dead relatives more than say my dead pet but then I have a stronger emotional tie to my human relatives and friends.

elanora says:

11:45am | 04/02/11

someones been watching zeitgeist…

Dave of Sydney says:

12:57pm | 04/02/11

Ed you’re being facetious. I didn’t say that nothing happens in life Einstein, I said that there is NO beginning to life and NO end. We view birth as the beginning of life; and death as the end of our lives but it’s only the body that has a time limit, our TRUE selves aren’t confined to a physical body - hence our lives CONTINUE beyond the expiration of the physical flesh. Whether you believe this or not is not my concern, nor will I offer or provide any evidence or proof for your edification.I only need to prove these things to MYSELF,as should everyone to themselves. Science and all it’s learned followers are obstinately addicted to trying to explain our beginnings and the answer is plain for all to see.You just have to know where to look, and unfortunately the scientific mind always looks in the wrong places. To suggest that life and the universe had a beginning then that implies that there was a time BEFORE the beginning when there was WHAT? A nothingness? A vacuum? How then does life and INTELLIGENCE and a CONSCIENCE emerge from such nothingness and vacuum? This is a rhetorical question by the way as I already know the answer, but have a good ponder in your own time. As for disasters, well,they’re only disasters to HUMANS, to everything else it is just the way of things. And if people REALLY thought about it properly they would see that disasters or catastrophies or tragedies serve a purpose.They are not random acts of vengeance or retribution yet their existence has a function. And it has nothing to do with a god or a devil. That is all I will allude to. The problem is that everyone wants all the secrets handed to them on a silver platter. It doesn’t work that way. Seek and ye shall find.

Ed says:

07:08pm | 04/02/11

Wow, so many assertions and so few reasons. And they call christians fanatics!

“I said that there is NO beginning to life and NO end. We view birth as the beginning of life; and death as the end of our lives but it’s only the body that has a time limit, our TRUE selves aren’t confined to a physical body - hence our lives CONTINUE beyond the expiration of the physical flesh.”

>>And you know how this exactly?

” Whether you believe this or not is not my concern, nor will I offer or provide any evidence or proof for your edification.I only need to prove these things to MYSELF,as should everyone to themselves. “

>> Fantastic non-answer. I tell you what: I’ll say I have proved to myself the opposite of what you believe and then we’ll be the first people in record to break the law of non-contradiction - good work hey, I think I need to lay-down after that.

“The concept of God and Jesus are just humanisations of astrological references.The birth and death of Christ are actually astrological events that didn’t happen at all on Earth, the 3 Wise Kings and the “resurrection” are again astrological happenings that didn’t involve people at all.”

>> Huh??? And you know how this exactly? And from what astrological plane (am I saying that right?), parallel universe or” magic mushroom” did this amazing revelation come from?

“Mankind invented these things as a means to exert his will and control over others and he realised that FEAR is a very strong motivator.And we are raised from birth to be AFRAID of dying and to be afraid of the Devil and of going to Hell. We are victims of our own fear and narrowmindedness.”

>> And yet another assertion without proof. Is this your version of a rational discussion? However, its the first even vaguely coherent thing you’ve said. If the construct of Jesus was made to dominate people, then why would He have been made to suffer and ridiculed. Ditto for the disciples, they were mocked, persecuted and some even stoned (Stephen). Yes, they had real control of the masses there, didn’t they?

No a single reason for anything for anything you claim, unbelieveable.

Dave of Sydney says:

07:40am | 07/02/11

Ed you’re being typically narrowminded, and I’m not surprised at all as the great majority of the world is equally blindfolded. You suffer from the “can’t see the forest for the trees” syndrome as your questions are testament to. If you need to ask how I know these things then that explains a great many things about what you actually know - which is zip. There IS a reason for everything I said. But these are things that are NOT just disclosed willy nilly in general discussion. Suffice to say that pearls to swine is a fitting analogy. And if you have proved to yourself what you claim to believe then bravo for you because that’s how it should be. The onus lies on people proving to themselveswhat is and what isn’t, not on some preacher or messiah trying to sway the masses. What knowledge I have I don’t need to disclose to anyone, I just find it amusing how you all run around in circles quoting scientific or biblical “data” in your efforts to uncover the truth - when in actuality you are failing to even see the truth. Instead you prefer to believe in tales of “creation” &  “sin” & “god & “satan” & “temptation” & “punishment” - in other words,perfect fairy tale fodder. The blind truly do follow the blind. Tell me Ed, how do YOU know that Christ even existed? Because the bible says so????? Nowhwere else are there any records or mentions of him.Wouldn’t it just rattle your cage if he were only a figment of someone’s imagination!! A character in a story, no more no less. And even if it were proven to you that this was the case then what would you think?? You would still fail to accept it,so strong is your devout blindness. Why a “perfect” god NEEDS his"mortal” and “sinful” creations to continuously pray and revere in his greatness, seems to elude you,and billions of others. Why a “perfect"god who created a “perfect” couple in Adam and Eve in a “perfect” paradise HAD to put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad there in the first place ??? This also seems to elude you. They were supposedly perfect people, what then,was god testing? Surely such a great and perfect god had the foresight to KNOW what the future held !!  And therein lies the rub.

Ed says:

10:36am | 07/02/11

hi Dave,

not a reason for anything you’ve said. In fact, it betrays sheer logic. You say everyone should prove for themselves. Are you actually saying truth is relative? You can’t possibly be serious, right? I’ll ignore the fact that for 2/3rds of your rant you spent it insulting me. The mere fact that you post something implies that truth is universal. A proof demonstrating this is the fact that you assume I’ll understand what you write, that I’ll make sense of your statements (even if I don’t agree with them). If you can prove it for yourself, then it should be self-evident to everyone else - if its true; otherwise its the typical nonsense I hear from positivists and New Age nonsense advocates. Imagine if I came up with my own set of laws of mathematics, I’d be called crazy.

How do I know Jesus lived? Okay, I’ve given plenty of reasons why I think the god of the bible is correct, I won’t repeat it again. However, this comes from the old testament. Jesus existed, because it predicts it, like it predicted the fact that Israel would fall exactly to the Babylonians for 70 years. It predicts Jesus coming from the line of King David, the way He was crucified. In the New testament, we hear of his many miracles, the hundreds of witnesses. If this was also made up, why would the writers present themselves with flaws and all, why would the first witnesses of His resurrection be women in such a male-dominated society. There are also the other accounts of His existence from non-christian writers. No other book can account for the inherent evil that people are capable of, and also the fact that we are capable of love. So, before you go on spouting how He was some astrological event, how about you back it up with facts instead of pantheistic, feel-good rubbish.

If being narrow-minded means disregarding logic and common-sense, then I guess I am. If you can’t provide reasons or evidence for anything you say, then I can only conclude you don’t have any,

Ed.

Dave of Sydney says:

01:01pm | 07/02/11

Hi Ed, I have never claimed that there is no reason for anything, that is YOUR conclusion not mine.I have said that there IS a reason but it is not based on big-headed scientific warbling or biblical ranting. Just because science or religion doesn’t offer adequate explanations doesn’t mean that there aren’t OTHER avenues to explore. Your problem is you want all evidence and proof supplied to you with no effort on your part to earn them. If that sounds cryptic it’s because it’s MEANT to. So I was right, you do believe in Christ simply for no other reason than the Bible says so. That, oh learned one,is called blind faith, and blind faith is NOT knowledge,just wishful thinking. As for truth,yes it IS universal but it is also NOT on obvious display for the general public. And while we’re at it, yes it IS also relative. You, for instance, believe in a god who chooses which one of his “beloved” children will live forever in heaven and which ones will be tortured for all eternity in hell.To you that is truth, to me it’s an absurdity that is far more comical than it is fear inducing.The fact that such sadistic behaviour betrays all of our human feelings towards our own children doesn’t seem to bother you at all. And don’t go waffling on about freewill and that god is testing us - what rubbish !!!  A perfect god cannot be fooled or second guessed,and a perfect god can see into the future,therefore god already KNOWS the outcome of everything.There are no surprises for god, BECAUSE he knows all and he sees all. If you use your logic then you will see that this implies that ALL things that have ever happened and will EVER happen are already known to god. This then implies that everything is fixed and god is rewarding/punishing us all for actions he already knew we would commit. You can’t have it both ways Ed, god either knows EVERYTHING or he doesn’t, which would means he isn’t perfect and has limitations. Why did god test Adam and Eve with the Tree of Knowledge if he had created them PERFECT?? Why did he create the serpent in the first place if everything was already perfect? Surely god knew the outcome of all of this before he even started any creating.Surely god already knows who is going to do what and where and when. Surely. If you claim that god cannot foresee our freewill then you are admitting that he DOESN’T know all and see all,like it says in the bible, which you admit to believing.This also implies that god must be able to be fooled or surprised. Which one is it then? Does he know all or not? If you knew in advance all that your children will do in their lives would you sit back and watch them fight and kill each other? Or would you intervene because you love them all EQUALLY?  If Jesus advocates to “turn the other cheek” then why doesn’t god apply the same principle to us instead of sending the sinners to hell??? Where is god’s forgiveness then? Why are we urged to love and forgive our enemies yet god himself can’t bring himself to love and forgive the sinners??? Surely you must see the ridiculous absurdity in that.

Horse says:

06:22pm | 07/02/11

Ed says: 10:36am | 07/02/11

“Are you actually saying truth is relative? You can’t possibly be serious, right?”

Oh, the irony!!!

Dave of Sydney says:

12:30pm | 08/02/11

Horse, what is really ironic is these so-called theologists and bible thumpers who believe they’re being oh so intellectual when in actuality they’re just blind sheep like most everyone else.And they’re so scared, afraid and horrified of dying and ending up in the abyss with satan that they’ll do anything to ensure that their own ass is saved - primarily by blowing smoke up god’s. Without fear religion is powerless.

Ed says:

06:47pm | 04/02/11

hi Trev,

thanks for your post and your questions.  I also appreciate you have afforded me in this discussion, as well as the fact, that unlike most atheists and quite a lot of christians you are willing to think through the implications of your beliefs, or lack thereof.

Now, for a question you had before about children going to heaven (or belonging to the kingdom of God), here are some biblical references: Matthew 19:13-15, Mark 10:13-16, Luke 18:15-16, Matthew 18:2-3 and there are others.

Now, back to your question about how a loving God create killing predators, etc. First of all, I’m a creationist, this means that God created everything perfect and there were no carnivores. Crocodiles might have been created with pointed teeth, but I do not believe they ate other animals. Now God could have created them foreseeing Adams’ use of free will and his sin. Now you might not accept this answer as scientific or plausible, but even I’m not God and I don’t infinite knowledge and wisdom. I’ll only say that to me this makes much more sense than saying life came from nothing or that randomness magically developed complexity without any underlying blueprint or intelligent mechanism driving this. As I said previously, I can reconcile the utter evil possible by human beings due to sin as well as the fact that the laws of science, logic and mathematics and universal morality logically demand the presence of a law-maker.

What christians realise and my hope is that all non-christians will one day realise is the utter horror and evil of sin. And sin is not merely defined in terms of our actions, but also the state of our heart. When we shout at our spouses or children, when we give the finger for cutting the guy off, this is the evil of sin. Just because I’m not a mass murderer, doesn’t make me good, it merely makes me less bad. Unless anybody realises the inherent wickedness of the human heart, that person will never accept the gospels. You see, one does not become a christian by proof (otherwise Bertrand Russell who accepted Anselm’s ontological proof would have converted), one becomes a christian by a change of affections enabled by the Holy Spirit. For instance, I intellectually know that eating fried chicken is bad for me, but I still do it; so unless my affections for it change, I will keep eating it, no matter how unhealthy people tell me it is.

But your objection is the one I’d exactly use if I was speaking to a evolutionary theist (people who believe in a God and evolution). Now, as for Darwin being inspired by Lyell’s uniformitarionism, just google any atheist website and you’ll see what I’m taking about. But you see, this premise must be assumed otherwise the billions of years argument come into serious question. The standard technique for measuring the age of fossils, trees, etc is Carbon-14 dating which assumes a steady rate of decay; but this is never justified. You see this is what I am talking about regarding the inherent bias of science and the initial assumptions- a fact conveniently ignored by most atheists.

Another thing, please don’t confuse evolution with natural selection. This is a contradiction, natural selection implies the reduction of information, evolution implies an increase of it. I certainly think natural selection occurs, this is logical and easily observable. What I cannot accept is that an increase of complexity without any intelligent intervention. And if you do, then be ready to also throw out the second law of thermodynamics (entropy).

Trev says:

09:23am | 05/02/11

Hello Ed
I too appreciate your non-confrontational approach. A general observation though; it seems to me that for Divine creation to be a credible alternative as an explanation for life on this planet, there needs to be some consistency between it and the discoveries, laws and accumulated knowledge of the sciences.

To take an extreme example, I remember being told (as a Year 10 student) that “Fish can’t possibly form fossils can they kids? We all know that when a fish dies, it floats on the surface of the water!” This during a religous instruction lesson. In a similar way Ed, it seems to me that those who promote the idea of Divine creation need to be very careful about the examples they use to try to clinch arguments. To say, for instance, that the rate at which carbon-14 decays (the basis for carbon dating) may vary with time is fraught with difficulty. There is a Nobel prize in physics available to the first person who can demonstrate that this can occur! After all Ed, one of the strengths of science is the constant striving to falsify accepted scientific truths.

And to claim that natural selection is a readily observable process but that evolution does not occur (as a consequence) is also fraught with difficulty. I’ve read on Creationist websites that adaptation to a specific environment is a God-given capability possessed by living organisms. But once this process is “allowed” in your thinking, you have automatically embraced evolution as a reality. It is then only a matter of time (in a changing environment and/or where populations are cut off from a main group) before speciation must occur. I’m sorry Ed, but all I see here is well-meaning people who are having to invent more and more convoluted explanations for the things that we observe around us.

As far as entropy is concerned Ed, you need to realise that it has a specific meaning within a specific context and that it’s application in areas outside of this context are likely to be problematic. But even if we allow that my little boy’s bedroom was a perfect example of entropy in action (it always tended to a state of maximum disorder) then all that was required to maintain it in a “stable state” was an input of energy. An input of energy is also readily available to populations of living things Ed.

Best wishes my friend

Ed says:

01:33pm | 05/02/11

hi Trev,

“A general observation though; it seems to me that for Divine creation to be a credible alternative as an explanation for life on this planet, there needs to be some consistency between it and the discoveries, laws and accumulated knowledge of the sciences.”

>>Exactly!! That fact the there are these laws, where do they come from? What is the most obvious explanation? If there are laws, there must be a law-maker. To say that laws came from complete randomness or without any intelligent output seems downright bizarre to me. Why is it that we are able to do science, to make inferences about the universe and Earth we live in, because these laws hold time and time again. But, some would say, no, we assume statistically from previous occurrences that there is a high probability that event x will occur given y. But, again, this begs the question, we can only make inferences because we assume some form of regularity.These laws are transcendental, universal and unchanging, how can such laws be explained in naturalistic terms? No atheist has ever solved this. As I’ve said in the past, atheist philosophers Bertrand Russell and David Hume themselves struggled with this. Think of this, suppose that there is a town with 1000 people, and each assigned a number. Each night a lotto ball is drawn and a winner announced. Now suppose I tell you that for the last 5 nights the same number is drawn. You immediately think: “Hold on a second, something is amiss here. Although I did not see anyone physically tamper with the lottery, someone must have interfered with it”. Now, what puzzles me about atheists is the following: if for such a trivial, they’d immediately agree that there was some intervention, why for these laws that prove themselves to be true time and time again, and do so in much more complex situations, atheists say there was no hand or input. What has changed? And evolution has never been observed; Dawkins has himself embarrasingly admitted that macroevolution has never been observed.  But, lets take that example of your child’s room and that the input of energy must be available. Apart from asking as to where this energy came from, your son uses this energy to tidy up the room. Your son is the intelligent intervention. No matter how much energy I pump into the making of car, it will not become a airline jet. For instance, a cat will never evolve into a dog, no matter how much it mutates or wishes for this to be the case. It is simply not “designed” or has the genetic instruction to do this. 

Personally, I don’t like to talk about evolution vs creation too much, except to point out that the atheist scientist claims that the former has been proved could not be further from the proof and their wilful omissions of the presuppositions of such theory are nothing short of scientific dishonesty. Creation has presuppositions also, don’t get me wrong; but I have at least found them more forthcoming in listing them. So yes, I fully agree with you, but to you ask: give me the atheistic justification that science works. That is, tell me why it works time and time again under your worldview.

What evolution can not account for or can not explain is the evolution of these laws of physics, mathematics, logic and universal morality. Not even they could say one day 1+1=1.9 and the next it was 2. I do not believe this charge is unfair; if evolution seeks to provide a metanarrative for the creation of the universe, then it must reconcile this problem. It can not be selective and omit the bits that doesn’t suit the theory.

As I said, my internet might get cut off any moment as I’ve had enough of Vodafone and I’m changing providers, but please feel free to comment and I’ll read with interest,

best wishes,
Ed.

Ed says:

04:40pm | 05/02/11

hi Trev,

just a couple of things I forgot to comment regarding some points you made:

To take an extreme example, I remember being told (as a Year 10 student) that “Fish can’t possibly form fossils can they kids? We all know that when a fish dies, it floats on the surface of the water!” This during a religous instruction lesson.
>> I think that is a valid point. Don’t you ever wonder why is it that nowadays we don’t see whole skeletons of dogs, cats, etc. buried. The reason is because scavengers, bacteria, etc. would get to them before they could be buried. That means a major catastrophic event (like a major flood) must have occurred for this to happed. I’ve seen fossils with two animals being buried with one eating the other one! How can this be if things happened at a steady rate? And even if they did, why don’t find such things anymore for animals that have died only a few years ago?

” In a similar way Ed, it seems to me that those who promote the idea of Divine creation need to be very careful about the examples they use to try to clinch arguments”
>> Absolutely, its never about the evidence as I’ve said time again, its about the assumptions and how that evidence is interpreted, on that I agree with you entirely. But this same argument is equally true for evolutionary theoreticians.
.
“To say, for instance, that the rate at which carbon-14 decays (the basis for carbon dating) may vary with time is fraught with difficulty.”

>> But its equally fraught with difficulty to say that it doesn’t. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

  “After all Ed, one of the strengths of science is the constant striving to falsify accepted scientific truths.”

>> Don’t get me wrong, I love science. I make a living researching it. But what I find fraudulent is when science doesn’t declare upfront from the start its presuppositions or assumptions and then says its evidence is conclusive that x, y or z occurred.

PS. Forget my occassional grammar howlers, I find it hard to proofread on the small boxes allocated for posting comments.

Zac de Spudnut says:

10:42pm | 04/02/11

Greg,’

You are right, there would no religious people. Millions of mums, dads and little kids were violently killed in the name of reason and science. “Atheistic Jihad” still continues…...

“a cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist, realistic idealist and God-like ATHEIST. “I am prepared to fight and die for my cause,” he wrote. “I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection.” Pekka Eric Auvinen, killed seven students for his Atheistic faith.

Ed says:

06:37am | 05/02/11

Spot on Zac. Atheists conveniently ignore that more people have died as a result of atheistic or evolutionary beliefs than the crusades. The irony of it is is that at least they were being consistent with their beliefs. I mean if there is no God, then nothing is good or bad. Good or bad become merely arbitrary notions amongst different people or societies. That is nobody has a justification for criticizing these tyrants. Furthermore, this complaint about christianity being responsible for burnings at the stake or crusades, etc. is an ideology which uses the christian faith as a shield. Jesus never advocates mass murder. And even in the Old Testament, you’ll find that this was for a specific period of time. And God often gave them warnings to turn back from their ways and on many occasions those that perished under God’s command were the instigators to begin with.
The minute somehow can show me that Jesus or his disciples say “go and kill in my name, so that peace may abound” or words to that effect is the minute I turn my back on christianity.

Zac de Spudnut says:

04:46pm | 05/02/11

Ed,

Atheists conveniently ignore that more people have died as a result of atheistic or evolutionary beliefs than the crusades.>>>

This has to be declared loud and clear from the roof tops of every society and in every part of the world. In the past it was up to the godless professors and the media to decide what their students and the society should think and know. Now with the advent of modern medium of communication, especially the internet, the inconvenient truth is in the face of many Atheists.

Here is one of my experience. Few years ago I opened up a post titled – “Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history” on Facebook public discussion board (I don’t think they have one any more). Guess what, it turnout to be a raging battle between me and the Atheists. This post had around 3000 comments. My aim was to inform and educate Atheists (and along the way the religious) of the bloodshed they have carried out in history (and even in present times) in the name of rationalism, logic and science.

The response I received was shocking. It included very, very demeaning name calling and death threats. One guy named Anton F……  who is a jurno, took it upon himself as his personal mission to stop me. However, it was an eye opener. I came out thinking, how can a group of people who claimed to be intelligent, rational, logical and scientific, be so bitter, vicious, and hateful and behave like the Islamic jihadists. Towards the end of the debate (by the time Facebook was planning to close down the public discussion board) there was a comment from the Assoc Professor of Sydney University (not sure if he was from Sydney uni or UTS),  Who said (a recollection from my human hard drive) “Zac is presenting his opinion/facts fully backed up by references, and is asking the readers to decide for themselves. So what is wrong with that? If he was my student he would get full marks”

I mean if there is no God, then nothing is good or bad. Good or bad become merely arbitrary notions amongst different people or societies. That is nobody has a justification for criticizing these tyrants.>>>

You hit the nail on the head. This is the key to Atheistic behaviour. Richard Dawkins is honest enough to accept this – “If somebody used my views to justify a completely self-centred lifestyle, which involved trampling all over other people in any way they chose. . . I think I would be fairly hard put to it to argue on purely intellectual grounds.  . . I couldn’t, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious.  I think I could finally only say, “Well, in this society you can’t get away with it” and call the police.”

Ref: Dawkins, ‘Nick Pollard talks to Dr. Richard Dawkins’, Thirdway, April 1995, vol 18, no 3

That’s right “Well, in this society you can’t get away with it”. i.e, in this Christ-ian society you can’t get away with it.

The minute somehow can show me that Jesus or his disciples say “go and kill in my name, so that peace may abound” or words to that effect is the minute I turn my back on christianity.>>>

Amen! I am fully with you on this.

Greg says:

06:11pm | 05/02/11

‘Atheistic faith’ - ‘Atheistic Jihad’ ??

i lol’d hard.

you guys missed the point by a mile. you thought i was referring to athiests killing the religious? sigh.

Ed says:

09:25pm | 05/02/11

hi Zac,

well, don’t be too hard on the poor atheists. Sin clouds their mind and although they freely do this, God might one day open their eyes.
That would explain why some many of them are so angry. I mean if someone told me that the Easter bunnly was real, I wouldn’t be starting an anti-Easter bunny group or labelling myself as such.  That alone should tell you how irrational they can get.

If you haven’t already, have a read of Greg Bahnsen’s transcript and his debate with Edward Tabash (you should be able to google it and find it somewhere). I know it blew my mind and made Tabash look like an absolute fool (although Bahnsen is best known for his debate with Stein, whom he also embarrases).  Anyway, good to see someone else fighting the good fight,  please don’t despair and always remember that its not really the atheists we are really fighting (Ephesians 6:12),

God bless brother,
Ed.

PS Do you also find it odd that there are more atheist posts here than in Tory’s article? Enough said, hey ?

Ed says:

10:59pm | 05/02/11

No Greg, it is you who doesn’t get it. If atheists could be reasoned with, they’d abandon their “religion”. Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship with the creator.

OchreBunyip says:

01:13pm | 06/02/11

Atheists are not a united group, they have no shared belief structure; some are defined by their politics (eg democracy, facism, dictatorship), some by their economics (eg capitalist, communist, socialist) some by their sports (eg NRL, NBL, AFL) and so-on. While some Atheists share common interests there is no unifying dogma that Atheists believe that serves to define them as a group in the same manner as it serves to define the religious as a group (eg Christians, Muslems, Buddhists, Hindus).  There is no united movement, or Jihad, of atheists, they don’t identify with each other in the same manner as those who identify with fellow religious people. Atheism is a lack of belief in a religion or a god, it isn’t a belief system of its own. When people kill people over religion, it is usually one religion snotting another religion. The Atheists kill each other for reasons other than religion because, to the Atheist, religion isn’t important enough to kill or die over.

Steely Dan says:

01:23pm | 06/02/11

@ Ed

” If atheists could be reasoned with, they’d abandon their “religion”.”
Lack of a belief in a god is a religion?  Provided we abandon the current definition of religion, you’re spot on!

“Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship with the creator.”
Uh-huh.  Nothing religious about that sentence at all.  No sir.

Greg says:

01:40pm | 06/02/11

Ed - despite your super-effective ‘i’m rubber you’re glue’ comeback, i’m not going to argue with you. if you want to know why then refer to the quote i posted. which, for the record, was aimed at my hell-bound comrades

Peace

Ed says:

02:49pm | 06/02/11

hi Greg,

fair enough, you meant the quote to signify a particular view; but surely you agree, that taken out of the context within which it was shown on TV, it could be taken to mean a number of different things. Maybe next time instead of ridiculing the people who misunderstood you, you can take the equally relatively short time and effort to explain what you meant (which by the way you still haven’t done, only given the cryptic “see my quote” response)

best wishes,
Ed.

Ed says:

03:01pm | 06/02/11

@ Steely Dan

Lack of belief in a god is a religion, if it is without reason. Despite all your sarcasm and somewhat witty remarks you have yet to demonstrate why it is that you don’t think God exists. Not believing for the sake of not believing is just as fanatical as christians who believe without a reason. I have posted time and time again why I “believe” God exists; you haven’t given a single reason why it is you “believe” God doesn’t exist (merely ridicule and putdowns); without reason that makes what you believe a blind faith,

regards,
Ed.

MrMac says:

07:44pm | 06/02/11

Ed,

“something is a religion is it is done without reason” - love it

Ed says:

08:15pm | 06/02/11

One more thing Steely Dan:

“Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship with the creator.”
Uh-huh.  Nothing religious about that sentence at all.  No sir.

>> That is your counterargument? I guess by your reckoning your relationship with your parents could also be classified as a religion.

Zac de Spudnut says:

10:50pm | 08/02/11

Hi Ed,

Sorry about the late reply. I’ve been having a busy week. I wish I could go easy on Atheists. However, some one has to tell them “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Luke 6:42. Whilst these with others were some strong words for the religious leaders of His time and Christians today. I think it is equally or more important words for Atheists as well, taking into account the viciousness of the ideology and the titanic effect Atheism had/have on humanity/society.

That alone should tell you how irrational they can get.>>>

This is a group of people who call themselves as “Brights” and believe in “Omnipotent Chance”. It can’t get any irrational and absurd than that.

Unfortunately I haven’t read Greg Bahnsen views or contribution. I’ll certainly be doing more research on this. Thanks very much for the info. I love reading, research and learning.

Anyway, good to see someone else fighting the good fight,  please don’t despair and always remember that its not really the atheists we are really fighting (Ephesians 6:12)>>>

I full agree. Those with a spiritual outlook will agree with you. For me this is the most important Christian message -  “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” 1 Corinthians 13:13. And for me Atheist brothers and sisters are a very important part of this great Christian message.

PS Do you also find it odd that there are more atheist posts here than in Tory’s article? Enough said, hey ?>>>

I guess history has proved Atheism is incompatible with free speech or democracy and Tory’s blog just confirms that.

May the loving Lord bless and guide you!

Dave of Sydney says:

07:45am | 09/02/11

Zac, you speak in typical religious double talk. What,exactly, is the “good fight” ????? Didn’t jesus say to STOP fighting, throw down the sword and take up fishing ?????? How the hell can you have a “good” fight then??? And your “loving lord” will only bless and guide you if you kiss his ass often enough,right? What if you choose NOT to? What will your LOVING lord do then? Your sycophantic and zealous quest to live forever at god’s side is laughable and tragic. We are already eternal oh blind one, you are just too afraid to see it.

True Believer says:

08:24am | 09/02/11

@Dave of Sydney:

Zac is referring to the admonition in Timothy 6:12 in which he exhorts believers to:  “12 Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses.” 

Nothing to do with fighting other human beings as you interpret it. Beyond your comprehension I realise. Atheists seem such a lost lot, rumbling around in rationalism, getting nowhere it seems.  Clinging like grim death to fresh air. Oh well…................:0)

Favourite hobby of atheists seems to be Christian bashing or denying their Creator.  Doesn’t that seem a wee bit empty to you?  Does to me, but then I know what it is like not to believe and now to believe and I know how futile the former is. Have a great day.

Zac de Spudnut says:

12:57pm | 09/02/11

Dave,

What,exactly, is the “good fight” ????? Didn’t jesus say to STOP fighting, throw down the sword and take up fishing ??????

You are right Jesus did say to stop the fighting and throw down the sword. And you almost got it right, they all did fishing for a living. Here is what Jesus said to the companion “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Matthew 26:52

How the hell can you have a “good” fight then???>>>

And to your question - What,exactly, is the “good fight” ????? or How the hell can you have a “good” fight then??? If the advice/instruction of Jesus on violence is good enough, how about Jesus’ advice on forgiveness and love? Looking at the rage in those question marks and the deadly impact Atheists had/have on society, the principles/teaching of Jesus is very much apt for Atheists as well.

And now to your question how can you have a “good” fight? To understand this it is very important to understand what Ed meant by “fighting the good fight”. His following statement and the biblical reference (I’ve pasted that verse in the end for your reference) reveals the answer. The following is what he stated - “please don’t despair and always remember that its not really the atheists we are really fighting (Ephesians 6:12)”. “For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.” Thats right our fight is not against flesh-and-blood Atheists. The “fight” or “struggle” we witnessed on this blog and others is one such “good fight”. One of the other “good fight” or “struggle” we have is by running large Christian schools. Hope this clears it up.

And your “loving lord” will only bless and guide you if you kiss his ass often enough,right? What if you choose NOT to? What will your LOVING lord do then?>>>

You are speaking like your master Richard Dawkins and you are following in his footsteps i.e, don’t tolerate Christians. This is the same impoliteness, anger and intolerance we have witnessed from Atheists for ages, so it is not new.

This is how Jesus would respond - “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.” Revelation 3:20

Your sycophantic and zealous quest to live forever at god’s side is laughable and tragic.>>>

At least it is not as tragic as the 300 million skeletons of Atheistic utopia.

We are already eternal oh blind one, you are just too afraid to see it.>>>

Yes I prefer to be permeated by the love of Christ (which is blind to you) rather than be permeated by “Atheistic rage”.

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 1 Corinthians 13.

Regards,

Zac - The Unapologetic Christ-ian

Steely Dan says:

02:29pm | 09/02/11

@ Zac

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Matthew 26:52”
Matthew 10:34-36:
‘Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

And you misquoted Ephesians.  The word ‘atheist’ is your own addition.

Steely Dan says:

02:38pm | 09/02/11

@ Ed

“Lack of belief in a god is a religion, if it is without reason.”
Don’t be silly.  A religion is not defined by a lack of reason - although lack of reason and religion are related.  Belief in homeopathy is unreasonable, and that’s not a religion.

“Despite all your sarcasm and somewhat witty remarks you have yet to demonstrate why it is that you don’t think God exists.”
I don’t believe God exists because I’m yet to see an argument for God’s existence that actually makes sense.

“I guess by your reckoning your relationship with your parents could also be classified as a religion.”
It’s not the relationship that makes the statement religious - it’s the appeal to a deity.  My parents are great, but they’re not gods.

True Believer says:

02:41pm | 09/02/11

@Zac

Great post, spot on, Goodonya bro.

Zac de Spudnut says:

05:55pm | 09/02/11

Steely Dan,

Matthew 10:34-36:
‘Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.>>>

Exegesis is the key here. We need to look at the verses previous to these to see just who it is Jesus is saying will be prone to violence:

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved”. (Matthew 10:16-22)

Far from advocating violence, Jesus is here predicting that Christians will become the victims of violence: It is the persecutors who wield the sword and become the foes. In other words, Jesus is saying here what we have: Religion will become an excuse for inhumanity. Atheists neatly fits here. Atheists used this excuse to kill 300 million dad, mum and little babies to create Atheistic utopia around the world. The critics have the sentiments precisely backwards.

Jesus is talking about a metaphoric -  “a”  “sword” that is God’s word. I’ll also be looking at the biblical meaning of the word “sword” towards the end.

The above said verses (Matthew 10:16-22) throws more light on what Jesus meant by saying the following;

“For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.”

So what Jesus was saying is that His arrival will bring “A”  “sword” or “God’s word”, King James version of the same verse reveals more insight on this. The word listed there is “variance” or disagreement.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

So by following Jesus and his teaching and principles, He was warning His followers that there is every chance ones on family will turn against each other.

The “sword” then stands as the symbol for the Truths Christ taught and He brought the sword so that we would not sit idly by and tolerate the enemies of the Faith and sin but, by taking the Apostle Paul’s advice, we might “put on the Armor of God” and “take unto you the helmet of salvation; and “the sword of the spirit” (which is the word of God)” (Ephesians 6: 11, 17). This is the sort of fight or struggle - which is very much spiritual - Ed was talking about.

Hebrews 4:12 makes that abundantly clear.

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

And you misquoted Ephesians.>>

Can you show me exactly what I misquoted?

The word ‘atheist’ is your own addition.>>>

If you are talking about my affirmation after I quoted the verse from Ephesians then it is very clear that I had the verse in inverted comma’s and there is no reason for confusion.

Zac de Spudnut says:

06:17pm | 09/02/11

True Believer,

Thank you! Our Christian faith is part and parcel of our western civilisation and democracy. Let no man or women fool us. It has to be celebrated publically. Our relationship with Christ - Christianity - is not a private thing but very much a public thing and we have nothing to apologise for as long as we are centered in Christ. No wonder I don’t subscribe to secularism. We are Christian Practioners (CP). Yep, we are imperfect. But we have a great model to follow.

Regards,

CP. Zac

Dave of Sydney says:

07:44am | 10/02/11

Zac & True Believer, I am no athiest as you keep beligerently calling me, but I am neither a blind follower of a ridiculous fairy tale designed to scare people into obedience. The ONLY reason you blubber about god and christ is because you are trying to save your OWN ass.Simple as that. You believe that UNLESS you continuously praise god and worship god and praise god and worship god and praise god and worship god ad infinitum then you will not be in god’s favour and hence NOT end up in paradise. Let’s see, that means that you are afraid of ending up in the abyss with satan - because your “loving” lord will send you there for daring to go against him. Eternal torture and damnation. Hmmm, I bet this is exactly what you would do to your OWN children if they disobeyed you,right? Of course you would because that is how you display LOVE AND FORGIVENESS isn’t it ????? You are too blind to see that while WE are urged to love and forgive our enemies your own “loving” lord himself cannot bring himself to love and forgive the “sinners”. Obviously god’s love for us only goes so far and then it’s off to hell with you. What amazing patience and tolerance he must have!!  As I’ve said before, obviously you use god’s treatment of us as a template to how you deal with your own children - in other words I bet you tell them ” do as I say or I will send you to eternal torment and damnation” because you LOVE them so much. Right? And I bet you can just sit back and watch your kids butcher,rape and murder each other and DO NOTHING about it - after all,that’s what your “loving” lord keeps doing with his children. You are so blinded by your pious outlook that you fail to see the myriad flaws and hypocrisy in your philosophy. You’re right, love does NOT boast and it ISN"T proud - yet how many christians are in the armed forces fighting and killing for our “pride” and then BOASTING about it and awarding VC’s to our brave soldiers who kill others . Are they not contravening christ’s teaching? Is that not a conflict of morals??? Is that not hypocrisy???  christ said that the MEEK shall inherit the earth, NOT the brave and the proud ( two words which are bandied about like badges of honour ).....how many meek christians,or catholics or protestants etc etc do YOU see on this planet?? Bugger all, that’s how many. I’d say as many as 95% of people are hypocrites - and that’s a CONSERVATIVE estimate, it’s more likely closer to 99%.
As for your talk of fighting “evil” you are overlooking one vital piece of intrigue : god himself created all the evil and all the calamities that exist. See Isaiah 45:7.  So your “loving ” god is responsible for all the good AND all the evil that exists in this world. ANNNNND, he being a PERFECT god, had the FORESIGHT to see the outcome of all things, so he already knows what is going to happen,where and when.  He created satan and unleashed him on the world KNOWING FULL WELL the final outcome.If that is not a perverse and sadistic mindset then nothing is !!  It’s a fixed game for god because he CAN’T be caught unawares, otherwise he WOULDN’T be perfect would he? So then, it goes without saying that all eventualities are a foregone conclusion to god. Yet you foolishly believe that your “freewill” is an unknown factor to god. If so, then he really DOESN’T know everything and is therefore not infallible, meaning he is capable of making mistakes. Right? Yet if he DOES know everything but chooses to not interfere then he must enjoy watching our lives pan out exactly as he already KNOWS they’re going to. Once again that can only be a perverse and sadistic mindset, one which you blindly call love.  You have eyes yet you do not see.

Zac de Spudnut says:

11:25am | 10/02/11

Dave,

Zac & True Believer, I am no athiest as you keep beligerently calling me, but I am neither a blind follower of a ridiculous fairy tale>>>

You claim you are not an Athiest and in the same vein you claim you are not a “follower of a ridiculous fairy tale”. It is quite clear your statement is contradictory. You are clearly an Atheist. Your denial that you are not an Atheist like some resident and other Atheists is a tactic to avoid responsibility for the bloodshed in history (and present) Atheists have carried out.

You have eyes yet you do not see.>>>

“learn to appreciate that the opposition hasn’t arrived at their conclusions in a vacuum. There are actually deeper reasons that they so fervently endorse supernatural authorities, and they aren’t always accounted for by stupidity.” Militant Atheist & Professor PZ Myers

“MY faith in atheism is being sorely tested by born-agains.
Not of the usual proselytising Christian variety but the obnoxious, pushy, ram-it-down-your-throat, born-again atheist variety.” David Penberthy, DT.

I got no more time to waste on you. Bye,

May your god Darwin bless you!

Steely Dan says:

11:46am | 10/02/11

@ Zac

“Exegesis is the key here. We need to look at the verses previous…”
And then you quote Matt 10:16-23.  But well after those passages and directly before what I quoted (10:34-36) comes these passages (10:32-33): ‘Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven’.  Then directly after what I quoted comes this (10:37-39):  ‘Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.’
Don’t pretend I’m the one taking things out of context.  Jesus does say that Christians will be persecuted, but he also clearly outlines that they are not to be persecuted willingly.  He’s talking about a kind of spiritual warfare, and doesn’t care if family relationships are destroyed as a result.

“Religion will become an excuse for inhumanity. Atheists neatly fits here. Atheists used this excuse to kill 300 million dad, mum and little babies to create Atheistic utopia around the world.”
I’ve responded to this claim many times in the past.  But you have a history of making the accusation every time religion or atheism is brought up then being unwilling to discuss it further (as was pointed out by Chris L on this page).  If you want to continue discussions we’ve had on this, you can respond to my comment to you at 10:59am 02/02 on http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/digging-a-hole-while-trying-to-find-god/.  But if you bring it up on this thread I’ll treat it as it deserves - as a red herring, and I’ll just ignore it.

“Jesus is talking about a metaphoric -  “a”  “sword” that is God’s word.”
That is special pleading.  When the enemies of Christians have swords, they’re real swords - but when Christians have swords they’re not real swords.

“King James version of the same verse reveals more insight on this. The word listed there is “variance” or disagreement.”
Really? http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew 10&version=KJV

“by taking the Apostle Paul’s advice, we might “put on the Armor of God” and “take unto you the helmet of salvation; and “the sword of the spirit” (which is the word of God)”
The ‘sword of the spirit’ should indeed be interpreted that way.  But that doesn’t mean that every ‘sword’ reference stated by Jesus (supposedly before Paul’s post-resurrection teachings) means ‘god’s word’. 

“Hebrews 4:12 makes that abundantly clear.”
Describing God’s word as being “sharper than” a sword does not make it “abundantly clear” that all subsequent mentions of the word ‘sword’ should be reinterpreted as being ‘God’s word’.

“it is very clear that I had the verse in inverted comma’s and there is no reason for confusion.”
You had other passages in inverted commas that were word for word.  It was not clear that the word ‘atheist’ was your own inclusion (except to those who know the passage).

Dave of Sydney says:

12:18pm | 10/02/11

Zac, how apt that you have failed to address any of my other questions. How convenient for you. The truth is you have NO answers to them that’s why you have immaturely chosen to focus on the TRIVIA of whether I am an athiest or not. And your curt display of christian patience is to be commended.Jesus would be proud of you. By the way, why is it that you one-eyed christians have the misguided view that if one does not believe in your version of events then one must by default believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution???  Never mind, you won’t answer that one either.

Zac de Spudnut says:

01:42pm | 10/02/11

Steely Dan,

I have addressed Jesus’ comments on “peace” and “a sword” in great detail. So I’ll leave it at that.

When the enemies of Christians have swords, they’re real swords - but when Christians have swords they’re not real swords.>>>

When Christians had real swords and used it. Jesus said…...

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”

He said buddy if you act violent, you will end up violent. He didn’t tolerate violence and He healed the victim. His actions speaks more than words.

I’ve responded to this claim many times in the past.  But you have a history of making the accusation every time religion or atheism is brought up then being unwilling to discuss it further >>>

I haven’t come up with any new accusation against Atheism/Atheist. Atheism/Atheist’s has (and is) been totally violent. Atheist’s have truck loads of skeletons. Atheist’s should be ashamed of the millions of men, women and little children they killed to create Atheistic societies around the world. Alexander Solzhenitsyn who has studied/researched thousands of documents makes this case very articulately (I’ve listed it towards the end).

I’ve had heaps of discussion with you on this and other subjects. My experience started with you in previous blogs. When as requested I substantiate/backup my posts, you will come back and reply you were joking and was sarcastic. To every comment you will reply “being sarcastic again”. Then on Tory’s blog I found you were being dishonest with your replies and were playing games with words and twisting it to your point. One such example is your reply to a female blogger on what Atheism is. So why would I waste my time on you.

And no wonder many resident Atheists claim they are not Atheists any more….....

“The World has never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin and at the heart of their psychology, HATRED OF GOD is the principle driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly and just as openly put them into practice.” (Alexander Solzhenitsyn)

Steely Dan says:

02:35pm | 10/02/11

@ Zac

“I have addressed Jesus’ comments on “peace” and “a sword” in great detail.”
You have.  It’s not convincing, but you have.

“He said buddy if you act violent, you will end up violent. He didn’t tolerate violence and He healed the victim.”
That makes him contradictory.  Or ‘complex’, if you want to be generous.

“When as requested I substantiate/backup my posts, you will come back and reply you were joking and was sarcastic.”
What an odd prediction.  It’s almost as if you’re avoiding substantiating your posts. 

“Then on Tory’s blog I found you were being dishonest with your replies and were playing games with words and twisting it to your point. One such example is your reply to a female blogger on what Atheism is.”
Reference? 

“And no wonder many resident Atheists claim they are not Atheists any more….....”
So many?  You’ve mentioned one (Flew) - and you ran away from that discussion too.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s views are fascinating.  But a quote from a theist saying atheism is opinion, and nothing more.

Zac de Spudnut says:

02:46am | 11/02/11

Steely Dan,

“I have addressed Jesus’ comments on “peace” and “a sword” in great detail.”
You have.  It’s not convincing, but you have.>>>

What it’s not convincing? You mean convince a die hard Atheist like you. Thats not my goal. Die hard & militant Atheists are here not for convincing. I have debated with Atheists on larger forums for a while, so I know that. But we also know it is not just the die hards and militants who reside and travel through this blog. Ed, has got a better response to this.

“If Zac and True Believer made compelling cases why the assumptions of atheism are immoral, I’m making the case that they are just plain irrational and arbitrary and unable to account for any knowledge they have.”

“He said buddy if you act violent, you will end up violent. He didn’t tolerate violence and He healed the victim.”
That makes him contradictory.  Or ‘complex’, if you want to be generous.>>>

I could pull many posts of yours to demonstrate your dishonesty but this would do. 

“Then on Tory’s blog I found you were being dishonest with your replies and were playing games with words and twisting it to your point. One such example is your reply to a female blogger on what Atheism is.”
Reference?

In response to Steph’s post on Tory’s blog “Digging a hole while trying to find God”, where you give dishonest replies on what Atheism and Agnosticism is. Do you honestly think - “You can be both an agnostic and an atheist.”? Really? Doc’s post will expose your dishonesty or ignorance.

“DocBud says:
Zac,
You’ll note that my reference was to agnosticism, otherwise my comment would not have made sense.
Extreme atheists, in marked contrast to agnostics, REALLY know that there is no god and this certainty can make them intolerant and bigoted to those who hold religious views.”

Do you honestly think “Atheism is not denial”?

This position was popularised by new Atheist movement. Even many dictionaries (like the one I quoted from Merriam-Webster in Tory’s blog to prove Atheism is a definitive position in contrast to Agnosticism) have taken up this position. Atheism was all about denial. “It appears to be preferred so as to escape the philosophic difficulty of proving a negative—God does not exist—and in order to shift the burden of proof to the theist, since the theist is making the positive affirmation that God exists.”

There is many more I could refer. When you have time, read some of your replies and inform yourself if your were being honest or deliberately playing games. I am stating this from my experience with your replies on many blogs. Don’t take us for a ride, we don’t follow the absurd religion Atheism.

“And no wonder many resident Atheists claim they are not Atheists any more….....”
So many?  You’ve mentioned one (Flew) - and you ran away from that discussion too.>>>

Antony Flew is a famous case who rejected and discarded Atheism, I was not talking about him. I was referring to “resident Atheists” like- Reg says: “By the way, I object to being classified as a atheist”, James who thinks Atheists only believe in a non-interfering God, Greg - who claims he not an Atheist but doesn’t believe in religious fairy tale. Wow!! Atheists are totally muddled up.

Poor Atheists when confronted with mountains and mountains of skeletons, they deny they are Atheists, because they don’t want to be held accused or held accountable for what their religion has done. This is where the absurdity of Atheism will take humanity.

You claim I ran away from the discussion but what you conveniently ignore (as raised in the comments to the first post on this blog) is the fact like many others have raised is the censorship that went on in that blog. Numerous replies of mine was not published. Atheism is not compatible with democracy. So it doesn’t surprise me.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s views are fascinating.  But a quote from a theist saying atheism is opinion, and nothing more.>>>

Substance in his statement which is the result of thousands of hours of research is not his opinion but facts. As far as your opinions are concerned it is muddled up replies to people’s post with no back up, no reference, no links, nothing. Let’s leave Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s conclusion on Atheism for a while. In Tory’s blog when you debated a fellow Atheist you accepted that violence was committed by Atheists through history or was it sarcasm. Not that it matters, history alone will convict Atheists. It is high time Atheist’s officially apologise for the atrocities they have carried out and for the ones they still do.

And Atheists think we are irrational…....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvODT8bBUxA

Steely Dan says:

10:46am | 11/02/11

@ Zac

“What it’s not convincing? You mean convince a die hard Atheist like you. Thats not my goal.”
Good.  Because nobody would be convinced that ‘sword’ means ‘God’s word’ after reading your arguments.

“That makes him contradictory.  Or ‘complex’, if you want to be generous.>>>”
Why did you re-quote me here Zac?  Did you want to comment on it?

“Do you honestly think - “You can be both an agnostic and an atheist.”? Really? “
Yes.  Theism and atheism are about what you believe in regardst to deities, gnosticism and agnosticism are about what you claim to know is true about deities.  Have a look at the root Greek words ‘theos’ and ‘gnosis’.  I disagree with DocBud on this topic.  Sorry. 

“Do you honestly think “Atheism is not denial”?”
That’s correct.  You can be an atheist and deny there is a god, but you don’t have to deny that there is a god to be an atheist.  An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god - not necessarily one who claims to know that there is no god.  Do you understand the distinction?

“Even many dictionaries (like the one I quoted from Merriam-Webster in Tory’s blog to prove Atheism is a definitive position in contrast to Agnosticism) have taken up this position.”
And you can look up my response to that on the very same page!

“It appears to be preferred so as to escape the philosophic difficulty of proving a negative—God does not exist—and in order to shift the burden of proof to the theist, since the theist is making the positive affirmation that God exists.”
So do you think that it’s impossible to be in a position where you don’t believe in a god, although you don’t deny the possibility that one (or more) could exist?  If you say ‘well that’s not atheism as I define it’  - then let’s forget about the labels for a second.  I don’t believe in a god, but don’t claim to know there is one.  Let’s call that position Steelism.  What’s your problem with Steelism?

“When you have time, read some of your replies and inform yourself if your were being honest or deliberately playing games.”
Why on earth do you interpret a disagreement over definitions as ‘dishonesty’? 

“we don’t follow the absurd religion Atheism.”
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

“I was referring to “resident Atheists” like- Reg says: “By the way, I object to being classified as a atheist”,”
I see we’re back on definitions again.  Does Reg believe in a god?  I don’t know what his position is.  More importantly, do Reg, James or Greg claim they were once atheists but aren’t any more? 

“James who thinks Atheists only believe in a non-interfering God”
That’s deism.

“Greg - who claims he not an Atheist but doesn’t believe in religious fairy tale.”
That doesn’t tell us what Greg is.  He could be an atheist, a deist, a pantheist, a panentheist, or a theist who rejects all religions but his own.

“the censorship that went on in that blog. Numerous replies of mine was not published.”
It happens to everyone.  It’s not censorship.  Have another go.  The Punch overlords let you publish that comment calling them censors, right?

“Atheism is not compatible with democracy. So it doesn’t surprise me.”
If you’re not going to expand on that, don’t expect a response.

“Substance in his statement which is the result of thousands of hours of research is not his opinion but facts.”
No.  Opinions (even if based on facts) are opinions.  Why not give us some of the facts that Solzhenitsyn used to come to his opinion so we can evaluate them?

“In Tory’s blog when you debated a fellow Atheist you accepted that violence was committed by Atheists through history or was it sarcasm.”
Is your sarcasm detector that broken?  Of course I know that atheists have done terrible things!  I’m not a holier-than-thou theist who thinks theological positions determine whether people are good and bad.  But the existence of bad atheists doesn’t make me bad, or more likely to turn bad.  Just as the existence of black murderers doesn’t make black people bad for being black.  You have to show causality.

True Believer says:

01:03pm | 11/02/11

Zac and Ed

Great posts - keep up the good work.!!! :0)

If Steely Dan is an example of atheistic thinking I cannot see many people converting to that. :0)

Steely Dan says:

01:54pm | 11/02/11

@ TB

“If Steely Dan is an example of atheistic thinking I cannot see many people converting to that. :0)”
I wouldn’t expect you to see it, TB.  If presuppose that it’s not happening, it’s rational to believe that it mustn’t be happening, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Australia

True Believer says:

02:45pm | 11/02/11

@Steely Dan

“If presuppose that it’s not happening, it’s rational to believe that it mustn’t be” 

Must be getting towards the end of the week - another sentence in your posts that makes no sense.  Perhaps you are wearing yourself out with all this shadow-boxing at Christians?

As for the site - not sure what you thought I may deduce from that - it just tells about the numbers by religion.  I am not interested in religion - most of it is man-made. I just know and love Jesus and know He knows and loves me. 

Tis a relationship not a religion. I of course cannot speak for others who claim to be Christians, but that is where I stand humbly before my God. :0) Have a good weekend.

Steely Dan says:

09:42am | 13/02/11

@ TB

“As for the site - not sure what you thought I may deduce from that - it just tells about the numbers by religion.  I am not interested in religion - most of it is man-made. I just know and love Jesus and know He knows and loves me.”
So you base your belief that the number of atheists is not rising on… gut feeling?  A poll that only the spiritually intelligent can see?

True Believer says:

05:52pm | 13/02/11

@Steely Dan:
“So you base your belief that the number of atheists is not rising on… gut feeling?  A poll that only the spiritually intelligent can see?”

My dear Steely, more and more you are scraping the barrel of your poor sad atheism. It would be funny if it was not so sad.

It makes not one iota of difference to what I know about my Lord Jesus, as opposed to “belief”  - the rise and fall of any number of any old false religions whether atheist or not make no difference to my relationship with Him.  It is sad for the misled and I grieve for the lost souls, but they have a God given choice, - life or death - some choose death for eternity. So be it. Their choice.

As Jesus tells those who ears to here and eyes to see, “You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way.

If you wish to travel the wide road to destruction mate, that is your choice and all I do is stand and point to the better way. Many pass by and tis sad. Jesus grieves for the lost and so do those who love and follow Him.  I was on that broad road to destruction, but by His love and grace and that alone I found the ‘narrow gate’. I really you do too.

Steely Dan says:

09:33am | 14/02/11

@ TB

“My dear Steely, more and more you are scraping the barrel of your poor sad atheism. It would be funny if it was not so sad.”
So no reason.  The quick way to answer when you don’t really have an answer is to say ‘I don’t know’.

“It makes not one iota of difference to what I know about my Lord Jesus”
I didn’t ask you about what you claim to know about Jesus.  I asked you why you thought atheism was becoming unpopular.

True Believer says:

01:06pm | 14/02/11

Steely, I guess you are basing your defence of the supposed rise of atheism on my rather light-hearted comment several posts back.

“If Steely Dan is an example of atheistic thinking I cannot see many people converting to that. :0)”

Please do not deduce from that that I have the slightest interest in the rise and fall of the false religion of atheism, any more than I am interested in other false religions. Religion does not interest me.

Whether atheism rises or falls has no impact on Jesus nor me or other believers - man will and has developed any one of a great number of ways to avoid the His Truth, through numerous religions which have no substance and in his foolishness it will continue.

Jesus stands immutable, Lord of Lords and King of Kings. Nothing mere man (no matter how many multitudes of false beliefs he creates) will change that fact. He is, was and forever will be.

Atheism has a use by date along with other false beliefs.  Jesus doesn’t. That is the difference.  You opt for the one that is passing I opt for the one that stands forever. Your choice, my choice.

Steely Dan says:

02:42pm | 14/02/11

@ TB

“Steely, I guess you are basing your defence of the supposed rise of atheism on my rather light-hearted comment several posts back.”
I’‘m not ‘defending’ - I’m getting you to acknowledge that your assertion that atheism is in decline is either false (most likely) or unverifiable (much less likely).

“Please do not deduce from that that I have the slightest interest in the rise and fall of the false religion of atheism, any more than I am interested in other false religions.”
You should.  If I thought that there was a god who lets people fry if they don’t buy His/Her arbitrary moralistic teachings, I’d be running around telling everybody to ditch their false beliefs.  I guess I’m just more caring about others around me.

True Believer says:

06:51pm | 14/02/11

“I’m not ‘defending’ - I’m getting you to acknowledge that your assertion that atheism is in decline is either false (most likely) or unverifiable (much less likely)”

You do not understand Steely do you?  What atheism or any other false religion does makes no difference in the bigger scheme of things. It is of no account.  I don’t place any importance on false religion, including atheism. All that shows is how many foolish people there are. That is sad, but people make their choice. God gave them that ability.

“If I thought that there was a god who lets people fry if they don’t buy His/Her arbitrary moralistic teachings.”

My God offers each of us, unconditional love, peace that passes all human understanding and eternal life. I don’t know where you happened on that “god” you describe. We, you and me,  choose whether we will opt for life in Him, or eternal death separated from Him. Our choice.

“ If I thought that there was a god who lets people fry if they don’t buy His/Her arbitrary moralistic teachings, I’d be running around telling everybody to ditch their false beliefs.  I guess I’m just more caring about others around me.”

Just why do you think Christians come onto these pages???? We are telling you to “ditch false beliefs”, but you doggedly cling to them like a starving dog with a dry old bone ignoring the fresh meat offered.

We stand to gain not one thing if you choose eternal life or eternal death, but knowing the Truth we urge you to choose eternal life. That is caring!!!! Because we know how much God loves you, we tell you the Truth. All you offer is eternal death to your fellow travellers on planet earth, you have nothing else. 

We do care so very much about the lost, but you would rather sit on your little perch of pride and play what to you are “clever” games. You gamble with so much, if only you realised it.

Steely Dan says:

10:24pm | 14/02/11

@ TB

“You do not understand Steely do you?  What atheism or any other false religion does makes no difference in the bigger scheme of things.”
I asked you to address your claim that atheism is in decline - your response is ‘it doesn’t matter’.  I’ll consider that an admission that your comment was baseless.

“My God offers each of us, unconditional love”
Do you know that ‘unconditional’ means?  Or are you saying that we all go to heaven, if we’re atheists, or Hindus, or Muslims?  That would make you a very unconventional Christian…

“We, you and me,  choose whether we will opt for life in Him, or eternal death separated from Him. Our choice.”
Hence, conditional love.  I see you are a conventional Christian after all.

“Just why do you think Christians come onto these pages???? We are telling you to “ditch false beliefs””
Odd, I could have sworn you made this indifferent statement: “Whether atheism rises or falls has no impact on Jesus nor me or other believers”.

“but you doggedly cling to them like a starving dog with a dry old bone ignoring the fresh meat offered.”
I just offered my dog some spiritual meat.  She couldn’t smell it, or see it, or touch it, or taste it.  She didn’t take it.  What a silly dog!  It was free meat!

“We stand to gain not one thing if you choose eternal life or eternal death, but knowing the Truth we urge you to choose eternal life. That is caring!!!!”
I would have thought a Real Christian would have heeded the words of 1 Peter 3:15.  Do False Christians go to heaven?

“All you offer is eternal death to your fellow travellers on planet earth, you have nothing else.”
True - if you consider the quality of the life we have to be ‘nothing’.

“You gamble with so much, if only you realised it.”
Oddly enough Pascal’s Wager doesn’t get more convincing the more I hear it.  And I don’t consider the honest pursuit of truth to be some game.

True Believer says:

08:40am | 15/02/11

@Steely Dan:
“I asked you to address your claim that atheism is in decline - your response is ‘it doesn’t matter’.  I’ll consider that an admission that your comment was baseless.”
Again we seem to be at cross purposes, I do not recall ever making such a claim “that atheism is in decline.”  I don’t take any interest in what atheism is doing, it is not important at all to me. Perhaps you could quote where you think I made such a claim? 

“Do you know that ‘unconditional’ means?  Or are you saying that we all go to heaven, if we’re atheists, or Hindus, or Muslims?  That would make you a very unconventional Christian…”

Oh yes I know very well what it means. It does not mean “all go to heaven.”  Those who repent and follow Jesus will know His unconditional Love – the Christian God is Love, (that is, divine love, not the conditional love of humans wonderful enough as that can be.) 
As I have told you over and over, we have the God-given choice to follow Him or reject Him. Those who reject Him and follow false religions such as atheism are choosing eternal separation from Him. Their choice.

“I just offered my dog some spiritual meat.  She couldn’t smell it, or see it, or touch it, or taste it.  She didn’t take it.  What a silly dog!  It was free meat!”

That is so foolish it is not worthy of comment. All it says is you are bound by your rationalism and apparently incapable of considering there may be more which your little human mind cannot comprehend.

“I would have thought a Real Christian would have heeded the words of 1 Peter 3:15.  Do False Christians go to heaven?”

I have replied to you and told you the answer. You choose not to hear it. You just enjoy argument for argument’s sake it seems.  Perhaps you could explain what you mean by “false Christians.”

“True - if you consider the quality of the life we have to be ‘nothing’.”

Again you deliberately misread me – you talk about carnal life, I speak of eternal life. I realise you have an inability to conceptualise the greater truth of who and what we are though.

“Oddly enough Pascal’s Wager doesn’t get more convincing the more I hear it.  And I don’t consider the honest pursuit of truth to be some game.”

Pascal’s wager aside I know you are not in an “honest pursuit of truth” and therefore this is a game you play because you are not the slightest bit interested in hearing any ‘truth’ unless it fits your restricted comprehension.

You just wish to keep pushing your little atheist barrow as if it contained some truth – which I know it does not.  You want truth to be little enough for you to understand it. That is sad.  The Real Truth will not fit into your parameters.  He is so much bigger than that.

Steely Dan says:

04:33pm | 15/02/11

@ TB

“Again we seem to be at cross purposes, I do not recall ever making such a claim “that atheism is in decline.””
We are at cross purposes.  I want to try and stay on topic.  You made the claim that atheism isn’t growing, you’ve rejected the data because - well, you won’t say - and now you just want to say that you don’t care.

“Those who repent…”
Condition number 1.

“...and follow Jesus…”
Condition number 2.

“...will know His unconditional Love”
What unconditional love?

“That is so foolish it is not worthy of comment.”
That is what is called a cop-out.

“All it says is you are bound by your rationalism”
That’s the nicest thing you’ve ever said to me!

“and apparently incapable of considering there may be more which your little human mind cannot comprehend.”
Not at all.  I’m capable of considering lots of things.  I just don’t believe them all.

“I have replied to you and told you the answer.”
1 Peter 3: 15 states: ‘Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.’ Not ‘always be prepared to tell people to believe just because’.  What is the reason (yes, reason) for the hope that you have? 

“Perhaps you could explain what you mean by “false Christians.””
There’d be a lot of ways one could be a False Christian.  One way would be picking and choosing which bits of the Bible fit your expectations of what divine revelation should be.  Agreed?

“Again you deliberately misread me – you talk about carnal life, I speak of eternal life.”
No, I realise what you were talking about.  If quality of life has to suffer in this life (the one we know we have) to aid you in the next life (the one you hope you have), then so be it.

“Pascal’s wager aside…”
Don’t just push it aside, don’t use it!  It only ‘works’ if you’re trying to convert people who already believe what you do!

“you are not the slightest bit interested in hearing any ‘truth’ unless it fits your restricted comprehension.”
I’m not interested in baseless conjecture in the slightest, unless it’s packaged as interesting fiction.

True Believer says:

06:07pm | 15/02/11

@Steely Dan:
. ” I want to try and stay on topic.  You made the claim that atheism isn’t growing, you’ve rejected the data because - well, you won’t say - and now you just want to say that you don’t care.”

One thing at a time - you quote to me the time and date I claimed “atheism isn’t growing.”

You can’t can you?  Evasion is not clever, I asked you to show me where I had said that and you evade the answer with whole lot of not so smart comments. 

Whether atheism grows, shrinks or dies on the plate has no interest for me. It is a myth so whether people are foolish enough to follow it or not is their problem.  It does not interest me. Now come up with the goods Steely - where did I say what you claim I said???  Date time, string please.

Steely Dan says:

10:56am | 16/02/11

@ TB

“One thing at a time - you quote to me the time and date I claimed “atheism isn’t growing.” “
01:03pm | 11/02/11: “If Steely Dan is an example of atheistic thinking I cannot see many people converting to that.”
I interpreted that as a statement that atheism was not growing.  I replied with statistics showing that those who identified as ‘no religion’ was growing.
At 2:45 the same day you replied:
“As for the site - not sure what you thought I may deduce from that - it just tells about the numbers by religion.  I am not interested in religion - most of it is man-made.”
That would have been your time to clarify that you weren’t making any claim about any change in atheism’s popularity.  Unless you were trying to be deliberately misleading, of course.

“You can’t can you?”
Just did.  Your recollection of a recent conversation you engaged in (and is written down for prosperity) is pretty appalling.  Given your shaky knowledge of Biblical texts, this doesn’t surprise me.

True Believer says:

11:31am | 16/02/11

@Steely Dan:

“I interpreted that as a statement that atheism was not growing.  I replied with statistics showing that those who identified as ‘no religion’ was growing.
At 2:45 the same day you replied:
“As for the site - not sure what you thought I may deduce from that - it just tells about the numbers by religion.  I am not interested in religion - most of it is man-made.””

I answered that (see below) 01:06pm | 14/02/11

““Steely, I guess you are basing your defence of the supposed rise of atheism on my rather light-hearted comment several posts back.
“If Steely Dan is an example of atheistic thinking I cannot see many people converting to that. :0)”
Please do not deduce from that that I have the slightest interest in the rise and fall of the false religion of atheism, any more than I am interested in other false religions. Religion does not interest me.””

I think that is fairly self-explanatory – all I was saying was that if you were an example of what constitutes an atheism not many would be drawn to that cause/religion/belief. A light-hearted comment. No in any way meant to indicate any interest on my behalf in whether or not atheism grows or diminishes.  As I said before, it is a false belief with a use-by date (only temporary) so not of interest to me. I prefer to remain which has no use-by date and never will have. :0)

““You can’t can you?”
Just did.  Your recollection of a recent conversation you engaged in (and is written down for prosperity) is pretty appalling.  Given your shaky knowledge of Biblical texts, this doesn’t surprise me.””

Well in asking that I assumed you were not going to go back to something I had already answered.  A reasonable assumption.

BTW I think you meant ‘posterity’ not “prosperity.”

“Given your shaky knowledge of Biblical texts, this doesn’t surprise” 
Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out examples of my ‘shaky knowledge of Biblical texts’ so I can address this observation of yours, which by the way I reject.

Steely Dan says:

02:07pm | 16/02/11

@ TB

“all I was saying was that if you were an example of what constitutes an atheism not many would be drawn to that cause/religion/belief. A light-hearted comment.”
If you meant it as such you could have clarified in your 2:45 comment.  Or the next one. 

“BTW I think you meant ‘posterity’ not “prosperity.””
True, I did.  And you probably meant to say that I was an example of what constitutes an ‘atheist’, not an ‘atheism’.  If we both know what each other means, it’s not an issue.

“Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out examples of my ‘shaky knowledge of Biblical texts’ so I can address this observation of yours, which by the way I reject.”
You could start with explaining why you seem to think 1 Peter 3:15 doesn’t apply to you.

True Believer says:

02:55pm | 16/02/11

@Steely Dan

Yes you are right, I did mean atheist not “atheism” - well picked. :0)

On 1 Peter 3:15 - I don’t recall ever saying it does not apply to me. If it is the “reason” bit you are trying to hook me on, forget it, my reasoning encompasses a realm you choose to ignore. :0)

Steely Dan says:

04:59pm | 16/02/11

@ TB

“On 1 Peter 3:15 - I don’t recall ever saying it does not apply to me.”
You didn’t - but if you don’t provide your reasoning, you are treating it as if it doesn’t apply to you.

“If it is the “reason” bit you are trying to hook me on, forget it, my reasoning encompasses a realm you choose to ignore.”
If the first step in providing your reasoning is asking me to ignore reasoning - it’s not reasonable, is it? 
If I told you atheism is correct because atheism is correct, and that I haven’t committed a circular argument fallacy because you just have to believe that I don’t - I’d be unreasonable.

True Believer says:

05:51pm | 16/02/11

@Steely Dan:

I think we should end this string otherwise it will be longer than the Great Wall of China. :0)

You only understand the temporal. You try to discuss things which you refuse to acknowledge.  I understand where you are coming from because I too have been there, you do not understand where I am coming from because you are closed to the knowledge that comes from being born again in the Lord.  Perhaps when you are a bit more willing to look beyond the temporal to the eternal we can talk further. Until then my friend, thank you for your discussion, but I am outa here.
God bless. I wish you only the best. Jesus is there for you just as He was for me.  He says, “I stand at the door and knock…..........................”

Steely Dan says:

09:41am | 17/02/11

@ TB

“Perhaps when you are a bit more willing to look beyond the temporal to the eternal we can talk further.”
Sorry TB, but you don’t get to assume that I didn’t ask for Jesus to be in my life.  I prayed desperately for years when I was young, scared that I would burn forever if I didn’t.  I had the faith of a child (I was one at the time), but Jesus was nowhere to be seen.  In hindsight it obviously wasn’t a good process for discovering the truth - but I did it. 

You are arrogant to assume that your conclusion is the right one simply because it’s your conclusion.

True Believer says:

12:50pm | 17/02/11

@Steely Dan

I can understand now why you feel perhaps He is not there, that must have been hard as a child. I was fortunate to know Him as a child, not perhaps as I know Him now, but I asked Him to help me at times and He did. Then again as a teenager when my sister lay close to death, a young mother, I asked again and He answered and then foolish me I wandered off into the world and all its “cleverness”.  Then the time came again and the invite was there and this time I was prepared to make Him my Lord and Saviour. I guess before it was just me asking Him when I had a need.

I feel sure that although you were not aware He heard, He did and He has a time when He will invite you as He did me. I hope you are open to Him when He holds out His hand to you. I know He will. To know Him we need to come with a contrite and honest heart - well that is how I met Him, really met Him and He has never left me nor forsaken me. I have been in some pretty dark moments, but none was so dark that He did not light it up for me. Could I suggest you have a stroll round a Christian bookshop and have a look for book of other’s experiences. There are some fantastic testimonies out there. All the best. (By the way I do not mean to sound arrogant, I have nothing to be arrogant about, I just get frustrated when people want to argue Him away and I know He is there.) God bless. I wish you well Steely.

majid says:

06:47pm | 04/02/11

I have never been religious but for a long time I used to say proudly “I am atheist”, but now I say nothing. The reason is, I believe that when we say we are proud of being something, it automatically implies that others are inferiors to us…

Otherwise, happiness is only how we see ourselves and perceive others… The poorest person can still be happier than the richest person, all depends on his beliefs and how he sees himself in the world and within his surrounding…

Ed says:

08:22am | 06/02/11

Caitlin,

under an atheist worldview you can rationalise it, but you can’t justify it. Is “good” and “bad” set by each society? If so, you can’t criticise what genocidal tyrants have done, after all that’s what he considered right in his societ;y. If you object, that implies a universal morality, and if that is the case I want to know how a random, naturalistic explanation of the creation of the universe can account for this transcendental, unchanging property?
And don’t get me started on “evolutionary morality” - if this was true, WWII wouldn’t have resulted in more deaths than every other previous war combined.
For goodness sake, could all atheists put more than 2 seconds thought into what it is they do or don’t believe?

Reg says:

08:56pm | 06/02/11

@ED ...  “For goodness sake, could all atheists put more than 2 seconds thought into what it is they do or don’t believe?”

That’s highly offensive Ed, but all the more so because the majority of Christians follow blindly having had their beliefs inculcated in their innocent years.

Most have no idea why they believe what they do and many non-conformist will still rally to Jesus on their death bed having no sense of how deep-seated religion was imposed on them in the youth.

Perhaps it is you who need to delve a little deeper into WHY you believe as you do Ed.

Ed says:

08:29am | 07/02/11

@ Reg

you’re right, I shouldn’t have made blanket statements like that. People like Trev and Bilby have at least tried to engage in interesting discussion. If I’ve offended you (or anybody else for that matter), I apologise.

I have made it perfectly clear that I do not have time to tolerating christians or otherwise who follow blindly. May I suggest in the future that you read some of my posts before criticising me. If you had you would have realised I was not raised a christian and that I haven given plenty of reasons why I believe.

I have going some of your posts and all I’ve seen from you is mocking, so how about you justify your position, otherwise you have no reason to get upset when one can only conclude that you have not spent much time thinking about your stance on this issue,

regards,
Edwin.

monkeytypist says:

02:54pm | 04/02/11

No majid, it’s not 1 chance in two.  Firstly, there have been thousands of different supernatural claims made throughout history.  When we take each one, the probability that “supernatural claim X is true” versus the null hypothesis, that it is not true, is not 50%.  The entire point of the scientific method is that we are able to assess, within certain inherent parameters of doubt and uncertainty, whether a given explanation for a phenomenon is plausible or not.  I can’t arbitrarily make up a supernatural claim (“my kitchen table is actually an alien in disguise, hidden so well that human technology cannot detect its presence”) and automatically imbue it with a “50% likely” tag.  The heuristics and methods of science allow us to see that such a scenario is astronomically unlikely, even if it is not logically possible to completely disprove it.  Each of the myriad supernatural claims that a given individual makes can be subjected to the same standard.

majid says:

04:41pm | 04/02/11

monkeytypist,

My experience with people is the following: there are the practical ones who try to simplify life and take it as it comes and then there are the complicated ones who torture themselves throughout life by trying to work out from where the fish is pissing while swimming…

When I say 1 in two, I give equal credit and right to intelligence to both sides, atheists or religious. Because if I don’t do so, it means I have been demeaning to one of the two sides… in simpler words, I can be a better thinker but still I have one chance in two to get it wrong at the end.

Let’s imagine this in a metaphoric scene: God is hidden in one of two boxes and you have to pick only one box to find Him… What will be your chances??? Knowing that even if you pick the box hiding God, it is still the wrong answer/choice…

Chris L says:

01:52am | 05/02/11

Majid, being demeaning is inconsequential compared to the wrathful vengeance practised by the followers of religion against those who questioned them in the past. I’m just grateful that torture and burning at the stake are no longer acceptable.

I can acknowledge the intelligence and altruism of those religious people I know (personal experience), but I’m not going to pretend that their beliefs seem even slightly credible to me (and I don’t pretend otherwise in person either). If a debate is to be had I’m all for it and I don’t hold back because of any special status that religion seems to have (anti blashpemy laws from the UN! Are they serious?!) and I’m happy to be proven wrong on any subject. In regards to this topic, I’m still waiting

majid says:

09:41am | 05/02/11

Chris L, humanity lived dark ages throughout time and it is still the case in some part of the world because this perpetual conflict, and I believe that the only answer to help to move forward will be that the education prevail all around the world and create only good and moderate THINKERS in both sides… Because the real deadly POISON to any society is certainly ignorance.

Regarding the UN and potentially the creation of a new Anti-blasphemy law, I think it is only to protect some faiths as well as a response to what happened after the Swedish cartoonist had depicted the prophet Mohammed as a d- - -, which I personally believe was a stupid and a massive IGNORANCE from the part of the cartoonist…

monkeytypist says:

02:09pm | 07/02/11

@majid yes it is important to assume that everyone is worthy of respect.  The respect accorded to my ideas, for example, starts when I open my mouth (keeping an open mind) and then ends when I start spouting my nonsense alien table story - that is a proposition that is so ludicrous that entertaining it seriously is seriously disrespectful to my own intellect as well as those of others.  Anyone can be wrong - that doesn’t mean that when somebody spouts a stupid idea they should never be questioned on it.  Particularly if they are making assumptions about it (e.g. “being religious makes you a better person”) than put somebody who doesn’t agree with them in a much worse position.  Calling for “respectful dialogue” is fine, so long as supernaturalists respect our intelligence by not attempting to sneak through the door claims that are either comprehensively disproven by science or incapable of being proven empirically at all.

Steely Dan says:

12:50pm | 05/02/11

God was so busy washing silt into suburbia he forgot to save people from the flood or at least warn them to all get out of town.  We shouldn’t be too harsh, he’s only one deity and he’s probably got a lot of things on his mind.

Luke says:

12:21am | 08/02/11

What makes you imagination that he is imagining more important?
Are you more important than the author?

Ed says:

03:11pm | 06/02/11

@ Steely Dan

Do you think this may be the same silt that you and evolutionary theorists think life originated from? If so, don’t blame God for the floods, blame your “ancestral relatives”.

Steely Dan says:

10:34am | 10/02/11

@ TB

Fine then, don’t respond.

@ Ed

Silt doesn’t reproduce, therefore it cannot be a relative of anything.  It’s not biological.  You should read up on evolution, it’s fascinating stuff.

Ed says:

08:09pm | 06/02/11

hi Trev,

to be fair, I think you completely misunderstood Kirk. I think he was actually having a go at me. His argument was so pathetic though, that I didn’t bother replying to it. So, there you go, I’m defending an atheist,

best wishes,
Ed.

Trev says:

07:13am | 08/02/11

@Zac de Spudnut
“Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris declared fatwa to kill 1 billion muslims because they are a threat.”

Dear Mr de Spudnut
Leaving aside the fact that the individuals named above are not Muslim leaders and are therefore highly unlikely to be running around declaring fatwas, can you please direct me to the source of this quite remarkable claim?

Zac de Spudnut says:

04:59pm | 08/02/11

Dear Trev,

You don’t have to be a Muslim to use some “Islamic terminologies”. For example it is quite common in the western world to use the term “shopping mecca” and it is also quite common for Atheists to hide behind Islamic terrorism to bash Christians and Christianity. And most importantly Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet etc are prominent members of the Atheist religion, they could be classified as the “Head Mufti’s” of Atheism and they have a huge sway over many Atheists. Richard Dawkins book “God Delusions” has sold over 8 million copies.

You are just making a huge mistake to think just because they are not Muslims or Muslim leaders, “they are highly unlikely to be running around declaring fatwas”. When a Muslim leader declares a fatwa over billions of Christians or when Atheist leaders declare fatwa over one billion Muslims, the end result is the same - it’s a call for death. Atheists have killed millions of men, women and young children in the past and they still do. It is high time the media and society exposes this.

Hear from the horse’s mouth - as witnessed by prominent Atheist PZ Meyers. The following is the source to head Mufti Christopher Hitchens fatwa…..

“The way to win the war is to kill so many Moslems that they begin to question whether they can bear the mounting casualties.

Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again.”

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/ffrf_recap.php

Zac De Spudnut says:

05:10pm | 08/02/11

And here is the source to Sam Harris’s ATHEISTIC Fatwa on Muslims…..

“Instead the logic he lays out—that Islam itself is our enemy—invites the reader to feel comfort at the deaths of its believers. He writes: “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.”

http://www.alternet.org/story/46196/?page=2

More details on “Atheist Jihadists” to follow…..