This just in. It seems that there is actually a segment of the population that is so hopelessly lost that they actually turn to Billy Graham for advice. This news comes after Graham responded to the question, why does atheism appear to be on the rise and why it’s getting more attention these days. As I read Graham’s response, I like to picture him crying over the downfall of his once great cult:
DEAR M.M.: Yes, atheism has been in the public eye more in recent years, largely because of a few atheists who’ve captured the public’s attention through their books. They aren’t large in number, but they do tend to be aggressive in promoting their ideas.
Why have they drawn so much attention? One reason, I believe, is because they know how to use the media very effectively. They also appeal to people who want to be free from God or any moral restraints. Like the philosophers of Paul’s day who were constantly looking for new ideas to debate, many people today eagerly latch on to the latest fad (see Acts 17:21). Atheism attracts their attention, at least for a while.
In reality, however, modern atheists have very little new to say. In fact, atheism has been around for thousands of years; even the Psalmist, writing hundreds of years before Christ, referred to them: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’ ” (Psalm 14:1).
Don’t be misled by those who claim God doesn’t exist, because he does. And the ultimate reason we know it is because he came down from heaven and walked on this earth in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ was God in human flesh, and he proved it by rising from the dead.
I love when he invokes the classic “atheists just want to be free to be bad” gambit. No matter how many times I hear it, it never makes any sense at all. If Yahweh really did exist, how would pretending he didn’t prevent Yahweh’s punishment? And isn’t the lack of any empirical evidence for Yahweh a far easier reason to be an atheist. And isn’t the whole thesis of Christianity that unlike those dirty, evil, Christ-killing Jews who have to work for salvation, Christians get the free pass out of hell and thus are “free of moral restraints?”And if atheism means freedom from moral restraints then damn, I must be doing it wrong. I haven’t even raped, murdered, or enslaved a single person yet. But then again, neither have any of the prominent atheist activists.
And it’s not like there’s anything really new about atheism. There are new public representatives of atheism but most of the arguments are hundreds and in some cases, thousands of years old. You could just as easily call guys like William Lane Craig, Dinesh D’Sousa, and Lee Strobel the “New Theists.” So if this is just a fad, then it’s at least a 2400-year-old fad if we include Socrates and Epicurus.
Don’t cry, Billy. 2000 years is a hell of a good run.
Why do you have to attack poor Mr.Graham while he is just so gentle sounding. Makes me want to listen to him. Of course there is no proof of a creator, but then there is no evidence prooving any theory. Unfortunatly scientists are finding more and more evidence in the “simple cell” that shows it is far too complex to have come about without a designer.
There’s no evidence proving ANY theory? Really? Have you ever tried, I don’t know, looking? In fact, the word theory itself literally means that it’s been proven by evidence. That’s what a theory is. And sorry you never got a real education but the scientific evidence has only further shown the opposite of your statement, that we came about as a result of natural forces. But by all means, I’d love to hear more about this “evidence” you speak of that it was all done by a magic genie who’s complex enough to design complex things that are too complex to simply exist but not itself complex enough to require a designer. I’m all ears.
Edger, I can tell immediately why you believe in god. Your spelling errors tell us much about your intelligence. The lower the intelligence, the more belief in superstition; ie: god. And yes, I purposely choose not to capitalize the word “god”. It does not deserve capitalization.
You’re only agreeing with Billy Graham when you say Athiesm has been around for thousands of years.
I never said atheism has been around for thousands of years. I said the arguments refuting theism have been around for thousands of years. Atheism by definition has been around longer than religion.
I agree with Edger he knows his stuff
Your right I do need an education. I’m only in high school!! But allready I have seen enough to understand that mutations do not add genetic information, meaning that we can not come from nothing. Richard Dawkins himself believes that it is possible alliens planted us here on earth. I think it takes more faith to believe that once apon a time nothing exploded, and made me, than to believe in creation.
I think you would be interested in the movie expelled.
Nobody claims that we did “come from nothing.” And Dawkins “believes” no such thing. You need to do more research than watching bad mockumentaries. See expelledexposed.com for a full explanation of the thousands of lies and distortions made it that garbage of a film And while you’re at it, take the time to learn what the panspermia HYPOTHESIS is and what Dawkins’ actual point was. Then do some actual research on what the Big Bang is because you clearly don’t know even the first thing about it and are just parroting idiots.
Um i do believe you need to take another look at what the word theory means. In fact a theory is a set of ideas that have been put forward and are yet to be proved, if they were to be proved then they would become “Laws” no longer theories.
Also as pertaining to your article, i do not believe that atheists desire to be free from God to “be bad” as you say. Unfortunately to be an atheist means you believe in no higher power that could potentially hold you accountable for your actions. So humanity is reduced to, if you can get away with it, go for it. What is to motivate someone to love other than for selfish reasons.
Atheists are afraid to admit that they may not be in control of their lives. For if they were wrong, then they would have to explain to some deity someday why they spent their entire lives pretending it didn’t exist and attempting to disprove it.
Billy Graham is a wonderful man, he is nice and caring and has done more good for this world than many many people, if you have a problem with his religious beliefs, take into consideration that he and his organizations actually help people, and unless you don’t like the fact that people in need get help, then you probably shouldn’t be insulting him.
Christianity is not a cult it is a world wide religion and is one of the three major world religions. With the majority of the world’s population being either Christian, Muslim or Jewish, it would stand to reason that from a purely mathematical standpoint, it would make statistical sense to believe in one of these three religions, since they all worship the same god, it would also appear that one of these is correct. Therefore to deny the absence of any god at all seems to me to be the height of all folly.
I pity you, someday you will die. On that day you will discover either a) you were right, there is no God and no afterlife and you are merely a biproduct of evolution, and you won’t be able to even say “i told you so”. Or b) you were wrong, you will have to account for your actions to God and chances are He won’t be too impressed with the way you’ve been spending your time on earth. Chances are you’ll be in for an eternity of damnation.
Young Edger seems to be more wise than you, if you even have a “real education” he seems to be able to figure out that a bunch of the things that atheists proclaim as truth is faulty thinking.
It seems to me that Richard Dawkins, a champion of the Atheist movement even has doubts about that which he so vehemently opposes. A recent campaign of his included the use of signs on buses saying, “There’s probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” The use of the word probably implies doubt.
Anyway, just a few things to ponder.
Um, no. That’s NOT what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
They teach this on the first day of just about every public school science class since about the fifth grade. There’s no reason why you should not know this. Further, you don’t seem to even know what a Scientific Law is. It’s not just a theory that’s been proven as you suggest. A scientific law is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental theory of science. This too is taught pretty much on the first day of very science class since about the fifth grade.
Further, the nonsensical moral accountability argument has been refuted so many times that you should be embarrassed by it by now. I’m not even going to waste any more time on it. Just go here: http://www.dangeroustalk.net/a-team/Morality
“Atheists are afraid to admit that they may not be in control of their lives.”
Um, no. We can’t control our lives and neither can you. And we’re pretty much fine with that and don’t feel the need to make up comforting fairytales.
“For if they were wrong, then they would have to explain to some deity someday why they spent their entire lives pretending it didn’t exist and attempting to disprove it.”
And if you’re wrong, and Islam turns out to be the real religion, then YOU have to explain to some deity someday why you spent YOUR entire lives pretending Allah didn’t exist and attempting to disprove it.
And for the record, it’s not my job to “disprove” your beliefs. The burden of proof is always on the claimant, which would be you, the theist. What would be the point in trying to disprove something in which no evidence exists in the first place?
“Billy Graham is a wonderful man, he is nice and caring and has done more good for this world than many many people, if you have a problem with his religious beliefs, take into consideration that he and his organizations actually help people, and unless you don’t like the fact that people in need get help, then you probably shouldn’t be insulting him.”
Al Quada helps people too. I’m no more impressed by them than I am Billy Graham. And you know who else help people? Atheists. And unless you don’t like the fact that people in need get help from atheists, then you probably shouldn’t be insulting them.
“Christianity is not a cult it is a world wide religion and is one of the three major world religions. With the majority of the world’s population being either Christian, Muslim or Jewish, it would stand to reason that from a purely mathematical standpoint, it would make statistical sense to believe in one of these three religions, since they all worship the same god, it would also appear that one of these is correct. Therefore to deny the absence of any god at all seems to me to be the height of all folly.”
Being one of the three major world religions is no more impressive to me than being one of the three major world cults. The truth doesn’t care how popular you are. Unless you think that if enough people believe in Scientology, it will magically become the truth. And all three of those religions hold mutually exclusive claims and condemn all who don’t accept their specific claims, so you escape that easily. Allah will torture you for all eternity if he exists. But if all you care about is believing what’s popular regardless of what the evidence is, then good luck to you and I hope jumping off of bridges never becomes popular.
“I pity you, someday you will die. On that day you will discover either a) you were right, there is no God and no afterlife and you are merely a biproduct of evolution, and you won’t be able to even say “i told you so”. Or b) you were wrong, you will have to account for your actions to God and chances are He won’t be too impressed with the way you’ve been spending your time on earth. Chances are you’ll be in for an eternity of damnation.”
And I pity you. Someday you will die and you will have wasted your one life by devoting it to utter nonsense. And you’ll never even know it because you’ll be dead and the knowledge will have no way to reach you. Or b) you were wrong and one of the millions of other gods man has imagine will turn out to be true and you will have to account for your actions to that god you didn’t believe in and chances are He or She won’t be too impressed with the way you’ve been spending your time on earth. Chances are you’ll be in for an eternity of damnation.
“Young Edger seems to be more wise than you, if you even have a “real education” he seems to be able to figure out that a bunch of the things that atheists proclaim as truth is faulty thinking.”
LOL
“It seems to me that Richard Dawkins, a champion of the Atheist movement even has doubts about that which he so vehemently opposes. A recent campaign of his included the use of signs on buses saying, “There’s probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” The use of the word probably implies doubt.”
It can only possibly seem that way if you never bothered to actually do any real research at all and just accept uncritically whatever nonsense spews out of the mouths of those ideologically opposed to what he says. And yes, “probably” does imply doubt, because rationally people do not claim certainty about unfalsifiable claims. There probably is no Santa Claus either but there’s no reasonable means on which to test such a claim.
Just a question…umm, can you explain the theory of the big bang to me because as you said I don’t understand it. If you don’t believe we came from nothing what do you believe we came from…in the very very begining?
Also I think the term “takes one to know one” applys very well to the christian faith. I know you’ll say that’s stupid and I’m stupid lol but you kind of just got to be there to get it. Life seems worth living and I always have someone there when life is rough. Trust me it’s worth it. If you are so convinced there is no such thing as a creator why can you not just let the religous have there fun and not fight it?
What does Richard Dawkins mean when he says that aliens could have (COULD HAVE) planted us here on earth? I’d also like to know how humans came to be humans without adding genetic information through mutation?
I really don’t have time to explain the entire Big Bang Theory to you. I suggest you check out Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time” or at least go to either the Wikipedia page on the subject or http://www.dangeroustalk.net/a-team/Big_Bang. But any statement I might make about the source of everything would only be speculation and conjecture. And there are people far more knowledgeable of cosmology and quantum physics than me who can make far better speculations than myself.
What I can say is that logically, there can be no “first cause” because that in turn would require a cause. And since science can only thus far take us back to the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, speculating as to what came before the Big Bang is about as useful as speculating as to what is north of the North Pole. But while scientists are working on learning more about our origins, I personally don’t require some grand explanation of the very beginning and am reasonably satisfied with stopping at a quantum singularity, based on my very, very limited understanding of quantum physics. There’s more about our possible beginnings here: http://www.dangeroustalk.net/a-team/Beginnings
Now I do not think all Christians are stupid. In fact some of my good friends are Christians, and many of them are more intelligent than myself. However, I feel I simply have strong reason to suspect that they’re simply wrong on this issue. Now I quite agree with you that life is worth living but the reason that I criticize religion is because it is the source of demonstrable harm in our world and that affects me as a citizen of this planet. If religion did not influence behavior, I’d be more than happy to just tell people I think they’re wrong and call it a day. But religion does influence behavior and often quite negatively. That’s why I fight.
Now as to what Dawkins was describing in the quote-mined clip in Expelled, that was the hypothesis of Panspermia and you can almost certainly find an article on Wikipedia about it or on the expelledexposed.com website. No serious scientist would say there’s positive evidence to support this view but it is posited as a legitimate possible alternative to how life on Earth got started, from amino acids attached to astroids or metiorites that struck the Earth. Also, life from another planet could have also hypothetically seeded our planet with the amino acids necessary for starting the evolutionary process. Now no scientist would present this as an ultimate explanation for how all life began because of course, like with any deistic explanation, it just pushes the cause and effect explanation back one more step. But while there’s no strong evidence to suggest this did hapen, what scientists argue is that this COULD HAVE happened. It’s simply a plausible hypothetical. Now to your last question, that would require a detailed explanation of how the evolutionary process works. I could recommend sources that explain it but it’s too complex to explain here.
For instance, visit the Talk Origins website or read Richard Dawkins’ “The Greatest Show On Earth.” There’s also a ton of material debunking creationist myths about evolution at:
http://www.dangeroustalk.net/a-team/Intelligent_Design
and more information about Evolution at:
http://www.dangeroustalk.net/a-team/evolution
You dare to compare Billy Graham and Al Qaeda? There is a fatal flaw to that argument, Al Qaeda blows people up, Billy Graham doesn’t. It would seem that if they were even close to being the same George Bush would have declared war on both of them… wierd.
“There probably is no Santa Claus either but there’s no reasonable means on which to test such a claim.”
Well there is a pretty reasonable means on which to test this claim, look under your Christmas tree, oh wait you don’t believe in Christ therefore no Christmas for you, ok “holiday tree” and look, oh wow, no presents for you from Santa, either you’ve always been on the naughty list, or…….. He doesn’t exist. In the meanwhile, people’s lives are changed all over the world every day by the power of God, i suppose the possibility, however obscure exists that people all over the globe have deluded themselves into believing the miracles of God that happen to them, but chances are they are simply just miracles.
“Allah will torture you for all eternity if he exists.”
Now you begin to show your ignorance after repeatedly commenting on my stupidity. Allah is the Arabic word for God that literally translates to be the creator god or One God. Its existence predates the foundation of Islam. In other words, like I previously mentioned, Islam, Judaism and Christianity all follow the same God.
Now you seem to value science as a way to find ultimate truth, but yet you seem to have the same misconceptions about science that many others have. You see Science is really only the observation of certain quantifiable phenomenon. We can only know what we have seen and recorded, therefore, in the case of the origin of humanity, it would seem that from a purely observational standpoint, the evolution of humans from single celled organisms up through monkeys to present day humans cannot work. You see genetics tells us that information in a cell can indeed change, which is obvious in the different species of animals within a single family group, like dogs. Or the different heights, and colors of humans. So yes there will be some slight variations that arise, the problem arises when people suggest that organisms change species altogether. Genetic material can only be corrupted or mutated, it does not get more complex unless something from outside is added to it, it won’t just do it by itself.
And really, LOL, come on, that isn’t even a real word, if you are going to go around with this arrogance you are portraying and continue to put down everything everybody else puts forward as unintelligent, please expand your vocabulary to include real words.
God Bless
I think you missed my point. I wasn’t making a moral comparison but rather making the point that the amount of good deeds a person or group may do has no baring on whether he is right about a particular belief or not. And no, you did not deliever a reasonable test on which to disprove Santa Claus. Maybe there’s nothing under the tree because you were naughty.
Wow, a friend who’s been following this debate told me to check it out and I’m so glad I did. It’s all quite interesting.
I’d like to say a few comments. And although this is a debate and things get a bit heated, I’d appreciate it if you were a bit more polite in your “bashing”, MJR256. My heart goes out to these guys. Especially the young guy who’s still in high school. He sure does have guts to stand up for his faith against you. You sure do beat them to the ground with your fancy words (that no highschool kid will fully appreciate anyways) and harsh tones.
As I read your responses to this kid and “doctor”, MJR, I’m reminded of a qoute from Lord of the Rings actually. haha It says “You think you are wise, Mithrandir, yet for all your subtleties you have not wisdom.” You’re very subtle MJR. But even within all your subtlty, there are some flaws.
For example, you described a “theory” with a bunch of fancy words. But as I read it carefully, I realized that you were just saying that a theory was exactly what the boy had called it. You do realize that the word concept means “A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences” or as one might also say, a “thought” or “notion”. (And yes, I’m using a dictionary right now. As I too am an “uneducated” man) But I think we both know that education doesn’t stand for much when it comes to plain old common sense.
So anyways, a theory is a concept (or thought/idea)including “abstractions” (which means the thoughts you’ve come up with as you’ve observed something) of observable phenomana (which is a fancy way of saying things that happen that you can see).
So, to help clear our heads, a THEORY is an IDEA you’ve come to a conclusion by watching SOMETHING HAPPEN. It’s not necessarily FACT, or LAW. For example, if someone is blindfolded and given an elephant tusk to feel and then told to make a THEORY on what an elephant is, the person might say that the elephant is a long smooth thing with a point at the end. I think it’s safe to say that we all know where I’m going with this example. But in closing on this topic, if a THEORY is in fact “law” (as MJR seems to hint at in his arguments) then why can THEORIES change?
You used an interesting word, MJR. It was empirical. I’ll let you go back and read what you’d said but it sounds like your “scientific LAWS” are still depending on things. Which raises the question “WHERE DOES ABSOLUTE LAW COME FROM?”
Which leads me to my next point. You said “…the nonsensical moral accountability arguement has been refuted so many times that you should be embarassed by it by now.” I’m kinda feeling embarassed for you! Because, unless you’re not alive, you ALSO have some sort of moral compass in you. Now, whether that compass is pleasure/comfort/hatred/God(Yahweh)/god(Bonno)/etc, YOU are in fact accountable to something.
You’ve also confused me with this: You said that you pity the “Doc” because “…Someday you will die and you will have wasted your one life by devoting it to utter nonesense.” but… won’t your life have been wasted on that same “utter nonsense” I mean, if:
A) Doc’s God is in fact not god, and
B) You don’t believe in god, so your god is also not God, then:
C) you’ve BOTH lived your life for that same “utter nonesense”
So… you pity yourself too? It all sounds very hopeless if you ask me.
So with all of this in mind, we’ve now come to the conclusion that each one of us has a “god”. Whether it’s The Almighty, Self, Fate (chance), Satan, or No God etc.
Ok, so Edger’s and “Doc’s” god is argued to have created the world and thus is Master(rule maker), Lover, Judge, Disciplenant, and ALOT of other things. MJR’s god, Chance, (I’m just assuming that you believe in evolution and the big bang from reading the previous arguements here) is ALSO argued to have created the world. And thus nothing is certain. If fact, the reason that you can love someone is just by chance. The reason you can comprehend the things being written here is just because of chance. The reason the bombardier beetle didn’t burn himself to death when he was “evolving” was because of some huge HUGE chance!
Ok, I’m almost done, I can be a bit of a rambler but I’m going to try to make one last point here. MJR, you said that you’d “love to hear more about this evidence you speak of” regarding Edgars comment about there being lots of evidence that points to a Creator. First of all, I’m not sure if I believe you cause you’re ignoring all the evidence that’s there in the first place. I mean, you have TONS of evidence right in front of your very eyes. Right BEHIND your very eyes too. Do you realize that something blowing up could in NO WAY create that brain between your ears? Even if you gave it a “graham’s number” of years. Exploding things don’t create order. Unless, of course, I’m an “idiot” just like Edger and I need to hear your version of the big bang theory too.
I think that the number of “evolutionist scientists” who are realizing that there has to be a creator (heaven forbid that they call that creator God! Then they might have to answer to Him!
Oh no!) should ALSO be a little bit of a hint that Someone created us. And if He did indeed create us, then I don’t know about you but I sure want to call Him and realize that He is my God.
In closing I want to return to the origional arguement. Billy Graham saying that atheism a fad. Technically a fad is something that is popular for a short time. I can see what Mr. Graham was trying to say but I DO agree with you, MJR. Atheism is NOT a fad. But I think I’d disagree with you when I say this. Atheism is not a fad, it’s a god. It’s a comfort zone for those who don’t want to answer to a God who actually is the judge of them.
Take care,
Eric
“I’d appreciate it if you were a bit more polite in your “bashing”, MJR256.”
If you consider mere bluntness impolite, then you’ve come to the wrong place. Try the Friendly Atheist blog. These people have been treated like fragile children long enough. When you still hold onto imaginary friends well into your teens or even into adulthood, maybe it’s time for a little tough love.
“As I read your responses to this kid and “doctor”, MJR, I’m reminded of a qoute from Lord of the Rings actually. haha It says “You think you are wise, Mithrandir, yet for all your subtleties you have not wisdom.” ”
Perhaps you should turn that quote around and apply it to yourself. I never claimed to be wise. All I ask for is that when people make extraordinary claims that they back those claims up with the appropriate level of evidence, and if they can’t do that, that they take a deep, hard look at those beliefs and really ask themselves whether they have a good reason to believe them. That’s it.
As for the word “theory,” as I explained already, you’re confusing the layperson’s usage of the word theory with the scientific definition of the word theory. While most people use the word to mean just some random idea they came up with, in science, the word means a proven phenomena like the Theory of Gravity or Germ Theory or the Theory of Evolution. One of the commenters on this blog (don’t remember who) suggested that a theory is not as proven as a Scientific Law and while this is a common belief, it’s 100% wrong. Scientific Theories and Scientific Laws are equally proven by evidence. The most obvious difference between the two is that Scientific Laws can be easily expressed by mathematical equations like F=ma, for instance. They do teach this distinction in day 1 of most public school science classes and you can look it up yourself by typing in “Scientific Theory” into Wikipedia.
“But I think we both know that education doesn’t stand for much when it comes to plain old common sense. ”
In my experience, common sense is usually invoked when people fail to be able to come up with a good reason to hold their beliefs and really serves more as a cop-out.
“But in closing on this topic, if a THEORY is in fact “law” (as MJR seems to hint at in his arguments) then why can THEORIES change?”
Actually, I wasn’t hinting but said it straight out, as does pretty much every science textbook on the planet. And the reason Scientific Theories may change is because science is not an authority. Science is a process of determining how our universe works through observation and testing. And for this reason, no ideas in science are held above scrutiny like in religion. Any finding in science is potentially capable of being overturned upon the arrival of new evidence. Think of a court case where the judge and jury are forced to rule on the case based on the available evidence. Now at any point new evidence may emerge, which may either further confirm a case or challenge it. Now some scientific information is so proven that we accept that it will likely never change like, say, gravity or that we can be relatively confident that the sun will rise tomorrow. But science must be also be open to the possibility that new evidence could arrive that alters our understanding. Science deals in likelihoods, not unchangeable facts. But the key is that the appropriate level of evidence must be presented.
“Which raises the question “WHERE DOES ABSOLUTE LAW COME FROM?”
You tell me. “Absolute” laws are religion’s teritory, not science’s. Science doesn’t have “Absolute laws,” because well, that’s just asinine. If you’re asking where “scientific laws” come from, the answer is scientists, who use the word to describe universal constants. For instance, the fact that there cannot be a square circle is because it would defy the laws of logic. This is not the same thing as “laws of nature” or the religious view of “moral laws”, etc. Like with “theory”, scientists are using the word “law” differently than, say, how it’s used in the legal world.
“you ALSO have some sort of moral compass in you. Now, whether that compass is pleasure/comfort/hatred/God(Yahweh)/god(Bonno)/etc, YOU are in fact accountable to something.”
I never claimed otherwise, nor would I. I, like everyone else, am accountable to society.
“B) You don’t believe in god, so your god is also not God,”
Does that even make sense in your head? I DON’T HAVE A GOD!!! This is an excellent example of how religion fries your brain.
“C) you’ve BOTH lived your life for that same “utter nonesense” ”
Your B premise is false and your C premise does not logically follow. Just because people ultimately die does not mean they’re lives are devoid of meaning. If you believe that it does, then I feel really sad for you.
But if you devote your entire life to a false belief, you’ve lived your life as a slave to that false belief.
“So with all of this in mind, we’ve now come to the conclusion that each one of us has a “god”. ”
Um, no. You simply asserted it. Unless you’re changing the definition of god to mean some abstract concept. But if you’re going to do that just so you can say we both believe in god, why not simply define god as a toaster, so that we then can honestly agree that it exists?
“MJR’s god, Chance, (I’m just assuming that you believe in evolution and the big bang from reading the previous arguements here) is ALSO argued to have created the world.”
Once again, I don’t have a god, nor do I believe in “chance,” which contrary to your preposterously poor education, has nothing to do with Evolution or the Big Bang. Nor do either of those theory have anything whatsoever to do with the creation of the world.
“If fact, the reason that you can love someone is just by chance. The reason you can comprehend the things being written here is just because of chance. The reason the bombardier beetle didn’t burn himself to death when he was “evolving” was because of some huge HUGE chance!”
Nope, that is not what I believe nor what any serious biologist believes. Go fish.
“o you realize that something blowing up could in NO WAY create that brain between your ears? ”
Yes, I do. If this is your attempt at describing the Big Bang, then it’s an epic fail, as the Big Bang does not describe a literal explosion. So again, go fish. And you still have yet to cite even a single piece of evidence. I don’t think your standards for evidence are very high. There’s no point in me trying to explain the Big Bang to you hear. I’ve pointed you to numerous resources already that can explain it far better than myself.
“It’s a comfort zone for those who don’t want to answer to a God who actually is the judge of them.”
LOL
Thanks for that inherent nonsense. I’ll keep it under advisement.
Praying for you
Thinking for you.
I think Edger thinks for himself, MJR.
There’s no need to think for him. And it seems that this young lad has come to some very solid and sound conclusions in his thinking (and I’m sure, studying). Just thought I’d let you know that I’ve started to pray for you too.
All the best, and boy, do I mean that.
Eric
And I’ve started to think for you too. All the best, and boy, do I mean that.
Hey so I checked out some of those videos you mentioned and I thought maybe I could shed some light on our Faith.
In the Beginning there was God, He created angels and everything else. One of the angels was known as Lucifer, he was the greatest of all the angels, the most beautiful, the most powerful, God’s greatest servant. One day Lucifer decided that he didn’t need his Creator anymore, that he had become greater than God, so he waged war against God and His angels. Lucifer managed to persuade about a third of the angels to fight with, but it was no use against the power of God. He was defeated and kicked out of heaven. Earth was to be his dominion until the end when he will be thrown into the burning lake of sulfur.
God is a just God, therefore if He were to punish one for rebellion He has to punish everyone for their rebellion. Adam and Eve were created perfect, in the image of God, they were given only one command. To not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But they did. This was an act of rebellion against God’s command and therefore was subject to the same punishment as Lucifer. Now that Humanity had sinned they had a sin nature, and were no longer the perfect creation that God had created. But by eating from the tree, they were able to distinguish between good and evil, they had the knowledge to make good choices, but they continued to make bad ones.
It seemed that humanity was doomed because there was nothing that we could do to come back to the perfection we once had in the beginning. Fortunately God had a plan. You see when Adam and Eve commited the first sin God atoned for it by sacrificing an animal, but it only covered over the sin, it did not get rid of it. Sin came into the world through one man and it could only leave through the efforts of a man who didn’t sin. So God sent his own son, who became human and DID NOT SIN. He then died, innocent and became the sacrifice necessary to bring us back into communion with God.
God loves us and that is why He did that, he did not have to but because God loves, he was willing to sacrifice for that love. God is so perfect that he cannot be around things that aren’t perfect, it’s like how darkness cannot exist around light, there is only one or the other.
Anyways, bottom line is, God sent His son to die for you, and me and everyone else in the world. He payed the price for our sins and allows us to come back to perfection.
Well I’m praying for you too bud, and I hope this makes sense, if you have any questions feel free to ask. God Bless
Wait, wait. In the beginning, there was God? How did that happen? And where in Genesis does it mention the creation of angels? And while I appreciate the Cliff’s Notes of Paradise Lost, I’ve already read the book. You really believe in the whole Garden of Eden story? Really? With the talking snake and everything? It doesn’t in any way remind you a Disney cartoon? C’mon man. You don’t really think that they stuck two of every animal on a boat and that all languages were invented instantly in order to stop people from building a tower to heaven do you? This story is so thoroughly debunked and patently absurd, and you have to know that. Original sin for stealing a piece of fuit? Vicarious redemption by blood sacrifice? Surviving in the belly of a fish for days? YOu can’t seriously still believe this stuff. It’s a bad badtime story.
Well I’m thinking for you too bud, and I hop this makes sence. If you have any questions feel free to ask. Flying Spaghetti Monster bless.
I’m sorry mjr but I just can’t not believe this bad bedtime story. After encountering this God and being brought to tears through sheer joy I just can’t give Him up. I just don’t see family’s being brought back together and people being freed from drug and alchohol addictions because of Atheism.
“fter encountering this God and being brought to tears through sheer joy I just can’t give Him up.”
You’ve encountered this god? What was he wearing? Did he really have a beard? Can you point him out in a lineup?
“I just don’t see family’s being brought back together and people being freed from drug and alchohol addictions because of Atheism.”
Atheism isn’t a belief, so it can’t really be used to justify anything. That’s like saying you can’t see anyone being freed from drug and alcohol addictions because of dining room tables. What does that have to do with the veracity of atheism or theism for that matter? And although there’s no evidence to support that religion does have this power, you seem to be implying as much, so even if I granted you that large assumption, how would that prove that your religion was true? If someone attributed their giving up alcohol in the name of Allah, would you accept Allah as the one true god? I doubt it. And that’s because your argument involves special pleading and even you’d find it horribly unconvincing if it were presented to you.
And while I can’t speak to any other addictions you might have suffered, in my experience there’s no worse addiction than god addiction.
Yes I could point Him out in a lineup!
I understand what your saying. But then I couldnt believe in the wind either. As much as I see it’s affects and feel it I just can’t tell you what it looks like.
You have been addicted to God? I agree that gods can be the worst addictions ever. But it all depends on what your god is. In my experience there’s no worse addiction than the god of atheism. Like Mr. Weiss was saying. Which you havent replied to by the way.
Thankyou for your support and friendliness by the way Eric Weiss.
Praying for You mjr 256
“Yes I could point Him out in a lineup! ”
So beard or no beard? What was he wearing? White robes? Leather jacket?
“I understand what your saying. But then I couldn’t believe in the wind either. As much as I see it’s affects and feel it I just can’t tell you what it looks like.”
No, I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. The wind is measurable whereas your god, like every other god, is not. By your logic, we can just assume leprechauns exist.
“In my experience there’s no worse addiction than the god of atheism.”
Cute bumper sticker but its an inherently meaningless statement as obviously atheism has no gods, nor does it even have a set of beliefs. So any such comparison to religion or “faith” breaks down immediately. But it makes the sheep happy to keep repeating it as if it really were witty, so knock yourself out.
As for Weiss, I hadn’t seen his comment until now so I’ll do that as soon as I’m done with this one. Thanks for drawing my attention to it.
Thinking for You Edger.
It speaks of the fall of Lucifer in Isaiah 14, It mentions angels throughout the bible, therefore, they were created.
By the way what proof would you need to see to believe that there was a God?
“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14
I know you are going to say that this is from the Bible and what do you expect from a book that is written do defend some made up weirdness, but it seems pretty accurate in your case.
Have fun picking this apart again.
“It speaks of the fall of Lucifer in Isaiah 14, It mentions angels throughout the bible, therefore, they were created. ”
When were they created Wilson? Which day? Seems like a rather major event to have gone unmentioned in the Creation story, doesn’t it?
“By the way what proof would you need to see to believe that there was a God?”
Physical evidence that could not be reasonably explained by natural causes, like say, the healing of an amputee by means other than man-made science. Of course that wouldn’t prove your specific deity. In order to prove that, Jesus would have to appear to me himself, as he specifically says he will in the Bible. Then he’d need to prove his power by resurrecting someone who’d been medically declared dead for over a week. That would do it. Of course, that doesn’t mean I’d follow him because after all, if the Bible is an accurate account of your god, then your god is a dick unworthy of my allegiance. But that’s a whole other issue.
“I know you are going to say that this is from the Bible and what do you expect from a book that is written do defend some made up weirdness, but it seems pretty accurate in your case.”
Wow, you ARE learning. If I write a book that says that I’m god, will you quote that too to my critics?
“Wow, you ARE learning. If I write a book that says that I’m god, will you quote that too to my critics?”
So once again you show your ignorance in history and religion, you may know something of science but you should really do your research if you are going to make claims like this, especially after all the colorful comments about our intelligence.
The Bible was written by 40 different men over a period of 1500 years. That is quite a significant period of time. It is the best selling book of all time and has been translated into more languages than any other book in the Bible. Now these Scriptures claim to be “God breathed” in other words, inspired by God and given to men to write down the words. Ok so maybe that sounds far fetched, but this is where it gets really cool. With so many different authors and such a long time between the beginning and completion of it’s writing, it should make no sense at all. However if you were to read through the Bible you would find that there is a constant theme throughout all the texts and that the whole Old Testament in fact points directly to Jesus. In the New Testament, all the prophecies concerning the Messiah are fulfilled by Christ and the rest of it is made up of teachings by His disciples that give further backup to everything Christ taught. It would seem to me that to have this solidarity and flow to it, the Bible would have to be written by one man in a very short amount of time. Archaelogical evidence supports that this was not true, that the scriptures were indeed written over a long period of time and therefore had to be written by many different authors. This makes sense if the scriptures really are “God Breathed”. Another point in favor of the scriptures is that when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, historians and archaeologists compared those texts to the texts of the Bible, and found that they had not been altered. Unlike other works such as Shakespeare, that had been so changed over time by the process of copying that the originals were not at all like the present editions, the text of Isaiah was exactly the same in it’s present form today as what was recorded on the scroll that had been lost to time for centuries.
Now I’m sure there is the slightest off chance that the scribes that copied out the scriptures were 100% accurate every time because of meticulous care on their part and it was all just one gigantic centuries old conspiracy to keep everything looking good for later skeptics, but this runs contrary to human nature. If you have ever played the game “telephone” as a child where one person is given a message and it has to pass through to everyone else, even if nobody purposely screws it up, it usually comes out way different than the original. However this was not the case The Scriptures were the same now as they were then. Now yes you may have seen different translations and thought to yourself, they are all different, but really they say the same thing just in different wording. But when compared in the languages that they were written in, there has been no change.
Now this leads us to an interesting place. If there is no God and the Bible was just made up by people over time. It must have taken a phenomenal effort of many many people over a huge stretch of time, about 3500 years to be exact to keep the scriptures as accurate as they are today. Highly improbable. On the other hand, if God does exist then the existence of the Scriptures itself is a huge testament to His existence in general, without even taking into consideration what is written in there. The One who authored it and has kept it perfect for millenia seems to have done a pretty spot on job. It’s a best seller.
Now if you were to write a book like that, well in the first place, good luck on living that long, and collaborating with 39 co-authors. Also keep in mind the spectrum of different topics that are brought up throughout scriptures that still have relevance for today. For example in the books of the law, Deuteronomy and Leviticus, there are rules concerning not eating pork, science has proven that pigs have a higher tendency to have high concentrations of worms and harmful bacteria in them, and if the Israelites had not cooked the meat properly they could have become very sick. Also there are very specific rules to the washing of hands, which wow, with the recent H1N1 thing is still as important as ever. It talks about greed, murder, adultery, fornication with animals, love, death, money, debt, taxes, slaves, masters, property. If you could write a book just like that, with that time frame and that many authors, and then keep it exactly the way it was written for another couple thousand years, if i managed to live that long, i would have to accept everything it said and quote it to your critics too. But since you and i both know that this hypothetical creation of that book is impossible, it seems like the simple answer to that question would have to be… NO.
“The Bible was written by 40 different men over a period of 1500 years.”
Actually it was probably written by far more than that. Most of the OT stories were passed around for generations in oral culture before anyone literate ever wrote them down.
“It is the best selling book of all time and has been translated into more languages than any other book in the Bible. ”
The Da Vinci Code is also a popular book. I guess that means that’s true to by your logic, right?
“Ok so maybe that sounds far fetched”
Yes. Yes it does.
“but this is where it gets really cool. With so many different authors and such a long time between the beginning and completion of it’s writing, it should make no sense at all.”
And it doesn’t. Congratulations. That’s two for two. You’re on a role.
“However if you were to read through the Bible you would find that there is a constant theme throughout all the texts”
Yes, inconsistency. Three for three.
“and that the whole Old Testament in fact points directly to Jesus. ”
Actually, the OT points to Immanuel, but thanks for playing. Also, even most biblical scholars agree that the Jesus of the NT seems to go out of his way to try and fit some of OT prophecies. It’s almost like he already knew what they were and then tried his hardest to seem as though he fulfilled them.
“It would seem to me that to have this solidarity and flow to it, the Bible would have to be written by one man in a very short amount of time.”
And it seems to me that you suffer from a failure of imagination. As someone who’s specifically studied how myths and tall tales spread from largely oral cultures as well as even today, this is no great achievement, especially given the many internal inconsistencies in the texts, careful selection of canon, and the many years of well known redactions that took place. In fact, it amazes me that with all this care taken to the texts that religious leaders haven’t made the Bible more coherent in after thousands of years. But the telephone game you describe is rather apt.
“Archaelogical evidence supports that this was not true, that the scriptures were indeed written over a long period of time and therefore had to be written by many different authors. This makes sense if the scriptures really are “God Breathed”. ”
What archaeological evidence? You’re not going to invoke that little dingy on Mount Arorat, are you? The debunked Shrouds of Turin?
“Another point in favor of the scriptures is that when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, historians and archaeologists compared those texts to the texts of the Bible, and found that they had not been altered.”
What about the Gospels of Thomas, Judas, and Mary Magdeline? These all disagree with the Bible. Even the Bible disagrees with the Bible. The Gospel writers disagree about which day Jesus was crucified, his last moments on the cross, how much people witnessed his disappearing act and where they went afterwards. The stories just don’t line up. If I were a police officer and interrogating each of the Gospel writers individually, I’d have no choice but to conclude that they didn’t get their stories straight. And why would they? Not one of them could have been alive at the time these events even occurred. Mark, the earliest Gospel is dated by Biblical scholars at about 70 CE.
“the text of Isaiah was exactly the same in it’s present form today as what was recorded on the scroll that had been lost to time for centuries.”
For centuries, sure. Though no one has the original. And the earlier we go with the biblical texts that we do have, the more differences we find and the more significant those differences are.
“Now I’m sure there is the slightest off chance that the scribes that copied out the scriptures were 100% accurate every time because of meticulous care on their part and it was all just one gigantic centuries old conspiracy to keep everything looking good for later skeptics,”
We have over 50,000 different copies of the Bible, some of which are dramatically different. The famous “cast the other stone” story doesn’t even appear until hundreds of years later. Same with the last dozen chapters of Mark. These are not insignificant errors as you seem to suggest. And while the church did deliberately redact documents, I wouldn’t at all call it a gigantic conspiracy. I’m sure they probably had mostly good intentions. However, their intentions are irrelevant to the discussion. What’s important is that the text has been radically changed, meaning we can’t really be very sure how much of the original versions have been kept intact. But let’s face it. Even if the stories were more consistent with each other, it still doesn’t prove anything. Avatar may have been consistent throughout with few plot holes but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s just a movie.
“It must have taken a phenomenal effort of many many people over a huge stretch of time, about 3500 years to be exact to keep the scriptures as accurate as they are today. Highly improbable.”
Not when you consider the value people placed on them. We’ve probably got about as many fairly consistent copies of Gilgamesh too. That’s because people believed it was the word of “God.” There are probably far more consistent copies of Dienetics, Koran, and Book of Mormon. So what? When people hold something of value, they take good care of it. If Jim Jones still had followers today, they’d be carefully guarding his writings as well.
“On the other hand, if God does exist then the existence of the Scriptures itself is a huge testament to His existence in general, without even taking into consideration what is written in there.”
As I’ve already illustrated, this is a pretty hasty assumption. We also still have old copies of The Odyssey. Does that mean there’s really a Zeus?
“The One who authored it and has kept it perfect for millenia seems to have done a pretty spot on job. It’s a best seller.”
So’s Atlas Shrugged. So’s Lord of the Rings. So’s The Da Vinci Code. So’s The God Delusion. I’m sure every Muslim owns a copy of the Koran. Just because something is popular, that doesn’t mean it’s true. It doesn’t even come close to proving such a thing. And telling everyone the book was written by the one true god happens to be a damned good form of advertising.
“For example in the books of the law, Deuteronomy and Leviticus, there are rules concerning not eating pork, science has proven that pigs have a higher tendency to have high concentrations of worms and harmful bacteria in them, and if the Israelites had not cooked the meat properly they could have become very sick.”
That’s quite a stretch there isn’t it? Pork has high concentrations of bacteria, so people it’s a moral abomination to eat pork? What about shellfish. While probably more likely to cause harm back then, it’s every bit as safe as pork is today. When was the last time you heard of someone dying of pork? And was this really a more necessary moral commandment than commanding an end to slavery, which the god of the Bible never does. In fact, he encourages it and says that it’s okay to beat them so long as you don’t poke out an eye or anything that severe. And if you a slavemaster does poke out an eye, the master’s only punishment is that the slave must go free. How merciful!! And what about that passage where “God” commands parents to stone their disobedient children to death or to sell their daughters into slavery? Or the passage when it says men with long hair is an abomination? Or when it orders rape victims to marry their rapists should they be impregnated? Or the part where it says rape victims who didn’t scream must be put to death? It’s easy to see no problems with the Bible if you just pick and choose the bits you like.
“If you could write a book just like that, with that time frame and that many authors, and then keep it exactly the way it was written for another couple thousand years,”
Let’s see. Forty authors thrown together? Pick up any compilation of Western philosophy: Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Rouseau, Locke, Spinoza, Thoreua, Nietzsche. Or of science: Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Hawking. Any single writer from this list above has far more relevant things to say about the world than The Bible. Hell, just about any book you pick up randomly in a book store has far more relevant things to say about our world than The Bible. If I could choose only one book to replace the Bible, my only problem would be in narrowing down the list.
“with the recent H1N1 thing is still as important as ever.”
Now your stretching this one way too far. What about bird flu? Guess god missed that one, huh? C’mon, just about everything is potentially dangerous and has caused harm. H1N1 isn’t even purely a swine flu but a particularly successful mutation that crosses multiple species. It also incidentally could not possibly exist if not for Evolution. So far even regular flu has managed a larger death count. Why didn’t god mention that? And people today live decades longer than they did in the past, H1N1 or not. This is just silly retro-dicting. It’s no better than Nostradamus followers finding passages that conveniently predict a major event after the fact.
When I say god of atheism I don’t mean atheists follow a god, I mean atheism is the god. It seems as though you live your life for atheism. You devote allot of time and dedication to it. But really for no reason. What is your purpose in life?
You keep telling Eric Weiss that “nope that’s not what I believe” but you still havent told us what it is you do believe. Nor have you given any scrap of evidence for evolution.
I’m glad Mr. Weiss pointed out the Bombardier beetle because I want to know how that thing evolved without blowing to bits? I’d also like to know where the missing link is? With the millions of years it should have taken for us humans to evolve you would think we would see millions of “missing links”. One more thing, you said that religon causes people to behave negativley. What about Hitler? Didnt he follow Darwins ideas? And didnt that bring him to murduring millions of inocent people? And right now ton’s of the relief in Haiti is coming from christian organizations.
“When I say god of atheism I don’t mean atheists follow a god, I mean atheism is the god. It seems as though you live your life for atheism. You devote allot of time and dedication to it.”
Let’s take a look at the Oxford Dictionary, shall we?
“God
• noun 1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and supreme ruler of the universe. 2 (god) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature and human fortunes. 3 (god) a greatly admired or influential person. 4 (the gods) informal the gallery in a theatre.
• exclamation used to express surprise, anger, etc. or for emphasis.
— PHRASES God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (in Christian doctrine) the persons of the Trinity. God Save the Queen (or King) the British national anthem.
— DERIVATIVES godhood noun godlike adjective godward adjective & adverb.
— ORIGIN Old English.”
Which of those definitions of “god” fit your statement? The answer is NONE. I have no patience for rhetorical nonsense. If possible, you know less about my life than you do about science and reality in general. And there’s a gigantic difference between being passionate about something and being religious. If this is the kind of garbage they teach you at your school then it’s an academic disgrace and you should go elsewhere for your education.
“But really for no reason. What is your purpose in life?”
I get so sick and tired of this arrogant, condescending nonsense! My life has plenty of meaning, just not some arbitrary meaning assigned to me through outside agency. In fact, I surmise the meaning I have in my life isn’t very different at all from the meaning you have in your life. I have the love of the people in my life such as friends and family, love of nature, love of art, love of learning and science, love of life itself, a desire to live life to its fullest, a desire to reduce the suffering of others, and a desire to progress civilization so that I hopefully leave the world in better hands then when I found it. Do we not share these same values?
The only difference I see is that I don’t make the large assumption that meaning in life derives from outside agency. I see no reason to think the universe has us in mind or has anymore consciousness than your dining room table. I see no reason to think the universe smiled when we were born, that it cares who we sleep with, or that it’ll cry when we die. All evidence suggests that it’s as indifferent to us and our behavior as the dining room table.
“You keep telling Eric Weiss that “nope that’s not what I believe” but you still havent told us what it is you do believe.”
This is just a completely unfair criticism. It doesn’t make much sense to assume that a writer’s response in the comments section of the one article you happen to be reading that moment is all that writer has ever come up with. Most writers don’t say everything they have to say on a particular topic when merely responding in a the comments section of a specific article, especially when they’ve been expressing themselves on a daily basis over the course of an 180month-old blog. That’s just an unrealistic expectation. If you really want to know what I believe, check out the very first blog entry I wrote on this site: http://skepacabra.wordpress.com/2008/07/19/what-i-think-about-your-god/
“Nor have you given any scrap of evidence for evolution.”
Not my job. But by all means click the clink marked “Evolution” under the categories menu at the top of the page and to the right of your screen. The evidence proving Evolution has been widely available for 150 years. And in this age of unprecedented access to information at your fingertips, there’s simply no excuse for why anyone should ignorant of the facts surrounding the unifying theory of all of modern biology. All that being said, I will happily provide a small list of sources that go into length about the evidence for Evolution:
“Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin
http://www.talkorigins.org
“The Greatest Show On Earth” by Richard Dawkins
http://www.dangeroustalk.net/a-team/evolution
http://www.dangeroustalk.net/a-team/Intelligent_Design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/science/evolution/
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?cat=22
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3637
Just to list a few.
With regards to your Bombardier beetle question, if you’d even bothered to do the least amount of research possible short of doing absolutely nothing, you could have typed “Bombardier beetle evolution” and gotten a lengthy answer to that exact question on the Talk Origins site: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html That literally took me less than 5 seconds to find.
“I’d also like to know where the missing link is?”
Keep looking cause there’s no such thing. And scientists don’t claim that there is. What biologists DO look for are transitional fossils, and we’ve found thousands of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
“One more thing, you said that religon causes people to behave negativley. What about Hitler? Didnt he follow Darwins ideas? And didnt that bring him to murduring millions of inocent people?”
Nope. That’s more bullshit creationist propaganda. Hitler is a Pope-endorsed Christian who used everything he could think of to persuade people towards his ideology including many, many references to biblical authority in Mein Kompf and in speeches as well as a popular political movement known as “social Darwinism,” which despite the name, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Evolution.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/hitler-eugenics
Quotes can be found starting at the 7:15 mark in the following video:
“And right now ton’s of the relief in Haiti is coming from christian organizations.”
And from atheists as well: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4947
So I guess by your logic, that must mean atheism is true, right? That was your point, right? That being charitable makes Christianity true? And while many Christians have been charitable (a claim I never challenged), there have also been many mainstream Christian leaders who have instead, simply used biblical authority to argue that the Haitians brought that suffering upon themselves (See: Pat Robertson)
Hmm, Interesting debate.
Just a thought MJR256, If the others are wrong about their “god” No harm done, they lived a good enjoyable life and was able to believe in something that brought them comfort.
But, what if your the one who is wrong? What if you have a creator who loves you and died for you? What if the only way to eternal life is through Jesus Christ? is it really worth the risk to prove your “science”?
Bullshit. Really? You’re going to use this old canard?
Not worth my time. I’ll pass this one off to my friend, Richard:
And here are dozens more responses to this stupid question:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pascal%27s+wager&search_type=&aq=f
Listen, now I know you must think you’re so clever but really, I’ve heard every apologetics argument that you have a thousand times now. So (and this goes for everyone) if you think you have an argument that hasn’t ever been refuted, I guarantee you that it’s been refuted centuries ago and million times since. So because I don’t have all the time in the world, please, if you’re going to ask a question that you think no one’s refuted yet, first take just five minutes to look around the internet to see if someone has indeed refuted…because I guarantee that they have.
lets take five minutes around the internet to see if you have an argument that hasn’t been refuted.
The burden of proof is always on the claimant. That would be you. I have nothing to prove.
Well it’s a good thing ol’ dawkins can ask the exact same question back, what an intellectual.
You should check out “The Voyage that Shook the World”. It is a great documentary that interviews quite a few people with “real educations” you might learn how ridiculous your theories are, because they seem to have no “real proof” behind them either.
“Well it’s a good thing ol’ dawkins can ask the exact same question back, what an intellectual.”
Not happy with that one? Shocker. I’ve provided a link to dozens of other responses to Pascal’s idiotic Wager.
“You should check out “The Voyage that Shook the World”. It is a great documentary that interviews quite a few people with “real educations” you might learn how ridiculous your theories are, because they seem to have no “real proof” behind them either.”
No thank you. If they’re responsible for your education, then they can’t be very intelligent.
And not only have I’ve presented you with links to mountains of evidence but I’ve even taken the time to answer your specific arguments. And you’re STILL not satisfied. So unless you would like to try and refute specific points of evidence for Evolution, you’re just wasting everyone’s time.
Now I’ve answered all your questions and challenges. Now its your turn. Here’s my challenge for you. Present me with your very best case against Evolution. This way, when I blow it out of the water, you can’t keep perpetually throwing new arguments at me while failing to acknowledge my previous refutations, as you’ve consistently done so far. I’m not your monkey and my time is precious and I’ve been extraordinarily patient so far, but my patience is not infinite. Put up or shut up.
And I’ll remind you again of the previously established five minute research rule.
PS: And here’s another great video presenting the evidence that you’re going to continue to pretend doesn’t exist:
Hey MJR 256,
“If you consider mere bluntness impolite, then you’ve come to the wrong place”
There’s nothing wrong with bluntness in a lot of cases. In fact, I’m blunt often times too. But calling someone an “idiot” who is clearly not an idiot!? Now THAT is very unprofessional and, yes, downright rude. Mind you, maybe the SOCIETY that you live in says it’s ok to be rude to people. No offense but seeing as you get so much moral direction from that society of yours, I sure hope they maybe decide that being courteous is the new thing. Oh, and speaking of unprofessional, calling an idea or argument “bull shit” or in other words male bovine poop, is quite childish. I’m surprised actually. I would’ve expected more from such an “educated” man.
“All I ask for is that when people make extraordinary claims that they back those claims up with the appropriate level of evidence…”
Could I not ask you to do the same MJR? Let’s take a look:
MJR’s claim: “the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature.” (oh, unless this definition has changed since I looked it up of course)
Supporting evidence: “Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies”, “the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background”, and “the abundance of light elements”
Disproving evidence: The existence of a quasar in front of a nearby galaxy proves that red shift does not equal distance, “The nearby galaxies should not be spirals anymore, because in the time that is supposed to have elapsed, they should have wound themselves up long ago”, “some galaxies exist when, according to big bang cosmology, they shouldn’t have had time to form” (I could give you twenty more examples such as these but to save some space, I wont.)
Edger’s Claim (actually, God’s claim that Edger believes): In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
Supporting evidence: “Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years” (this is in agreement with biblical numbers saying that the earth was created around 6 000/7 000 years ago also, it’s in agreement of the bible saying that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time), groups of fossils from different species accumulated together (wouldn’t you know it, the fossil of one specie right next to one that, according to evolution, hadn’t evolved yet. Oh, this evidence also suggests a mass flood), we can see the light of stars that are farther away than the amount of time evolution gives that light to travel to us (suggests that there is a God who was kind enough to create the light from between the star and our eyes), I could also go on with these examples but, again, I won’t to save time.
Disproving evidence: I honestly searched for a long time for evidence that disproved creation and all I could find was a few sites saying that the “evidence supporting evolution far outweighed the evidence supporting creation” … ummm… are they sure?
“put up or shut up”
I could ask you to do the same, MJR. I’ve been checking out a few of your links and videos that you’re suggested and have been blown away by the twisted thinking of a lot of atheists out there. I also find it humorous that when one of the commentators suggested a source, you told him flat out that you wouldn’t check it out. So… why are you asking us to check out your links and sources? It seems that you slam some of us commentators so much for not doing any “research” and “not being educated” and yet, here we are checking out your many, many links and there YOU are not bothering to look into the other sides arguments! Here’s a link that I DARE you to check out. I know you probably won’t but that’s your choice.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml
“Atheism isn’t a believe”
Oh… wait… Really? So… You DON’T believe that you don’t believe there’s a God? Help me out with trying to understand this…
“Wait, wait. In the beginning, there was a God? How did that happen?”
You do realize that if God is all that is all that He says He is, He would have no trouble creating time right? Thus creating a beginning. And if He can create time, why not the universe, why not Eden, why couldn’t He let someone survive for three days in a fish, why couldn’t He create a tree that was forbidden to eat from? Also, you do realize that if you could figure out God, He would no longer be God right? Don’t let a few mysteries of things that our finite minds can’t grasp fool you into thinking that there can’t be a God.
Did you know that you called your definition of your so called “scientific theory” a “layperson’s theory”? I had simply defined your “scientific” theory in words that an elementary student could understand, and even though it said the same thing as your definition, you proceeded to call in a “layperson’s theory”. Goodness, it seems that you scientists and we “laypersons” are on the same level after all! Also, you didn’t explain to me why even though, according to you, a theory is as good as law, it can still change. Unless… in your world, laws change…
“This is a perfect example of how religion fries your brain”
Is that a fact! My brain is fried!? Amazing how I’m able to carry on this conversation with you! Oh, by the way, if religion fries brains, and you’ve admitted that you have Christian friends who are “more intelligent than” yourself, does that mean your brain is fried too? Or, is it just a select few of us Christians who actually stand up for what the Bible says that have fried brains?
“..nor do I believe in ‘chance’, which contrary to your preposterously poor education, has nothing to do with evolution or the Big Bang. Nor do either of those theories have anything whatsoever to do with the creation of the world”
Ok, first off, if ‘chance’ wasn’t responsible for the big bang or evolution, then what or who was!? I’m confused, because so far, as far as I’ve researched anyways, it sounded like the big bang just kinda… happened… by, well you know, chance. And second, if neither the big bang or evolution have anything to do with the creation of this world, then what does!? All along you have seemed to be arguing FOR the big bang and evolution. But… now I find out that you don’t even think that those had anything to do with why we’re here? Could you explain this?
I have a lot more that I could type on but this is getting quite long and I have a feeling you won’t give much thought to what I’m saying anyways. So before I go, I want to make one last point. You say “I don’t think your standards of evidence are very high” which confuses me because isn’t evidence just that? Evidence? Where can I go searching for this greater evidence? I’ve looked high, low, big, small, near, and far into some pretty deep stuff and so far it’s ALL been screaming of a creator. Where is this greater evidence you speak of?
In closing, seeing as I’ve checked out a lot of your many links, I dare you to check out the one single link that I’ve sent you above. It’s long sure, but so were a lot of your links. I think you’ll be impressed at how scientific it is. And we’re talking true science here. Like, the observation of what we can see type science.
Still praying for you. Even if you’re not still thinking for me.
Take care,
Eric
“But calling someone an “idiot” who is clearly not an idiot!?”
No, it’s quite clear. There’s nothing wrong with being ignorant about something. Ignorance can be tempered. But willful ignorance and refusal to take the time to learn about facts that challenge beliefs one claims to take seriously is just stupidity. And unlike ignorance, stupid is forever. Now I’ve been patient enough to answer every question put to me. I’ve been polite and have received nothing but “rudeness” in return. So the degree of politeness in my responses have been directly proportional to that of those who have commented.
“Oh, and speaking of unprofessional, calling an idea or argument “bull shit” or in other words male bovine poop, is quite childish. ”
No, it’s honest. These arguments aren’t merely wrong but colossally wrong. If you’d like though, I’ll call them humbug, bollocks, garbage, or claptrap instead. And again, I’ve refuted every single argument that has been made and have yet to hear any acknowledgment of that fact, just creative dodges like this one.
“MJR’s claim: “the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature.” (oh, unless this definition has changed since I looked it up of course)”
WHAT??!?!!!!! See, this is exactly why you get rude responses, Eric. You have so little respect for me that you make up false positions for me that you can easily knock down. You even presented this one with quotation marks as if you were actually quoting me.
THIS IS NOT MY POSITION. Take the fucking time to learn my position before rudely making one up for me.
1. The Big Bang is not “an explosion” but a quantum fluctuation. That’s just a name. Again, this is something they teach in basic public school science classes and nobody over the age of 16 should be so ignorant about it.
2. The Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago.
3. These are scientific facts brought out by overwhelming evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
http://www.dangeroustalk.net/a-team/Big_Bang
“Disproving evidence: The existence of a quasar in front of a nearby galaxy proves that red shift does not equal distance, “The nearby galaxies should not be spirals anymore, because in the time that is supposed to have elapsed, they should have wound themselves up long ago”, “some galaxies exist when, according to big bang cosmology, they shouldn’t have had time to form” (I could give you twenty more examples such as these but to save some space, I wont.)”
You’re amazing, Eric. You managed to debunk the Big Bang without even having a clue what it is. People should be worshiping you like some kind of god. You can at least respect me enough to cite your source. Let me guess: Answers in Genesis?
Of course real astronomers have no trouble at all accounting for this.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#QZ
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/quasars/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
“Edger’s Claim (actually, God’s claim that Edger believes): In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
Supporting evidence: “Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years” (this is in agreement with biblical numbers saying that the earth was created around 6 000/7 000 years ago also, it’s in agreement of the bible saying that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time), groups of fossils from different species accumulated together (wouldn’t you know it, the fossil of one specie right next to one that, according to evolution, hadn’t evolved yet. Oh, this evidence also suggests a mass flood), we can see the light of stars that are farther away than the amount of time evolution gives that light to travel to us (suggests that there is a God who was kind enough to create the light from between the star and our eyes), I could also go on with these examples but, again, I won’t to save time.”
How does that prove your god’s existence? All your doing is attempting to fling feces at current science. You’ve presented zero positive evidence for your specific deity. At best, your argument could be capable of disproving Evolution, which it doesn’t. This doesn’t prove a deistic god, let alone a theistic one. You might as well be calling this proof of leprechauns. But let’s get back to the claim. Why do you think unfossilized dinosaur remains is a problem for biologists? Who says unfossilized dinosaur remains can’t survive more than a few thousand years? Are you seriously suggesting there were dinosaurs only a few thousand years ago? And that the Earth is only a few thousand years old? Seriously? Now I’m unfamiliar with this find so please cite your sources that discuss it so I can research it.
But first of all, even if we accepted your claim at face value that there was a dinosaur living only a few thousand years ago (and we don’t), so what? It’d be kinda strange but that still would not resolve the fact that dozens of other forms of dating mechanisms have clearly placed Earth’s origins at about 4.5 billion years. Hell, in just the 18 months I’ve been writing this blog, I’ve reported about dozens of discoveries of undeniably billions-years-old artifacts. Just go to the top of the page and under the categories menu on the right sidebar, click “Age of the Earth/Universe.”
And there’s more Young Earth Creationism debunked here:
http://www.dangeroustalk.net/a-team/Earth_Age
“Disproving evidence: I honestly searched for a long time for evidence that disproved creation and all I could find was a few sites saying that the “evidence supporting evolution far outweighed the evidence supporting creation”
Then my conclusion is that you really didn’t search very hard.
Here’s Talk Origin’s Index of Creationist Claims:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
And here’s a page that compiled a lot websites and videos that address specific creationist claims (though it’s not very organized):
http://www.dangeroustalk.net/a-team/Intelligent_Design
And again, here’s the corresponding page on evidence for Evolution:
http://www.dangeroustalk.net/a-team/evolution
“also find it humorous that when one of the commentators suggested a source, you told him flat out that you wouldn’t check it out.”
Yes I did. If he’s got the secret to debunking all of modern biology then he should submit it to the biologists directly. But he’s already proven completely ignorant of the very things he’s criticizing, so he’s given me zero reason to believe that the sources he points to know what they’re talking about. Again, as much as you guys think I’m some newbie, I probably know most of your claims better than you do. I’ve interacted with hundreds of creationists and regularly keep up with what the leading creationist personalities are saying. If he wanted to point me to an article, that’s fine. But I’m going to sit around and watch a propaganda video. My time is too valuable to me. And again, have I not answered every question that he has put to me? I’ve looked at the creationists arguments and have found them not only to be lacking but dishonest and purely designed to create doubt and confusion.
“Here’s a link that I DARE you to check out. I know you probably won’t but that’s your choice.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml”
Two paragraphs into the site, they flat-out lie:
“How did humans (and everything else) come into existence? The only explanation you will find in public school and university textbooks is the theory of evolution. ”
As I’ve already explained here, that is not what Evolution says and not what any textbook says. Do I need to go on even though they’ve already revealed their ignorance two paragraphs in? Really?
Okay, one more. The very next sentence:
“Yet, no scientific, provable evidence supporting the theory of evolution has emerged since Charles Darwin popularized it in 1859.”
Bollocks! Humbug! Claptrap!
Now I’ve already linked you to the Talk Origin page as well as the DangerousTalk page and numerous other sources that clearly lay out the evidence, but here’s the Dangeroustalk page again:
http://www.dangeroustalk.net/a-team/evolution
That’s it. Two lies is my limit. I’m done with that page unless you want to highlight a specific claim on it. I can only answer one claim at a time and clearly can’t answer every claim on a propaganda site at once. I just don’t have that kind of time.
““Atheism isn’t a believe”
Oh… wait… Really? So… You DON’T believe that you don’t believe there’s a God? Help me out with trying to understand this…”
Nope. It’s a lack of belief. Just like not collecting stamps is not a hobby. And not believing in Santa Claus is not a belief either.
“You do realize that if God is all that is all that He says He is, He would have no trouble creating time right? Thus creating a beginning. ”
Are you sure it wasn’t a leprechaun? If any of this could be sufficiently proven by now we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Reading out of a book of fairytales is not evidence of anything. Neither is just throwing up your hands and saying science can’t explain something so it must have been magic.
I’m done. Make shorter posts.
Your not my monkey? weird i thought we “evolved” from those exact creatures.
And thank you again for further illustrating your complete ignorance of Evolution.
oh so all those scientists saying we are distantly related to monkeys, and the nice little drawings of monkey to man, all these are wrong? cool, that’s what i’ve been saying all along.
“oh so all those scientists saying we are distantly related to monkeys, and the nice little drawings of monkey to man, all these are wrong? cool, that’s what i’ve been saying all along.”
Related to monkey’s distantly, yes. Evolved from monkeys, no. Evolution describes common descent by way of adaptation and natural selection. This means that humans and modern apes both evolved from primitive primates, which are now extinct. And monkeys are distantly related to modern apes. But we did not “evolve from monkeys.” And those drawings of monkeys to man are not scientifically accurate, so yes, they’re wrong. So glad we can finally agree on something.
Hey MJR,
“I’ve been polite and received nothing but rudeness in return. So the degree of politeness in my responses have been directly proportional to that of those that have commented.”
No offense, but you called young Edger an idiot only 7 messages into the debate! And as I’ve read and re-read all that’s been said, and it seems that all the in appropriate name calling has come from you. Of course, maybe I’ve skipped over something. A lot has been said. For some reason, it seems as though we’re making you angry… Is everything ok?
“You have so little respect for me that you make up false positions for me…”
My apologies, MJR, I didn’t mean to make you feel like I had little respect for you. Don’t get me wrong, you have a VERY knowledge filled mind. The only problem is that you’re interpreting your knowledge wrong. And forgive me for getting your version of the Big Bang theory wrong. You often say to us that we should’ve learned this in grade school, but honestly, I DID learn that the big bang theory was an explosion all throughout grade school. (And don’t call me an idiot because I just so happened to graduate with honors from that school. Excelling in subjects such as physics, math, chemistry, etc) Also, in my researching the topic yesterday, I came across more than a few sites that still told me the big bang was an explosion. And in fact, it STILL sounds like you guys think the big bang was an explosion. Sure, not a fast explosion like you once thought. You’ve slowed it down with the whole “quantum fluctuation” business that’s all. And again, don’t tell me that I haven’t researched this or that I’m an idiot. Neither is true. (Oh, by the way, just a little heads up. Time cannot have sexual intercourse, in response to your “fucking time” comment)
“Are you seriously suggesting there were dinosaurs only a few thousand years ago?”
Yes, I am. Check out http://www.gennet.org/facts/nessie.html OR do five minutes of some research yourself and come back and tell me that dinosaurs have been gone for around 65 million years.
“Then my conclusion is that you didn’t search very hard”
Also, not true. I’m humored though that you’re allowed to make conclusions about me and I’m not allowed to make conclusions about you. Just to put a smile on your face though, I DID check out some of your links. After seeing page after page of misquoted Christians and faulty evidence and sometimes even plain illogical arguments, I finally came to the conclusion that I was still right in believing that evolutionists can’t disprove creation.
“Two paragraphs into the site, they flat out lie:”
Hmm, after doing some MORE research, I found that most textbooks teach evolution as FACT, and if, and that’s a HUGE if, textbooks do mention creation they say that it is a theory. Also, in regards to the part where the website said “yet, no scientific, provable evidence supporting the theory of evolution has emerged since Charles Darwin popularized it in 1859”: sure, it’s a bold statement, but you can honestly give me at least ONE piece of evidence that totally, 100% proves evolution!? I mean, you can probably give me some fact that SUGGESTS things could’ve evolved. But to give me one piece of evidence that says evolution is FACT? I’d be amazed to see it. You honestly stop researching as soon as you hear something you think is a lie? Wow… for such an educated man, you sure limit your education. You should give my link another try. After all, I found at least 20 misquotes, generalizations, and simply wrong facts throughout my reading before I figured I’d researched enough from your links.
“Nope. It’s a lack of belief”
Ohhh, I see. You don’t believe that there’s a God. Wait… That means that you DO believe there ISN’T a God? I honestly don’t see how a person could not believe there is a God while not believing that there isn’t a God. And although your “stamp” and “Santa Clause” examples were cute and sounded clever, they only helped prove my point. Because we both know that even though “not believing in Santa Clause is not a belief…” it still means one of two things. That even though Santa may or may not be real, you just choose not to put your belief in him either way, OR you believe that Santa Clause is not real. Oh, by the way, the hobby/stamp example didn’t make sense.
It seems that you’re always trying to put God into a box of leprechaun or beard/no beard or leather jacket. Why does what God looks like have anything to do with how He created the world? Or why He has the rules He has? The bible is not a fairy tale book, nor a folklore book. And none of us here have claimed that the bible proves evidence. On the flip side really, we’ve been continually encouraged by how evidence ends up fitting hand in hand with what the bible says. By the way, I’ve never thrown up my hands and have accredited anything to “magic”. It’s the evolutionists who seem to throw up their hands lots. You know, oh rats… new evidence disproves our original theories? Well, let’s just add on a few billion years and maybe change our wording a bit. Oh, throw in a few made up fossils too. There we go, that sounds convincing again.
Ok, so I’ve come to the end of this post. If you answer one of my questions I would like it to be this one (which just so happens to be a question from my LAST post. Funny cause I thought you told us that you’ve answered all our questions that we’ve thrown at you.):
If evolution or the big bang theory ISN’T responsible for the creation of this earth, as you seem to have suggested, what is?
“I’m done. Make shorter posts”
It seems that you’ve made some of the longer posts on this page. Or is this another one of those ‘I can make assumptions about you but you can’t make assumptions about me’ type instances? I declare, Christians sure get a bad rap for being hypocrites and granted, we sure can be sometimes. But are we really any more hypocritical than everyone else? So, seeing as I’m not done with this topic, I think I’ll keep typing. Take care.
“No offense, but you called young Edger an idiot only 7 messages into the debate!”
You say that like 7 is a small number. And given that in his very first response, he wrote:
“Of course there is no proof of a creator, but then there is no evidence prooving any theory. Unfortunatly scientists are finding more and more evidence in the “simple cell” that shows it is far too complex to have come about without a designer”
I would have already been justified then. And it only worse from then on out. After I explained his errors, he continued to hold to them. Again, there’s no shame in being ignorant of something. Ignorance can be tempered. But when you choose to remain ignorant, that’s when you graduate to idiocy.
“A lot has been said. For some reason, it seems as though we’re making you angry… Is everything ok”
Angry? Please tell me you’re not a psychiatrist?
“The only problem is that you’re interpreting your knowledge wrong. And forgive me for getting your version of the Big Bang theory wrong. You often say to us that we should’ve learned this in grade school, but honestly, I DID learn that the big bang theory was an explosion all throughout grade school. (And don’t call me an idiot because I just so happened to graduate with honors from that school. Excelling in subjects such as physics, math, chemistry, etc)”
It’s not MY version. It’s the only version. And I’m sorry but to be perfectly honest, but if this is really what they taught you at your school, then that’s an academic disgrace. And that you say you excelled in science fields without even knowing what a scientific theory is beyond depressing.
“I came across more than a few sites that still told me the big bang was an explosion.”
Try going to REAL science websites, not sites with names like “Answers in Genesis.” Hell, even Wikipedia would be vastly superior to these backwards sources of yours.
“Time cannot have sexual intercourse, in response to your “fucking time” comment)”
What?! Nobody claimed that it does, least of all me.
“Yes, I am. Check out http://www.gennet.org/facts/nessie.html OR do five minutes of some research yourself and come back and tell me that dinosaurs have been gone for around 65 million years.”
Really? The New Zealand Monster again? You guys are still using that old canard? Here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/plesios.html
Again, took 5 seconds to find. Let me guess, you learned how to do research from the same school you got your superb science education from, right? Yeah, I’m coming back and telling you that dinosaurs have been gone for around 65 million years.
“After seeing page after page of misquoted Christians and faulty evidence and sometimes even plain illogical arguments, I finally came to the conclusion that I was still right in believing that evolutionists can’t disprove creation.”
Of course not. No evidence will convince you that you’re wrong cause you’re not interested in what’s true. You’re only interested in protecting your sacred beliefs. I could ask you to point to examples of these misquotations, faulty evidence, or illogical arguments and then point you to detailed articles that refute those charges but what would be the point? It’d just be like all the other claims thus far where you parrot an unvetted claim off one of your creationist sites, I show you a detailed explanation of why the claim is invalid which you don’t acknowledge and just move onto your next claim you’re so easily impressed by so the cycle can continue. Tt will never be enough to convince you.
It probably never even occurred to you that even if your New Zealand Monster claim were a legitimate dinosaur (and it’s not) that somehow survived to the modern age, that while it’d be pretty weird, it still would not even come close to overturning Evolution, it would not prove all those other dinosaurs were more recent than 65 million years old, and it definitely would not serve as positive evidence for the claim that everything in the universe magically poof into existence fully formed only a few thousand years ago.
“Hmm, after doing some MORE research, I found that most textbooks teach evolution as FACT, and if, and that’s a HUGE if, textbooks do mention creation they say that it is a theory. ”
Evolution is a fact. And I’ve never seen a science textbook that ever referred to creationism as a theory other than “Of Pandas and People” and whatever sad text followed in its footprints. So I’m calling bollocks on that claim.
“it’s a bold statement, but you can honestly give me at least ONE piece of evidence that totally, 100% proves evolution!?”
This is not a valid question because Evolution is a process. There’s no one artifact that alone can prove it anymore than there’s one single piece of evidence that can prove that a baby grows into an adult. There are, however, thousands of independent pieces of evidence that lead to only one reasonable conclusion. There’s the thousands of transitional fossils, most of which have been discovered since Darwin. There’s the genetic evidence, all of which has come after Darwin. There’s the vestigial evidence. There’s also the molecular evidence (DNA), evidence from proteins, embryology (how embryos develop), biogeography (locations of species on the planet), homology, bacteriology, virology, immunology, and pest-control. And while this is good enough for every biologist in the world, somehow it still manages to be unsatisfying to you. Now what’s your “one piece of evidence” for Yahweh?
“You honestly stop researching as soon as you hear something you think is a lie? Wow… for such an educated man, you sure limit your education.”
Um, no. As I’ve illustrated, that’s either TWO lies in the 1st two paragraphs or at best, two mistakes that illustrate the authors don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. I could go on but I don’t have all day to sit around and jump through the hoops of someone who has virtually no chance of changing their minds. I even invited you to present an specific arguments from the site that you found compelling. I’ve been more than generous with my time. And for someone who can’t even spend 5 seconds researching a claim, you’re not really in the position to question my researching skills.
“I found at least 20 misquotes, generalizations, and simply wrong facts throughout my reading before I figured I’d researched enough from your links.”
I explained the two errors I found. You’ve yet to name one.
“Ohhh, I see. You don’t believe that there’s a God. Wait… That means that you DO believe there ISN’T a God?”
No. These are two separate positions. One is a positive position of disbelief. The other is a more agnostic position of, I haven’t yet been convinced. It’s funny how 100% certainty only seems to be required when theists want to paint atheists as more certain than they are. Well it’s not my job to make it easier for you to stereotype my position. Again, I explain my position more completely in the first entry of this blog: http://skepacabra.wordpress.com/2008/07/19/what-i-think-about-your-god/
And again I’m going to point to one of BionicDance’s videos that superbly answers this question:
“it still means one of two things. That even though Santa may or may not be real, you just choose not to put your belief in him either way, OR you believe that Santa Clause is not real. Oh, by the way, the hobby/stamp example didn’t make sense.”
Thank you for finally acknowledging the difference between active disbelief and lack of belief. I knew you could do it. Oh, and by the way, the hobby/stamp example does make sense. You’re saying that lack of belief equals belief no matter the degree of lack of belief. That’s a paradox, same as saying that the lack of a hobby equals a hobby.
“Why does what God looks like have anything to do with how He created the world?”
Because I was being facetious and because the empirical evidence for both is identically non-existent. The vast majority of arguments for a god involve pointing to things that everyone agrees exist and then saying that’s proof that whichever deity they happen to believe in exists when obviously the existence of something is only evidence of its own existence and says nothing of how it came to exist. It’s funny how nobody has to argue for the existence of, say, a hammer. Why? Because we can go down to a hardware store and hand it to someone. Likewise, if someone didn’t believe that Asia existed, there was ways in which we can empirically prove that it exists. Same with wind. We can measure wind. However, when it comes to gods, suddenly the standard of evidence drops down to personal revelation, which is indistinguishable from common human delusion. In Iceland, people insist that they’ve encountered elves. In 1938, thousands of people in New Jersey were absolutely convinced that they witnessed a Martian invasion. Nothing about personal revelation is particularly compelling once you understand how fallible the mind is. And of course, half-baked first cause arguments don’t even come close to proving any particular deity, so you might as well call them proof of genies or leprechauns if we’re going to reduce our standards of evidence to just saying it was done by magic. Further, there’s a big difference between evidence fitting the bible and making the bible fit the evidence. Christians never seem particularly perplexed by the millions of instances where the bible is clearly wrong on something and yet on the rare occasion that they can distort the meaning of a passage to fit our reality gets shouted from the rooftops. The bible has consistently proven to lack even internal consistency. And then of course the science of the bible makes Cinderella look like a science documentary by comparison (see: Noah, Jonah, Tower of Babel, talking snake, etc.) Given how much the Bible gets wrong, it’d be a damned miracle if it didn’t get something right by shear statistical chance alone. And while I know you Christians hate it when we refer to your “miracles” as “magic” but their functionally the same thing. When you claim that some being has superpowers and literally creates the universe with an incantation, that’s magic. Things happening independent of the laws of cause and effect and the fundamental laws of nature are magic. Resurrection is magic. Transforming water into wine is magic.
“You know, oh rats… new evidence disproves our original theories? Well, let’s just add on a few billion years and maybe change our wording a bit. Oh, throw in a few made up fossils too. There we go, that sounds convincing again.”
Nope, scientists haven’t done any of that. What scientists do do is alter their conclusions based on available evidence. When new evidence arrives, they accept that they’ve been wrong on something and make the appropriate adjustments to from a more accurate conclusion. Science is cumulative, which I know scares the hell out of theists who just want to have one accepted absolute truth and stop having to learn anything new. But what can I say. Nobody’s perfect and nobody possesses the absolute truth of everything in the universe. So we all just have to learn through trial and error.
“If evolution or the big bang theory ISN’T responsible for the creation of this earth, as you seem to have suggested, what is?”
Sorry, but given that you write long novels worth of test, sometimes I miss something. I’m not omniscient.
Since it’s a long explanation, I spend 5 seconds finding resources that seem to answer your question sufficiently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth
http://geology.about.com/od/nutshells/a/aa_earthbirth.htm
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio303/bigbang.htm
“It seems that you’ve made some of the longer posts on this page.”
That’s because I care enough to try and respond to everything I’m given and feel it’s useful to quote sections of the post I’m responding to so people know which points I’m addressing.
Again, I’ll happily continue to talk with you but I’d appreciate it if you’d respect my time and make shorter posts.