.: posted 8/25/2002 ::: by webmdave :::   

 Anonymous wrote:

By reading some of these comments I see that many of you have little Biblical understanding or knowledge of Christ and what it truly means to be a Christian. Guess what? I used to be the same way. I discredited everything about God, the Bible, and Jesus, based on what I saw from the Church, from History, and from things I perceived to be true. I questioned everything and could not understand how people could live their lives based a book written by men. How eternally grateful I am to the Lord for not giving up on me and continuing to bring Christians into my life. The Lord opened my eyes and I finally have peace in my soul.

My goal is not to convince anyone that God is real. I am just a man and my words cannot reach into your soul. I applaude the webdesigner for giving people a place to share their views. I believe that these conversations on religion exist and will never go away because people have restless souls and are empty inside. To anyone who is honestly looking for a peace that passes all understanding, don't look for perfection from Christians, who by definition are admitted sinners, look at Jesus Christ, who lived a perfect life and offered himself for us that we may have life.

God Bless You

posted: November 26, 2005 EST  

 Dave8 wrote:

anonymous: "My goal is not to convince anyone that God is real."

Thank Nature...

anonymous: "I am just a man and my words cannot reach into your soul."

Soul? What that?

anonymous: "I applaude the webdesigner for giving people a place to share their views."

Perhaps, more attuned to providing a place to present reality...

anonymous: "I believe that these conversations on religion exist and will never go away because people have restless souls and are empty inside."

I have an empty Soul? and it causes me to be restless? How so? If one can not define the Soul, how does it become empty and restless...

anonymous: "To anyone who is honestly looking for a peace that passes all understanding, don't look for perfection from Christians, who by definition are admitted sinners, look at Jesus Christ, who lived a perfect life and offered himself for us that we may have life."

i.e., don't look at this physical reality, to solve lonliness, and need, look to an historical icon labelled Jesus, who may or may not have existed, who knowingly Martyred himself (Death Cult), so that Others may receive a Benefit or Reward, i.e., everlasting life, etc... Oh, and "sin", what's that...

posted: November 27, 2005 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

Dear Dave,

What are you so angry about? What is your answer for a world filled with hopelesness? If you don't think people have a soul then you have to reduce every emotion, thought, personality, and most importantly love, to just the result of neurons and electrical impulses randomly firing that have no meaning whatsoever. I like to think life is a little more meaningful than that. I like to think there is a reason to exist. I believe in the hope of eternal life. But lets just say I'm wrong and in the end there is nothing, the worst I've done is live every day with meaning, purpose and hope. What do you live for? Can you admit that not believing in God means that life is meaningless. To go through each day knowing it doesn't matter what you do, good or bad because in the end there is nothing anyway. I am glad I don't live like that anymore.

You are exactly right about not looking at this physical reality to solve our spiritual problems. If we could we wouldn't need God, and it doesn't take Einstein to see that we as humans have done a pretty good job at screwing things up. We have made industrial progress but people are still spiritually bankrupt and there is no human wisdom that can solve it.

As for sin, if you don't think there is such a thing as sin' try not to sin and you will see just how real it is

Thank you for your time,

By the way my name is Kevin. The title says anonymous because I am new to blogging and haven't figured it out yet.

posted: November 27, 2005 EST  

 Dave8 wrote:

Kevin: "Dear Dave, What are you so angry about?"

Kevin: "By reading some of these comments I see that many of you have little Biblical understanding or knowledge of Christ and what it truly means to be a Christian."

Kevin, if you believe that the comments, of which I am part of the "many" as you explain, that you have viewed on this site, appear to portray me as an abecedarian on the subject of the Christian religion, I challenge you to provide information that seems to have been missed during my university studies, and thousand plus hours of personal research... I suppose, I am more aggravated than angry, that people can make presumptions so easily, but then, typically from what I have experienced, the same people are also typically the ones to accept presuppositions blindly...

Kevin: "What is your answer for a world filled with hopelesness?"

Okay, now I'm angry... Who gave you the authority to anthropomorphically wrap my life, with your depraved world views... I understand you are programmed to believe we all live a hopeless life, but... personally, I have a qualitative life, and don't need the co-dependence of someone or some religion, to tell me if I am, or am not, living according to "their" standards for a "meaningful" life... A person who requires someone to tell them whether they have a meaningful life, is indeed hopeless, as they have no autonomous Individuality... that's beyond hopeless, that just sad...

Kevin: "If you don't think people have a soul then you have to reduce every emotion, thought, personality, and most importantly love, to just the result of neurons and electrical impulses randomly firing that have no meaning whatsoever."

Meaning in my life, is decided upon the decisions, I make in this life as an Individual, and the impact of those decisions on the homeostatic balance it provides me, and the whole of humanity of which I am a part...

Kevin: "I like to think life is a little more meaningful than that."

Truly, and... what per se, gives you meaning in life... is it the goal that you reach for, that has been handed to you by someone you trusted as a child, or as an adult in search for a solution for an unmet need... If it is, You as an Individual don't have a meaning... you are defined by someone elses' "meaning", and you chose to allow this, and willingly "measure" your progress toward their standard... Your lack of autonomy and ability to reach intellectually beyond the need for "other" people to "guide" you, removes you as an "authority" for judging "meaning" for those, who are capable of defining their personal "meaning" autonomously...

Kevin: "I like to think there is a reason to exist."

Please rephrase... you appear to allude that if one doesn't hold a religious view... then there obviously is no "meaningful" existence to be obtained... Kind of shallow, or do I read this wrong...

Kevin: "I believe in the hope of eternal life."

Nothing wrong with "hoping" and "wishing", if its a personal truth in ones' life... Personally, I want to retire, and travel, but... that's coming from someone who is obviously leading a Meaningless life...

Kevin: "But lets just say I'm wrong and in the end there is nothing, the worst I've done is live every day with meaning, purpose and hope."

Again, your "meaning, purpose, and hope", was "given" to you by another person, via some medium, either verbal or written... You have chosen to have "faith" in that "medium", and not in the "self" first... You have lived a life, for someone else, not your Self, and... that's your choice, however, I see trying to persuade Others to live their lives by evading total mental and intellectual "autonomy" as a gross disservice to the quality of life for that Individual, as they can not become as Maslow put it... "all they can be", they are stuck living a "limited" life, based on the beliefs of "another" person...

Kevin: "What do you live for?"

I live for happiness, care, and joy... peace, and harmony is how I reach these physical states of being... I do this by Self introspection, of "Personal" Values, and the affects they have on my life... and not by mandated "Values", given by a "second" party...

Kevin: "Can you admit that not believing in God means that life is meaningless."

You must be a pretty sad person, to not be able to live an Individual life... you are so co-dependent on God, that you can't phathom the idea that life can hold meaning without a supernatural god... So, no, I don't admit that "my" life is limited by your view of a metaphysical/supernatural god, that would be tragic for me personally to lower my self esteem to the point, that I have to be defined by some extrinsic factor...

Kevin: "To go through each day knowing it doesn't matter what you do, good or bad because in the end there is nothing anyway."

Hey Kevin, those who live for "today", and Value this "Life" know they will be immediately judged in the here and now accordingly... However, the religious view, is to do good and bad, and attempt to escape from social justice because they feel they will pay the price in the afterlife...

Obviously, you haven't read the bible in depth... if you do eventually take the time, look at the ten commandments per Exodus, and see if there are times in the bible where the commandments are broken, by your own god... Oh, and let me get you started... Thou shalt not murder/kill... Your god is the master of death and murder... Jesus murdered himself... If you aren't intelligent enough to read the bible, and need me to break out the ten commandments and how they obviously don't provide some "Absolute" moral guide, then I "may" take the time... However, it would obviously show your lack of will to know your own religious foundations...

Kevin: "I am glad I don't live like that anymore."

Well, if you needed structure in your life, because you weren't capable on innately knowing right from wrong, one could assert you need mental therapy, becuase, naturally, people know right from wrong... You moved your justification for doing bad things, to justification of a belief system with no evidence... If you consider lying to be a bad thing... then, what do you call it when someone poses a supernatural god as a "fact"... I call it "lying"... If lying were part of your previous lifestyle, that you considered bad, it doesn't appear you have moved too far, you have just shifted the object of your lies to supporting your belief... and... lets be honest... your belief garners you social benefits... therefore, you are lying for tangibles... If you hold these beliefs personally, and don't attempt to "persuade" others with lies, then no harm, no foul... however, the minute you attempt to "persuade" Others to believe your god is a "fact", is a "lie"...

Kevin: "You are exactly right about not looking at this physical reality to solve our spiritual problems."

Uh, I don't believe the metaphysical/supernatural realm exists, as by definition the Meta(beyond)physical can not be measured either quantitatively or qualitatively while existing in this natural reality... Therefore, if onw asserts they actually "exist" in this "natural" reality... they disavow the existence of the supernatural or metaphysical... Now, one can "hope", and have "faith" that the "rules" of logic and reason we have as humans are "flawed" in order for there to "exist" a dual reality (duality)... but that's banking that we as humans are "defective"... However, logic rears its head again, and says, if we are Naturally defective, then how does anyone know "anything"... to include a supernatural god... at this point... we'ed all have to claim agnosticism if truly honest... However, we both know, religions say everyone is "defective" but... religious leaders are "more" than mortal, because they "Know" the "Truth" and are able to lead the "defective" others...

If you didn't get it, I am a methodological naturalist, I don't make claims whether a supernatural god or gods exist or don't exist... However, I live my life as if they didn't, until someone pulls one of those out of their hats... and I run the data through my "sound" and magnificent brain, that "I" own...

Kevin: "If we could we wouldn't need God, and it doesn't take Einstein to see that we as humans have done a pretty good job at screwing things up."

Religion has had the biggest negative impact on humanity, than "any" other organization I know of... Christianity, leading the way... And, yes, its amazing what people will do when they have no autonomy and are so easily and blindly led to accomplish the deeds of the few religious leaders, i.e., the pope, etc... and don't say you're not Catholic, your religion was rooted in Roman Catholicism, and someone, one "defective" person, passed on their wisdom to another "defective" person to create the religion you are a part of today...

Kevin: "We have made industrial progress but people are still spiritually bankrupt and there is no human wisdom that can solve it."

But here you are, as a human, trying to solve it... Do you find that odd? Do you find it odd, that there are others who also believe there are areas for improvement for humanity, but are more willing to live in the here and now, instead of "promising" people some "reward" after "death", if they adhere to a set standard, proclaimed by a few elitist religionists...

Kevin: "As for sin, if you don't think there is such a thing as sin' try not to sin and you will see just how real it is."

That made no sense... Define sin... Lying... is that sinful? If so, religion has made an "art" out of lying over the past few thousand years... as they tout their claims as Universal Absolute Truths...

Kevin: "Thank you for your time,"

Thank you for your time, and for the time of those who have had to endure this post...

Kevin: "By the way my name is Kevin. The title says anonymous because I am new to blogging and haven't figured it out yet."

There are definitely new changes on this site, and I am also getting used to the new "feel"... take it easy...

posted: November 28, 2005 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

Dave8 said: "...portray me as an abecedarian on the subject of the Christian religion..."

Abecedarian! Great word and great post!

posted: November 28, 2005 EST  

 Dano wrote:

Dave8 said:
"Oh, and let me get you started... Thou shalt not murder/kill... Your God is the master of death and murder... Jesus murdered himself..."

First time I have seen that observation. Jesus, being God was a murderer when he had himself killed to atone for sin.

Also the part about the bible being full of lies because it is trying to make people believe a bunch of stuff that was invented by men and has no substantiation or proof.

The more I read about the bible the more I realize that I am a better person than God!

posted: November 28, 2005 EST  

 Dano wrote:

......oh, and before some evangelical nut reads this and says I'm gonna go to hell, let me add that I think that if God follows this site and reads everything we post, he must spend a lot of the time rolling on the floor, laughing his ass off!

posted: November 28, 2005 EST  

 Dave8 wrote:

Thanks WM Dave, I picked that word up in another thread on this site, it seemed pertinent :-)

Dano, I agree, the mixed nuts may indeed be preparing for a seige on this most revered virtual cloister... ;-) Oh, not only did God commit murder, but, it was pre-meditated murder :-) Jesus refused to keep the sabbath day holy, but we have plenty of nuts running around telling us, we need religion and to be in church... And God... is a self proclaimed omnipotent liar...

2 Thessalonians 2:11 - And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

What I really think, when I am told continuously that I must be out of my mind for not believing in the god of the bible...

"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say we are the ones that need help?"--Mark Twain

Take care...

posted: November 28, 2005 EST  

 Dano wrote:

Dave8,
I quote your quote by Mark Twain.

"What I really think, when I am told continuously that I must be out of my mind for not believing in the god of the bible..."

"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say we are the ones that need help?"--Mark Twain

Take care...

I am always amazed at how these "giants" of literature and science like mark Twain, Galaleo, Ingersoll, Voltaire, Payne, Franklin, and many others are able to see things so clearly in one sentence or one paragraph, that others can't figure out in a lifetime of profundity in writing.

posted: November 28, 2005 EST  

 Dave8 wrote:

Hey Dano, I agree, some of the best writers throughout history are able to take thousands of pounds of knowledge, and squeeze the underlying meaning out using a few sentences... its truly the hallmark of the greatest minds... have a great one...

posted: November 28, 2005 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

Dave

I would like to thank you for pretty much validating my assertations. Although you may have studied the Bible and/or religion it seems to me there are some areas which I think you may be misunderstood. For someone who seems to be very intelligent I think you could have done better than the 6th commandment. It is easy to see all of the killing that plakes in the Bible and say that it contradicts "Thou shalt not kill," but you have to look a little bit deeper. Throughout the Bible God authorizes killing in certain situations whether it be an animal for sacrifice or a person who took someone elses life, in either case these death's are to provide ATONEMENT, which is what JESUS' death provided on the cross. The commandment refers to murder, which is unjustified killing. Now I will in no way try claim to be a Bible scholar. I have only been studying for about 3 years, and I will be the first to admit that I have much to learn. For example, before Joshua leads the Israelites into Canaan he is instructed by God to kill everyone. I have some thoughts on why, but by reading the rest of the Bible I rest in the faith that God's judgements are always righteous.

Now you claim that I am codependant and cannot rely on myself. To that I say Amen, you are exactly right. I depend totally on the Lord to guide me each day.

When I was talking about life being meaningless and hopeless I was referring to the overall existence rather than day to day living. Sure you can find hope and meaning in your family your day to day activities, your friends, I take joy in those things as well. I also do not want give the false impression that as a Christian, life is grand and all the stop lights are green. I go through the same struggles as everybody else and since giving my life to Christ I probably have more questions now than ever before. However I no longer have to wonder about the eternal.

The hopelesness I was referring to is that if you don't believe in after life than by definition you have no hope for something greater after you die. Can you agree with that?

You also quote Mark Twain. I am going to speculate so please forgive if I'm wrong, but I assume that you believe in evolution(if not I would like to know your opinion on origin). That takes way more faith than believing in a creator. To think that an explosion occured and then wow, here is this system of planets rotating around a heat source(lucky for us we are at the perfect distance to sustain life). Then after millions of years an Amoeba crawled out of the ocean,(lucky for us it could breathe water and air)and then a couple of cycles later here we are. The problem is DNA, since DNA is a form of information you would have to assert that at some point information randomly occured from matter(which has never been shown to be able to happen). Once again,I will not claim to be a scientist, I'll just stick with believing there is a creator.

Once again I could not agree with you more that religion has a scarred history and the church has things to be ashamed of. If you look at what Jesus had to say to the Pharisees you will see that he condemns religous leaders for being corrupt and misleading others. You are also wrong to say that Christianity is rooted in Catholicism. It wasn't until the 4th century that Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of Rome. The Bible was complete most scholars say by 90 A.D.(when I say complete I mean all the books were written they were yet to be compiled). That means that the gospel was being spread for about 400 years before the Catholic religion started to form. I cannot disregard the major impact Catholicism has had on Christianity I just want to show that it is another example of what can happen if you take the the focus off of Christ(whom is the one we are to follow, not the church). Regardless of all of that, no matter what people in the church have done to give Christ a bad name, that doesn't change who Christ is or the fact that we will stand individually before God and not be judged according to what others have done.

Lastly, as a naturalist do you believe in moral relativity? If so, than who gets to decide what is right and wrong, each person? That would actually void right and wrong because each person could justify his own behavior by saying, "It's right for me."
If you don't believe in moral relativity than that would presuppose a standard of morals. From whom I ask would these morals come from?

Once again I thank you for your time. I enjoy these discussions

Kevin

posted: November 29, 2005 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

Kevin,

First off, please click on the little radio button that says "OTHER." Then you can type in a name, any name, like even Kevin, then you wouldn't keep coming up as anonymous. Isn't that neat?

Now as to your comment: "each person could justify his own behavior by saying, "'It's right for me,'" I've got news for you anony, um, er, Kev - that's exactly what everyone has always done, regardless of any religious affiliations. We all do what WE THINK is right. Some of us justify it by saying "GOD COMMANDS IT." Others justify it other ways.

It doesn't matter if you never masturbate and I wack off 7 times a day. It just doesn't matter - until either you or I start hurting other people with our opinions on masturbation. If I start teaching the neighborhood children how to do it, then I think most of the parents would try to see me locked away. It has nothing to do with any mystical "RIGHT AND WRONG," it has to do with parents protecting their children. If I kill someone in self-defense, then I'm not found guilty of any crime or of any wrong doing. However, if I kill someone out of anger, or jealousy, or just plain meanness, then guess what? I get the chair - or a real long vacation in prison.

Right is not harming another - wrong is harming another.

Who says? The OTHER!

I would say that if I try to harm you, you'll have a strong feeling that it's just not right. Likewise if you try to harm me, I betcha, I not going to think it's a good idea.

Absolutism made slavery legal, burned witches, tortured Jews and Muslims and anyone that didn't have the exact right CHRISTIAN doctrine, kept medicines from advancing, and tried to stifle science for over 1000 years.

Absolutism is wrong - it's wrong because it harmed millions of people for hundreds of years.

Again now, remember to check out that little radio button that says "other."

posted: November 29, 2005 EST  

 Jim Arvo wrote:

Kevin,

I know you directed your comments toward the webmaster, but I'd like to answer them too, if you don't mind. I'm going to restrict my comments to the "scientific" statements you made, although I think most of what you said can be debunked rather easily.

Kevin: "...I assume that you believe in evolution...."

That's a very bizarre question! I can't imagine one scientist asking another "do you believe in evolution", as if were a deity of some sort. My answer: I believe that the theory of evolution is overwhelmingly supported by the available evidence, so I *believe* that it is the most likely explanation for a great many observations. That is a dramatically different statement than professing "belief in" evolution, which generally connotes a level of confidence that exceeds the evidence, or exists independent of evidence (i.e. irrational).

Kevin: "That takes way more faith than believing in a creator."

That's about the millionth time I've heard that, and it's just as wrong now as it was the first 999,999 times. First, please explain to me what could POSSIBLY be more fantastic than an *infinitely* powerful transcendent invisible being. Even if the theory of evolution posited the spontaneous assemblage of countless atoms (which it categorically does not), how could that even be in the same league as *god*? And how would you go about objectively comparing the two scenarios in any case?

By the way, your question, and your use of the word "faith" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the status of scientific ideas. Theories require and deserve NO faith whatsoever. The moment they fail to accord with observed facts, they become questionable (at best), and are eventually relegated to the scrap heap. Is that the way you feel about your god? Are you willing to throw him out as soon as you encounter difficulties with the concept?

Kevin: "To think that an explosion occured and then wow, here is this system of planets rotating around a heat source(lucky for us we are at the perfect distance to sustain life)."

I take it you have never had the privilege of seeing computer simulations of galaxy formation. The marvelous thing about science is that seemingly complex phenomena can often be beautifully explained by relatively simple underlying laws. The inverse square law (of gravitation) coupled with theories of stellar evolution nicely explain the large-scale structures we see in the universe. Of course, there remain many open questions, but to think that it somehow requires "faith" to believe that planetary systems can arise from natural processes in absurd. What it requires is *hard work* to discover the underlying principles.

As for being "lucky", that's a fallacy. It's akin to saying "It sure is lucky that that big bolder over there has a mountain under it, otherwise it would come crashing down." You confuse *highly correlated* events with random events; the same fallacy is beneath most creationist claptrap.

Kevin: "Then after millions of years an Amoeba crawled out of the ocean,(lucky for us it could breathe water and air)and then a couple of cycles later here we are."

I'm sorry, but that's so puerile it's not worthy of a response.

Kevin: "The problem is DNA, since DNA is a form of information you would have to assert that at some point information randomly occured from matter(which has never been shown to be able to happen)."

Define "information". If you can do that, you'll need to publish it in a prestigious scientific journal, because it's been a vexing problem for centuries. But, putting that aside, you claim that it has "never been shown... to happen". Where did you get that idea? Under any intuitive definition of information that I am aware of, it can and *has* been shown to occur. In fact, it's almost trivial to show that "information" can be discovered by random chance, both in biological organisms and via computer simulations (e.g. artificial evolution, genetic algorithms, Monte Carlo algorithms, etc.).

Kevin: "Once again,I will not claim to be a scientist, I'll just stick with believing there is a creator."

No, you clearly have very little scientific interest at all. If you had, you would have examined your statements critically and discovered that they are merely a bunch of unfounded assertions and ill-defined concepts. There's nothing wrong with believing in a creator; that's your right. But if you think this somehow enables you to leap to profound scientific conclusions using nothing but gut-feel and naive intuition, then you are sorely mistaken.

posted: November 29, 2005 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

Actually Jim, I think Kev was trading posts with Dave8 - I just nosed in.

posted: November 29, 2005 EST  

 Jim Arvo wrote:

Hi webmaster, yes, you are right. Kevin, please substitute "Dave8" for "webmaster" in my post above. The rest of my comments can stand as they are.

posted: November 29, 2005 EST  

 Kevin wrote:

Jim

Like I said before, I am not a scientist, but tell me where I go wrong here. Science is available to everybody and the laws and physical properties of our universe apply whether or not the person analyzing the data is a Christian or not. What I'm saying is that the scientist who is an Evolutionist or the one who is a Creationist are both looking at the same data, just from different points of view. So an evolutionist would look at the universe and marvel, and try to figure out how it came to be, and a Creationist would look at the same universe and marvel at the awesome glory of God. Same universe, different points of view.

My question is this: Can something come from nothing? However a galaxy forms, what does it form from? Then what does that form from? I am not attempting to be sarcastic, it just seems to me that as you continue to go backwards there must be a starting point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the law of Entropy?, that we are continually heading toward randomness. Again, please correct me if I am misunderstood.

posted: November 29, 2005 EST  

 Jim Arvo wrote:

Kevin said "What I'm saying is that the scientist who is an Evolutionist or the one who is a Creationist are both looking at the same data, just from different points of view. So an evolutionist would look at the universe and marvel, and try to figure out how it came to be, and a Creationist would look at the same universe and marvel at the awesome glory of God. Same universe, different points of view."

I have no problem with what you just said. Yes, of course people can reach different conclusions, even if the same data is available to them. But that's NOT what you said before. You said "That takes way more faith than believing in a creator", which implies that there is LESS evidence in support of evolution than creation. I think the latter assertion is absurd.

Kevin: "My question is this: Can something come from nothing?"

Yes, millions of times per second, in every square inch of space. Look up vacuum fluctuations, or "virtual particles". The effect is well-known, has a solid theoretical foundation, and can be observed in the laboratory. Many physically observed phenomena conflict with naive intuition, which is precisely why armchair speculation about cosmology and biology are of little to no value.

Kevin: "However a galaxy forms, what does it form from? Then what does that form from?"

I'm not sure your question is even meaningful, as it implies that matter DID "form" from something else, and it also implies a temporal ordering (i.e. there was a "time" before matter existed). Those assumptions are deeply rooted in our innate macroscopic views of the world, and they break down (if modern theories are correct) under extreme conditions, just like practically every other "intuitive" concept.

But, to keep this discussion simple, I'll just answer the question as if it were well-posed. Here is my answer: "I don't know". Now, please tell me what you can conclude from the fact that I do not know. Does that mean "god exists"?

Kevin: "...as you continue to go backwards there must be a starting point."

As you sit there, simulating the entire universe in your brain, according to the intuition you (and your ancestors) have built up by interacting with teacups, tennis rackets, and the family dog, you fancy that you can somehow arrive at a profound cosmological insight. Is that right? Are you also able to see the implications of time dilation, or general relativity, or quantum tunneling? I suspect not, for the simple reason that these things violate our naive intuition.

Kevin: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the law of Entropy?, that we are continually heading toward randomness."

You mean the second law of thermodynamics (SLT)? That is a *descriptive* law that, as yet, has never been observed to be broken (so it's "robust" in that sense). However, to put it simply, nobody has a clue whether it applies to the entire universe, nor whether a singularity (such as the Big Bang) can violate it. For all we know, it's a "law" that arose from some kind of symmetry breaking as the universe cooled (and other symmetries were broken, such as those uniting the fundamental forces).

Bottom line: You simply *cannot* expect to reach profound cosmological conclusions by consulting your intuition, nor by trotting out some elementary principle or law. It's nowhere near that simple, as 20'th century physics has demonstrated time and again.

posted: November 29, 2005 EST  

 boomSLANG wrote:

I always find it comical when Theists say things like "the earth is the PERFECT distance from sun... blah, blah, blah" in support of "Intelligent" Design.

First off, the "sun" is a god damned STAR---there's bazillions of them, so shut-the-f%ck up about "odds". Secondly, I live in Florida, and on any given day I can see some elderly person walking around with half a nose or only one flippin' ear because "the earth is the perfect distance from the sun." Lastly, if you live up north, I would ask you to please conserve energy during the winter and STOP using your heaters!!!!Why?..because "the earth is the perfect distance from the sun", of course....::eye roll::...

posted: November 29, 2005 EST  

 Dave8 wrote:

Kevin, you got great responses to your questions... Jim is solid on the scientific information...

Perhaps, the only insight I can provide will come in the form of philosophy... What we are describing in epistemological foundations for "knowledge"... In short, what is knoweldge... and can someone have a belief without knowledge... Further, is it irrational to have a belief, without knowledge...

"Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning (a posteriori), or through introspection (a priori). Knowledge is an appreciation of the possession of interconnected details which, in isolation, are of lesser value."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

If we were to take this definition literally, and you accepted the terms... It means, that one need "experience", or "learn", a posteriori (after events take place), or "introspectively", a priori (before events take place)... We use a posteriori and apriori processes to formulate what are facts and truths...

There are two types of truths... personal, and Universal...

Personal truths, are garnered based on a persons' mental disposition, which rests on physiological and psychological foundations which are influenced by social environment...

Universal truths, are different, they require validation from more than one person, and in consistent terms - usually quantifiable terms... When a Universal Absolute Truth is asserted, it means, that the truth, has no exceptions to the rule, from past, to present, or to the future... For instance, thou shalt not murder/kill, is obviously not a Universal Absolute Truth, as murder/killing has occurred numerous times throughout the bible... Therefore, the bible does not hold an Absolute moral law... The way you explained Murdering/Killing in the bible places it in the realm of subjective morality... subjective, because one can choose to murder someone else, based on how they interpret the context of the bible... Now, of course "you" may not take the bible as the Universal Absolute Truth, literally... however, there are many who do... pointing out the absurdity of an absolute moral code in the bible, was the point I was making earlier... Does that remove "laws" in general from society? No...

However, do you ever wonder why there are judges... I would surmize a guess, that they are there because of the grayness of laws, and becuase they along with the entire judicial branch of the government know, that there are very few dichotomous cases, i.e., cut and dry, either right or wrong, and no mitigating circumstances... Probably has to do with determinism I would suspect... a child is abused (cause), they get in fights at school (effect), and they end up in the principles office being judged on a minor scale, no pun, and a fair judge would take into acccount the past of the child, in order to render a just verdict, whether it be rehab, etc...

Do I as a Methodological Naturalist have moral degeneration because of my views, based on relativism? Fair question... I don't believe in Absolutes, there is only one I "know" of based on a postpriori experience, and that's "Change" (and its not 100% fact, there is the remote possibility that a reductionist will one day break down matter to particles that are in a static state)... Aside from that, I have "Values", which found my personal truth... In chronological order, the Value of "Life" is at the top of the list... The U.S. judicial system is based on those few inalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... If a person affects another persons' rights, laws are created and people charged with crime... The U.S. legal system has gone through some serious changes over the past few hundred years to include civil rights, etc., to ensure the inalienables were being supported, as previously, slavery, etc., was surely not in accord with those inalienables...

So, how do I perceive morality... easy, don't tread on Other peoples' inalienable rights, the right to "Life" being at the top of the list... I suppose my values seem to initially line up with the U.S. legal system, fascinating...

Now, do I consider it amoral for someone to commit suicide, or overdose on drugs and die, etc... I would be infringing on another persons' right to liberty, if I were to impose my beliefs on them, in my humble opinion... In India not so long ago, some religions partook of a ritual where deceased people were burned... not so bad, I mean we have cremation also... However, if a male was married, and they outlived their wife, their "wife" got thrown on the fire while alive also... Do I think that amoral? Or, is it the right of the invididual to make choices in life, which ultimately "only" affect themselves... I don't want to speculate on this topic too long, this is just a matter of personal truths, and I know mine, and the Values they reside on... I don't necessarily align my Values with those of religion however, and is a point of contention... Murdering for Murder sake, violates my Value of "Life"...

You're religious obviously, therefore, you believe we all have "ghosts" inside us... Per the bible, God allowed Eve to Murder all of our souls... He sat back, watched Eve get tempted, and allowed all of humanity to be damned for eternity... Now, this poses a twist...

Scenario; A woman who has a baby or is within seconds/minutes of conceiving a baby wants to commit suicide, or kill her baby before commiting the act... do I think that is moral... No... She is removing another beings "Life", by imposing her power over that helpless being...

Now, your God, "according to religion" on the other hand, had no problem allowing Eve to spiritually murder billions upon billions of people, until the entire human race disappears... Your God, whatever his reasoning/justification is in direct opposition of my primary Value, "Life"...

Your God murdered his own son, or himself, in theory for a greater cause... Because he is speculated to be all powerful, he "chose" to allow murder to occur... as he could have prevented the act, if indeed he were all powerful... your God, as an all powerful being, "Intentionally" murdered his own son... If you are going to postulate that your God is not all powerful, I will chalk up a different argument, but until then... The God of the OT, as opposed to the God of the NT, Murdered his own son, for Greater Glory...

Personal morality is based on the truths we hold, through a priori reasoning, and a postpriori knowledge... Your beliefs, and even your "religion", is based on "a priori" knowledge, you "hope" for the future to provide you something that you have not yet "experienced"... I on the other hand, base my Values and "knowledge" on a postpriori experiences...

What you "believe" a fact, using a priori introspection, I call, hypotheticals, and stating you have a well founded "Knowledge" of anything using "a priori" processing is suspect, until the concept is pulled into this natural world, and others can view the "knowledge" universally... Until you do, you have a personal truth... and pardon, but... in my humble opinion, I don't call a priori cognitive processing "knowledge"... In short, "Knowledge" wants to be put into "action", and "tied" to observable attributes in our Natural environment... I can think of Santa Clause all day long, but until St. Nick shows up and becomes "anchored" somehow to this natural environment, I can't truly "know" of him, I can however, "Guess" what he "May" be like... I mean, using my natural environment, to create the image of Santa Clause, how I am to "Really" 'Know" Santa... as, I haven't Experienced him...

For me, I base "Knowledge" predominately on "a postpriori" experiences, and reserve my "imagination" to postulate ways to manage matter, processes, etc., that all are connected and anchored in this natural universe, in short, I cognitively model the natural universe in my mind, using diagraming models, mathematics, patterns, etc...

The only exception to using my "imagination" where there is no "total" grounding is when I read fantasy books, or watch sci-fi movies for entertainment... but of course, I apply what I read, or view to this natural universe... I don't accept that Harry Potter is real, because the events that are portrayed in the movie, are not something I have "a postpriori" knowledge of... I am an empiricist, I need experience, its how I am cognitively mapped...

If someone says they have "Knowledge" of a metaphysical object, because they have persuaded themselves to "believe" in the object... I don't consider their belief to have any universal meaning... in short, its all in that persons' head, and their head alone... The second one can pull that thought out into this natural environment, it then becomes "experience" to more than one person, and experienced through more than just a cognitive premonition...

Religion, rests its head on Absolutes... and is therefore, absurd... it then moves toward using Natural experience to persuade others that there is more to their experiences in this natural life, than their natural senses tell them... again, no evidence, purely persuasion without evidence... You stated earlier that the same Natural evidence can be viewed in two different ways by two different people... Sure, but... one is making more out of the evidence, than the evidence supports... and that is dishonest... Using "knowns", to create or establish "Unknowns" as facts, as religion does, is not honest...

posted: November 30, 2005 EST  

 freeman wrote:

Why are Super Novas still occurring?
Why are the tetonic plates still moving on earth and volcanos spewing lava?

All of these should not be happening if god created things as they are in 6 days. What is the pupose of change?

posted: November 30, 2005 EST  

 Dave8 wrote:

Hey freeman, good question, if God indeed created everything perfect, there would be no need for "change"... Seems, God doesn't believe in religion, because religion itself changes... ;-)

posted: November 30, 2005 EST  

 Robert Zbornak wrote:

Is HELL hot?

The Bible has answered the question. It has shown that Hades, Sheol or hell is the common grave of mankind. At the resurrection hell gives up its dead. God destroys hell, for it is cast into the “lake of fire.” Gehenna represents the state of destruction that lasts forever and ever. There is no hope of a resurrection for those in Gehenna. So the fiery hells are only pagan hells. The Bible hell (Sheol-Hades) is not hot, but is the dark, silent grave.

If you have any question on the Bible, please send it to me at my email address.

posted: December 01, 2005 EST  

 Dave8 wrote:

robert zbornak: "Gehenna represents the state of destruction that lasts forever and ever. There is no hope of a resurrection for those in Gehenna."

Hey, berk, most Jews believe that "NO ONE" stays in Gehenna for more than 12 months, which accounts for their period of mourning... If someone sends you an e-mail, I hope they aren't looking for unbiased information...

posted: December 02, 2005 EST  

 Kevin wrote:

Dave,

You said, "if God indeed created everything perfect there would be no need for change. I am very dissapointed, you said you have thousands of hours of personal research and university studies. Yet you seem to have missed one of the utmost Biblical foundations.

God absolutely created everything perfect(Gen 1:31). However after man sinned the fall occured in 4 ways. Man was separated from God when he hid himself(Gen 3:8), man was separated from each other(Gen 3:12,13), man was separated from the Earth which is now cursed(Gen 3:17,18), and man was separated from himself(this info is paraphrased from Josh McDowell's "Answers to tough questions skeptics ask about the Christian faith"). The Bible clearly shows that the world is damaged because of sin and the only way to repair it is through Christ. And if there is any doubt as to whether or not God believes in change I'll let the Lord speak for himself when he says in John 3:3, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Not only does God believe in change he requires it.


I am sure you have plenty of knowledge about the history of religion, and as I said before I am in agreement with you that many horrible things have been done in the name of religion. However, Christianity does not stand because of religious concepts. It stands solely on the credentials of Jesus Christ. If Jesus is not who he says he is, then as Paul said in I Cor 15:19, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable." But if Jesus is who he says he is "the way, the truth, and the life"(John 14:6) shouldn't we trust in him?

posted: December 03, 2005 EST  

 freeman wrote:

Kevin,

"The Bible clearly shows that the world is damaged because of sin and the only way to repair it is through Christ. And if there is any doubt as to whether or not God believes in change I'll let the Lord speak for himself when he says in John 3:3, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Not only does God believe in change he requires it."

Could you provide examples of were god requires change in the universe for "man's sins".

According to the bible, he may ask that a person be re-born, but what has that have to do with super novas, black holes, etc? Why is the universe not static? but under constant change?


"The Bible clearly shows that the world is damaged because of sin..."

Please elaborate!

posted: December 03, 2005 EST  

 Kevin wrote:

Freeman,

The Bible says in Gen 1:31 that everything God made was good. After sin, the Earth was cursed(Gen 3:17) and began to change. Everything we know about our world is from a post-curse perspective, we don't know what the celestial conditions were before the fall, so I do't know why there are still super-nova's.

As far as I know God does not require the universe to change, it changes because of sin. for example, there wasn't even rain on the Earth until the time of Noah(Gen 2:5), that means that something like rain which is a neccessity for us is actually the result of man's sin. However,
Rev 22:2,3 says that when Jesus return's, the leaves from the tree of life will be for the healing of the nations and there will be no more curse. So, the Earth was perfect, then cursed, then it will be redeemed.

I am completely in awe at how unlimited our minds are. I don't think we will ever stop searching for answers to things we don't understand. Sometimes though, I believe it can be to our detriment if we let the unknowable burden us too heavily. Romans 11:33 says, "O'h the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgement's and His ways past finding out!"

So, whenever I get perplexed or overwhelmed at trying to understand why some things in this world are so unexplainable I take comfort at what Jesus says in Matt 11:28, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

I thank God for that rest!

Kevin

posted: December 03, 2005 EST  

 freeman wrote:

Kevin said:
"I am completely in awe at how unlimited our minds are."

I am completely in awe also at how unlimited our (human) minds are, given the text of the bible. Some imagination I'll say!

"So, whenever I get perplexed or overwhelmed at trying to understand why some things in this world are so unexplainable"

Thats right, hide under a rock and not use logic, reason and intelligence to learn! If the medical community had your philosophy, we would still be living just like your imaginary friend jesus. Just think no medicine for bacterial infections. No hospitals and the average age of humans would return to ~35 to 40 years old.

Also, no electricity, etc. Oh why not go live with the Amish, they have been overwhelmed with modern times that they reject all that they do not understand. I praise Ben Franklin for not completely understanding lightning and having the balls to experiment and discover electricity. Otherwise people like you would swear that the bolts were from an angry god, like Zeus! At least Zeus gave a fuck about humans and took pity upon them unlike his cousin Jehova, Elohim, Yahway or Allah (take your pick).

The problem is, it is all make believe. Again, I'll refer to what you said; "I am completely in awe at how unlimited our minds are."

posted: December 03, 2005 EST  

 freeman wrote:

Kevin,
Here is what you consider to be the first drops of rain on earth. Please read (you do know how to read, right?) all 11 pages.
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab1.htm

posted: December 04, 2005 EST  

 Jim Arvo wrote:

Kevin said "...Christianity does not stand because of religious concepts. It stands solely on the credentials of Jesus Christ."

And those "credentials" are established by what/whom? The Bible, right?

Kevin: "If Jesus is not who he says he is,..."

You mean if Jesus is not who the anonymous gospel writers claim he is. There is no way of telling for sure how much, if any, of the gospel saying were ever uttered by Jesus, nor whether there even was such a man. (You realize that Paul never quoted Jesus, nor seemed to know much of anything about him as a human being, right?)

Kevin: "...then as Paul said in I Cor 15:19, 'If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.'"

I think it's "most pitiable" for people to structure their lives around religious myths. Paul was a religious zealot, just like the founders of countless other religions. Why not listen to Muhammad and worship the "one true god" of Allah? Why did you choose to believe what Paul had to say?

Kevin: "...But if Jesus is who he says he is 'the way, the truth, and the life' (John 14:6) shouldn't we trust in him?"

Yep. If he was actually god in the flesh, you bet; we should bow to him and follow his every command. But, now let's ask another hypothetical: If Krishna is the one true god, should we not worship him? The answer would have to be "yes", wouldn't it? Now, the ten-ton elephant in the room is this question: WHICH, IF ANY OF THEM, IS A *REAL* DEITY?

Later Kevin said "...whenever I get perplexed or overwhelmed at trying to understand why some things in this world are so unexplainable I take comfort at what Jesus says in Matt 11:28, 'Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.'"

What's wrong with saying "I don't know"? Those have got to be the three most underutilized words in the world, especially among religionists.

posted: December 06, 2005 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

Greetings. Did value exist before the first human being upon this earth? If not, value is simply a function of the human mind. Value is nothing more than what one likes or dislikes, one's approvals or disapprovals. Are the horrors of the Nazis during WWII nothing more than one's individual approval or disapproval? Is it purely subjective? Or in their atrocities were the Nazis guilty of real (objective) moral wrong? If yes, what law did they violate? Law of U.S.A.? Law of England? Or some other law? If the Nazis are guilty of real, objective moral wrong, that entails an objective standard. If there is no higher law, a law which rises above what is involved in a certain locality during a certain period of time, by which the conduct of individuals or societies may be correctly judged as either morally right or morally wrong, then it's false and wrong to say the Nazis actually did real wrong with their concentration camps and the murder of six million human beings.
But if one admits the Nazis did wrong, that person admits that there is a higher law that transcends the provincial and the transient. My question, what is that higher law?

posted: December 11, 2005 EST  

 Dave8 wrote:

anonymous 12/11/2005 10:52 PM: "Greetings. Did value exist before the first human being upon this earth? If not, value is simply a function of the human mind."

Values are developmentally understood, babies don't have knowledge, but they innately try to survive at the earliest stages of fetal development...

anonymous 12/11/2005 10:52 PM: "Value is nothing more than what one likes or dislikes, one's approvals or disapprovals."

A child lives according to natural instinct, until they reach a point between birth and 6/7 years old, where their values are learned from their caregivers/environment, and based on cause-effect to their state of being... at this point, a "child" doesn't have "autonomous" values, they are living according to their programming...

anonymous 12/11/2005 10:52 PM: "Are the horrors of the Nazis during WWII nothing more than one's individual approval or disapproval?"

It depends on "who" you ask...

anonymous 12/11/2005 10:52 PM: "Is it purely subjective?"

Theoretically, there is "no" purely objective response, when describing matters of humanity and behavior... there are "correlations"... between the individual, and the "mean" belief of a society... because there are no purely Objective laws, we have "judges" who preside over courts to make decisions based on scenarios, that are "never" the exact same...

anonymous 12/11/2005 10:52 PM: "Or in their atrocities were the Nazis guilty of real (objective) moral wrong? If yes, what law did they violate? Law of U.S.A.? Law of England? Or some other law? If the Nazis are guilty of real, objective moral wrong, that entails an objective standard. If there is no higher law, a law which rises above what is involved in a certain locality during a certain period of time, by which the conduct of individuals or societies may be correctly judged as either morally right or morally wrong, then it's false and wrong to say the Nazis actually did real wrong with their concentration camps and the murder of six million human beings.
But if one admits the Nazis did wrong, that person admits that there is a higher law that transcends the provincial and the transient. My question, what is that higher law?"

The forefathers of the U.S. didn't pick out a Higher Law according to some "SuperNatural" power, as if... They went back to the "Basic" instinctual nature we act upon, which is survival... Therefore, they determined there to be "certain" inalienable rights upon birth, survival being at the top of the list... therefore, they concluded "life", the "liberty" to be free from physical oppression, and the freedom from intellectual persuction which leads to "happiness" to be the basic rights of citizens...

The U.S. Constitution is the Higher Law in the U.S., and is based on inalienable "rights"... Other nations may have their own foundations, and the right to lead separate and sovereignly, until they allow their citizens or national influence to attack another nation based on its own understanding of higher law...

Therefore, the higher law, if one wanted to argue for arguments' sake, would be "Nature" and the instinctive and innately act of survival... I'm almost positive that the religious attribute this higher law to some "spiritual law", with "zero" foundation...

Perhaps, that is why there is "natural" law practiced in the U.S., along with "common" law, which is based on custom, religious custom/culture to be precise...

When the religiously uneducated, attempt to take their "beliefs" based on custom, and there are thousands of different "views" based on religious custom, and attempt to make some binding law, it gets to be a little ridiculous... Whereas a religious moron would suggest "life" is valuable because a book says so, there are others who believe that "life" is Naturally understood and "valuable", and there isn't a need for a battle of the bibles, to figure it out...

Speaking of common law, if the U.S. justice system were totally based on comon law, we would be able to cite the bible and commit murder based on "exceptions" to the rule, one being, blasphemy of god per the bible... I mean, if one wanted to really look at the bible, Jesus allowed Judas to facilitate his death... a precedent for "euthanasia"... I wonder why Dr. Kavorkian finally got slapped in prison for following the same principle... probably had something to do with Natural Law...

posted: December 12, 2005 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

Greetings from Mr. Anonymous.
I have a question. Of the following statements, which one(s) is (are)true:
1) A woman was on earth before any human baby.
2) A human baby was on earth before any woman.
Or are or both statements or one of the statements false?

posted: December 12, 2005 EST  

 Jim Arvo wrote:

Anonymous (on 12/11/2005 10:52 PM EST) said "But if one admits the Nazis did wrong, that person admits that there is a higher law that transcends the provincial and the transient. My question, what is that higher law?"

I'll give a one-word answer, then elaborate: "Phylogeny", or the historical development of an organism. One often hears the false dichotomy of "absolute moral law" vs. "personal whim" being bandied about by religionists, but this deftly ignores any innate sense of right and wrong that is built up in the same way that wasps have learned to build elaborate nests, and ants have learned to enslave lesser creatures; i.e. through the development of successful survival strategies over millions of generations.

Do I disdain rape and murder because "god made it so", or because it's a personal whim? No, neither. I disdain those things for the very same reason that you do, and most human being on this Earth do; they are reprehensible to me because that is the way I am "wired" as a typical, highly social, human being, AND because this innate disdain has been reinforced through my upbringing and exposure to countless intellectual arguments in favor of peaceful coexistence.

Adding to the confusion that many religionists exhibit over this point is a common misunderstanding of Darwinism; they conflate "survival of the fittest" with promoting evil totalitarian regimes (with the Nazis being most commonly cited). This is extremely naive at many levels. First, "survival" can be, and often is, most successfully attained through *cooperation*, not domination. In fact, such totalitarian regimes are routinely toppled by the much more stable alliances based on cooperation, which are de facto more "fit". Second, the principle is in no way normative; one cannot deduce what "ought" to be true from it. Third, the principle only applies to characteristics that affect the gene pool over vast stretches of time.

Moreover, simply stating one's strong preference for an "absolute" system of morals in no way makes the latter more likely. Even if we all agreed that it would be far better to have an absolute and unambiguous system of justice, that is completely irrelevant when it comes to the questions of what we actually HAVE. Nature, so far as I can tell, is under no obligation to deliver what we prefer to have.

Lastly, I see absolutely no evidence for there being moral "absolutes" that exist outside of the human mind. Moral ambiguities abound, and they will keep courts of international law busy in perpetuity. While there is strong sociological evidence for some basic innate principles that are common to all humanity, even a casual observer can see that these simple "heuristics" quickly lead to conundrums that have no clear answer, and over which people are sharply divided.

In summary: 1) What you offer is a false dichotomy, as you ignore innate tendencies, which appear to be the *real* bedrock of morality, and are explainable in natural terms, 2) Regardless of what we deem preferable, we must look at the *evidence* in order to ascertain what *is* the case, and 3) nobody has been able to articulate a universal moral code that consistently and unambiguously allows us to resolve our differences, for even within a given religious sect there is sharply divided opinion.

For all of these reasons, I believe there is no such thing as an "absolute" moral law; i.e. one that exists outside of the human mind.

posted: December 13, 2005 EST  

 Dano wrote:

Anonymous,
You could say a sub human female primate gave birth to the first human.
In order to know which birth that was, you would have to have an exact definition a human. Since this is impossible, you would never get any two people to agree on which sub human female primate, gave birth to the first "Human Mutant."

posted: December 13, 2005 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

Greetings from Mr. Anonymous. Who will affirm that "I know that the God who is revealed to us in the Bible and through nature" does not exist? And please explain how you know.

posted: December 13, 2005 EST  

 Jim Arvo wrote:

Mr. Anonymous said "Who will affirm that 'I know that the God who is revealed to us in the Bible and through nature' does not exist? And please explain how you know."

That's a ridiculous question, couched in the same ridiculous *absolute* language that most religious claptrap indulges. (It also makes the unwarranted assumption that the god of the Bible is the same as the god revealed through nature, if indeed both actually exist, but I'll leave that aside for now.) Let me re-phrase the question so that it can be answered simply and directly:

Question: Who will explain why you do not believe in the god that is proclaimed in the Bible?

See the difference? Your statement hinges on (presumably absolute/infinite) *knowledge*, whereas mine is a request for one's *reasons* for not accepting a fantastic claim. Phrased in the more reasonable way, the query has a very succinct answer:

Answer: There is no credible evidence to support that claim.

Elaborating on that some....

1) The Bible itself has no inherent authority as it fails to exhibit any credible evidence of having divine origin. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming that it is the product of the human imagination, weaving together many existing mythical motifs from much more ancient religions, just like every other existing religious text. The so-called "fulfilled prophecies" all crumble when examined closely, as they rely on imaginative interpretations of older text, invented fulfillments, etc.

2) Christian dogma is replete with nonsensical and contradictory claims, such as the notion of atonement, the notion of the trinity, and original sin. Throw in the countless acts of wanton cruelty (rape, slavery, genocide, infanticide, deception, etc.) perpetrated and condoned by this supposedly infinitely merciful being, and stories of talking animals, a tower that reaches into heaven, Noah's ark, etc., and you have a belief system with all the credibility of a Brothers Grim fairy tale.

3) People the world over, in all cultures, since recorded history, have invented similar stories and believe them just as fervently as do those alive today who proclaim that THEIR god exists, and that THEIR holy book is the inspired work of god. As these stories are wildly different, they cannot all be true. This clearly shows man's capacity to deceive himself when it comes to invisible sentient beings, for which there is not a shred of credible evidence.

4) Every argument I have ever heard for the existence of god, or for the divine nature of a given holy text, has disintegrated on critical examination. Each one has been based on distortion of fact or fallacious reasoning.

Is that sufficient, or shall I go on?

posted: December 14, 2005 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

Greetings from Mr. Anonymous. Why is it ridiculous when I use "absolute language"? Are one's "reasons" in answer to my questions one's personal opinion, or one's statement of fact?

posted: December 15, 2005 EST  

 Matt wrote:

Hi, Im a (insert name). Other words im a 'wanna-be christian', aka i want to be like the other christians, who experience things, like toungues, and i want to be assured of salvation, when i dont feel any different. BAH, bak to the point. I want to elaborate on the other fellas comment on values. G'day!
yeh so knowledge we can presume is an integral part of ones interpretation of values. So to properly understand this he has used the example of a child. Knowledge is an ongoing build up of information. A child takes in this information from its surrounding, i.e parents, people. Therefore we presume that as the child is taking in knowledge in this way he is also absorbing the values that it is taught. (maturity) So what im saying is if your mother tells you off for taking something that is not yours then you take in the knowledge that it is no appropriate and then that knowledge becomes our values. In contrast primitive cultures have different values because they take in different information. So you can also say the age old debate that genitics AND ENVIRONMENT (environment means knowledge, which means values) both determaine the type of person with such values you will become. A test of two identical twins was taken, where both were seperated and risen differently by a french man. Different values were present like how people are unique and different because of their upbringing. I would also like to add that religion has a big part of escpecially western values. I like to think of it as a inheritance. Pre-Christian world (watch the movie alexander), was very different. Then christianity was introduced. When it was intoduced it was fed in to peoples homes, governments and ultimatelty their lives. Therefore is was passed down in time (those values) from generation to generation. I mean look at most western governments the laws reflect those values. Do you the ancient world had values for the education of every child in their empire? Im no expert by any means. I just have a theory, like many i am jst fuullll of question. P.S some ppl really like to diss my writing but hmm..kinda in a hurry to check spelling and everything. Peace.

posted: December 21, 2005 EST  

 Dave8 wrote:

Anonymous: "Greetings from Mr. Anonymous. Why is it ridiculous when I use "absolute language"? Are one's "reasons" in answer to my questions one's personal opinion, or one's statement of fact?"

Greetings, Mr. Anonymous. One's personal opinion is absolute to the person wielding the belief, if they have shut off all doors to reason and ability to adapt and learn..., a person then becomes absolutely brain dead, but hey, they're absolute in their ways...

And, No, there is no Universal Absolute Truth, besides Change known at this time... Hence, why its unnatural and uneducated for a person to say, that their "personal" truth is Universally True... Because of trial and error over the past few thousand years, democracy has shown to be the most adaptible framework for a changing society...

posted: December 21, 2005 EST  

 Dave8 wrote:

Matt, I agree with your observation regarding values... Its plainly evident that values have "evolved" over time, to accomodate the environment a child grows up in, and according to their physiological limitations...

In some countries, its okay for a woman to marry multiple men, and in others for men to marry multiple women... its the inability of religion to adapt to changing values that makes it ridiculous... :-) take care...

posted: December 21, 2005 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

Greetings from Mr. Anonymous. If you were to meet a person with one prosthesis, say, a hand, while his other hand was his natural one, would you know that the prosthesis was designed by an intelligent being? If not, why not? Would you know that his natural hand was designed by an intelligent being? If not, why not?

posted: December 21, 2005 EST  

 Dave8 wrote:

Anonymous: "Greetings from Mr. Anonymous. If you were to meet a person with one prosthesis, say, a hand, while his other hand was his natural one, would you know that the prosthesis was designed by an intelligent being? If not, why not?"

Perhaps, it depends on the craftsmanship I suppose...

Anonymous: "Would you know that his natural hand was designed by an intelligent being? If not, why not?

Well, if a child was born with a deformed hand... I wouldn't call the creator intelligent, would you? Unless, the creator is deformed also... and then it would make perfect sense... cheers...

posted: December 22, 2005 EST  

 John Bobbitt wrote:

Lost and found. Looking for one cranial prosthetic, with owner's name on side, "Any Christian".

I saw Jesus on the side of a milk carton the other day, I wonder if they finally found him, the milk's over 2,000 years old.

posted: December 22, 2005 EST