Tags for this video have been changed from 'god jesus philosophy hitchens craig christianity atheism' to 'god, jesus, philosophy, hitchens, craig, christianity, atheism' - edited by jonny

YOU Can start your own chapel channel once you get 250 stars !

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Upboat for the ensuing discussion. I'm enjoying your participation shinyblurry.

Thanks These issues are very thought provoking and I enjoy the discourse, thoroughly..and the community here is very astute and opinionated which always makes it interesting.

I could have my own channel? Awesome..do I have to upload 250 videos?

edit: read the faq .. 250 here i come

>> ^BoneRemake:
YOU Can start your own chapel channel once you get 250 stars !

My Science is better than your Science.

Part 2 cuts a few minutes in and then replays part 1 again. Shame, it seemed like it might get interesting.

hehe. An atheist quoting the bible is a bit like a prisoner suing the victim of his crime.

I'm not an atheist, but I certainly don't believe in Christiantiy, and I got here from being a devout christian from the cradle to high school. I dare say I know the bible better than you do, having studied it at length and daily for all those years.

It just strikes me as strange that you are put off at scorn from nonbelievers. At least you are honest, though. I'm not saying I was never wary of being made fun of when I proselytized people. But back then, it was face-to-face; while today you have an anonymous handle and avatar to hide behind.

Ahh..weird..I hadn't checked it out because ive already watched the debate..i will see if I can pinpoint the spot in the debate where this exchange takes place and update..

edit: updated

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Part 2 cuts a few minutes in and then replays part 1 again. Shame, it seemed like it might get interesting.

I doubt it..want to have a bible-off? In my mind, if you truly understood the Word you never would have abandoned Him. Also, that no one can comprehend the bible without the Spirit.

I am not so thin skinned, btw..but I am conscious of having Gods name dragged through the mud..

how about we start over and see where the thread takes us?

>> ^longde:
hehe. An atheist quoting the bible is a bit like a prisoner suing the victim of his crime.
I'm not an atheist, but I certainly don't believe in Christiantiy, and I got here from being a devout christian from the cradle to high school. I dare say I know the bible better than you do, having studied it at length and daily for all those years.
It just strikes me as strange that you are put off at scorn from nonbelievers. At least you are honest, though. I'm not saying I was never wary of being made fun of when I proselytized people. But back then, it was face-to-face; while today you have an anonymous handle and avatar to hide behind.

I'm confused as to why you would post this one segment of a larger debate if the larger debate is available.

I'm also confused as to why you would think Hitchens "badly loses". Do you mean in this particular interchange? Because I see nothing of the sort.

It seems to me this comes back to the debate from the previously posted video about definition of terms. Because right from the start the theist in this argument starts using the term atheist incorrectly and Hitchens wastes time and brain power trying to correct him. This is a dumb way to engage in debate or discussion.

Again I'm going to ask that since you are not an atheist, and not an agnostic, that you stop insisting that you know how everybody should use those words.

Among the people who label themselves as atheist, the vast majority agree that this simply means we are not convinced that any particular religion is true. Many of us are still open to evidence if some were to be presented, which is why we get into these discussions with theists. We use the term atheist in the manner of a- meaning "not", and -theist, meaning a follower of a religion.

I understand that this is not the way you have heard the term atheist used, but that does not make us wrong. We are trying to spread the correct usage of the term. And if you have any intention of continuing to have discussions with non-believers, I strongly recommend that you accept the way we use the word. It's not a difficult transition to make. It simply means non-religious.

Perhaps you miss using that straw-man argument about atheism requiring faith? If so, let it go. That argument never did anything except make theists snicker and feel superior. It's empty. It's a waste of time. Move on.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

What would you call someone who believes in God, but hates her? Would they be an antitheist?

>> ^dag:

What would call someone who believes in God, but hates her? Would they be an antitheist?


The antitheist is an atheist who believes that religion is a strongly destructive force and actively works to end it. Sometimes called militant atheists.

I've never heard a word for somebody who is angry at God. Though I have heard of self-proclaimed "ex-atheists" who rejoined the church after finding peace with whatever they were mad at God about. These people were not true atheists. You can't be mad at something you don't believe in.

I find the title of this video to be highly misleading. It's certainly provocative enough to get some attention.

It always amazes me when someone makes a fantastic claim and expects the person who doesn't agree to provide evidence as to why.

The default position, on any subject, is one of ignorance. Not the other way around.

Great post by Max Wilder though.

Yes, Hitchens tried to cloak himself in the vast and endless void of unbelief, yet Lane quickly cornered him and he was forced to admit that he did not in fact believe God exists, which is the assertion of atheism, regardless of how you try to game the definition. Did you miss that part? Of course he didn't have any arguments for this assertion. I think Hitchens fell far short of even the most objective measure of success here.

Why did I show this part? Because I thought it would be interesting to people and spur a dialogue. I posted a link to the entire debate, which is well wortth watching..

In the debate Craig posits 5 main arguments as to why Theism is a better explanation for reality than atheism. He challenged Hitchens to come up with an argument as to why atheism was a better explanation, which he didn't. Neither did Hitchens seriously challenge any of Lanes main assertions, in fact he left a few completely untouched. Hitchens offered a lot of emotionalism and extended diatribes, even at one point trashing Mother Teresa, but not much else. He simply was completely unprepared for this debate. Philosophy doesn't seem to be his strong point.

>> ^MaxWilder:
I'm confused as to why you would post this one segment of a larger debate if the larger debate is available.
I'm also confused as to why you would think Hitchens "badly loses". Do you mean in this particular interchange? Because I see nothing of the sort.
It seems to me this comes back to the debate from the previously posted video about definition of terms. Because right from the start the theist in this argument starts using the term atheist incorrectly and Hitchens wastes time and brain power trying to correct him. This is a dumb way to engage in debate or discussion.
Again I'm going to ask that since you are not an atheist, and not an agnostic, that you stop insisting that you know how everybody should use those words.
Among the people who label themselves as atheist, the vast majority agree that this simply means we are not convinced that any particular religion is true. Many of us are still open to evidence if some were to be presented, which is why we get into these discussions with theists. We use the term atheist in the manner of a- meaning "not", and -theist, meaning a follower of a religion.
I understand that this is not the way you have heard the term atheist used, but that does not make us wrong. We are trying to spread the correct usage of the term. And if you have any intention of continuing to have discussions with non-believers, I strongly recommend that you accept the way we use the word. It's not a difficult transition to make. It simply means non-religious.
Perhaps you miss using that straw-man argument about atheism requiring faith? If so, let it go. That argument never did anything except make theists snicker and feel superior. It's empty. It's a waste of time. Move on.

That would be a Satanist

>> ^dag:
What would you call someone who believes in God, but hates her? Would they be an antitheist?

I hate this whole, WHICH ARE YOU, WE NEED TO GIVE YOU A LABEL so we can further compartmentalize society for our untrained brains to understand.

Also I find nearly all differences in opinions have a certain aspect of each person having a different way of defining and understanding words, and each person having a different set of beliefs about different labels that they place on people.

So ultimately neither side will give in unless they redefine what information they use in their minds. And that requires either brainwashing at a young age before the brain's structure is further cemented, or a very clear piece of logical evidence to prove a point to someone intelligent or someone who is in a state of weakness in their mind who is likely to grasp onto anything that gives them hope.

Religion obviously has no evidence so the people already brainwashed by religion know they have to brainwash kids, or prey on weak minded adults who are in trouble, such as people who face death/pain/other extreme difficulties etc.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Yes, Hitchens tried to cloak himself in the vast and endless void of unbelief, yet Lane quickly cornered him and he was forced to admit that he did not in fact believe God exists, which is the assertion of atheism>


Thats not what I saw, I saw Craig as a man who fundamentally misunderstands what atheism is, and who thinks, based on no evidence whatsoever, that unless Hitchens can come up with some really good arguments to show that "atheism is true"( a meaningless statement), God exists by default.

Hitchens, we have to remember, isnt the one making shit up, he isnt the one who, based on extremely poor arguments from biblical authority, believes that jesus bansished demons from humans into pigs. Nor is he the one that makes arguments from wishful thinking. ("If there is no god, there is no basis for objective morality, therefore I think there is a god")

What Hitchens constantly tries to point out, is that all the arguments put forwards for all known forms of theism,are bad. That there is no evidence for any of the theistic claims, and that therse absolutely no reason to think that the catholics, or the sikhs, or the shia muslims, or even your average deist, makes reasonable claims about the world that they can back up with evidence.

Hitchens isnt the one who believes unbelievable nonsense based on nothing. He simply dismisses those claims as unfounded.

Will upvote if the title is changed to: "Christopher Hitchens debates William L. Craig" or "William L. Craig debates Christopher Hitchens"

I'm going to wholly disagree with you here on the title of this video. BADLY loses the debate?
Which questions are insufficiently answered?

If anything, I'll agree he should have avoided any long-windedness in his explanations because of the strange time constraints. 6 minutes of rapid fire questions? The structure itself lends it to the ideologues like yourself who can simply throw out arguments without a shred of proof. "Jesus performed exorcisms!" in 3 seconds of speaking where as any argument against that takes substantially more time because of all the underlying claims.

How could Hitch have improved his arguments (again not to say he even lost the debate) take the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" for example. It's nothing more than saying "Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there"

To which I'd say, "It doesn't mean it IS there either." There are logical quips to this nonsense that theists purport, but reasoned, well thought out, researched, and correct responses usually don't come in fortune cookie form as theists would prefer.

The BIBLE!!! TOO LONG DID NOT READ!!! http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/28/survey-atheists-know-more-about-religion-than-believers/

Not to beat the point dead, but what If I said the following "There is a civilization on mars" (ie Martians) Now, if I further went on to call people who didnt believe this "Non-martianists" or "amartianists", how would you go about "asserting amartianism"?

Try replacing "atheism" in Craigs arguments with "amartianism"

"If amartianism is true, then there is no basis for .."
"Are you an amartianist who asserts that martians dont exist?"

This is clearly an insanely stupid set of arguments.

We are, most of us, amartianists because theres no evidence that martians exists. Its that simple. Same with gods.

It makes no sense to say "Well, unless you can piece together a complete explanation and explain everything in the universe without martians, there must be martians, therefore amartianism is flawed"

Also , I dont see how a man who admits believing that a 1st century magic man exorcised demons from humans to pigs can be said to have won the debate on any level. If anything, Craig badly lost this one.

>> ^shinyblurry:

That would be a Satanist
>> ^dag:
What would you call someone who believes in God, but hates her? Would they be an antitheist?



Deiphobe is more accurate, though if you are a yahwehphobe you may choose to ally yourself with his nemesis by worshiping him, it is entirely conceivable to be opposed to them both.

[EDIT] Downvote for trolling title [/EDIT]

Craig uses tricky highschool debating techniques. He purposely misuses words so that his opponent spends their time correcting him rather than putting forward their preplanned arguments. It is sad that Hitchens fell for it

In his debate with Sam Harris, Sam just ignored this and said what he wanted to say. Craig is smart and don't think for a second that he represents Christians. He is an exclusivist and like Calvinists thinks that everyone has been prejudged by God and is going to hell or heaven no matter what they do .. but still demands that you act in accordance with Gods word. Crack-pot.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Doesn't that assume a Christian perspective? What if the God I hate is Shiva the Destroyer of Worlds?>> ^shinyblurry:

That would be a Satanist
>> ^dag:
What would you call someone who believes in God, but hates her? Would they be an antitheist?

>> ^dgandhi:


[EDIT] Downvote for trolling title [/EDIT]


I'll second that.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^dgandhi:

[EDIT] Downvote for trolling title [/EDIT]

I'll second that.


Third.

And fourth on the trolling titles.

Shiny, I know you don't think you are a troll, but you are one.

Hitchens was 'forced' to admit he doesn't believe in god?... yeah... i'm sure he really had to have his arm twisted for that.

'Lost'... this title is one of the best examples i've seen in awhile of... just 'wow' you really can see what you want when you really want to see it.

Just... awful... terribly biased and inaccurate title...

I don't get Satanism. If you simply must dedicate your life to religious fiction, why side against the protagonist? It's like believing Harry Potter is real and then siding with Voldemort. Silly.

Also, for what it's worth, I don't think you are a troll, shiny. You're just a bit more subversive than the typical Christian. I like subversive, even if I don't agree with you.

>> ^shinyblurry:

That would be a Satanist
>> ^dag:
What would you call someone who believes in God, but hates her? Would they be an antitheist?

I have laser eyes. Prove me wrong! Oh, I'm not going to show you, or give you any compelling reason for you to believe that I have laser eyes, and all knowledge that we have about eyes suggests that it's all but completely improbable that I do, but my Laserist followers will denigrate and oppress you for not believing that I have laser eyes, you dirty Alaserist! Now, give me money so that I may spread my Laser gospel!

Of course the biased sift would come up with a reason even to downvote their hero..lol

you guys call me a troll? you're trolling this thread and contributing nothing except your utter lack of participation, and encouraging others to do the same. He *did* badly lose this debate, not just here but the entire debate. I qualified it with the fact that he is usually competent..he usually does a lot better than this. If I was trolling I would have said something like "Hitchens loses! PWNED!!!!!!

You do know atheism is a world view, don't you? Hitchens couldn't provide any reasons for his view..yes he definitely hates the judeo-christian god, that's clear..but this is a philosophical argument..and Hitchens failed on every point to provide any compelling reasons for his views. I've always been of the mind that two reasonable people can come to a reasonable agreement based on the facts. And I think William Craig was reasonable here..he gave hitchens every opportunity to refute his arguments, which he failed to do.


>> ^Mazex:
I hate this whole, WHICH ARE YOU, WE NEED TO GIVE YOU A LABEL so we can further compartmentalize society for our untrained brains to understand.
Also I find nearly all differences in opinions have a certain aspect of each person having a different way of defining and understanding words, and each person having a different set of beliefs about different labels that they place on people.
So ultimately neither side will give in unless they redefine what information they use in their minds. And that requires either brainwashing at a young age before the brain's structure is further cemented, or a very clear piece of logical evidence to prove a point to someone intelligent or someone who is in a state of weakness in their mind who is likely to grasp onto anything that gives them hope.
Religion obviously has no evidence so the people already brainwashed by religion know they have to brainwash kids, or prey on weak minded adults who are in trouble, such as people who face death/pain/other extreme difficulties etc.

Okay, since it's clear the sift bias is going to sink this video, even though the title is accurate and compelling, I'll change it.

Thanks, I appreciate it. Many satanists dont actually believe in the devil..that's been one my examples for how clever he really is.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't get Satanism. If you simply must dedicate your life to religious fiction, why side against the protagonist? It's like believing Harry Potter is real and then siding with Voldemort. Silly.
Also, for what it's worth, I don't think you are a troll, shiny. You're just a bit more subversive than the typical Christian. I like subversive, even if I don't agree with you.
>> ^shinyblurry:
That would be a Satanist
>> ^dag:
What would you call someone who believes in God, but hates her? Would they be an antitheist?

This vid's title is just as accurate and compelling as your magic book. Your new one sucks just as bad.

It's as if Hitchens is arguing with an intellectual child. He's attempting to deal with a line of questioning that is idiotic.

It is not up to the athiest to prove that something that cannot be proven to exist doesn't exist. The athiest can (and should) simply reply "No, you have to prove god's existence, and you cannot, so you fail."

It is up to the thiest to provide conclusive evidence that god exists. The thiest cannot. Personal testimony is not admissible as evidence.

When was the last time god intervened in the world of man? Why are there no animals being spontaneously created to prove that evolution is false? Why would a god, supposedly so jealous and obsessed with his need for man's belief, not simply prove it, conclusively, in a way that requires no faith?

If your god does exist, he's a massive dick.>> ^shinyblurry:

Okay, since it's clear the sift bias is going to sink this video, even though the title is accurate and compelling, I'll change it.

Ok, shiny, I think it's pretty clear now that your mind is inflexible. You bash people for failing to engage in the discussion, but when some do, you completely fail to consider what they are saying. If you can't accept the atheist's definition of atheism, then further discussion is a complete waste of time. You can't have a discussion with a brick wall.

You don't need any argument that God does not exist, you need arguments that God does exist. Believers should make the case, non-believers shouldn't.

William L. Craig is obviously misunderstanding what atheism means.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Thanks, I appreciate it. Many satanists dont actually believe in the devil..that's been one my examples for how clever he really is.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I don't get Satanism. If you simply must dedicate your life to religious fiction, why side against the protagonist? It's like believing Harry Potter is real and then siding with Voldemort. Silly.
Also, for what it's worth, I don't think you are a troll, shiny. You're just a bit more subversive than the typical Christian. I like subversive, even if I don't agree with you.
>> ^shinyblurry:
That would be a Satanist
>> ^dag:
What would you call someone who believes in God, but hates her? Would they be an antitheist?






Who's clever? Satan? For having the dumbest followers on earth? Yeah, maybe you're on to something there. The Catholic church sure has racked up alot of money and power that way.

*promote

Shinyblurry gave me a great title for a vid that made Top 15. I gave him the Power Pellet I "earned" on his good work.

Here ya go, shiny, at your request!

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, May 24th, 2011 6:47pm PDT - promote requested by bareboards2.

Wow, someones a little sensitive. On the contrary, Hitchens struggles here to articulate his views because after he said God didn't exist the burden of proof was on him. He stutters, he dodges, he just basically flounders through the first five minutes.."that's a big question!" no shit, really Chris? WLC is a gentlemen here and doesn't call him on it.

It's amusing that you say that "The athiest can (and should) simply reply "No, you have to prove god's existence, and you cannot, so you fail."

lol, this is a debate, not a schoolyard..I can just imagine Christopher Hitchens going up to the podium and declaring: I'm right and you're wrong! Owned! lol...If you come to a debate you have to prove why your view is right and the others is wrong. Hitchens failed here to do that..offering no counter-evidence to any of Craigs assertions..

This was a debate on philosophical terms, and Hitchens was woefully underprepared. You probably don't know much about philosophy (or just aren't a deep thinker) so you believe that Hitchens didn't do so badly..but on the actual terms of the debate, he lost on every point.


>> ^KnivesOut:
This vid's title is just as accurate and compelling as your magic book. Your new one sucks just as bad.
It's as if Hitchens is arguing with an intellectual child. He's attempting to deal with a line of questioning that is idiotic.
It is not up to the athiest to prove that something that cannot be proven to exist doesn't exist. The athiest can (and should) simply reply "No, you have to prove god's existence, and you cannot, so you fail."
It is up to the thiest to provide conclusive evidence that god exists. The thiest cannot. Personal testimony is not admissible as evidence.
When was the last time god intervened in the world of man? Why are there no animals being spontaneously created to prove that evolution is false? Why would a god, supposedly so jealous and obsessed with his need for man's belief, not simply prove it, conclusively, in a way that requires no faith?
If your god does exist, he's a massive dick.>> ^shinyblurry:
Okay, since it's clear the sift bias is going to sink this video, even though the title is accurate and compelling, I'll change it.

Thank you sir

>> ^bareboards2:
promote
Shinyblurry gave me a great title for a vid that made Top 15. I gave him the Power Pellet I "earned" on his good work.
Here ya go, shiny, at your request!

That's ma'am to you.
Troll.

Just a heads up for the rest of the lemmings that want to follow suit

Abuse Guidelines ¶

Video votes must be cast only for the content and nothing else; the video must be viewed before voting

Okay, locutus..

>> ^SlipperyPete:
That's ma'am to you.
Troll.

Pretty typical for your kind to resort to personal attacks. Why am I not surprised?

I'd say you're the touchy one.

You mad bro?

TROLL FIGHT!!!

You say here that your hero is actually winning, so why did you downvote? It can't be for the content..so what is it?

>> ^KnivesOut:
This vid's title is just as accurate and compelling as your magic book. Your new one sucks just as bad.
It's as if Hitchens is arguing with an intellectual child. He's attempting to deal with a line of questioning that is idiotic.
It is not up to the athiest to prove that something that cannot be proven to exist doesn't exist. The athiest can (and should) simply reply "No, you have to prove god's existence, and you cannot, so you fail."
It is up to the thiest to provide conclusive evidence that god exists. The thiest cannot. Personal testimony is not admissible as evidence.
When was the last time god intervened in the world of man? Why are there no animals being spontaneously created to prove that evolution is false? Why would a god, supposedly so jealous and obsessed with his need for man's belief, not simply prove it, conclusively, in a way that requires no faith?
If your god does exist, he's a massive dick.>> ^shinyblurry:
Okay, since it's clear the sift bias is going to sink this video, even though the title is accurate and compelling, I'll change it.

Maybe an anti-deist..but if you believe God exists, and indeed hate Him, it would follow you would need to know who He is, so a broad brush definition here doesn't seem to apply..and regards to the participation, seems like you might be alone in your sentiment..

>> ^dag:
Doesn't that assume a Christian perspective? What if the God I hate is Shiva the Destroyer of Worlds?>> ^shinyblurry:
That would be a Satanist
>> ^dag:
What would you call someone who believes in God, but hates her? Would they be an antitheist?

I think this applies here.

...the title-video disconnect, maybe?

>> ^shinyblurry:

You say here that your hero is actually winning, so why did you downvote? It can't be for the content..so what is it?

Hitchens does a great job here. Not sure what the title is all about. It's yet another awesome Hitchslap upside some fundy's head, but I don't feel right about upvoting something with such a ridiculous title. Let it flounder.

But seriously, @shinyblurry I go into a debate with the mindset that I am either going to change the opinion of the person I'm debating with or I'm going to change my own opinion.

For example: I recently bickered with a friend about a bunch of new roundabouts that were put in near my home. I thought it was a stupid idea that would do more harm than good because people don't know how to use roundabouts. I argued that it would probably lead to more accidents because of all of the interweaving traffic.

My friend argued that while they were sometimes hard to maneuver in, they would make it easier for everyone because you wouldn't have to stop. And while that seems dangerous, most people are hurt in cross traffic because some people blow red lights. At that point I needed some verification *smartphone in a bar to the rescue!* and it turned out he was right. Roundabouts caused far fewer accidents because people were FORCED to slow down; this eliminated all of the red light blowing and accidents associated with it.

So what's the point here? Well in the weeks since this conversation when the topic came up, I was an ardent supporter of roustabouts and even though I don't like learning to use them, I appreciate that they save lives. I jump on neigh-sayers who hang onto the ideas that I did with statistical data to support my position.
----------
IF on the other hand, tomorrow I see, that roundabouts cause a sharp spike in (insert horrible death scenario here) and that outweighs the crosswalk statistical data, I would jump right back on the other bandwagon. It's not so much about just how I FEEL, it's about what I can prove and what is more important to me.

As it stands right now, and you yourself must admit, the idea of religion hinges on faith. I, like many others here, can not accept that as a good proposition because, like the cross-street vs the roundabout, my intuition about something is usually not what is the most important. I value rigorous analysis, and thorough argument over my gut. Since my guts, after all, have shit for brains.

>> ^BoneRemake:

Just a heads up for the rest of the lemmings that want to follow suit
Abuse Guidelines ¶
Video votes must be cast only for the content and nothing else; the video must be viewed before voting


I would just like to state for the record against any claims of being lemming like (although I do like lemmings) that I had cast my down vote prior to dgandhi's comment.

>> ^Ti_Moth:

>> ^BoneRemake:
Just a heads up for the rest of the lemmings that want to follow suit
Abuse Guidelines ¶
Video votes must be cast only for the content and nothing else; the video must be viewed before voting

I would just like to state for the record against any claims of being lemming like (although I do like lemmings) that I had cast my down vote prior to dgandhi's comment.


The title is arguably part of the content of a video. For example, if I were to title this video: KIDS WILLINGLY TAKING DICK FROM T-REX it's going to have a huge impact on how you perceive and view the video. So, to reiterate, I feel the title IS part of the content. It is, therefore, open to a downvote.

As soon as I saw the title I knew it was you who posted it. Keep on trollin'.

Obviously, I down-voted because satan told me to.>> ^shinyblurry:

You say here that your hero is actually winning, so why did you downvote? It can't be for the content..so what is it?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Let's keep things civil please. Just calling someone a troll and scampering away is a pretty trollish thing to do.

I think it is important to view the video before casting a vote. If, after watching the video - the title is completely mismatched to the video content, then a down vote may be appropriate.

>> ^gwiz665:

You don't need any argument that God does not exist, you need arguments that God does exist. Believers should make the case, non-believers shouldn't.
William L. Craig is obviously misunderstanding what atheism means.


i would propose that an argument for or against the existence of god would require a definitive argument

this snippet wasnt a very good representation of either of these men in my eyes. Craig was a bit circular in his arguments and hitchens tended to beat around the bush, so to speak. Both men highly regarded for their intellectual debates and this seems to be a disservice to both. (havent watched the full video yet tho)

>> ^KnivesOut:

Obviously, I down-voted because satan told me to.>> ^shinyblurry:
You say here that your hero is actually winning, so why did you downvote? It can't be for the content..so what is it?


Damn Satan! Always sitting on my shoulder talking in my ear. I hate that!

You CANNOT prove the non-existence of something like this! It's the same old Celestial Teapot, Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster issue! As with my laser eyes, prove that they don't exist! It is a ridiculous thing to even request!

>> ^dag:

Let's keep things civil please. Just calling someone a troll and scampering away is a pretty trollish thing to do.
I think it is important to view the video before casting a vote. If, after watching the video - the title is completely mismatched to the video content, then a down vote may be appropriate.


I just wanted to voice that I still feel its bullshit, even just by semantics, title does not conclude content, when you press play, what is visually,or audible shown after the .00001 second mark denotes what is content of a VIDEO. we dont go and vote for the uploads page layout. get into the 2011's

How do you prove something that exists outside of space and time? What physical process could you use to point to it? Anyone could go and examine you and verify whether you have "laser eyes". There is no way to put God under a microscope.

Therefore, we rely on Him to communicate with us. Faith is in the unseen, it is not blind. I don't believe in God because the bible told me to. I believe in God because He showed me He is real. He would show you too, if you honesty sought Him out. Yet, you just believe what you've heard and haven't looked for the truth yourself.

Lets say there was a certain King, whom you had never seen..and you are one of his peasants. You're under his authority and expected to work for him in the fields for a wage, and that when you are of the age of retirement, he will give you a home on his land and thank you personally. You see soldiers of his, marching through the town. You hear people talking about his attributes, his justness and intelligence. You witness his authority displayed all around you. It is plain there is a King though you had never seen him.

Now lets say one day you refuse to work, refuse to submit to his authority. You say to yourself, I don't believe this King is really real; I've never seen him with my own eyes.. This a conspiracy, I will just do whatever I want. You even decide to go into the towns square to tell others to stop working for this King. That it is a fools errand, the King is a hoax you say. You're wasting your lives when you could live for yourself! Yet, when the King gets wind of this he tells his soldiers "Fetch my ungrateful servant and bring him in front of me"

The soldiers fetch you and bring you before the throne. Finally, you get to see this King with your own eyes. Yet, it's too late..you've already earned His judgment. If you had pleased him the evidence would have been forthcoming. If you had done a good job, you would have earned a reward. Instead you refused to do your duty, and thus earned a criminals fate. Cursing your foolishness, you are taken to the gallows, but there is no reprieve forthcoming.

>> ^Sketch:
You CANNOT prove the non-existence of something like this! It's the same old Celestial Teapot, Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster issue! As with my laser eyes, prove that they don't exist! It is a ridiculous thing to even request!

It is not at all "plain there is a King." A simple person may assume that he exists by faulty inference. A more thoughtful person, though, will realize that the actual existence of the king is irrelevant to his or her own life. What is directly observable in this situation is that there is a social and cultural power structure in place which forces conformity upon the peasants through "displays of authority", presumably enforced by the soldiers. The peasant may choose to believe in the existence of the king or not, but it will have no bearing upon the peasant's life.>> ^shinyblurry:
Lets say there was a certain King, whom you had never seen..and you are one of his peasants. You're under his authority and expected to work for him in the fields for a wage, and that when you are of the age of retirement, he will give you a home on his land and thank you personally. You see soldiers of his, marching through the town. You hear people talking about his attributes, his justness and intelligence. You witness his authority displayed all around you. It is plain there is a King though you had never seen him.

>> ^shinyblurry:
How do you prove something that exists outside of space and time?
Good question. How do you propose to prove your assertion if it is unprovable? If you accept that the existence of god cannot be proven, how can you call someone foolish, or blind, or whatever, when they question or deny the assertion that god does exist?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Cursing your foolishness, you are taken to the gallows, but there is no reprieve forthcoming.


... because he loves you!

The crux of your argument.

It's flawed however. The problem is, we don't see the king's influence every day. It is most certainly NOT plain that there is a king. If the king wants us to believe in him, perhaps he should come down out of his castle and make a show of it. Instead he relies on people like you to make the rest of us believe in him? Wow, thats pathetic.

In the haze of your superstition, you see signs and visions in everyday events. You see the hand of a king, where rational people just see the world going about its business.

>> ^shinyblurry:
You're under his authority and expected to work for him in the fields for a wage, and that when you are of the age of retirement, he will give you a home on his land and thank you personally. You see soldiers of his, marching through the town. You hear people talking about his attributes, his justness and intelligence. You witness his authority displayed all around you. It is plain there is a King though you had never seen him.
Now lets say one day you refuse to work, refuse to submit to his authority. You say to yourself, I don't believe this King is really real; I've never seen him with my own eyes.. This a conspiracy, I will just do whatever I want. You even decide to go into the towns square to tell others to stop working for this King. That it is a fools errand, the King is a hoax you say. You're wasting your lives when you could live for yourself! Yet, when the King gets wind of this he tells his soldiers "Fetch my ungrateful servant and bring him in front of me"

@shinyblurry It's impossible to argue with your biblical rhetoric, but I'll try. If you can help me by answering my questions.

How do you know your god is the right one if you rely on faith?

Your analogy suggests that the evidence for god is all around us, what evidence, specifically, are you pointing to?

How do you know you're pleasing god so that the evidence will be forthcoming as you suggest?

Furthermore, many of these arguments have already taken place and argued brilliantly by Socrates, see: http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/library/plato/the-trial-and-death-of-socrates-2.php

How do you know what is the will of god if the very nature of god and his decisions is mysterious and beyond our understanding?

The bible is flawed horrendously before you go to that easy answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo&playnext=1&list=PL80294485C9139857

Educate yourself so that we may discuss.

It has every bearing on his life, because that is his lot. His only purpose, and his only hope, is to do a good job and earn his reward. He was not born into authority himself, nor does he know anything about running a Kingdom. He will never be able to earn anything greater for himself, and he is only well suited for the task at hand.

>> ^jonny:
It is not at all "plain there is a King." A simple person may assume that he exists by faulty inference. A more thoughtful person, though, will realize that the actual existence of the king is irrelevant to his or her own life. What is directly observable in this situation is that there is a social and cultural power structure in place which forces conformity upon the peasants through "displays of authority", presumably enforced by the soldiers. The peasant may choose to believe in the existence of the king or not, but it will have no bearing upon the peasant's life.>> ^shinyblurry:
Lets say there was a certain King, whom you had never seen..and you are one of his peasants. You're under his authority and expected to work for him in the fields for a wage, and that when you are of the age of retirement, he will give you a home on his land and thank you personally. You see soldiers of his, marching through the town. You hear people talking about his attributes, his justness and intelligence. You witness his authority displayed all around you. It is plain there is a King though you had never seen him.

Gods grants revelation of Himself to anyone who seeks Him out. That's my entire point..I can only point in His direction and assure you that His promises are true. the only way we can know God is by hearing from Him..we cannot reach Him from here except by faith and prayer.

>> ^jonny:
>> ^shinyblurry:
How do you prove something that exists outside of space and time?
Good question. How do you propose to prove your assertion if it is unprovable? If you accept that the existence of god cannot be proven, how can you call someone foolish, or blind, or whatever, when they question or deny the assertion that god does exist?

>> ^shinyblurry:

It has every bearing on his life, because that is his lot. His only purpose, and his only hope, is to do a good job and earn his reward. He was not born into authority himself, nor does he know anything about running a Kingdom. He will never be able to earn anything greater for himself, and he is only well suited for the task at hand.
>> ^jonny:
It is not at all "plain there is a King." A simple person may assume that he exists by faulty inference. A more thoughtful person, though, will realize that the actual existence of the king is irrelevant to his or her own life. What is directly observable in this situation is that there is a social and cultural power structure in place which forces conformity upon the peasants through "displays of authority", presumably enforced by the soldiers. The peasant may choose to believe in the existence of the king or not, but it will have no bearing upon the peasant's life.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Lets say there was a certain King, whom you had never seen..and you are one of his peasants. You're under his authority and expected to work for him in the fields for a wage, and that when you are of the age of retirement, he will give you a home on his land and thank you personally. You see soldiers of his, marching through the town. You hear people talking about his attributes, his justness and intelligence. You witness his authority displayed all around you. It is plain there is a King though you had never seen him.

You have only asserted that it has bearing on his life (through mostly rhetorical gibberish). Your initial description of the peasant's life stated that the peasant will receive a reward upon retirement if the peasant accepts the king's authority and works in the fields. A peasant may do both of those and never consider the actual existence of the king, or if he does consider it, may reject it but still obey the directly observable authority of the society in which he lives. Is the peasant still entitled to his reward? If the reward is, in fact, contingent upon the peasant truly believing in the existence of the king, how will the king go about verifying that? Does this king have magical powers of ESP? And even if he does, how could the peasant possibly know that unless the king himself demonstrated it to him in person? Should he rely on the testimony of other peasants who are no better equipped to verify the existence of the king? Why not rely on his own abilities of observation and reason?

Presumably, jonny, you wouldn't work for someone your entire life if you didn't believe they were real, and neither could you accept the authority of someone you didn't believe existed. The King isn't so much interested in whether the peasant believes he exists as much as he is interested in the results. But since the correct results could only ever come from someone who presumed the existence of the King, it is a prerequisite as a matter of circumstance to doing what pleases him.

How do you know your god is the right one if you rely on faith?

Because He responds by direct revelation. He lets you know He exists, and who He is. It's not however like He is always standing in front of you..you have to faith day by day..a bit like a family member who went off to another country that has no lines of communication. You have no way of seeing them but you have faith that they're still alive and having fun on planet Earth.

Your analogy suggests that the evidence for god is all around us, what evidence, specifically, are you pointing to?

Romans 1:20 says this

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Personally, I can attest to this truth. I had seen Gods attributes, His power and divine love namely, all my life..I had the puzzle pieces but not the picture. It's only when I found out God is real that they all fell into place.

How do you know you're pleasing god so that the evidence will be forthcoming as you suggest?

The main sign of living a life pleasing to God is the transformative power of the Holy Spirit. When you live without sinning, you are spiritually purified. In Christ, you are a new creation. You die to your carnal, worldly self and are reborn in the Spirit. The evidence is in your own behavior, internally and externally. Myself, I have been utterly transformed..still have a long way to go obviously, but I am quantifiably better than I was before, in every way. He lets you know in other ways but this is the main evidence.

How do you know what is the will of god if the very nature of god and his decisions is mysterious and beyond our understanding?

Because He stoops to our level and lets us know personally.

The bible is flawed horrendously before you go to that easy answer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo&playnext=1&list=PL80294485C9139857

debunked: http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart

I don't think he hates God, because that would mean a God exists for him to hate, maybe he hates the idea of God. I think he like most sane people hate the idea that people brainwash their kids with dribble from a book that a load of people conspired to write and revise so that they could influence the world, control/enslave uneducated people and get rich off them for 2000 years.

There's a very simple reason for having the view of atheism, God has not been proven to exist, there is no empirical evidence, and there is a lot of logical reasoning behind why it is a lie and why religion only prospers from indoctrinating children and weak minded people, and can not prosper from trying to convert educated people into it.

Religion has only come so far because of human fear. Soon once our lifespans will increase much more and we will hopefully advance medicine far enough that people won't be as afraid of death any more and there'll be a massive shift away from religion, in the same way education shifted people away from it in the industrial era.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You do know atheism is a world view, don't you? Hitchens couldn't provide any reasons for his view..yes he definitely hates the judeo-christian god, that's clear..but this is a philosophical argument..and Hitchens failed on every point to provide any compelling reasons for his views. I've always been of the mind that two reasonable people can come to a reasonable agreement based on the facts. And I think William Craig was reasonable here..he gave hitchens every opportunity to refute his arguments, which he failed to do

You think the bible is a conspiracy? lol..first of all most of the people who started the church were martryed for their beliefs. If they knew it was a lie, they wouldn't have died for it. The romans persecuted and martyred Christians for hundreds of years. There simply was no advantage to being a Christian in those days. It was very likely to get you killed.

And for being made up it sure is historically accurate:

"Now of course, archaeology could never prove that the Bible is divinely inspired, but it can help build a case for the historical reliability of the Bible. And it certainly has. For the past 150 years archaeologists have been verifying the exact truthfulness of the Bible's detailed records of various events, customs, persons, cities, nations, and geographical locations.

In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.

Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” [Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969), 31.]

These are the words of a man who has who has been credited with uncovering more than fifteen hundred ancient sites in the Middle East. [ “Archaeology: The Shards of History,” Time, December 13, 1963, accessed November 18, 2010.]

There have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible."

And it looks like some atheists just aren't as religious and dogmatic as you are..take for example this statistic from the 2008 Pew survey:

According to one underreported 2008 U.S. Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey, 21 per cent of atheists expressed at least some certainty of belief in God or universal spirit, and 10 per cent admitted to praying on a weekly basis.

Nor should we be surprised to learn that more “than 20 per cent of atheist scientists consider themselves to be ‘spiritual,’ according to a Rice University study.” From the Religion News Service: “The findings, to be published in the June issue of the journal Sociology of Religion, are based on in-depth interviews with 275 natural and social scientists from 21 of the nation’s top research universities.”

Seems that yours is the world view that isn't quite matching up to reality..





>> ^Mazex:
I don't think he hates God, because that would mean a God exists for him to hate, maybe he hates the idea of God. I think he like most sane people hate the idea that people brainwash their kids with dribble from a book that a load of people conspired to write and revise so that they could influence the world, control/enslave uneducated people and get rich off them for 2000 years.
There's a very simple reason for having the view of atheism, God has not been proven to exist, there is no empirical evidence, and there is a lot of logical reasoning behind why it is a lie and why religion only prospers from indoctrinating children and weak minded people, and can not prosper from trying to convert educated people into it.
Religion has only come so far because of human fear. Soon once our lifespans will increase much more and we will hopefully advance medicine far enough that people won't be as afraid of death any more and there'll be a massive shift away from religion, in the same way education shifted people away from it in the industrial era.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You do know atheism is a world view, don't you? Hitchens couldn't provide any reasons for his view..yes he definitely hates the judeo-christian god, that's clear..but this is a philosophical argument..and Hitchens failed on every point to provide any compelling reasons for his views. I've always been of the mind that two reasonable people can come to a reasonable agreement based on the facts. And I think William Craig was reasonable here..he gave hitchens every opportunity to refute his arguments, which he failed to do

The Bible is a storybook, that's all. A conspiracy to me, is a cover up of a crime.

You've convinced yourself pretty well with your strange arguments. Just because the Bible cites historical architectural knowledge doesn't mean there's a God. It just means that the people who wrote it at the time obviously took inspiration from their time period and what existed. It doesn't mean EVERYTHING they wrote is now true, they just had a reliable backdrop to their story, why would they write about a places and gatherings and cities and nations and locations that didn't exist, when they are wanting to trick people at the time? Surely it's a requirement to portray the world correctly and then use your lies in preaching to trick people to believing it.

I don't know how you can be so misguided to think proving the bible's archaeological facts leads it to prove all the crazy beliefs of a God and Satan and a Virgin birth, etc.

I can write a book about WW2, citing all the battles, bombs dropped, people killed, gatherings etc, and then just add in a load of stuff about how Hitler was actually secretly taking orders from a magical Unicorn called George who hated everyone, and that the allies were being advised by a giant Elephant called Bob who was kind and benevolent. So apparently in 2000 years, people like you will believe it all because all the archaeological data was proved in my story.

Talking about Christian's persecutions means nothing, brainwashed people are brainwashed, they think they will go to heaven if they do good, and go to hell if they stop believing in God. So no matter what persecution there is, until they are actually allowed to see sense, they will continue to believe in God and teach their children to believe in God.

Also I'd look at the surveys the other way, 79% of the people in the survey didn't believe in God, and 90% don't pray weekly. Then in the other survey 80% of the scientists aren't spiritual. That's a good amount of people who are sane. There has to be at least some crazy scientists otherwise we might miss out of some discoveries.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You think the bible is a conspiracy? lol..first of all most of the people who started the church were martryed for their beliefs. If they knew it was a lie, they wouldn't have died for it. The romans persecuted and martyred Christians for hundreds of years. There simply was no advantage to being a Christian in those days. It was very likely to get you killed.
And for being made up it sure is historically accurate:
"Now of course, archaeology could never prove that the Bible is divinely inspired, but it can help build a case for the historical reliability of the Bible. And it certainly has. For the past 150 years archaeologists have been verifying the exact truthfulness of the Bible's detailed records of various events, customs, persons, cities, nations, and geographical locations.
In every instance where the Bible can be, or has been checked out archaeologically, it has been found to be 100% accurate. The Bible has proven so accurate that archaeologists often refer to it as a reliable guide when they go to dig in new areas.
Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote: “No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” [Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969), 31.]
These are the words of a man who has who has been credited with uncovering more than fifteen hundred ancient sites in the Middle East. [ “Archaeology: The Shards of History,” Time, December 13, 1963, accessed November 18, 2010.]
There have been more than 25,000 discoveries within the region known as the "Bible Lands” that have confirmed the truthfulness of the Bible."
And it looks like some atheists just aren't as religious and dogmatic as you are..take for example this statistic from the 2008 Pew survey:
According to one underreported 2008 U.S. Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey, 21 per cent of atheists expressed at least some certainty of belief in God or universal spirit, and 10 per cent admitted to praying on a weekly basis.
Nor should we be surprised to learn that more “than 20 per cent of atheist scientists consider themselves to be ‘spiritual,’ according to a Rice University study.” From the Religion News Service: “The findings, to be published in the June issue of the journal Sociology of Religion, are based on in-depth interviews with 275 natural and social scientists from 21 of the nation’s top research universities.”
Seems that yours is the world view that isn't quite matching up to reality..

>> ^shinyblurry:

And it looks like some atheists just aren't as religious and dogmatic as you are..take for example this statistic from the 2008 Pew survey:
According to one underreported 2008 U.S. Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey, 21 per cent of atheists expressed at least some certainty of belief in God or universal spirit, and 10 per cent admitted to praying on a weekly basis.
Nor should we be surprised to learn that more “than 20 per cent of atheist scientists consider themselves to be ‘spiritual,’ according to a Rice University study.” From the Religion News Service: “The findings, to be published in the June issue of the journal Sociology of Religion, are based on in-depth interviews with 275 natural and social scientists from 21 of the nation’s top research universities.”
Seems that yours is the world view that isn't quite matching up to reality..


Hello! McFly! This is what I have been trying to tell you! Atheist doesn't mean "closed to the possibility". It means "not convinced". It's a large umbrella that covers many different levels of skepticism. And it is certainly not a concept that can be proven or disproven!

@Mazex

Well, where your claim about brainwashed people falls apart is that if Jesus was made up (which no reputed historian would claim), or His resurrection wasn't true, his disciples certainly wouldn't have martyred themselves for that lie. Being direct witnesses of the fact, you can't claim they were brainwashed. So yeah.

I posted the historical reliability of the bible because it shows its not just cooked up, as you tried to claim. It's highly intricate, and I dare say it would be actually be more miraculous for holding up so reliably if it wasnt true. 100 percent historical accuracy is pretty compelling, I think..it indicates that these are honest eye witness accounts we're dealing with.

Here are some interesting science facts that the bible fortold thousands of years before science knew anything about it..pretty good for made up isnt it?

The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – “He hangs the earth on nothing.”

Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea

Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled” and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” long before science understood its function.

Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest.

The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).” No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.

The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas.” In the 19th century Matthew Maury – the father of oceanography – after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury’s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars – that’s a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along – “He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name” (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was God’s judgment on man’s wickedness.

The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent – just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.

Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)

Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Origin of the different “races” explained (Genesis 11). As Noah’s descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established “a weight for the wind.” In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.

Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.

Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!

Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with God’s Word.

A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, “unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.” (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells “give their lives” to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain

Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him – pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?

The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.

Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if God’s commands were followed.

Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in God’s image.

Lol don't just copy paste a load of convoluted statements that you got off some website and flout it as fact...

There might of been a guy called Jesus, but I don't for a second believe he was born from a virgin, managed to perform miracles and managed to be resurrected. All those things are part of the bible too, and they have nothing to do with the archaeological record, which is why you citing it, is pointless.

Its obvious that the problems people have with believing the Bible is that it cites a load of miracles and preaching about a God that has never been proven. And you expect everyone to believe it, and believe they are going to Hell if they commit sins and don't repent.

His resurrection being true or not has nothing to do with being brainwashed, it has to do with it being a lie, its a story, its made up, its not real. What his disciples did isn't fact either, you don't know what happened. Because all that's left is a book they all wrote. If you experienced it, and thousands of others experienced it and lived to this day, then I'd say there might be more people that could believe it. But just writing a story down, and then expecting everyone to hold it as truth forever, isn't necessarily truth.

With all these scientific facts that are supposedly revealed in the Bible, you are missing the real truth completely. None of them are scientific claims, they are all you interpreting scientific facts from words. You can pretty much interpret anything that's happened with any piece of literature. Especially with the Bible which has been translated and revised so many times over the years, the actual form of it, is nothing like what it was originally. So your little world of the Bible pre-determining scientific discoveries is a complete farce, please actually think constructively and again don't just copy paste a load of crap from the internet.

Bible is not a reliable historical document. Stop quoting the Bible and telling us how it proves the existence of god. It is as much a valid proof of god as my driving licence.

@shinyblurry from the link you posted to me"At the same time, Ehrman implicitly raises a valid issue. A glance at virtually any English Bible today reveals that the longer ending of Mark and the pericope adulterae are to be found in their usual places. Thus, not only do the KJV and NKJV have these passages (as would be expected), but so do the ASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, TNIV, NASB, ESV, TEV, NAB, NJB, and NET. Yet the scholars who produced these translations, by and large, do not subscribe to the authenticity of such texts. The reasons are simple enough: they don’t show up in the oldest and best manuscripts and their internal evidence is decidedly against authenticity. Why then are they still in these Bibles?"

Your author goes on to explain that the only reason some passages are kept in the bible at all is not because they are authentic but because of emotional baggage that people have attached to said passages. He even flatly says: "This is not to say that everything Ehrman has written in this book is of that ilk. But these three passages are."

This is HARDLY a "debunk"ing as you suggest. If anything it's a re-affirmation of what I stated before and further proof that the bible is a very fallible text.

I think the real problem here is maybe you aren't even reading the bible/your own sources as I suggested earlier with this link: http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/28/survey-atheists-know-more-about-religion-than-believers/

He's just copy/pasting internet garbage.

He's tricked us all into thinking he's relevant.

Speaking of shiny, of course, I don't believe in the devil.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Presumably, jonny, you wouldn't work for someone your entire life if you didn't believe they were real, and neither could you accept the authority of someone you didn't believe existed. The King isn't so much interested in whether the peasant believes he exists as much as he is interested in the results. But since the correct results could only ever come from someone who presumed the existence of the King, it is a prerequisite as a matter of circumstance to doing what pleases him.

The first word of your comment is telling. It is presumptuous of you to claim to know what I would or wouldn't do or whose authority I would accept. And not only do you presume to know how I might act, but you presume to know how anyone would act. That is arrogant in the extreme.

I've had two jobs in very large organizations, and in neither case did the existence or wishes of the owner/CEO/board ever affect my willingness to do that job. In fact, in both cases, I was completely unaware of the existence of a "king" – I couldn't have told you who was at the top of the organizational hierarchy. In both cases, it was irrelevant to me. My motivation for doing my job and doing it well was 1) to have an income upon which I could rely, and 2) the personal satisfaction and enjoyment of performing well in a job that I liked. Similarly, the peasant may be motivated to work in the fields because he needs to feed his family, and the existence and wishes of the king need never enter his mind.

My acceptance of the rules of society has nothing to do with lawmakers in D.C. Not only do I not know who most of them are, I don't care who they are or what they want (insofar as my acceptance of societal rules are concerned). I accept (most of) the rules of society because that is the only way for me to be a functioning member of society, and I accept the authority of people with guns and badges, because, well, they have guns and can kill me with little or no concern for the consequences if I directly challenge their authority.

You still have not demonstrated any reason for the peasant to ever consider the existence of the king, nor for me to ever consider the existence of god. The question of the king's existence is still irrelevant to the peasant, and god's existence irrelevant to me.

Also, you never answered my earlier question: "If you accept that the existence of god cannot be proven, how can you call someone foolish, or blind, or whatever, when they question or deny the assertion that god does exist?"

@jonny

Your example is false, jonny. The peasant is a servant, he has to work. He has to produce results. You don't. If you left the company, the CEO isn't going to care. You could go live out in the woods, the peasant doesn't have that luxury. A ceo or president does not own you. The King owns the peasant. The peasant is his property.

lol to being proud of being uninformed, by the way..your generation I swear..

The existence of God can be proven, that's my entire point. You can know Jesus Christ personally, today. When I was agnostic, I didn't believe that Jesus was real, so yes I have some empathy for you. However, neither did I seriously investigate it nor did I really understand what the facts were.

I had all the information I had heard from other people, or things I had read, that atheists and agnostics in general just assume..I had all the various talking points and examples of inconsistancies that atheists and agnostics use in their arguments, most of which are easily disproven even with some cursory research. It was obvious to me that the bible was made up. Yet, with all that I didn't know a damn thing. It was really my ignorance of what was in the bible, and my inherent prejudice against it, that kept me from uncovering the facts.

I'll submit to you that if you actually did do impartial research, that the facts about who Jesus is will hold up. I challenge you to read "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615

See if what you think you know actually matches up to reality.

Okay, so Jesus did exist..that wasn't made up, which means the bible is an eyewitness account of his life....and now, his disciples weren't brainwashed, we just don't know what they did..well, we do, not only from the bible but from many external sources External sources verify at least 50 people from the NT were historical figures..engravings and statues even tell us what 18 of them looked like. There are 39 sources outside the bible which verify 100 facts about Jesus' life, teachings crucifixion and ressurection..some good examples are Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus and Gaius Suetonius.

Flavius Josephus, a roman historian wrote:

“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (He) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned Him to be crucified to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive."

As far as what I pasted is concerned, yes some of them could be interperted either way..but not all of them. Many of them are quite precise in making statements about the nature of the Universe..which certainly critics would use to try to prove the bible isn't true if they weren't. Such as that the stars are innumerable to man, yet finite..that there are as many as there are grains of sand. At the time there were no telescopes so they could only see around 5000..no one suspected the trillions and trillions of stars we know about today. Or the fact that God hangs the earth on nothing, when at the time everyone thought it was supported by something..or that there are springs in the sea, mountains in the sea, that the Universe had a beginning..etc. Pretty good for made up, I think..

>> ^Mazex:
Lol don't just copy paste a load of convoluted statements that you got off some website and flout it as fact...
There might of been a guy called Jesus, but I don't for a second believe he was born from a virgin, managed to perform miracles and managed to be resurrected. All those things are part of the bible too, and they have nothing to do with the archaeological record, which is why you citing it, is pointless.
Its obvious that the problems people have with believing the Bible is that it cites a load of miracles and preaching about a God that has never been proven. And you expect everyone to believe it, and believe they are going to Hell if they commit sins and don't repent.
His resurrection being true or not has nothing to do with being brainwashed, it has to do with it being a lie, its a story, its made up, its not real. What his disciples did isn't fact either, you don't know what happened. Because all that's left is a book they all wrote. If you experienced it, and thousands of others experienced it and lived to this day, then I'd say there might be more people that could believe it. But just writing a story down, and then expecting everyone to hold it as truth forever, isn't necessarily truth.
With all these scientific facts that are supposedly revealed in the Bible, you are missing the real truth completely. None of them are scientific claims, they are all you interpreting scientific facts from words. You can pretty much interpret anything that's happened with any piece of literature. Especially with the Bible which has been translated and revised so many times over the years, the actual form of it, is nothing like what it was originally. So your little world of the Bible pre-determining scientific discoveries is a complete farce, please actually think constructively and again don't just copy paste a load of crap from the internet.

What's always amazing to me is that someone could look at a HUGE page full of evidence against..pick out one thing that supports their view, and then discard everything else. Anyway, this doesn't help your case at all, it actually continues to disprove your theory that bible is unreliable. I will concede that some translations of the bible contain errors, or "emotional baggage." But again, it's really not a problem because we have the originals. You can find translations of the originals online or in book stores. So, maybe *you* should read the bible, especially before you critisize it.

As far as your contention about atheists knowing more about religion than the average Christian, in general, I might concede that. You have to remember there are 2 billion Christians in the world..33 percent of the population. That's a big pool to average from To me it just proves how obsessed atheists are over something that they all claim to not care one lick about.

It's amusing to me that there are atheists out there who think more about God than Christians do. However, in general is where the comparison ends. I've seen no atheists, and I mean zero, who have a comprehensive understanding of what's in the bible, how it all interrelates, could construct a theological argument or debunk it on theological terms, or apply its meaning. This includes the famous atheists debators. Most of them are extremely poor scholars. They have their incindiary talking points which lure in the easily misled, but other than hot air, there isn't much else.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry from the link you posted to me"At the same time, Ehrman implicitly raises a valid issue. A glance at virtually any English Bible today reveals that the longer ending of Mark and the pericope adulterae are to be found in their usual places. Thus, not only do the KJV and NKJV have these passages (as would be expected), but so do the ASV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, TNIV, NASB, ESV, TEV, NAB, NJB, and NET. Yet the scholars who produced these translations, by and large, do not subscribe to the authenticity of such texts. The reasons are simple enough: they don’t show up in the oldest and best manuscripts and their internal evidence is decidedly against authenticity. Why then are they still in these Bibles?"
Your author goes on to explain that the only reason some passages are kept in the bible at all is not because they are authentic but because of emotional baggage that people have attached to said passages. He even flatly says: "This is not to say that everything Ehrman has written in this book is of that ilk. But these three passages are."
This is HARDLY a "debunk"ing as you suggest. If anything it's a re-affirmation of what I stated before and further proof that the bible is a very fallible text.
I think the real problem here is maybe you aren't even reading the bible/your own sources as I suggested earlier with this link: http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/28/survey-atheists-know-more-about-religion-than-believers/

He believes in you.

>> ^KnivesOut:
He's just copy/pasting internet garbage.
He's tricked us all into thinking he's relevant.
Speaking of shiny, of course, I don't believe in the devil.

hehe. I'll submit to you that a spiritual atheist, especially one that prays, is internally inconsistant.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
And it looks like some atheists just aren't as religious and dogmatic as you are..take for example this statistic from the 2008 Pew survey:
According to one underreported 2008 U.S. Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey, 21 per cent of atheists expressed at least some certainty of belief in God or universal spirit, and 10 per cent admitted to praying on a weekly basis.
Nor should we be surprised to learn that more “than 20 per cent of atheist scientists consider themselves to be ‘spiritual,’ according to a Rice University study.” From the Religion News Service: “The findings, to be published in the June issue of the journal Sociology of Religion, are based on in-depth interviews with 275 natural and social scientists from 21 of the nation’s top research universities.”
Seems that yours is the world view that isn't quite matching up to reality..

Hello! McFly! This is what I have been trying to tell you! Atheist doesn't mean "closed to the possibility". It means "not convinced". It's a large umbrella that covers many different levels of skepticism. And it is certainly not a concept that can be proven or disproven!

Prove it.>> ^shinyblurry:

He believes in you.
>> ^KnivesOut:
He's just copy/pasting internet garbage.
He's tricked us all into thinking he's relevant.
Speaking of shiny, of course, I don't believe in the devil.

Have you ever read the Bible? .... ok, BUT have you ever read the Bible ON WEED? /parafrasing Jon Stewart from Halfbaked

>> ^Sketch:

You CANNOT prove the non-existence of something like this! It's the same old Celestial Teapot, Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster issue! As with my laser eyes, prove that they don't exist! It is a ridiculous thing to even request!


i would argue that it is fundamentally impossible to actually "prove" it either way, existence or nonexistence. However, when compared to the tired diatribe of the teapot or spaghetti monster, its moot. No one could disprove your laser eyes, or a celestial teapot just as no one could prove them either. I am less inclined to believe in your laser eyes or a celestial teapot in that at no point in human history have they ever been relevant or significant enough for men to write holy works about them throughout the centuries. The whole spaghetti monster thing is really just dumb. If you want to illustrate your point youd be better served sticking with santa (dozens of myths written about the character in many nations over many centuries) than something like these teapots and pasta monsters that are entirely irrelevant

- quoting garbage -

My example is false? Are you saying that I lied about my previous jobs?

You are now adding qualifiers to the hypothetical peasant analogy by claiming he is a servant. A servant to whom? You cannot assert that he is a servant of the king, because we have not established that the peasant cares one whit about the king. You say that the servant has to work, he has to produce results. Why? I clearly made the case that the peasant works in the fields not because he believes he will upset the king, but so that he can feed his family. In my job, I had to work and produce results, or I would have been fired. In both mine and the peasant's cases, we would find ourselves starving if we did not work. (Furthermore, you are wrong to assume, yet again, that the CEO of the organization I worked for would not care that I left. I did, and it turned out to be quite a problem for them, because I was the last competent programmer in my department.) You say that the peasant doesn't have the luxury of not working in the fields. Why not?

Now you claim the existence of god can be proven, when just a little ways back asserted that it is not possible. Which is it?

Pride of being uninformed? Uninformed about what? My generation? You swear ... really? I doubt that you have any clue as to my age or to which generation I belong. Quite honestly, I suspect I am older than you, but I certainly won't assert that without knowing your age. You assume (again!) facts about my life to fit your understanding of the world. You assume that I have not searched for god, that I have done no "impartial research". I submit to you that you are writing about things of which you have no knowledge. To put it more bluntly, you're talking out of your ass.


A few days ago, you proposed the following:

These are the only answers to the question [of] does God exist
Yes (Theist)
No (Atheist)
Don't know (Agnostic)

Your refusal to accept that other people can and do see things differently is blinding you to the fact that there are other answers. In my case, my short answer to the question is, "Don't care, it's not relevant." My long answer is quite long, indeed, but starts by pointing out the question itself is usually meaningless in the way most people ask it.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure I understand what you were getting at with the peasant and king analogy, but it's gotten quite muddled now that we've tried to dig into it. If you like, let's abandon that and deal directly with what (I think) you were trying to convey. I claim that it is not only possible, but preferable, to lead a moral and ethical life without ever considering the existence of a god or gods, and without recourse to an outside authority upon which to validate my ethics and morals.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Your example is false, jonny. The peasant is a servant, he has to work. He has to produce results. You don't. If you left the company, the CEO isn't going to care. You could go live out in the woods, the peasant doesn't have that luxury. A ceo or president does not own you. The King owns the peasant. The peasant is his property.
lol to being proud of being uninformed, by the way..your generation I swear..
The existence of God can be proven, that's my entire point. You can know Jesus Christ personally, today. When I was agnostic, I didn't believe that Jesus was real, so yes I have some empathy for you. However, neither did I seriously investigate it nor did I really understand what the facts were.
I had all the information I had heard from other people, or things I had read, that atheists and agnostics in general just assume..I had all the various talking points and examples of inconsistancies that atheists and agnostics use in their arguments, most of which are easily disproven even with some cursory research. It was obvious to me that the bible was made up. Yet, with all that I didn't know a damn thing. It was really my ignorance of what was in the bible, and my inherent prejudice against it, that kept me from uncovering the facts.
I'll submit to you that if you actually did do impartial research, that the facts about who Jesus is will hold up. I challenge you to read "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615
See if what you think you know actually matches up to reality.

>> ^KnivesOut:

Obviously, I down-voted because satan told me to.>> ^shinyblurry:
You say here that your hero is actually winning, so why did you downvote? It can't be for the content..so what is it?


THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!! THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!! AHHHH PEA SOUP!!!

You've got to be kidding me! Of course it's impossible to prove it either way! That's the entire damned point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! You can't prove it except to assert that because people wrote a book to worship, it must be true!

You expect me to accept that there is some all-powerful, perfect, magical, interdimentional being that created everything at a whim, yet somehow never had to be created Himself, is eternal, demands that I live my life a certain way, is supposedly all-loving despite all of the suffering that He causes, and the only reasons that you can give me to believe such a cockamamie story are that a lot of people really believe that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum), and that there is a book that says that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning)! Forgive my crass interjection, but that is complete and utter horse shit!

Moot my ass, it's exactly the point! If you want to stick with Santa, then let's! It's the same thing! You don't expect me to believe that there is a Santa as the mythical, magical figure that we know him now just because there are a lot of kids that believe in him and he's an important cultural figure, do you? And he was at least based on a real person!>> ^smooman:

>> ^Sketch:
You CANNOT prove the non-existence of something like this! It's the same old Celestial Teapot, Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster issue! As with my laser eyes, prove that they don't exist! It is a ridiculous thing to even request!

i would argue that it is fundamentally impossible to actually "prove" it either way, existence or nonexistence. However, when compared to the tired diatribe of the teapot or spaghetti monster, its moot. No one could disprove your laser eyes, or a celestial teapot just as no one could prove them either. I am less inclined to believe in your laser eyes or a celestial teapot in that at no point in human history have they ever been relevant or significant enough for men to write holy works about them throughout the centuries. The whole spaghetti monster thing is really just dumb. If you want to illustrate your point youd be better served sticking with santa (dozens of myths written about the character in many nations over many centuries) than something like these teapots and pasta monsters that are entirely irrelevant

i dont really remember where i said god is totally true and provable because there was this old book written about him.....but thanks for putting words in my mouth. My point being, that the teapot and whatever "cockamamie" imagined comparisons you'd like to make to god, any god, is retarded at its core in that at no point in human history has a pasta dragon been culturally, historically, or politically relevant or significant

now having said that, am i saying that then this must be true? of course not, although you can keep insisting i am. What i am saying is that if we were to take your teapot and a god of mythology, i am less inclined as a being of intellect to believe, or otherwise be persuaded or influenced by the former. Now before you put more words in mouth, I am not saying that this means you should believe in god, or allah, or fucking santa. I am merely pointing out the ridiculous comparrison of mythological dieties of historical and cultural relevance, to something utterly irrelevant that you made up (not you personally but you know what i mean, the spaghetti monster crap)

I fear you're all wasting your time.

At the heart of this debate is one simple element: that of changeability. Is the theist changeable? Is the atheist changeable?

If neither is capable of changing their (or the other's) mind, then debate is a waste of time. For the theist, doubt and skepticism are poisonous to their faith so I'd be very surprised to hear any theist say they are open-minded (changeable) and really mean it. This thread is evidence of that.

On the other hand, I've never met any atheist (though I'm sure some exist) who couldn't describe, at the ready, a specific example of some otherworldly event that would change their mind about god forever. That's what results from placing value on evidence.

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins tells of a marvelous story at a lecture at Oxford's Zoology Department. I'll quote the author if that's OK with everyone:

...my belief in evolution is not fundamentalism, and it is not faith, because I know what it would take to change my mind, and I would gladly do so if the necessary evidence were forthcoming.

It does happen. I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artefact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said - with passion - 'My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.'

We clapped our hands red. No fundamentalist would ever say that.

^blowhards arguing with blowhards just makes noise

....but im totally right and youre just dumb =P

I have a book called The Codex of Unicorns and Other Fantastical Creatures. The first few pages of The Codex contain the following statements:

1. Unicorns exist.
2. Unicorns never lie.
3. The Codex was written by unicorns.

Given that The Codex exists, as it is in my hands, unicorns must also exist.

Thus a circle is born.

@shinyblurryMY TURN TO USE MYTHS!

ok ok ok ok ok soooo One of us cares about something that is all powerful, can see into the future to know everything, and cares about making everyone think the same way we do, and one of us doesn't-



I will do what i must...*sparks lightsaber*

Shinyblurry "He knows you, He will judge you, you must serve Him!!!"

Jigga "Then you truely are lost!!!"

*shpwank* *pew pew pew* *shpawnk* *pew PEW* *lightsaber hum*

Jigga *forcejump* "It's over, I have the high ground!"

Shinyblurry "You underestimate His power"

Jigga "Don't try it..."

Shinyblurry "RwahhhHHHHHHH!!!" *forcejump*

Jigga *svwank* *shplshhhhh* *shlice*

Shinyblurry "rwarghhhhh urhaghhhhhhhhhhh braaaahhhhhh"

*spits*

My example is false? Are you saying that I lied about my previous jobs?

I'm saying it doesn't apply..

You are now adding qualifiers to the hypothetical peasant analogy by claiming he is a servant. A servant to whom? You cannot assert that he is a servant of the king, because we have not established that the peasant cares one whit about the king. You say that the servant has to work, he has to produce results. Why? I clearly made the case that the peasant works in the fields not because he believes he will upset the king, but so that he can feed his family. In my job, I had to work and produce results, or I would have been fired. In both mine and the peasant's cases, we would find ourselves starving if we did not work. (Furthermore, you are wrong to assume, yet again, that the CEO of the organization I worked for would not care that I left. I did, and it turned out to be quite a problem for them, because I was the last competent programmer in my department.) You say that the peasant doesn't have the luxury of not working in the fields. Why not?

I didn't add anything. In my example, the peasant is referred to as the Kings servant, if you want to reread it. If it wasn't clear, I am sorry..while the CEO might have been inconvenienced by you leaving, you aren't his property. So no it doesn't apply.

Now you claim the existence of god can be proven, when just a little ways back asserted that it is not possible. Which is it?

I'm saying that I don't believe anyone has ever been argued into believing in Jesus..however, I am also saying that you can prove it to yourself by asking the Lord to come into your life, who will prove it to you. However, you don't seem to think you need Him, so until you feel that way..

Pride of being uninformed? Uninformed about what? My generation? You swear ... really? I doubt that you have any clue as to my age or to which generation I belong. Quite honestly, I suspect I am older than you, but I certainly won't assert that without knowing your age. You assume (again!) facts about my life to fit your understanding of the world. You assume that I have not searched for god, that I have done no "impartial research". I submit to you that you are writing about things of which you have no knowledge. To put it more bluntly, you're talking out of your ass.

The don't know, don't care comment about who is even in your government..that's fairly uninformed. And yes, I don't know how old you are..if I had to hazard a guess I would say you're in your mid to late twenties. And I know you have not searched too hard for God because you haven't found Him yet.

Your refusal to accept that other people can and do see things differently is blinding you to the fact that there are other answers. In my case, my short answer to the question is, "Don't care, it's not relevant." My long answer is quite long, indeed, but starts by pointing out the question itself is usually meaningless in the way most people ask it.

Don't paraphrase..the question I asked, which wasn't even in this thread.. Was the Universe created by a supreme being?

Yes = Theist
No = Atheist
Don't know = Agnostic

It's a philosophical question. Not caring isn't a valid answer to the question. I accept people see things differently but this question only has so many answers.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure I understand what you were getting at with the peasant and king analogy, but it's gotten quite muddled now that we've tried to dig into it. If you like, let's abandon that and deal directly with what (I think) you were trying to convey. I claim that it is not only possible, but preferable, to lead a moral and ethical life without ever considering the existence of a god or gods, and without recourse to an outside authority upon which to validate my ethics and morals.

Okay, lets start very simply. What does morality mean to you and how does it apply to the world?

umm.

Anyway, a Unicorn is a myth...God is at the least a philosophical conception (see: Prime Mover)..so your tautlogy doesn't apply. It's also a strawman argument..IE..To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. So yeah..I think you need to go back to shooting womp rats because your argument lacks any force.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
spits

@jonny @shinyblurry

In reverse order:

The definition of morality or its application is not applicable to this argument. NEXT

Your "Was the universe created by a supreme being?" question creates a false dilemma. NEXT

The fact that Athiests know more about religion is a testament to the fact that they have searched very hard for god. I myself suffer from wishful thinking of life after death, I do certainly wish it was true and would like very much for my consciousness to continue to exist after I die. NEXT

People are argued into believing in jesus every day. They're called children! NEXT

A CEO owns you in as much as he owns the way you are making a living and hope to prosper from your work when you go home. He creates the working conditions and decides who stays, who goes, and passes judgement indiscriminately. The analogy is very fitting. FIN

The definition of morality or its application is not applicable to this argument. NEXT

Wrong. jonny is stating that even if God does exist he is not necessary, because he thinks he can be moral without Him..it's very applicable to the discussion

Your "Was the universe created by a supreme being?" question creates a false dilemma. NEXT

It's a valid question..even dawkins admitted that the Universe appears to be designed for life. He attempts to solve this dilemma by positing infinite Universes and we just happen to be in the one that looks like it was designed. I can give at least a few reasons why that couldn't be true..if you don't like this question, ill keep framing them until we boil it down to its essence. How about this..

Does the Universe exist because of design or chance?

Design = Theist

Chance = Atheist

Don't know = Agnostic

The fact that Athiests know more about religion is a testament to the fact that they have searched very hard for god. I myself suffer from wishful thinking of life after death, I do certainly wish it was true and would like very much for my consciousness to continue to exist after I die. NEXT

If the Universe was created by chance, life has no intrinsic value or meaning. You can believe it does, but then you could get hit by a bus. It truly doesn't matter what you believe, because you are at the mercy of a random fate. Not that you could even trust your own mind, being that you are just a biological machine whose thoughts are just chemical reactions.

No matter how noble human beings become, a meteor doesn't know anything about that..humankind could come close to utopia, but wandering black holes are not impressed. Nothing that anyone accomplishes will have any lasting impact on a Univese that will fall into heat death and fade away. To say life is absurd and futile under these circumstances is a kindness.

Or, we have a moral Creator and lawgiver, whom has created us with eternal life in mind, and this life is merely a transition to it. A proving ground designed to prepare us for life eternal, a trial to perfect us in His image, so that like Him we can exist eternally in paradise, forever. That life is not in fact random, and there is no such thing as coincidence (which some of you may suspect). The things of this world are merely a distraction from the real treasure, which is within each one of us.

People are argued into believing in jesus every day. They're called children! NEXT

Children are actually closer to God than adults because they have not yet conformed to the ways of the world. Their hearts and minds are open and attuned to the truth. It's obvious even to very small children what God is about. Someone asked a 4 year old boy what God was. He said..God is the water around the edges (of his consciousness)

A CEO owns you in as much as he owns the way you are making a living and hope to prosper from your work when you go home. He creates the working conditions and decides who stays, who goes, and passes judgement indiscriminately. The analogy is very fitting. FIN

I think you missed your curtain call..being dependent on someone for livelyhood is not the same as being someones property.

It is possible to prove it. It all comes down the resurrection of Christ..If He rose from the dead, if it is indeed a historical event, then God does exist and everything the bible says is true. Anyone can claim to be the Son of God, but no one but the Son of God could prove it by rising from the dead. There is plenty of good evidence to suggest He did rise from the dead. It is reasonable to conclude from this evidence that what Christ said is true..and therefore, if you honesty seek Him, you will find Him..and He will show you He is real.

>> ^Sketch:
You've got to be kidding me! Of course it's impossible to prove it either way! That's the entire damned point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! You can't prove it except to assert that because people wrote a book to worship, it must be true!
You expect me to accept that there is some all-powerful, perfect, magical, interdimentional being that created everything at a whim, yet somehow never had to be created Himself, is eternal, demands that I live my life a certain way, is supposedly all-loving despite all of the suffering that He causes, and the only reasons that you can give me to believe such a cockamamie story are that a lot of people really believe that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum), and that there is a book that says that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning)! Forgive my crass interjection, but that is complete and utter horse shit!
Moot my ass, it's exactly the point! If you want to stick with Santa, then let's! It's the same thing! You don't expect me to believe that there is a Santa as the mythical, magical figure that we know him now just because there are a lot of kids that believe in him and he's an important cultural figure, do you? And he was at least based on a real person!>> ^smooman:
>> ^Sketch:
You CANNOT prove the non-existence of something like this! It's the same old Celestial Teapot, Pink Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster issue! As with my laser eyes, prove that they don't exist! It is a ridiculous thing to even request!

i would argue that it is fundamentally impossible to actually "prove" it either way, existence or nonexistence. However, when compared to the tired diatribe of the teapot or spaghetti monster, its moot. No one could disprove your laser eyes, or a celestial teapot just as no one could prove them either. I am less inclined to believe in your laser eyes or a celestial teapot in that at no point in human history have they ever been relevant or significant enough for men to write holy works about them throughout the centuries. The whole spaghetti monster thing is really just dumb. If you want to illustrate your point youd be better served sticking with santa (dozens of myths written about the character in many nations over many centuries) than something like these teapots and pasta monsters that are entirely irrelevant

Good evidence that He rose from the dead!? Oh, this ought to be good. Please, do tell exactly how there is any evidence at all for the truth of the resurrection myth, when the various gospels of the infallible bible don't even agree on the specific details of what even happened during the resurrection. But PLEASE don't once again use biblical passages to tell me that the resurrection happened anyway!>> ^shinyblurry:

It is possible to prove it. It all comes down the resurrection of Christ..If He rose from the dead, if it is indeed a historical event, then God does exist and everything the bible says is true. Anyone can claim to be the Son of God, but no one but the Son of God could prove it by rising from the dead. There is plenty of good evidence to suggest He did rise from the dead. It is reasonable to conclude from this evidence that what Christ said is true..and therefore, if you honesty seek Him, you will find Him..and He will show you He is real. >> ^Sketch:
You've got to be kidding me! Of course it's impossible to prove it either way! That's the entire damned point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! You can't prove it except to assert that because people wrote a book to worship, it must be true!
You expect me to accept that there is some all-powerful, perfect, magical, interdimentional being that created everything at a whim, yet somehow never had to be created Himself, is eternal, demands that I live my life a certain way, is supposedly all-loving despite all of the suffering that He causes, and the only reasons that you can give me to believe such a cockamamie story are that a lot of people really believe that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum), and that there is a book that says that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning)! Forgive my crass interjection, but that is complete and utter horse shit!
Moot my ass, it's exactly the point! If you want to stick with Santa, then let's! It's the same thing! You don't expect me to believe that there is a Santa as the mythical, magical figure that we know him now just because there are a lot of kids that believe in him and he's an important cultural figure, do you? And he was at least based on a real person!

i appreciate your existence.... but statements like this make me feel like your world must be perfectly terrifying. >> ^shinyblurry:

Thanks, I appreciate it. Many satanists dont actually believe in the devil..that's been one my examples for how clever he really is.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I don't get Satanism. If you simply must dedicate your life to religious fiction, why side against the protagonist? It's like believing Harry Potter is real and then siding with Voldemort. Silly.
Also, for what it's worth, I don't think you are a troll, shiny. You're just a bit more subversive than the typical Christian. I like subversive, even if I don't agree with you.
>> ^shinyblurry:
That would be a Satanist
>> ^dag:
What would you call someone who believes in God, but hates her? Would they be an antitheist?

Ok you're doing it again. You're leaping from one thing to another with no real connection. So maybe a figure called Jesus existed. All that statement means is, a man lived at a period and had a name Jesus. It doesn't mean everything in a book written by a load of people who conspired to create a religious following about him is fact. You think everything in the Bible is fact, I don't. The bible has no evidence for its miracles and supposed preaching about God. It might have details about towns, people, nations, gatherings, that are also reported by other sources. But that doesn't in anyway confirm that supernatural beliefs held in the Bible. Like I said earlier, it would be a strange for them to write a book that tried to both introduce supernatural answers for the world in a made-up setting. They obviously set the Bible's story in a realistic background. You can not just then verify everything in the Bible because of that.

Do you know why? Because a) anything like those miracle situations hasn't had any evidence found since then to collude with the Bible's miracles, if it did all the scientists of the world would be in agreement that the miracles of the Bible were possible b) the story setting of the Bible is extremely similar to many stories that have been found and verified as being created before the Bible, ergo the Bible is a copy-work of those other stories, which diminishes its validity. c) It's obvious to anyone not brainwashed and not weak minded, what religions aim is; to prey on fear of death and to masquerade as a good force when in fact it's wasting your life and causing a massive amount of problems in the world whilst making a few people in the religion some of the richest people in the world.

Religion is a perfect example of the weakness of mankind, Religion and Greed are two of the worst things in the world, and until they are solved in our society we're stuck being fucked over in a cycle of retarded behaviour.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Okay, so Jesus did exist..that wasn't made up, which means the bible is an eyewitness account of his life....and now, his disciples weren't brainwashed, we just don't know what they did..well, we do, not only from the bible but from many external sources External sources verify at least 50 people from the NT were historical figures..engravings and statues even tell us what 18 of them looked like. There are 39 sources outside the bible which verify 100 facts about Jesus' life, teachings crucifixion and ressurection..some good examples are Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus and Gaius Suetonius.
Flavius Josephus, a roman historian wrote:
“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (He) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned Him to be crucified to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that He was alive."
As far as what I pasted is concerned, yes some of them could be interperted either way..but not all of them. Many of them are quite precise in making statements about the nature of the Universe..which certainly critics would use to try to prove the bible isn't true if they weren't. Such as that the stars are innumerable to man, yet finite..that there are as many as there are grains of sand. At the time there were no telescopes so they could only see around 5000..no one suspected the trillions and trillions of stars we know about today. Or the fact that God hangs the earth on nothing, when at the time everyone thought it was supported by something..or that there are springs in the sea, mountains in the sea, that the Universe had a beginning..etc. Pretty good for made up, I think..

again, statements like this make me feel like the world must look terrifying.

your intrinsic value to me is not dependent on whether or not a creator meant for you to exist.
>> ^shinyblurry:

If the Universe was created by chance, life has no intrinsic value or meaning. You can believe it does, but then you could get hit by a bus. It truly doesn't matter what you believe, because you are at the mercy of a random fate. Not that you could even trust your own mind, being that you are just a biological machine whose thoughts are just chemical reactions.
No matter how noble human beings become, a meteor doesn't know anything about that..humankind could come close to utopia, but wandering black holes are not impressed. Nothing that anyone accomplishes will have any lasting impact on a Univese that will fall into heat death and fade away. To say life is absurd and futile under these circumstances is a kindness.

i think that probably has more to do with a difference in world view than anything else. nothing you say makes a lot of sense to me, like you seem to be missing the points being made here, and by hitchens in the video. it's a difference in view point. not that everyone else is full of "hot air." but their world and out look is completely different. 2 different wavelengths.

it's like how when sarah palin talks, i don't hear anything.. but millions of people do hear something. and they profoundly relate to it. i think the differences in peoples points of view account for a pretty big portion of misunderstandings.


btw, i read all comment threads from bottom to top.>> ^shinyblurry:

I've seen no atheists, and I mean zero, who have a comprehensive understanding of what's in the bible, how it all interrelates, could construct a theological argument or debunk it on theological terms, or apply its meaning. This includes the famous atheists debators. Most of them are extremely poor scholars. They have their incindiary talking points which lure in the easily misled, but other than hot air, there isn't much else.

@Sketch

There are quite a few reasons that the resurrection should be taken to be valid, or in your case, much more carefully considered..now, the problem with your view is that you give the bible absolutely no credit at all for having any truth in it, because you're caught up on things like the miracles. That is your primary objection, yet you have to realize that the evidence for the gospels is much greater than a great deal of ancient history. We have more evidence for the life of Jesus Christ than we do for Julius Caesar.

However, there is plenty that has been confirmed as true, some of which I've already mentioned..such as the fact that 50 people in the NT alone are confirmed to be historical, including two of the most major figures in the resurrection narative, Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas the high priest. Or the fact that the bible has been proven to be 100 percent reliable archaelogically. So your utter dismissal of the bible as having any fact to it puts you at odds with pretty much every practicing historian and bible scholar today.

I'll give you a few reasons..First of all, you have the empty tomb, a fact acknowledged as accurate today and undisputed even by the Jewish authorities at the time of his death. You have the fact that women were the first witnesses. In those days, a womens testimony was not considered valid. In fact you had pagans agruing for centuries that the resurrection wasnt true simply on the fact that women had seen it first. If the disciples invented the story, they never would have used women as witnesses, because it severally undermined their case in the eyes of jew and gentile alike. The fact it was left in greatly enhances its credibility.

You have all of the eye witnesses who saw Jesus, over 500 in number. Eye witnesses who were still alive at the time the gospels were written. You have the fact that the disciples were brutally tortured and ultimately martyred for preaching the gospel of the resurrected Jesus. They were direct eye witnesses of the fact and so they would never go to their deaths refusing to recant for something they knew was a lie. You have external sources confirming the resurrection. These are just a few reasons to at least investigate further.

As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm




>> ^Sketch:
Good evidence that He rose from the dead!? Oh, this ought to be good. Please, do tell exactly how there is any evidence at all for the truth of the resurrection myth, when the various gospels of the infallible bible don't even agree on the specific details of what even happened during the resurrection. But PLEASE don't once again use biblical passages to tell me that the resurrection happened anyway!>> ^shinyblurry:
It is possible to prove it. It all comes down the resurrection of Christ..If He rose from the dead, if it is indeed a historical event, then God does exist and everything the bible says is true. Anyone can claim to be the Son of God, but no one but the Son of God could prove it by rising from the dead. There is plenty of good evidence to suggest He did rise from the dead. It is reasonable to conclude from this evidence that what Christ said is true..and therefore, if you honesty seek Him, you will find Him..and He will show you He is real. >> ^Sketch:
You've got to be kidding me! Of course it's impossible to prove it either way! That's the entire damned point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! You can't prove it except to assert that because people wrote a book to worship, it must be true!
You expect me to accept that there is some all-powerful, perfect, magical, interdimentional being that created everything at a whim, yet somehow never had to be created Himself, is eternal, demands that I live my life a certain way, is supposedly all-loving despite all of the suffering that He causes, and the only reasons that you can give me to believe such a cockamamie story are that a lot of people really believe that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum), and that there is a book that says that it's true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning)! Forgive my crass interjection, but that is complete and utter horse shit!
Moot my ass, it's exactly the point! If you want to stick with Santa, then let's! It's the same thing! You don't expect me to believe that there is a Santa as the mythical, magical figure that we know him now just because there are a lot of kids that believe in him and he's an important cultural figure, do you? And he was at least based on a real person!

Ok you're doing it again. You're leaping from one thing to another with no real connection. So maybe a figure called Jesus existed. All that statement means is, a man lived at a period and had a name Jesus. It doesn't mean everything in a book written by a load of people who conspired to create a religious following about him is fact. You think everything in the Bible is fact, I don't. The bible has no evidence for its miracles and supposed preaching about God. It might have details about towns, people, nations, gatherings, that are also reported by other sources. But that doesn't in anyway confirm that supernatural beliefs held in the Bible. Like I said earlier, it would be a strange for them to write a book that tried to both introduce supernatural answers for the world in a made-up setting. They obviously set the Bible's story in a realistic background. You can not just then verify everything in the Bible because of that.

Your claim about a conspiracy is just not accurate. Nearly all the people who started the early church were martyred. Christians were persecuted for hundreds of years. I'll say it again..There simply was no advantage to being a Christian in those days. It was likely to get you killed. Your theory just doesn't hold any water..the people who wrote the bible genuinely believed in its authenticity.

Do you know why? Because a) anything like those miracle situations hasn't had any evidence found since then to collude with the Bible's miracles, if it did all the scientists of the world would be in agreement that the miracles of the Bible were possible b) the story setting of the Bible is extremely similar to many stories that have been found and verified as being created before the Bible, ergo the Bible is a copy-work of those other stories, which diminishes its validity. c) It's obvious to anyone not brainwashed and not weak minded, what religions aim is; to prey on fear of death and to masquerade as a good force when in fact it's wasting your life and causing a massive amount of problems in the world whilst making a few people in the religion some of the richest people in the world.

A How can science use a natural process to prove a supernatural one? Science can't even prove itself to be accurate, let alone a supernatural event. B show me what stories you believe are similar to the bible. I'll debunk them one by one for you. C As I said before, this theory is completely implausible..the early church was heavily persecuted..no one was getting rich off of Christianity, but many people died for it. Today, people do get rich off of Christianity, just as they get rich off of the government, charities, wars, poor people, and anything else.

Religion is a perfect example of the weakness of mankind, Religion and Greed are two of the worst things in the world, and until they are solved in our society we're stuck being fucked over in a cycle of retarded behaviour.

Actually, this is a perfect example of a fallacious argument..not withstanding that Jesus hated religion as well. You take my position, superfically correlate to something bad by analogy, and then knock down the strawman you just set up by saying that they are equivilent, all without providing any evidence. Bravo

Surely, you can invent value, which has meaning to yourself..but there is no intrinsic value to anything created by mere chance. It is only the arbitrary value that we assign that makes something meaningful. I valued people when I didn't believe in God, loved them very dearly, yet there wasn't a logical reason to do so.

Consider, what is the value of someone born with a severe disability, like downs syndrome. They are a burden to society and they themselves cannot enjoy life as a normal human being. They are pretty much genetic baggage as far as evolution is concerned, a disturbing abberation to be eliminated. In the survival of the fittest, they should be culled from the gene pool. Yet, even they are capable of noble behavior, something your science cannot explain. Can evolution explain this one: http://teachingsofjon.com/ ?

>> ^peggedbea:
again, statements like this make me feel like the world must look terrifying.
your intrinsic value to me is not dependent on whether or not a creator meant for you to exist.
>> ^shinyblurry:
If the Universe was created by chance, life has no intrinsic value or meaning. You can believe it does, but then you could get hit by a bus. It truly doesn't matter what you believe, because you are at the mercy of a random fate. Not that you could even trust your own mind, being that you are just a biological machine whose thoughts are just chemical reactions.
No matter how noble human beings become, a meteor doesn't know anything about that..humankind could come close to utopia, but wandering black holes are not impressed. Nothing that anyone accomplishes will have any lasting impact on a Univese that will fall into heat death and fade away. To say life is absurd and futile under these circumstances is a kindness.

On the contrary, I intrinsically understand the arguments being presented here because I used to use many of them myself. I am making an effort to provide answers to everyones objections, yet some of this is hard to take seriously as you might have seen. My belief is that two reasonable people can come to a reasonable conclusion about something, so I'll keep trying. I have noticed people tend to have a filter where they just skip over everything looking for a ripe cherry to pick. I don't do that..I attempt to address someones entire point..it isn't a contest to me. I perceive all of it spiritually, and it's from my heart..I wouldn't bother if I didn't care.


>> ^peggedbea:
i think that probably has more to do with a difference in world view than anything else. nothing you say makes a lot of sense to me, like you seem to be missing the points being made here, and by hitchens in the video. it's a difference in view point. not that everyone else is full of "hot air." but their world and out look is completely different. 2 different wavelengths.
it's like how when sarah palin talks, i don't hear anything.. but millions of people do hear something. and they profoundly relate to it. i think the differences in peoples points of view account for a pretty big portion of misunderstandings.
btw, i read all comment threads from bottom to top.>> ^shinyblurry:
I've seen no atheists, and I mean zero, who have a comprehensive understanding of what's in the bible, how it all interrelates, could construct a theological argument or debunk it on theological terms, or apply its meaning. This includes the famous atheists debators. Most of them are extremely poor scholars. They have their incindiary talking points which lure in the easily misled, but other than hot air, there isn't much else.

-

-

-

I reread every comment you made in this thread, and at no point until now did you assert that the peasant is the king's servant, much less his slave as you have now suggested. Not until I suggested that the peasant is in fact free to think as well as act did you suggest that the peasant was a slave. Even if we assume that the peasant is in fact a slave, you have still not demonstrated that his mental condition is in any way relevant to his ability to "perform his job", or "provide for his family", which I have proposed as his motivation for working, irrespective of his belief in an actual king.

You could have tried reading the original comment, which stated:

Now lets say one day you refuse to work, refuse to submit to his authority. You say to yourself, I don't believe this King is really real; I've never seen him with my own eyes.. This a conspiracy, I will just do whatever I want. You even decide to go into the towns square to tell others to stop working for this King. That it is a fools errand, the King is a hoax you say. You're wasting your lives when you could live for yourself! Yet, when the King gets wind of this he tells his soldiers "Fetch my ungrateful servant and bring him in front of me"

The peasants life is intrinsically tied to the King. The peasant is not just working to earn a wage, but to be freed from his obligation..to be freed from slavery basically..not only that but to attain what he could never attain on his own, for himself and his family: a future. Without the reward, the peasant would have to eke out a subsistance existence until he died. His motivation is not a living wage, it is freedom from having to produce. The only way he can do this is by living a life pleasing to the King. The King expects obedience, ie the peasant has to work. The King expects results, ie the work has to be satisfactory and yield a good harvest. The King expects gratitude, ie the work is not proportional to the reward.

Nothing the peasant could ever do in his entire life could earn that reward. Upon receiving the reward, the peasant will certainly be grateful. If he didn't believe the reward existed though, he would simply hate the King for having to work for him. He would desire to flee the Kings authority and live for himself. He would seek out the company of people who felt the same way about the King and form conspiracies against Him. He would recruit other people and say the King was unjust, that there was no reward.

Now say the King had mercy on these peasants who were rebelling against him. He was a good King and cared about his subjects. He only wanted to reward them ultimately, but neither could he force them to believe his promise. So, for a time he let the peasants have a piece of his land to cultivate. They constantly gave him problems, either by raiding his stocks (because they could not sustain production for themselves), or encouraging others into disobedience. He was occassionally forced to kill some of the worst offenders, for the sake of the stability of the Kingdom.

His plan was to ultimately move everyone onto His land, after enough was stored up so no one had to work any longer. He would send emissaries into the places of rebellion, to encourage the peasants to return. He offered complete forgiveness for their crimes, if they would only work again for the sake of the Kingdom (which was in their own self-interest). Some listened, but others did not want to give up their freedom and killed the emissaries or drove them out.

Eventually it came time to pass that the Kings plan came to fruition. All the peasants who obeyed the King lived with Him on his land in harmony with one another, with enough to last them the rest of their days. The rebellious peasants could no longer raid the Kings stocks because they were completely shut out. They begged to be let in, because they were now starving, but it was too late..the King was neither going to take from the reward of those who earned it, to give to those who didn't, and who were presented every opportunity to change their ways, nor was he going to pollute the harmony he had cultivated (harmony based on gratitude for the reward and his justness)..for the rebellious peasants were neither grateful nor did they think the King was just. For them, it was here today and gone tomorrow..that is how they lived and that is how they died.

People have certainly been argued into believing in Jesus is their savior. They are typically called children. But, to get to the crux of your argument, until I can believe in god, I can't believe in god. Or rather, until I believe in god, I will have no reason to do so. That is about as circular as you can get.....

No, I am saying that until you feel that you need to be saved, for whatever reason, then you won't come near Jesus. You have to feel you need a savior before you look for one. Curiousity might get you near, but it won't make you follow Him. It is useless to argue someone into knowing Jesus..Jesus Himself predicted the kind of Christians that would produce in the parable of the sower: A weak one the devil will come steal away in times of hardship.

Your arrogance truly knows no bounds, does it? First off, you're about 2 decades off in your estimation. Second, as I quite clearly noted in parens, my interest in knowing the lawmakers in DC has nothing to do with whether or not I accept the rules of society. I am in fact deeply interested in the persons that would rule us. Let me ask you - can you name more than 50% of the 535 elected representatives in Congress, and more than 50% of their aides? I deeply care who our elected officials are, what they are doing, why they run, and their ultimate goals (so far as they may be elucidated), but my reasons for doing so have absolutely nothing to do with acceptance of their "authority over me". I think it is you that needs to reread this discussion and find the truth of what was written. You "know" that I have not searched for a god? What incredible presumptuousness. Are you now claiming not only to know God's love, but also when and where He will demonstrate it? Are you the arbiter of God's will????

Don't know don't care pretty much spells it out doesn't it? Seems like that is pride in being uninformed to me. This is the comment that made me think you were young, because that kind of apathy is very common among youth. Generation Emo doesn't give a shit, doesn't want to work, does everything based on feelings, and hasn't thought too deeply about anything because they want instant answers to everything. I concede its possible you have honestly looked, and perhaps God will lead you to Him later, if there is something in your heart that desires to know Him. Whatever it was though, it wasn't good enough. Have you ever tried doing the things that are pleasing to God first, before jumping up and down in his throne room and demanding He dance for you like a court jester? Yes, I do know Gods love. That's why I am here.

It's a philosophical question. Not caring isn't a valid answer to the question.
Not valid for you. Take off your blinders. You do not get to determine what is or is not valid for everyone else's intellectual endeavors.

I accept [that] people see things differently but this question only has so many answers.
This question, as with all questions, has as many answers as individuals as are willing to answer it. If you refuse to accept an answer as "valid", you must logically provide evidence why that is so.

Come on..this issue has been deliberately complicated to an extreme..when it is quite simple. The question of whether the Universe was created is entirely valid and relevant, though atheists will try to make it seem ridiculous, because they want to avoid the simple truth that there are only 3 answers to that question, because if they answer truly they have a burden of proof. I think if you're going to be an atheist, have the balls to admit it and stop playing these childish games with semantics. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe the Universe was created by God(s), period.


Okay, lets start very simply. What does morality mean to you and how does it apply to the world?
I will glady entertain this question, but I do fear that this poor thread is terribly off course. You or I should create a new talk post in the religion or philosophy talk page to continue this. I'll gladly do that if you want.

I think it's doing just fine..however it may be necessary because of the broken comments system..the page is already freezing a bit. I'll get back to you if you don't want to continue on here.

You're dancing along lines here of positing God and no God at the same time with this comment, just so you know.

Before creation fell there was no suffering. It's mans choices that led us here. People blame God for everything bad that happens, when that is mans fault..yet when something good happens they give man the credit when it is God that either gave it or inspired it.

And sure, you could enjoy a meaningless, purposeless existence. You wouldn't be internally consistant and would have to delude yourself, but yeah you could enjoy if you didn't think too hard.

>> ^jonny:
If the Universe was created by chance, life has no intrinsic value or meaning. You can believe it does, but then you could get hit by a bus.

This is one of my favorite suppositions of theists to refute. What if my brother is in fact hit by a bus, and God has a plan that includes that? It is clearly beyond your understanding, because you can not explain to me why that was necessary in God's plan, except to invoke the plan itself. But if suffering is part of God's plan, then how can God be infinitely merciful? There is absolutely nothing merciful about getting hit by a bus, even if the victim's consciousness is obliterated in milliseconds.
You are assuming that intrinsic purpose to life is necessary for enjoyable life. That is a completely false premise.

@shinyblurry @jonny

Even if jonny thinks he can be moral without god, and you think you can, it doesnt change the fact that god cannot grant a rule any more power or significance than it already has intrinsically.

For example: It's wrong to murder.
Now if I say "Why is it wrong to murder?"
You saying "Well god says it's wrong" doesn't MAKE it wrong to murder.

Try it in reverse to illustrate:
It's right to murder, everyone you come across should be murdered.
Now I say, "Wait that's not right, you shouldn't end another person's life!"
And you say "Well god says it's right to murder."
^THAT doesn't all of a sudden make it right to murder (maybe in your mind, but maybe I'm talking to the wrong guy) So when it comes to morality, god really is irrelevant.

A rule is only as good as its intrinsic quality.

p.s.
I never liked the ceo/king analogy in the first place, it makes huge assumptions about the existence of god.

Ah. Understood.
>> ^shinyblurry:

And sure, you could enjoy a meaningless, purposeless existence. You wouldn't be internally consistant and would have to delude yourself, but yeah you could enjoy if you didn't think too hard.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry" title="member since January 21st, 2011" class="profilelink">shinyblurry @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/jonny" title="member since July 10th, 2007" class="profilelink">jonny
Even if jonny thinks he can be moral without god, and you think you can, it doesnt change the fact that god cannot grant a rule any more power or significance than it already has intrinsically.
For example: It's wrong to murder.
Now if I say "Why is it wrong to murder?"
You saying "Well god says it's wrong" doesn't MAKE it wrong to murder.
Try it in reverse to illustrate:
It's right to murder, everyone you come across should be murdered.
Now I say, "Wait that's not right, you shouldn't end another person's life!"
And you say "Well god says it's right to murder."
^THAT doesn't all of a sudden make it right to murder (maybe in your mind, but maybe I'm talking to the wrong guy) So when it comes to morality, god really is irrelevant.
A rule is only as good as its intrinsic quality.
p.s.
I never liked the ceo/king analogy in the first place, it makes huge assumptions about the existence of god.


Correct, JiggaJ. I'd like to add a related point that slavery, which the entire civilized world now agrees is an abomination, was wholly endorsed by god, the author of the bible.

The only real restraint god provides on the subject of slavery is that we not beat our slaves so severely that we injure their eyes or their teeth (Exodus 21). Nowhere in the new testament does Jesus object to the practice of slavery. It even tells slaves to serve their masters well. Obviously, this is not the kind of moral insight that put an end to slavery in the United States.

Shiny may remind us that abolitionists also drew inspiration from the bible. I have no doubt they did. People have been cherry-picking the bible for millennia to justify their every impulse, moral and otherwise. This does not mean that accepting the bible to be the word of god is the best way to discover that abducting and enslaving men, women, and children is morally wrong. It obviously isn't...if you go by what the bible actually says about slavery.

The fact that some abolitionists used parts of scripture to knock down other parts does not indicate that the bible's author is the arbiter of morality. Nor does it suggest that it's a terrific idea for human beings to consult a book in order to resolve moral questions like this.

The moment a person recognizes that slaves are human beings like himself, having the same capacity for pain and pleasure, he will understand that it is patently evil to own them and use them like farm equipment. It is remarkably easy for a person to arrive at this conclusion - and yet, it had to be spread at the point of a bayonet throughout the Confederate South.

Real morality, independent of the demented god of the bible, is what we use to tell the difference between the bad and the good contained in the "Good Book."

[edit: damn this quote system! btw, I'm paraphrasing Sam Harris with much of the above]

Well, apparently it took the bible to get people to realize slavery is wrong because there has never been any abolitionist movement outside of the Christian west, anywhere. Jesus taught every man woman and child is equal under God, which was a new idea. That alone tells you it is wrong. If people followed that they would have abolished slavery a long time ago. As far as the old law is concerned, it is noted by Jesus that some commandments were given because of the hardness of mans heart. Meaning, at the time man simply wasn't ready to hear the message.

>> ^cosmovitelli:
Ah. Understood.
>> ^shinyblurry:
And sure, you could enjoy a meaningless, purposeless existence. You wouldn't be internally consistant and would have to delude yourself, but yeah you could enjoy if you didn't think too hard.



>> ^shuac:
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-badly-loses-debate-to-William-L-Craig#comment-1212374'>^JiggaJonson</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry" title="member since January 21st, 2011" class="profilelink">shinyblurry</a> @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/jonny" title="member since July 10th, 2007" class="profilelink">jonny</a><br> <br> Even if jonny thinks he can be moral without god, and you think you can, it doesnt change the fact that god cannot grant a rule any more power or significance than it already has intrinsically. <br> <br> For example: It's wrong to murder. <br> Now if I say "Why is it wrong to murder?"<br> You saying "Well god says it's wrong" doesn't MAKE it wrong to murder.<br> <br> Try it in reverse to illustrate:<br> It's right to murder, everyone you come across should be murdered.<br> Now I say, "Wait that's not right, you shouldn't end another person's life!"<br> And you say "Well god says it's right to murder."<br> ^THAT doesn't all of a sudden make it right to murder (maybe in your mind, but maybe I'm talking to the wrong guy) So when it comes to morality, god really is irrelevant. <br> <br> <i>A rule is only as good as its intrinsic quality.</i><br> <br> p.s.<br> I never liked the ceo/king analogy in the first place, it makes huge assumptions about the existence of god.<br></em>
Correct, JiggaJ. I'd like to add a related point that slavery, which the entire civilized world now agrees is an abomination, was wholly endorsed by god, the author of the bible.
The only real restraint god provides on the subject of slavery is that we not beat our slaves so severely that we injure their eyes or their teeth (Exodus 21). Nowhere in the new testament does Jesus object to the practice of slavery. It even tells slaves to serve their masters well. Obviously, this is not the kind of moral insight that put an end to slavery in the United States.
Shiny may remind us that abolitionists also drew inspiration from the bible. I have no doubt they did. People have been cherry-picking the bible for millennia to justify their every impulse, moral and otherwise. This does not mean that accepting the bible to be the word of god is the best way to discover that abducting and enslaving men, women, and children is morally wrong. It obviously isn't...if you go by what the bible actually says about slavery.
The fact that some abolitionists used parts of scripture to knock down other parts does not indicate that the bible's author is the arbiter of morality. Nor does it suggest that it's a terrific idea for human beings to consult a book in order to resolve moral questions like this.
The moment a person recognizes that slaves are human beings like himself, having the same capacity for pain and pleasure, he will understand that it is patently evil to own them and use them like farm equipment. It is remarkably easy for a person to arrive at this conclusion - and yet, it had to be spread at the point of a bayonet throughout the Confederate South.
Real morality, independent of the demented god of the bible, is what we use to tell the difference between the bad and the good contained in the "Good Book."
[edit: damn this quote system! btw, I'm paraphrasing Sam Harris with much of the above]

People enjoyed Dr T and the women, does that mean there isn't a God? People enjoy cutting themselves and tentacle rape anime, does that mean its beneficial? It's this hedonistic viewpoint of "if it feels good do it" that leads to most of the stupidity you see in human civilization today. I don't even know why I am responding to this..

>> ^cosmovitelli:
Ah. Understood.
>> ^shinyblurry:
And sure, you could enjoy a meaningless, purposeless existence. You wouldn't be internally consistant and would have to delude yourself, but yeah you could enjoy if you didn't think too hard.

So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.

There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html

>> ^shinyblurry:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch

As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm

Sorry, I really don't know what is going on with the code there.

Are you extremely hyperactive or what? Why do you use exclamation points for everything you say? It makes your dialogue almost purely hyperbole. Slow down son and listen..the methods historians use to verify evidence for something is not an exact science..if you were to say Jesus didn't exist then you would have to say a lot of people in ancient history didn't exist either, because the evidence for Jesus is far better than someone like say Alexander the Great. It's not nonsense, it's reality..if you want to say the methods are bad then discard most of what you know about world history. If however you accept those methods then you should also accept Jesus was a historical person..your position is fairly ridiculous.

>> ^Sketch:
So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.
There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm">http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm</a>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html">http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html</a>
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-badly-loses-debate-to-William-L-Craig#comment-1212231'>^shinyblurry</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch</a><br> <br> <br> As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:<br> <br> <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm">http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm</a></a><br> </em>

The reason you know right from wrong is because you have a god given conscience. The law of God is written on mans hearts. Everyone knows murder is objectively wrong, even if they subjectively can justify it to themselves. Everyone who sins knows they are guilty. So, it's not a matter of hearing a rule and obeying it..it's a matter of obeying what you've already received..really, it's being true to yourself. and of course the parable presumes the existence of God..jonny understood exactly what im talking about..which seems to have gone right over your head.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since July 10th, 2007" href="http://videosift.com/member/jonny">jonny
Even if jonny thinks he can be moral without god, and you think you can, it doesnt change the fact that god cannot grant a rule any more power or significance than it already has intrinsically.
For example: It's wrong to murder.
Now if I say "Why is it wrong to murder?"
You saying "Well god says it's wrong" doesn't MAKE it wrong to murder.
Try it in reverse to illustrate:
It's right to murder, everyone you come across should be murdered.
Now I say, "Wait that's not right, you shouldn't end another person's life!"
And you say "Well god says it's right to murder."
^THAT doesn't all of a sudden make it right to murder (maybe in your mind, but maybe I'm talking to the wrong guy) So when it comes to morality, god really is irrelevant.
A rule is only as good as its intrinsic quality.
p.s.
I never liked the ceo/king analogy in the first place, it makes huge assumptions about the existence of god.

Yeah Jigga, I'm surprised you didn't know that. You're only writing this stuff down because god created you, which makes all of your points moot anyway.

"...once I was stoned..."

2 Corinthians 11:25

Moving this video to shinyblurry's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

you don't know what i do for a living, so i'll skip the part where i yell at you passionately kids with downs/people with disabilities/kids with syndromes.
furthermore, survival of the fittest was not a phrase coined by darwin. and did not originally apply to the evolution of organisms. applying it to people with genetic disorders further offends me. >> ^shinyblurry:

Surely, you can invent value, which has meaning to yourself..but there is no intrinsic value to anything created by mere chance. It is only the arbitrary value that we assign that makes something meaningful. I valued people when I didn't believe in God, loved them very dearly, yet there wasn't a logical reason to do so.
Consider, what is the value of someone born with a severe disability, like downs syndrome. They are a burden to society and they themselves cannot enjoy life as a normal human being. They are pretty much genetic baggage as far as evolution is concerned, a disturbing abberation to be eliminated. In the survival of the fittest, they should be culled from the gene pool. Yet, even they are capable of noble behavior, something your science cannot explain. Can evolution explain this one: http://teachingsofjon.com/ ?
>> ^peggedbea:
again, statements like this make me feel like the world must look terrifying.
your intrinsic value to me is not dependent on whether or not a creator meant for you to exist.
>> ^shinyblurry:
If the Universe was created by chance, life has no intrinsic value or meaning. You can believe it does, but then you could get hit by a bus. It truly doesn't matter what you believe, because you are at the mercy of a random fate. Not that you could even trust your own mind, being that you are just a biological machine whose thoughts are just chemical reactions.
No matter how noble human beings become, a meteor doesn't know anything about that..humankind could come close to utopia, but wandering black holes are not impressed. Nothing that anyone accomplishes will have any lasting impact on a Univese that will fall into heat death and fade away. To say life is absurd and futile under these circumstances is a kindness.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Yeah Jigga, I'm surprised you didn't know that. You're only writing this stuff down because god created you, which makes all of your points moot anyway.
"...once I was stoned..."
2 Corinthians 11:25

@shinyblurry

What he said.
LoL and you have the balls to accuse me of letting things go over my head. I think we're done here.

Is this called argument from offense? Do you have a point here? In any case, whether you like or not, that's what they are according to evolution..genetic abberations. ie, useless people.

>> ^peggedbea:
you don't know what i do for a living, so i'll skip the part where i yell at you passionately kids with downs/people with disabilities/kids with syndromes.
furthermore, survival of the fittest was not a phrase coined by darwin. and did not originally apply to the evolution of organisms. applying it to people with genetic disorders further offends me. >> ^shinyblurry:
Surely, you can invent value, which has meaning to yourself..but there is no intrinsic value to anything created by mere chance. It is only the arbitrary value that we assign that makes something meaningful. I valued people when I didn't believe in God, loved them very dearly, yet there wasn't a logical reason to do so.
Consider, what is the value of someone born with a severe disability, like downs syndrome. They are a burden to society and they themselves cannot enjoy life as a normal human being. They are pretty much genetic baggage as far as evolution is concerned, a disturbing abberation to be eliminated. In the survival of the fittest, they should be culled from the gene pool. Yet, even they are capable of noble behavior, something your science cannot explain. Can evolution explain this one: http://teachingsofjon.com/ ?
>> ^peggedbea:
again, statements like this make me feel like the world must look terrifying.
your intrinsic value to me is not dependent on whether or not a creator meant for you to exist.
>> ^shinyblurry:
If the Universe was created by chance, life has no intrinsic value or meaning. You can believe it does, but then you could get hit by a bus. It truly doesn't matter what you believe, because you are at the mercy of a random fate. Not that you could even trust your own mind, being that you are just a biological machine whose thoughts are just chemical reactions.
No matter how noble human beings become, a meteor doesn't know anything about that..humankind could come close to utopia, but wandering black holes are not impressed. Nothing that anyone accomplishes will have any lasting impact on a Univese that will fall into heat death and fade away. To say life is absurd and futile under these circumstances is a kindness.

Shiny, evolution doesn't work that way. If someone with a severe disability survives and reproduces, they are a successful organism. If an Olympic gold medal holder has no children, speaking in terms of evolution: they are useless.

As a species, according to evolutionary principle, they should be eliminated..and certainly not allowed to reproduce. They are a genetic dead-end, a contagion in the gene pool. Natural selection would prefer to wipe them out..and if they had to survive on their own, they would be wiped out.

So the question is, what is their value as human beings, according to evolutionary principle? Isn't perpetuating the abberation irrational? If not, why?

>> ^Ryjkyj:
Shiny, evolution doesn't work that way. If someone with a severe disability survives and reproduces, they are a successful organism. If an Olympic gold medal holder has no children, speaking in terms of evolution: they are useless.

I'm not kidding around when I say that evolution doesn't work that way Shiny. I really do mean that evolution doesn't work that way.

Whatever reproduces determines the course of evolution by whatever means necessary. It's not up to you or me or any scientist to determine the most appropriate configuration. That's why the whole "survival of the fittest" thing is always misinterpreted. "Fittest" doesn't mean "best", it means whatever happens to survive or "fit" that particular situation. You can't determine the best fit. You can guess, but you can't tell the future. And science is certainly not up to the task of accounting for all the variables, yet. Thus far, eugenics has had incredibly poor results.

One of the things that people most commonly don't understand about evolution is that each being includes some mutation, so you're not an exact 50/50 copy of your parents. So a person with a disability isn't necessarily going to pass it on to their offspring. And even if they do, if they survived to reproduce then they did something right.

Perpetuating aberration seems irrational to us. But actually, that's the way that evolution works.

Of course, I won't fault you for saying that it's so beautifully simplistic that it might just allude to some sort of a designer.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Are you extremely hyperactive or what? Why do you use exclamation points for everything you say?
>> ^Sketch:
So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.
There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm">http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm</a>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html">http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html</a>
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-badly-loses-debate-to-William-L-Craig#comment-1212231'>^shinyblurry</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch</a><br> <br> <br> As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:<br> <br> <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm">http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm</a></a><br
> </em>



I counted two exclamation points out of all ten of Sketch's sentences.

Don't be hyperbolic. It's unseemly.

>> ^siftbot:

Moving this video to shinyblurry's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

I guess you missed all his other comments. How's the peanut gallery treating you?

>> ^shuac:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Are you extremely hyperactive or what? Why do you use exclamation points for everything you say?
>> ^Sketch:
So now the inaccuracy of your infallible book is evidence of it's efficacy!? Damn, it is amazing how far apologists will bend over backwards to justify their beliefs! No, I'm sorry, I will not trust a story handed down by bronze age people in a giant, oral tradition game of telephone.
There are statues and coins minted of Caesar from the time of his actual life. We have troop reports, corroborating evidence from his enemies, his friends, probably a lot of mundane articles of government, or war, or house staff corroborating the existence of Caesar. And that's even if you don't believe Caesar's own war diary was transcribed by historian Suetonius. I, for one, trust a historical scribe in a civilization that kept amazing records, which Jesus, as important as He was supposed to be, never shows up in, and a tribal people telling a story through oral tradition finally written down decades to centuries later, then combed through and culled to decide which were true gospels and which were not. The so-called eye witnesses for Jesus can, from what I understand, all be questioned. The whole "more evidence than Caesar" nonsense is apologist crap that people keep on spreading. That's why we get so frustrated.
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm">http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm</a>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html">http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html</a>
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Christopher-Hitchens-badly-loses-debate-to-William-L-Craig#comment-1212231'>^shinyblurry</a>:<br />
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Sketch" title="member since November 20th, 2006" class="profilelink">Sketch</a><br> <br> <br> As far as the discrepencies go, they were eye witness accounts. If this was all made up, don't you suppose the accounts would be harmonized? That fact that they're not harmonized makes them more reliable for testimony. Here is a good website to answer some of your objections:<br> <br> <a rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm">http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm</a></a><br
> </em>


I counted two exclamation points out of all ten of Sketch's sentences.
Don't be hyperbolic. It's unseemly.

I think it's a success based on the number of comments and views. On a side note, is this your alter ego?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo

>> ^shuac:
>> ^siftbot:
Moving this video to shinyblurry's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

Yes, but we can choose..and we do choose..our will is over the evolutionary process in this artificial reality we've constructed. Soon we'll be able to select whatever we want. So this really does come down to what we value, and how we value it..because I guarantee you when we start programming our own DNA, downs syndrome will be written out. Humans will never value that, because no one wants their kid to be born like that.

Ultimately the only goal of a species is to survive, it doesn't matter what it evolves into..evolution is dumb and blind..there is no blue print for success. Just keep having sex and it'll all be alright. So eventually we will become the designer..and then the future of the species will be dependent on our values, or lack there of. I think that should scare any rational person.

So, what is the value of a functionally useless person who is a burden to society and can't experience a normal human life? God says that person is the same as you. Evolution says hes only good if he can get laid. Eugenics will say zero.


>> ^Ryjkyj:
I'm not kidding around when I say that evolution doesn't work that way Shiny. I really do mean that evolution doesn't work that way.
Whatever reproduces determines the course of evolution by whatever means necessary. It's not up to you or me or any scientist to determine the most appropriate configuration. That's why the whole "survival of the fittest" thing is always misinterpreted. "Fittest" doesn't mean "best", it means whatever happens to survive or "fit" that particular situation. You can't determine the best fit. You can guess, but you can't tell the future. And science is certainly not up to the task of accounting for all the variables, yet. Thus far, eugenics has had incredibly poor results.
One of the things that people most commonly don't understand about evolution is that each being includes some mutation, so you're not an exact 50/50 copy of your parents. So a person with a disability isn't necessarily going to pass it on to their offspring. And even if they do, if they survived to reproduce then they did something right.
Perpetuating aberration seems irrational to us. But actually, that's the way that evolution works.
Of course, I won't fault you for saying that it's so beautifully simplistic that it might just allude to some sort of a designer. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">

Evolution is not a judge. You are using your own values to judge whose useless or not, and you're putting them under the guise of your understanding of science. There's not a guy called Evolution sitting on a throne saying, "that person is functionally worthless."

Back to your comment that started this, about the universe having no intrinsic meaning if there's no god. You don't know that. You're making an assumption that it doesn't just like you're assuming that you can tell who's worthless or not.

Just because (hypothetically) there's no god, doesn't mean that the universe has no meaning, or that a person lying still in a bed is worthless.

If the Universe is random, and not deliberately created, it has no purpose. Purpose requires intention. Because it has no purpose, it has no inherent meaning because it was not endowed with any by a Creator. It is simply the result of whatever process created it, a chain of events in which life came about by pure happenstance, the same events which may completely annihiliate it in the future, never to be again, again by happenstance. Which means that meaning itself is an arbitrary value that is based on your subjective interpertation, and only ever could be, because it has no objective basis in reality. You derive meaning from your limited experience and senses, filtered as it is through the biochemical machinery and assembled in your consciousness. You are the sole possessor of this meaning, and the sole arbitor of it, of which no one else will be able to personally apprehend, but only superficially relate to, and this in itself could disappear at any time at the moment of your death, again by happenstance. OR..

The Universe was created and designed for life by a moral Creator and lawgiver, who knows and loves you personally. That meaning is derived from relationship with God, who has a plan for you and your life, so that you may reach your fullest potential which is to enjoy eternal life with Him in paradise.

It's not like either is more likely than the other on the scale of odds..you could say everything is equally unlikely..you just have to ask yourself..was the Universe designed or wasn't it? I can look at this Universe and see Gods handwriting, but that's because I perceive it spiritually. You are unaware you even have one (a spirit). So to you it may seem like pascals wager..but..I will tell you what Jesus said: "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you" Which do you think is a better match to what is within?


>> ^Ryjkyj:
Evolution is not a judge. You are using your own values to judge whose useless or not, and you're putting them under the guise of your understanding of science. There's not a guy called Evolution sitting on a throne saying, "that person is functionally worthless."
Back to your comment that started this, about the universe having no intrinsic meaning if there's no god. You don't know that. You're making an assumption that it doesn't just like you're assuming that you can tell who's worthless or not.
Just because (hypothetically) there's no god, doesn't mean that the universe has no meaning, or that a person lying still in a bed is worthless.

@shiny says: "Lets say there was a certain King, whom you had never seen..and you are one of his peasants."

Ever notice how almost all religious analogies are about submitting to an authoritarian relationship? King/servant, Master/slave, and the all time favourite of shepherd and his sheep, for example...

And then there's our good friend Paul: "For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church" (Eph.5:21).

But don't worry Christian wives, if your husband thinks you must play a submissive role because the Bible says so, just tell him to go get himself crucified (Eph.5:25)

@hqpq What I've noticed is that you like to cherry pick my threads and do a drive by commentary..In any case, I don't think you've thought about this too deeply. If God created you then He does own you. If He is the authority of the land, He is like a King. Those are just facts. And I seriously doubt you're reaching any Christian wives today with your evangelizing..doesn't seem like there's another Chistian on this website..and this is just another example of why atheists shouldn't quote the bible..Here's the rest of the passage..

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”

Husbands are to love their own wives as themselves and be one with them in love and affection. Is this a master/slave relationship? I think not.

^oh snap, my schemes have been discovered!!

Seriously though, reading through your threads serves only to show just how impossible it is for anyone to have a rational argument with you (then again, no big surprise).

As you may have noticed, my comments are no longer addressed to you, but to the other readers of the thread who might need some comic relief amidst all the circular logic and preaching. Feel free to ignore them altogether, as you do any argument that disproves your dogma.

(Concerning Paul's view of marriage, he was all about celibacy, leaving marriage for those "baser" humans who couldn't subdue their human nature... see 1 Cor.7)

you can't assign evolution feelings, opinions, emotions. you can't personify it like that. to do so is at best- a misstatement, and at worst - an intentionally manipulative scare tactic. every successful adaptation is a mutation. mutations happen constantly. some are more attractive than others. but someones "less attractive" mutated genes don't deem them useless. i'm short, have bad teeth and i run slow. i still bred. but evolution has 0 opinions on the matter because it does not have a personality. i am valuable only because of my ability to mean something to someone and find meaning in someone else. "survival of the fittest" does not describe which adaptations are "better" and therefore not "useless", it was a term coined by a social darwinist to justify gross poverty and legitimize human suffering.

anyone that has the ability to love and be loved is intrinsically valuable. if love and morality have an evolutionary basis, which they do, then i see no need for god. your attempt to demonize evolution with callous and offensive personifications is weak. and gives a bit of insight into your own morality and how you view people. evolution didn't deem kids with syndromes or other disabilities as worthless, you did. god didn't generously bestow upon them the ability to "behave nobly", they're human beings .. they did that on their own. this self righteous, pompous ass interpretation of the "miracle" of admirable behavior being displayed by someone you obviously view as "less than" can fuck right off. >> ^shinyblurry:

Is this called argument from offense? Do you have a point here? In any case, whether you like or not, that's what they are according to evolution..genetic abberations. ie, useless people.
>> ^peggedbea:
you don't know what i do for a living, so i'll skip the part where i yell at you passionately kids with downs/people with disabilities/kids with syndromes.
furthermore, survival of the fittest was not a phrase coined by darwin. and did not originally apply to the evolution of organisms. applying it to people with genetic disorders further offends me. >> ^shinyblurry:
Surely, you can invent value, which has meaning to yourself..but there is no intrinsic value to anything created by mere chance. It is only the arbitrary value that we assign that makes something meaningful. I valued people when I didn't believe in God, loved them very dearly, yet there wasn't a logical reason to do so.
Consider, what is the value of someone born with a severe disability, like downs syndrome. They are a burden to society and they themselves cannot enjoy life as a normal human being. They are pretty much genetic baggage as far as evolution is concerned, a disturbing abberation to be eliminated. In the survival of the fittest, they should be culled from the gene pool. Yet, even they are capable of noble behavior, something your science cannot explain. Can evolution explain this one: http://teachingsofjon.com/ ?
>> ^peggedbea:
again, statements like this make me feel like the world must look terrifying.
your intrinsic value to me is not dependent on whether or not a creator meant for you to exist.
>> ^shinyblurry:
If the Universe was created by chance, life has no intrinsic value or meaning. You can believe it does, but then you could get hit by a bus. It truly doesn't matter what you believe, because you are at the mercy of a random fate. Not that you could even trust your own mind, being that you are just a biological machine whose thoughts are just chemical reactions.
No matter how noble human beings become, a meteor doesn't know anything about that..humankind could come close to utopia, but wandering black holes are not impressed. Nothing that anyone accomplishes will have any lasting impact on a Univese that will fall into heat death and fade away. To say life is absurd and futile under these circumstances is a kindness.

*dead video

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by gwiz665.

you can't assign evolution feelings, opinions, emotions. you can't personify it like that. to do so is at best- a misstatement, and at worst - an intentionally manipulative scare tactic. every successful adaptation is a mutation. mutations happen constantly. some are more attractive than others. but someones "less attractive" mutated genes don't deem them useless. i'm short, have bad teeth and i run slow. i still bred. but evolution has 0 opinions on the matter because it does not have a personality. i am valuable only because of my ability to mean something to someone and find meaning in someone else. "survival of the fittest" does not describe which adaptations are "better" and therefore not "useless", it was a term coined by a social darwinist to justify gross poverty and legitimize human suffering.

Right, this is my point. Evolution is deaf dumb and blind. The only measure of success is whether something can reproduce or not. Many of the people who have these kinds disabilities could never survive on their own. Evolution would eliminate them from the gene pool entirely if other people didn't intervene. So really, by taking care of them we are doing something contrary to evolution. Why should we do that if it is contrary to evolutionary principle? Isn't it more harmful to humankind to perpetuate their genes?

anyone that has the ability to love and be loved is intrinsically valuable. if love and morality have an evolutionary basis, which they do, then i see no need for god. your attempt to demonize evolution with callous and offensive personifications is weak. and gives a bit of insight into your own morality and how you view people. evolution didn't deem kids with syndromes or other disabilities as worthless, you did. god didn't generously bestow upon them the ability to "behave nobly", they're human beings .. they did that on their own. this self righteous, pompous ass interpretation of the "miracle" of admirable behavior being displayed by someone you obviously view as "less than" can fuck right off

The only basis of "moral" behavior in evolution is selfishness. Morality, on the other hand by definition is unselfish. What you're talking about are simply behaviors conditioned into animals by their environment to act in ways that benefit the survival on the species, You've given that a label you call morality. If it were more beneficial to harm people rather than help them you would call that moral too.

But under these terms everything we do is selfish..you have to ask yourself, why should I be unselfish? Because it benefits the group. Why should I care about benefitting the group? Because it benefits the species. Why should I care about benefitting the species? Because it benefits me. So, the motivation of being unselfish is selfishness! I think you know this isn't how morality works. For something to be moral, it needs an objective basis that evolution doesn't provide, a purely unselfish reason. If what's moral is just whats best to keep us surviving and reproducing, then you can justify any kind of behavior undet those terms.

You speak about meaning and value, which are entirely subjective and have nothing to do with evolution, as if you could derive them from a mindless unconscious process. How do you find any personal agency in any of this? What makes you valuable is to love and be loved? No, what makes you valuable under your terms is your ability to perpetuate the species, an entirely selfish motivation on your part. And that entirely contridicts love, which is never selfish. I'm sorry but evolution doesn't explain these things at all, not noble self-sacrifcial behavior and certainly not love. It actually just makes the idea of them utterly ridiculous, perfectly shallow and base. I mean your idea of love is that it is a chemical reaction in the brain that developed so you wouldn't leave your babies in a ditch somewhere instead of taking care of them. I find that utterly sad.

As far as your judgments on my character are concerned, I am merely postulating hypotheticals based on the terms science presents. My personal views are that all human life is equally valid and valuable. So, please check your preconceived notions about me at the door..thanks.

I think the problem as I see it Shiny, is that you're OK with not questioning where God's own morals come from. God says what he says, and you're fine with it, because he created the universe so you can trust his infinite wisdom or judgement or whatever. I understand that it's a big part of Christianity that god is something we can't possibly understand.

Now, science doesn't claim to be able to explain the existence of the universe and the reasons (if any) behind it. But a lot of us can't help but question the nature of things like morality. Your answer is that morality comes from god. But where does god get his morality from, and why? I'd like to know.

That just might be the fundamental difference between the way that we think.

kceaton1 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because kceaton1's points are already fully charged.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Yes, Hitchens tried to cloak himself in the vast and endless void of unbelief, yet Lane quickly cornered him and he was forced to admit that he did not in fact believe God exists, which is the assertion of atheism, regardless of how you try to game the definition. Did you miss that part? Of course he didn't have any arguments for this assertion. I think Hitchens fell far short of even the most objective measure of success here.

Do you believe there is a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Jupiter and Neptune? Please present your evidence for or against. Any refusal to present evidence will be taken as proof that you failed the debate.

A flying teapot explains exactly nothing; it has no explanatory power. The idea of God does. Between evolution and special creation you have exausted all the possibilities. You have faith in a self-creating universe, I have faith that it was designed by an all powerful being. I see evidence of design, and since it is mathematically impossible it happened by chance, God is a far more plausible hypothesis according to the evidence.

>> ^botono9:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, Hitchens tried to cloak himself in the vast and endless void of unbelief, yet Lane quickly cornered him and he was forced to admit that he did not in fact believe God exists, which is the assertion of atheism, regardless of how you try to game the definition. Did you miss that part? Of course he didn't have any arguments for this assertion. I think Hitchens fell far short of even the most objective measure of success here.
Do you believe there is a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Jupiter and Neptune? Please present your evidence for or against. Any refusal to present evidence will be taken as proof that you failed the debate.

>> ^shinyblurry:

A flying teapot explains exactly nothing; it has no explanatory power. The idea of God does. Between evolution and special creation you have exausted all the possibilities. You have faith in a self-creating universe, I have faith that it was designed by an all powerful being. I see evidence of design, and since it is mathematically impossible it happened by chance, God is a far more plausible hypothesis according to the evidence

The "explanatory power" of a teapot is irrelevant to my question. Do you believe in it or not? If not, why not? You are dodging the question, and it is painfully obvious why. You find yourself in the same position that Mr. Hitchens did, which is to prove a negative.

I don't have faith in a self-creating universe, I just don't see evidence for an all powerful being. As soon as evidence for one appears, my views will change. This is not faith. It is, in fact, the opposite of faith.

The "explanatory power" of a teapot is irrelevant to my question. Do you believe in it or not? If not, why not? You are dodging the question, and it is painfully obvious why. You find yourself in the same position that Mr. Hitchens did, which is to prove a negative.

You can prove a negative. For instance, there are no US Senators who are muslims. Go to http://www.senate.gov/ to verify.

There is no reason to believe there is a teapot floating in space, but there is reason to believe that the Universe was created by a supreme being. Could there be one in space unknown to all? Sure, and I wouldn't unequivicably state that there are not. Perhaps some astronauts were having a tea party in outer space one day and the teapot floated off. If I did unequivicably state there were none, I would have a burden of proof, and that is why Christopher had to explain himself.

Explanatory power is entirely relevent to the question because you are trying to establish an equivilency between the question of Gods existence and the question of the existence of anything you can dream up in your mind. It is simply to try to trivialize the question to equate the idea of God, which can explain everything from the fine tuning of the physical laws, the appearance of design in biological systems, and the information in DNA, to teapots, unicorns, and fairies, which explain absolutely nothing.

When Christopher attested to the fact that he believes that God does not exist, the burden of proof was on him to prove that He does not. The reason he could not is because he had blind faith in this idea.

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.

francis collins human genome project

I don't have faith in a self-creating universe, I just don't see evidence for an all powerful being. As soon as evidence for one appears, my views will change. This is not faith. It is, in fact, the opposite of faith.

So, you're an agnostic? I was once agnostic and did not see any evidence for God or Spirit, although I did not rule out His existence either. Let me ask you this..if Jesus is God, would you turn your life over to Him and follow Him?



>> ^botono9:
>> ^shinyblurry:
A flying teapot explains exactly nothing; it has no explanatory power. The idea of God does. Between evolution and special creation you have exausted all the possibilities. You have faith in a self-creating universe, I have faith that it was designed by an all powerful being. I see evidence of design, and since it is mathematically impossible it happened by chance, God is a far more plausible hypothesis according to the evidence
The "explanatory power" of a teapot is irrelevant to my question. Do you believe in it or not? If not, why not? You are dodging the question, and it is painfully obvious why. You find yourself in the same position that Mr. Hitchens did, which is to prove a negative.
I don't have faith in a self-creating universe, I just don't see evidence for an all powerful being. As soon as evidence for one appears, my views will change. This is not faith. It is, in fact, the opposite of faith.

>> ^shinyblurry:

There is no reason to believe there is a teapot floating in space, but there is reason to believe that the Universe was created by a supreme being. Could there be one in space unknown to all? Sure, and I wouldn't unequivicably state that there are not. Perhaps some astronauts were having a tea party in outer space one day and the teapot floated off. If I did unequivicably state there were none, I would have a burden of proof, and that is why Christopher had to explain himself.

So I take this to mean that you are truly agnostic about all non-Christian gods. You will refuse to state unequivocally that there is a council of 5 supreme beings who created the universe.

>> ^shinyblurry:
It is simply to try to trivialize the question to equate the idea of God, which can explain everything from the fine tuning of the physical laws, the appearance of design in biological systems, and the information in DNA, to teapots, unicorns, and fairies, which explain absolutely nothing.

You do have me on the trivializing part, because god and a teapot in space mean about the same to me since there is the same amount of evidence for both. There is no appearance of design in biological systems (we made great leaps in understanding biology in the last 100 years or so), and the "fine-tuning" of physical laws are easily explained without a higher being, and so it is not necessary. (Any universe without those properties would make life impossible and so we would never know it existed, we do not know how many universes exist, have existed, or can exist, etc. If you want to maintain a god of the gaps you are welcome to, but the natural solutions to every mystery ever make the future of such a worldview tenuous at best.)

The presence of a supernatural being is, by definition, unfalsifiable. The concept of a supernatural being is literally meaningless, since you can say anything about it and not be proven wrong (or right). It cannot be measured


>> ^shinyblurry:
So, you're an agnostic? I was once agnostic and did not see any evidence for God or Spirit, although I did not rule out His existence either. Let me ask you this..if Jesus is God, would you turn your life over to Him and follow Him?

I am an atheist, but I am not blind to evidence and so my position is capable of change.

So I take this to mean that you are truly agnostic about all
non-Christian gods. You will refuse to state unequivocally that there
is a council of 5 supreme beings who created the universe.

No, I will state unequivocally that Jesus is God, and that anyone else claiming to be a god is a pretender to the throne.

You do have me on the trivializing part, because god and a teapot in
space mean about the same to me since there is the same amount of
evidence for both.

I'm looking at the same evidence you are. The difference is in the presuppositions of your worldview. If you took off those glasses then you might start to see what I am talking about. For instance, the Uniformity in nature, how do you explain it?

There is no appearance of design in biological
systems (we made great leaps in understanding biology in the last 100
years or so)

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker p.1

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed but rather evolved.

Francis Crick Nobel Laureate
What Mad Pursuit p.138 1988

There certainty is the appearance of the design, and these systems were in fact designed, but you say it is simply chance that created these sophisticated and irreducibly complex systems. I say something irreducibly complex cannot have been evolved.

, and the "fine-tuning" of physical laws are easily
explained without a higher being, and so it is not necessary.

They are not easily explained away. It is virtually a mathematical impossibility for the laws to be tuned the way they are. Check this out:



(Any universe without those properties would make life impossible and so we
would never know it existed

If I stood in front of a firing squad of 100 highly trained marksmen and survived the execution without a scratch, I should not be shocked to find out they missed, since if they hadn't, I wouldn't be alive to know that they did. In the same manner, while we shouldn't be shocked we are alive in a life permitting Universe, it doesn't follow that we shouldn't be surprised the Universe in which we find ourselves is life permitting.

, we do not know how many universes exist,
have existed, or can exist, etc.

If there are multiple universes, it just makes the fine tuning problem worse. The fine tuning on the mechanism for the multiple Universe generator would be infinitely more improbable.

If you want to maintain a god of the
gaps you are welcome to, but the natural solutions to every mystery
ever make the future of such a worldview tenuous at best.)

It isn't the God of the gaps when God is the superior explantion for the evidence, such as the information in DNA.

The presence of a supernatural being is, by definition, unfalsifiable.
The concept of a supernatural being is literally meaningless, since
you can say anything about it and not be proven wrong (or right). It
cannot be measured

Is believing in the existence of the external world falsifiable? Is the idea that the Universe began 5 seconds ago and all of your memories are false falsifiable? Is the fact that you cannot falsify either of those ideas make your existence meaningless?

The non-existence of God certainly is falsifiable; He could show up, as in the second coming. God cannot be measured by emprical methodology because God is a Spirit. This doesn't prove He doesn't exist. I notice you didn't answer my question, which is basic..you say you have an open mind, so I ask, if Jesus is God, would you turn your life over to Him and follow Him?

>> ^botono9

>> ^shinyblurry:
Flim flam flooey, I'm irrational.

Look, I'm going to back slowly away from this conversation since it has become clear to me that you are not rational. You reject the concept of knowledge outright but then demand proofs, you throw out ridiculous terms like "irreducible complexity" (let me guess: eyes? flagellum?), and you don't hold yourself to the same standards of proof as you do your philosophical opponents. I'm sorry you didn't get to spring whatever rhetorical trap you had planned with the whole "if Jesus is god" thing, but I answered that question twice.

Anyway, have a good life, and for both our sakes I hope your worldview is not correct.

hah. I point out the flaws in your weak reasoning and then you run away calling me irrational.

You said that the concept of a supernatural being is meaningless because it cannot be falsified. That is so obviously untrue I scarcely have to construct an argument against it, but I graciously provided you two proofs that show you that your fundemental assumptions about life cannot be falsified either, making your point meaningless in itself. Does this mean I don't believe in concept of knowledge? Show me where I said that please. What I believe in an absolute truth that can be grasped by anyone. In any case, the concept could actually be falsified if you could show it to be logically incoherent.

What you really mean to say is that the existence of God cannot be empirically verified, because you believe in the fundemental assumptions of atheistic materialism, which is that knowledge only comes by the senses. IE, if I can't see it, touch it or taste it, it isn't there. Yet none of this does anything to advance your case, because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What I mean by an irreducibly complex system is a system which cannot be reduced in complexity without compromising its functionality. Meaning, it would be impossible for it to evolve. There are plenty of examples of this in nature, yes like the flagellum.

We have an equal burden of proof, so I do hold myself to the same standards. My question was designed to test your level of rationality, actually. You didn't answer it because it is a yes or no question. If Jesus is God, would you follow Him? That you cannot even answer a hypothetical question about God is a very good measurement on where you're at in the rationality department.

"Anyway, have a good life, and for both our sakes I hope your worldview is not correct."

God has given you sufficient evidence of His existence, and you are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.