It's strange to me that the religious right seem to forget about their undertaking of the War in Iraq. They were the one's who solely supported the War in Iraq, not because we might get cheaper gas, but because we were taking out a bunch of Christian God, Freedom, Capitalism hating terrorists. Oh, but Christians don't support mass murder because it's against their religion, hmmmmm..... HMMMMM?!

I love how in the end he's comparing the Christian God to Zeus and saying that if you went back in time you'd have people saying the same thing about Zeus as they do about God today and they all emphatically disagree, but at the same time the look on all their faces says 'I've never thought of it that way, that Zeus was the God to people in ancient times and our God is the same to us' lol. But isn't that typical with Christians? They all live in this tiny little box where everyone completely agrees, and the vast majority of them have 'never' thought outside that box. When they are confronted with facts such as the Jesus story is extremely similar and mirrors that of other head gods in a myriad other religions going back thousands of years before Jesus Christ himself, they clearly falter.

I find in my own personal experience that it is very rare that I have ever met a 'very' religious Christian who actually had thought about these things, had thought about things outside their own indoctrination and still have faith. In fact the one and only person I've met who actually asked those questions had a stronger faith because of them. I said at the time more power to him. But for me, Jesus is a myth and thats the end of the story.

Edit: Had to add, the guy who talked about all the historical and scientific evidence that Jesus was real is full of this. The earliest writings we have (about 50 years after his supposed death) speak of him as a spirit, not a living man. And there is absolutely no actual scientific evidence beyond biblical writings that the man ever existed in the first place, and modern biblical writings are about as far from 'fact' as one can get.

>> ^NetRunner:

Not the comment itself, but the backlash that occurs against people who take action in response to it.
Anytime anyone says they're offended by something, they get a huge target on their back, and have to put up with a tremendous amount of derision aimed at them.
I'm cool with questioning whether an instaban is an appropriate punishment for this particular infraction. I don't think a permanent ban is warranted (and I don't, but I do think comments like that should result in something more serious than a mere response in comments.
Your comments indicate that your issue isn't just that the punishment is too severe, but that you object to the notion that racist speech should result in any kind of punishment at all. You even say nobody should've even taken offense in the first place. Then you go so far as to cast bobknight as the victim of some sort of conspiracy to silence political opposition, since obviously nobody could or should've really been offended!
This is nuts, and it happens anytime anyone offends someone else deeply enough for them to take action rather than just let it slide.
If this really was "liberalsift" there'd be some sort of consensus that being sensitive is a positive trait, and not one we should try to beat out of people with our policies and social conventions...


What backlash? You mean this discussion on my personal blog? Oh the poor people who are forced to read my blog and have zero other places to go on the internet.

And this: "Anytime anyone says they're offended by something, they get a huge target on their back, and have to put up with a tremendous amount of derision aimed at them."

Hilarious. Yes, there's a real movement on here to target people. I think I remember that time when bk33 rounded up all the black people and gassed them. What a tactless exaggeration, NR. I've been attacked personally for my difference of political beliefs, yet you don't hear me crying foul every damn time someone calls me a libertard or blankfuck or whatever. Sometimes I feel targeted by you, dft, and some other prominent Sifters, but I'm not going to hop on a soapbox and spin a yarn how I'm a victim. That would be disingenuous.

The bottom line is this. Bk33's comment was luke warm racism. I understand some people could've been really offended, and apparently that was the case, but some people are offended when I order meat or wear leather or use the Christian God's name in vain. I think we all need to relax and move on.

@SDGundamX

Wow, where to start. Your reply to my latest comment illustrates how you (willingly or ignorantly?) continue to misconstrue the issue, building up strawman after strawman, putting words and notions in Harris' mouth and mine, while ignoring everything I post. And then you post an article that maliciously distorts the views of Harris and Hitchens, depicting them as solely intent on vilifying Islam. If that article really describes what you think than I should probably stop arguing with you and spend my time better, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

Yes, I read the book you linked, or at least what the preview offered, which was more than enough to show that it does not go against anything Harris or I argue, only against the strawmen you prop up. A few comments on the book nonetheless:

The introduction (the one not by the book's author) is full of wishy-washy 'everything-and-its-contraire' platitudes, and ironically refers to Muslims as a unified whole, which is exactly what you accuse H. and I of... that's a good start; it's okay to make sweeping generalizations if they're positive? But even this text recognises that the secular influence of the "West" upon Muslim modernists forces them away from the core tenets of Islam and it's sacred text, which then sees the rise of fundamentalist backlash. And then there's this tidbit in the conclusion:

"Muslims, we often forget, do not always act as Muslims or members of a religious community; rather, they respond to economic, social and political needs that may direct conduct more than ideological signposts do."

Well hello captain Obvious! Either he's trying to address Christian right white trash, in which case he should use a bilboard instead of a book (I kid, I kid), or he takes his projected audience for fools. Or maybe he's building up to the sort of strawmen you seem so fond of attacking.

Now to the actual book: the author suggests that the world concentrates on "Arab" Islam, and ignores the rest. Not only is that false (at least where H. and I are concerned), not only does it carry racist undertones (yes, "Arab" is, for lack of a better word, a "race"; "Muslim" is not), but it purposefully ignores that the Middle East is Islam's birthplace, and still regarded as it's "Mecca" (haha). It's fine and dandy to put the blame that it deserves on European colonialism, but the author seems to forget that the spread of Islam is mostly due to, hey, Arabo-Islamic colonisation (and/or military conquest, sometimes with a healthy sprinkling of "cleansing", i.e. persecution of non-muslims 'till there were none left). But hey, Christianity did the same.
A really weird part is when the author somehow turns our quasi-universal use of the "Christian" calender into an illustration of Euro-American "structural violence and hegemony". Wow.
All in all, I learned nothing new whatsoever from what I read of that book, and cannot recommend it.

So there are modern/accomodationist interpretations of the Qur'an and Islamic doctrine? So not all Muslims are crazy male Saladins (I'm not making this up)? No one here is disputing that. So there are also other factors at work here? Not being denied either.

Neither are we arguing that muslims are more likely to commit violence than anyone else. By taking away the bold when citing me, you changed the meaning of the citation, creating one of the strawmen you also use to attack Harris: the key words are "in the name of" (or, to paraphrase "with the justification/motivation" of religion).

What is being argued is that Islam, i.e. the doctrines found in the Qur'an and Hadith, justify - render moral even - actions that are unethical, harmful, violent (the same is true of the Bible, from which Sharia law stems, but it is much less practiced than under Islam). That is why I quote the Qur'an, which - whether you like it or not - constitutes the core of the religion called "Islam" ("submission", btw... a pretty bad start). Nor can you deny that said religion demands that its holy text be considered the infallible and ultimate word of God (33:36). Many Muslims ignore the worser parts? Yay hooray! Doesn't change that some do not.

As for evidence (of which the book you cite, at least the parts accessible to me, contained none), you will never get it from me because you want evidence that supports the strawman arguments you put in H.'s mouth and mine, and there's no way you're getting that from either. What you do get, from the small sample of examples above (in a mess of html, i admit), is evidence that Islam today, more than any other religion, is at the source of (e.g. application of Sharia law) or aggravates (e.g. honour killing, fgm) acts of violence, discrimination and barbarity.

Is the fact that more than half of the active terrorist groups in existence today wear their Islamist agenda proudly, often including it in their name, not "evidency" enough for you?

Is the fact that unethical practices are condoned by Islamic (and almost only Islamic) regimes, even enshrined in civil law (which is also religious law), not evidence of Islam's virulence?

What more do you want? You say "You can't attack the religion without attacking the people who believe in that religion". You, and the author of that pathetic excuse of an article you just linked to, are trying to project a generalising, hate and fear-mongering view on people like Harris and myself, something I find both ignorant and insulting. Of course I can criticise an ideology, warn against its potential (and existing) negative consequences, without targeting every one of its adherents, or even the majority thereof. When Hitchens points out that the idea of vicarious redemption, central to Christianity, is unethical, and the Christian God's treatment of Abraham disgusting, is he saying that all Christian's are unethical and disgusting?

You say: Prove that people in Islamic countries are suffering because of Islam and not because we colonized them, used them as pawns in our own political games, got overthrown or kicked out, then either left them to rot or turned them into our oil suppliers while funding autocratic regimes and looking the other way as they tortured and killed their own people. Prove that it's Islam and not the appalling lack of medical care, education, political access, or access to a reliable legal system that accounts for the violence. Prove that the tenets of Islam are a significant factor in the violence and not just lipservice paid to justify it.

Quite simple really: compare pre-Islamic revolution Iran with post-Islamic revolution Iran. Compare the twin fates of Pakistan and India, the former being "created" as an Islamic nation. Which of the two bears the record for honour killings (the Sihks and Hindus try hard to catch up, I know)? Which of the two was hiding the world's most famous terrorist and Islamic fundamentalist? Which of the two has one of the lowest rates of literacy for women? In which of these two countries, whose post-colonial fate is practically identical, do you have 7/10 chances to be sexually abused in a police station if you are a women? I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Colonialism and its modern forms (globalisation, etc.) have a lot of blame to shoulder, no doubt whatsoever. But that does not diminish in any way the import and effect of Islam's doctrines. Did colonialists invent sharia law, for example, or demand it be enforced? No. Mohamed and his ideology did.
Blaming everything on colonialism and "western" influence is a twisted form of pretentiousness, as if only the "west" could come up with bad stuff. Arabs, Asians, Africans, etc. are people too, they too can be atrocious, it's not just reserved for the whiteys! It's as wrong as blaming slavery entirely on Europe and the American colonies. The slave trade in Africa and the Middle East was going on long before "westerners" became buyers, and guess who was doing the trading?

As long as you insist on blinding yourself to the influence of Islam in the world today, or at least to its negative aspects, you will have a skewed and prejudiced view, exactly what you are accusing others of. Of course it is only one factor among many, but it is an important factor, whether that suits your guilt-by-association-ridden conscience or not.

Energy existing is a terrible explanation, a it was created in the big bang, b because it violates all laws (no perpetual motion machine), c because there is no impetus for creation in an eternal continuim (it would have to stable), etc..if you want to say it is infinite, well..if if it is then it couldn't exist..if you take infinitity to its conclusion you have something which contridicts its own existence..if you want to say there are infinite universes again you'll inevitably have a universe which destroys all other universes or something to that effect.

since you couldn't bothered to think for yourself, i couldn't be bothered to individually debunk them myself, but its easy to see that right off the bat many of them are just patently false

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=810540

as far as the egyptians go, they were responsible for quite a bit of baby murdering..400 or so years worth of it..and God punished them for it as a nation..I don't see a problem with a sovereign God exercising his control over life and death..He could have killed hitler off but He didn't..he lets man reap with he sows, even if it means that "innocents" will be punished for it..ultimate justice is certain in every case..and if you don't want to obey God its your own choice, just as its your choice to reap the consequences of your actions>> ^RedSky:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
There never was nothing, that's the entire point. Either "someting" is eternal, or you couldn't have anything. If time and space began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe is immaterial and transcendent. You have the idea of nothing never existing which means the ultimate cause is eternal. So between those two things you have a match to God, who is immaterial transcendent and eternal. A Creation is indeed the simpliest explanation for this.
Energy existing is a much more simple explanation. Let's be clear too, you're not just proposing an eternal being existed. You're proposing what you conveniently ommitted from replying to:
Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.
Like what?
How about we start with the parts it can't make it's own mind up on:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#guilt
Not that numbers prove anything, but Christianity is the worlds biggest religion. I would think that the true God would have the #1 religion. Don't forget that 4/5's of the world disagrees with your conclusion that there isn't a God in the first place.
This was a throaway line really.
But anyway, I feel like this argument will continue until forever so let me give you my take. As far as I'm concerned arguing over the existence/non-existence of God is meaningless. If you want to address the Christian god specifically, even if I had proof that he existed, I would not willingly worship a being like this or adhere to its religion for the endless list of cruelty that he has supposedly perpetrated. Take the murder of the firstborns of Egypt for the actions of others as but one example. To me worshiping such a god were it to exist would be no different to worshiping a tyrannical dictator or abiding to an abusive parent.

@shinyblurry

There never was nothing, that's the entire point. Either "someting" is eternal, or you couldn't have anything. If time and space began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe is immaterial and transcendent. You have the idea of nothing never existing which means the ultimate cause is eternal. So between those two things you have a match to God, who is immaterial transcendent and eternal. A Creation is indeed the simpliest explanation for this.

Energy existing is a much more simple explanation. Let's be clear too, you're not just proposing an eternal being existed. You're proposing what you conveniently ommitted from replying to:

Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.

Like what?

How about we start with the parts it can't make it's own mind up on:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#guilt

Not that numbers prove anything, but Christianity is the worlds biggest religion. I would think that the true God would have the #1 religion. Don't forget that 4/5's of the world disagrees with your conclusion that there isn't a God in the first place.

This was a throaway line really.

But anyway, I feel like this argument will continue until forever so let me give you my take. As far as I'm concerned arguing over the existence/non-existence of God is meaningless. If you want to address the Christian god specifically, even if I had proof that he existed, I would not willingly worship a being like this or adhere to its religion for the endless list of cruelty that he has supposedly perpetrated. Take the murder of the firstborns of Egypt for the actions of others as but one example. To me worshiping such a god were it to exist would be no different to worshiping a tyrannical dictator or abiding to an abusive parent.

Fact is, you are explaining the existence of something from nothing by creating something else from nothing.

There never was nothing, that's the entire point. Either "someting" is eternal, or you couldn't have anything. If time and space began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe is immaterial and transcendent. You have the idea of nothing never existing which means the ultimate cause is eternal. So between those two things you have a match to God, who is immaterial transcendent and eternal. A Creation is indeed the simpliest explanation for this.

Somehow you've also convinced yourself this is the simplest explanation. Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.

Like what?

Congratulations you've accomplished nothing but demonstrating your dogmatic adherence to a system of belief that 2/3 of the living world disagree with and belief in which is on the whole determined overwhelmingly by one factor, that the person in question was born in a country and familial environment where it was the dominant religion.

Not that numbers prove anything, but Christianity is the worlds biggest religion. I would think that the true God would have the #1 religion. Don't forget that 4/5's of the world disagrees with your conclusion that there isn't a God in the first place.
>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.

Good luck reasoning with him, mentality. I had a very long and thorough discussion with shiny about the different kinds of atheism, but he trots out that one dictionary definition and shuts off his brain. No amount of reasonable discussion penetrates.
And all of his expertise on various subjects comes from creationist websites that warp science and quote-mine to back up their theological preconceptions.
If you designed a computer program to defend the worst, must unscientific perspective on Christianity, you'd get something like shinyblurry. He's programmed to believe one thing, and nothing anybody says can alter it in the slightest. I doubt he'd pass a Turing test.
I only post messages to him when I feel like venting. It's not anything like a conversation.


>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^mentality:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I know all about the schitzophrenic nuance militant atheists attempt to interject into the debate ..which really is because atheism is completely indefensible as a belief. At least someone like Christopher Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to say he doesn't believe..but many atheists try to hide behind an ambiguous definition by redefining atheism as not making any particular claims, which is patently false. I really don't care what wikipedia says, I'll go with the dictionary on this one, as well as personal experience. I've yet to meet an atheist who said he "lacked" belief who didn't unequivocably assert he is right, and not only right, but so right that I was in comparison intellectually inferior. Which is amusing to me, because as far as I am concerned an atheist might as well be rubbing two sticks together for all the discernment about reality.
Wrong. It is not a "redefinition" of atheism. It's a way of classifying different kinds of atheism. The kind of atheism that you're used to dealing with is merely a subset of atheists, the explicit/strong kind. Did you even try to read the wikipedia article? Oh wait, you're too arrogant to care. How would you like it if people bunched all Christians together, and viewed all of you as the Westboro Baptist Church?
And yet again you ignore the rest of my post. I'll spell it out again for you:
"I know this... I know that... I know all about... I don't care..."
These are all the signs of your own hubris. You don't know. You don't know and you don't care that there are different kinds of atheism. You don't know string theory, or general relativity, evolutionary biology, or even what the word "evidence" means. Yet you have the arrogance to talk like you are an expert. You sound like Ray Comfort - a fool, sure of his own righteousness and superiority. In the end, the only thing you achieve is to marginalize the Christian faith and make religious people look bad.
Try to remember that religion is a personal thing. Faith does not need your silly proofs and God does not need you to defend him.
Goodbye and good luck.

Good luck reasoning with him, mentality. I had a very long and thorough discussion with shiny about the different kinds of atheism, but he trots out that one dictionary definition and shuts off his brain. No amount of reasonable discussion penetrates.
And all of his expertise on various subjects comes from creationist websites that warp science and quote-mine to back up their theological preconceptions.
If you designed a computer program to defend the worst, must unscientific perspective on Christianity, you'd get something like shinyblurry. He's programmed to believe one thing, and nothing anybody says can alter it in the slightest. I doubt he'd pass a Turing test.
I only post messages to him when I feel like venting. It's not anything like a conversation.


>> ^RedSky:
Fact is, you are explaining the existence of something from nothing by creating something else from nothing.
Somehow you've also convinced yourself this is the simplest explanation. Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.
Congratulations you've accomplished nothing but demonstrating your dogmatic adherence to a system of belief that 2/3 of the living world disagree with and belief in which is on the whole determined overwhelmingly by one factor, that the person in question was born in a country and familial environment where it was the dominant religion.>> ^shinyblurry:
The description of the origin of the Universe is uniquely described by the judeo christian belief as a creation from no prior material. If time and space originated in the big bang, then the cause of the Universe is immaterial. The chance of existence being eternal is 100 percent unless you want to explain how nothing could create something. All of this confirms an eternal transcendent supernatural Creator..the appearance of design in the Universe further confirms it. It is the best and most simple explanation of the origin of all things.
>> ^RedSky:
Replace where I argued it always existed with temporary and impermanent. Im afraid you're pulling a straw man and not answering my question. Tacking on God to anything that we know about the origins of the universe is by definition less plausible. If you disagree, prove me wrong because up to this point the only response you have given to this is the erroneous assumption that it somehow 50/50.
Cosmic background radiation in no shape or form supports the existence of a judeo Christian god than it does the existence of Thor. I'm not kidding or mocking you, and again you are free to try to prove this point wrong.>> ^shinyblurry:
The simpliest explanation is that it was Created. Science agrees with this conclusion by postulating it had a beginning. The discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation said there couldn't have been a better discovery which matches up with the unique creation of the judeo christian God. The Universe shows every sign of being temporal and limited, not eternal. It was born and it will die.
>> ^RedSky:
Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.
Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:
Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.
>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

Fact is, you are explaining the existence of something from nothing by creating something else from nothing.

Somehow you've also convinced yourself this is the simplest explanation. Not to mention that not only must there be an all knowing, all powerful and all seeing god to you but he must be the judeo Christian god which assumes an almost endless list of events and facts from the bible, many of which we know to be false.

Congratulations you've accomplished nothing but demonstrating your dogmatic adherence to a system of belief that 2/3 of the living world disagree with and belief in which is on the whole determined overwhelmingly by one factor, that the person in question was born in a country and familial environment where it was the dominant religion.>> ^shinyblurry:

The description of the origin of the Universe is uniquely described by the judeo christian belief as a creation from no prior material. If time and space originated in the big bang, then the cause of the Universe is immaterial. The chance of existence being eternal is 100 percent unless you want to explain how nothing could create something. All of this confirms an eternal transcendent supernatural Creator..the appearance of design in the Universe further confirms it. It is the best and most simple explanation of the origin of all things.
>> ^RedSky:
Replace where I argued it always existed with temporary and impermanent. Im afraid you're pulling a straw man and not answering my question. Tacking on God to anything that we know about the origins of the universe is by definition less plausible. If you disagree, prove me wrong because up to this point the only response you have given to this is the erroneous assumption that it somehow 50/50.
Cosmic background radiation in no shape or form supports the existence of a judeo Christian god than it does the existence of Thor. I'm not kidding or mocking you, and again you are free to try to prove this point wrong.>> ^shinyblurry:
The simpliest explanation is that it was Created. Science agrees with this conclusion by postulating it had a beginning. The discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation said there couldn't have been a better discovery which matches up with the unique creation of the judeo christian God. The Universe shows every sign of being temporal and limited, not eternal. It was born and it will die.
>> ^RedSky:
Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.
Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:
Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.
>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

The description of the origin of the Universe is uniquely described by the judeo christian belief as a creation from no prior material. If time and space originated in the big bang, then the cause of the Universe is immaterial. The chance of existence being eternal is 100 percent unless you want to explain how nothing could create something. All of this confirms an eternal transcendent supernatural Creator..the appearance of design in the Universe further confirms it. It is the best and most simple explanation of the origin of all things.

>> ^RedSky:
Replace where I argued it always existed with temporary and impermanent. Im afraid you're pulling a straw man and not answering my question. Tacking on God to anything that we know about the origins of the universe is by definition less plausible. If you disagree, prove me wrong because up to this point the only response you have given to this is the erroneous assumption that it somehow 50/50.
Cosmic background radiation in no shape or form supports the existence of a judeo Christian god than it does the existence of Thor. I'm not kidding or mocking you, and again you are free to try to prove this point wrong.>> ^shinyblurry:
The simpliest explanation is that it was Created. Science agrees with this conclusion by postulating it had a beginning. The discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation said there couldn't have been a better discovery which matches up with the unique creation of the judeo christian God. The Universe shows every sign of being temporal and limited, not eternal. It was born and it will die.
>> ^RedSky:
Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.
Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:
Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.
>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

Replace where I argued it always existed with temporary and impermanent. Im afraid you're pulling a straw man and not answering my question. Tacking on God to anything that we know about the origins of the universe is by definition less plausible. If you disagree, prove me wrong because up to this point the only response you have given to this is the erroneous assumption that it somehow 50/50.

Cosmic background radiation in no shape or form supports the existence of a judeo Christian god than it does the existence of Thor. I'm not kidding or mocking you, and again you are free to try to prove this point wrong.>> ^shinyblurry:

The simpliest explanation is that it was Created. Science agrees with this conclusion by postulating it had a beginning. The discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation said there couldn't have been a better discovery which matches up with the unique creation of the judeo christian God. The Universe shows every sign of being temporal and limited, not eternal. It was born and it will die.
>> ^RedSky:
Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.
Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:
Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.
>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

The simpliest explanation is that it was Created. Science agrees with this conclusion by postulating it had a beginning. The discoverers of the cosmic microwave background radiation said there couldn't have been a better discovery which matches up with the unique creation of the judeo christian God. The Universe shows every sign of being temporal and limited, not eternal. It was born and it will die.

>> ^RedSky:
Why is it implausible then for you to imagine then that the universe is eternal? It seems altogether simpler and more plausible.
Also it is not 50/50, just like it raining today is not 50/50 with it raining with thunderstorms. The first is ALWAYS more plausible.>> ^shinyblurry:
Here's basic logic..
nothing comes from nothing
something exists
Meaning, that unless the ultimate cause is eternal nothing would exist. This isn't a 50/50 probability..it's a 100 percent certainty.
>> ^erlanter:
Arrogant atheist: I don't know everything, but love evidence because it sheds light on the amazing world around me. I would believe in a god if there was evidence.
Humble believer: I know god made this amazing world for me. I know what god wants for me. I communicate with god daily. I know anguish awaits those who spurn god. Nothing can shake my faith.
Cheers.

>> ^RedSky:
If you are going to use the how did the Universe get here argument you must first justify how your chosen god came to be. "Always existed" is not good enough and I'm sure you're perfectly intelligent enough to see why.
Until then you must admit we (for the sake of argument, ignoring anything science has discovered on this topic so far) are equally oblivious when it comes to the origins of existence.
Going by basic probability too, that A is always more likely A & B, you should also be able to see how using basic logic, the universe existing because God created it having always existed is a less likely proposition than the universe having always existed in and of itself.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm suggesting that what we do know is fairly infestisimal when compared to what we don't. To suggest we can rule out God because humanity knows so much now is just laughable.
Well, the problem is that we don't know what we don't know (obviously). But we do know a helluva lot more than we used to, and so far, everytime we've studied we previously thought was supernatural, it turns out to have a rational explanation.
Besides, while there's tonnes we don't know about some things (cosmology, particle physics, neuroscience), we have a pretty good understanding of most of the things that affect our day to day lives (newtonian physics, electricity, chemistry), and once again, there's no evidence for god in any of them.
You'll also note that he's not "ruling out" god, merely that it is looking more and more unlikely, to the point of being vanishingly improbable, that god exists.

Again, just because people worship other Gods doesn't mean there isn't one God. If there is only one God it means there is only one truth.. I've already stated that logically, there could only ever be one God. The only being that could be rightly called a God is the one who was not created by anyone else, the one to whom which no one is a God to Him. I happen to believe that God is the judeo-christian God. Most of the gods that you're talking about never claimed to create the Universe. If you want to be fair, you can only compare the Gods who have made that claim.

My argument has always ever been that God will reveal Himself to you if you seek Him out. I can only point in the direction of the Savior, I cannot argue anyone into a faith they don't have. It's obvious you don't really know anything about the bible, or even comparative religion. Mostly it seems you're parroting the popular atheist talking points. What I mean to say is that your viewpoint is not very sophisticated; to the point where it is hard to take you seriously.

You argued for spiritual atheists in another thread, which I think is hilarious, but it seems to indicate that perhaps you're aware of a spiritual reality. If so, what do you think the source of the spirit could possibly be?

As far as satanism goes, I have witnessed first hand satanists pretending to be atheists or christians, smearing God for the purpose of confounding peoples beliefs, or even sitting around in christian chat rooms casting spells on people. There are the kind of things you're not aware of because you give no credence to any of it.

If you care to give an argument that isn't based on hyperbole, I might actually engage you. Otherwise, you're just making yourself look foolish, even if the ignoramouses on this site happen to agree with you. Any objective person who has studied this at length would find your conclusions childish at best.

LOL .. super accurate, super sad... they got PISSED in school if you wouldnt do this. You were (are?) punished. As first graders.

If they had made me repeat how to do math maybe I wouldnt be such a loser.

Watch I can type it all out from memory:

I pledge allegiance
to the flag
of the united states of america

and to the republic
for which it stands

one nation
under god

indivisible (that was a hard one to remember since no kid knows what it means, since its kind of a math term!! heh heh)

with liberty and justice for all

(as long as you pledge allegiance and believe in judeo-christian god)

swear to god, didnt even have to google it.. haven't said the words in twenty years and its fresh as a daisy. wait, why am i swearing to god??? old habits die hard.

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

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