He did. I was baiting SB, as Christianity has the same failings that Empiricism has... I just wanted SB to argue against himself to show how intellectually dishonest he is.

Hmm... funny, a couple posts ago, you were arguing against Empiricism... and yet, you can't offer up anything that isn't Empiricist, or suffer from the same logical problems that Empiricism has.

"Truth" isn't a democracy... it doesn't matter how many people do or don't believe in a God. (Though I argue that in this country, the demonization of the non-religious scares people into continuing to go to church, despite their belief... though I say that through self experience, as it's hard to poll about that). The "truth" is that you'll never be able to use Science or Philosophy argue for or against the very abstract idea of whether there is a God or not.

One can, certainly, use logic to determine that the bible is self-contradictory, and biblical scholars (and believers) have determined that not a single book in the bible is the "original"... they've all been modified well after it had already been proclaimed to be the "Word of God". There is utterly no logic as to how a perfect being could have such a shoddy and terrible track record with his followers. It certainly doesn't make sense that he could create wars where his followers kill each other (see any and all European Wars.).

The truth is that all science and philosophy points to Christianity being bullshit. And you've already pointed out the holes in the only possible philosophical arguments that could allow you to maintain belief while being truthful to yourself.


And honestly, if you think that someone praying, and then seeing a piece of Toast with Jesus' image on it, or some mold in their bathroom in HIS image is proof enough to devote your life to that sham... well, you really don't have any sort of a grasp on what philosophy is about.

You have no "proof" but one book written by hundreds of people over hundreds of years, translated into so many different versions... and despite the revisions, it's not possible to get through the first chapter without having MAJOR inconsistencies.

But unlike you, I have truly examined the logic of my situation. I know exactly what would convince me of a super-natural power... it's exactly what would convince me of Aliens or Telepathy. A personal experience that can be independently verified by people I trust, and cannot be explained by hallucinations, slight-of-hand or illusions.

That is ALL it takes. It should be the smallest of things for an omnipotent being... after all, he certainly was never shy with appearances or miracles, according to the bible...

But alas, there remains nothing, no shred of evidence... for Jesus or for Telepathy, or for Aliens.... though I imagine that the Aliens at least have a good reason for not making their presence known.

Oh, the irony, a christian lecturing someone about Circular Reasoning.

Tell me again how you know your God is the "True God"?

Oh, the Bible says? And how do you know the Bible is God's Word?

Oh, the Bible says?

An awfully big problem, but thankfully Christians have a solution... they know that God exists because they've.... wait for it... EXPERIENCED him. They've sensed him in their life. Hmm... Sounds like they're relying on Empiricism themselves without even realizing it.

Unless you want to go on towards Idealism.... but how could there be so many non-believers if we're all born with so much innate knowledge of everything.

There's no application of Philosophy that will lead you towards being a christian... Also nothing that will prove the absence of God, either. Just like in hard science, whether or not there is a God is purely in the realm of Theology.

If only you knew the slightest bit about philosophy. But no, you have an understanding of what your religion says, which is *THEOLOGY*, not philosophy.

Proof: You attempt to 'prove' that empiricism, a 'theory of knowledge' that was ancient when his religion was founded, and is still considered an important pillar in modern philosophy and theology, is "false" in a self-referential statement.

In the entirety of civilization, in EVERY SINGLE ERA of man, the greatest thinkers have been consumed with empiricism... but unfortunately they lacked SB's supreme insight... too bad SB wasn't born 2500 years ago... he could have ensured that Aristotle didn't waste his time.... OH, and he could have warned Jesus about that bastard Judas.

If only you knew the slightest bit about philosophy. But no, you have an understanding of what your religion says, which is *THEOLOGY*, not philosophy.

Proof: You attempt to 'prove' that empiricism, a 'theory of knowledge' that was ancient when his religion was founded, and is still considered an important pillar in modern philosophy and theology, is "false" in a self-referential statement.

In the entirety of civilization, in EVERY SINGLE ERA of man, the greatest thinkers have been consumed with empiricism... but unfortunately they lacked SB's supreme insight... too bad SB wasn't born 2500 years ago... he could have ensured that Aristotle didn't waste his time.... OH, and he could have warned Jesus about that bastard Judas.

Since when is a gun the ONLY way to protect yourself? Buy a taser, buy a baseball bat, buy a billy-club. Invest in self-defense classes. Spend the $1000 on better locks or a thicker door.

You want to know what to do if someone burglarizes your house if you don't have a gun? Same as if you do have a gun... you're on your own, and you do your best to prevent yourself from being killed. If that means hiding in a closet, it's better that than dead.

They look to be about 1'... so not big, but not tiny. I'm guessing that for that area, they aren't very big (spider species in tropical areas can get much bigger than what we have in the states... though they have plenty of small spiders as well)

Imagine how many insects there would have to be to feed a colony of spiders that large. I hope that some scientists are able to study the effects that such a large population of insect predators have on the surrounding ecosystem.

The most consistent thing about the roads themselves is that there are cars on them. More so with parking lots. The Gas Station had way more than enough roof area to cover it's electricity usage, no need for putting panels underneath parked cars.

A light coat of dust on panels can decrease their efficiency by up to 50%... there would have to be a CONSTANT fleet of road washers, slowing down traffic. At least with roof/road mounted panels they can be tilted to shed most of the dust/pollen that accumulates, though they do have to be washed monthly.

And then there's the question of what happens with accidents. Sure, the tensile strength might be as strong as steel, but it's because of the enormous pressure it's under. it only takes one flaw in the surface to make the glass susceptible to shattering... just the thing to make car accidents more hazardous.

In order to be a scientist, you have to practice science. Getting an advanced degree does not make you a scientist any more than me studying football make me a football player.

Here's a summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science#Scientific_criticism



And here's the real question. Name one current product based off of any hypothesis/theory that was posited and proven by 'Creation Science'. Too hard? What about any process, maybe based on the geology or biology research.


You can talk about 'the controversy' all you want, but the proof is that we use technology daily that is based on physical properties discovered by the same individuals that studied Rubidium. Sure, the specific Rubidium research didn't go into daily life, but the research into radioactive isotopes led to Nuclear Fission, and then after that, it 'exploded'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Natural_fission_chain-reactors_on_Earth


You're not a martyr, and neither is anyone in the US. None of this conversation has anything to do with the religious Zealots that are killing other religious individuals in other countries.


And you're absolutely correct, me slipping in a little jab at comparing Christian Zealots to Islam Zealots definitely reveal a bit about my 'character'... but just because it was an attack doesn't make it, or anything else I said, less true.

It's not that there is a 'war' on... it's that there are a bunch of non-scientists walking around saying they're 'creation scientists'.

You're absolutely correct, there is no research being done on 'young Universe'... but there is also no science being done to prove 'old Universe'. Science is done by taking small bits of knowledge that have little gaps, and filling those gaps in. We didn't figure out the half-life of Rubidium in order to prove the age of the earth, we figured out the half-life of Rubidium to figure out the half-life of Rubidium. Some other scientists had taken measurements of the natural occurrence of elements and their isotopes in various parts of the world. And then more scientists apply the knowledge acquired in both fields and try to find out what it tells us.

I agree, you absolutely should question scientists with an agenda, but I've NEVER heard a non-christian suggest that there is scientific evidence for the earth being younger than 4-5 billion years old. You want to cast doubt on scientists by saying that there are millions of dollars and reputations on the line, but this reasoning is more destructive if you aim it at the young-earthers: Their religion has made explicit claims as to time-spans that occurred 'in the beginning'... their religious leaders have made explicit claims as to the literalness of the Bible. And most church leaders have been explicit that other denominations of Christians may not be allowed into heaven... So you have a large group of individuals who are not only risking their reputation, but what they believe is their eternal soul, on something that they didn't discover, but have worked backward to find evidence to prove that their book is correct.

Young-earthers each, individually, have much more to lose than scientists. And let's be clear... religions have enough money to staff up scientific R&D labs and fund their own research if they wanted. In fact, the Vatican DOES have it's own, world-renowned observatory. So, how old does this Priest thing the Universe is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OwWqrXGtrRs#!


So, to be clear, it's not Scientists vs. Christians. It's Scientists AND Christians vs. People Who Don't Trust Science.

And I expect this. Christians have long fought against persecution, and it thrived while it was being persecuted. Now that it's the dominant religion, many of the teachings have lost their luster. Members who believe that the Bible has something personal to say to them will pick up on the persecution aspect, which was intended to help those in the year 200AD... not 2012. So they make up bogey-men and pick a fight with anyone who says something that isn't explicitly allowed in the Bible (and is convenient for them)... hence the anti-Gay-Marriage protests, but no anti-shellfish protests.

You're a product of your environment, shinyblurry... you're as predictable as Islam producing suicide bombers... and just as pathetic in your misunderstanding of the Universe.

I KNOW! When you're programming and you think "Boy, I REALLY wish I could use Java right now", something is very wrong.

The one part that I liked about O-C is the named parameters on methods... Groovy has something similar, with the static init block, which is good enough for me.

>> ^schlub:

>> ^hatsix:
...but found myself doing a lot of mundane things that you don't have to worry about with Java)...

That's rich. Java is the most mundane language.

I'm definitely not a fan of the rampant consumerism and the idiots on both sides who equate their phone with their identity... but it seems to me that the amount of vitriol and anger in this video suggests that TheAmazingAtheist thinks about this specific topic more than most fanboys I know. He probably has to, as he has quite a few more people to hate on.

Me, I dislike Apple's policies towards developers (and, hence, their walled-garden) and like the ability to write little apps for my Android phone without a subscription. (I tried out writing iOS apps, but found myself doing a lot of mundane things that you don't have to worry about with Java) I'd have tried a Palm Pre, but it wasn't available for T-Mobile.

I'm very interested to see if Blackberry can pull out of their 'slump', and I'd like to see MS become a player again... But I imagine that I'll stick with Android for as long as they're the 'least evil' (read: 'most free') option.

I would rather my Identity include "The guy that is a fan of Open Source and dislikes Apple's corporate policies" than "The guy that gets so worked up about what other people think about other people that he yells and spits at a camera until he's red in the face"... but that's just me.

Re: Reddit:

Show me one thread that 'disagrees' with me. Most of them seem to be commiserating about how they're constantly being pushed to the side of society.


You pretend you want discussion, but you don't actually state the position you're arguing for. Your own comment suggests that you're against Religion itself... It seems to me you're just a troll...

If you don't actually want to discuss, go back under your bridge. You'll never have proof that God exists, and we'll never have proof that he doesn't. If you need your light to keep you feeling safe at night, feel free to have it. Nobody is trying to take it from you... we just don't want it shining in our eyes.

This is the point where most Atheists become seriously pissed... Simply stating that someone is wrong because they don't believe what you believe is not the way to have a discussion. Especially when what you believe isn't widely believed by your own fellow Christians. LCMS, Presbyterians and Seventh-Day Adventists are the only denominations that officially preach Young-Earth Creationism...

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's the classic Hitchens argument, and you might have a point (but not really), if you believed in an Old Earth. I believe in a Young Earth.
>> ^shagen454:
Well, if you find purpose and meaning in Jesus isn't that just as "meaninglessness" as most things in life? It is delusional to think that in the last 2000 years of 200,000 years of humanity that we were graced with "the son of God". It's delusional. The eastern philosophies & religions are far more advanced and make much more sense. But, I would never devote myself to any organized religion formed by the mere conjectures of Ape 2.0's.

Although, you cannot earn your salvation, there are rewards in Heaven based on what you did here on Earth.

This is news to me... I believe Mormons teach this, but all other denominations preach that when you accept the Holy Spirit, it moves you to do good deeds... that the good deeds aren't your own.

Neither is it meaningless to follow the two greatest commandments:
Love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, and all of your soul, and all of your mind, and with all of your strength.
and
Love thy neighbor as yourself
Unless you count loving God and your fellow man as meaningless, they are both a reward onto themselves and filled with meaning.

You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding me here. I was very specifically using the definition of 'meaningless' that the speaker above uses... as in, 'meaning nothing after you die'.

The judgment is about sin. Your friends, along with every Christian, have transgressed Gods laws, and the wages of sin is death. The difference is, Christians have received Gods pardon for their transgressions, whereas unbelievers have rejected it and thus have to face God on their own merits.

My point exactly. The only thing that matters is that you've accepted Jesus as your Savior. NOTHING else matters... hence it is meaningless.

Any branch of Christianity that doesn't take a hard stance against violence is twisting the Bible to their own selfish ends... which is, unfortunately, most of them.

A Christian is simply someone who has been born again, and has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and the true church is the body of Christ. Regardless of what a denomination might say, a Christian should consult the word of God:
Matthew 26:52
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

You completely ignored my point here. Except for the Mennonites, there are no other denominations (in the US) that take a hard stance against violence. None. Zero. This country is 80% Christian, and yet we've been at war for 209 of 235 years of our existence.

Let me be very clear on this: ALL CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS IN THE US ARE FALSE purely based on this one single fact (again, excluding Mennonites)... Granted, that doesn't prove that God doesn't exist... but it certainly does mean that I can't trust any US-based Christians...

I agree with everything you're saying here. Christians are to love their enemies, bless those who curse them, and pray for those who despitefully use them. We are to unconditionally love everyone, because they are in the image of God, and because God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son. That is the model of behavior He has given us.

What have you done to end discrimination (of ALL types)? Have you participated in any protests against wars, for Gay Marriage, for Women's Rights? Have you stood up in Church to let everyone know that you think it's wrong to discriminate against others, regardless of what they've done?



I'd recommend reading up on philosophy, logical debate, and comparative religion... and finding a denomination that is above reproach. The reason Atheists always seem to have the same 'tired' arguments all the time is because we don't need to have new ones... the old arguments still come out in our favor.