101. Comment #70997 by Bonzai on September 17, 2007 at 12:36 pm

On the contrary teratornis, I do not claim ignorance as my escape, I claim knowledge as my escape. The knowledge I claim is based on a book that God has given the amoebas down here. It's called the Bible.

So the proof that the Bible is the word of God is because it says so.

This is even beyond irrational. It is downright stupid.

Other Comments by Bonzai

102. Comment #70998 by epeeist on September 17, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Comment #70996 by roach

Actually, the True God is "Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Iluvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones..." Yahweh may be a "Holy One" but we don't know yet. It's the subject of great theological debate.

Sorry to contradict you, but it is well known that the real creator God is Atum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atum). At least he sounds to have had some fun creating the world.

Other Comments by epeeist

103. Comment #70999 by Ultraviolet G on September 17, 2007 at 12:46 pm

Flagellant (plus everyone else, actually):

When I said maybe we should refer to "gods" rather than "God"; I wasn't thinking about that particular "statistical" argument about Zeus and so on, so much as how very simple choices of language can get in the way of making oneself understood to a believer, particularly in a montheistic religion.

Revcort is providing an excellent example of that emotional reaction: he or she is making the assumption that the "God" she believes in is specifically the one that I don't believe in.

Revcort: Allah is the one true God and Mohammed is his prophet. There are millions of testaments from deep personal experience that this is true. Please take up this discussion with them and maybe they can help you see the error of your ways.

Other Comments by Ultraviolet G

104. Comment #71000 by roach on September 17, 2007 at 12:49 pm

You believe that Egyptian nonsense? Ha! Either Eru has blinded you in his infinite wisdom and mercy or Melkor is usuing you as a pawn in a clever game of deception. I'll have to discusss this with the elders in order to get solid information. Regardless, your false beliefs are yet more proof that Iluvatar is the One True God (OTG).

Other Comments by roach

105. Comment #71002 by BMMcArdle on September 17, 2007 at 12:53 pm

If God were real, he would speak for himself. The fact that God does not speak, and that he allows any lunatic who comes along to speak "in his name," shows us that God is quite imaginary.

http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

106. Comment #71003 by BlazingArrow74 on September 17, 2007 at 12:53 pm

... Hey Roach, how about "Original God of Gods" or O.G.G. ? ... I'm sure that-one will spread on street popularity alone ... {^..^}

Other Comments by BlazingArrow74

107. Comment #71007 by _J_ on September 17, 2007 at 12:58 pm

revcort,

Thanks for the response.

However:

The reason I quote Scripture is because the Scripture is the truth and it is based on the ultimate authority.

Further bare assertion. If this is how this discussion is going to proceed, it is pointless. There's only so long it's worth trying to reason with someone who does nothing but scream 'I'M RIGHT, I'M RIGHT, I'M ALWAYS RIGHT!'

But wait:

The truth is that God alone saves and it is purely by an act of His will, not ours.

It seems that God, according to your conception of him, agrees with me. This discussion is pointless. We can do nothing to come to him, and you can do nothing to facilitate our doing so. Either god saves us or he doesn't and there's not a sausage we can do about it. (Rather a Calvinistic sort, aren't you?) Which begs the question: what are you trying to achieve on this thread, exactly? Your efforts are apparently, by your own argument, futile.

And, by the way - ignoring for a time the enormous question (that you seem disinclined to answer) of what basis you have for supposing god to exist at all - what basis do you have for asserting that your conception of salvation (that god does as god will, and stuff anyone who thinks otherwise) is correct, whilst the 'you must ask Jesus into your heart' brigade are deceiving us? Is there any aspect of your argument that isn't sheer, uncorroborated decree?

To paraphrase a well-known quote (that I've forgotten): what can be claimed on bare assertion can be rejected on bare assertion. You say you're right. I say you're wrong. When you're willing to raise your game and lay some supporting facts on the table, come back and play some more.

Or perhaps God is moving you in that direction, even through the bitterness you obviously feel even now.

Maybe he is and maybe he isn't. I'm not sure about this 'obvious' bitterness, though. I get a little cross when people reward my serious attempts to reach reasonable answers to important questions by completely disregarding my efforts, illogically accusing me of willful ignorance and backing their accusations up with breathtakingly hypocritical feats of willful ignorance of their own. Call it a failing, sure, but that sort of behaviour winds me up.

There's a social stereotype of 'the angry atheist'. And, sure enough, a lot of atheists can be rather angry. But they are virtually never angry at god. It makes no sense for an atheist to be angry at god, any more than it make sense to pick a fight with Father Christmas. Atheists are angry at being misled by other humans, at being patronised by people who are not willing to be intellectually honest about the argument, and at the appalling behaviour they see condoned and motivated by religions.

Atheists have rather a lot to be angry about, in fact. It's rather amazing that we're as placid and lovable as we are.

Other Comments by _J_

108. Comment #71008 by epeeist on September 17, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Comment #71003 by BlazingArrow74

Hey Roach, how about "Original God of Gods" or O.G.G. ?

To steal from "Godel, Escher, Bach" - God is actually an acronym, it stands for "God Over Djinn".

If you pray to God and ask for a simple item then the first level Djinn can answer your wish. If you make a meta-wish then the first level Djinn has to punt it up a level to God Over Djinn. A meta-meta wish has to go to (God Over Djinn) Over Djinn and so forth.

Other Comments by epeeist

109. Comment #71009 by sillysighbean on September 17, 2007 at 1:00 pm

I wonder if Stanford and Cornwell are as critical of Christians who believe despite not having read books by the major theologians, ie 99.99% of them

Excellent point!

Other Comments by sillysighbean

110. Comment #71013 by BMMcArdle on September 17, 2007 at 1:16 pm

"Who made you so angry?" This comment one is full of implications, and I could answer in a variety of ways. One favorite response is "Who made you so dumb?" But I could focus on the "made" part and say, "Well, God made me, so he must have made me angry." I could also point out that the question itself is extremely angry, and that those who see anger everywhere are themselves seething with anger but are repressing it and are thus not mentally balanced. Human beings SHOULD be angry, because their situation is atrocious. If there were such a god person directing everything, they should be very angry at "him," because this world is a mess and every day abominable things are happening to millions of people. Of course, the standard stupid response to this is that "God gave us free will."

http://www.truthbeknown.com/proof.htm

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

111. Comment #71014 by Quetzalcoatl on September 17, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Revcort-

By the way, Scripture says, "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good. 2 The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men To see if there are any who understand, Who seek after God. 3 They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one." Psalm 14, Psalm 53, Romans 3

Oh darn. I've been exposed for the evil, relentlessly sinning cruel atheist that I am. No good deeds do I do, not one. (That was sarcasm, in case you're too obtuse to get it).

Creation demands the existence of a Creator. The more we learn about science, the more the evidence demands that things were designed as they are

Argument from ignorance. No it doesn't. Maybe on the Answers in Genesis website it does?

When I see a painting, I don't say, "Hey, there must have been an explosion and this paint all landed on this canvas in this perfect image. That's amazing!" I know there is a painter somewhere.

Oh, what was I thinking? I have seen the light. You have shown me the error of my ways.

Bonzai, it only ends in infinite regression if you misunderstand who God is, as He has revealed Himself to us. He is uncreated. He is infinite. He is timeless. Our time table is insignificant. He is not bound to it

Prove it. Give us any evidence, apart from the Bible (circular reasoning doesn't cut it).

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. John 1:1-5

Read ANY OTHER CREATION MYTH and you'll find something similar. Some of them make more sense, actually.

Not from mine though because I know Him and understand His love.

OH REALLY. Look at the world around you. Look at the suffering. Look at the child soldiers in Africa. The grinding poverty the vast majority of the world's citizens live in. Then tell us about his love.

Quite clearly you've come on here to rant, not to discuss. You clearly have no interest in discussing anything, when backed into a corner you quote Scripture, which answers NOTHING. You make assertions you cannot possibly back up.

Why the hell did you come here? Every other theist has at least contributed something. Many theists who have come here are actually willing to listen to the opinions of others, not talk down to them.

I'm tired of this now.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

112. Comment #71015 by Corylus on September 17, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Revcort said

because I know Him and understand His love.

I see. So you know and understand god's actions and motivations. How gratified are we to have someone in our presence who's claims exceed the world theologian's.

Perhaps He's using me to reach to you. Hey, perhaps by sending me to this message board to speak to you,

All bow before the internet Metatron! Such humility. Such Grace.

Revcort I'm generally quite nice to Christians who post on here: I like to hear other people's views and stories. I flatter myself that I'm actually quite polite. However, since you have been spectatularly insulting, patronising, self-righteous and smug I am going to do something that I only do when cross....

I'm going to link to Phil Collins. Jesus speaks through him too.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RTrYE4a1BmE

However,unlike you, I'm too soft to believe in undeserved torment.

Therefore, I won't link to 'A Groovy Kind of Love' or 'Against All Odds'.

Other Comments by Corylus

113. Comment #71016 by Teratornis on September 17, 2007 at 2:05 pm

In reply to #70994 by BlazingArrow74,

Thanks for the "wow." Considering the standard set here by Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, et al., I'm almost ashamed to chime in (much as Hitchens claims he wonders why he writes after reading Orwell etc.).

Thanks for pointing out my bit of rhetorical carelessness. Obviously it's sloppy of me to say anything about "everyone who believes." (If we lined up every Christian in the world end to end, they would all point in different directions.) Perhaps I should say, "Everyone who is trying hard to believe and get others to believe." Clearly, some theists are more sold on their agenda than others. I imagine in every organization, a handful of movers and shakers are a bit more doctrinaire than the bulk of their followers who mostly go along to get along (did every member of the Nazi party share all of Hitler's beliefs to the last detail, or did they merely cooperate to give Hitler remarkable freedom to pursue his agenda?). So it could hardly be surprising that every religious gathering would have at least a few people who aren't quite 100% convinced of everything they are hearing.

I did mention elsewhere in my blatherings we have empirical evidence to suggest that lots of religious people are not quite as sure of their faith as they loudly insist (the fact that they grieve when loved ones die, for example, just as if they do not expect to see the departed again; not to mention the fact that all Christians continue to sin, as if they think God has stopped watching them now and then).

Indeed, it may be that much of the anger directed at "blasphemers" results from cognitive dissonance in the faithful as they struggle to silence external reminders of their internal doubts. Like Lucy said in the Peanuts cartoon after smiting Linus, "I had to hit him - he was starting to make sense." It cannot be easy for anyone to believe something which is so clearly insane and obviously self-contradictory as the typical religious creed, and thus it can be difficult to avoid angering those who try to believe.

But returning to my "anyone who believes" comment, I should restrict that to "anyone who tries to defend a non-factual belief." So far, all the arguments in favor of religious (i.e. non-factual) belief I have seen (and I have seen my share) either amount to, or involve to some degree, a rejection of critical thinking, a rejection of the notion that we should in any way restrict our beliefs to fit the available facts.

This unchaining of beliefs from facts leads to a kind of moral relativism in which we are powerless to condemn any belief as being "wrong." If we agree that facts do not matter, then on what basis could we tell Osama bin Laden that his beliefs are incorrect? Simply because we don't like them? That's my suggestion for the violence done by nonviolent faiths - any sort of faith, whether it is directly violent or not, undermines what I consider to be the most effective tool against violent faith: reason.

Other Comments by Teratornis

114. Comment #71020 by Goldy on September 17, 2007 at 2:13 pm

I would be interested to see revcort's library...
I hope sincerely that he never sits next to me on a bus.
I am an athiest becasue I am. Not angry, not arrongant - I am in fact a highly laid back genuine nice guy - and this is in all cultures as far as I know - my niceness transcends all barriers :-)
How many gods were there at the last census? I know xians and Jews and Muslims all claim 1 god, seemingly the same one, but one can never really tell. How are the others wrong and how, without recourse to holy books which, to be honest, are somewhat biased, do you know they're worng (question aimed at religious people).
Did as Mark Taunton on another thread why Mo was not a prophet of God (MT thinks they stopped at the NT)? I'm still waiting for an answer...

Other Comments by Goldy

115. Comment #71025 by AdrianB on September 17, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Stanford's trump card is his observation that "religion is not primarily about belief, as we understand the word today, but faith." Religion, as he sums it up, "simply isn't about facts." Exactly. I couldn't have put it better myself.

As ridiculous as Stanford's words seem, just spend 5 mins listening to the following BBC interview with Ramesh Kallidai of the Hindu Forum of Great Britain:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/realmedia/sunday/s20070916e.ram

The Christian interviewer, Roger Bolton, tries to ridicule the Hindus belief that the underwater limestone bridge was built by the Lord Ram and his army of monkeys. Of course it's stupid he must be thinking to himself.

In a moment of pure comedy gold Ramesh Kallidai defends his beliefs by saying they are no more ridiculous than the claims that Jesus came back to life!

LOL.

Other Comments by AdrianB

116. Comment #71029 by Mitchell Gilks on September 17, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Revcort the argument from design is just so obviously fallacious. I'll explain the so obvious problem with it. Say you're walking in the woods and you come accross a watch, it is obviously designed! But opposed to what exactly? Why pick out the watch at all? If everything in the woods is so obviously designed? Why pick out a painting? Why pick out a car? Isn't everything design? What are you contrasting design with? Are you not contrasting them with things that are not designed? That are natural?

How is it that you recognize a watch in a field, a painting or a car as designed at all? If everything is designed then what is the difference? Why does it stand out at all?

Also claiming that god simply always existed isn't an excape from the problem contrary to popular belief. The argument of design says that complex things need designers, such as cars and watchs and what have you. It doesn't mention things with origins. If god is complex, then why is god exempt from this? Wouldn't it's intricisies and what have you also so obviously require a designer? If god can excape from not requiring a designer despite it's complexities then why can't everything else? Despite what ever free passes you give to god, if one thing is allow to go without requiring a designer (the most complex of all things I remind you) then one what grouds does it stand that everything else requires a designer? Is it not possible that they simply don't require one? Isn't postulating a vastly more complex thing to explain complexity and then say that doesn't require design just simply unnecessary? Isn't it more likely that the more complex something is the higher chance that it requires a designer? In this respect, not only is the step unnecessary, but it also only serves to complicate the issue. Occam's Razor just slices it away.

If you follow this back to say that only complex things that have an origin require design then I would agree with you. Too bad that all the things we know about in the universe have quite simple origins.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

117. Comment #71030 by Teratornis on September 17, 2007 at 3:02 pm

In comment #70990 by revcort:

On the contrary teratornis, I do not claim ignorance as my escape, I claim knowledge as my escape. The knowledge I claim is based on a book that God has given the amoebas down here. It's called the Bible. Now, if a human could communicate with an amoeba, he might write out a manual to explain himself. Why? Because it would be impossible to know anything about man without some human intervention. That is what God has done. And in that manual, I find this...

When you speculate on what a human would do for an amoeba, you have some factual basis, because you are (presumably) a human yourself. However, if an amoeba tried to speculate on what a human would do, the amoeba would be merely guessing. In fact the amoeba would not even be capable of guessing, because it lacks the cognitive capacity to think about something so much more complex than it is.

Humans aren't even smart enough (yet) to understand how their own brains work, and here you are telling us about the behavior of something incomprehensibly more complex than the human brain.

As far as I know, no human actually has tried to explain himself to an amoeba, and it's difficult to imagine why any rational human would bother even if the amoeba could understand a meaningful subset of the message - which it most certainly cannot. Actually, the amoeba can do things a human cannot, and thus the human is not all-powerful relative to the amoeba, and that might give a human some possible incentive to enlist the amoeba's obedience - a similar incentive is entirely lacking for the standard model of God, who has no needs and no limitations. If humans really are as far below God as the amoeba is below the man - and you claimed as much - then it just isn't possible for God to say anything meaningful to humans, at least not without substantially upgrading the human intellect to receive the message. In keeping with the tone of mutual respect set by the Bible with its infamous argumentum ad hominem ("The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'" - which I like to interpret as "Even a fool can see..."), you aren't exactly giving us reason to believe God has so upgraded you.

Humans are pretty good at recognizing differences in intellect between other people. If Christians were smart enough to understand God, they would be running rings around the likes of Prof. Dawkins with their stunning intellectual achievements. Where are the great insights, the awe-inspiring inventions, the upward leaps in human advancement coming from the community of faith?

In any case, do you really take the Bible as your authority? The Bible is filled from end to end with claims that no Christian I know believes. For example:

1. The Bible refers repeatedly to the "everlasting" hills, whereas, in fact, geologists have shown hills are thrust up and eroded down repeatedly. Even within just the historical era, some hills have disappeared, and some landscapes have changed rather dramatically.

2. The New Testament states that women should keep silent in church, and neither teach men nor be in authority over them. Do you believe women should be removed from all positions of authority over men, as the Bible clearly teaches?

3. Jesus said if your hand causes you to sin, you should cut it off. Do you believe that?

4. The Old Testament says we should stone to death anyone who carries a load on the Sabbath. Do you believe that?

5. On the other hand, the Bible permits us to keep slaves, and we are permitted to beat them as long as they can get up within a couple of days. How many do you own?

6. The Bible quotes Jesus in several places telling us not to worry about feeding or clothing ourselves, not to think about tomorrow, to give all our money to the poor, and that if we ask Jesus for anything, he will give it to us. Do you live your life as if you believe Jesus was telling the truth? Or do you pay for any sort of an insurance policy, and keep bank accounts, just in case Jesus doesn't come through?

7. Do you think the United States should adopt the Christian principle of turning the other cheek as the cornerstone of its foreign policy? And thus instead of hunting down Islamic terrorists either to kill them or detain them indefinitely without trial, we should simply forgive them for blowing up our skycrapers and offer to let them blow up some more?

My question for Christians who claim the Bible as their source of truth: how do you know which parts of the Bible to believe, and which parts to ignore? Because no Christian behaves as if he or she believes the whole thing.

Instead, every Christian, insofar as we can tell, appears to take an à la carte approach to the Bible, picking and choosing which parts to believe and which to ignore, thereby setting something else up as the ultimate authority, above the Bible (for example, the teachings of a particular church or human leader, or simply their mood that day).

And never mind the facts about the historical origins of the Bible, a collection of ancient repeatedly edited writings assembled by a committee of primitive men. Not to mention that the various branches of Christianity disagree on exactly which books to include in "the" Bible. As Jesus said, a house built on sand will not stand, and trying to base your beliefs on something as constantly shifting and diverging as the latest fashionable interpretation of the Bible is likely to lead to thousands of different sects, schisms, schools, and denominations.

Other Comments by Teratornis

118. Comment #71032 by Mr DArcy on September 17, 2007 at 3:14 pm

I'm wondering if the rev cort is here to prove that religion "simply isn't about facts". I suspect he's being paid by the Discovery Institute as a wum.

"Get in among them monkey men Hank, and give them the wrath of the Lord!"

Well revcort, I fear not the Lord's judgement and I'm certain that all gods (including yours) are the products of that most amazing thing currently known in the universe, the human brain. Is that dogmatic enough for you?

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

119. Comment #71033 by Jason1083 on September 17, 2007 at 3:21 pm

In Comment #71029 by Mitchell Gilks:

Say you're walking in the woods and you come accross a watch, it is obviously designed! But opposed to what exactly? Why pick out the watch at all? If everything in the woods is so obviously designed? Why pick out a painting? Why pick out a car? Isn't everything design? What are you contrasting them with? Are you not contrasting them with things that are not designed? That are natural?

I agree that the inference to design is unjustified (and in part because a complex designer begs the question as Mitchell points out); however, I don't think the above argument succeeds.

Even if everything were designed, some things could still be more obviously designed than other things, and one could try to determine if the "non-obvious" things were designed by identifying the properties they share in common with the obvious things. When it was first confirmed that certain materials were made up of atoms, it was not known whether all matter was made up of atoms. The inference that additional substances were indeed composed of atoms was made on the basis of similarities between these substances and the ones that were known to be made up of atoms, and eventually it was determined that all matter was made up of atoms.

Of course, I don't think the argument from design will fair as well ;-), but it is wrong for empirical reasons - we have simpler natural explanations, and there is no evidence of a designer - and not because it is a priori incoherent.

Other Comments by Jason1083

120. Comment #71034 by shaunfletcher on September 17, 2007 at 3:28 pm

There is NO way revcort is for real. He knows too many purty words to be as dumb as he is portraying. He posts long convoluted screeds about god but also posts the most childish version of the argument from design possible. Nuh uh.

Other Comments by shaunfletcher

121. Comment #71035 by phasmagigas on September 17, 2007 at 3:33 pm

ultrvioletG

When referring to what Atheists (don't) believe, it might help monotheists bypass their emotional reflex, and understand your point better, by saying that Atheists don't believe in gods. Saying "God" triggers an automatic response. Saying "gods" is both more accurate and less emotional

this is an interesting 'tactic', firstly it would throw a rabid believer offguard, they would also find themselves agreeing with you regarding the X-1 (X=total mumber of gods believed in across history) number of gods that they also dont believe in. You just have to get to the hard part when you tell them you also dont believe in the extra one they do. You could say something like 'i dont even believe in mercury' just to 'help' them see the sillyness of their position.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

122. Comment #71037 by walk on September 17, 2007 at 3:42 pm

I agree, Shaun, and if revcort IS for real, then the children-arguing-in-a-schoolyard tone of his rantings (my big brother in the sky will beat you up if you don't stop saying I'm wrong!), might betray his (probably young) age. Also, his states in his profile that he hasn't read The God Delusion, so he would have no idea how silly his arguments actually sound to us. And that all of his points have already been discussed and refuted by RD et al to the satisfaction of most posters here.

Other Comments by walk

123. Comment #71039 by Lil_Xunzian on September 17, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Someone please tell me, if I'm approached by someone who asks me, "excuse me, where is the theology department?" shall I reply, "oh, um, it's right down the hall from cryptozoology, but if you've gotten to UFOlogy, you've gone too far. Any suggestions?

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

124. Comment #71040 by Mitchell Gilks on September 17, 2007 at 3:52 pm

Jason1083 I had actually considered that. However I am asking what they are constrasting the watch and the car and the picture with. With the watch story as it goes it is found in a field, and it stands out and it would be rediculous to think that it wasn't designed. Since they found it among things they also think are designed, either: One it doesn't follow that everything else in the area is also designed or the watch would not stand out. Or: Two, it is not obvious that things that exist in nature are designed and didn't come about naturally or the watch would not stand out. My problem was with the fallacious nature of the argument's assumptions that it is absurd to say that a watch a painting or a car come about naturally, there for it is equally absurd to say that of everything else, but it wouldn't stand out if it was absurd to assume that of all things. It must be at least some degrees less obvious that natural things are designed was my point.

I didn't mean to imply that they couldn't be or else we would have nothing to contrast with them. That would be not only discounting the imagination, but it would also being ignoring the imaginations rule in inventing the idea that nature is designed.

I hope it is clear what I meant now.

(edit) after reading over my previous post I did get the same impression from it that you did. I'm glad that you brought it up, I wouldn't want to look like I was saying that there for nature could not have been designed! I wouldn't want to look like an idiot.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

125. Comment #71042 by Goldy on September 17, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Lil_Xunzian, just point the way to the theology dept. No sense angering someone just for the sake of it (as I keep finding out!). Besides, theology is fun! No, really! As you can see, a lot of athiests are actually quite good at it, as well as Bible study. I rate it right up there with post-Roman British history and classic bike restoration (both of which I really enjoy too).
You never know, that theology student might be the most ardent athiest you'll ever come across... :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

126. Comment #71044 by Bonzai on September 17, 2007 at 4:05 pm

I see no reason to doubt revcort's authenticity. His way of "argumentation" sounds very familiar, he talks like some evangelicals I encountered. There is no point in caricaturing something if the real thing is just as weird.

Other Comments by Bonzai

127. Comment #71045 by walk on September 17, 2007 at 4:09 pm

Bonzai, thanks! (laugh out loud moment).

Other Comments by walk

128. Comment #71051 by Jason1083 on September 17, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Mitchell, thanks for the clarification. I think I understand what you mean now.

I guess the issue is that there are naive and sophisticated versions of the design argument.

The naive version (which I think Revcort intended) goes something like, "Look, it's a pretty flower! If you stumbled across a watch, you would think it was designed. Flowers are at least as complicated as watches - they even reproduce. God must have made flowers!" This version postulates that we would think watches were designed for some reason other than the fact that we know that humans make watches, and that some simple observation confirms that flowers also have this property. But if that were the case, then flowers would seem as obviously designed as watches.

The sophisticated version recognizes that for the argument to succeed, the inference to design must be based on something about the internal structure of flowers which is not obvious at first glance.

This argument goes something like, "Look, it's a pretty flower! If you stumbled across a watch, you would think it was designed even if you had never seen one before by virtue of its interlocking parts. When we examine the structure of a flower at the biochemical level, we find the same kind of complexity. No one has ever published an account describing every biochemical step in the evolution of anything with this kind of complexity. Therefore, something must have designed it. On an unrelated note, I like Jesus."

Unlike the naive argument, I think this version survives the objection that if it were right, flowers would seem as obviously designed as watches. Of course, it has flaws of its own, among them that a watch would seem to have an artificial origin in light of idiosyncratic features (like a knob adjustable by organisms with thumbs) that serve no purpose at all for the original object but make it easier to operate for a designer with thumbs.

Other Comments by Jason1083

129. Comment #71063 by J. J. Ramsey on September 17, 2007 at 5:58 pm

Northern Bright:

It's his criticism of RD for not having studied the minutiae of the extensive and heated debate on whether the leprochaun wears curly-toed or flat-toed shoes (to use CHeard's image!) that I object to.

FIRST prove the existence of the leprochaun. THEN argue about his taste in footwear.

That line of argument works so long as RD doesn't bring up leprechaun footwear himself. Trouble is, Dawkins does deal in such footwear a bit. He does discuss the Trinity, for example, but doesn't do it that well. For example, he quotes St. Gregory the Miracle Worker as an example of theological obscurantism even though Gregory's words are rather straightforward, and then follows it up with a slightly ambiguous statement whose plainest meaning is that theology has supposedly been static since about 200 C.E., which would be a surprise the Protestants, to say the least. Once you pick out the nits in his treatment of the Trinity, there isn't anything left. Now Dawkins isn't aiming for a deep discussion, but if he is going to offer any discussion at all, it should at least be something that doesn't fall apart so easily upon examination.

Other Comments by J. J. Ramsey

130. Comment #71067 by Goldy on September 17, 2007 at 6:03 pm

There are nits in the Trinity? It makes sense?? Do go on, please...

Other Comments by Goldy

131. Comment #71072 by NormanDoering on September 17, 2007 at 6:46 pm

revcort wrote:

God deserves our worship because He is God. He is not only Creator, He is Holy- transcendent, He is perfect, He is omnipotent, He is omniscient, and He has offered Christ on our behalf. That is why.

As a real, true Christian and Scott's man, revcort, can we please see you drink some hydrochloric acid and handle a cobra so we can be sure? According to Mark 16:17-18 believers will be given these signs of power: ...if they pick up snakes or drink any poison, they will not be harmed. You can put the video up on YouTube.

Also, when you burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, because it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev. 1:9, do your neighbors ever complain? Do you smite them when they do?

Surely you must obey these things since they are the words of your perfect, omnipotent, omniscient God.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

132. Comment #71084 by revcort on September 17, 2007 at 7:52 pm

Teratornis, you said,

As far as I know, no human actually has tried to explain himself to an amoeba, and it's difficult to imagine why any rational human would bother even if the amoeba could understand a meaningful subset of the message - which it most certainly cannot. Actually, the amoeba can do things a human cannot, and thus the human is not all-powerful relative to the amoeba, and that might give a human some possible incentive to enlist the amoeba's obedience - a similar incentive is entirely lacking for the standard model of God, who has no needs and no limitations. If humans really are as far below God as the amoeba is below the man - and you claimed as much - then it just isn't possible for God to say anything meaningful to humans, at least not without substantially upgrading the human intellect to receive the message. In keeping with the tone of mutual respect set by the Bible with its infamous argumentum ad hominem ("The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'" - which I like to interpret as "Even a fool can see..."), you aren't exactly giving us reason to believe God has so upgraded you.

My friend, you've just had an epiphany, but you probably didn't know it. This is exactly what God has to do. He has to upgrade our understanding to be able to comprehend Him without hating Him. And that's exactly what He does. Oh, and by the way, the Bible's definition of "fool" and your definition of fool are not the same. As a matter of fact, your high intellect (something which I would never belittle and which has been given you by the grace of God Himself) may well be the very thing hindering you. I've seen it many times- a very intellectual person fights and fights against God. He refuses to submit. He refuses to see truth because truth reduces him to that amoeba we mentioned before. He demands his own way and will not give any glory to God, not even for the very intellect he cherishes so much. Enlightenment, in this case then, does not come from mere intelligence, but from the work of God in your life.

Here's our problem. The human will is enslaved to sin and it must be freed. Man is so naturally arrogant and egocentric that he can't see beyond his own reach. It is like Socrates' cave example. Man only sees the shadows, but this is reality to him. He may even have an almost unlimited knowledge of the surface of that cave wall. He may devise plans for defining the way that those shadows dance. He may well discover that his own movements are directly related to the movements of the shadows on that wall. But in the final analysis, he is missing the true reality which has evaded him. Yet, this IS reality to him. It's all he knows, and he knows it well. He can argue it well. He can defend it well. But it is not reality, it is a shadow.

Think of it this way: man is free to do what he does naturally, but what does He naturally do? He rebels against God and invents ways to explain away God. He will do this incessantly, and, in cases where God simply gives that person over to his own desires, he will destroy himself doing this- he will destroy his very soul.

Think of a fish: A fish loves to swim, so he does. Does a fish love to fly? No. He is free to swim. He is not free to fly. Man, in his natural state, loves to sin. Does a man love to glorify God? No. He is free to sin. He is not free to glorify God. A miracle needs to take place: The fish needs to become a bird in order to love to fly, and a man needs to become a "new creature" to love God. That is why God must circumcise our hearts for us to love him (Deut 30:6). Our eyes are blinded to the majestic beauty of the Living God, but when the Holy Spirit opens our eyes, we behold the glory of God and are drawn to Him because of His irresistible beauty. We are not forced to do something we do not will; God just changes what it is that we desire.

And there it is. The truth.

By the way, to so many others- I am sorry I am unable to reply to all of your comments toward me. I realize that I have made many of you angry. That may, in fact, be the very thing you need to be- angry. But my prayer and hope is not that you will merely be angry, but that God will use this to awaken you to the truth. Most of all, my intention here is for truth to be shown. I do not believe I can change your mind or your heart- only God can. I pray He does. If He does not, He will still be just in whatever He chooses to do. He will be glorified in all things- whether He chooses to exact justice upon those who hate Him or to show the amazing riches of His grace toward those whom He has taught to love Him. All glory to God, no matter what.

Other Comments by revcort

133. Comment #71086 by Goldy on September 17, 2007 at 7:55 pm

Not sure angry is the right word - try incredulous. Jaw-droppingly so!

Other Comments by Goldy

134. Comment #71087 by Goldy on September 17, 2007 at 7:56 pm

Oh, and before I forget, what is this sin thing you're on about? You a Catholic? Or are we gearing up to another morality marathon?

Other Comments by Goldy

135. Comment #71092 by Fedler on September 17, 2007 at 8:09 pm

I do not believe I can change your mind or your heart- only God can. I pray He does. If He does not, He will still be just in whatever He chooses to do. He will be glorified in all things- whether He chooses to exact justice upon those who hate Him or to show the amazing riches of His grace toward those whom He has taught to love Him. All glory to God, no matter what.

Does anyone else take this as "God is right, no matter what, his actions will be justified"?

Wow, I feel the strong urge to strap bombs to myself and show the love of God to my fellow man...

Other Comments by Fedler

136. Comment #71094 by revcort on September 17, 2007 at 8:11 pm

Norman said:

As a real, true Christian and Scott's man, revcort, can we please see you drink some hydrochloric acid and handle a cobra so we can be sure? According to Mark 16:17-18 believers will be given these signs of power: ...if they pick up snakes or drink any poison, they will not be harmed. You can put the video up on YouTube.

Also, when you burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, because it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev. 1:9, do your neighbors ever complain? Do you smite them when they do?

Surely you must obey these things since they are the words of your perfect, omnipotent, omniscient God.

Hey Norman, that's good stuff man. I think you misunderstand the application though. God is not saying that we should all walk out and drink poison or handle snakes- contrary to what some foolish person who calls himself a Christian may tell you. You may not be aware, but Satan quoted Scripture to Jesus from the pinnacle of the temple too- he dared Jesus to throw Himself down because the Scripture says that God would send angels to catch Him to keep Him from striking His foot against a stone. (satan misinterpreted that passage just as you have in your quotes here) Yet Jesus answered with a Scripture of his own, which says, "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test." (Deut. 6:16) My drinking poison as some kind of publicity stunt would be doing that very thing- putting God to the test- and that is the height of arrogance. Now, if God's desire is to preserve me and someone who hates me puts poison in my glass, I will not die. I do believe that, by God's grace. That is the purpose of this promise, to strengthen our faith, not to allow us to be a sideshow at a circus or a "religious freaks" story for 48 hours or 20/20.

Regarding your reference to making animal sacrifices, it's pretty simple actually. Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who has come to take away all my sins. It is no longer necessary to sacrifice in this way because the debt has been paid in full- by a blood sacrifice of God's perfect Son. And it was indeed a pleasing sacrifice to God because it was perfect. The Old Testament sacrifices were simply a picture of what was to come. So, it is not necessary for me to continue to make sacrifices any longer.

Other Comments by revcort

137. Comment #71095 by Goldy on September 17, 2007 at 8:16 pm

Oh, I don't know, revcort - you seem to have sacrificed sanity at some point ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

138. Comment #71096 by revcort on September 17, 2007 at 8:19 pm

Does anyone else take this as "God is right, no matter what, his actions will be justified"?

Wow, I feel the strong urge to strap bombs to myself and show the love of God to my fellow man...

Not so my friend. No Christian can take the Bible and become a terrorist. It is not my place to exact God's wrath or take out His vengeance, even though it may well be just. The Scripture says...

17 Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. 19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. 20 "But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

That is our instruction from Romans 12 and it is clear. I love how liberals love to paint Islamic terrorists and Christians in the same light. It is simply not true. There are some wackos out there that have done many things in the name of Christianity, but they are not true believers. They have either misinterpreted or simply cherry picked what they liked and ran with it.

Other Comments by revcort

139. Comment #71098 by revcort on September 17, 2007 at 8:23 pm

Hey goldy, that's some nice ad hominem grenades you're tossing at me from out in the parking lot. I may well be incredulous, but perhaps some of you are thinking about something beyond yourself at this point. If so, I've accomplished my goal. If not, God's Truth has been shown and He is glorified.

Other Comments by revcort

140. Comment #71099 by Goldy on September 17, 2007 at 8:24 pm

I love how liberals love to paint Islamic terrorists and Christians in the same light. It is simply not true. There are some wackos out there that have done many things in the name of Christianity, but they are not true believers. They have either misinterpreted or simply cherry picked what they liked and ran with it.

If I may...

I love how liberals love to paint Mulims and Cruaders in the same light. It is simply not true. There are some wackos out there that have done many things in the name of Islam, but they are not true believers. They have either misinterpreted or simply cherry picked what they liked and ran with it.

Now, haven't we see all this before?

Other Comments by Goldy

141. Comment #71101 by Goldy on September 17, 2007 at 8:27 pm

No, mate, I'm in the crowd, far from the parking lot :-) And I'm incredulous, not you. You are incredible. In the UK you'd be one of them smelly wierd blokes people avoid. In NZ you'd be one of them smelly wierd blokes people avoid.
I see you learnt "ad hominem" too - at least your mind is not totally shut.
You're really odd!

Other Comments by Goldy

142. Comment #71103 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Recovert, can you explain something for me please? How could Satan ever tempt Jesus? Jesus is god, thus he created Satan and cast him from Heaven when Satan god all Adam and Evey. Anyway, Jesus knew that he was god, knew that his "death" and "resurrection were nothing for a omnipotent being such as himself. Just a conjurers trick really. Why would Satan be anything more than another bauble to him?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

143. Comment #71107 by revcort on September 17, 2007 at 8:41 pm

Recovert, can you explain something for me please? How could Satan ever tempt Jesus? Jesus is god, thus he created Satan and cast him from Heaven when Satan god all Adam and Evey. Anyway, Jesus knew that he was god, knew that his "death" and "resurrection were nothing for a omnipotent being such as himself. Just a conjurers trick really. Why would Satan be anything more than another bauble to him?

Hey BAEOZ, I'm assuming you're seriously asking a question, so here's the answer. we understand that Jesus is God Incarnate, God in the flesh. That is, that He was totally God and totally man simultaneously. It was only His humanity that truly tempted in this way. His deity is what allowed Him to repel these attacks. It was necessary for Jesus to be able to be tempted in order to legitimize His claim of identity with man. If He were totally impervious to all temptation, this verse would be meaningless...

Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

And because He has experienced first hand all of the temptations of this world, He completely identifies with us. This is indeed good news, especially for an atheist. Jesus, in his humanity, asks, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Many here may feel that same way at times- well, Jesus has been there.

Other Comments by revcort

144. Comment #71110 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 8:45 pm

Recovert, you've set up a dualistic Jesus. He's god who can't be tempted, but he's a man who's able to be tempted. Can you explain how a god who knows all and is all powerful, is able to be tempted? Your explanation ignored that problem. No matter how human he is, he's still cogniscent of his godness. The fact that you say he's human is irrelevant, unless he's both human and god in which case he's two people and you don't know who your worshipping. Thanks.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

145. Comment #71111 by Goldy on September 17, 2007 at 8:46 pm

OK, seriously now. If he was totally God and totally man, then he'd be totally both. So the man part wouldn't matter, as he'd know intimately the God part. He would know that there was no temptation. Much like you don't believe a movie, if you see what I mean. Doesn't make sense.

Other Comments by Goldy

146. Comment #71113 by revcort on September 17, 2007 at 8:50 pm

No, mate, I'm in the crowd, far from the parking lot :-) And I'm incredulous, not you. You are incredible. In the UK you'd be one of them smelly wierd blokes people avoid. In NZ you'd be one of them smelly wierd blokes people avoid.
I see you learnt "ad hominem" too - at least your mind is not totally shut.
You're really odd!

Hey goldy, thanks. I will gladly take these things as a tremendous compliment. After all, we are told...

11 Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul. 1 Peter 2:11

AND...

But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:

So, I guess I'm doing my job. I may well be one of the first authentic Christians you've ever met. I hope not, but it wouldn't surprise me. People in our nations (US and Britain) who call themselves believers have never really been challenged in their faith- but it is coming- and likely from people like those on this very site. Add to this the fact that false doctrines have become so prevalent, and you've got a recipe for disaster. This is why Jesus said that many who claim to know Him will be turned away at the judgment and He will say, "Depart from me, I never knew you."

Other Comments by revcort

147. Comment #71115 by revcort on September 17, 2007 at 8:52 pm

It is indeed a paradox Goldy- much like the doctrine of the Trinity, which states that God is simultaneously three and one. But the temptation was real, otherwise it was pointless, as you say.

Other Comments by revcort

148. Comment #71116 by Hobbit on September 17, 2007 at 8:53 pm

Revcort writes:

The knowledge I claim is based on a book that God has given the amoebas down here. It's called the Bible.

But I thought the book god gave us was the Koran?

Isn't that god's book?

Why is your particular brand of faith right and the majority of the 6 billion people on this planet wrong? Do you think it might be where you were born and what religion your parents were.

Ask yourself honestly, if you were born and raised in Iran by Islamic parents, would you still believe that the Bible (and not the Koran) is the true word of god?

All we ask for is proof that we can test.

Other Comments by Hobbit

149. Comment #71118 by BAEOZ on September 17, 2007 at 8:55 pm

Recovert, it must be comforting to know that you're among the saved. Quite a nice security blanket.
As for the trinity, if it's true, then mathematics and anything else that relies on identity is false (i.e. you could be you but not you). You have to provide evidence that demonstrates that this outcome isn't as outrageous as it seems before I could honestly accept it.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

150. Comment #71124 by revcort on September 17, 2007 at 9:24 pm

But I thought the book god gave us was the Koran?

Isn't that god's book?

Why is your particular brand of faith right and the majority of the 6 billion people on this planet wrong? Do you think it might be where you were born and what religion your parents were.

Ask yourself honestly, if you were born and raised in Iran by Islamic parents, would you still believe that the Bible (and not the Koran) is the true word of god?

All we ask for is proof that we can test.

It's true that it is only by the grace of God that I was born where I was born. I can't explain that.

However, it is not that difficult to explain why the god of muslims (a demon) is not truly god. The first is to simply look at the claims of both. #1 Jesus claimed to be God. Now, He is either God or He is a liar or should have been locked up because He was crazy. Which is it?

What does Islam say? Islam calls Jesus a prophet., just like Muhammad. This is an impossible middle ground stance to take. It is a logical fallacy. he can't simply be a prophet who claimed to be God and He can't simply be a good man.

Now, consider what you know of Who God must be. Now, read the Koran. (I haven't read all of the Koran, but I've read many passages there) Muhammad was likely suffering from clinical depression- he may well have been bi-polar or suffering from some other kind of neurological disease, especially during his later writings when he became so dark in his writing. The Koran is terribly inconsistent. The early writings and the late writings (after his move to Mecca) are very different. All of the writings from the Koran are all from ONE man in one lifetime. Meanwhile, the writings of the Bible are written by approximately 40 different men over a span of approximately 1500 years, yet the writings are amazingly consistent throughout, almost as if they were written by ONE man instead of 40.

Regardless, it is clear that God is not like the god presented in the Koran, though it does claim to be the same one. The god presented in the Koran is inconsistent with the god presented in the Bible. Man's conscience and understanding of right and wrong should make that clear. Here's a test of that: God's nature, as described in the Bible, is consistent with the conscience of man, which tells him that something like murder is wrong. Yet, the god of the Koran, especially in the later writings, instructs Muslims to kill the infidels, the Christians and the Jews. (by the way, instructing people to wage Jihad against Christians and Jews is also inconsistent with the early writings in the Koran and inconsistent with the teachings of Islam itself today, which claims that Jesus is one of their prophets as well)

It's almost as if the Koran were written by the inspiration of an anti-God figure. An antichrist if you will. The ideologies are opposite. Both can't be correct.

Another simple proof can be seen on the origins of these religions. Islam began in the 6th century AD- Judaism, which is the root of Christianity began "in the beginning" about 4000 BC. What happened to all those born prior to 570 A.D.? Allah apparently didn't care to reveal himself until billions had died without hope. Also, apparently Abraham, who is supposedly the father of Islam (as the father of Ishmael) apparently totally MISSED out on what Allah was doing entirely. Instead, he became the father of Judaism, and by extension, Christianity.

See any holes here? They are very plain for those who care to see.

Other Comments by revcort