301. Why there is no God

Comment #4885 by Anonymous on November 6, 2006 at 6:28 pm

Anon: But let me make this easier for you. Let's say

P = God created Man
Q = I exist

If P= God created Man and Q= I exist, then if I am a man then P must be true.

302. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #4862 by Anonymous on November 6, 2006 at 3:46 pm

Comment

303. Why there is no God

Comment #4829 by Anonymous on November 6, 2006 at 12:41 pm

Asana raised a dog from the dead? And you guys are still baiting him/her? Crazy! What kind of god would let this fruitcake raise a dog from the dead but allow 9/11...7/7...or why not raise from the dead a person like Mother Theresa or someone whose life may be worth something...let me guess...god works in mysterious ways! Mumbo flippin jumbo! If you are in touch with god, tell him he is a cruel mean bastard who should be rotting in his own version of hell and then go out and get therapy Asana!

304. Humphrys In Search of God

Comment #4814 by Anonymous on November 6, 2006 at 9:49 am

305. The Language of Ignorance

Comment #4799 by Anonymous on November 6, 2006 at 6:20 am

What... a load... of rubbish. I'm overwhelmed. He got converted after seeing a FROZEN STREAM?? And worse yet - there are people who think this is MARVELOUSLY SCIENTIFIC?? My head's spinning...

... Some "scientist"...

And as for Paul - it's "yay! an atheist turned Christian! God exists!" or "a scientist believes in Jesus! GOD EXISTS!"... What're you doing, man - collecting brownie points? I'm pretty sure God isn't reading, mate.

306. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #4797 by Anonymous on November 6, 2006 at 6:14 am

Hmm... God himself is rather unsure about what is right and wrong. Our friend Paul tells us at one point he demanded blood sacrifices... Wow...

Y'know... we don't need a "religion" to tell us what's right from wrong. What we need is humanity, common sense, and decent laws. Humanity wouldn't make you go storm a city, kill its men, rape its women and bind its children in slavery... but the Bible - the Word of God - demands it... We're better off without it, I tell you.

307. Why there is no God

Comment #4796 by Anonymous on November 6, 2006 at 6:08 am

The real what? I see a mad freak who thinks an invisible sky pixie possessed him and brought a dog back from the dead. *snort*

Let's hope God didn't give Asana kids... Wouldn't want a bunch of retards who can't follow a logical argument running around - you get too many off them gathering in churches every Sunday...

308. Atheist Evangelist

Comment #4785 by Anonymous on November 6, 2006 at 2:18 am

cognitive dissonance.

309. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #4775 by Anonymous on November 6, 2006 at 12:14 am

Hi Joad, Regarding Comment #4773 ...

I agree with your sin definition, it is disobedience to a set of laws. My laws start with the 10 mentioned.

I guess to get more into the depth of it. Who defines common sense? Where does it come from?

Why do people get angry when you steal from them? And who defined anger, where did it come from? When we get into trouble for doing things such as stealing, we know we should not do it. But why do we get into trouble? Because someone implemented a system for punishment? Where did that come from?

See, for me, I just want to understand where an Atheists rules come from?

310. God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

Comment #4774 by Anonymous on November 6, 2006 at 12:04 am

Hi Joad,

For me, morality starts with the 10 commandments, from Exodus 20 in the Bible:

1 - Have no other gods before Him (see Exodus 20:2-3).
2 - Do not make any idols (see Exodus 20:4-6).
3 - Do not take the Lord's name in vain (see Exodus 20:7).
4 - Keep the Sabbath holy (see Exodus 20:8-11).
5 - Honor your father and mother (see Exodus 20:12).
6 - Do not murder (see Exodus 20:13).
7 - Do not commit adultery (see Exodus 20:14).
8 - Do not steal (see Exodus 20:15).
9 - Do not lie (see Exodus 20:16).
10 - Do not covet (see Exodus 20:17).

For me, to be moral is to follow these laws, and there are others, such as the command to "Love one another". John 13:34 - "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another" ... as Jesus has spoken.

311. Round Table Discussion with Richard Dawkins

Comment #4737 by Anonymous on November 5, 2006 at 4:53 pm

I knew at age 6 when sent to a Roman Catholic indoctrination school that there were no gods and wondered why the people were so mean to kids. That was way back in the last century.

312. Ignorance is No Crime

Comment #4712 by Anonymous on November 5, 2006 at 2:31 pm

Leonardo da vinci was intersted in vortexs.

I am only a simple scholar not a genius.

But the way that happens is a vortex and has a different physics on repulsion of the gases and so contraintuitive as far as a black whole being a magnet.

313. Why there is no God

Comment #4662 by Anonymous on November 5, 2006 at 9:04 am

"Why were many of the people who died in Sri Lanka Christians at BD mass?"

Paul: Most Christians would want to go that way. That's like asking why someone died peacefully in their sleep.

*SNORT* Omg you are so... full... of rubbish. I cannot believe you just said that. Are you out of your mind?? I've seen the videos. Some TV reporters were recording the whole thing... The Christians being washed away and drowned didn't look peaceful, mate... anything but... they were screaming and crying and clinging to bits of wood. swimming for their lives and floundering. I'm sure God had fun watching his precious sheep drown... I can tell you, they weren't throwing their arms up singing hallelujah...

314. Why there is no God

Comment #4659 by Anonymous on November 5, 2006 at 9:00 am

Dude... I'm a vegetarian... I like animals. I like cows. I used to have one. So no. I don't eat 'em . I don't subscribe to your God's "love 'em and eat 'em" view.

Also... The Bible very clearly states that natural disasters are acts of God... Also, the tsunami was caused by an earthquake. I am very curious to know how humans caused the earthquake. Thanks.

But I tell you... God doesn't love you... Sorry.

315. The Science Show versus God

Comment #4609 by Anonymous on November 4, 2006 at 8:18 pm

That voice makes Einstein sound like a woman (at around the 26 minute mark)

316. Why I Won't Debate Creationists

Comment #4603 by Anonymous on November 4, 2006 at 6:03 pm

Our unpublished 9as far as i know reply):

Editor:

In response to the Dr. Richard Dawkins article defending his debate dodging we have the following comments.

We know why evolutionists are ordered not to debate and why they must not contend for the Life Science Prize. They are eminently unqualified as scientists and would waste their $10,000 entry fee.

Our search of the literature reveals that Dr. Dawkins has never published a peer reviewed article in support of evolution. His late chum, Stephen Gould, did not either. They are peas in a pod, both quack essayists of a 2,500 year old pagan religion that masquerades as science. Neither one of them has ever presented a scintilla of scientific evidence. If you find anywhere on the planet one peer reviewed article in support of evolution published in a science journal with objective, valid, reliable, calibrated data by Richard Dawkins, or any evolutionist, send it to us for a reward. Such evidence is as invisible as the emperor's clothes.

Propagandists like Richard Dawkins are out of touch with reality and hallucinate that
evolution is true. Such hallucinations so withdrawn from reality are the medical dictionary definition of psychosis. Our advice to him to default on the Life Science Prize did not go far enough. For the sake of his endowed chair, he also should seek, at the earliest, psychiatric help. We hope he gets well soon.

Evolutionists have no scientific evidence. None. And that is the reason they do not want to debate. Without evidence, they can't win unless they fix the jury. Given an honest judge or jury, they would make of themselves a laughingstock. They have everything to lose because they could not score a single honest point. Their only rational choice is default.

The game is over. Dr. Dawkins has been found out. The jig is up. Evolution is a zillion
times more impossible than the Blue Fairy, the Witch of the North, Aladdin's genies, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Headless Horseman, and the mathematical definition of impossible all put together.

The creationists are asking secular scientists like us to challenge the charlatans. We would rather debate bona fide scientists in scientific meetings. Debating pseudoscientists, like alchemists and evolutionists, is distasteful and unseemly because scientifically they are ciphers.

Every evolutionist, Dr. Dawkins included, brags that evolution is a scientific fact. But as soon as a bona fide scientist says here is $10,000 that says evolution is pure fantasy, then we see the first evidence of evolution. The braggart immediately evolves into a yellow-bellied reptile that slithers away.

Evolutionists of the world, come out of your holes. Evolve into human beings. Defend
your fantasies or be forever branded witless Darwinist propagandists like the authors of the greatest holocausts in human history: Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

Signed:
Karl Priest, M.A.
Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.

317. Atheist Evangelist

Comment #4595 by Anonymous on November 4, 2006 at 5:08 pm

Larry,
--I don't understand why some people get so upset about the mere CRITICISM of religion.--

Of course you do. I recall an episode of Star Trek where Spock fed conflicting data to a malevolent computer, causing it to go into a loop of "Does not compute", until it overloaded.

When you criticize that which is above criticism, you place a person in similar situation. They are in a mental paradox. They have a religious belief which is axiomatically true. It is true because it is true.

When you raise a legitimate criticism, their rational mind must accept it. (avoiding long discourse, the mind processes information independently of conscious decision) But they are forbidden to accept it. They must accept that which they cannot accept. So, they overload.
This lasts long enough for their conscious mind to remove the offending information.

Cheer up. The fact that they get upset proves you created a conflict. Our minds are a marvelous instrument. Our mind cannot leave any conflict unresolved. That one tiny conflict, left unaddressed, will fester creating ever growing sets of conflicts.

The closed-mindedness of religion is a survival tool. If it allows any doubt, any conflict, then it has taken the first step down the path to its demise.

Conflicting ideas is the lifeblood of atheism. It is the death knoll of religion.

318. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #4546 by Anonymous on November 4, 2006 at 12:33 pm

Billy,

I see I'm a bit late getting back into this here since Phil returned and Carol jumped in. But seeing as it sounds like Phil doesn't have time and Carol was desiring a short discourse, I'll go ahead with what we were discussing and pretend it's still relevant!

"Now, I dont know how long you have been following this tread for, but the problem here is the attitude of people like phil...That is why i get annoyed, and in my opinion, i am entittled to do so."

I'm not sure I would argue with that. I perused this thread (since it is rather long and I lacked the time to pick through it point by point) and caught the gist of what was going on and was merely remarking at where things seemed to end up. My remarks are as much for Phil as for you or anyone else. I just think that if an honest exhange is going to come about, both sides would have to recognize that they are arguing and interpreting evidence from opposing world views which is going to affect everything. This impetus falls on Phil as much as anyone. Arguing from the Bible is not in and of itself improper for a Christian (since it is our standard) but it is only going to go so far on a forum like this. Again reason has to be the approach, in my opinion. Other wise this turns into a kindergarten style "no it isn't", "yes it is" kind of argument.

"I disagree. I do not worship science."

I would debate that. When I speak of worship in this context, I don't mean it in the way most evangelicals think of worship. I'm using it here as it has been used largely throughout church history as a reflection of the object of service. I serve God and so it leads me to see and do things in a certain way, with a certain focus. You do not, but you are no less inclined to serve something or someone. Remove God, and your standard now is centered in yourself, science, and/or something else. The inclination to worship is not absent. If a group of atheists gathered to hear Dawkins speak, you can't tell me you all wouldn't be excited when he touches on a seemingly irrefutable point or lambastes the careless religious people desperately hanging onto a mindless faith. I would liken the experience to that of any modern Sunday morning church service. You follow the teachings and experiences of your religion, as I do. Therefore when we debate the origin of things, you will have at the center of your argument the tenets of your faith in man and nature, I will have at the center of mine the tenets of Christianity, God's sovereignty, and Scripture. We will end up in two different places looking at the same evidence due to our respective "worship", that is, where we place our devotion.

"I also question theories...My believe in evolution is based on obsevations and testable evidence. That is not the same as faith that a book is correct..."

But here again, your observations of apparently testable evidence are not untainted. Questioning things is certainly good and you claim that this process led you away from God and towards this view of things. But this process is not naked. Every single one of us approaches these things through a filter that we have constructed through our various beliefs and experiences. The evidence is always viewed through this filter. You apply your faith to your interpretation of the evidence as much as I apply my faith to what I believe to be God breathed text. Neither of us is exempt from bias in this process.

"(his problem is actually based in his faith magnifying some other problem - dont worry, i didn't tell him to embrace atheism)"

How noble of you! ;-)

"To examine an alternative you have to be open to it. I now see so much wrongwith my previous views, but we'll just have to disagree on this."

Oh, I'm not sure about that. If this is what you refer to as open-mindedness, then I agree. But understand too that I claim the same openness. "Open-minded" itself, then, is subject to our respective world-views. I went through a similar process as you claim only my process led me to investigate the Christian faith more indepth to see if its claims could be substantiated. I suppose I took more of a philosophical angle in my approach instead of seeking out the scientific approach.

"Most rationalists would disagree with you here on the basis that you would have to first prove to us that the bible is true - that's what causes a lot of problems and leads to preaching."

Agreed. I just mean that for a Christian, since the Bible is the standard, in some sense we would argue for what it argues for since we would recognize it as the lone authority to bind our conscience; regardless of whether or not an atheist does. But as you point out, this can only go so far when one is in a discussion like this one and reason is required to truly get anywhere. At that point, the discussion really needs to be about where we each place our authority regarding our respective standards.

"Our confidence in it is even further eroded by the fact that christians cannot agree amoungst themselves on issues..."

Now come on here, this is no argument. Evolutionists have a hard time agreeing on things as well. Even a cursory search on the internet will prove that.

"Evolution is obsevable, we have seen many beneficial mutants arise, there is so much evidence, For example, check out this, and offer a non evolution based alternative http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
Where are the early fossil humans if a 6 day creation is real etc"

Creationism is observable too, complete with its own evidence. The mutants you mention is a matter of interpretation. The opposition to the horse theory has suggested that there is a good deal of evidence to call it into question. Some of it coming from evolutionists. See the following as an initial example. Surely you could follow this deeper; personally, I lack the time for it right now:

http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/horsevolution.htm

"I have never known anyone to get better from anything that disnot take medical help too."

I have. I do not always necessarily attribute it to prayer either. Regardless, it really is besides the point. You can not limit your evidence that God does not exist to your own personal experience. That is subjective and will not hold up.

"Well you might say god gave us medicine, I say what about the black death and HIV then?"

Now you are getting into the thick of theological argumentation. It proves the point that the debate of evolution vs. creationism is a theological/philosophical one. Not a scientific one.

"Also, all the gospel accounts of healing are instantaneous. So to convince me that jesus is behind it, I would have to see some one pray, then be healed. Why doesn't god heal amputees?"

This argument does not prove or disprove prayer. That Jesus healed instantaneously does not somehow necessitate that this is what should happen whenever we pray. It reminds me of a C.S. Lewis quote, "Prayer does not change God, it changes us." But again, this is digging into the depths of theological discourse. It's enjoyable, but is secondary to the discussion.

"BTW you sound very much like a christian I know of the same name. Are you him?"

I don't think so. That is to say, your name does not sound familiar to me and I don't often post to message boards anymore.

Billy, I appreciate your time and patience in this. I have enjoyed the dialog and you've certainly prompted me to look deeper into these matters. I hope you do the same and in the process, realize how your own religion taints the way you observe the facts.

Peace to you,
Mitch

319. The Science Show versus God

Comment #4480 by Anonymous on November 4, 2006 at 5:06 am

I didn't so much mean less intellectually curious in the sense of being less rational and logical, I would estimate that there are just as many and probably no more superstitious people here in Australia as in Britain. What I really meant was that I don't know whether Australia has as proportionally large a community that would even hear about this book, and therefore decide whether to read it. Only ABC radio and maybe one or two newspapers will probably even talk about the God Delusion.

What I should have said is that fact that Australia has a lower, less centralised population, and I don't know whether you'll get as many people here that would care - not because they necessarily embrace superstition, but just because we don't generally consider religious belief to be a very big deal.

320. Tony Blair on Science

Comment #4463 by Anonymous on November 4, 2006 at 3:19 am

Americans - don't believe a word he says, because he doesn't believe a word he says. He gets briefed on topics he knows nothing about and then smarms his way through interviews. He's the poster boy of political spin and he's responsible for narrowing the political spectrum. The differences between conservative and labour are at the margins. He's a gimp of the highest accolade awarded in gimphood

321. Atheists should be louder and prouder

Comment #4453 by Anonymous on November 4, 2006 at 12:46 am

@ Manfred & Sean

First, I'd like to thank both of you for your answers. I feel that you've answered honestly, thoroughly and kindly.

I have another question based on a conflict between your two responses, as well as other atheists I've spoken with.

My question is, in the literal sense of the words, is atheism a 'belief system'? Why or why not?

Manfred says, "Atheism is not a BELIEF system."

Sean says, "Simply stated, atheism is the BELIEF that the universe can, and in fact does, exist according to purely natural laws, and does not require the intervention of an eternal, omnipotent being in order to patch the holes in our understanding."

What is atheism? I've come to the conclusion that it's more a philosophy, but then again, I've known Christians who say the same about their beliefs.

322. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4432 by Anonymous on November 3, 2006 at 9:33 pm

323. Christian Author Warns Of Growing Atheist Backlash

Comment #4413 by Anonymous on November 3, 2006 at 6:24 pm

@ Aerik Knapp-Loomis

Please don't name call. I haven't called you any names.

And by the way, here's an article about non-religious fundamentalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist#Non-religious_fundamentalism

324. Christian Author Warns Of Growing Atheist Backlash

Comment #4411 by Anonymous on November 3, 2006 at 6:03 pm

So basically, in order to be a religious extemist you have to fly a plane into a building, killing yourself and just about everybody else. Believing that everybody except you and your friends are going to hell and that they fully deserve it according to a perfect justice of a Creator-God-Emperor of the Universe is considered to be a normal state of a religious mind.

On the other hand, in order to be a vicious and vehement(sic) atheistic extremist all you need to do is open your mouth.

tell me about double standards!

325. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #4339 by Anonymous on November 3, 2006 at 12:38 pm

"Billy I never mentioned Chernobyl being related to any passage in the bible (that would be your stereo typing again) so does that differ me on the fundis? If you say yes then you do stereo type and your mind will stay shut."

READ THE COMMENT AGAIN!!!!! DID I SAY YOU?????????
If you dont read what is written, then i dont see why I should bother with you

"Read it again Billy because I didnt say anywhere that you stated myself mentioning Chernobyl to the passage.
All I done was ask you if you thought I agreed if that differed me from the fundis to which if you said yes then you do stereo type.
I can now see why you cant see the answers to the flat earth issue or the Genesis contridiction."

I dont need to. it is there and clear. "i never mentioned chernobyl ....." Why would you say that if if you didn't think I had made accusations and stereotypes? It seems that it is not just the bible that is full of contradiction. If you don't have a basic grasp of english then, no wonder you cant see the claring contradictions. You have a closed mind. I know this because i was once like you. You are deluding yourself. Phil, I have lost my respect for you, i wont be replying to you again

326. Why there is no God

Comment #4235 by Anonymous on November 3, 2006 at 1:57 am

Oops. the above comments were made by me, Paul

327. Why there is no God

Comment #4234 by Anonymous on November 3, 2006 at 1:52 am

"You're avoiding the issue, mate..."

Sorry, I wasn't trying to.

"God DEMANDED a blood sacrifice, did he?"
Yep.

"Good grief... and you can STILL say he loves us all?"

Yep. I know people who eat meat and yet they say they are animal lovers. I'll assume you eat meat. Do you HATE cows, or do you simply want to eat their flesh? You don't hate them, but you demand a sacrifice. It's really no different.
Maybe it's just what God needed at the time.
I cant begin to understand some of God's reasons, but I also can't build a universe.

"Didn't he love the people HE was supposed to have created?"

Yep.

"How could he kill the first-born son in every Egyptian family over some lousy cattle..."

He only killed the firstborn sons of Egyptians because they were enslaving the Jews, God's chosen people. If someone was enslaving your mum and dad and baby sis, wouldn't you want to hurt the slave masters? Well, as you know, God says, "Vengeance is mine" So there ya go.

"...did he not love them?"
Sure he did, just not as much, he also gave them a chance to behave, but they didn't want to.

"Also - all natural disasters are caused by God."

As a 'rational thinker' like Mr. Dawkins himself I'm sure you realize that environmental pollution creates the majority of the worse natural disasters. That is because God gave us free will, and we've chosen to pollute our planet. Just like if someone eats at Mc Donald's all the time, they will be sicker than a person who eats right and exercises. Plus, you don't believe in God, so what you really think causes all natural disasters is chance, or nature taking its course. That could also be correct, even from a Christian point of view.

"(I will unearth the passage and show you shortly, but do tell me if you think the Old Testament doesn't count.) "

Of course it counts. If one doesn't study history they are doomed to repeat it.


"So.. the tsunami two or so years ago... it killed many people."

Yep.

"Tell me - was God BORED?"

No. He's usually very patient.

"Why were many of the people who died in Sri Lanka Christians at BD mass?"

Most Christians would want to go that way. That's like asking why someone died peacefully in their sleep.

"The people who tirelessly work among the Buddhist community, informing them that they would burn for eternity, simply because they refused to believe in God? surely they were model Christians..."

No, they're not. Actually, I can't find it in the Bible where God tells Christians to judge people and tell them they are going to Hell. If you could find that for me I'd appreciate it. Until then, we'll have to assume that they are just imperfect humans doing something they shouldn't be.

"Surely God loved them?"

Yep.

"Tell me, then, why did he kill them?"

He didn't. They died because they were caught up in a tsunami caused by whatever scientific thingie occurred. (effects of pollution, etc.)

"Why did he take the breadwinner (the fishermen) from many families and leave the children to starve and drive the wives to prostitution?"

He didn't. They died because they were caught up in a tsunami. After the tsunami occurred many people who were left behind did what they deemed necessary to survive. Many mothers would rather prostitute themselves than watch their babies starve. It's sad, but true.

Those were some good questions, and I'm enjoying our dialogue. Please let me know what YOU think the reasoning is behind natural disasters, human suffering and death.

328. Why there is no God

Comment #4224 by Anonymous on November 2, 2006 at 9:36 pm

You're avoiding the issue, mate...

God DEMANDED a blood sacrifice, did he? Good grief... and you can STILL say he loves us all? Didn't he love the people HE was supposed to have created? How could he kill the first-born son in every Egyptian family over some lousy cattle... did he not love them?

Also - all natural disasters are caused by God. (I will unearth the passage and show you shortly, but do tell me if you think the Old Testament doesn't count.) So.. the tsunami two or so years ago... it killed many people. Tell me - was God BORED? Why were many of the people who died in Sri Lanka Christians at BD mass? The people who tirelessly work among the Buddhist community, informing them that they would burn for eternity, simply because they refused to believe in God? surely they were model Christians... Surely God loved them? Tell me, then, why did he kill them? Why did he take the breadwinner (the fishermen) from many families and leave the children to starve and drive the wives to prostitution?

Also, to the theist who posted insulting messages on my blog: you know who you are, and nuts to you. I've deleted your messages and will continue to do so, because i can't be bothered to refute your ridiculous claims. you remind me of a certain someone who comments regularly on this site...

329. Why there is no God

Comment #4221 by Anonymous on November 2, 2006 at 9:04 pm

This just in:

"Man claims 3-year sexual relationship with pastor"

(link at end of post)

They are talking about Ted Haggard, the pastor at the New Life Church in Colorado. Richard Dawkins does an interview with him in The Root of All Evil?

Now, if these allegations turn out to be true, this would be bigger than the recent Mark Foley scandal.

I have no problem with homosexuals. I do have a problem with homosexuals that hide their homosexuality and make other homosexuals lives a living hell. PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4588998
http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=a73db9d1-0abe-421a-01ee-15ec09b8ff7d&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

330. Why there is no God

Comment #4219 by Anonymous on November 2, 2006 at 8:50 pm

My point is: women are raped, children are killed, people put to death or fed to lions - all because God says so...

331. Why there is no God

Comment #4218 by Anonymous on November 2, 2006 at 8:48 pm

Paul... Is the Bible really the word of God? I came across some passages, here's a millionth of what I found:

Zechariah 14:1-2
"I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city."

Deuteronomy 17:12
"The man who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God must be put to death."

Exodus 22:20
"Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed."

Deuteronomy 13:6-12
"6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God."

1 Kings 20:35-36
"35 By the word of the LORD one of the sons of the prophets said to his companion, "Strike me with your weapon," but the man refused.
36 So the prophet said, "Because you have not obeyed the LORD, as soon as you leave me a lion will kill you." And after the man went away, a lion found him and killed him."

... This is the Word of your God? Are you *quite* sure he loves us all...? heh heh...

332. Why there is no God

Comment #4211 by Anonymous on November 2, 2006 at 8:00 pm

Asana said: If God is real(and he(HU) is) The believer has successfully lived life and is rewarded. If God was not real the believer has still lived a successful life.

Allow me to rephrase... If God is NOT for real, then the believer has wasted many hours and worn out his knees praying, and spent a lifetime being deluded and laughed at by atheists...

333. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4104 by Anonymous on November 2, 2006 at 10:17 am

@ #42/4090 Don, Don, Don, Don, Don - Don de-doobie Don,

"The universe only inspires terror, and not beauty, when left to its own devices."

That the universe inspires you to feel fear instead of awe reveals that you don't think much of your god, assuming such a thing created it.

"Why did so many persons go insane, if science and philosophy are so sensible as the atheist seems to think?"

Insanity cannot be remedied by reason or philosophy. It deals with chemical imbalances in the brain, and is actually an argument against your god's allegedly perfect design rather than an argument against science. Indeed, science is responsible for providing vehicles for treatment of neurotic disorders, whereas your god could be faulted for it, if such a being existed.

"...Plato...Aristotle..."

...are not modern scientists. Rather, they are ancient philosophers.

"It is merely man practicing the ancient arts of humanism, creating gods in his own image."

It seems to be man's nature to create gods and anthropomorphize them. This is not humanism, nor is humanism an 'art.' See http://www.jcn.com/humanism.php4 for an article detailing humanism.

Generally, humanists reject the supernatural. Therefore your argument that humanists create gods reveals your ignorance of what it actually is.

"All the arguments against a higher power fall one by one when the evidence is weighed justly."

Present one iota of objective evidence for the existence of a higher power and I'll consider your proposition. The bottom line is that no one will ever prove nor disprove the existence of any deity. It cannot be done, nor is it the aim of science to do so.

"I don't say these things to offend, but one must be objective."

It is not 'objective' to affirm the existence of one god to the exclusion of all the thousands of others mankind has created, worshipped, and discarded.

The rest of your post (actually, most of it) is a directionless and logic-free post, rife with fallacies. I don't have time to address them all, so I'll let others continue.

334. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4062 by Anonymous on November 2, 2006 at 8:07 am

"Any significant component of the US government? We have a test case, for President Reagan did believe exactly this. "

If he knows the question, why ask it to the reader? Also, when Bush II was asked if he believed this was the end of times, it took him a good 50 seconds of hard thinking to say "maybe". Any athiest would have said "no" immediately.

As Bill Hicks put it, "That's another good thing about Bush being gone, man, cos for the last 12 years with Reagan and Bush, we have had fundamentalist Christians in the White House. Fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible is the exact word of God, including that wacky fire and brimstone Revelations ending, have had their finger on the ****ing button for 12 years. [Eyes roll back in head] "Tell me when Lord, tell me when. Let me be your servant Lord."

335. Atheists should be louder and prouder

Comment #4054 by Anonymous on November 2, 2006 at 7:21 am

[i]I have been waiting for an opportunity to say I was one. But no one ever asks. They seldom even give you a box to tick. You have to make do with "Other". It's lonely being an atheist. Atheism quite rightly rejects all the cultish signs and symbols of or-ganised religion, but sometimes it feels like it has gone too far and has lost its momentum as a movement.[/i]

So, iow, you prefer being a wishy washy, fun loving socialite and not rock any boats? Your measure of reality being based on gut instinct, intuition, and social correctness. The perfect agnostic who disingenuously wishes she could be an atheist idealistically, but, on second thought, would rather not - its such a bother, after all.

336. Why there is no God

Comment #3999 by Anonymous on November 2, 2006 at 2:38 am

"Asana wants violent responses, so that they can be printed off and shown in church as to how irrational we Atheists are"

So you are an atheist then?
How irrational is believing in an invisible sky daddy when you have absolutely no proof

337. Dawkins thinks atheism will save us

Comment #3971 by Anonymous on November 1, 2006 at 9:26 pm

338. Why there is no God

Comment #3902 by Anonymous on November 1, 2006 at 11:05 am

asana, two words; waco tosspot!

339. Why there is no God

Comment #3901 by Anonymous on November 1, 2006 at 11:02 am

Asana
"Bodhitharta: It is written in the bible and the Quaran that the world is a globe."
It most certanally does not say that. perhaps you could give us a verse from the bible? The early church certainly said the bible states the earth to be flat.
Atheism has robbed us of nothing. Religion however has robbed many of a future. There is no freedom in religious obeyance.
As for the highest number, take the biggest number you can think of and add 1.

340. The God Conundrum

Comment #3896 by Anonymous on November 1, 2006 at 10:28 am

Ruth

'Imagine no religion' - that's the clarion call to atheists that is the slogan, on the posters, on the front page of this website.

You say that it would be 'nice' if religion did disappear. Maybe it would also be nice if atheists would put a stop to their wishful thinking and engage the world that actually is.

341. Why there is no God

Comment #3890 by Anonymous on November 1, 2006 at 10:06 am

To all: I have no proof of the existence of God. I guess I am feebly restating the non-overlapping magisteria approach of Gould (and yes, I am very aware of Dawkins criticisms of this idea, but do not agree with them).

"I trust you will never fall victim to a degenerative brain condition such as Alzheimers, which, by intefering with those brain chemicals you so cavalierly dismiss, would destroy your love for your wife and children."
I hope not too; could you pray for me ;). Sorry, I couldn't resist. I don't thnk my love would be destroyed, just the biological manifestation. I have no proof of this and if others consider it a delusion I am not offended.

Sweetsunray:
You make some excellent points, and are obviously a very thoughtful person. I am not sure I can answer your questions. I am not using my subjective experiences as proof of God's existence, but rather using them as a poor substitute to describe my belief. I suppose it is like trying to desribe the sensation of pain. It hurts, and we all know what it is, but how does one actually describe the sensation?

Martin:
I do believe in a personal God, and have no answer as to why intercessory prayer doesn't work or why God allows evil (both human and natural) to invade the world. Dawkins has great arguments in that respect; I have little. I suppose I reject Dawkins testable God hypothesis; faith is called that because it is just that: faith. I do not think that faith or any other human endeavor should be accorded special status. I disagree that religion is given a free pass, why else would Dawkin's book be #3 on Amazon (or a believer like me eagerly obtain and read it)?

The "airplanes into buildings" argument is a compelling one against religious fanaticism. But consider this: should we end the study of physics, since its principles have been used to create atomic weapons and technology that led to global warming? Should I give up on Democracy, even though I know that, as it is practiced in the US, it is almost a farce?

One last note: I think that atheists, brights, etc. and those who believe in God can co-exist, and challenging each other's beliefs is good. As a believer, I can say that Dawkin's tone and condescension sometimes can sometimes overshadow his interesting and challenging ideas. As an academic myself, I understand the temptation to scream in frustration at the "idiots" who don't understand or refuse to embrace my brilliant ideas; I have been guilty of it myself. I don't see why one side needs to triumph; I don't think atheists are bad people and I know not all believers are good people. It is the twisting of any idea to serve evil that is the problem.

342. Why there is no God

Comment #3885 by Anonymous on November 1, 2006 at 9:44 am

To Brian, William, and all the other intelligent people here who conitinue to try and argue with these faithhead wingnuts, I salute your incredible reserves of patience and mental stamina. I don't know how you do it.

For me, I really wish there was a God, and he would get his "rapturous" ass in gear and get down here and whisk these religious dolts the fuck out of here, to a place where they can float around with their little angel wings, in sublime peace and numbing, mindless existence for all eternity.

Then maybe the rest of us could live in peace and reason, and never have to look at another stupid "PRAISE THE LORD" bumper sticker, or hear another pathetic attempt at challenging the validity of evolution by an individual who has not even the most basic understanding of it's details.

343. Why there is no God

Comment #3860 by Anonymous on November 1, 2006 at 6:25 am

The existence of religion does not prove the existance of any god

344. Why there is no God

Comment #3842 by Anonymous on November 1, 2006 at 2:38 am

Einsteins God is God!

345. Why there is no God

Comment #3824 by Anonymous on October 31, 2006 at 9:44 pm

"An atheist philosophy against another's, just one that does not need me to take a leap of faith, nor makes me cling on to "I wish it were true"

The Atheist belief is a leap of faith as well.

346. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #3823 by Anonymous on October 31, 2006 at 9:43 pm

That guy is simply dishonest and somewhat limited in his intellect. The so called review is just a rant to attack Dawkins without any arguments he might have been trying to make?

In simple terms we have a Mouse [eagleton] trying to have a go at a Lion [Dawkins]

I use this excerpt as documentation of my thesis
Timl :):)

347. Why there is no God

Comment #3801 by Anonymous on October 31, 2006 at 6:35 pm

Jason,

ou totally misunderstood what I said This is what I said 'If you haven't proved the existence of something does that mean it doesn't exist'


Jason you wrote:
"Yet if something DOES exist you CAN prove it does exist"

The fact is, that is not true you cannot prove something does exist simply because it exists there are several things that exist that we have no idea of its existence hence we cannot "prove" what we have no way of knowing.

I have certainly shown you a flaw in tour thinking about this subject will you then admit this?

Also talking about orbiting tea pots or Spaghetti monsters are intellectually deceitful arguments. Also, there is no historical reason to believe in these things. God on the other hand has a real history with real people, plus the most convincing evidence of all is that three Major religions who are not in collusion agree that they Worship the same God.

The Jewish people celebrate the Passover in rememberence of what God did for them. Do you think they all got together and said let's make a bogus holy day.

Richard Dawkins is going to renounce atheism in 2007, so tell me what will you say when this happens?

348. Dawkins thinks atheism will save us

Comment #3769 by Anonymous on October 31, 2006 at 1:48 pm

Will:

Wow I am an old school Dallas Cowbiy fan from my childhood...Remember Roger Staubach? LOL I gace up on football a long time ago...But I am a big Manchester United fan.

I coached soccer for 7 years over here. The US doesnt support it either. An losing the religion race, Bush et al, etc. ...makes one quickly lose faith in the system.

Its like the Religious Right has effed up our way of life.....Its like America isnt free anymore.....Have you watched "V" for Vendetta? Thats the way I feel. Its like 1984 all over again.

Also seems like all my co-workers are dumbass- ass kissing Bush lovers. I also live in a RED STATE. Its just crazy. Churches are getting bigger and bigger and the vast citizenry are getting poorer and poorer.

It makes we wonder WTF?

Cheers

349. Why there is no God

Comment #3746 by Anonymous on October 31, 2006 at 12:09 pm

"It is very important to understand that you can actually prove the existence of something if it does indeed exist."

If you haven't proved the existence of something does that mean it doesn't exist.

Did the atom exist before it was proved to exist?

As I said before The Answer is always existing before the question. yet, no one responded to that part of my post.

Here is a perfect example: I know of something that exists that is in my possession which you can not prove it exists because you don't know that it exists.

350. Why there is no God

Comment #3727 by Anonymous on October 31, 2006 at 9:28 am

Even Dawkins would concede that.