301. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57959 by Lauregon on July 22, 2007 at 4:09 pm

What I find weird are moderate believers who are willing to see much of the Bible as metaphor, but who retain firm believe in the resurrection. Back in the day I had a book around here (can't find it now) by a Protestant preacher who decried fundamentalist belief and argued for a modernist interpretation of the Bible. It wasn't a great book or particularly well-written, but I apppreciated it anyway---up until the end when he suddenly did a back-flip and declared full support for what he considered the bedrock of Christian belief, the resurrection.

302. Religion beat became a test of faith

Comment #57956 by Lauregon on July 22, 2007 at 3:53 pm

His come back was that I was an ignorant atheist who "refuses to be taught and be rid of his ignorance", followed by more quotes from the bible. How original. - Bonzai

If his next door neighbor behaved like the god of the Bible is depicted, I'm reasonably certain he'd want him locked up for life in a maximum security facility. Imagine a neighbor subjecting his youngest child to death by torture in order to provide "atonement" for the misbehavior of his older kids.

On the other hand, sigh, maybe he'd volunteer to help out with the torture.

303. Religion beat became a test of faith

Comment #57931 by Lauregon on July 22, 2007 at 11:57 am

I read the responses to Lobdell's article at the Times link provided above. Here's an...interesting one:

Great writing. I would like to make one comment, though, about God growing back limbs. If you study history and some of the great revivalists, you will find that there were occasions where limbs have grown out and documented proof that the dead have come back to life.

304. Religion beat became a test of faith

Comment #57929 by Lauregon on July 22, 2007 at 11:41 am

"My ultimate affirmation is let God be God and acknowledge that He is in charge. He knows what I don't know. And frankly, if I'm totally honest with you, a life of gratitude is one that bows before the Sovereign God arguing with Him on those things that trouble me, lamenting the losses of life, but ultimately saying, 'You, God, are infinite; I'm human and finite.' " - Huffman by Lobdell

This is infuriating. It's also the trump card of most if not all believer argumentation. "Let go and let God." No doubt it brings comfort to many, but it's a sure way to repel people who think deeply about religious beliefs.

I say hooray for William Lobdell's awakening. I also say, cut him some slack and remember this: he's not finished yet. I spent a quarter century in a sort of neti-neti theological limbo before finally accepting that I am and have probably always been a non-theist.

305. Religion beat became a test of faith

Comment #57870 by Lauregon on July 21, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Some friends in a Bible study class encouraged me to attend a men's religious weekend in the San Bernardino Mountains. The three-day retreats are designed to grind down your defenses and leave you emotionally raw — an easier state in which to connect with God. After 36 hours of prayer, singing, Bible study, intimate sharing and little sleep, I felt filled with the Holy Spirit.


I once had a friend who went to one of these retreats. She'd been attending a liberal school of theology, was vibrant, intellectually stimulating, interesting, and fun to be with. She came home claiming to have been "born again" but she seemed
more spiritually dead than alive. She didn't say much at all about what the retreat had been like, and I was surprised, even shocked by her appearance and personality change. She soon dropped out of the liberal school of theology, enrolled in a conservative, evangelical seminary and eventually was ordained, but as far as I know, she never returned to the happy, bright person she was before she was "born again." One day a few years years later, she told me with great certainty that she'd actually seen Satan.

306. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57860 by Lauregon on July 21, 2007 at 5:17 pm

I think PeterK described the believer/atheist debate quite well when he wrote recently (in another discussion):

The fact that when attempts are made to present what they [theists] feel are profound arguments that rebut the atheists claims, the results resemble that of a fish on land.

307. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57620 by Lauregon on July 20, 2007 at 9:23 am

if the majority of americans (including those in all sections of government) believe evolution to be false (and they are all experts on the subject right? so entitled to their opinion) then WHY arent there nationwide protests outside all schools demanding that teachers stop teaching kids lies? If they beleived that the teachers were by law teaching falsehoods why isnt there a move to legally remove it from the curriculum. - Phasmagigas

Exactly. I know a man who insists he believes "with all [his] heart and soul" that the earth as we know it is merely some 6,000 years old---and yet this guy argues against teaching creationism in public schools. Why would he want his kids and grandkids taught lies? Aha, because he believes in freedom of religion! I think this is what's called cognitive dissonance.

308. Sadly, an Honest Creationist

Comment #57567 by Lauregon on July 19, 2007 at 11:31 pm

#10 Wise admits he acts on faith; the evolutionist pretends he does not. - RedneckfromIdaho


The huge difference: When believers speak of their "faith," it refers to their firm belief in certain doctrinal supernatural phenomena and beings.

309. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57468 by Lauregon on July 19, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Not to be picky, but by definition, to "evangelize" is to preach the Christian gospel.

That aside, discusing non-theism is the discussion of ideas, just as discussing politics is the discussion of ideas. As for the alleged pointlessness of discussing non-theism, I disagree with ole Tyrone. Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins pushed me over the line.

310. The New New Atheism

Comment #57457 by Lauregon on July 19, 2007 at 12:13 pm

#61 Those same people laugh off the potential for initiating serious dialogue with those of a religious persuasion, citing selectively chosen perverse biblical passages and the fanatical exploits of fundamentalists as evidence that such an attempt is futile. I interpret this as a plea of desperation, i.e. citing the most extreme manifestation of one's adversary in order to obfuscate the real issues lying in the middle ground. - IQHQ

"Perverse passages? Most extreme?" Christian doctrine begins with God cursing human females to agony in childbirth, and all human beings to endless unrelenting toil throughout life for the "sin" of using the "free-will" bestowed on them by that very God. Christian doctrine ends with the required death by monstrous torture of a human being as a means of redeeming humans from the "sin" of being human. "Perverse?" The God of the Bible often behaves like a psychopath and yet believers somehow manage to interpret these behaviors as demonstrations of a divine loving being. "Well," they shrug, "God can do whatever He wants to do. His ways are not our ways. His ways are mysterious. Who are YOU to judge Him?"

How can Christian faith be discussed without addressing the capricious brutalities and sadisms of the Biblical God? Where is the "middle ground, IQHQ?

311. The New New Atheism

Comment #57316 by Lauregon on July 18, 2007 at 10:08 pm

Are non-religious Europeans flocking to lives of crime and mayhem? If not, it just might be that the absence of religious faith does not lead straight to criminal behavior!

312. The New New Atheism

Comment #57286 by Lauregon on July 18, 2007 at 6:44 pm

(Really, many on this site grossly misunderstand the social dynamics of human society. Open Pandora's box if you choose, but we really need to consider the consequences of our actions) - IQHQ

What you're revealing, IQHQ, is a belief in governance through human terror of the divine. Call that "love" if you will, but I call it spiritual and mental tyranny.

313. The New New Atheism

Comment #57284 by Lauregon on July 18, 2007 at 6:38 pm

If a simple Catholic man or woman takes but a few simple lessons from their habitual church attendance, they are surely those of love, peace and comfort. - IQHQ


What my husband took away from his simple Irish Catholic upbringing was that Catholics must attend Mass in order to avoid hell. Beyond that, he hadn't a clue about his Church or about how it came to be. For him and his family, Mass was duty, period. Avoiding eternity in hell could, would, and will bring comfort to the terrified, to be sure, but what kind of "love" is it that invented hell in the first place? I trust you won't deny or metaphorize "hell" since the Pope very recently declared it to be "real."

314. The New New Atheism

Comment #57195 by Lauregon on July 18, 2007 at 2:13 pm

but then the problem lies not in the Bible, but rather, simply, in the fact that they are nutters. - IQHQ

The problem lies in believing the Bible contains the thoughts and words of "God" instead of being the thoughts and words of ordinary human beings limited by time, place, extant myths, and culture.

Words are words, after all, symbols, actually, and people will interpret them according to their ability to understand---which is why words should not be assigned a divine and eternal status and attributed to supernatural beings.

315. The New New Atheism

Comment #57162 by Lauregon on July 18, 2007 at 12:39 pm

#45 There is an activity common to all Christian sects,--I only found out recently that even Catholics do it,-- call bible searching. You come up with a topic, say war, and pray for the holy spirit to guide you. You then open the bible and flip around randomly until you find verses that appear to have something to say about war and take them as God's answer to your question. - Bonzai

I've heard this called "dipping for script," and I've known people who practice it. I even briefly, many years ago, tried it, and found it an insane way to try to live my life.

316. The New New Atheism

Comment #57159 by Lauregon on July 18, 2007 at 12:32 pm

#44I accept your point, and that it is true to your experience. Yet my experience differs from yours in a quite strinking fashion. I have had the pleasure of meeting many religious people (admittedly most have been Catholics) who were able to passionately debate a range of different issues with me, including our "natural state of agnositicism". That you have not had similar discussions may be more indicative of the geographical region in which you live rather than any inherent intellectual inadequacies on the part of their faith. - IQHQ


It may also be that you were incorrect in declaring that it's not true of the "vast majority of believers" that they have not "thought about it."

As for my geographic location, I've lived most of my 67 years in Southern California, hardly an intellectual backwater. I was also active in both Catholic and Episcopalian congregations, was a layreader in the latter, and close friends with several Episcopal clergypersons. As well, I've worked closely with and am closely related to both Catholics and Protestant evangelical Christians who appear to have no capacity whatsoever for and no evident history of critically thinking about their faith.

317. The New New Atheism

Comment #57146 by Lauregon on July 18, 2007 at 11:50 am

#35 Therefore, it is rude and arrogant for us to speak condescendingly to our religious friends, with the ridiculous assumption that "they must never have thought about it". Maybe this is true for some nutjob fanatics, but it is not so for the vast majority of believers. - IQHQ

Hmmm. I've met and known fundies who treat scripture like patchwork quilt squares in order to make it fit their beliefs. I've known moderate Christians (which I once was) who cherry- pick, erase, and artfully interpret scripture to achieve a benign, more palatable theology. I've known moderate Christians who belong to congregations simply for the fellowship and music. I've known clergy who considered adult Bible study to be a chore and miserable burden and who dodged it whenever possible. However, I've never yet met a Christian believer who has been able to discuss his or her religion with anything approaching critical thinking skills. It seems to me the popularly-accepted choices available to non-theists have been (and remain to be) are, 1. to avoid serious discussion of the reasons for non-theism altogether, or 2. to press on with the discussion and be accused of arrogance, militance, and even elitism.

318. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56648 by Lauregon on July 16, 2007 at 6:38 pm

# 148 - PeterK The fact that when attempts are made to present what they feel are profound arguments that rebut the atheists claims, the results resemble that of a fish on land.



I watched David Robertson's YouTube attempt at refuting RD this morning and could only groan and shake my head at his comments. Theists seem utterly incapable of grasping a non-theist perspective. Theists have only the rusty tools in their little black box to work with and absolutely don't GET that their tools simply aren't sufficient. The Rev David kept repeating as proof of one thing and another that "We're made in God's image" as if that were an indisputable fact instead of an article of faith.

319. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56644 by Lauregon on July 16, 2007 at 6:20 pm

#145 by Darwin2 Yes from now on I will consider myself an evangelist whose mission is to enlighten atheists that it is possible for One True God, the Designer and Creator of all universes to exist; it is also possible for consciousness to continue after death; and it is also possible for science and religion to be compatible and complementary.


Better get back to the drawing board, Darwin2. This isn't Sunday School.

320. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56432 by Lauregon on July 15, 2007 at 6:00 pm

#137 by Darwin2 I do not have any scientific evidence to prove my contention that God exists or that consciousness continues after death. You do not have any scientific evidence to prove your contention that God does not exist or that consciousness ceases at death. You accuse me of being an insistent evangelist to support my singular ideas about God and the survival of consciousness but aren't you an insistent evangelist to support your singular ideas about the non-existence of God and the cessation of consciousness at death. My fellow insistent evangelist it is a pleasure to meet you.

If I were posting on a religious believer's board, I might be said to be evangelizing religious believers with my non-theist views, though that would require a broadening of the most common definition of the word "evangelize." As it is, I'm posting as a non-theist on a non-theist board where it's not necessary to evangelize for non-theist views. You, on the other hand, are a theist posting on a non-theist board. That makes you an evangelist for your theist views. Please try to understand the difference---and please try to understand as well that the burden HERE and NOW on this board where you are evangelizing for theism, is on YOU to prove that your idiosyncratic, cherry-picked, supernatural "God" exists. The non-existence of something that isn't factually known to exist doesn't have to be proven to not exist. It's very foolish of you to keep missing that point.

321. The fundamentalist delusion

Comment #56311 by Lauregon on July 14, 2007 at 10:50 pm

One of the problems with the debate, as framed by these writers, is it's just a shouting match, and they want the bigger megaphone. - Zwartz


Believers get their knickers in bulging twists over a backpack's worth of atheist books published recently amid galaxies of published believer's books. "Humph! How dare they criticize our beliefs!" believers mutter and shriek. Hmmm. Exactly WHO is it insisting on having the bigger megaphone?

322. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56282 by Lauregon on July 14, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Comment #56192 Let me list below the things I have in common with the Judeo-Christian-Muslim faith.

We agree that there is one God.
We agree that God is infinite, all-powerful and all-knowing.
We agree that God is loving, merciful and perfectly just.
We agree that God created all that exists.
We agree that God has a purpose for human existence.
We agree that humans have souls that survive the death of the body.
We agree that the soul is eternal.
We agree that a judgment for humans takes place after the death of the physical body.
We agree there is a hell where souls have to account for their transgressions against God's laws.
We agree that there is an eternal heaven.
We agree that human destiny is not on Earth but in the after-life.
We agree that angels exist although I call angels God's administrators.
We agree that God wants us to do good actions and avoid doing evil actions.
We agree Faith is necessary for our beliefs.
We agree that God wants us to love our neighbors as ourselves.
We agree that God wants us to love, respect and enjoy all of God's creations.

Where we differ is on the belief in an eternal hell. I believe in hell but only a temporary hell and Earth is a temporary hell. We disagree on the purpose of human existence, on redemption, on original sin, on the devil and on the nature of post-death judgment. And their concept of loving, merciful and perfectly just radically differs from mine. - Darwin2


In other words, you're an orthodox believer---with privileges.

323. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56278 by Lauregon on July 14, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Comment #56194 by darwin2 on July 14, 2007 at 11:37 am

You are absolutely correct. When we die if we find ourselves conscious on the other side, I will make it a point to look you up and say "Lauregon here is the proof you are looking for!"

1. Your burden of proof is HERE and NOW, not later.


"Your views are far more subjective than mine in that yours appear to be idiosyncratic and specifically and singularly yours." - Lauregon

And vice-versa! - Darwin2

Well, no. You're incorrect. You're the one here whose ideas are singular and ideosyncratic, not me.

I also don't believe you're really here to exchange ideas as you've claimed. You appear to be here to insist without proof or substance of any kind that YOUR subjective idiosyncratic beliefs are correct, while those of non-believers are incorrect. You're here as an insistent evanglist for YOUR singular ideas, but you have no ability whatsoever to support them with anything other than stubborn declarations of virtual certainty.

324. 4 Sermon for Matins: 'Dawkins and The God Delusion'

Comment #56191 by Lauregon on July 14, 2007 at 11:18 am

Christians (or at least, thinking Christians) have never generally treated Genesis as if it held the scientific explanation of how the world appeared. Most Christians I know think of Genesis as a kind of allegory, and see evolution as the process that actually happened. Even St Augustine proposed this - that science would one day discover how the world came to be - and argued that Genesis should be taken non-literally. - SharrieG

It's no good arguing that Genesis shouldn't be taken literally. Science aside, it's the Genesis account of "the fall" in the Garden of Eden that provides the rationale for the Christian doctrine that humans need a divine savior. Take away "the fall" and there's no need for a savior, and no Christian theology of salvation from "original sin."

325. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56105 by Lauregon on July 13, 2007 at 6:58 pm

"Yes, my beliefs that God exists are subjective. Similarly your beliefs that God does not exist or may not exist are also subjective. We disagree subjectively. Objectively speaking, neither you or I can prove God exists or doesn't exist. - Darwin2


1. The burden of proof is upon those who claim the existence of something supernatural, not upon those who don't claim the existence of something supernatural.

2. Your views are far more subjective than mine in that yours appear to be idiosyncratic and specifically and singularly yours.

326. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56103 by Lauregon on July 13, 2007 at 6:45 pm

"What difference does it make if I use the term "God" or "The Creator?" They both mean the same things." - Darwin2


If your God differs from the "God" of Judeo-Christian-Muslim faith---or any other "God," for that matter, then you're not talking about the same "God." Using the same term for a differing "God" creates confusion. If you're trying to communicate ideas to others, it's a good idea to avoid ambiguity. Of course, maybe you have some reason for choosing to employ ambiguousness.


"They both mean a Being who is infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful, loving, merciful and perfectly just." - Darwin2




Actually, they don't necessarily do so. For example, "The Creator" can refer to an impersonal, cosmic, non-anthropomorphic, non-theistic, non-miracle-performing deity who doesn't intervene in human affairs and doesn't have any interest in doing so. And as I've already said, using the term "God" in our culture is usually taken by most people to mean the highly personal, highly anthropomorphic, angry, punishing, capriciously favor performing Yahweh-Jehovah "God" of The Book. Since you insist your "God" isn't the latter "God," it's odd that you're content to employ ambiguous terms for your subjective "God." But then, maybe ambiguousness serves a purpose for you.

327. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55926 by Lauregon on July 13, 2007 at 12:00 am

"But I will also pray, because I believe that when we have done all we possibly can, it is then up to God to do what we cannot." - Bizarro Dawkins


Does "God" really need directions and supplications from humans in order to know what people want done? Does "God" need to "prove" to humans how superior "he" is in being able to do what humans cannot?

328. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55869 by Lauregon on July 12, 2007 at 5:23 pm

..."it is not evil to believe that God created our universe approximately 13-14 billion years ago and that God used evolution and natural selection as the means to create life as we know it. " - Darwin2


"God" in ordinary modern day Western discourse refers to the anthropomorphic monotheistic deity of Judeo-Christian-Muslim faith. What "God" are you referring to? Further, why do you feel so strongly that your understanding of "God" is more accurate than that of orthodox believers, and why do you come here to argue for your theism when you have only your subjective opinions to offer? I don't mean to say you have no right to do so, but I do wonder what you hope to accomplish by doing it---especially when you readily admit that finite beings can't possible know or understand "God," an infinite being. You seem to be insisting, "Trust me, atheists. MY subjective theistic beliefs are well worth trusting, but your atheism isn't."

329. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55528 by Lauregon on July 11, 2007 at 12:15 pm

"That's the most arrogant unscientific statement that has been made on this website. You sound like a born again Christian who says their position can't be wrong because the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Come on, for Pete's sake, give me a break." Darwin2


Huh? Sorry for butting in to this exchange, but what's arrogant about saying atheists can't be inerrant?

330. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55527 by Lauregon on July 11, 2007 at 12:12 pm

"Hmmm. That seems at odds with all you claim to have concluded about God and the life you believe exists after the death of the human body." - Lauregon

"Why do you say it is "at odds with all you claim to have concluded?" - Darwin2




You said earlier that as finite beings we can't know or understand the infinite, and yet you don't shrink from telling people here what awaits us after death and what "God" is like and what "he" wants and expects.



I'm sure you noticed that our posts crossed. Please note that my previous post isn't a response to your most recent posts, but an assessment of your previous posts.

331. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55522 by Lauregon on July 11, 2007 at 12:02 pm

It seems more and more as though Darwin2 has smeared lipstick on creationism and convinced himself into believing he's left it behind.

332. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55323 by Lauregon on July 10, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Behind this universe and all other universes is the One True God. The Supreme Designer and Creator. God is infinite. We are finite. Being finite we can never understand or know that which is infinite. - Darwin2



Hmmm. That seems at odds with all you claim to have concluded about God and the life you believe exists after the death of the human body.

333. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55320 by Lauregon on July 10, 2007 at 3:15 pm

"I do not believe the Bible is the unerring word of God. It is in fact the result of the erring minds of men.

I have come to my beliefs by asking myself deep questions. First asking if God exists. My observations of the universe helped me conclude that God exists." - Darwin2




So, you believe the authors of the Bible were men of erring minds, but that your knowledge of "God," unlike theirs, is accurate?




"Second asking if God has a purpose for us. My studies of the spiritual belief of Reincarnation and Karma led me to conclude that God does have a purpose for us and that God is a perfectly just God. For God to be just He would have had to create us in a perfect state of being and He would have had to advise of us of why He created us and the purpose or destiny for our being. And He would have had to advise us what we needed to do to fulfill our destiny. I believe this was done by intelligent beings more advanced than us. As an intelligent being I strive to learn as much as I can about myself and the natural world. This gives me great pleasure in life and I conclude this is the purpose of existence and that heaven would be a continuation of this." - Darwin2




Earlier you implied that you KNOW what heaven is like, but it appears that you're really just speculating. In addition, your God sounds very anthropomorphic, a god-form you've said your god isn't.




"But to understand the natural order in this life we need to understand the laws of physics, specifically how to use energy correctly. We are temporarily encumbered in these physical bodies because we have violated God's laws of physics. We have used energy incorrectly." - Darwin2




This "violation" sounds like another version of original sin, something humans have done to disobey an almighty god's laws.




"Our goal now is to address this misuse of energy, correct it, and learn how to use energy correctly so that we can ascend back to that perfect state of pure energy and fulfill our divine destiny. - Darwin2




This "correction" sounds like another version of Christian redemption and salvation. Maybe you've just changed the wallpaper of your faith-world!

334. A force for good?

Comment #55060 by Lauregon on July 9, 2007 at 11:10 pm

"The second logical flaw is the assertion that religion is irrational. Is it any more so than, say, poetry or music, which are taught in our schools without apparent objection from rationalists? Everyone accepts quite happily that there are some truths about human existence that have to be approached obliquely, through art, because they are not susceptible to a scrutiny rooted in the scientific method. What atheists do is confuse the irrational with the non-rational. There is a reality that is not a product of rational deduction. That is why religion has such affinity with art and music." - Paul Vallely


While art and music can lead to seemingly inexplicable experiences of joy and pleasure, neither are predicated on the existence of supernatural beings inhabiting a heavenly realm who demand obedience and worship from human beings under threat of punishment and death. Such states may well be the product of chemicals in the brain. Such states don't in any way necessitate the existence of a transcendent deity (or deities) in whose image humans are allegedly made. It's also true that both art and music can be used opportunistically and deliberately as seductions in evangelical campaigns to snare people into belief in the supernatural and allegience to religious institutions and personages.

335. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #55013 by Lauregon on July 9, 2007 at 5:27 pm

I can't stand Sean Hannity. He is one of the most bigoted commentators on TV. However I think he did an outstanding job interviewing Hitchens. Hannity brilliantly defended the good points of religion and accurately criticized some of the evils of organized religion.- Darwin2


"Brilliantly defended?" Nah. His "defense" was banal and common, while his "criticism" was merely a concession that such evils do exist.



"Hannity did an excellent job demonstrating that the energy behind the creation of our universe had to come from Intelligent Design. One up for Sean Hannity. - Darwin2



Hannity did not do an "excellent job.". Again, his "defense" was commonplace.



"Hitchens shows a prejudiced brain washed view of what heaven is by comparing heaven to living in North Korea. This is a horrible distortion of what heaven is like. - Darwin2



You know what "heaven" is like by what means?




"God created our eternal souls to participate in the creation process with Him. Our destiny for our existence and being is to become gods ourselves, imitate God, and use our God given powers to create our own universes and beyond. Darwin2




You've come by this solid information by what means? You sound like someone who really does believe the Bible is the word of God, but how can a non-anthropomorphic god have words to speak?



"This is what heaven and paradise is all about. To accomplish this we need to learn, obey, and master God's laws of physics and how to use energy correctly. - Darwin2




So you believe "heaven" is all about physics and energy, and about dead humans becoming gods and creating universes? What is the purpose of that?

336. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #55007 by Lauregon on July 9, 2007 at 4:53 pm

In this lifetime God gave us the ability to think and to do critical thinking. I see no reason why God would deprive us of this ability in the after life.
- Darwin2

What would be the vehicle for this consciousness? What would be its purpose, and why would this consciousness be sufficient for thinking critically about things and in ways it wasn't already well-practiced in thinking about?

337. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #55006 by Lauregon on July 9, 2007 at 4:47 pm

Praise be to God for helping me understand why these atrocities take place and for giving me hope to know that in the end all will be well. - Darwin2


How does this subjective, non-anthropomorphic, infinite god you believe in help you understand why these atrocities take place and give you hope that in the end all will be well---and how can there be an "end" given an infinite god?

338. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54579 by Lauregon on July 7, 2007 at 10:16 pm

"Thinking Christians would no more take every word of either Testament literally than they would offer up burnt offerings or take their moral teaching from Deuteronomy and stone adulterers to death." - the Daily Mail



And yet, the writer appears to take for granted the need for salvation---which comes, of course, from the very Bible the writer believes is full of goofy stuff no "thoughtful" person today would take as truth:



"So it ill behoves scientists to ridicule faith as a basic fact of human nature. And of course, as the only ground for belief in God or salvation." - the Daily Mail

339. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54516 by Lauregon on July 7, 2007 at 3:28 pm

The god of the Bible is anthropomorphic and is an insult to the One true God who is infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful, loving, merciful and perfectly just. I find the supernatural dogmas of organized religion to be pathetic, superstitious, evil and illogical. - Darwin2


If the Bible presents an anthropomorphic god, what is your resource for knowing about an allegedly One True God who possesses the same qualities the god of the Bible is supposed to possess but who is at the same time not anthropomorphic?



We should purse these issues because we will die and if when we die and find ourselves conscious on the other we will get the correct answers to the questions that these issues pose to us in this lifetime. Objectively we have to concede that it is possible for consciousness to exist after the death of our physical bodies and so it is important to give some thought about what might happen if this possibility turns out to be a reality. - Darwin2


People have been theorizing for thousands upon thousands of years about "God" and an afterlife. So far, fanciful supernatural explanations have been the sole result. Why do you suppose even more theorizing about an unknown divine creator god and afterlife will result in a god and afterlife any less supernatural and "ridiculous" than what's already been theorized?

340. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54511 by Lauregon on July 7, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Absolutely yes to the first two questions. My answer to the third question is this. I wasn't designed to be the lowest being on the cosmic totem pole although I find myself in that position at present. I was designed to be a god and to participate with God in the creation process by imitating God and using my God given powers to create my own universes. I have made many mistakes in my spiritual evolution and that is why my eternal soul finds itself temporarily encumbered in this human body. - Darwin2


You've come to these certainties how?

341. God not out of the question for most Canadians

Comment #54318 by Lauregon on July 6, 2007 at 11:03 am

Instead, I think that facts should be presented to the students from both angles, and the student should make up his/her mind. - StephenS



Maybe flat-earth ideas should be taught alongside the modern scientific view of the world, allowing students to make up their minds about the physical shape of the planet.

342. Unorthodox Atheist

Comment #54316 by Lauregon on July 6, 2007 at 10:51 am

Hooray and congratulations, Reed Braden! Keep up the excellent work.

343. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54308 by Lauregon on July 6, 2007 at 10:37 am

My version of the Supreme Designer and Creator thanks to science is that the universe is approximately 13 to 14 billion years old and that man is not on top but on the bottom in a long hierarchy of intelligent beings. - Darwin2


Do you imagine confirming such an arrangement would make your life on earth better? Do you think it would it make your hypothetical after-life better? Why would you be eager to know you were designed to be the lowest being on the cosmic totem pole?

344. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #54305 by Lauregon on July 6, 2007 at 10:26 am

However if consciousness continues after death, we will then learn that God exists and consciousness does indeed continue after death... - Darwin2


WHAT "God" will that be? As we see in the case of
Einstein's use of the word "God," to say "God" is most often assumed by others to refer to the Jehovah/Yahweh "God" of the Bible with all those supernatural doctrines and dogmas. Do you mean to imply such a "God?" If not, what sort of "God" do you imagine exists? What would "God" be without the supernatural doctrines and dogmas of religious orthodoxy?


Some scientists say the cause and beginning of the universe is unknowable and suggests we leave it at that. I disagree and believe we must go beyond this limited thinking and if we do we will come to the conclusion that One Supreme Designer and Creator must exist. - Darwin2


WHY "must" we pursue, much less arrive at conclusions about that which we can't possibly know? What would be the point of that exercise?

345. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53976 by Lauregon on July 4, 2007 at 2:20 pm

These Christian spokespersons do poorly when trying to justify their dogmas of Original Sin, eternal damnation, prayer and many other ridiculous and superstitious doctrines. - Darwin 2



What IS Christianity---or any of the religions of the Book---without all those ridiculous dogmas and doctrines? From whence comes the authority of Jesus, the point of Christianity, without those ridiculous dogmas and doctrines---for example, the dogma and doctrine that Jesus is THE son of God the creator and supreme designer, and that he, Jesus, was resurrected from the dead?

346. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53417 by Lauregon on July 1, 2007 at 11:09 am

The God I know about has a thing with violence: S/He disapproves of violence in all cases no matter the ends, in other words S/He is a radical pacifist. - Dianelos


The god of the Bible is a god of violence. He condemned females to suffering agonizing pain in childbirth as punishment for Eve's "sin;" required his "son" to suffer death through the torture of crucifixion in order to "redeem" the world from "sin;" and his "son," as part of the godhead, condemned disbelievers in his vicarious atonement to torment in hell throughout eternity for their disbelief. And, of course, there are countless incidents of god-instigated death and destruction between Genesis and the last page of Revelation.

The god of the bible is not a pacifist.

347. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53411 by Lauregon on July 1, 2007 at 10:45 am

Oh dear... where are Sam and Richard when you need them. They would have made mincemeat of the Rev. - z8000783

Not to detract from Sam and Richard who are unquestionably rock-solid debaters, but maybe they wouldn't have fared much better under the idiotic circumstances present at "Hardball Plaza." The venue and format almost certainly was calculated to trivialize and derail any real discussion. Matthews' own theist-shackled perspective on the topic was made clear enough.

348. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53351 by Lauregon on June 30, 2007 at 11:17 pm

Hmmm. I didn't think Hitchens was evading. I thought he was responding by initially laying groundwork for concluding declarations but wasn't allowed to get to them. His response style, however much I may appreciate it, isn't suited to tv.

349. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53319 by Lauregon on June 30, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Which I do in believing in God, and which explains why I experience theism as ethically empowering. - Dianelos


My best friend is a Hindu Vedantist. She meditates in her shrine room every day and performs rituals honoring various gods, goddesses, and holy people of various traditions, following a seasonal calendar. She does this because she finds it makes her life richer and meaningful---but she doesn't believe in the actual reality of any of the gods and goddesses or in their legends and "histories," nor does she try to convert anyone to Vedanta. That's a kind of spirituality I can support.

350. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53313 by Lauregon on June 30, 2007 at 6:28 pm

I could be wrong but I think if Hitchens had answered (or, perhaps, been allowed to answer) Sharpton's question about God, Hitchens would've had Sharpton on the defensive, trying to explain how he (Sharpton) can be so certain his "God" is the REAL one in a world of so many unreal ones.

All in all, what the interview proved is that tv is a great medium for creating noise and chaos instead of educated viewers.