patrick.net

uomo_senza_nome says

Brain is a highly adaptive, complex, extremely fast parallel processing entity. To reduce it to just "hardware" is ridiculous.

You have too low an opinion of hardware. The brain perfectly meets the definition of hardware, mussy hardware, but hardware nonetheless. Instead of thinking that the statement "brain is hardware" somehow diminishes the beauty of the brain, you should recognize that some hardware is truly spectacular. By hardware, I didn't mean it was an Apple product.

There's no reason why hardware can't be "a highly adaptive, complex, extremely fast parallel processing entity".

uomo_senza_nome says

Carl Sagan recognized the dogmatism of atheism very well and he never announced himself to be an atheist.

You know what? It doesn't matter. Why is it that we humans keep trying to say "this guy is on my team and that guy is on yours"? And I'm guilty of doing that as much as everyone else. But it's stupid to try to justify or denounce an idea simply by counting out the well-respected and well-hated historical figures associated with the idea. Let's not play that game.

Whether or not Carl Sagan or any other particular person was a polytheist, monotheist, agnostic, or atheist is irrelevant to the merits of those position, as I'm sure we both agree. So let's withdraw this issue as it's just a distraction anyway.

uomo_senza_nome says

What I do recognize is that atheists take their "no God" theory too far to the point where it is truth.

Yeah, because we believe it's the cold, hard truth. We don't consider it to be an opinion, like the Patriots are better than the Mets or some crap like that. We consider it to be the inescapable logical conclusion from all the facts and analysis. And it's a truth whose acceptance has pragmatic and important consequences.

To us atheists, the question of whether any gods exist is as settled as the question of whether the Lock Ness Monster or Bigfoot or unicorns exist. However, not too many wars are started because of the Lock Ness Monster, and the bills passed by the House and Senate aren't influence by the unicorn lobby. If they were, I'd totally would be popping a cap in any pro-unicorn argument, despite the fact that I really like unicorns.

Mythology is fine as long as it's acknowledged as fiction. But when laws are passed based on it, things start going real bad.

uomo_senza_nome says

What I do recognize is that atheists take their "no God" theory too far to the point where it is truth. It is not well-established truth by science yet

As the "God Hypothesis" does not make any testable predictions by design, it is, by definition, not a scientific issue. Science only addresses testable ideas. Science would no more address the question of god's existence than it would in settle the debate: Kirk vs. Picard, Better Captain? And you'd get about as rational a discussion on theology as you would in the StarTrek debate.

upisdown says

What about people like me that just don't give a shit about religion and/or god at all???

You and I are still affected by the laws passed by various religious lobbyists as well as the brain-dead politicians like Bush who are elected, at least in part, due to religion. That's a very material effect on your day to day life. It affects the economy, financial reform, whether or not you have a job, whether or not we go to war, whether or not the draft is reinstituted, what civil rights you have, what protection against criminal cops you have, environmental protection, and whether or not some idiot hastens Armageddon by launching the nukes. Whether you like it or not, your safety and the quality of your life is greatly affected by the dumbing down of America by religion.

How very true, unfortunately. But, I firmly beleive that politicians use religion and their supposed participation of any, mainly for electabiltity reasons. It enhances the size of their audience or voters. They pander to the weak-minded and overall meek people that need and use religion as a crutch, either just to exist or to explain things that they can't/don't understand.

Someday, hopefully in my and your lifetimes, we'll be rid of religion and it's use/justification for various peoples' actions. You make a very good argument but it's also because you have facts and reality behind you too. I usually refrain from the tail-chasing of whether or not god exists or doesn't exist because once you get on that merry-go-round you're stuck there dealing with and trying to make the irrational people on it suddenly become rational, which if they really were to begin with, you wouldn't have to try and convince them.
Ever heard.......he works in mysterious ways? If and when we no longer hear that phrase in explanation of some horrific event not only will our lives be a better, but the world as a whole will be too.

upisdown says

Ever heard.......he works in mysterious ways? If and when we no longer hear that phrase in explanation of some horrific event not only will our lives be a better, but the world as a whole will be too.

+1.

Tsunamis are caused by geological activity, not some Canaanite sky god.

Cloud says

Who is this prancing Oxford don again and what has he done other than demonstrate he can verbally assault a curious female college student?

He provides society the same type of service Aristotle did. A brief moment of independent thought meant to break up the monotony of of the herd following their religious leaders blindly to their slaughter.

Something tells me that girl doesn't need you as her knight in shining armor. If you're going to go to the big game, you have to be prepared to play, and if you leave with your tail between your legs, you can't hope that our tendency toward chivalry will be a weapon you can now wield against your opponent, having already been failed by wit and reason. Women are equal now, remember? They don't need you to rescue them if they happen to be on the losing end of an intellectual discussion. Their breasts don't give them permission to be stupid or ignorant anymore, so instead of flying to her defense because she's a woman, why don't you defend her arguments, or at least oppose his, and forget the gender war bullshit.

uomo_senza_nome says

I don't think Carl Sagan was an atheist either.

""An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." - A quote by Carl Sagan.

As an atheist, I totally disagree with Sagan on that point. I don't think it's stupid to suggest something doesn't exist, when it obviously exists only in the unproven claims of the zealots making the claims.

uomo_senza_nome says

What I'm saying is 'God' as a word has been abused way too much. We can't even define God. So how can we really prove something doesn't exist, if we can't even define it?

you're arguing semantics. You know when Dan uses the term God, he'stalking about a the islamic-judeo-christian god. You cant redefine the term he's using to base his arguments on, and then try to persuade him his arguments are wrong. What you're talking about is simply a different discussion than the one Dan is having at the moment.

uomo_senza_nome says

The questions are the problem.

no, dear uomo, the problem is semantics. You're using the term god in such an abstract way it could include aliens from other planets that at one time, interacted with us (which inspired the bible) but have decided we're so dangerous they shouldn't meddle in what happens here, choosing to observe us instead.

Dan's comments are in direct response to the islamic-judeo-christian god of the bible, torah, and koran, which is not an abstract concept of what god potentially might be if it existed somewhere. It's a very specific claim as to what god is, what it is in relation to us, and exactly how we're supposed to respond to that information.

Love your neighbor, unless he is a fag, in which case, murder him, is a pretty specific claim of dogma.

If you suggested Santa Clause was about to pay us all a visit, you would have the burden to prove that claim. I don't have the burden to disprove and unproven claim. if only their superstitious claims were as harmless as santa claus.

uomo_senza_nome says

Brain research is quite nascent, if it was "just hardware", why haven't humans figured out all the mysteries?

We will, we've just spent too much of our history distracted by religion, and have only recently gotten back on track to learning to understand it.

ReasonNotFaith says

You cant redefine the term he's using to base his arguments on, and then try to persuade him his arguments are wrong.

Actually you're spot on. I agree.

ReasonNotFaith says

You're using the term god in such an abstract way

Yes I am using it in an abstract way. If Dan was purely talking just about islamic-judeo-christian (some kind of personal) God, then I am as atheistic as he is.

Dan8267 says

And it's a truth whose acceptance has pragmatic and important consequences.

You're right. In this day and age, religion is frightening and dangerous. Acceptance that there is no heavenly Father has pragmatic consequences which is important.

The Christian/Jewish/Islamic god is what I call the standard monotheist god (SMG). It incorporates three properties: it is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Now, the SMG occurs in other religions besides Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, but it is essentially the same in all monotheistic religions. So yes, that is the god I've disproved.

However, as a generalization of SMG, we can disprove any god that contradicts the known laws of physics or contradicts itself. Naturally, we can admit that there are physics which makes things possible that we don't yet understand, so we don't know everything that is possible. But we do understand enough about physics and the other sciences to know that reindeer can't fly. So we can disprove any god that does something ridiculous like eluding all attempts to detect him because he leaves no effect. Furthermore, his miracles should be repeatable.

In fact any god that has no effect on the universe is hardly worthy of the title god. I am willing to entertain ideas for gods that don't strictly meet the SMG definition as long as those gods are actually believed in by the masses.

But the masses pretty much just believe in some powerful sky daddy god that thinks like a human and grants us eternal life. Those kinds of gods are disprovable. The best the sky daddy can do is make a backup copy of you at the moment of death and give that copy eternal life. But then again, he could also then make 1 million copies of you, none of them would be you though.

I haven't disproven all possible polytheistic gods. But no one is ever interested in disproving them anyway. Besides, a polytheistic god is just some powerful being. By most criteria, Joe the Plumber meets the criteria for godhood in those religions. If immortality is a requirement for godhood, I believe the Second Law of Thermodynamics pretty much takes care of those gods as well since eventually the universe itself dies.

The only thing I cannot disprove is such a vague notion of god that it is not definable. But in sincerity, no one worships or prays to such an entity. And such entities are not used as justifications for strict and specific moral codes. So why call such ambiguous entities gods when they are not treated as such by anyone?

I've observed that when believers find themselves backed into a corner by contradictions, they revert to their "emergency definition" of god that is too vague to make any statements about. Of course, once released back into the wild, the believers will go right back to their fire-and-brimstone, white guy with a beard on a cloud god who has a very specific set of do's and don'ts. As such, I cannot find such momentary vagueness to be sincere. Your definition of god should not change when you get cornered by a contradiction.

Taaa-daaaaaaa! Enter the default position and it's obligatory and intentionally vague non-answer, answer:

He works in mysterious ways

Cloud says

in this day and age religion is frightening and dangerous?

I think this should be obvious, given we wage wars in the name of religion.

Do you know how many innocent iraqi/afghan civiilans, children are dead because of wars fought under ideological pretext but the actual intent being confiscation of natural resources?

Cloud says

Shall we start with AIDS or starvation?

What does this have anything to do with religion? AIDS is a disease and starvation is a human condition. I don't know how religion helps in either case. Faith in the invisible man is not going to solve any problem.

Dan8267 says

I believe the Second Law of Thermodynamics pretty much takes care of those gods as well since eventually the universe itself dies.

Why does the universe die Dan? I thought law of conservation of energy meant that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. Entropy increase only makes the energy more diffuse, as opposed to concentrated. It does not in anyway destroy energy.

uomo_senza_nome says

Faith is not going to solve any problem.

I humbly disagree. Unless you can prove that mental conditioning does not solve problems.

Cloud says

Danny, let's ask Dawkin's big player if love is a sexual chemical human response why is it that a human being, like a firefigher or a police office will give their live for another.

Right, Russian or Chinese or French or Norwegian firefighters and cops never put their lives on the line.

And it doesn't make sense that social animals like humans have wiring for empathy for others. I mean, what kind of advantage to the survival of the species would Altruism bring?

Cloud says

Danny you gonna deny love exists? Where is love? Show me love? Oh yeah, the big player will help you call it chemicals as if this is an answer. Like putting leaches on people back in the day.

"Not a religion, just a Personal Relationship With Jesus" types/Evangelicals and Baptists have the highest divorce rates in the USA.

Or, if you prefer, NJ and NY are the top two "least divorce" states in the Union. Highest in the South and Alaska, where one also finds the largest rates of church attendance, religious belief, and skepticism of evolution.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/28/new-jersey-has-the-lowest-divorce-rate-in-america_n_985583.html

Bap33 says

Unless you can prove that mental conditioning does not solve problems.

I meant faith in the invisible man.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ClV7B2xofVk

I believe in the vastness of the universe, I believe in family, friends, I believe we are all made of the same stuff ~ Genius.

uomo_senza_nome says

I thought law of conservation of energy meant that energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. Entropy increase only makes the energy more diffuse, as opposed to concentrated.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics means that the amount of "usable" energy, i.e, energy that can be used to perform work including the functions of life, decreases even though the total amount of energy in the closed system is a constant. That is why it is impossible to create a perpetual motion machine.

Eventually, since the universe will not be able to support life. Star formation will stop. Black holes will evaporate. And there will be no usable energy left to support life. All particles will eventually decay to their most stable parts, even protons. And all that will be left is a ever thinning soup of low-frequency electromagnetic waves. This will take trillions upon trillions of years though.

well, you have now taken it upon yourself to qualify and quantify "faith". It seems odd that faith in science bothers you not, while faith in God bothers you much. Why is the two faiths not the same to you?

It has been my personal life experience that those who most dislike God are those who feel they are not living the life God has told mankind to live. Their next position is to point out how those who do beleive in God are not perfect and commit all crimes known to mankind. I submit that God made it very clear - all mankind falls short of God's metering stick - so stop looking for an "AHHH HA!!". We all have an ahh-ha. No need to look.

I know there is God. Not a doubt in my mind. And, with enough time and guidence, science might prove God enough for analytical minds to embrace God too. Right? Isn't that a possible outcome?

God made you who you are .... he just gave you free choice ... so he understands that you want to see the chicken or the egg before you take a stand on which came first. By the way, it was the chicken that came first.

We all exersize faith when we ponder anything beyond the present, beyond the horizon, beyond the next breath.

thunderlips11 says

Cloud says

Danny, let's ask Dawkin's big player if love is a sexual chemical human response why is it that a human being, like a firefigher or a police office will give their live for another.

I've ignored Cloud, so I don't see his messages unless someone quotes him. But to discredit this nonsense, one could ask why a squirrel or a meerkat is willing to sacrifice its life for another. Does this imply that squirrels have souls?

The only difference between humans and non-human animals is a matter of degree.

Dan8267 says

That is why it is impossible to create a perpetual motion machine.

Dan, I humbly submit that gravity, and the frictions it creates, are the only things that stop perp-mot. Without gravity, and wind, and debris, and all other forms of friction, something should keep on moving for ever. So, in a vaccuum, with no gravity, matter will move and keep moving. Ofcourse, the instigator of the motion does not fit in the mathmatics, but you know what I'm getting at. If you add in the instigator, the energy factors out. Kinda. lol

Bap33 says

It seems odd that faith in science bothers you not,

Faith in science does bother me, quite a lot. In particular, the use of "junk science" that juries believe because they are scientifically illiterate and think they are experts because they watch CSI and other Hollywood bullshit representation of science.

Remember, an innocent human being was put to death in Texas on the basis of junk science. That's is offensive to me on many levels. "Faith" in science is bad. It can be manipulated by unethical prosecutors.

Science is built on skepticism and verification. Experiments must be repeatable. Everything is questionable, but you don't get to ignore evidence that doesn't support your ideas. There are no authority figures and no dogma.

Throughout the history of science, rich and poor men alike have contributed, regardless of race, nationality, or politics. Science knows no social or political boundaries. It is the great uniter of man. As a process, mankind has never created anything nearly as great. As for results, science has consistently produce more than we could imagine. It is the only human endeavour that has a near perfect track record, and whose few mistakes were quickly and definitively corrected. It is a self-correcting, constantly refining process. Yet, the people who dislike it are persuaded by 9-9-9.

Cloud says

Dawkins is more angry, dogmatic and arrogant about his mission to convert believers than any preacher I have ever seen trying to convert non-believers.

If that's the truth, then you obviously have never run across Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. If that is indeed the case, count yourself lucky.

Cloud says

That's quite a God-like quality to got their sNotFaith; reading people's minds and intentions.

That must be what christians don't understand about logic. You dont have to be like god or a mind reader to read what a person writes, and develop logical conclusions about what they are saying. it works well, you should try it sometime.

Cloud says

Then goes on like a knight in shinning armor to rescue DAN because Clint is taking him to the woodshed :

I wasn't defending Dan, being more educated and more articulate then I am, he doesn't need anything from me.

Infact, I wasn't defending anyone... I was challenging what I saw was a flaw in an argument in a discussion I'm apart of. That's what I meant about logic... Christians seem to be at a loss for it. Maybe that explains their dogmatic need for a spiteful, angry, godhead who treats them all like dogs...

Cloud says

Many homosexuals dying and suffering from aids
died and were helped by Catholic and chrisitan charities, a fact that will piss of Dan and No Faith.

Doesn't piss me off at all. Doesn't even bother me a little. See how you talk about stuff like you know what you are talking about when you really have no idea at all what you're talking about? it seems to be a trend with you.

Cloud says

Ok waiting for you to respond to me.

If I missed something interesting or important, it wasn't intentional. Please point it out and I'll do my best to respond to it.

Cloud says

You laugh at me like a typical arrogant atheist, telling me I shouldn't find Dawkin's abuse on a 21 year old digusting and THAT I have no business defending her.

1. Please explain how he abused her?
2. I didn't say you had no business defending her. i said, you sound like you think she should be treated differently because of her age, or her sex, when in reality her sex is totally irrelevant, and she is old enough to attend college, which is where people go to be educated and to have their biases challenged, so I still don't see the need to defend her.

Of course, I understand why you do, and from the sound of it, I wouldn't be surprised if you also thought instead of being educated/challenged in college, that she should instead be at home, barefoot and pregnant with a baby in one hand and a bible in the other.

Cloud says

But like a gay lover you help Danny boy out?

Unlike you, I am neither a closeted homosexual ashamed of my sexual preferences, nor am I a closed minded biggot who hates people based on nothing other than their sexuality, so calling me gay has absolutely no affect on my attitude or my self esteem. I just laugh at you, because I'm an arrogant atheist.... which is much better than an arrogant christian, in my opinion.

Cloud says

Also, wierd and kinda game is calling yourself a player in the "big game."

I did no such thing... That proves your lack of reading comprehension skills. We were talking about her, a student at a university, standing up infront of her peers and professors, some of the most educated and intelligent people in our country, and asking a question to one of the most celebrated and respected humanist philosophers of our time. That is what I was calling the big game.

Cloud says

So strange you and Dan adopt the same zealot qualities that the most obnoxious God pushers do.

So you admit you are a zealot... That's very interesting. And you're not ashamed of being a religious zealot? How does that work for you?

Cloud says

Most believers are quiet about their faith. All the jAtheist I've meet and have debated on the internet are savage.

You truly have no idea how many atheists you've met, or which people you have met may be atheists.

And you know nothing about me... So your attempted provocations have no impact on me. You'll have to go find someone else to ridicule, because it's not having your intended effect on me.

@Dan,
good post, but I was responding to a comment about faith by another.

You have defended and established your position in a fine manner, and I knew already that you challenge all things - science and religion - with the same fever. It is your focus expessed on this site that leads me to have no doubt that God has an amazing plan for revealing himself to you ... your fire was put there by Him, so I bet He has a pretty cool plan for you. Even if your rle is to force those who profess belief to defend and reflect -- that's for the better good too. In my opinion.

Man, I was waiting for it as the religious fanatics always go to the next level with their yes-we-have-no-bananas type of logic and right on cue it's the advanced version of: he works in mysterious ways.

Dan, you're smart and that's because of god only you just haven't noticed or even acknowledged it ...............yet.

Same old bs just a different method of delivery.

Cloud says

Thunder Lips, honestly not following you?

Cloud, in the countries I mentioned, atheists are a substantial portion of the population. About a third of Frenchmen are atheists; about 3/4 of Scandinavians are atheists.

Yet in those countries, the people who are Firemen or Police routinely risk their lives to enter burning buildings to save people or apprehend crazy people wielding clubs or knives and threatening those nearby.

Bap33 says

Dan, I humbly submit that gravity, and the frictions it creates, are the only things that stop perp-mot. Without gravity, and wind, and debris, and all other forms of friction, something should keep on moving for ever.

Gravity does not "create" friction. For example, there is no friction between the Earth and the sun. Friction is the result of two separate objects being connected by pressure on some common surface area. This pressure can be due to gravity or any other force (mechanical, magnetic, etc.). The force exerting the pressure does not matter.

"Gravity, wind, and debris" are not "forms of friction". The equations for effects of fluid viscosity (including air) are completely different from the equation for the force of friction, and they are derived from different entities.

Also, it is best not to think of "motion" per se, but rather acceleration, as motion is a relative phenomenon anyway. Consider the orbit of the Earth. This orbit does require gravity, but it does not have friction. The Earth does, however, accelerate. Even if the Earth's orbit were circular and its speed constant, the Earth would be accelerating towards the sun as it orbits around the sun. In fact, this acceleration is necessary to maintain orbit almost by definition.

A planet orbiting a star is pretty much the closest you can get to the situation you describe as "without friction or debris". Nevertheless, even a planet orbiting a star will not stay in orbit forever due to gravitational tidal forces and frame dragging. No orbit can be stable over eternity.

[And please don't ask about frame dragging. It involves relativity and you are not ready for that. It would just confuse and mislead you. Stick to classical physics until you master that.]

ReasonNotFaith says

Cloud says

But like a gay lover you help Danny boy out?

Cloud is clearly a troll. He fakes outrage at minor jokes and then gay bashes. Ironically, meeting Cloud would probably turn any gay guy straight.

ReasonNotFaith says

Cloud says

Many homosexuals dying and suffering from aids
died and were helped by Catholic and chrisitan charities, a fact that will piss of Dan and No Faith.

Like all trolls, Cloud likes putting words into people's mouths.

Yes, many homosexuals did die from AIDS when it first appeared. This is less true today, now that we have treatments for the disease. Today, poor people, particularly Africans, are most in jeopardy of AIDS because

1. The medication is not readily available to them.
2. The pope has convinced many not to use condoms, which are extremely effective in preventing the spread of the disease.

Conclusion: science does good, religion does bad.

Now it does upset me that many young gay men died of AIDS. It also upsets me that many people die of cancer, starvation, lack of clean drinking water, etc. I'd try to explain that to Cloud, but how do you explain the human emotions of empathy and compassion to something like Cloud?

What does not upset me is the acknowledgement that AIDS spread fastest through the homosexual male community because

1. They did not use condoms until AIDS. For some reason, gay men don't worry about impregnating other gay men. I'd explain this to Cloud, but I don't think he'd understand.

2. Gay men were having sex with many partners which allows for STDs to spread more rapidly.

3. The mechanics of gay male sex allow for easier transference of the virus as oppose to heterosexual sex or lesbian sex.

Acknowledging these truths is not offensive to me. In fact, not acknowledging these truths is offense. The first step to solving a problem, any problem, is acknowledging it's existence. The second step is understanding the problem. Knowing the above information allows us to curtail the spread of AIDS including in the homosexual community. Why would we not want this?

Finally, have you ever noticed that only men who are insecure in their own sexuality feel the need to gay bash?

Bap33 says

It is your focus expessed on this site that leads me to have no doubt that God has an amazing plan for revealing himself to you ... your fire was put there by Him, so I bet He has a pretty cool plan for you.

If it involves hooking up with Taylor Swift, I'm all for it.

upisdown says

Dan, you're smart and that's because of god only you just haven't noticed or even acknowledged it ...............yet.

If I'm smart because of god, why did he make so many other people stupid?

I'm more incline to believe the brain behaves like a muscle in one particular way: the more you use it, the stronger it becomes.

Bap33 says

It seems odd that faith in science bothers you not, while faith in God bothers you much. Why is the two faiths not the same to you?

Bap- it sometimes takes a leap of faith for scientists to make a discovery, but science cannot rely on faith alone; if it did, it won't be called science - it will be religion.

For even a leap-of-faith type speculative theory, you need adequate empirical / observational evidence that's independently verifiable and repeatable as well.

Bap33 says

And, with enough time and guidence, science might prove God enough for analytical minds to embrace God too. Right? Isn't that a possible outcome?

If the use of the word God as you have meant above, means anything super-natural or meta-physical (outside the laws of physics), science can never concern itself anything like that because it is not even in science's domain. Science can clearly separate BS from facts.

Dan,

Heh, heh, but what he wrote and directed towards you was still personal albeit not derogatory though, so he's exhausted every dogmatic excuse or out and out fairy tale answer he can pull out of his ass.

Ya ever notice that the religious flacks only try to claim and relate to all positive or good things that happen in life? But, when some really disgusting and violent thing like an earthquake, tsunami, or even that woman in NYC that burned to death in an elevator...............out comes the benign bullshit non-answer, answer: he works in mysterious ways

Where's all the hoopla and fanatical desrciptions then for when any of of those things happen???? Then it's crickets.

If they would take the same credit or acknowledge all the bad things the exact same way that they do all the good stuff maybe people would give thier thoughts and theories a little more attention.

Cloud says

It is a mess because it has lost its roots.

It hasn't, the roots of Europe is the Greco-Roman philosophers, their spirit reborn in the Enlightenment leading to Freedom (something unheard of under the Pope, Henry the 8th, Luther or Calvin), leading to proper Science starting in the 19th Century.

When I compare 12th Century France under the iron grip of Christianity, to 21st Century France, I'll take the latter. Even the poorest Frenchman can get a boil removed, has antibiotics against infections, doesn't go days between meals, drinks clean water, etc. etc.

I'll judge by the fruits. Europe without God is doing a lot better now than when Europe was really into God.

He rewards his followers very strangely if you ask me; just look at how fervent his African followers are, and yet how they suffer.

thunderlips11 says

I'll judge by the fruits. Europe without God is doing a lot better now than when Europe was really into God.

And I suspect the same would be true for both America and the Middle East.

Bap33 says

It seems odd that faith in science bothers you not, while faith in God bothers you much.

You talk about faith in science, as if science was just another bullshit religion, nothing more than a silly story pulled straight out of some lunatics ass.

Faith (as I use the term) refers to belief or reliance on information or concepts without any evidence.

Science, on the other hand, is our observations of the world around us. No reputable scientist claims that science is perfect, without error, or that it can describe/prove everything. Those observations aren't just claims, they are able to be repeated by different people, at different places. If it can't be, it's thrown out. Nothing in science is considered holy. When new information is obtained that warrants it, anything in science can be thrown out or disproven. That's the beauty of it. it's also the real big difference between science and religion.

You can't change what you said yesterday that god said is the law.

I certainly can change my understanding of how gravity works when I discover new information about the properties of gravity.

Bap33 says

It is your focus expessed on this site that leads me to have no doubt that God has an amazing plan for revealing himself to you ... your fire was put there by Him, so I bet He has a pretty cool plan for you.

Ridiculous claptrap.

Cloud says

Dawkins, a very minor "scientist" will be forgotten in 10 years....

I never said he was a great scientist. You do like to twist people's words around.

And he wont be forgotten in 10 years, you will be. Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris will be remembered like Nietsche, and like Martin Luther King Jr, as people who bravely stood up to religion and publically resisted it, so that all people could fully enjoy their civil liberties and more fully enjoy their lives without influence from religious radicals.

Cloud says

free the slaves

The Bible endorses slavery. Southrons used to wipe the floor with Yankee Abolitionist types in the 19th Century when they brought the Bible into the debate.

Not only does the Bible explicitly permit slavery, it presents the human relation with God to be ideally presented as a good slave to master relationship.

Abolitionists could only point to a "Hippy Jesus Feeling" for justification for abolition.

In fact, you'll find that "Hippy Jesus Concept trumping the actual Biblical Word" is a unifying factor is all three examples.

Cloud says

Where are religious radicals hurting anyone in America?

Muslims flying airplanes into buildings, zealots shooting Dr, Tiller in Kansas, blowing up abortion clinics, you figure it out...

Cloud says

You are free to practice whatever religion you want.

That's not true at all. Our rights are under attack every day by religious radicals.

Cloud says

It was religion that helped free the slaves

Oh really? which religion helped free the slaves?? Oh that's right, the same religion practiced by slave owners... Your arguments don't make any sense at all.

Cloud says

The Founding Fathers were believers and put God into the Declaration of Independence.

You're even ignorant about the founding of our country. Most of the founding fathers were in fact, not christian. Many of them were christian, but many others were diests, and several other religions, a few even atheists.

We're not going to stand by and allow radical christians to revision our history so they can turn this country into a theocracy.

ReasonNotFaith says

Cloud says

It was religion that helped free the slaves
Oh really? which religion helped free the slaves?? Oh that's right, the same religion practiced by slave owners... Your arguments don't make any sense at all.

lol .... ummm ... read a few lines by Honest Abe when the chance comes.

Cloud says

by the way Not Faith, why did all those "deists" put the words "endowed by our creator" in one of the, if not the, most important document this country has?

To understand that, maybe you need to understand what the word diest means, and also what the culture of the country was like at the time. it's not hard to understand, if understanding is the goal, which i know is now your goal.

Cloud says

Something like 150,000 men, most of them Christians died to free the slaves. The movement to free the slaves started largely in Northeast churches.

Yes, but the Northeastern Churches lost almost every debate, formal and informal, since the Southern Churches had the Word of God explicitly behind them. When you go by the actual Words in the KJV, and not by an abstract concept of hippy Jesus, slavery wins.

Be happy to cite chapter and verse showing that at the very least, the OT and NT consider slavery to be a normal condition for people in a society. Otherwise they wouldn't use analogies involving slaves and laws on managing slaves and for slaves to be obedient to their earthly masters.

Here we go:

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money."

In other words, beating your slave to death will be punished, beating them so they can't function for a day or two is A-okay.

Servant does not mean a paid, hired butler or doorman or cook, as we will see:

Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

HEBREW slaves will be freed in their seventh year. Non-Hebrew slaves are slaves for life, unless it pleases the Master to free them.

This is instruction is restated in Deuteronomy 15, Verses 12-18.

More evidence that limited time slave owning applied only to Hebrews comes from these verses in Leviticus:

Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Only those who enslave fellow Hebrews are punished:
Deuteronomy 24:7: "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you."

Apparently, slavery among Hebrews was only for debt.

Now no doubt you can go and find hand-wringing, excuse making, "apologetics" for Slavery, but even these defenders can't deny: Slavery was present in Israel and the Bible thought it necessary to codify laws for the handling of slaves. It did not prohibit Slavery.

How about the new Testament?

Slavery alive and well in the time of Jesus:
Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"
Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

The most obvious, Paul's Letter to the Ephesians:
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

To the Colossians:
Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."

Cloud says

If an Atheist kills oh lets say millions and milliions of people making the Crusades look like a Sunday picnic, as was the case with Uncle Joe Stalin, can I then call all Atheists evil people and killers?

Stalin was an Authoritarian Dictator. He didn't kill people because they weren't atheists, he killed them because of their Class (Kulaks) and/or their dissent to his rule. Maybe he was inspired by what he learned at the Orthodox Seminary he attended previous to his career as a Tyrant. Plenty of Christian Monarchs have also not only killed in the name of Religion, but also terrorized entire classes of people for money. Including Christian Groupings, like the Knights Templar or the Cathars where the motive was almost certainly financial: The King of France, other Monarchs and the Pope wanted the lands, their loans forgiven, and all their gold and silver.

Atheists don't claim that being atheist makes you morally superior, though we like to think the elimination of religion will provide more moral clarity rather than acts of evil committed in the name of Dogma. Religionists, on the other hand, insist that a belief in their Deity increases moral behavior. Atheists also don't call murderers like Thomas More, a "Saint" for burning countless people for reading a book translated into English.

Cloud says

Thunder, there is no debate here. The biggest killers in the last century were the leaders who were not only Atheists but who systematic got rid of religion in their mob society.

Cloud says

The rest of the religious wars are mere skirmishes compared to what China, North Korea, what Stalin and Pol Pot have done.

"John Wayne Gacy killed more people than the Zodiac Killer, therefore, people should admire the Zodiac Killer and loathe John Wayne Gacy."

Here's some "mere skirmishes" where deaths were motivated at least in part by religious belief, or committed by those who consistently pumped their morality or the morality of their followers which they claimed stemmed from religion:

Hitler - Tens of Millions. Catholic Fascist.
Mussolini - Tens of Thousands of Eithiopians. Many Spaniards. Catholic Fascist.
Croat Ustashi - Hundreds of Thousands of Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, and Bosniaks. Catholic Fascist.
Croatia, Yugoslav War - Tens of Thousands of Serbs and Bosniaks. Catholic Republic.
Serbia, Yugoslav War - Tens of Thousands of Bosniaks and Croatians and Albanians. Orthodox Republic.
Franco - Hundreds of Thousands of union members. Catholic Fascist.
Argentine Oligarchy of the 70s - Tens of Thousands. Catholic Fascist.
Pinochet - At least Tens of Thousands. Catholic Fascist.
Leopold II - Millions of Congolese. Catholic Monarch.
Turkish Republic - Millions of Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, and dissenters. Islamic Military Oligarchy.
General Yakubu Gowon (Biafra) - Hundreds of Thousands. Anglican Military Oligarchy.
LBJ/Richard M. Nixon (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia)- Hundreds of Thousands. Quaker and Episcopal Elected Executive.
George W. Bush/Barak Obama (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya)- Hundreds of Thousands. Evangelical/UCC (or sekrit Mooslim) Elected Executives of Corporate Socialist Republic.
Saudi Arabia (Najam and Eastern Province) - Tens of Thousands of Shi'a Twelvers. Islamic Monarchy with Theocratic Council.
Saudi Arabia (all over) - Tens of Thousands of non-Wahabi Muslims, esp. more liberal Sunni town-dwellers and Shi'a, early 20th Century. Islamic Monarchy with Theocratic Council.
Bahrain - Hundreds of democracy activists/shi'a minorities. Islamic Monarchy.
Burundi (Micombero) - Hundreds of thousands of Hutu. Catholic Tutsi Dictatorship.
Congo/Zaire (Mobutu Sese Seko) - Hundreds of Thousands if not a million. Christian Military Dictatorship. Warm relations with US.
Liberia: President Chuck Taylor, VP Foday Sankoh - Millions. Evangelical Military Oligarchy.
Guatemala (Montt)- Hundreds of Thousands. Catholic-turned-Evangelical; Military Oligarchy.
Indonesia (Suharto) - Millions of Indonesians and New Guineans and Timorese. Muslim Oligarchy.
Sudan - Hassan Turabi. Hundreds of Thousands. Islamic Dictatorship with Theocratic Council.
Israel, Lebanon - Thousands. Mostly by Christian Militia proxy. Jewish Nationalist (zionist) Republic.
Israel, West Bank - Thousands. Mostly by cutting off services. Jewish Nationalist (zionist) Republic.

I could go on...

Cloud says

Thunder, what the hell are you talking about, People Magazine shit, John Wayne what's his name?

One of the worst serial killers in US History:

http://www.prairieghosts.com/gacy.html