For 25 years Richard Morgan was a card-carrying atheist and flaming Richard Dawkins fan. Born in the UK, living in France, he came to Chicago to tell this special story.
Richard had a radical conversion experience in 2008. Not only did it rock his world in an instant, it incited a riot on the Dawkins Internet discussion board. Despite his mannerly approach, he was quickly banished from the forum.
In this video, Richard tells you his strange yet wonderful story. (It’s featured in the book “The Dawkins Letters” by David Robertson, 2nd edition.)
Press Arrow to Play:
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here – https://evo2.org/evolution/Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
Mr. Greyfox I read one of your latest posts where you say your 85. I do applaud your intellectual logical mind. I wonder if in your 85 years you failed to meet the unknown. Events or circumstances in which you had no explanation. ESP, precognition, intuition, UFOs, Spirits of the departed, Miracle healing, Meetings with other Beings, astral travel. and so on. Oh The folly of all those fools who experience the unknown and don’t realize the scientific explanation of their delusions. I know nothing could be said to you which will change your mind. At 85 you must feel the breath of death on your neck and know the dust will embrace you soon as with me also. My path has been very different, coming into contact with the unknown many times. I believe you will consider me another deluded soul. But I treasure my delusions and look forward to the infinite.
My dear Mr,Dalton, wonder no more,
I can assure you I have met the unknown many times. The fact of the matter is that I discriminate
seriously as to what is known and what is unknown. “ESP, precognition, intuition” I believe these to be valid topics
that are difficult to explain but
they do exist, at least in my opinion. UFOs possibly, but most of the other things you enumerate would be a stretch for me to entertain in any serious way, but hey, in the world of possibilities, anything is possible although some things are highly unlikely.
I do not consider you a deluded soul, as you put it. You have every right to believe what you wish so long as you afford me the same consideration.
A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn’t work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.
An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs! ‘
Mr Morgan’s presentation was very interesting, inspiring and funny.
However, I wish you had posted more details on his background: Education, profession, etc.
In other words, a more complete introduction on who Mr Morgan is.
Acw- RE: Your request for a more complete introduction on who Mr Morgan is…
Howzabout–You Go First.
You haven’t even given us Your Name–let alone an introduction… just 3 letters that may or may not be (I’m guessing) Your initials ??
Anyway–Listen Again.
It appears that You missed the fairly good introductions given by both Perry Marshall AND Richard Morgan–Himself…
AND–IF You’d still like to learn more–THEN Get Yourself A Copy of “The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths” by David Robertson.
No, I don’t have to give you my name first (or any time) since I’m not being introduced to any lectures, nor am I the central subject of THIS story/video. I do believe that Perry may have more info on me by looking at my WP account profile.
However, Perry should have known better and provided a proper WRITTEN introduction/background on Mr Morgan on the opening parahgraphs of this page. People shouldn’t have to review the video over again to get this BASIC information.
Now, can you tell me on what minute marker in the video does Perry state a PROPER introduction with ‘current occupation’, ‘educational background’, etc? Your “fairly good” introduction isn’t fairly good.
You’re Right–Acw…
You do NOT have to give Me–Your Name. At the same time–Neither DO I.O.U. the minute marker in the video where–Whoever says Whatever that You’d Like To Know…
‘Cuz People SHOULD Have To Review Sources of Information–THEMSELVES–To Get BASICS That They May Have MISSED The First Time or 2 Thru. Such Review IS Counted Among The MOST CRUCIAL of HABITS of Well-Educated Minds… To–DO YOUR OWN Homework.
ANYWAY–
Welcome To Our BRAVE NEW WORLD of Interactive-Media Communication–Dude or Dudette… as the case may be…
WHERE–
We’re FREE To State Our Credentials OR Leave THEM At The proverbial Door & Enter INTO Candid Exchanges–No Matter Who You Are & How IT IS That You’ve Come To Know What Ya Know…
Because THE GOAL IS–
STATEMENTS of THE TRUEST & MOST COMPREHENSIVE of IDEAS…
NOT–A Curriculum Vitae Contest.
I never said that you “owed” me anything- I did not ask you for any information- I ASKED Perry to FOLLOW proper JOURNALISTIC PRACTICES and be thorough in introducing the SUBJECT of his article/video/seminar/treatise/whatever.
BUT you decided to BUTT IN and post ALL those stupid CAPS and say NOTHING of importance, or NOTHING relevant, that MAY contribute to the conversation.
NEITHER was I asking for qualifying credentials on Mr Morgan, but a brief and STANDARD intro with regard the subject of said ARTICLE, you know- as most people DO.
You were not able to provide the spot on the video BECAUSE you ain’t found nothing, BRO!
I thought Mr Morgan’s presentation was great, witty, and informative. In my original question I was not looking for no STATEMENTS of THE TRUEST & MOST COMPREHENSIVE IDEAS… I was just looking for a MOST PROPER INTRO… and IF you AIN’T got IT, then let PERRY HANDLE IT.
I can understand going from non -belief to believing that there is some incredible, inexplicable force/power that we name “God” that created everything.
But why leap to Christianity especially considering the holes, contradictions, illogic, and downright evil of the bible?
Anyone who thinks that they KNOW that Jesus is the “son” of God and that Christianity is the one true religion, can’t see the forest for the trees.
RE: (1) “I can understand going from non -belief to believing that there is some incredible, inexplicable force/power that we name ‘God’ that created everything.”
Well…
This IS Progress.
RE: (2) “But why leap to Christianity especially considering the holes, contradictions, illogic, and downright evil of the bible?”
You mean those… “holes, contradictions, illogic, and downright evil”… found ESPECIALLY in the first portions of the bible–the Hebrew canon approved by Rabbinic Judaism & otherwise known as the Old Testament to Protestant Christians… [NOTE: Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic & Ethiopian Christian Churches include a larger collection of the ancient Hebrew Scriptures in their bibles].
Yes–When we honestly record the history of the many ways & many times that we (individually & collectively) have failed in our Applied Tests of GOD’S LAWS of TOUGH LOVE… yet… our failures neither defeated nor diminished GOD’S WAYS & MEANS FOR US All To Advance As An EverMore Human Family–The Telling of Such Stories WILL–to much of our human ways of thinking & measuring–Sound BAD AND Appear To Contain Holes & Contradictions & Illogic & Evil… in much the same way that as children–we would reject our parents’ ways if/when Mom/Dad failed to give us WHAT we WANTED-WHEN we WANTED IT !!… And We Did NOT “Get” The Bigger Picture Until… Later…
RE: (3) “Anyone who thinks that they KNOW that Jesus is the ‘son’ of God and that Christianity is the one true religion, can’t see the forest for the trees.”
LOL…”can’t see the forest for the trees.”
Such polarized lenses filter Your field of view–Fred.
“…especially considering the holes, contradictions, illogic, and downright evil of the bible?”
OMG. That anyone in this day would still cling to these sophism and ignorance based comments on the bible is astounding indeed.
You got your “education” on the bible from biblical, historical and philosophical ignoramus Richard Dawkins, or worse, I suspect.
It’s like the modern flat earthers. So hey Fred you’re in “good” company. 😉
How about we address you’re own “contradictions, illogic and downright evil”? That would be precisely what God would like to talk to you about (and no doubt has)
Ah that is a different story, you don’t want to admit.
Anyway – Your ignorance on the bible is profound indeed.
So lets take a very brief moment to look at the truth.
You may want to look up the names of those quoted – they’re light years ahead of you and every other ignorant bible hater around.
# Nelson Glueck – “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference.”
# William F. Albright – “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament traditions.”
# F.F. Bruce – “Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record.”
# Merrill Unger – “Old Testament archaeology has rediscovered whole nations, resurrected important peoples, and in a most astonishing manner filled in historical gaps, adding immeasurably to the knowledge of biblical backgrounds.”
# Miller Burrows – “Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown in a number of instances that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development … The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural.”
1. For many critics the account of the birth of Jesus was held as ridiculous. They argued that there was no census, that Quirinius was not Governor of Syria at that time and that everyone did not have to return to his ancestral home for a census. Archaeology has proven the critics wrong (again) —
* The Romans had a regular enrollment of taxpayers and held censuses every 14 years. The procedure was begun under Augustus.
* Quirinius was Governor of Syria about 7 B.C.
* A papyrus found in Egypt gives directions for the conduct of a census. Families were to return to their own governments to complete family registration of the enrollment and that the tilled lands might retain those belonging to them.
2. Critics said Acts was unreliable because Luke wrote that Lystra and Derbe were in Lycaonia and Iconium was not (Acts 14:6). However, in 1910, Sir William Ramsay found a monument that showed Iconium was a Phrygran city. Later discoveries confirmed that.
3. In his letter to the Romans, Paul mentions the city treasurer, Erastus (Romans 16:23). The letter was written in Corinth. Excavations of Corinth in 1929 found this inscripion on a pavement: “Erastus, curator of public buildings, laid this pavement at his own expense.” The pavement dates from the 1st century A.D.
4. Many critics have blasted the usage of certain words by Luke.
* Luke called rulers in Philippi “praetors.” Scholars argued that two “duumuirs” would have ruled the town. However, archaeology shows that the title of “praetor” was employed by the magistrates of a Roman colony. Luke was right.
* Luke called civil authorities in Thessalonica “politarchs.” Critics said there was no such person. However, 19 inscriptions have been unearthed which use the title. Luke was right.
* Luke called Gallio “proconsul.” The Delphi inscription was unearthed which reads: “As Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend and the proconsul of Achaia.”
Sir William Ramsay wrote of Luke: “Luke is a historian of the first rank … this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”
—————————————
With the great abundance of MSS available for both OT and NT texts, and the minimal problems involved with inconsistencies between them, there really is no problem at all.
We can safely say with Sir F. Kenyon (former Director of the British Museum), “The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, or early translations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.”
and “The interval between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”
And F. J. A. Hort of Cambridge University, one of the greatest textual critics of the New Testament, in his book Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek said that, leaving aside the comparatively trivial variations between the manuscripts:
the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole…and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text.
And if you really want to be honest and impartial you must also take into account the following :
Numbers of surviving manuscripts of ancient writers
The plays of Aeschylus are preserved in perhaps 50 manuscripts, of which none is complete. Sophocles is represented by about 100 manuscripts, of which only 7 have any appreciable independent value. The Greek Anthology has survived in one solitary copy. The same is the case with a considerable part of Tacitus’ Annals. Of the poems of Catullus there are only 3 independent manuscripts. Some of the classical authors, such as Euripides, Cicero, Ovid, and especially Virgil, are better served with the numbers rising into the hundreds.
The numbers of manuscripts of other writers are: for Caesar’s Gallic War 10, Aristotle 49, Plato 7, Herodotus 8, Aristophanes 10.
Apart from a few papyrus scraps only 8 manuscripts of Thucydides, considered by many to be one of the most accurate of ancient historians, have survived. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy only 35 survive, represented in about 20 manuscripts. Homer’s Iliad is the best represented of all ancient writings, apart from the New Testament, with something like 700 manuscripts. However, there are many more significant variations in the Iliad manuscripts than there are in those of the New Testament.
Does one feel that the above named MSS must be totally refuted or considered unreliable? Of course not. So why is it ALWAYS the bible that gets the most flack?
That fact alone should make you very suspicious.
On the purely psychological and spiritual side of those attackers we may cite hatred, or at least dislike, of the idea of the Judeo/Xian God being the one true God. Indeed, the consequences are devastating for the atheist.
No other book in all of history has received so much vehement persecution, hatred, multiplied 1000’s of attempts to destroy it both physically and evidentially. No other MSS is history is so well supported by so many experts in the fields of archaeology and history.
No other book in history is so loved and so hated. Again why?
And, In addition to Greek, we have something like 8,000 manuscripts in Latin, and an additional 8,000 or so manuscripts in other languages such as Syriac, Armenian, Ethiopic, Coptic, Gothic, Slavic, Sahidic and Georgian. As these translations began to be made before the close of the second century, they provide an excellent source for assessing the text of the New Testament writings from a very early date. On this latter point Charles H. Welsh, in his book True from the Beginning, quotes from the third edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica:
This argument is so strong, that, if we deny the authenticity of the New Testament we may with a thousand times greater propriety reject all the other writings in the world.
Time gap from date of author to date of earliest surviving manuscript
Tacitus 700 years
Livy 400 years
Caesar 900 years
Catullus 1600 years
Aristotle 1400 years
Plato 1200 years
Aristophanes 1200 years
Thucydides* 1200 years
Euripides 1500 years
Sophocles 1400 years
Herodotus 1300 years
*For several papyri of Thucydides, the gap is 500-600 years.
The first complete copy of the Odyssey we have is from 2,200 years after it was written! Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscript of their works, which are of any use to us, are so much later than the originals.
The differences between MSS are almost all so minor as to change nothing of the supposed original meaning.
Most of the discrepancies are typos, synonyms and such – yet another thing they don’t tell you incredibly gullible atheists.
And all that is barely even a small scratching of the surface of the real facts.
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” Whether we like it or not and whether we believe it or not.”
—
So what does this indicate? All persistent whining and hammering against the bible is not founded on factual evidence, reason, logic or anything of the kind! It is founded upon hatred or at least strong prejudice as is easily evidenced in this forum every single hour!
Even Napoleon Bonaparte stated,
“The Bible is more than a book; it is a living being with an action, a power which invades everything that opposes its extension.”
I say, go ahead Fred, keep opposing & hammering away. You will only break yourself on the anvil.
The bible has survived 2000 years of vehement opposition, hammering, denial, attack, murderous persecutions and attempts to prove it wrong or false; and it will continue to refute all its opponents …ad infinitum.
It would thus appear that Fred cannot see the tree for the forest.
Christians are often asked if we believe the Bible is truly the Word of God. Can we believe the Bible? How can we know it is anything more than a collection of sayings and stories? Can we truly believe that the Bible is the Word of God?
There are many reasons to believe in the Bible. Here are a few things to help to explain to a nonbeliever:
Composition. It was composed over sixteen centuries by forty authors with one central theme. Written by soldiers, shepherds, scholars, and fishermen. Begun by Moses in lonely Arabia, finished by John on lonely Patmos. Penned by kings in palaces, shepherds in tents, and inmates in prisons.
Forty writers, most unknown to each other, writing in different countries and three different languages, separated by three times the number of centuries since Columbus discovered America—was it possible for these authors to produce a book of singular theme unless behind them there was one mind, one designer? The Bible is remarkable in composition.
Durability. It is the single most published book in history. The top seller for three hundred years. Translated into twelve hundred languages by an army of translators. Bibles have been burned by dictators and banished from courtrooms, but God’s Word continues. The death knell has tolled a hundred times, but each time the grave is opened, and God’s Word continues. The Bible is remarkable in durability.
Prophecy. The pages of your Bible contain more than three hundred fulfilled prophecies about the life of Christ. A substantial biography was written about Jesus five hundred years before he was born. Can you imagine if the same occurred today? Can you imagine if we found a book written in 1900 that prophesied two world wars, a depression, an atomic bomb, and the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King? What would we think of the book? Wouldn’t we trust it?
Applicability. Paul says the Bible “is useful for teaching, for showing people what is wrong in their lives, for correcting faults, and for teaching how to live right” (2 Tim. 3:16 NCV). Apply the principles of stewardship to your budget, and see if you don’t get out of debt.
Apply the principles of fidelity to your marriage, and see if you don’t have a happier home.
Apply the principles of forgiveness to your relationships, and see if you aren’t more peaceful.
Apply the principles of honesty, and see if you don’t succeed.
Apply the Bible, and see if you don’t agree—the Bible works.
The principles of honesty and all the rest existed centuries before the bible was written.
Just because a book is widely published doesn’t make it true. Is the Qu’ran true? The Communist Manifesto? A Tale of Two Cities? Gulliver’s Travels? The Odyssey? No. So your point is moot.
Please refrain from Ad hominem attacks Hitch by calling me ignorant. Belittling your opponent doesn’t make YOU right. It just weakens your position and makes your uncertainty quite transparent.
You said:
# Nelson Glueck – “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference.”
***So what? Prove that there not a flying invisible dragon circling Jupiter. What does it matter you can’t prove it? the important thing is for believers to prove their claims. The burden of proof lies with the claimant. If I claim in my field that lifting weights slowly is superior to lifting weights quickly, the burden of proof lies with me to prove it. Otherwise it’s just an opinion and opinions ain’t facts. The references in the Bible claiming Jesus to be the son of God and that God himself actually exists have never been proven to be true. Repeat after me, the burden of proof lies with the claimant, the burden of proof lies with the claimant…
# William F. Albright – “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament traditions.”
****Traditions? Like slavery, mysogyny, brutality, etc? Isaac Asimov in his two book series on the bible points out tons of historical inaccuracies. Apparently they really could have used a GPS back then. Archaeology has also confirmed that the earth is a lot older than 7,000 years and a bunch of other stuff many believers think is not true.
# F.F. Bruce – “Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record.”
****Interesting. Believers like you like to use modern archaeological science in your favor when is suits you, and ridicule it when it suits you.
# Merrill Unger – “Old Testament archaeology has rediscovered whole nations, resurrected important peoples, and in a most astonishing manner filled in historical gaps, adding immeasurably to the knowledge of biblical backgrounds.”
****So what? That doesn’t mean God is real.
# Miller Burrows – “Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown in a number of instances that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development … The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural.”
****Yes science keeps evolving and growing. Excellent. Remember, the burden of proof…
Shall I go on?
ShellBell –
these are all principles that have existed long, long before the Judeo/Christian bible. They are not principles of the bible per se. They are how humans co-exist as an ape species. Chimps do this too.
These are all principles that have existed long, long before the Judeo/Christian bible. They are not principles of the bible per se. They are how humans co-exist as an ape species. Chimps do this too.
“Durability. It is the single most published book in history. The top seller for three hundred years. Translated into twelve hundred languages by an army of translators. Bibles have been burned by dictators and banished from courtrooms, but God’s Word continues.”
No the mass delusion continues. But it will end soon and be replaced, unfortuantley by another mass delusion. DO you really think that Christianity will last forever? Read your history. NOTHING lasts forever. In 10,000 years, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, will go the way of Paganism. Be interesting to see what mass delusion makes it to the top in the year 95,147. Too bad we won’t be around to check it out! It’s will probably be awesome – probably some sort of machine/computer god(s).
Nooooo….point is not moot. Durability, along with ALL the other points I made give creedance to the importance placed upon preserving God’s word. Other widely published works, (though not AS WIDELY published) do not share the other amazing attributes of the Bible. (see above) This is not a 5TH grade word problem analogy.
-The principles of honesty and all the rest existed centuries before the bible was written.
Soooo? Fail to see the significance here. The priciples of eating right and exercise existed long before Jane Austin too. She can still apply them, and agree, and profit from them.
Really dislike replying to these comments, mainly because anyone with firm Christian beliefs simply get put on trial and ridiculed, and disected.
Find it sadly amusing that Christianity is so pounded on, and picked apart. But, that is Satan’s job….to send strong delusions, and opposition, and seperate as many souls as he can from God. I’m sure he appreciates your help, but I can assure you will not be rewarded for it.
Today in our society, we live in front of televisions. We watch as people are raped and murdered,we call this entertainment. We have the ability to watch people having sexual experiences,children being abused,and witchcraft. We laugh as people are being rude,disrespectful and crude. We watch family shows where people are divorced, remarried, gay,living together,having sex with anybody…fights,wars and trauma. Do we ever really think about what we are putting in our minds. For these very images and words and thoughts allow the devil access to our minds. For they are not from God. This is not what our Lord has told us to do.
How sad is it that if I was worshiping trees, and reading tarot cards, no one would care.
Hysterical! If I am pro-life, I am labeled as against women’s health…pro-gun…then I’m a radical…believe in the santity of marriage…well then, them there Christians are intolerant. The more vocal you are about your faith, the more opposition you get. Guess what! Another amazing thing. God knew that would happen too.
He gave us these:
Matthew 5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
John 15:18 If the world hate you, you know that it hated me before it hated you.
John 15:20 Remember the word that I said to you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
Romans 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
1 Corinthians 4:12 And labor, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
2 Corinthians 12:10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.
1 Thessalonians 3:4 For truly, when we were with you, we told you before that we should suffer tribulation; even as it came to pass, and you know.
2 Timothy 3:12 Yes, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
Hebrews 10:33 Partly, whilst you were made a spectacle both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst you became companions of them that were so used. 1 Peter 4:12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you:
1 Peter 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
Your adversary the devil – Your enemy; he who is opposed to you. Satan opposes man in his best interests. He resists his efforts to do good; his purposes to return to God; his attempts to secure his own salvation. There is no more appropriate appellation that can be given to him than to say that he resists all our efforts to obey God and to secure the salvation of our own souls.
Fred…the computer god thingy…it suits you. Sorry it hasn’t come to fruition yet. Guess you will just have to keep picking on us dumb, delusional Christians….lol
Belittling me doesn’t make you right and further proves that you and the rest of the believers are deeply entrenched in a fable that if told to you as an adult, you’d never believe it in a million years – unless of course you were so emotionally bereft that you’d cling to anything that purported to love you.
I never said you were dumb. Delusional, yes. No different than a child who has an imaginary friend like virtually all children do.
Here’s the sad irony – no believer in God would ever forgive and let a murderer go free if he admitted to the crime but that the devil went inside of him and made him do evil and that Jesus came to him the next evening and exorcised the devil out. You call him crazy and lock him away for life.
Your hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
You claim the devil is real, that evil and demons walk the earth and in hell below. That God and Jesus are with us and watch us. That the supernatural is as real as we are.
But you only take it seriously when it suits you. And you turn your back on it as it suits you.
You are all walking in your sleep and the world suffers horribly for it. When the day comes (if it ever comes) that we ditch these absurd fairy tales and start treating each other as equals, we’ll finally have peace and harmony. Until then, well, look around you and look closely at the countries that are the most religious (like this one). You’ll observe the worst violence, bigotry and secularism on earth.
Enjoy!
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” Whether we like it or not and whether we believe it or not.”
First, I thought that God said that the earth will not be destroyed. Yes he did…
And if the earth passes away, we will all pass away and therefore his words will vanish.
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it…
Talk about terrible understanding.
First you thought wrongly, in that, as usual, you interpret wrongly and miss half of what is said.
You’re like the dummy that claims that Mary was “raped” by God, cause he can’t figure out how else she could become pregnant. Doh!
Got any other fragile bridges to sell?
You just don’t get it man.
Being so blinded by your own worst enemy, you’re incapable of seeing the meaning.
Your understanding of the whole future of earth thing is appallingly bad, truly misunderstanding the whole biblical “destruction of earth” thing.
Indeed the current earth will be destroyed by fire some day, but like the phoenix, out of ashes the new earth will arise.
You mistakenly see “destroyed” as “disintegrated, annihilated completely out of existence”.
No one thinks like that when the military says “our troops destroyed the enemy air base”
We all know that doesn’t mean there are absolutely no remains, no ruins or that the base has now disappeared into nothing.
We all know that there are demolished buildings, ruined aircraft, hangars and such.
We all know its not a question of utter disintegration.
We all – er except you. Seeing as how you would never interpret any other such phrase as you deceitfully or foolishly have.
The real question here is, “How is that YOU didn’t see this?”
How is that you can’t even interpret simple statements like that without twisting it to your own distorted view?
When people resort to name calling and insults in an argument, you know you’ve got them.
What I said was, one day when our sun becomes a red giant, the Earth will be completely consumed. And it will. There will be no new Earth as there will be no more people and no more imaginary gods.
All gone. Until then, enjoy the few years you have left treating ALL people equally and acting like Jesus would want you to.
Only the devil hates. If you find homosexuality abhorrent, you got the devil in you.
If you think your religion is right and that those who don’t believe what you believe will burn in a hell, you have the devil in you.
Think about it.
Pick it up and read it:
http://www.amazon.com/Asimovs-Guide-Bible-Isaac-Asimov/dp/051734582X
“Pick it up and read it:
http://www.amazon.com/Asimovs-Guide-Bible-Isaac-Asimov/dp/051734582X”
—
I have it. It sucks big time.
Asimov does has some interesting comments on some things but the overall interpretation is typical secular humanist nonsense and thus pathetic.
Seriously you must kidding.
Its like telling people to read Jules Verne’s guide to biology.
If you’ve read it and “been had” by the multitude of highly dubious ideas and lies in it, you may need some deep de-programming.
“It sucks big time.”
Oy vey. Asimov’s comments are nonsense and pathetic?
Well, there is no talking to you I see. In fact, this tells me you have not read it since the books are not about religion at all and are just a historical review.
My point for bringing the book up was to point out that there are errors in the Bible. You’re ad hominem tirade and insults at Asimov show, once again, that you are threatened by facts. You attack the man and not his information.
Instead of tossing insults and making vague comments, why not cite some specific examples if where Asimov erred?
Well–Fred…
I didn’t select any particular one of Your posts to “Reply” to as I’m going to tiptoe thru bits & pieces of several of “Those Given Above”…
RE: “The principles of honesty and all the rest existed centuries before the bible was written.
Just because a book is widely published doesn’t make it true.”
HOWEVER–There IS a difference between factual accuracy & truth.
Allegories, Fables, Legends, Tales, Fantasies & Parables can all convey Great Truth(s) without being Factually Accurate.
RE: “Archaeology has also confirmed that the earth is a lot older than 7,000 years and a bunch of other stuff many believers think is not true.”
Good Point. HOWEVER–At the same time…
The relative numbers & influence that Those who are in the “every-word-of-the-Bible-to-be-interpreted-as-if-being-a-literally-accurate-ONLY-ZONE” are as overestimated as Their pronouncements of the Earth’s age are underestimated.
RE: “Yes science keeps evolving and growing. Excellent. Remember, the burden of proof…”
LOL…
You’re Hilarious ON This Point–Fred.
THIS Website–Cosmicfingerprints–Offers Explanations Given IN (Educated) Layman’s Terms of THE MANY PROOFS of… NOT JUST The Existence of GOD–The Existence of The GOD of Judeo/Christianity.
You–HOWEVER–Insist on continuing Your argumentation & raising of further objections much like a HS Student who didn’t DO Their homework and thinks that if They BS loud enough & long enough off the top of Their head–that this’ll be enough to bluff & brass Their way thru to sounding knowledgeable… at least in the “fooling all of the people some of the time & some of the people all of the time” sense.
RE: “Shall I go on?”
Well…
You answered Your Own question by posting 3 more times after asking it–without giving Anybody Else a chance to respond.
RE: “Durability vs. Delusion”
You–Yourself–Wrote…
Back on Oct 5, 2011…
“The world is both rational and irrational. Yin/yang. Good/evil. That is the way it is. I’m not wondering about this much if at all. People who kill other people for no reason are obviously either hormonally dysfunctional, mentally and physically abused, drug addicted, or some other unnatural unhealthy state.”
To live in an “unhealthy state” (such as young boys who are required to sit in American public schools for hours without recess) and then do something “healthy” (such as–become fidgety) has invited the “(IR)Rational Response” on the part of America’s Learning-Disorder-Industrial-Complex to diagnose such a child as being ADD or ADHD and in need of years-unto-decades of Drug Therapy to biochemically assault their nervous systems in order to keep them in their place.
Somethin’ tells Me that IF JC were sitting in an American Public School today (or in Many of Our Private Academies–as well)–His Teachers would be recommending Adderall or Ritalin, Etc, Etc INSTEAD of More Fully Engaged & Stimulating Teaching Methods & Curricula for Him TOO.
The Durability vs. The Delusion–
It’s A Matter of Perspective–ISN’T IT ??
Always Has Been–IS TODAY–And Forever Will Be.
RE: “First, I thought that God said that the earth will not be destroyed. Yes he did…
And if the earth passes away, we will all pass away and therefore his words will vanish.”
Oh Dear Lord…
It does appear that the sophomoric level of Your arguing–Fred–knows NO end.
In this day & age…
When We’ve so vastly extended our Human perception with instruments capable of detecting what Our unaided senses can NOT–We Can Certainly Agree That…
Upon closer examination… words do not simply “vanish”… if spoken–they go out into the world as vibrations… whose waves may leave changes & markings imperceptible to us… but ARE THERE never-the-less.
It’s the ol’ “butterfly effect”… this term having been coined over 30 years ago by Edward Lorenz but whose scientific pedigree reaches back over a century ago to Henri Poincaré’s work with chaos theory… or… at least what to Human abilities to perceive appears to be “chaos”… even if–GOD KNOWS WHAT’S GOING ON…
HOWEVER–
As You Reject GOD…
I shall NOT take this train of thought any further with You.
FINALLY–
RE: “Pick it up and read it:”
[Recommended–Asimov’s Guide to the Bible]”
I LUVED Asimov’s novels and read many of them in HS and College. I haven’t read His “Guide to the Bible” however… according to one of the reviewers at the Amazon webpage…
“This book covers what Asimov calls in the introduction the ‘secular aspects’ of the bible. As a result the book pays little attention to the spiritual meaning of the bible, and I wouldn’t advise buying this if that is your main interest.”
“You Only Get Out of IT What You Put Into IT” are words that are never been truer than when describing Bible Study.
McBlanc – Your response is just too unwieldy for me to make sense of it (what are you talking about WRT young school boys?) save for this one:
“THIS WebsiteCosmicfingerprints–Offers Explanations Given IN (Educated) Layman’s Terms of THE MANY PROOFS of… NOT JUST The Existence of GOD–The Existence of The GOD of Judeo/Christianity.”
Really? I must have missed the proof. Could you do me a big favor and name just one proof? I’m all ears.
Oh Yeah…
MY “response is just too unwieldy for” YOU. That’s a good one–Fred.
What am I talking about with regard to young school boys? In order to answer that one–I need to answer Your last question first–as to what is the proof that GOD–THE AUTHOR of LIFE–EXISTS.
I refer You to one of the several excellent Cosmicfingerprints articles given at the top of this webpage: “If You Can Read This, I Can Prove God Exists” by Perry Marshall.
COMPRESSED & CONDENSED EDITION of The Already Compressed & Condensed Executive Summary:
Part 1: Language, Information, and the Origin of DNA
A. Patterns occur naturally – no help required from a ‘designer’.
B. Codes, however, do not occur without a designer.
C. Proof that DNA was designed by a mind:
(1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
(2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind.
(3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence.
D. We can explore five possible conclusions:
1) Humans designed DNA
2) Aliens designed DNA
3) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
4) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information
5) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.
(1) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans.
(2) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time.
(3) may be a remote possibility, but it’s not a scientific explanation in that it doesn’t refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It’s nothing more than an appeal to luck.
(4) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic explanation that remains is
(5) a theological one.
To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of a designer, a.k.a. GOD.
THEREFORE…
In much the same way that we write books… GOD Writes Beings.
THEN–We Beings Grow UP & “Live & Move & Have Our Being” in a world that we find to be…
Quoting You:
“…both rational and irrational. Yin/yang. Good/evil. That is the way it is. I’m not wondering about this much if at all. People who kill other people for no reason are obviously either hormonally dysfunctional, mentally and physically abused, drug addicted, or some other unnatural unhealthy state.”
AND–
IF We Do Find That The State of Our World IS “UN-Healthy”…
We Have Our Own GOD-GIVEN-INTELLIGENCE To Figure Out What’s Wrong & Do What We Can To Make IT Better…
And TODAY–
If There’s ANYTHING That–CLEARLY–We ARE Doing WRONG That We Need To COURSE-CORRECT–STAT…
IT IS–
THE TAKING OUR KIDS (by the millions) AND MAKING THEM DRUG-DEPENDENT FROM EARLY AGES BY FORCE-FEEDING THEM–ON A LONG-TERM BASIS–STIMULANTS (such As Ritalin & Adderall) AS A CONDITION of THEIR ATTENDING SCHOOL–ATTENDANCE AT WHICH IS REQUIRED BY LAW.
Boys & Girls Have Been Around For 1000’s & 1000’s of Years…
And Their Needs For LOTS of Physical Activity & a Wide Variety of Nutritious Foods For Body & Mind & Soul–INCLUDING–Creative & Hands-ON Ways To Explore & Learn About Themselves & Each Other & The World At Large By Means of Visual & Musical & Performance & Practical Arts–As Well As–By The Study of Languages & Math & Sciences (Physical & Social) IS WELL DOCUMENTED.
SO–
When Our Schools Have Had Recess & Gym Class & Art & Music & Orchestra & Band & Theater & Home Economics & Shop Classes ALL BUT STRIPPED OUT of The Curricula AT THE SAME TIME That The “Class Busy Bodies” Were Getting Force-Fed Drugs To Settle Them Down… AND AFTER DOING THIS TO more & More & MORE KIDS FOR 10-20-30 YEARS…
WE OBSERVE ALL THESE “SMART” KIDS WHO ARE MENTALLY ILL & GOING BALLISTIC…
AND THEN–We Ask–
WHAT IS THEIR PROBLEM?
WHEN THEIR PROBLEM IS–US !!…
AND THE “ADULT” EXPECTATIONS THAT WE HAVE THRUST UPON KIDS–
AT THE SAME TIME THAT–
ADULTS HAVE BEEN HANDED EXCUSES–Left & Right–WHENEVER THEY’VE BEEN IRRESPONSIBLE PUNKS.
The good news is…
Among the 20- & 30-somethings that it’s been My Privilege to get to know…
They “Get” IT–
And few IF ANY are falling for the ol’ BOOMER BS–such as You peddle–NO MO’
Forgive my “appeal to authority” logical fallacy here, but he says it better than I could:
http://www.jackscanlan.com/2009/06/cornelius-hunters-darwin-predictions-the-dna-code-is-not-unique/
DNA is NOT a code like computer code. You are confusing the concepts.
“This is the traditional idea of a code, and it is what theists think they mean when they argue that DNA is a code. The thing is, DNA is not that kind of a code. DNA is a polymer, composed of individual chemical units called nucleotides. There are four types of these nucleotides, and we humans have decided to call them adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. These names are not entirely arbitrary, but in the end, there’s nothing magical about them. We could call them Blob, Clob, Dob, and Emu, and they’d still be the same.”
Were I you, I read up on this issue a little more.
DNA is NOT proof that a supernatural, all-powerful, vengeful, jealous and all loving being who interferes with our lives and let’s us burn in hell for being attracted to a woman who isn’t our wife when he wishes to, exists.
Not even close.
Good Grief.
I’m not confused–You’re ignorant. And–The strong evidence that You have no real idea what You’re talking about is the fact that You would actually link Your comments to Jack Scanlan’s website of cluelessness. His work resonates with “Australian Skeptics”–NOT–with People who REALLY know & understand anything about genetics.
You advise Me to… “read up on this issue a little more.”
Dude–I used to teach this subject. I’d recommend that You do the same… except that it’s probably too late for You. If You’ve got any Kids–hopefully They “Get” IT.
You’re reply is incomprehensible Mcblanc. I have no idea what you are raving on about so I can’t answer you.
And you still have offered no proof that the God of the Bible exists.
I’m waiting…
Hey there Fred
You probably don’t remember me but i prayed for you over a year ago. Wow – you are still at it – admire your persistence. Just to let you know that i prayed the same prayer for you today that you called wierd last time. For you and your family. May the Lord bless you and your family and have mercy on your souls in your time of need.
I remember. Thanks for the prayers.
I’m not sure what you mean by “persistence” exactly. I happen to enjoy the conversation and am awaiting some sort of elegant argument that would make me think that a god exists.
If God HAS mercy on my soul and NOT on others, that is wrong. Clearly if he intervenes and helps some people (e.g., cures their cancer, heals their blindness, saves their child from a disaster, etc.) and let’s others – particularly children – suffer and die, he’s a bit if an asshole if you ask me.
And since he DOES do this(unless he doesn’t intervene but I think all believers think he does), the god you believe in is a real piece of work.
He needs to clean up his act before I worship him I can tell you that.
Hi again Fred
Yes of course, you enjoy the conversations.
You say if He intervenes and helps some and not others He is a bit of an a@#$%. Not very nice Fred. I wonder? Could you use your considerable intellect and ponder whether there is any other explanation as to why God invades sometimes and not others? You probably have heard of “Mere Christianity” by CS Lewis. But you probably have read it and it either made no sense to you or you dismissed it and his arguments out of hand. After all, CS Lewis was pretty dumb. In fact he was an athiest once.
I will pray again for you and your precious children and He will answer them. God bless.
“You say if He intervenes and helps some and not others He is a bit of an a@#$%. Not very nice Fred.”
That’s right. It’s not nice at all for God to help an old person regain their hearing and at the same time allow children to be abducted and tortured till they are dead. Do you not get the abject cruelty of this? And this is the God you worship and praise?
“I wonder? Could you use your considerable intellect and ponder whether there is any other explanation as to why God invades sometimes and not others? You probably have heard of “Mere Christianity” by CS Lewis. But you probably have read it and it either made no sense to you or you dismissed it and his arguments out of hand. After all, CS Lewis was pretty dumb. In fact he was an athiest once.”
****The *REASON* whatever it may be, it totally beside the point. Since he CAN save both and doesn’t – that he CAN save innocent children from unspeakable horrors and doesn’t says it all.
“I will pray again for you and your precious children and He will answer them. God bless.”
****Tell you what. Want to do me a REAL favor? Don’t pray for ME. Ask God to go get those kids out of their horrific lives and return them to their loving parents.
Hi Fred
The reason why I said “not nice Fred” was because of the language you used which was not nice – very disrespectful. I think even you could work that out.
You seemed to ignore the challenge of looking up “Mere Christianity” by CS Lewis. If you want some “elegant” answers they are all there. But maybe I could spell out a very simple example. Maybe He wants YOU to get those kids out of their horrific lives. Maybe He has given YOU the responsibility but you have used your free will to waste your time enjoying yourself being rude to Christians on this website. I will honor your request and not pray for you anymore. I have already anyway. This will be my last post. Unlike you I don’t enjoy these conversations and only do it because I know He loves you and your precious children. God bless you Fred.
“The reason why I said “not nice Fred” was because of the language you used which was not nice – very disrespectful. I think even you could work that out.”
****We are talking about a fictious being you know. Disrepsectful? What I said was true – that if he does exist and helps an old woman with her bunion pain and at the same time ignores a tortured child, he is an asshole. Is is disrespectful to have called Hitler an asshole to his face? No I don’t think so.
“You seemed to ignore the challenge of looking up “Mere Christianity” by CS Lewis. If you want some “elegant” answers they are all there.”
***I have actually. I listened to the audio. He chose to believe in the delusion. How does this give me answers? I am more interested in evidence for your God, like a jury would in a crime.
“But maybe I could spell out a very simple example. Maybe He wants YOU to get those kids out of their horrific lives. Maybe He has given YOU the responsibility but you have used your free will to waste your time enjoying yourself being rude to Christians on this website.”
****I have not been rude to anyone. Quite the contrary actually. But if you are going to accuse me of rudeness, please be specific. How have I been rude? Or, are you choosing to feel insulted because I quesiton the validity of God and certainly of Christianity as THE one correct religion. I think this is more the case. As for God wanting little old me to go free the thousands of raped and tortured children, let him appear to me and ask me for god’s sake. Is that such a big deal? BUT I see you missed the point entirely. And I know why. You just can’t face the absurdity of it all. It would rattle your faith to the core.
“I will honor your request and not pray for you anymore. I have already anyway. This will be my last post. Unlike you I don’t enjoy these conversations and only do it because I know He loves you and your precious children. God bless you Fred.”
****I knew it would come to this as it always does with believers. When the Christian is faced with the reality of a God that can’t possibly be real (because if he is, the Christian realizes he is not a very nice fellow and in fact allows horrific acts to occur) – OR he realizes that his god does NOT actually interfere in our lives in any way shape or form. If the latter, then pray tell what is the difference between a God that does not interfere or participate in our lives and no God at all?
Hi Fred
One last try.
Firstly I apologise for the sarcasm that has crept in to some of my comments.
To answer your major point – why does He intervene sometimes and not others you need to understand a couple of things. The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s;
But the earth He has given to the children of men.(Psalm 115:16).
The terrible things that happen on the earth are because man has used his freewill to do so. He will never go back on what He has said, so we are it – we (including you) have the responsibility to steward the earth. I think you would have to agree that we have done a very poor job. But He does intervene when we are surrendered to Him. When we purpose to use our freewill for His purposes.
For example, the woman missionary who entered an unnamed country (unnamed because the Government tacitly supports the kind of activity that I’m about to describe) and was lead by God to a “den”. In this place men would drink a concoction of shakes blood and hard liquor sending them into a raving stupor. She rescued an 18 month old little girl from his arms – who he was about to “plunder”. She had divine protection. She was in great danger but miraculously she was able to rescue this child. So it is possible Fred, that little old you could make a difference. But as I said before, you choose to spend your time enjoying yourself on this website.
I stand by my comments that you are rude. Look up the word “kismet”, as it applies to the Muslim religion. Then go and write a placard with Fredisms on it including
“Kismet means your allah is an a@#$%^&”
“you are delusional”
“can’t you see how ridiculous you sound?”
and park yourself outside a mosque. See if they get offended and think you are rude. I believe you enjoy being deliberately provocative.
The Bible would call you a “scoffer”.
“A scoffer seeks wisdom and does not find it, But knowledge is easy to him who understands.” (Prov. 14:6).
You use your freewill, not as a genuine attempt to understand, but to put forth your Fredisms. You even say one of the greatest minds of the 20th century (CS Lewis) is deluded.
In your country, the Psychiatric association produce whats called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for mental disorders. Delusions are considered mental disorders. But religious beliefs and experiences are specifically excluded. The main reason why they are excluded is that delusional disorders tend to be pervasive. But this is not the case for “religious people”. So your vocabulary is wrong and insulting. Remember you called my friend who has the demonic oppression “delusional”. Yet she consulted a mental health expert at the time of her oppression who told her “go see a priest, there is nothing mentally wrong with you”
Also you base your “delusional” comments on that there is no God. One of the most basic scientific rules is that you can’t prove something doesn’t exist. You can only prove that He does. He has proved Himself over and over to me. There have been more than a dozen circumstances where He has supernaturally intervened. So Fred, your comments and provocations have not affected my faith at all. Your comments have not rocked my faith to the core.
You say if He wants you to do something that He could appear to you – I believe He will, if you have a genuine heart to find the truth. But it works on faith. Approach Him with whatever faith you have – “If You are real, show me”.
The way God sees it is the following:
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. (Romans 1:20)
The reality Fred –
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:9)
But people like Dawkins and you Fred believe that your great great great ancestor was a bug in a puddle. that we are all here by accident, survival of the fittest, the only purpose in life is what we can invent for ourselves, that our thoughts and drives are pre-eminately important and all there is.
I genuinely hope all this helps you Fred, not only for your benefit but also for your children. God bless you
” he’s a bit if an asshole if you ask me.”
Fred I laughed out loud when I read your irreverent comment, as
a matter of fact I’m still laughing. Well said.
You are simply NOT understanding or getting my point which is this:
If God chooses to help us out and directly intervenes in our lives sometimes, this means that he chooses NOT to intervene at other times – regardless of whether or not some or all of the problems are our fault.
Follow so far? I hope so. You are making excuses in order to keep believing as you feel you must.
And the woman who saved the child who you said had “divine protection” rom God because no one killed her in the process – what about the many others who have tried to help and have been slaughtered? Why didn’t God give them divine protection? Because they didn’t believe in him quite enough or the right way? So sometimes this God of yours let’s good people die and sometimes he let’s them live and we’re supposed to believe that his way is just mysterious?
That is some serious delusional nonsense. Like SERIOUS.
As for Muslims getting offended at even the slightest provocation for words spoken about their god, I don’t disagree. But you are mistaking deliberate rudeness from intellectual discourse.
It is not rude to call Hitler a sick, twisted murderer is it?
And it goes to show you how insane people who believe in god can be. Same for Christians who bomb abortion clinics and kill the doctors who perform them.
Atheists don’t kill in the name of anyone mind you. Keep that in mind.
The reason why in my country religious delusions are not included is because of politics. Don’t think for an American second that it’s becasue the physciatric board doesn’t think that religious beliefs are not delusions. The religious would go on the attack if they were included.
If proof of God is the sun, moon and the stars, then fine. Of course, this is just a 6000 year old made up notion that emerged before we knew anything about our surroundings.
Our great, great, great, etc., ancestors WERE “bugs in a puddle.” And there is nothing at all wrong with that. How do you know God didn’t invent evolution?
And if Adam and Eve WERE in fact the way it all started, explain the incest thing to me now? Eve obviously had sex with her son and so on and so forth? Why didn’t God make another tribe of people so that incest could be avoided? Are you going to give me some half-cocked excuse that incest was ok then but become wrong several hundred years later for some reason?
Love to hear this one!
And lastly, I am NOT attempting the shake your faith. I really don’t care what you believe in. If it helps you be a kind, caring, accepting, good -hearted person, great.
But if it makes you think, for example, gay people are engaged in evil, that Muslims worship a false God, etc. then your religion is messing you up. Big time.
“But if it makes you think, for example, gay people are engaged in evil, that Muslims worship a false God, etc. then your religion is messing you up. Big time.”
I think you must also believe that Muslims worship a false God, no? I think we must agree on something. Actually, I know we agree on a bunch of things, for instance that killing people who perform abortions is wrong and indefensible.
I myself did not arrive at my own Christian conviction in a flash like Richard Morgan, but by an uphill battle, struggling with many of the questions that you have. Ultimately I have arrived at a faith much like someone has in their spouse’s fidelity: I can’t prove it, but I don’t feel I have to, and we are happy together. I understand that sometimes people are wrong about their spouse’s fidelity, and I recognize that perhaps I may be wrong, too. It’s possible. If, as some claim, I’m just a collection of neurons reacting with the world and that I was misled by my own complex and contrdictory desires, well then, that will be that.
I have a friend that argues against the existence of free will. It’s quite obvious, he says, that since all thoughts, emotions and actions have a molecular substrate, and since molecules are not free, then free will cannot exist. Put simply, he doesn’t believe in it because he can’t prove it.
GK Chesterton wrote that the insane man is not the man that has lost his reason, but the man that has lost everything BUT his reason. Just as, in Chesterton’s example, you can’t explain to a paranoid man that you’re not out to get him, because that’s exactly what you would say if you were, I can’t explain to my friend that, despite the absence of proof, the only way our conversation makes any sense or has any meaning is if there is some kind of choice being made. I presuppose my own free will because I must to remain sane.
This, of course, is the problem with atheistic reasoning that we see so often. It’s not that the reasoning itself is faulty, it’s that it is isolated out of context. Perhaps we don’t have free will, but my friend was taking pains to change my mind. While he’s arguing against it, his actions suggest he believes in it. Atheists will speak often speak with passion about goodness and kindness, right and wrong, but, if their world view is actually correct, then these concepts are nothing more than quaint behaviours evolved for the survival of the species through cooperation. Right and wrong as absolutes have no place in that world, for anything humans do would be exactly what they are suppoosed to be doing. Few of the atheists that I have spoken to have the desire to follow that line of thinking to it’s conclusion, and I don’t blame them.
The thinking person understands that human existence is philisophically problematic, and that there are no proofs available for anyone. Recognizing the possibility of God can lead one to interesting places. It’s why, I think, some atheists can’t open the door even a crack for fear that the storm will rush in.
There are many, many reasons why I’m a Christian today. Here’s one: that (despite your objections) it is the best way to understand love. No, really.
Peace.
So you’re Christian is a philisopical sense?
If you hold, for example, that being gay is evil, it is YOU who are evil.
If you hold hate in your heart for other human beings who have done absolutely nothing bad to you or anyone else and live with love, caring, joy and happiness, then you follow the devil, not god – if he does exist.
God would NOT write words that suggested to people that they hate and segregate. But the devil would.
By the way, to clarify, my Christianity isn’t a philisophical sense. I believe it to be true – all of it. My journey to that belief was largely philisophical.
There is nothing in the Bible that encourages hatred. Nothing.
Now, there’s plenty in the Bible about what’s right and wrong, but is that the same thing? If someone does something that I think is wrong, does that mean I hate them? Christ commanded us not to judge people. Why? Because we all fall short of the mark. We all do things that are wrong, knowingly and unknowingly, sometimes from selfishness, sometimes from our brokenness, and so it is not our place to pronounce anyone evil (or even good, says Jesus).
People no, but actions, yes. You, yourself made a value judgement in your post: it’s evil to hate someone for being gay. Clearly you don’t think it’s wrong in itself to believe that someone is doing something wrong. And, I agree with you, hatred is wrong – it’s wrong to hate somebody for any reason.
Everyone, and I mean everyone, has a value system. We all believe that some things are good and others bad. We also can’t possibly all agree. Even among Christians you’ll find plenty of disagreement. However one thing should be abundantly clear to all Christians: we are to love our neighbor. Not just the people we like, not just the people we agree with, but everyone, even our enemies and those that would harm us. Loving people doesn’t, however, mean agreeing with them or believing that everything they do is right.
Can you find me examples of Christians displaying hatred and speaking judgemental, hate-filled words? Of course you can. That doesn’t mean much, though, does it? All it means is that Christians, like everyone else, aren’t perfect.
Christ was perfect, though. Dying on the cross, having been tortured cruelly, he makes an excuse for his tormentors: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do”. How can anyone who is truly trying to emulate that kind of love hold any malice in their heart towards another person?
“There is nothing in the Bible that encourages hatred. Nothing.”
****Really? So all the approved killing, rape and slavery that is condoned in the Good Book is done with the best of intentions I guess. All with happiness and love.
You hold that gay men and women are committing evil acts much like murder or rape don’t you?
“You hold that gay men and women are committing evil acts much like murder or rape don’t you?”
If we’re rating sins here, I think homosexuality would be more along the lines of fornication, which, I’m sure you’re aware, is committed by heterosexuals on a regular basis.
The point, though, is not the severity of the sin, since it’s not our place to sit in judgement of our brothers and sisters. Even a small sin is a sin against God, and a Christian should recognize that we are all sinners in need of God’s grace. We should not look down on anybody as being below us.
This, in fact, is the “mainstream” Christian message. I know there are people out there preaching differently, but I don’t follow them; I follow Christ.
Is is not a good idea to pretend to know things you don’t know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f70wZ-mLR8
We know that evolution takes place. We learn more about evolution all the time. It is not faith. Faith means you pretend to know things you don’t know.
If you KNEW god existed, then faith would become unnecessary.
Get it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f70wZ-mLR8
Fred – you really are a comedian
You say “it is not a good idea to pretend you know things you don’t know” and then you assert that “we know evolution takes place”. Question – what is the difference between micro and macro evolution? Second question – what evidence is there for macro evolution?
Seeing as though you know all about evolution this should be a cinch for you.
You also miss the point that faith (belief) is a substance – look at the scientific evidence for nocebo and placebo. Faith is more powerful when you believe the truth. Did you know for example that in a secular scientific journal (Annual review of Psychology)the authors concluding comments were that “faith” was so powerful in promoting wellbeing that it was bordering on unethical for treaters of mental health issues not to direct their patients back to their faith.
do you get it Fred?
Fred, your idea on faith is completely wrong. Ludicrous in fact.
You clearly haven’t a clue on what faith is.
Hint: Faith is just trust in something, someone, some truth etc.
Faith in God is trust in God.
In God we Trust ring a bell?
Faith is confidence.
It is atheism that is utterly blind faith … in nothing. How’s that for brilliant and reasonable huh?
Nothing created everything! You are just a bag of meat, a pack of neurons!
Of course if that’s true then rationality is as much an illusion as morality.
Thankfully common sense tells us that isn’t true at all.
So how does trusting in God become unnecessary when we know he exists?
Your statement is simply wrong because your def of faith is way off in your own imaginary version of religion.
As for evolution, you should define what you mean.
Even the YEC creationist knows evolution happens.
If you mean Darwinian evolution whereby frogs turn into princes by the kiss of selection, well that a different story and is utterly wrong.
Darwinian evolution, the modern synthesis is dead, in case you haven’t heard.
Wiped out and once the Darwinian religious order of priests and evangelists are gone and show to be the fools we thought they were all along; it will disappear.
It has failed so many times its ridiculous, and only by being the origins myth of materialism, has it stayed so long. The fool materialists refuse to see their puny, inane world view going down the tubes with Darwin.
When you see high level evolutionary scientists like Provine and Koonin telling us that modern synthesis has failed and is gone, you better believe that its only a question of time before the whole edifice crumbles into the dust of the past, viewed as the greatest scientific blunder of all time.
With Darwinism biting the dust, finally and thankfully, your whole world view will crumble as well since now you have explanation left for the existence of life.
Darwinism never was scientific, Darwin wasn’t even a scientist. But he was a very convincing liar and sophist preaching his beloved materialism disguised as science.
Better get used to eating dust and swallowing all your words on how Dawinian evol is true that you’ve posted over and over.
Graham – you miss the point which is, believers in God pretend to know things they don’t know.
We know living things evolve. Scientists learn more about evolution everyday. My failure to be able to explain macro/micro evolution is beside the point. Just because I am not an astrophysicist doesn’t mean my saying stars exist is wrong.
I have no doubt that thinking positive thoughts is good for a person’s health. But that nothing to do with pretending to know things you don’t know which is what faith is.
If you know god is real, then you no longer have faith in him. We don’t have faith in gravity. We don’t have faith that we love someone.
Believers put metaphysics before epistemology. It’s a confirmation bias as well as a logical fallacy. The way believers conceptualize the issue is entirely false. In other words,believers start with a conclusion and then reason backwards to prove it. That’s not reality though it may be fun to do.
I am not saying don’t believe in god – go for it. But stop pretending that you KNOW he exists because you don’t.
Hi Fred
I need to clarify some things before I answer your points. You seem to have a more complete revelation of what it is to “know” something. So I have a couple of questions. 1. Do you claim to know that Darwinian evolution is true?
2. Previously when discussing God you said “we are talking about a fictitious being you know”. Do you claim to know that He doesn’t exist? 3. Previously when talking about my friend who was tormented by demons – she could see them and both her and her partner were aware of other manifestations of them – you said that she was delusional. Do you claim to know that she is delusional?
I’ve had a look at the links that you posted – Boghossian’s teaching – have a look at this link Fred http://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2013/10/review-boghossians-manual-creating-atheists/ . Looking fwd to your answers.
Oh Fred – you implied having faith was not implicated in a persons health. You are wrong – the journal article was very specific – that faith was associated with both physical and mental resilience. If you want me to find it i can.
Hitch – you are too far down the path if irrationality to discuss the issue with. You make up utter nonsense and spew out with religious fervor.
FE, you said:
“Darwinism never was scientific, Darwin wasn’t even a scientist.”
He was a naturalist and a geologist and his work proves him the consummate scientist.
You can’t have faith in nothing as you suggest is possible using atheism as an example. Nothing is nothing.
Faith, by definition, means that one doesn’t know something is so and because you don’t know, you have faith. Do you not understand this?
You said:
“If you mean Darwinian evolution whereby frogs turn into princes by the kiss of selection, well that a different story and is utterly wrong.”
I can tell by this statement that you have a misunderstanding of evolution that is common in believers. This should annoy you. Perhaps Dawkins book The Greatest Show on Earth will help you see that frogs turning into princes is not evolution. Humans share a common ancestor to apes today. But we were never chimps. Educate yourself a little.
You said:
“So how does trusting in God become unnecessary when we know he exists?”
You don’t know he exists. That is the entire basis of your religion. If you actually knew he existed – if he showed himself to you in reality – your free will would be ruined since you’d know he existed. God doesn’t want us to actually know he exists – faith is required or we’d just me automotins like we were before Even at the apple.
Why do you think god put the tree there in the first place for? He knew Eve was going to eat the fruit. He knew all along what was going to happen.
You don’t even know the basis to your own religion all that well do you? HINT: FAITH – NOT KNOWING. BELIEVING.
You’re welcome.
Fred, you’re wrong on every point. Very obviously wrong too.
You say, “you are too far down the path if irrationality to discuss the issue with”
Rationality : Something that according to atheism’s logical implications cannot exist.
You are nothing but a bag of meat Fred.
Tell me, how is meat rational?
You’re nothing but a pack of neurons. Tell me, how are neurons rational?
Meat, animated with electrochemical movement is never rational. But that’s all you are in atheist fogma. A “bag of meat”, a “pack of neurons”
Therefore either atheism is utterly wrong or rationality doesn’t exist as anything more than a human illusion – like morality.
There is no way you can escape these conclusions without being irrational Fred.
So you are the irrational one here.
“You make up utter nonsense and spew out with religious fervor”
Ooooh. This sounds serious enough for you to have to prove.
So prove it.
Utter nonsense? That itself is utter nonsense.
*** “He was a naturalist and a geologist and his work proves him the consummate scientist.”
A “consummate scientist” is a farce applied to Darwin.
Try plagiarist, hypocrite, materialist, deceitful, amateur and mostly self-taught.
You don’t get it Fred, Darwin was educated in theology, drop out of medical school, and had some education in geology and some sciences but no diploma as a scientist. i.e. no one would consider him a scientists today.
Your ignorance here is what led you astray.
Furthermore, if you understood science yourself, and had at least read his books, you’d know that his writings are full of so much speculation and conjecture, circular reasonings, long drawn out statements proving nothing, nonsense and confusion that there is almost no real science in his books at all.
But you’re not a scientist, or a logician or philosopher, so its almost normal that you don’t know these facts.
*** “You can’t have faith in nothing as you suggest is possible using atheism as an example. Nothing is nothing.”
Really? Actually you,re right. Unfortunately you’re also very wrong about what I said. Tell me, why are atheist scientists now claiming that “nothing created everything”?
*** Faith, by definition, means that one doesn’t know something is so and because you don’t know, you have faith. Do you not understand this?
No Fred, you’re wrong again. Faith is trust, like I stated and you ignore.
Sorry but you don’t get to define faith anyway you please.
Merriam-Webster:
faith
noun \ˈfāth\
: strong belief or trust in someone or something
Right there – exactly what I said, but you deny.
No surprise, atheism is denial of reality.
There’s more though:
: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs
: a system of religious beliefs
plural faiths
Full Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one’s promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
— on faith
: without question
Your idea only comes in at #2. b and thus is only one single way of describing a specific kind of faith – that is easily applied to atheism!!!
You have no proof that atheism is true. But you still believe it. Duh!
This is where you pretend atheism is mere “lack of belief”. The standard atheist mantra that all new atheist disciples are taught to repeat verbatim, like parrots, like brainwashing victims.
If atheism is mere “lack of belief” then rocks, trees, cats and dogs are all atheists.
Is that really what you want to be Fred? Nothing more than an involuntary state of mind atheist? I don’t think so. All atheists love to claim they are using reason and science to be atheists.
But if its just a lack of belief, then that is completely untrue.
You, like all the gullible unthinking new atheist crowd just mindlessly parrot what Dawkins et al. told you to say when confronted with reality.
This is trivializing atheism into a passive psychological state that isn’t even a positive choice!
Lack of belief means no choice in belief.
*** I can tell by this statement that you have a misunderstanding of evolution that is common in believers.
Wrong Fred, I understand evolution far better than you do and quite probably better than you ever will.
And yes, I’ve heard that bogus – parroted – canned response from unhappy atheists for years.
It’s yet another standard response, a mantra that must be repeated mindlessly – whenever the atheist is confronted by someone stating the reality of Darwinian stupidities succinctly.
— “This should annoy you”.
What is annoying Fred, is that atheists like you think Dawkins is honest, that he knows what he’s talking about philosophically or theologically – he doesn’t have a clue.
Every real philosopher and scholar knows this, even the atheist ones.
You’ve been had.
And because you do not want to know the truth, you’re a very easy target for liars like Dawkins.
— “Perhaps Dawkins book The Greatest Show on Earth will help you see that frogs turning into princes is not evolution”
Fred, I read the first part of that book before it even hit the stands. Then I did a critique of it on another web forum, to warn others of Dawkins oh so typical hypocrisy in stating what he knows is not true.
That book is among his worst yet.
If you had any honesty in seeking the facts and truth, you’d already know that most of the smarter than Dawkins atheists out there, think his latest books are trash filled anti-religion rants with so many glaring mistakes and inaccuracies he should be scathingly rebuked for it, publicly.
And indeed other atheists have done just that. Michael Ruse calls Dawkins an embarrassment for other atheists for example.
Which you would also know had you done your homework. Another thing the modern new atheist dupe NEVER does!
Sadly Fred, you completely miss the sarcasm. The problem is that frogs to princes and such are all sarcasm phrases that show the depth of Darwinian stupidity.
Your ignorance on evolution betrays you.
— “Humans share a common ancestor to apes today. But we were never chimps. Educate yourself a little.”
You’re so off track here its nuts.
Let me clue you in on the real UP TO DATE data that you’re utterly ignorant of:
In 2008, William Provine, Cornell University historian of science and EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST, stated that “EVERY ASSERTION OF THE EVOLUTIONARY SYNTHESIS BELOW IS FALSE”:
“1. NATURAL SELECTION WAS THE PRIMARY MECHANISM AT EVERY LEVEL OF THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS. Natural selection caused genetic adaptation . . . .
4. Evolution of phenotypic characters such as eyes and ears, etc, was a good guide to protein evolution: or, protein evolution was expected to mimic phenotypic evolution.
5. Protein evolution was a good guide to DNA sequence evolution. Even Lewontin and Hubby thought, at first, that understanding protein evolution was the key to understanding DNA evolution.
6. Recombination was far more important than mutation in evolution.
7. MACROEVOLUTION WAS A SIMPLE EXTENSION OF MICROEVOLUTION.
8. DEFINITION OF “SPECIES” WAS CLEAR[–]THE BIOLOGICAL SPECIES CONCEPT OF DOBZHANSKY AND MAYR.
9. SPECIATION WAS UNDERSTOOD IN PRINCIPLE.
10. EVOLUTION IS A PROCESS OF SHARING COMMON ANCESTORS BACK TO THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, OR IN OTHER WORDS, EVOLUTION PRODUCES A TREE OF LIFE.
11. Inheritance of acquired characters was impossible in biological organisms.
12. Random genetic drift was a clear concept and invoked constantly whenever population sizes were small, including fossil organisms.
13. The evolutionary synthesis was actually a synthesis.
14. Molecular biology has stolen from paleontology all ability to construct phylogenies.” -William Provine, Random Drift and the Evolutionary Synthesis, History of Science Society HSS Abstracts.”
—
In that single paragraph, he destroyed almost the whole neo-Darwinian theory! And he is an adamant atheist, former neo-Darwinist himself!
At least he has the guts to tell the truth about Darwinism.
Just as bad:
A 2011 paper in the journal Biological Theory stated, “DARWINISM IN ITS CURRENT SCIENTIFIC INCARNATION HAS PRETTY MUCH REACHED THE END OF ITS ROPE.” — David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber, “The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis,” Biological Theory, Vol. 6: 89-102 (December, 2011).
Computational Biologist Eugene Koonin goes even further in Trends in Genetics, when he states that “there are major problems in core neo-Darwinian tenets”, such as the “traditional concept of the tree of life” and the view that “natural selection is the main driving force of evolution.”
Koonin stated, “THE MODERN SYNTHESIS HAS CRUMBLED, APPARENTLY, BEYOND REPAIR” AND “ALL MAJOR TENETS OF THE MODERN SYNTHESIS HAVE BEEN, IF NOT OUTRIGHT OVERTURNED, REPLACED BY A NEW AND INCOMPARABLY MORE COMPLEX VISION OF THE KEY ASPECTS OF EVOLUTION.” Koonin concludes, “nOT TO MINCE WORDS, THE MODERN SYNTHESIS IS GONE.” — Eugene V. Koonin, “The Origin at 150: Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis in Sight?,” Trends in Genetics, Vol. 25: 473 (2009)
Koonin is : Senior Investigator National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Need more? I can go on all day quoting high level former Darwinists saying that the neo Darwinian theory is all wrong!!
So, if you want to play Ostritch like all other atheists are doing in the face of such declartions by high level ex-Darwinists, fine. But don’t come back telling me I don’t understand evolution, since clearly YOU don’t.
— “You don’t know he exists”
This is actually comical Fred. How do YOU KNOW that I don’t know God exists?
Typical atheist blindness.
Your statement is itself a claim to knowledge that YOU DO NOT POSSESS. All claiming that I don’t know something.
Your statement merely assumes atheism is true!
Very very bad thinking Fred. Very low and incompetent reasoning.
Seriously, get real please.
Why are all new atheists so bad at logic?
–“That is the entire basis of your religion. If you actually knew he existed – if he showed himself to you in reality – your free will would be ruined since you’d know he existed. God doesn’t want us to actually know he exists – faith is required or we’d just me automotins like we were before Even at the apple.”
There you go again, repeating the same errors as before.
First You assume a single, far too narrow def of what faith is -that even the dictionaries reveal is wrong – and even what knowledge is; then, you make erroneous statements based on your poor definitions.
You’re not fooling anyone but yourself Fred. Just like all other atheists.
You have made among the stupidest claims I’ve ever seen there as well. How in the world do you contrive a sophism so blatant as that knowing God exists kills free will?
Does knowing you exist kill anyone’s free will? Duh!
Does knowing you exist mean you friends no longer have faith in you?! Sheesh.
Talk about a non sequitor, you just made among the worst I’ve ever seen.
Your bad ideas on faith demolish your ability to reason correctly on it.
–“Why do you think god put the tree there in the first place for? He knew Eve was going to eat the fruit. He knew all along what was going to happen.”
And pray tell, what in the world does this have to do with anything at all? Nothing. Again, you’re assuming too much. You assume knowledge that you do not possess upon things of which you know next to nothing at all, but semi-theological rumors!
You also reveal a very salient motivation for your anger and dislike of God.
Go ahead deny it, we all know its true anyway. As no one ever talk about God so much as atheists do.
— “You don’t even know the basis to your own religion all that well do you? HINT: FAITH – NOT KNOWING. BELIEVING.”
Wrong wrong and wrong.
Are you a member of the Worrell family or something? Sure seems like it.
Your def of faith, as I will repeat again, hoping it finally sinks in, is wrong; as the dictionary reveals. The biblical concept of faith is trust. Not believing stupidly like atheists do in not believing in God, without any support at all from any evidence whatsoever.
THAT is blind, unthinking, foolish FAITH in Nothing!
This is where you come in with more standard atheist mantras and fogma, like “I have no burden of proof, you do”.
Guess what Fred, 1) you do have a burden of proof whether you like it or not; otherwise, as I stated, your atheism isn’t even a position, just a passive state of mind without reason or choice. 2) I don’t even care if you did have no burden of proof. Prove it anyway! Duh!
You like all ignorant atheists these days, claim your atheism is based on reason, logic and scientific evidence. Well then I’d be more than happy to see this reasoning and evidence.
Where is it?
Go ahead, you have the mouth, so put your money where it is.
Fotget burden of proof arguments, just tell us the proof of atheism anyway please.
The whole world would love to see it, since no such thing has ever been offered before.
All we’ve seen is atheists trying to squirm out of their burden of proof.
So forget BoP, just present the evidence upon which your atheism is based, regardless of BoP. Surely you must have some to present.
Otherwise its your position is the true BLIND FAITH based one!!
Go ahead, make my day. Show me the scientific reasons, the logic behind your atheism.
And please don’t lie to yourself and everyone else with the other standard atheist mantra that “there is no evidence for God”. A piece of shit statement if ever there was one!
You cannot even know that!
How do you know there is no evidence for God?!
You can’t. No atheist can as he’d have to know every bit of evidence ever offered and KNOW for a fact that it doesn’t count as real evidence.
You can’t even come close. The best the atheists EVER does is to deny, dismiss and diss all evidence for God; no matter how compelling it is; and everyone in the world knows just how dishonest and inane that attitude is!
Which is why there are 6 billion people on this planet that are NOT atheists.
Fred–Re-Read Your Posts–Dude. If there’s been Anybody on these pages who’s, for the last 2+ years, been making up utter nonsense and spewing it out with religious fervor AND has pretended to know things they don’t know–It’s YOU–Sweetheart.
You were on quite a roll–Feb 10th. In Your first post of that day–You wrote–“Believers put metaphysics before epistemology. It’s a confirmation bias as well as a logical fallacy.”
THEN–In Your next post–Your wrote–“He [Darwin] was a naturalist and a geologist and his work proves him the consummate scientist.”
IN Other Words…
You stated that DARWIN–HIMSELF–PUT METAPHYSICS FIRST (Making Careful Observations of Nature & The Planet = Asking & Answering The Questions: 1. What is there? AND 2. What is it like? = Metaphysics)…
AND THEN…
DARWIN FORMULATED HIS EPISTEMOLOGY–His Theory That Offered Integrated-Explanations For The HOW & WHY of WHAT He’d OBSERVED (in those close & carefully measured manners of scientific inquiry) of Nature & Natural Habitats–Darwin’s Theory of Evolution & Natural Selection.
SO–Since Darwin… “put metaphysics before epistemology”… Would Ya Like To RETRACT Your Follow-up Statement… “It’s a confirmation bias as well as a logical fallacy.”… hmmmm ??
ANYWHO–O Ye of Little Faith…
Who PRETENDS To KNOW What Faith IS & IS NOT…
“Faith is the REALIZATION of what is hoped for and EVIDENCE of things not seen.” [caps My emphasis]
AND–“Realization” & “Evidence” ARE All About KNOWING… Doncha Know ??…
Much like the evidence that the Augustinian Friar & Silesian Scientist–Gregor Mendel–observed of inheritance patterns for certain traits in pea plants. Mendel realized that His work showed that there were dual + dominant/recessive natures to inherited information that were on display in the pea plant traits that were the focus of His studies. Mendel ALSO realized that He was WAY AHEAD of His Scientific Peers who would NOT “Get” His Work for another 40+ years… when Mendel was posthumously recognized as the Founder of the new Field of Scientific Inquiry–a.k.a. Genetics.
Mendel KEPT THE FAITH (as well as–very careful records) of THINGS (and People) NOT SEEN… Namely…
1. The Double (Helix) Nature of Genetic Information [DNA]… AND…
2. That SOMEDAY–SOMEBODY Would Understand WHAT IN THE WORLD He’d Demo’ed.
Mcblanc – Once again you ramble on and one. None of what you said proves that your Christian personal God actually exists.
I said that a good definition of faith is pretending to know things – KNOW things – that you know you don’t actually KNOW.
FE: We KNOW that Elvis Presley existed. We KNOW that Lincoln was a president of the United States.
We DO NOT KNOW that Jesus rose from the dead and we do NOT know that god exists.
If we KNEW, there would be no need or requirement for faith.
It’s very simple to understand. But your beliefs would be shattered if you allowed yourself to get it so you ramble on and on about nothing to keep yourself from the truth as if screaming loudly enough will make all the doubt go away. It won’t.
HITCH – It seems I did a good job of getting to you and getting you to see that there is no evidence for god by making you rant nonsense.
See, if there WAS actual evidence for God, faith would be unnecessary. What need is there for faith or belief when you have facts? You’re statements shoot your faith in the foot.
And there is no such thing as atheism. It isn’t a thing. It is simply a word believers use to label those who don’t believe in the God story.
Believe in god all you like. Pretend Jesus is the son of god and that all other religions are wrong. Enjoy the fantasy. Have a ball. But a fantasy is what it is.
I’ll write more later if I have the time.
So–You promise to write us more of Your “enlightening” comments IF You have the time.
Spare Me.
Fred – you haven’t answered anything. I really don’t think Hitch ranted nonsense – he challenged you to prove that there is no God and he provided direction to a whole bunch of evidence and scientific opinion that neo Darwinism is utterly without foundation. So can you answer please – do you claim to know that evolution by mere chance is true?
And Fred – i don’t need your permission to trust God. And it is not a fantasy – tell me – do you claim to know it is a fantasy or do you just believe that your opinion is true? Can you see by saying “And there is no such thing as atheism. It isn’t a thing. It is simply a word believers use to label those who don’t believe in the God story.” So it is right you don’t believe in the God story – there are watered down versions of the definitions of Atheism but most are consistent with this definition
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
This isn’t me or a believers definition – this is from secular material. Can’t you see that you believe that God doesn’t exist? You cannot know He doesn’t exist. If you understand you don’t know then be honest with yourself – the more accepted definition of that worldview is “agnostic”. But to believe God doesn’t exist is defined as atheism. You claim to want to have reasoned debate – that you enjoy this and that is why you are on this website – but you haven’t referred to any evidence and you haven’t answered any questions put to you. Bless you and your family Fred – my hope and prayer is that in your time of need you will consider the existence of Him and at least ask for help
Fred said – “It seems I did a good job of getting to you and getting you to see that there is no evidence for god by making you rant nonsense”
Getting to me?
I’m trying to help you Fred. You’re lost and blind, I would like to see you admit and accept the truth that can set you free from that blindness you trust so blindly.
Nonsense?
Let’s put it this way – prove it.
You’ve simply done what I keep saying atheists always do – gloss it all over with unthinking illogical denial and dismissal.
That is not wise, you’re only fooling yourself.
“See, if there WAS actual evidence for God, faith would be unnecessary”
You’re still using your faulty definition of faith Fred.
I and others corrected you on that but apparently it didn’t sink in. Or, again, denial, because it ruins your world view and you don’t like that.
You have a very narrow minded, and wrong, definition of faith – just like all atheists.
You have great faith yourself – in nothing.
Yes, without a grain of evidence you believe nothing created everything.
That’s the atheists’ only option for explaining the universe.
-“What need is there for faith or belief when you have facts? You’re statements shoot your faith in the foot”
Fred, your level of reasoning is very very low.
When you you press the submit button here, do you know for certain that your text will arrive at my end?
You think you do but you don’t.
A thousand things could stop it, most obviously like server breakdowns, hacker shut down, electrical glitches, etc.
So you don’t know for sure your words will get anywhere, but the fact that you type them proves you believe, you have faith that they will arrive at the other end of the millions of wires or wave signals.
Same applies to everything else. You sit on a chair because you believe, you have faith, it will not crumble under you.
Do you know for a fact it won’t?
No you don’t. Many have fallen on their arse for such faith.
See?
You assume it based on evidence from experience.
Why do you believe?
Because you have evidence – from abductive reasoning – that says they will do according to their purpose. Because they have done so in the past.
Worse, why do you believe you’re right, when you yourself have no evidence whatsoever for your belief that there is no god?
Shot yourself again Fred, with your own bad argument.
There are differences between that kind of faith and faith in God. But the differences are not contradictions. They are conditions.
Once again, you fail to respond with any level of competence in the issues.
You also get a big ZERO for completely ignoring everything I wrote on Darwinism’s failure.
So no Fred, my statements – none of which you have actually responded to – as I expected – demonstrate that you’re deceived, self-deceived in part as well as not thinking any deeper that what your atheist masters have put into your brain.
“And there is no such thing as atheism. It isn’t a thing. It is simply a word believers use to label those who don’t believe in the God story”
Fine, now you’re no longer an atheist.
Bad news Fred, believers did not invent the word atheist.
Allow me to rephrase your last bogus bit of pretentious : “Believe in nothing all you like. Pretend Jesus is the not son of god and that religion can be right. Enjoy the fantasy. Have a ball…”
Like all atheists everywhere and all the time, you’ve managed to apply denial and dismissal once again, to hide yourself from facts and truth.
First Graham:
“Fred – you haven’t answered anything.”
****Of course I have. In science, he burden of proof lies with the claimant. If I claim that Abraham Lincoln was a US president, I need proof to support that claim. And such proof is readily available. If you claim there is a supernatural being that guides are lives and requires our belief in him and our worship without which when we die we suffer (this is what you people tell your children), the burden of proof is on YOU, not me. I am making no such claim. I do not have to prove that which doesn’t exist, doesn’t exist since it doesn’t exist. Got some proof?
“I really don’t think Hitch ranted nonsense – he challenged you to prove that there is no God and he provided direction to a whole bunch of evidence and scientific opinion that neo Darwinism is utterly without foundation.”
****These are two completely different challenges. The first I already addressed. The second is a rant that makes no sense. Darwin started the ball rolling regarding the understanding of our origins. Was he wrong about some things? Of course he was – we ALL get stuff wrong and need to build upon past knowledge.
“So can you answer please – do you claim to know that evolution by mere chance is true?”
****Why do you phrase it so? “Mere chance?” There are a lot of things we don’t yet know. But not knowing something doesn’t mean you leap to a supernatural being as the cause.
“And Fred – i don’t need your permission to trust God.”
****Say what? GO ahead and trust aliens for all I care. Trust away.
“And it is not a fantasy – tell me – do you claim to know it is a fantasy or do you just believe that your opinion is true?”
****A fantasy is something unreal that someone wants desperately to believe is real. God fits that description perfectly.
“Can you see by saying “And there is no such thing as atheism. It isn’t a thing. It is simply a word believers use to label those who don’t believe in the God story.” So it is right you don’t believe in the God story – there are watered down versions of the definitions of Atheism but most are consistent with this definition
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.”
***Right. A word used by believers to describe those who don’t believe in their fantasy.
“This isn’t me or a believers definition – this is from secular material. Can’t you see that you believe that God doesn’t exist?”
***That is not a belief. If I don’t believe the earth is flat like some people claim it is, is that a belief system of mine too? You are using words incorrectly.
“You cannot know He doesn’t exist.”
****I can know that he/she/it/them exist when the proof becomes evident. Until then, he/she/it/them don’t exist.
“If you understand you don’t know then be honest with yourself – the more accepted definition of that worldview is “agnostic”. But to believe God doesn’t exist is defined as atheism.”
****As I’ve said over and over again, not believing in a supernatural being is not a believe in and of itself. It is not my belief that elephants don’t have 5 trunks. They have one and it can be proven. If something cannot be proven with facts, it’s make believe.
“You claim to want to have reasoned debate – that you enjoy this and that is why you are on this website – but you haven’t referred to any evidence and you haven’t answered any questions put to you.”
****Yes I have – you just don’t like my answers.
“Bless you and your family Fred – my hope and prayer is that in your time of need you will consider the existence of Him and at least ask for help.”
****Long before he helps me, I’d REALLY like him to help the tortured and raped children of this earth tomorrow. If he did that, I wouldn’t have to believe in him anymore. I’d KNOW he existed and he’d have my FULL undivided attention 24/7.
“Was he wrong about some things? Of course he was – we ALL get stuff wrong and need to build upon past knowledge.”
What did he get wrong Fred? Please answer – what evidence have you got that evolution was by chance (given that you don’t like “mere chance”).
“I can know that he/she/it/them exist when the proof becomes evident. Until then, he/she/it/them don’t exist.”
This is seriously silly. Do you know that Julius Caesar existed? You have never seen him but rely on historical accounts. To say that because you don’t know him means he doesn’t exist is really funny and a pretty weak argument.
You continue to say that He doesn’t exist – do you claim to know that or do you believe it? Surely you have a responsibility to back up your claim and not use the silly argument that the onus is purely on those who believe in Him.
“That is not a belief. If I don’t believe the earth is flat like some people claim it is, is that a belief system of mine too? You are using words incorrectly.”
Again a really lame argument. Surely you don’t believe the world is flat because you KNOW otherwise. Do you claim to not believe in God because you know otherwise? You don’t believe elephants have 5 trunks because you KNOW they have one. You don’t believe something because you know otherwise. These are really bad examples.
“Long before he helps me, I’d REALLY like him to help the tortured and raped children of this earth tomorrow. If he did that, I wouldn’t have to believe in him anymore. I’d KNOW he existed and he’d have my FULL undivided attention 24/7.”
So we are almost back at the beginning Fred – have a look at previous posts where i addressed this – or maybe you just don’t like the answers.
Can you understand that the mere fact that you refer to evil implies that there is a transcendent moral law and thus law giver. Understand too that the greatest crimes against humanity have been committed by atheist regimes. Thinking atheists come to the conclusion that there is no absolute evil or good – only what we can design for ourselves. And survival of the fittest – so what’s wrong with rape and murder!
Anyway lets debate evidence for God – are you up to it?
There is evidence for God – unfortunately for you – YOU don’t like the answers. Can you tell me what believers say is evidence for God and what atheists say to refute that?
How is it that incredibly brilliant people can look at all the evidence and some believe and others don’t. And all you can do is rant that believing is delusional. Please answer me – my friend who saw demonic figures and experienced their torment – do you claim to know she was delusional or do you just believe so – come on Fred – admit that you can’t know and that you believe! If you were in charge Fred, your judgmental attitude would be dangerous – a bit like the Nazis – all those who disagree with your point would be labelled as inferior – the next step of course is persecution.
bless you Fred