The Passion...

[Tarantulas]

Since their entire argument hinges on faith, anecdotal evidence, not looking behind the curtain, or questioning logic, an answer is likely not forthcoming.

[Deckard25]

Huh, the truth is that no one here is seems well equipped enough to back up there personal beliefs with factual information which is sad so anyone here can be debating on and on getting no where. The thing is that no one seems willing to do the research and people just go in with a blind faith with what they believe yet failing to explain on why they believe what they believe. To go on theories alone is not good enough because in the end you are left with no hope for anything and you go through life empty like you are missing something. I feel sad for people that do not seek for something greater then themselves, what a cold and meaningless existence and when it is all over your life meant nothing, sad. 

Honestly it takes more faith to be an atheist then a believer in a higher power. I do not have enough faith to be an atheist.

The greatest authority known to England and America on the subject of legal evidence, a man by the name of Professor Simon Greenleaf . Look this guy up.

http://www.livingconnections.com/christian_testimonies/evidence_of_God.html

Can anyone here come up with a rebuttal against one of the greatest lawyers who ever lived?

Has anyone here ever truly read the Bible?, a book that has remained unchanged for 2000 years and can be backed by manuscript evidance, archaeological evidance, scientific evidance, and statistical probability.

In fact there was a special in the discovery channel i think that was produced by James Cameron who was convinced that the events told in The Bible were actual historical facts.

Over 90% of americans do believe in some form of higher power, do not believe me? Look it up, it is a statistical fact. Are these people all dilutional?

Here are a few questions.

What are the chances of a single molecule being created out of nothing?

Why is the Bible still the most read book in history and how has it survived all this time throughout history?

How is it that the Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate?

If the Earth is here by accident or some anomaly, why is everything on Earth to human scale? Why is there just enough gravity on earth to keep us from being squashed like bugs? Is this really just "coincidence"?

Why is it that water freezes differently from other fluids (it gets less dense), and that it is critical for our very survival?

Why don't trees just become pulp, a sappy mess when we cut them down? Why do they remain intact as something we can use for fire, shelter, build houses, make paper, etc?

Is it just "coincidence" that atoms stay together (the same charges)?

How is it that the ancient Bible is consistent with astronomy? The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens.

How is it that the ancient Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere?

How is it that the ancient Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics?

How is it that the ancient Bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle?


http://therefinersfire.org/science_and_bible.htm

Another recommendation is reading Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator". A journalist and an avowed "spiritual skeptic", Strobel interviews scientists in the hope of debunking God and ends up being convinced (by these very scientists) that scientific theory is just that - theory - and that there had to be an intelligent force to create our amazing universe.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

http://www.answers.org/atheism/debate.html

http://www.answers.org/atheism/zindler.html

http://66.43.105.196/audio/monolog20050930.wma

http://66.43.105.196/audio/monolog20050930.wma

[Deckard25]

Why the Atheist doesn't exist

Yaks. Illustration copyrighted.There can be no such things as an atheist. This is why: Let's imagine that you are a professing atheist. Here are two questions for you to answer: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? We can safely assume that you don't. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully-grown male Tibetan yak? Probably not. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there are some things that you don't know. It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think they know everything.

Let's say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that you would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not be aware of. You would know everything that has happened in history, from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret love life of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat's fleas. You would know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All history would be laid out before you, because you would be omniscient (all-knowing).

Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let me repeat: Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God? If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.

Gold in China. Illustration copyrighted.Let's look at the same thought from another angle. If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold in China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement of that nature. Conversely, for me to say, "There is gold in China," I don't need to have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the country, and the statement is then true.

To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.

If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence?

The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an "agnostic" - one who claims he "doesn't know" if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is "ignoramus." The Bible tells us that this ignorance is "willful" (Psalm 10:4). It's not that a person can't find God, but that he won't. It has been rightly said that the "atheist" can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him. This is not a pleasant thought for some.

It is said that Mussolini (the Italian dictator), once stood on a pinnacle and cried, "God, if you are there, strike me dead!" When God didn't immediately bow to his dictates, Mussolini then concluded that there was no God. However, his prayer was answered some time later.

Excerpted from God Doesn't Believe in Atheists by Ray Comfort

[J-Proof]

T -- you make "Because God said so" sound like an inadequate answer as to why something happens

Honestly though -- Tyrant and I see eye-to-eye (I think) in the idea that the how of something may be seen through science, but that the why of something relates to God's will. For pages I have seen you trying to separate God and Science, whereas Tyrant and I say they both work in unison.

The science you use to try and disprove God is the same science we use to explain Him -- and in the end, when we offer you the suggestion that perhaps "God causes things to happen using science" you call it a cop out. Well, if I asked you to prove that God /doesn't/ exist and /doesn't/ like science you wouldn't be able to. Science itself can't prove how /lots/ of things happen (the bent shape of the water molecule for example -- or the origin of everything -- or incorruptable Saints....)

I could just as easily look at some of your arguments and answer thusly:

"It is not atheisms job to explain theism" - cop out

"It should be said that science may not be able to explain it YET, but with time, it will." - cop out

"The god argument is nothing but an oversimplification" - this itself is an oversimplification

"the fact that you aren't stoning your unruly children, killing your neighbor for working on the sabbith, sleeping in the same room as your wife when she is having menses,  just proves that you are a bad christian." - misleading hyperbole

"Most of the ten commandments (which is what you are obviously referencing) are common sense." - lacking solid basis of measurement

We're basically at a wall of realization where no one is going to be able to carry each other up it, we have to scale it ourselves -- which is a lot of the reason why personal experience / anecdotal evidence is a heavy player in one's conversion. But honestly, when a believer in some faith accepts science and looks at the universe and asks the question "Where did all this come from?" and reasons that it is all from a divine entity, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that.

Neat posts Deckard

[BathTub]

Hehe we are familiar with Ray comfort.

[BathTub]

And if you are just going to cut and paste you should at least link back to the page you just ripped off.

[Deckard25]

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/index.php

[Tarantulas]

Huh, the truth is that no one here is seems well equipped enough to back up there personal beliefs with factual information which is sad so anyone here can be debating on and on getting no where. The thing is that no one seems willing to do the research and people just go in with a blind faith with what they believe yet failing to explain on why they believe what they believe. To go on theories alone is not good enough because in the end you are left with no hope for anything and you go through life empty like you are missing something. I feel sad for people that do not seek for something greater then themselves, what a cold and meaningless existence and when it is all over your life meant nothing, sad. 

Honestly it takes more faith to be an atheist then a believer in a higher power. I do not have enough faith to be an atheist.

The greatest authority known to England and America on the subject of legal evidence, a man by the name of Professor Simon Greenleaf . Look this guy up.

http://www.livingconnections.com/christian_testimonies/evidence_of_God.html

Can anyone here come up with a rebuttal against one of the greatest lawyers who ever lived?

Has anyone here ever truly read the Bible?, a book that has remained unchanged for 2000 years and can be backed by manuscript evidance, archaeological evidance, scientific evidance, and statistical probability.

Which archaeological evidence are you speaking of? Is this the ark of the covenant, Noah's ark, the jesus's tomb, all the evidence that Moses lead the Israelites through the desert for 40 years?  Or the real stuff like the shroud of turin or the thousands of "relics" entrusted to the catholic church.

My syrup crying Mary figure with matching christ child pancake must be worth a mint!

In fact there was a special in the discovery channel i think that was produced by James Cameron who was convinced that the events told in The Bible were actual historical facts.

James Cameron is a fucking idiot who is trying to make a buck off religious fanaticism... he saw Mel's example, and lined up for his check.

Over 90% of americans do believe in some form of higher power, do not believe me? Look it up, it is a statistical fact. Are these people all dilutional?

Your 90% number is incorrect based on several studies I read recently.  I'd point you to Digg for links, but they are a den of liberal, atheist, naredowells, no?

Here are a few questions.

What are the chances of a single molecule being created out of nothing?

Since matter cannot be created or destroyed, the elements have life have always been here waiting, ceasing to be star dust and instead becoming that chair you are sitting in

Why is the Bible still the most read book in history and how has it survived all this time throughout history?

When every Hotel 6 in the nation takes them for free from the Gideons, there are going to be a lot of them.  And besides, you need something to read on the shitter waiting for them to cue up your in room viewing of "Soul Plane"

How is it that the Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate?

This one is so idiotic, I can't even respond.

If the Earth is here by accident or some anomaly, why is everything on Earth to human scale? Why is there just enough gravity on earth to keep us from being squashed like bugs? Is this really just "coincidence"?

Because we evolved and shaped our world in our image.  It's also the reason that people don't ride penny-farthing bikes any more,  they are just too damn tall.

Why is it that water freezes differently from other fluids (it gets less dense), and that it is critical for our very survival?

Because it adheres to the laws of thermodynamics differently than other fluids.  Yea Science!

Why don't trees just become pulp, a sappy mess when we cut them down? Why do they remain intact as something we can use for fire, shelter, build houses, make paper, etc?

Is it just "coincidence" that atoms stay together (the same charges)?

We're getting stupid again it seems.

How is it that the ancient Bible is consistent with astronomy? The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens.

How is it that the ancient Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere?

How is it that the ancient Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics?

How is it that the ancient Bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle?
http://therefinersfire.org/science_and_bible.htm

Another recommendation is reading Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator". A journalist and an avowed "spiritual skeptic", Strobel interviews scientists in the hope of debunking God and ends up being convinced (by these very scientists) that scientific theory is just that - theory - and that there had to be an intelligent force to create our amazing universe.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

http://www.answers.org/atheism/debate.html

http://www.answers.org/atheism/zindler.html

http://66.43.105.196/audio/monolog20050930.wma

http://66.43.105.196/audio/monolog20050930.wma

These are all bullshit backpeddling revisionist crapfests.  The people that say this are the same people who claim it was a the REED SEA that Moses parted (because the Red Sea story is to unbelievable)

[Tarantulas]

T -- you make "Because God said so" sound like an inadequate answer as to why something happens

I'm not a child, I need actual answers, not placation.

Honestly though -- Tyrant and I see eye-to-eye (I think) in the idea that the how of something may be seen through science, but that the why of something relates to God's will. For pages I have seen you trying to separate God and Science, whereas Tyrant and I say they both work in unison.

The science you use to try and disprove God is the same science we use to explain Him -- and in the end, when we offer you the suggestion that perhaps "God causes things to happen using science" you call it a cop out. Well, if I asked you to prove that God /doesn't/ exist and /doesn't/ like science you wouldn't be able to. Science itself can't prove how /lots/ of things happen (the bent shape of the water molecule for example -- or the origin of everything -- or incorruptable Saints....)

I could just as easily look at some of your arguments and answer thusly:

"It is not atheisms job to explain theism" - cop out

"It should be said that science may not be able to explain it YET, but with time, it will." - cop out

"The god argument is nothing but an oversimplification" - this itself is an oversimplification

"the fact that you aren't stoning your unruly children, killing your neighbor for working on the sabbith, sleeping in the same room as your wife when she is having menses,  just proves that you are a bad christian." - misleading hyperbole

"Most of the ten commandments (which is what you are obviously referencing) are common sense." - lacking solid basis of measurement

We're basically at a wall of realization where no one is going to be able to carry each other up it, we have to scale it ourselves -- which is a lot of the reason why personal experience / anecdotal evidence is a heavy player in one's conversion. But honestly, when a believer in some faith accepts science and looks at the universe and asks the question "Where did all this come from?" and reasons that it is all from a divine entity, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that.

Neat posts Deckard

Don't fault me for using your own oversimplification against your cause.  Again, they are out of your camp's play book.  True, the ones I mentioned are old testament law, but who's to say that the Jews aren't right and all christians are going to hell?

Also, I'd be careful what crackpots you hitch your wagon to... you're losing personal credibility by the bucket load. 

All this guy has contributed is his ability to use his OS's copy and paste function.

[msmpls]

[If you say something is a certain way, it is your responsibility to provide the evidence that what you say, is true.

why? why is it anyone's responsibility to justify themselves?


and there's several of examples that I can think of where your reasoning does not work.

Here's one:
Person A: I had a bad dream last night.
Person B: where's your proof?
Person A: well, i was walking down the street and Donald Pleasance pulled down his pants and instead of a weiner there was a gun and he shot my finger off.
Person B: You look fine to me so therefore it didn't happen.

[Tyrant]

  I would be curious to know how he (Dawkins) arrives at his probability results and how he constructed his chart. How can one really calculate something like that? Not trying to debate that, but genuinely curious. Probability doesn't exactly equate proof. Probability is just that. A probably or a maybe. Not a for sure. Yeah, there can be stronger "probablies" than others, but it's still can't be truth unless there's absolutely no other option. 

   Well, perhaps irritatingly, it could be argued that Zeus and Venus and all the other gods and goddesses of other religions are certian aspects or parts of God. Like believing in the shell of the egg but not the white or yolk. I'm sure you could hairsplit this viewpoint to death, though.

You touched on an interesting point...  could the popularity of catholicism with the peoples who's "pagan" religions included an Earth mother figure in any way be connected?  Couldn't early converts just seen the one for the other?

"Uh yeah... Jesus has a mom too...  is that selling it for you?  No?  Jerry! Get the red hot coals out of the [conversion] wagon!"

Gulp!

Tyrant you are wasting bandwidth trying to skate around and around the burden of proof you have been charged with.

It is not atheisms job to explain theism.  If you can't explain it, or justify your beliefs with anything other than anecdotal evidence, then stop responding.  Also, don't knock the scientific research of a respected intellect by nitpicking it with comments like "I just don't understand..."  He has books that you can read, check your local library.  I guarantee it will have less dust on the cover than any bibles they have.

You've made the same "g-wiz" style remarks in no less than 5 messages, add something new, or step away from the podium.

  Well, I'd be the first to admit that there are people on this forum that are better at debating this issue than me. But I still have the right to defend my position and to post whatever I like so long as I follow the forum rules. If you don't like my posts, don't read them. You can see my old ugly zombie avatar in front of all my posts same as everyone else.

 Already stated that I'd follow up on Torgo's advice. Just trying to incite discussion. Sorry if you read it as something else.

  I'm going to let Deckard and J's posts stand as my rebuttals. They've obviously had way more education in this subject than me and I'm an ill choice to defend my position.

  I'm not petty, and I don't want the last word before I go back into silent running on this thread, and you can argue it all you want without any responses from me, but my challenge still stands.        My tail has never been between my legs and it never will be.

[Tarantulas]

  I would be curious to know how he (Dawkins) arrives at his probability results and how he constructed his chart. How can one really calculate something like that? Not trying to debate that, but genuinely curious. Probability doesn't exactly equate proof. Probability is just that. A probably or a maybe. Not a for sure. Yeah, there can be stronger "probablies" than others, but it's still can't be truth unless there's absolutely no other option. 

   Well, perhaps irritatingly, it could be argued that Zeus and Venus and all the other gods and goddesses of other religions are certian aspects or parts of God. Like believing in the shell of the egg but not the white or yolk. I'm sure you could hairsplit this viewpoint to death, though.

You touched on an interesting point...  could the popularity of catholicism with the peoples who's "pagan" religions included an Earth mother figure in any way be connected?  Couldn't early converts just seen the one for the other?

"Uh yeah... Jesus has a mom too...  is that selling it for you?  No?  Jerry! Get the red hot coals out of the [conversion] wagon!"

Gulp!

Tyrant you are wasting bandwidth trying to skate around and around the burden of proof you have been charged with.

It is not atheisms job to explain theism.  If you can't explain it, or justify your beliefs with anything other than anecdotal evidence, then stop responding.  Also, don't knock the scientific research of a respected intellect by nitpicking it with comments like "I just don't understand..."  He has books that you can read, check your local library.  I guarantee it will have less dust on the cover than any bibles they have.

You've made the same "g-wiz" style remarks in no less than 5 messages, add something new, or step away from the podium.

   Well, I'd be the first to admit that there are people on this forum that are better at debating this issue than me. But I still have the right to defend my position and to post whatever I like so long as I follow the forum rules. If you don't like my posts, don't read them. You can see my old ugly zombie avatar in front of all my posts same as everyone else.

  Already stated that I'd follow up on Torgo's advice. Just trying to incite discussion. Sorry if you read it as something else.

   I'm going to let Deckard and J's posts stand as my rebuttals. They've obviously had way more education in this subject than me and I'm an ill choice to defend my position.

   I'm not petty, and I don't want the last word before I go back into silent running on this thread, and you can argue it all you want without any responses from me, but my challenge still stands.        My tail has never been between my legs and it never will be.

Your "challenge" is negated by the fact that you cannot defend your own argument. 

[BathTub]

Deckard25 the Islamic Imam earlier in the thread already claimed most of that cut and pasted stuff., you should go have a chat with him first.

[torgosPizza]

What are the chances of a single molecule being created out of nothing?

There is a lot more to the big bang theory (and mutliverse theories) than just something created out of nothing. Look them up.

Why is the Bible still the most read book in history and how has it survived all this time throughout history?

Religious success or popularity does not make it true.

How is it that the Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate?

Those who wrote the bible weren't scientists, and I don't think the bible was written to be a scientific almanac. What about the "firmament" and the earth standing on pillars, or being immobile? Not to mention the claim that the Grand Canyon was caused by Noah's Flood in a few days (I doubt this is in the bible anywhere) when in actuality the stone comprising the surrounding land is so hard, it would take years or centuries to cut through it. A lot of what the bible got corrected is easily concluded to by observation.

If the Earth is here by accident or some anomaly, why is everything on Earth to human scale? Why is there just enough gravity on earth to keep us from being squashed like bugs? Is this really just "coincidence"?

What about the other Earth-like planet they just found? It could be coincidence. What's wrong if it is?

Why is it that water freezes differently from other fluids (it gets less dense), and that it is critical for our very survival?

Why don't trees just become pulp, a sappy mess when we cut them down? Why do they remain intact as something we can use for fire, shelter, build houses, make paper, etc?

Is it just "coincidence" that atoms stay together (the same charges)?

I'm not an expert (or even very studious) in chemistry and physics. Go to a website that delves into these topics and I'm sure you'd find answers

How is it that the ancient Bible is consistent with astronomy? The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens.

The bible also refers to the stars being caused by holes in the firmament. Since the time the book was written, we have developed ways of exploring what these "holes in the firmament" are.

How is it that the ancient Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere?
How is it that the ancient Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics?
How is it that the ancient Bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle?

I'm not sure what circulation means here. It's pretty easy to observe clouds floating through the atmosphere.

Regarding the water cycle - Accuracy on one point does not show overall accuracy. Job 38:22, for example, says that snow and hail are kept in storehouses. Genesis 2:5-6 contradicts the water cycle. Ecclesiastes 1:7 does not describe the water cycle. It merely says that water returns to the source of streams; it does not say how. It was once believed that the water returned underground. There are other examples of this errancy.

Any others?

EDIT: I understand I'm not much of a scientist or an expert - but I've at least seen enough / read enough evidence of much of what has been mentioned again to be able to form my own reasoned, educated conclusion as to what part of nature all of those aspects of our world belong to.

[Tarantulas]

Hey wait! Why is Dianetics such a popular book?

I think we all agree that those guys are nut jobs... maybe you will open your eyes one day as well.