God v. Atheism: My Debate with Daniel Dennett
By Dinesh D'Souza
Monday, December 3, 2007


On Friday, November 30, I debated philosopher Daniel Dennett at Tufts University on the topic, "Is God a Man-Made Invention?" This was my third debate against a leading atheist, following my debate with Michael Shermer at Oregon State University and my debate with Christopher Hitchens at the Ethical Culture Society in New York. The auditorium at Tufts filled up so quickly prior to the Dennett debate that the organizers had to have a second overflow room where viewers could watch the fireworks on a big-screen TV.

Do you want to watch the debate? Go to Youtube.com and search for the “Dennett D’Souza debate.” My earlier debates with Shermer and Hitchens are also online. You can find the Hitchens debate at dineshdsouza.com or isi.org.

Dennett surprised me a little by showing up with a power-point presentation. I hadn't agreed to this in advance, but I didn't object. I thought to myself, "I'm not sure what advantage slides are going to give him in a format like this one." Dennett spoke first for 25 minutes, and sure enough, he made full use of those slides. He had quotations from me up there, and he challenged me to defend them. I was impressed by Dennett's preparation, and also by his avulcular "grandpa" style, an effect enhanced by his white Santa beard. Atheism is a grim philosophy, but Dennett more than anyone else makes it seem harmless and even charming.

Normally I would use my opening statement entirely to make the case for God's existence. But I didn't want Dennett's allegations to go unrebutted for too long. So I devoted the first five minutes to puncturing some factual and historical holes in Dennett's argument. Then I proceeded to make my case. Of course I conceded that religion is a man-made invention, but I argued that modern science has over the past century produced remarkable discoveries that affirm and support the argument for God's existence. In doing so I recognized that I was challenging Dennett not only on his home campus, Tufts university, but also on his home turf, which is a philosophical atheism rooted in science.

We each had two five-minute rebuttals which produced lively exchanges about the Big Bang and about whether the universe is fine-tuned for life. When I challenged Dennett’s interpretation of evolution, he charged me with simplifying and “caricaturing” his views. Some degree of simplification is unavoidable in debate, because there simply isn’t enough time to address arguments with all their nuances. This criticism, however, applies to both sides. I countered Dennett by saying that I wasn’t the only one to question his use and abuse of Darwin.

I made my point by citing the late Stephen Jay Gould's review-essay on Dennett in the June 12, 1997 New York Review of Books. Unlike Dennett, who is a philosopher, Gould was one of the world's leading authorities on evolution. One can feel safe in saying that he knew a lot more about the biological evidence for Darwinism than Dennett. And Gould was an unbeliever, like Dennett.

So I noted how significant it was that Gould dubbed Dennett a "Darwinian fundamentalist." He suggested that just as religious fundamentalists read Scripture in a literal and pig-headed way, and unimaginatively apply biblical passages to everything, so Dennett tries to apply Darwinism to virtually every human social, cultural and religious practice, with disastrous and even comical results. Gould termed Dennett's work on evolution "a caricature of a caricature."

Finally there was a lengthy question-and-answer session. Given that the audience was mostly made up of Tufts students sympathetic to Dennett's atheism, a majority of the questions was directed at me. Most memorable for me was the philosophically-minded savant who pooh-poohed the possibility of God's existence on the basis of what he called the Principle of Parsimony. He argued that either propositions are true by definition, or they are true by empirical verification. If a proposition cannot satisfy either criteria, then it is meaningless. Since God does not exist by definition, the young man insisted, and since we cannot verify His presence empirically, clearly God has been refuted by the Principle of Parsimony.

I asked our undergraduate savant to apply his twofold test to the Principle of Parsimony itself. Is it true by definition? No. Well, can it be verified empirically? Again, no. Therefore by the student's own criteria the Principle of Parismony is worthless and can be cast aside. The student had no comeback to this and neither did Dennett.

So who won the debate? That's for you to decide. But I’d like to know your assessment. Go ahead and post it here, and also email me at dineshjdsouza@aol.com.

part one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw7J15TeDG4

part two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7MGyayvAa8

part three
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgK6M3WRFcc

part four
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzUUnjcTkQg

part five
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnGGOKDGLYw

part six
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcunc_hQ8U8

part seven
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SryFVhNfvow

part eight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8puuM-C9XIY

part nine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Ts_kPn5Tg

part ten
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMEu_pGCCU0

part eleven
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqpumHZGx7c

part twelve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rae3EUR-W4s

part thirteen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADLjLcS2kJs

part fourteen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KgVtKKgoks

part fifteen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM5mv-g2kUU

there is no winner in these debates. to me, it looks for a try at conversion to 1 way or the other. non believers will see dennet as ahead, believers will see d'souza as better, and only the undecided would be the ones swayed by either arguement. i just think it's amusing that as science finds answers that the god ideal has to keep remaking itself in order to try and be believable for those who know better. there are no arguements that could sway a TRUE believer or non-believer.

It's Theism vs Atheism. Theists love to tag and sensationalize the term Atheist and take advantage of that trigger word since we are largely outcasts in a country which is so overtly Christian it's scary.

I have no pedestal to clamber upon as I'm not into debate nor any good at it. I understand things, I get it, ALL. Doesn't mean I can map the human genome or write a symphony or accurately define memes but I still 'get it'. I need no supernatural explanation. I revel in the depths of the universe, I'm fascinated with Geologic evidence of the plethora of events that have scarred this planet as well as the incredible variety of forms of life that survived because they were 'the fittest' or didn't because they weren't. On the flip side, I don't feel the need to defend a thing/point of view to the point of the violence that is so blatant and condoned in your bible and has continued to be at the root of the vast majority of conflict throughout human history.

there is no winner in these debates.

No, you rarely get a "winner" in a debate like this. But in a good debate, you do have an interesting opportunities to hear the arguments presented in an interesting way. One where challenges are immediately confronted. If nothing else, both sides present things that are worth thinking about. Hearing the premises and arguments challenged and responded to by intelligent and articulate people may not change any minds, but it does lead to a deeper understand of both positions.

I find it very interesting.

and only the undecided would be the ones swayed by either arguement.
That's how most things work.

i just think it's amusing that as science finds answers that the god ideal has to keep remaking itself in order to try and be believable for those who know better.
What scientific answers are you referring to?

How has the so-called "god ideal" remade itself in light of scientific "answers"?

It's Theism vs Atheism. Theists love to tag and sensationalize the term Atheist and take advantage of that trigger word since we are largely outcasts in a country which is so overtly Christian it's scary.

I have no pedestal to clamber upon as I'm not into debate nor any good at it. I understand things, I get it, ALL. Doesn't mean I can map the human genome or write a symphony or accurately define memes but I still 'get it'. I need no supernatural explanation. I revel in the depths of the universe, I'm fascinated with Geologic evidence of the plethora of events that have scarred this planet as well as the incredible variety of forms of life that survived because they were 'the fittest' or didn't because they weren't. On the flip side, I don't feel the need to defend a thing/point of view to the point of the violence that is so blatant and condoned in your bible and has continued to be at the root of the vast majority of conflict throughout human history.
I don't remember the last time an atheist was treated like an outcast in this country. Michael Newdow is a well-known atheist ACTIVIST who has generated a lot of press for his activism in trying to remove "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Christopher Hitchens is a celebrated atheist who is well known for his insulting, pejorative style when he discusses religion. Atheists have come a long way in achieving protected minority status in many ways in this country. This is a good example of the majority being ruled by the minority. I hear more coverage on the news of atheists protesting and marching than I do Christians. For a nation that is, as you put it, "so overtly Christian," atheists are treated with far more respect than you give credit.

Your knowledge of Christianity as depicted in the Bible is lacking. If you read the New Testament, you will find in the words of Jesus and the writings of the Apostles that violence and vengeance are discouraged. Do you realize that "turn the other cheek" comes from the Bible? You hammer the Bible as a book that condones violence, yet where are the examples of Christian violence against atheists in this country? Why do you say it is "scary?" Are you not misplacing your fear onto Christians? I can truthfully say that I have NEVER persecuted anyone for their religion OR their atheism, but I can also say that I have BEEN persecuted, and by an atheist. So does my anecdotal evidence disprove your assertion, especially since you haven't submitted any evidence of your claim? Maybe, maybe not. My opinion is that when you say it's "scary," what you really ought to be saying is, "If Christians are right, THAT'S scary."

You are entitled to your opinion about Christians, but one thing you cannot deny, Christians worldwide are FAR more peaceable than (for example) Muslims, per capita. So why are you afraid of Christians instead of Muslims? For every example you could muster showing a Christian hurting someone in the name of Christianity, I could show you ten examples where Christians are imprisoned, maimed, and murdered by governments and communities worldwide.

Furthermore, read the writings of the founding fathers. The colonists came here because they wanted a place where they could worship free of British mandate. Much of American law is based on Biblical principles, such as free will and punishment and compensation. America was, like it or not, a nation founded on Christian principles by Christians. You can argue Theism or Deism if you want, but you cannot find many (any?) writings by the fathers about how America is good because America is atheist.

Look, please don't read any tone into my post. I'm not telling you to convert, okay? I'm only offering an opinion and questioning your assertions. Your post verges on Christian-bashing and it begs for someone to correct the record.

Fossten, You went right where I was gonna go; Newdow.
Great minds do think alike, it seems.:)

Here are a few other cases where theists were made into outcasts...

Lee v. Weisman (1992)
non-denominational prayer at school graduations banned

*Scalia wrote a brilliant dissent here that you would be doing yourself a disservice not to read

Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)
sanctioned organized Bible reading in public schools in the United States declared unconstitutional

Engel v. Vitale (1962)
prayer in public schools, even if it is denominationally neutral and non-mandatory, declared unconstitutional

come on mac1, should i start with the earth is not the center of the universe and work up? to now that evolution is not a hinderance to faith? to now id which throws out the idea of genesis? do you believe the universe and earth are only 6000 years old?

and i found it interesting too calabrio. both sides have good arguements. i always have sought to gain knowledge of the other side. some things are tough to argue about, but there are quite a few laughable ones. i was surprised to hear d'souza say he doesn't like the idea of id. but when he explained why, i can see it. he wants a god start, after all, if you believe aliens were the seed of life on earth, that doesn't explain them or the beginning of the universe.

come on mac1, should i start with the earth is not the center of the universe and work up? to now that evolution is not a hinderance to faith? to now id which throws out the idea of genesis? do you believe the universe and earth are only 6000 years old?

and i found it interesting too calabrio. both sides have good arguements. i always have sought to gain knowledge of the other side. some things are tough to argue about, but there are quite a few laughable ones. i was surprised to hear d'souza say he doesn't like the idea of id. but when he explained why, i can see it. he wants a god start, after all, if you believe aliens were the seed of life on earth, that doesn't explain them or the beginning of the universe.

Hrmwrm, your tone in this post is mocking. I believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old, what of it? I have more evidence that supports my belief than you do that the universe has been around for billions of years. What is interesting to me is that you are adopting a Hitchens-ian tactic, attempting to ridicule someone else's beliefs in the hope that they will back off from it. That unfortunately confirms what I pointed out in my last post in this thread. The canard that atheists somehow are a persecuted, maligned class of people in this country is a myth. I have never seen more vitriol in debating God vs. Evolution (or Atheism) than I have from them.

come on mac1, should i start with the earth is not the center of the universe and work up? to now that evolution is not a hinderance to faith? to now id which throws out the idea of genesis? do you believe the universe and earth are only 6000 years old?

Come on, hrmwrm :D
You know better then this...

Earth isn't the center of the universe:
If any ideal was remade here, it was in science, and general perception of reality, not religion

Evolution never has been a hinderance to faith. The posibility that the faith may be accurate however, in any way, is a threat to darwinian evolution and athiests...

In fact if anything has changed over time to accept reality it is science. It is how theories are formed, accepted, and later disproven and replaced newer more accurate theories.

ID discredits Genesis? Belief that the earth is 6000 years old?

On these two you are assuming that that christians view the bible literally. I come from a very religious family (my father was a pastor). In fact I am the black sheep of the family in the sense that I am not a practicing christian; you can call it a crisis of faith if you want. I believe God exists (something had to cause the big bang), I just don't trust him. That said, I have yet to encounter a christian that views the bible literally. The bible teaches through analogy. "God said let there be light", can you say "big bang"? In fact my uncle would be arguing just as passionately as you in the defense of the idea of evolution. He is a Lutheran who is very active in his church and community; a very devout christian.

My high school natural science teacher/martial arts instructor pointed out something to me about evolution and creation once. If you take the seven days of creation in the bible and give each day a certian relative figure (I don't remember the figure; maybe something like 5, 10, 20, 100 million years, let's just say "x") then everything in evolution and creation line up as to when creatures, land masses, ect. came into being. according to this idea, effectively creation is an analogy for the general course of evolution. Again, he explained this to me in High school, which was quite a while ago. I don't remember the specifics of this argument, don't hold me to the figure's I suggested for the seven days of creation, the number could be (and probably is) something completely different from what I suggested. Just throwing it out their as food for thought, and to demonstrate that ID nor evolution neccessarily discredit Genesis. It all depends on how literal you take the bible.

if you believe aliens were the seed of life on earth, that doesn't explain them or the beginning of the universe.

True, ID doesn't explain the beginning of the universe, but neither does evolution. Evolution theory is different from the big bang. They may fit together, put they are different theorys that attempt to answer different parts of a bigger picture.

sorry, didn't mean to be condescending. it's only through literal interpretation that you would end up in such a short time frame. as stated in the other thread, lining up years to account for genesis within earth's time frame still doesn't account for the time frame of the universe. 4.5 billion to 14 billion years. better than triple.so the first day was at least 10 billion. and the rest divided fall in between. were you in private or public school shagdrum? that's a hard to believe ideal by any stretch. and the firmament dividing the waters doesn't stand when it's well known that the world was one continent at one time. it still is a story that is man made. and it is only 1 story. hinduism is even older than the old testament story. explain genesis to an ideal that even came before it and is older than that story. better learn some history and get out of the bible.

sorry, didn't mean to be condescending. it's only through literal interpretation that you would end up in such a short time frame. as stated in the other thread, lining up years to account for genesis within earth's time frame still doesn't account for the time frame of the universe. 4.5 billion to 14 billion years. better than triple.so the first day was at least 10 billion. and the rest divided fall in between. were you in private or public school shagdrum? that's a hard to believe ideal by any stretch. and the firmament dividing the waters doesn't stand when it's well known that the world was one continent at one time. it still is a story that is man made. and it is only 1 story. hinduism is even older than the old testament story. explain genesis to an ideal that even came before it and is older than that story. better learn some history and get out of the bible.

I think you are somewhat missing the point here. I was pointing out that you were depending on a specific, literal account of Genesis in your earlier argument. If my alternative arguement is at least as credible in your mind (if not more so) to a literal interpretation of the creation story, then My point stands.

Fossten pointed out that the idea I presented is call the "gap-creation theory". News to me. You can find out about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism


************************************************** **************************************************
Correction, the Gap theory, as spelled out in that link still claims that the earth as we know it was created in a 24 hour seven day period. That wasn't what I was saying. Sorry, just skimed the link originally.*************************************** ************************************************** ***********


Another point to consider as to the interpretation that I presented; "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was formless and void, and darkness was upon the face of the Deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (Or alternatively, "In the beginning of God's creation the heavens and the earth were formless and void, and darkness was upon the face of the Deep, and a wind from God moved upon the face of the waters.") This is all before the whole seven days thing.

So you could say that the whole "let there be light" thing may not be an analogy for the big bang as it was for the coalesance and emergance of the sun. In this interpretation, the seven days of creation are concerned soley with the formation of our solar system.


another idea to consider...
Here is a link to the original scripture:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:1—2:3;&version=9;

Notice that the whole "let there be light" thing occured before things start getting divided into days. This suggests that the 7 day thing exclusively deals with the creation of life on earth.

i wasn't basing on a literal interpretation either. i was just being a bit abrupt to make my point. the bible was not the first text. stories in it have been found elsewhere. the story of gilgamesh recounts noah from a time and culture before the jewish clan compiled it down. my point is that there have been many stories before this one and many stories after. what makes you believe that this one is the true story? it is an intelligently compiled story for it's day and the main story does outdate written language that we are aware of. the overall story of creation is there, but there are huge holes in the time frame. and a whole genesis of life on land is missing from the story. it was a plausible story until the dawn of archaeology. now we know a little better.

i wasn't basing on a literal interpretation either. i was just being a bit abrupt to make my point. the bible was not the first text. stories in it have been found elsewhere. the story of gilgamesh recounts noah from a time and culture before the jewish clan compiled it down. my point is that there have been many stories before this one and many stories after. what makes you believe that this one is the true story? it is an intelligently compiled story for it's day and the main story does outdate written language that we are aware of. the overall story of creation is there, but there are huge holes in the time frame. and a whole genesis of life on land is missing from the story. it was a plausible story until the dawn of archaeology. now we know a little better.



Good point.
The story of Genesis (like most stories in the bible) have been told and retold countless times before they reached the bible. Therefore, they have come through many different filters before they reached the bible.

I think you also have to consider the audience that the bible was originally written for. Could people in those days have even comprehended that there was a universe and that it was billions of years old. the "science" of the time (mostly casual observation) told them the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it!

I personally view the bible (and the stories as they ended up in the bible) as trying to tell certian truths and convey certian values and messages in a way that could be understood by people of the day. That is why certian stories, in a very direct, literal sense don't hold up as well today, they were written for a different audience, that wasn't as informed through science, philosophy, ect. as we are today; and the stories are frankly, extremely dated. Still, as I pointed out to fossten, the basic principles it teaches still hold up in any rational interpretaion of the stories, even today. That is why the bible is such a remarkable document.

what makes you believe that this one is the true story?

I don't really believe that the story, in a literal sense is true. I think it has some basic truths at the core of the story, but was written to convey those truths to a different audience on their terms. (I know that sounds like some pretensious nonsense, but that is the best way I could think to explain it). Hope that helps.

Good point.
The story of Genesis (like most stories in the bible) have been told and retold countless times before they reached the bible. Therefore, they have come through many different filters before they reached the bible.
True, the Bible has been told and retold over the centuries. However, not too long ago the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls were found, which are believed to be at least 2000 years old and, to my knowledge, nothing was found in the Scrolls that contradict today's version of the Bible. Moreover, the Christian Old Testament has not been questioned by Hebrew scholars regarding it's accuracy. Therefore, it could be argued that there is no direct evidence suggesting today's version of the Bible has been materially mistranslated or corrupted.

I think you also have to consider the audience that the bible was originally written for. Could people in those days have even comprehended that there was a universe and that it was billions of years old. the "science" of the time (mostly casual observation) told them the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it!

Considering the many prophetic books of the Bible including Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, and Daniel, clearly the Bible was written for both the audience of the day as well as for future generations. In fact, the prophetic books of the Bible including Ezechiel and Daniel could not be understood by the people of the day because they contained prophecy about events which would occur thousands of years into the future. However, today's biblical scholars understand that much of the prophecy contained in the Bible has either already occurred or is happening at this very moment.

I personally view the bible (and the stories as they ended up in the bible) as trying to tell certian truths and convey certian values and messages in a way that could be understood by people of the day. That is why certian stories, in a very direct, literal sense don't hold up as well today, they were written for a different audience, that wasn't as informed through science, philosophy, ect. as we are today; and the stories are frankly, extremely dated. Still, as I pointed out to fossten, the basic principles it teaches still hold up in any rational interpretaion of the stories, even today. That is why the bible is such a remarkable document.

I don't really believe that the story, in a literal sense is true. I think it has some basic truths at the core of the story, but was written to convey those truths to a different audience on their terms. (I know that sounds like some pretensious nonsense, but that is the best way I could think to explain it). Hope that helps.
The Bible contains many truths and lessons that are instructive even by today's standards. But also, the Bible (Old and New Testament) contains historical documents which, to my knowledge, have not been conclusively contradicted even by its most ardent of critics. And the more archaeologists unearth in Israel and its surrounding areas including Iraq, the more the archeological findings indicate that the events and circumstances described in the Bible are historically accurate.

yes mac, the dead sea scrolls do validate the old testament. they would seem to be the first writing down of the stories. a much better way to positively hand down stories and information. the bible is an historical text, and does contain thoughts of moralities. i'm not knocking what moralities and "humaness" is in there, just by todays knowledge it's account for creation falls short.

when they had an ideal of a creator, it was a pretty good guess as to the order. and intelligent thought would lead a person of the time to credibly philosophise such a beginning. good philosophy only comes from asking the right questions to answer. and if you thought a creator made it, how would you answer? probably similarily with a little personal idealism thrown in. but as it carries on in genesis, there are some who come from nowhere it seems. that is why i see it as a "genesis" of a particular family or clan, not all of mankind of the time. yes i have read through the bible. being atheist doesn't make me a heathen.

hrmwrm, I sincerely doubt that you have read through the entire Bible.

hea·then (hn)
n. pl. hea·thens or heathen
1.
a. One who adheres to the religion of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
b. Such persons considered as a group; the unconverted.
2.
a. One who is regarded as irreligious, uncivilized, or unenlightened.
b. Such persons considered as a group.

There isn't much difference here. If you want to split hairs, maybe, but not generally.

Shag, you're incorrect about stories being retold countless times before being recorded. That's not how it worked. In the case of the Pentateuch, for example, Moses took down every word as dictated to him by God. Subsequent copies have been made, canonized by the church, and passed down from generation to generation.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, while interesting and important in the general sense, were in fact flawed copies that in many places follow the Greek Septuagint instead of the correct Masoretic text. The most important evidence of the preservation of God's Word is the fact that the Textus Receptus, as compiled by Erasmus, and used to translate the King James Version, was supported by 95% of all extant copies of manuscripts of that period. That speaks volumes to the remarkable inerrancy of the KJV, and should not be discounted when considering whether or not the Bible is God's Word or just another book.

hrmwrm, I sincerely doubt that you have read through the entire Bible.

hea·then (hn)
n. pl. hea·thens or heathen
1.
a. One who adheres to the religion of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
b. Such persons considered as a group; the unconverted.
2.
a. One who is regarded as irreligious, uncivilized, or unenlightened.
b. Such persons considered as a group.

There isn't much difference here. If you want to split hairs, maybe, but not generally.

Shag, you're incorrect about stories being retold countless times before being recorded. That's not how it worked. In the case of the Pentateuch, for example, Moses took down every word as dictated to him by God. Subsequent copies have been made, canonized by the church, and passed down from generation to generation.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, while interesting and important in the general sense, were in fact flawed copies that in many places follow the Greek Septuagint instead of the correct Masoretic text. The most important evidence of the preservation of God's Word is the fact that the Textus Receptus, as compiled by Erasmus, and used to translate the King James Version, was supported by 95% of all extant copies of manuscripts of that period. That speaks volumes to the remarkable inerrancy of the KJV, and should not be discounted when considering whether or not the Bible is God's Word or just another book.


Seeing as you are much more familiar with scripture and the theological schools of thought surrounding it, I will defer to your wisdom here.:eek:

Seeing as you are much more familiar with scripture and the theological schools of thought surrounding it, I will defer to your wisdom here.:eek:
Don't you remember the account in Exodus where Moses was up on the mountain with God for several days, and he came down with the two tablets of the Ten Commandments? It doesn't take days to write down ten commandments. That's likely a good time for him to get a lot of the Bible written. What else do you think they were doing up there, chatting about the results of Egyptian chariot races? :D

Weren't they on stone tablets? carving those might take a few days...

i have read through it completely fossten. but it is a lengthy text, and unlike you i don't study it such that i may quote it in times of doubt. as for stories being told many times, i doubt moses sat dictating in stone everything he thought. but he's not the only orator or dictator of the bible. as i said before, the story of noah predates the jewish religion and has been found in stories of the assyrians. except noah is known as gilgamesh. and if god wiped out mankind with noah, then why is hinduism the oldest practiced belief. surely it can't be older than adam and eve. yet it is. your religion is full of holes that you refuse to accept. a belief in god is 1 thing, but religion is messed up. it's a power grab for control. and you are hooked.

.

i have read through it completely fossten. but it is a lengthy text, and unlike you i don't study it such that i may quote it in times of doubt. as for stories being told many times, i doubt moses sat dictating in stone everything he thought. but he's not the only orator or dictator of the bible. as i said before, the story of noah predates the jewish religion and has been found in stories of the assyrians. except noah is known as gilgamesh. and if god wiped out mankind with noah, then why is hinduism the oldest practiced belief. surely it can't be older than adam and eve. yet it is. your religion is full of holes that you refuse to accept. a belief in god is 1 thing, but religion is messed up. it's a power grab for control. and you are hooked.
Again, your knowledge of the Bible is severely lacking. Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that Judaism is the oldest religion. Nothing of what you said contradicts the Bible. Furthermore, you cannot find a single shred of evidence that Hinduism is older than 6,000 years old. Nice try, but you don't have your facts straight. And you don't even know what my religion is, so to to say that there are holes in it shows presumptuousness. You are speaking from stereotypical ignorance. Tell me, which religion am I? I'll even give you 3 guesses. (cue Jeopardy music)

so your implying judaism is 6000 years old? or that any religion here now is that old? or that even the bible is? i'd like to see your proof of that.as for genesis, something that expresses my doubts well.

Most Christians have heard the argument that the word “day” in Genesis does not mean a literal 24 hour type day, but rather that the “days” represent 6 great ages of time. This is often referred to as the day-age theory. Many people have wondered whether this argument is valid. It is true, after all, that the Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings, depending upon its context. However, it is our opinion that when all the facts are gathered, it is abundantly clear that God communicated with precision that all creation took place during the time period of six, normal, 24-hour type days.


The Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings. The meaning is always clear when read in context.

The first reference to “day” in the creation account is in the context of a 24 hour cycle of light and dark, “And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day” (NASV, see Genesis One).

When the word “day” is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that “day” is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.

There is no Biblical indication that “day” is used differently in the beginning chapter of Genesis than it is throughout the rest of the book, or the rest of the Old Testament.

The “days” in Genesis 1 are always specifically used in connection with the words “evening and morning.” This phrase is used with “day” 38 times in the Old Testament, not counting Genesis chapter 1. Each time, without exception, the phrase refers to a normal 24 hour type day. It is also important to note that this phrase is never used in the Old Testament in a manner which is obviously metaphoric.

When the phrase “evening and morning” is coupled with a numbered modifier and the word “yom”, there is no stronger way of specifying a normal day. We understand that Genesis is describing six Earth rotations, not an unspecified period of billions of years.

We see therefore that a study of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 states in clear language that creation took place during the period of six, normal 24-hour type days. Further evidence of this conclusion is given in Exodus 20:11. This passage, written in stone by the finger of God Himself, states, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.” God, the only witness to the creation events, testifies that all things were created within a literal six day period.

so your implying judaism is 6000 years old? or that any religion here now is that old? or that even the bible is? i'd like to see your proof of that.
Go back and read my post. I said nothing of the kind. You're attempting to put words in my mouth. Why can you not stick with the topic? You aren't even good at this.

as for genesis, something that expresses my doubts well.


Most Christians have heard the argument that the word “day” in Genesis does not mean a literal 24 hour type day, but rather that the “days” represent 6 great ages of time. This is often referred to as the day-age theory. Many people have wondered whether this argument is valid. It is true, after all, that the Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings, depending upon its context. However, it is our opinion that when all the facts are gathered, it is abundantly clear that God communicated with precision that all creation took place during the time period of six, normal, 24-hour type days.


The Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings. The meaning is always clear when read in context.

The first reference to “day” in the creation account is in the context of a 24 hour cycle of light and dark, “And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day” (NASV, see Genesis One).

When the word “day” is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that “day” is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.

There is no Biblical indication that “day” is used differently in the beginning chapter of Genesis than it is throughout the rest of the book, or the rest of the Old Testament.

The “days” in Genesis 1 are always specifically used in connection with the words “evening and morning.” This phrase is used with “day” 38 times in the Old Testament, not counting Genesis chapter 1. Each time, without exception, the phrase refers to a normal 24 hour type day. It is also important to note that this phrase is never used in the Old Testament in a manner which is obviously metaphoric.

When the phrase “evening and morning” is coupled with a numbered modifier and the word “yom”, there is no stronger way of specifying a normal day. We understand that Genesis is describing six Earth rotations, not an unspecified period of billions of years.

We see therefore that a study of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 states in clear language that creation took place during the period of six, normal 24-hour type days. Further evidence of this conclusion is given in Exodus 20:11. This passage, written in stone by the finger of God Himself, states, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.” God, the only witness to the creation events, testifies that all things were created within a literal six day period.

Did you write the above collection of paragraphs? Because it looks suspiciously like a set of paragraphs I posted earlier. Why do you not put quotations around other people's work and attribute it correctly? Are you claiming that you wrote this? If not, what is your point in posting it? Just spewing a copy/paste does not make a point.

it's not something you posted before. it is from a religious site. my point in posting it is that when it comes to things in genesis, i keep being rebuked by interpreting things literally. yet this clearly states that things are to be taken literally. 6 days, resting on the seventh. not days where eons may lapse. and there are many more unbelievable things. yet as we find the true age of the universe, or i should say a very close approximation,(to within a few million either way) and the age of the earth, it could not happen as described. so it would seem to be a man made story. but then, rationalize this any way you must.

and as for hinduism, you asked for proof of it being older than 6000 years old. so what were you implying was 6000 years old then? i wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, but you left nothing stated so i made 3 guesses.( before the jeopardy music ended.)

Sean Connary: "I'll take 'the rapists' for $400!"

Alex Trebek: "Thats therapists..."

it's not something you posted before. it is from a religious site. my point in posting it is that when it comes to things in genesis, i keep being rebuked by interpreting things literally. yet this clearly states that things are to be taken literally. 6 days, resting on the seventh. not days where eons may lapse. and there are many more unbelievable things.
Riiiiight. As if the sudden occurrence of the so-called "Big Bang" is believable, or the Cambrian Explosion (show me the difference between this and Creation, please?) is believable, or the very assertion that birds evolved from reptiles is believable (it's not even scientifically possible given the circumstances in which it supposedly happened!)? It's much more believable that an omnipotent God simply said it and it was so, than it is for me to believe all the silly made-up theories that these fallible, human evolutionists come up with in order to fill the gaping maws in their scientific data. You need more faith to believe your religion than I do mine. But rationalize this in any way you must.

yet as we find the true age of the universe, or i should say a very close approximation,(to within a few million either way) and the age of the earth, it could not happen as described.
THIS statement above in bold is what you CANNOT PROVE. You can harp all day long about how the universe is billions of years old, "as we find," but "WE" don't find any such thing. If you want to actually argue the science of this, I'll be glad to post a few articles that actually DESTROY that assertion, but you just blithely claiming it to be so doesn't mean squat. As Tom Sawyer said, "Just you saying it doesn't make it so."

so it would seem to be a man made story. but then, rationalize this any way you must.
Gee, you don't sound very sure here, now do you? What a terrible conclusion, especially since you did not offer one single shred of proof that backs it up.

and as for hinduism, you asked for proof of it being older than 6000 years old. so what were you implying was 6000 years old then? i wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, but you left nothing stated so i made 3 guesses.( before the jeopardy music ended.)
I wasn't implying anything with that statement, I was merely challenging you to show me evidence where YOU implied that Hinduism was OLDER than 6,000 years.

You are hung up on emphasizing the age of a belief system as a large part of its legitimacy. Okay, fine: If the AGE of a religion is what gives it its credibility according to you, then your own belief in evolution (yes, it is a religion) is suspect, since it's been around less than 200 years. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Oh YES, Christianity AND Judaism are BOTH older than evolution!

so who's putting words where? i never stated hinduism was 6000 years old. i said it was the oldest practiced religion. there is a difference. and the age of the universe only recently was able to be found. technology capable of this didn't exist at the time. but continue to believe in myth and deny reality.

so who's putting words where? i never stated hinduism was 6000 years old. i said it was the oldest practiced religion. there is a difference. and the age of the universe only recently was able to be found. technology capable of this didn't exist at the time. but continue to believe in myth and deny reality.

and if god wiped out mankind with noah, then why is hinduism the oldest practiced belief. surely it can't be older than adam and eve. yet it is.

Estimated history dates the Biblical flood (Noah) at 4500 years ago. Adam and Eve are estimated to have been created 6,000+- years ago. You just said Hindiusm is older than Adam and Eve. Don't say reckless things and then deny you said them. You'll get caught every time...by me.

And what is the age of the universe? And what SPECIFIC evidence proves this? Time for you to put your money where your cowardly, insulting mouth is.

the age of the universe only recently was able to be found.

...we think. Basically we have a new way of calculating the age and/or a new technique for getting info to plug into an equation. We assume that these methods are better and more accurate, but we have know way of knowing, either way. We can't know if the methods we use to find the age of the universe are accurate.:)

Yeah, evolution scientists are still revising their dating theories. This isn't settled by a long shot (http://answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i3/cosmologists.asp), and the harder they try the worse it gets for them. And they still can't plug the holes in their galaxy problem (http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/galaxies.asp).

Hrmwrm, you simply are not up on your scientific news, otherwise you wouldn't speak so rashly.

you mean something like this.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=36646

where galaxies seem to be more developed than they should be at a distance? what's so unreal about that? hubble only recently discovered what is referred to as the deep field. study of distant galaxies is in it's infancy. you make it sound like some smoking gun you've discovered. that's why i don't trust your view of science. it's a little jaded. were you of aware of dark galxies? ones where no stars have formed? they exist also.

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/news/darkgalaxy/

and there are more discoveries to be made when the super collider comes online in 2008. i suggest it is your scientific knowledge that is lacking. search through jpl's website and see what is around. discoveries are being made all the time. mankind is in the infancy of discovery. but you just keep with your outdated but comfortable way. enjoy.

Yeah, evolution scientists are still revising their dating theories. This isn't settled by a long shot (http://answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i3/cosmologists.asp), and the harder they try the worse it gets for them. And they still can't plug the holes in their galaxy problem (http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/galaxies.asp).

Hrmwrm, you simply are not up on your scientific news, otherwise you wouldn't speak so rashly.
Recently I heard a news report about scientists doubting the credibility of the big bang theory (http://www.cosmologystatement.org/) which was/is a major part of evolutionists view about the origins of life. Apparently however, the big bang theory is really nothing but a big dud.

Thus, when someone says that evolution is fact, I'm reminded of all the other so-called "facts" that are no longer facts because another group of scientists see the situation differently, or the facts turned out to be fraud. In reality, "facts" that change were never really "facts" in the first place.

Sometimes "facts" evolve.

and for fossten. the age of the universe.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

it does depend on what is used to estimate the age. but it is still quite ancient either way.
and i stand corrected. i should have said that hinduism is older than the bible.

Recently I heard a news report about scientists doubting the credibility of the big bang theory (http://www.cosmologystatement.org/) which was/is a major part of evolutionists view about the origins of life. Apparently however, the big bang theory is really nothing but a big dud.

Thus, when someone says that evolution is fact, I'm reminded of all the other so-called "facts" that are no longer facts because another group of scientists see the situation differently, or the facts turned out to be fraud. In reality, "facts" that change were never really "facts" in the first place.

Exactly. For example, to Darwin, it was a FACT that the cell was the smallest irreducible mechanism. Much of his evolutionary theory was based on that "FACT." OOOOOOOPS.

...and i stand corrected. i should have said that hinduism is older than the bible.
So what! What's your point?

so, i've proven that there is no reason to believe that a day in genesis is anything other than a day. it was even "written in stone by the finger of god". 6 literal 24 hour days. and i've proven the relative age of the universe, which is excessively older than the age of the earth. and after earths formation, there have been billions of years of nothing to simple life to montrous creatures before mans term on earth. sounds like a lot more than 6 days. and yes, this is literal. but as i proved within the words in the bible itself, there is no reason to believe in anything but a literal interpretation.

so again, i re-iterate, the bible is not believable in it's chronicle of events pertaining to creation. yet these are god's words exactly written. but why would they be wrong? maybe because the bible IS manmade?

so, i've proven that there is no reason to believe that a day in genesis is anything other than a day. it was even "written in stone by the finger of god". 6 literal 24 hour days. and i've proven the relative age of the universe, which is excessively older than the age of the earth. and after earths formation, there have been billions of years of nothing to simple life to montrous creatures before mans term on earth. sounds like a lot more than 6 days. and yes, this is literal. but as i proved within the words in the bible itself, there is no reason to believe in anything but a literal interpretation.

so again, i re-iterate, the bible is not believable in it's chronicle of events pertaining to creation. yet these are god's words exactly written. but why would they be wrong? maybe because the bible IS manmade?
Your arrogance is exceeded only by your futile ignorance. Even evolutionary scientists don't make statements using the words "proved" or "proven." You've repeatedly backtracked and said science isn't complete, yet you've proven? So now you're contradicting yourself.

To be honest, you sound like a desperate person clinging to the liferaft of your belief system, and your best responses are to assert that you are right about everything. You offer no evidence, and you examine none that is offered to you. Why we are even still discussing this is beyond me, since with you it is completely unproductive.

my arrogance? you make me laugh fossten. and it would be you clinging to the side of a sinking ship. and i've given evidence within this thread. i've examined evidence put forward to me. you're wrong on that point. you're just frustated that i haven't wavered an come up kissing you're hiney for showing me the way. i have made a few points, but you sit in denial refusing to see reality. instead of admitting there are inaccuracies in the bible you just come out and attack.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/heic0406a.html

have you ever looked at this fossten? read through to the bottom and notice the dates. 4 years ago. and discoveries have accelerated. galaxies that are billions of light years away don't just appear out of nowhere. it takes the time of the distance away for the light to be visible here. some of these are so far away that it has taken most of the universes age for their light to be visible here with powerful enough instruments. so there is no denying the age of the universe as ancient.(i suggest the screen size link to view)

so, i've proven that there is no reason to believe that a day in genesis is anything other than a day. it was even "written in stone by the finger of god". 6 literal 24 hour days. and i've proven the relative age of the universe, which is excessively older than the age of the earth. and after earths formation, there have been billions of years of nothing to simple life to montrous creatures before mans term on earth. sounds like a lot more than 6 days. and yes, this is literal. but as i proved within the words in the bible itself, there is no reason to believe in anything but a literal interpretation.

so again, i re-iterate, the bible is not believable in it's chronicle of events pertaining to creation. yet these are god's words exactly written. but why would they be wrong? maybe because the bible IS manmade?

You haven't proven anything, in regards to biblical interpretation. That is not a slight; no one can prove or disprove a biblical interpretation, except God himself, especially when it comes to Genesis.

You have presented a compelling interpretation, but the Bible, being a work of faith, is beyond proving or disproving. The Bible is full of inconsistences, and as such can't be taken literally. It is also a work of faith, and so the burden of proof is extremely high; you have to prove your interpretation beyond any reasonable doubt with facts and evidence, as well as disproving any other possible interpretation beyond any reasonable doubt with facts and evidence. That is impossible because (1) we haven't discussed every possible interpretation here, let alone tried to disprove them, and (2) the bible teaches through parables and analogies. It is an inconsistent document in the literal sense, and as such is short on any facts, or evidence to use. What you have shown is that your interpretation is consistent with certian passages in the bible and is held by others. But you haven't proven it. Fossten can't prove his biblical interpretations and he is one of the most "scriptually informed" here. He can present a very well thought out argument in favor of his interpretation (as you have done for yours), but he can't prove it. Interpretation can't be proven because you can't show that ,when bound by reasoned objectivity, there is only one view to take, given all the info. That can be done with evolution, because it's a science.

Effectively, you are still trying to apply the standards for evaluating a science to religion. That can't be done, because they are two completely different things. Science relies of facts and reason for it's credibility. Religion doesn't.

This is why I don't like debating interpretations of scripture. At that level of detail, there is no definite right or wrong.

i meant in my statement that there is no reason to believe that a day means anything but a day in the bible. it was a quote from a minister that i pasted in my other post. and thats not interpretation of the bible as a whole. that is 1 word. but also in science, there are interpretations of the evidence. some see it 1 way, still others another. i'm not afraid to admit science doesn't have everything wrapped up. they are only beginning in space. things found in physics that are predicted are being confirmed. the processes in space are known, but some things could not be known ahead of time. seeing extreme distance galaxies is but 4 years old. that's not a lot of time to come up with a consensus on the data. we won't see an end to discoveries in our lifetime. instruments keep getting more powerful and able to measure things we can't see. although i do believe they will find a planet with the right mix for possible life within my lifetime. verification is beyond a few generations of time though. distances are too huge for quick proving.

and fossten, before quoting from a book, you should be sure it is accurrate and truthful. some examples.

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html

you might find some interest here.

and fossten, before quoting from a book, you should be sure it is accurrate and truthful. some examples.

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/index.html

you might find some interest here.
I have zero idea what you're talking about. And I can't open that website at work.

...and discoveries have accelerated. galaxies that are billions of light years away don't just appear out of nowhere. it takes the time of the distance away for the light to be visible here. some of these are so far away that it has taken most of the universes age for their light to be visible here with powerful enough instruments. so there is no denying the age of the universe as ancient.
When you think about it, isn't it a bit foolish to not believe in God given how amazing the universe is, coupled with the fact that we know little about it? How many more amazing things will be discovered before even the most stubborn atheist begins to wonder if there really is an intelligent creator. Surely all the amazing things about the universe, including laws of physics, couldn't simply appear from nothing. ;)

not really mac. as with everything, it depends on your perspective. it's something that has been happening every where. putting god in puts you in a closed system. the universe is unending as far as we know. like god, the universe has no known ending or beginning. humans are the only intelligent species that we know of that has started to come to an understanding of it. i just see religion and god as old world view. a supernatural being was an easy way to understand something fantastic. but that is no longer necessary to understand things. since written language, we can now keep handing down knowledge, throwing out old and outdated and continuing with new and adding to the knowledge because every so many generations don't have to start over.

a better understanding of how it all works is within our grasp, without a supernatural power to have started it. things do have an order and laws that they work by. do you just believe in god, or do you believe in a religious god? if religious, then everything was created for man. take a look at the cosmos. doesn't that seem a bit excessive for the purpose? you have light arriving from galaxies here that is older than our solar system by almost triple. and this may not be the end of the universe. it is the end of our visible universe. 20 years from now even that may change, as new technology allows us to investigate further.

we understand the physics of how everything ticks. how things like our solar system come together are generally understood. and it doesn't take outside forces for it to occur. it does happen. it is happening in some places in our galaxie right now. new stars are forming, new planets coming together, new solar systems. and no outside force is directing it. it is the way of the cosmos. some systems may be made that will support life in the future. we may even find planets that have a signature that life could exist there.(if you follow space discovery, you'll understand what this is)

and physics is simply a tool to understanding things in the form of higher mathematics. and i guess like god, the universe is not to question it's existence, it's to discover it. an anology to religion would be that science right now is like religion before it was compiled to full scriptures and ceremonies. but unlike religion, we have tools to discover things that were unfathomable 2000-3000 years ago. we know how stars work. they are not magical balls of light. we know life existed for a long time on this planet before man. if earths time were a 24hr. clock, man wouldn't account for but a few seconds. and if man were wiped out tomorrow, life in some form would continue to exist.

there are many non-believers who don't need an outside force to explain what once seemed incredulous. i call myself athiest because then i don't have to create a definition for my disbelief. the name already has an explanation for it. there are things that have no explanation, but i don't need to create one to be satisfied. that's the easy way out.

The universe is too incredible and too hard for hrmwrm to understand, so because it does not fit into his shortsighted worldview, there must not be a God.

That's not even a logical leap, it's an excuse.:rolleyes:

i call myself athiest because then i don't have to create a definition for my disbelief.
I call this denial.

you have light arriving from galaxies here that is older than our solar system by almost triple. and this may not be the end of the universe. it is the end of our visible universe. 20 years from now even that may change, as new technology allows us to investigate further.

Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang

by Robert Newton

The ‘distant starlight problem’ is sometimes used as an argument against biblical creation. People who believe in billions of years often claim that light from the most distant galaxies could not possibly reach earth in only 6,000 years. However, the light-travel–time argument cannot be used to reject the Bible in favour of the big bang, with its billions of years. This is because the big bang model also has a light-travel–time problem.

The background
In 1964/5, Penzias and Wilson discovered that the earth was bathed in a faint microwave radiation, apparently coming from the most distant observable regions of the universe, and this earned them the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978.1 This Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) comes from all directions in space and has a characteristic temperature.2,3 While the discovery of the CMB has been called a successful prediction of the big bang model,4 it is actually a problem for the big bang. This is because the precisely uniform temperature of the CMB creates a light-travel–time problem for big bang models of the origin of the universe.

The problem
The temperature of the CMB is essentially the same everywhere5—in all directions (to a precision of 1 part in 100,000).6 However (according to big bang theorists), in the early universe, the temperature of the CMB7 would have been very different at different places in space due to the random nature of the initial conditions. These different regions could come to the same temperature if they were in close contact. More distant regions would come to equilibrium by exchanging radiation (i.e. light8). The radiation would carry energy from warmer regions to cooler ones until they had the same temperature.


(1) Early in the alleged big bang, points A and B start out with different temperatures.
(2) Today, points A and B have the same temperature, yet there has not been enough time for them to exchange light.
The problem is this: even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current CMB have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other?9 This is a light-travel–time problem.10

The big bang model assumes that the universe is many billions of years old. While this timescale is sufficient for light to travel from distant galaxies to earth, it does not provide enough time for light to travel from one side of the visible universe to the other. At the time the light was emitted, supposedly 300,000 years after the big bang, space already had a uniform temperature over a range at least ten times larger than the distance that light could have travelled (called the ‘horizon’)11 So, how can these regions look the same, i.e. have the same temperature? How can one side of the visible universe ‘know’ about the other side if there has not been enough time for the information to be exchanged? This is called the ‘horizon problem’.12 Secular astronomers have proposed many possible solutions to it, but no satisfactory one has emerged to date (see Attempts to overcome the big bang’s ‘light-travel–time problem’ below).

Summing up
The big bang requires that opposite regions of the visible universe must have exchanged energy by radiation, since these regions of space look the same in CMB maps. But there has not been enough time for light to travel this distance. Both biblical creationists and big bang supporters have proposed a variety of possible solutions to light-travel–time difficulties in their respective models. So big-bangers should not criticize creationists for hypothesizing potential solutions, since they do the same thing with their own model. The horizon problem remains a serious difficulty for big bang supporters, as evidenced by their many competing conjectures that attempt to solve it. Therefore, it is inconsistent for supporters of the big bang model to use light-travel time as an argument against biblical creation, since their own notion has an equivalent problem.

Attempts to overcome the big bang’s ‘light-travel–time problem’
Currently, the most popular idea is called ‘inflation’—a conjecture invented by Alan Guth in 1981. In this scenario, the expansion rate of the universe (i.e. space itself) was vastly accelerated in an ‘inflation phase’ early in the big bang. The different regions of the universe were in very close contact before this inflation took place. Thus, they were able to come to the same temperature by exchanging radiation before they were rapidly (faster than the speed of light1) pushed apart. According to inflation, even though distant regions of the universe are not in contact today, they were in contact before the inflation phase when the universe was small.

However, the inflation scenario is far from certain. There are many different inflation models, each with its set of difficulties. Moreover, there is no consensus on which (if any) inflation model is correct. A physical mechanism that could cause the inflation is not known, though there are many speculations. There are also difficulties on how to turn off the inflation once it starts—the ‘graceful exit’ problem.2 Many inflation models are known to be wrong—making predictions that are not consistent with observations,3 such as Guth’s original model.4 Also, many aspects of inflation models are currently unable to be tested.

Some astronomers do not accept inflationary models and have proposed other possible solutions to the horizon problem. These include: scenarios in which the gravitational constant varies with time,5 the ‘ekpyrotic model’ which involves a cyclic universe,6 scenarios in which light takes ‘shortcuts’ through extra (hypothetical) dimensions,7 ‘null-singularity’ models,8 and models in which the speed of light was much greater in the past.9,10 (Creationists have also pointed out that a changing speed of light may solve light-travel–time difficulties for biblical creation.11)

In light of this disagreement, it is safe to say that the horizon problem has not been decisively solved.

you stated essentially what i said, that answers aren't in for everything. physics is not hard for me to understand fossten. my lack of belief in god comes from the bible itself and it's falsehoods and discrepencies. try that link sometime that i posted. but you might learn something you wish to deny.

Already read the link. I am unmoved.

you stated essentially what i said, that answers aren't in for everything. physics is not hard for me to understand fossten. my lack of belief in god comes from the bible itself and it's falsehoods and discrepencies. try that link sometime that i posted. but you might learn something you wish to deny.
Please feel free to provide us with a few examples of biblical "falsehoods and discrepencies" that you find troubling.

you really want a few?

"Haley begins with what are commonly known as doctrinal problems. The first is on page 55, and pits Jer. 32:27 ("Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard for me?") and Matt. 19:26 ("With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible") against Heb. 6:18 ("It was impossible for God to lie"). This problem was discussed in some recent correspondence in BE, and highlights one of the most intractable religious conflicts. Haley's explanation is that, "Omnipotence does not imply the power to do every conceivable thing, but the ability to do everything which is the proper object of power. For example, an omnipotent being could not cause a thing to be existent and non-existent at the same instant. The very idea is self-contradictory and absurd. When it is said that God can do 'all things,' the phrase only applies to those things which involve no inconsistency or absurdity." His explanation won't stand the strain for several reasons. In the first place, the verse neither says nor implies anything relative to "the proper object of power." It says nothing is too hard for God to accomplish, and no expressed or implied qualifications are attached. Secondly, God can't lie because the moment he lied he would cease to be God. And God can't cease to be God. And thirdly, Haley says,"an omnipotent being could not cause a thing to be existent and non-existent at the same time." He says the very idea is self-contradictory and absurd. Precisely! And that's why God's not omnipotent. If he were all-powerful, he could do it, and since he can't we'll rest our case."

and try this page http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart13.html#issref131 a few more?

you really want a few?
and try this page http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart13.html#issref131 a few more?

First of all, always bear in mind that when you research information about God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ, such information is often subjective opinions. In other words, like politics, people often spin statements to fit their own subjective views and what they want to believe or not believe. In order to have a good understanding of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) it’s important to understand biblical history, read the Bible in its entirety, as well as understand the context of biblical statements.

I decided to click on the link you provided and while scrolling down my attention was drawn to the heading "Jesus, the False Messiah (http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart13.html#issref131)." As a Christian, my interest was peeked by such a claim and I was curious to know the basis upon which the claim was being made. After reading, it became apparent that the author’s reasoning showed a complete lack of understanding of the Bible or perhaps even a deliberate misrepresentation of the verses he/she claims proves that Jesus was a false messiah. Below are the arguments and my responses:

As stated in prior issues of BE, Jesus often made statements and committed acts which invalidate any claims he made to the Messiahship. Additional examples, such as the following, are worthy of note.

Mark 9:25-26 says: "...he (Jesus-ed) rebuked the foul spirit, saying into him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him. And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him;..." Jesus' statement is false, because if the spirit was deaf, how could he have heard Jesus and come out? If he was dumb, how could he have cried ou?.
Because the spirit was not deaf and dumb, the child was. When was the last time you heard of a spirit/demon who was deaf and dumb? Give me a break.

In Mark 10:19 Jesus said: "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother." Jesus needs to re-read the Ten Commandments. There is no Old Testament commandment against defrauding. The only relevant statement about defrauding is in Lev. 19:13, which says: "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor." This is an OT law, but is not listed with the Ten Commandments.
Notice Jesus did not say “ten commandments” but referred to “commandments” in general. Notice Lev. 19:13 starts with "Thou shalt not..." just like the ten commandments of Exodus 20. Lev. 19:13 is a commandment like all laws given by God in the Old Testament. Actually, Jesus’s mention of Lev. 19:13 shows just how knowledgeable he is of the Pentateuch.

In Mark 8:35 Jesus said: "...but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's the same shall save it." How could Jesus have said this when there was no gospel when he live? The gospel did not appear until after his death.
Obviously, this person thinks the “gospel” means the Bible, which shows a limited understanding or perhaps a deliberate misrepresentation of the word. The word “gospel” is mentioned in the New Testament in many places and can be in the context of a noun or verb. As a noun, it refers to Paul's epistles. As a verb, it refers to a message, particularly the message of salvation of Jesus Christ, not the Bible itself. For example:

Mark 1:14: Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:1: Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God.

2 Corinthians 2: Furthermore, when I came to Troas to preach Christ’s gospel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord,

Moreover, notice Jesus did not refer to more than one gospel. In other words, he did not say "gospels" as though he was referring to both of Paul's epistles. This is because the word "gospel" in Mark 8:35 is referring to the message of salvation, not a physical object like the Bible.

my lack of belief in god comes from the bible itself and it's falsehoods and discrepencies.

Falsehoods? doubt that (for something to be false it has to be disproven and that is next to impossible to do with the bible). Discrepencies? Yes. But are they relevant to the message? most likely not. The bible teaches through analogies and stories, again going with a literal interpretation you can find some inconsistancies, but you have to ask if they are relevant to the overall message. Any book, movie, etc is gonna have inconsistencies, does that change whatever message they are trying to project? nope.:)

First of all, always bear in mind that when you research information about God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ, such information is often subjective opinions. In other words, like politics, people often spin statements to fit their own subjective views and what they want to believe or not believe. In order to have a good understanding of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) it’s important to understand biblical history, read the Bible in its entirety, as well as understand the context of biblical statements.

I decided to click on the link you provided and while scrolling down my attention was drawn to the heading "Jesus, the False Messiah (http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart13.html#issref131)." As a Christian, my interest was peeked by such a claim and I was curious to know the basis upon which the claim was being made. After reading, it became apparent that the author’s reasoning showed a complete lack of understanding of the Bible or perhaps even a deliberate misrepresentation of the verses he/she claims proves that Jesus was a false messiah. Below are the arguments and my responses:


Because the spirit was not deaf and dumb, the child was. When was the last time you heard of a spirit/demon who was deaf and dumb? Give me a break.


Notice Jesus did not say “ten commandments” but referred to “commandments” in general. Notice Lev. 19:13 starts with "Thou shalt not..." just like the ten commandments of Exodus 20. Lev. 19:13 is a commandment like all laws given by God in the Old Testament. Actually, Jesus’s mention of Lev. 19:13 shows just how knowledgeable he is of the Pentateuch.


Obviously, this person thinks the “gospel” means the Bible, which shows a limited understanding or perhaps a deliberate misrepresentation of the word. The word “gospel” is mentioned in the New Testament in many places and can be in the context of a noun or verb. As a noun, it refers to Paul's epistles. As a verb, it refers to a message, particularly the message of salvation of Jesus Christ, not the Bible itself. For example:

Mark 1:14: Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:1: Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God.

2 Corinthians 2: Furthermore, when I came to Troas to preach Christ’s gospel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord,

Moreover, notice Jesus did not refer to more than one gospel. In other words, he did not say "gospels" as though he was referring to both of Paul's epistles. This is because the word "gospel" in Mark 8:35 is referring to the message of salvation, not a physical object like the Bible.

Nice job Shag. Couldn't have done it better myself. Gotta give you an *owned* for that one.

Falsehoods? doubt that (for something to be false it has to be disproven and that is next to impossible to do with the bible). Discrepencies? Yes. But are they relevant to the message? most likely not. The bible teaches through analogies and stories, again going with a literal interpretation you can find some inconsistancies, but you have to ask if they are relevant to the overall message. Any book, movie, etc is gonna have inconsistencies, does that change whatever message they are trying to project? nope.:)

I wouldn't give in to his premise, Shag. Christians do not treat the Bible like any other book because it is not just another book. It is the Word of God. So-called contradictions in the Bible have been easily and thoroughly explained in the past by qualified scholars, none of which were the authors of anything hrmwrm has read. In case I'm not being clear enough - THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE, only people who are ignorant of its meaning.

By the way, hrmwrm, the Bible has a verse for you that answers your insulting statement that the Bible is full of errors.

<< Psalm 14 >>

1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

I wouldn't give in to his premise, Shag. Christians do not treat the Bible like any other book because it is not just another book. It is the Word of God. So-called contradictions in the Bible have been easily and thoroughly explained in the past by qualified scholars, none of which were the authors of anything hrmwrm has read. In case I'm not being clear enough - THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE, only people who are ignorant of its meaning.

By the way, hrmwrm, the Bible has a verse for you that answers your insulting statement that the Bible is full of errors.

<< Psalm 14 >>

1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.


I am not familiar enough with the scripture to say otherwise on the contradiction thing. If fact, my father would agree with you about there being no contradictions, while my uncle wouldn't agree with you. My uncle is probably as familiar with scripture as you, my father, moreso ( He has a graduate degree in theology). It seems to me that the "contradictions" that have been pointed out, are usually interpretation dependant (as are many specifics in the bible, IMO). I have yet to hear of any "contradiction" in the bible that, even if true, in any way changes the message.

no errors? come on fossten.

God created light on the first day; yet there were no moon, sun or stars until the fourth day,
How could morning be distinguished from evening, if the sun and the moon were yet to be created

do you want me to quote the first 4 days of genesis? and where DID the light come from on the first day until the fourth. and you said any rational person can see there is a god. sound rational to you?
i treat it like another book because it is just a book. it does have some interesting history within it's pages, and some fairly intelligent thoughts for the people who wrote it in their day. there is also a lot of barberism in it. infanticide,incest and rape don't make for a book that i'd care to study.

no errors? come on fossten.

God created light on the first day; yet there were no moon, sun or stars until the fourth day,
How could morning be distinguished from evening, if the sun and the moon were yet to be created

do you want me to quote the first 4 days of genesis? and where DID the light come from on the first day until the fourth.

You are still subscribing to a literal interpretation, when that may not be the best one to take. Besides, even if you do take that interpretation, the story is so vauge that I could easily come up with something to explain the gaps, considering in this story we are assuming a supernatural being. Maybe he pulled earth into a far distant orbit to work on it for a few days, and it was rotating slower so those "days" (cited as "and there was evening and there was moring") could be over a longer time frame then the 24 hours being assumed. Baiscally, there are huge gaps in genesis, and you are making assumptions to fill them in as you see fit, interpretation. Can't really call that an inaccuracy.

Remember, also, this was originally written by and for people who's understanding of the universe was in it's infancy compared to today. The story had to make sense to them, hence very vauge.

interpretation is a pretty loose word, though. that's also how nostradamus has been shown to be both great and faker. it's also a means to adjust at anytime. i mean anybody can say "well, maybe thats the wrong interpretation", and then read it to suit the needs. thats already how(as noted in replies above) it's used to weasel around the facts. and as you stated shag, they had limited knowledge. but god told them this. you would think he would allude to at least some of the reality. almost 3000 years before the discovery that the earth is not the center of the universe. or that the earth is round and spins, which is why there is day and night. or there have been other life forms that have ruled before on this planet. there is nothing of history before existence of the bible(but we know there was one). thats why i say it is man made, not god's dictation. why would god hide such knowledge? that's not to say there might not be one. i just don't see evidence of anykind that points to a possibility. it is shortsighted to believe in a book and throw away all other possibilities.


and yes, i subscribe to a literal interpretation. you tell me where there is any insight into interpreting it any other way. it's gods word. changing the meaning to suit your own needs would make him a liar.

but god told them this. you would think he would allude to at least some of the reality.

Would "alluding to some of the reality" have helped his message, or just confused people of the time?


and yes, i subscribe to a literal interpretation. you tell me where there is any insight into interpreting it any other way. it's gods word. changing the meaning to suit your own needs would make him a liar.

I wouldn't say "change the meaning". There are gaps in the story, of which you make assumptions to fill in, as does everyone reading it. The basic meaning doesn't change, regardless of the interpretation. God created things is a specific order. That stays the same in any interpretation. That order lines up with the theory of evolution, too.

no errors? come on fossten.

God created light on the first day; yet there were no moon, sun or stars until the fourth day,
How could morning be distinguished from evening, if the sun and the moon were yet to be created

do you want me to quote the first 4 days of genesis? and where DID the light come from on the first day until the fourth. and you said any rational person can see there is a god. sound rational to you?
i treat it like another book because it is just a book. it does have some interesting history within it's pages, and some fairly intelligent thoughts for the people who wrote it in their day. there is also a lot of barberism in it. infanticide,incest and rape don't make for a book that i'd care to study.
God is not bound by the laws that He creates. If you knew God and knew the Bible you'd understand that. You are foolish to mock the things that you do not understand.

But since you asked, let me answer your question as to where the light came from:

Rev 21:22 ¶ And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof.

Rev 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

Rev 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

Any more questions?

now there's a stretch. book of revelations to justify the old testament genesis. ones creation, ones destruction. still doesn't explain my query. and i'm not mocking things. i am questioning validity. do you always just accept everything, or do you question and throw out the things that are not valid to you? i pefer to question the things that seem invalid to me.

now there's a stretch. book of revelations to justify the old testament genesis. ones creation, ones destruction. still doesn't explain my query. and i'm not mocking things. i am questioning validity. do you always just accept everything, or do you question and throw out the things that are not valid to you? i pefer to question the things that seem invalid to me.

OK, first of all, I answered your question. Second, your only response is a pithy "that's a stretch." Why is it a stretch? Is not the Book of Revelation (not revelationS) part of the Bible? Is not the verse talking about the same God that created the earth?

You weren't questioning validity, you were identifying a so-called untruth, which I explained to you. Sorry you don't like my answer, but that's your problem.

You don't even understand Revelation and you don't understand the Bible. I don't have to try to make you understand something you say is full of lies anyway. The whole thing is a fool's errand and casting pearls before swine. I politely answered your question and you refuse to accept it. Well, why should I be surprised? You don't think the Bible is true anyway. So be it. You aren't seeking answers, you just want to bash. I'm done with you here.

i just don't see how revelations about the apocalypse and the rise to heaven could correlate to the light from the beginning of genesis. if you would elaborate on the thought process that takes one to this conclusion, maybe i could understand. i'm not here to mock, fossten. but i'll defend my views as fervently as you defend yours. and in 2 threads, you've taken some pretty condescending attitude towards me. i'm not here to bash the bible, just point out, to me, what makes it just an ancient book. it's a story of the beginnings of judea. and without the old testament, the new testament doesn't stand. although they can make for an interesting historical read.

The age and origins of the universe are a mystery to us humans and will always remain so.

Some things to ponder beyond the bible.
Why is the universe so large and us but the tiniest part of it.
The speed of light seems to indicate how old and vast matter and space really are and 6000 years old does not fit.
Observations from Hubble say celestial events have been unfolding for billions of years.
Carbon 14 dating says the earth is millions if not billions of years old.
Einstein believed in a creator but not the personal god put forth in man made religion.
Without religion the only meaning of life is to make more life which in itself is not particularly meaningful.(a riddle)
Of couse one can just say well God created the universe with these parameters and take it on faith but it doesn't stand to reason at least for some of us.

No true debate on this would be complete without visiting

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/index.html

I suppose I'll be shunned for this on this board but

so be it.

From the introduction:

I am an atheist.

And no, I don't kick puppies or steal candy from babies. I don't hate God, but I don't have any secret desire to worship him either. Nor do I worship Satan. I'm not angry or depressed; I'm quite happy as I am, actually. In fact, I'm a person just like you. You probably wouldn't recognize me if you passed me on the street.

But I am indeed an atheist. What this means, quite simply, is that I don't believe in any gods. Not Jesus, not Yahweh, not Allah, not Vishnu, not Odin, not Zeus, not Gaea, not Quetzalcoatl, not Marduk, not Ahura Mazda, nor any other of the thousands and thousands of deities humanity has invented throughout its history. I don't single out any of them - I treat them all the same, and lack belief in each one equally. As far as I'm concerned, they're all imaginary - mere products of the human imagination and nothing more.

In this respect, I'm probably not that different from you. After all, most theists reject all but one of the many gods humans have invented. I just reject one more god than most people do.

I'm not an atheist because I hate God. To hate God I would first have to believe in him, and then I wouldn't be an atheist anymore. Nor am I an atheist because I hate my father or any other authority figure; I don't. I'm also not an atheist because I had a bad experience with the church, or because I want to live a hedonistic life free of moral restriction, or because I'm too proud to acknowledge the possibility of something bigger than me. None of these things are true. Simply put, the reason I am an atheist, and the reason most people are atheists, is the complete lack of convincing, credible evidence for the claims of any religion. This is not the only reason not to believe, however. Some people have become atheists after seeing the terrible harm caused by religion, the malice, cruelty and suffering inflicted in God's name. Others have deconverted after coming to the realization that a loving god would not allow pain and suffering. Still others may simply have been raised without religion; after all, atheism is our default state. No one is born believing in gods - we have to be taught that. (For a more comprehensive list of reasons not to believe, see "The Necessity of Atheism"; for more on why evil is incompatible with the existence of a loving god, see "All Possible Worlds".)

Atheism is a much more consistent and unified position than the swamp of squabbling sects that is theism. However, it does come in various flavors. Some atheists prefer to call themselves freethinkers or humanists; the former term emphasizes free, unrestricted thought and the forming of opinions based on evidence and reason rather than tradition and authority, while the latter advocates the essential liberty, dignity and freedom of humanity and the need to take responsibility for one's own life. Other descriptive terms include rationalist, empiricist, naturalist, secularist, skeptic, and so on. Another term was coined by the originators of the "Brights" movement, who proposed this word as a positive and optimistic description of those who hold a naturalistic worldview. Yet another subgroup of atheism is the agnostics, who hold that the answer to the question of God's existence is unknown and perhaps unknowable. There is considerable overlap between these groups, of course. For example, I consider myself both a freethinker and a humanist, and I sympathize with the goal of the Brights movement, but I generally call myself an atheist.

In addition, there are two subgroups of atheism itself. There are the weak atheists, who state that they do not believe in gods, while strong atheists go further by asserting that gods do not exist. The difference is subtle but important. Most atheists are weak, some (a few) are strong, while others may be weak atheists in general but strong with respect to certain gods (such as those whose attributes are defined such as to make their very existence self-contradictory and thus impossible). I personally consider myself a weak atheist, though this should not be taken to imply that I am uncertain about my position. It is merely that I recognize that a supernatural being that did not want to provide evidence of its existence could never be ruled out. On the other hand, there is no evidence for such beings either, and I believe only in propositions for which there is a reasonable quality of evidence.

The only ironclad requirement for atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Almost invariably, however, atheists lack belief in supernatural phenomena in general, including psychic powers, angels and demons, or a soul that survives the physical death of the body. Like gods, we hold these things to be superstitious fantasies, invented by primitive groups of people for a variety of reasons and still in existence today mainly because of human credulity and their potential to allow a privileged few to make money from or rule over and oppress others. Other than a lack of god-belief, however, there are no requirements for being an atheist. Atheism has no dogmas - it does not impose a moral code, set rules of behavior or demand obedience to a central authority, and individual atheists are free to form their own opinions on whatever topics they choose. There are atheists from all walks of life, atheists of all ages, genders and ethnic backgrounds. Some atheists are liberal, some are conservative; some are pro-choice, some are pro-life; some support communism, others support socialism, and others support capitalist republican democracy.

In short, atheists are ordinary people, just like everyone else. We hold jobs, pay taxes, raise families, and do all the other things that normal people do. We don't ask for much, either. I fully respect the right of people to hold and practice whatever beliefs they want, as long as they don't attempt to force those beliefs on me or use them as justification to cause harm to others. What that means is strong separation of church and state: no teaching of religious myths in public school science classes, no religious commandments posted in public school classrooms or courthouses, no taxpayer money going to fund churches, no state-supported prayers, and no religious litmus test of any sort for any public position; in short, no government preference of one religion over any other or religion in general over non-religion. We also ask for the freedom of speech to disseminate information about our position free of censorship, freedom of conscience to think and believe as we feel best, and the freedom to pursue happiness in whatever form we find it so long as doing so does not interfere with the equal rights of others to do the same. I feel that these rights are nothing more than what we should expect from a modern, enlightened democratic society.

Unfortunately, some people persist in spreading misinformation about what it really means to be an atheist. Listed below are a few of the most commonly heard myths about atheism, along with their refutations.

Myth: Atheism is a religion.

Fact: Atheism fails every ordinary qualification for being a religion - it has no prayers or rituals, no prophets or holy books, no priests or ministers, no churches or temples, and no belief in gods, the soul, the afterlife, or any other supernatural manifestations of any sort. Most importantly, atheism requires no faith in any unevidenced entities. It has been wryly observed that atheists will be glad to admit that atheism is a religion just as soon as they get the tax breaks afforded to churches.

Myth: It requires omniscience to be an atheist, because only a person who knew every fact about the universe could know that God does not exist.

Fact: As explained above, weak atheists do not claim to know absolutely that there is no god. Instead, they claim that God is unproven, and so they choose to withhold belief until and unless evidence for God's existence can be provided. In much the same way, few theists would say they believe by faith that no unicorns exist - instead, they simply choose to withhold belief in unicorns until they see evidence for the existence of such creatures. Strong atheists, who do affirm the non-existence of certain gods, typically do so out of logic and reason: if a deity is defined with self-contradictory or impossible attributes, then we can know absolutely that that deity does not exist, just as we know absolutely that square circles or married bachelors do not exist without needing to conduct a search of the entire universe. For example, a strong atheist might reason that if God is all-powerful and all-loving, there would be no evil or suffering, but since there clearly are, such a being cannot possibly exist.

Myth: Atheists hate God or are angry at God.

Fact: This is impossible by the very definition of atheism. To hate God, it would be necessary to first believe in him, but an atheist is by definition one who does not believe. Anyone who hated God would not be an atheist, but a theist. However, some people do become atheists after suffering personal tragedies - not because they "hate God", but because their experience brings them to the realization that the existence of pain, evil and suffering is impossible to reconcile with belief in a loving god.

Myth: Atheists know God exists but choose not to follow him.

Fact: This statement is entirely untrue, a myth propagated by theists who are either so thoroughly indoctrinated they cannot even conceive of someone believing differently from them, or of such weak faith that the very idea of people who have a different opinion is threatening to them. The fact is that atheists simply do not see any good evidence for the existence of a god. Many atheists, in fact, are former theists who were raised religious or converted and tried unsuccessfully to experience some sense of God's presence before finally realizing that there was nothing to be experienced. See the deconversion stories section for testimonials.

Myth: Atheists worship Satan.

Fact: Atheists consider Satan just as fictitious as God. Satan worshippers would not be atheists, but theists. However, there are some atheists (such as myself) who consider Satan symbolic of the things dogmatic religion opposes - free thought, intelligence and rational skepticism, personified as an avatar of evil by religions which seek to stifle doubt and questioning through fear. In the traditional Judeo-Christian interpretation of the Genesis story, for example, God is the one who seeks to keep Adam and Eve ignorant, while Satan urges them to gain knowledge, think for themselves, and question even God if his ways do not make sense to them. See the review of Paradise Lost, as well as the article "Thoughts in Captivity", for more on this topic.

Myth: The existence of atheism itself proves there is a god. Atheists say they don't believe in God, but then why do they spend so much time and effort denying him? If they really were atheists, it wouldn't even be an issue for them.

Fact: Atheists who do argue against religion do so because of the undeniable and very real harm that god-belief has caused and is continuing to cause, and because they must defend their rights against theistic encroachment. To cite one example, in America many Christian groups are attempting to legislate the posting of the Ten Commandments in courthouses and public school classrooms, in blatant violation of the principle of separation of church and state. Creationists, if they had their way, would do severe injury to real science by having their pseudoscientific religious beliefs presented alongside the well-tested and solidly supported theory of evolution as if the two were equally valid. And this is not even to address the countless lives lost, wars waged, acts of terrorism committed, rights denied, people oppressed, and pains and tortures inflicted throughout human history in the name of God. Atheists believe that showing humanity the folly of theism is a valuable task if we are ever going to put an end to ignorance and suffering and make the fullest use of the potential we possess.

Myth: Atheists are immoral or have no basis for morality.

Fact: See "The Ineffable Carrot and the Infinite Stick", which lays out the basis for atheist morality and critically examines the simplistic theist conception of reward and punishment.

Myth: Argument X proves that there is a God.

Fact: See "Unmoved Mover" for rebuttals to the most common pro-theistic arguments, including the ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments; see also "A Flip of the Coin" for a response to Pascal's Wager.

Myth: Atheists have no purpose in life.

Fact: Atheists believe that it is the right of every human to set his or her own goals and direction; our purpose is whatever we wish it to be. Atheists hold that we are uplifted, not diminished, by the freedom to fearlessly seek our own destiny and reason for being. See "Life of Wonder" for further rebuttals to these and other claims about the alleged nihilism of atheism.

Myth: There are no atheists in foxholes.

Fact: See the "Atheists in Foxholes" section of the main index for testimonials from atheists and non-believers who served in the military or were otherwise placed in dangerous or life-threatening situations without crying out to a god to save them.

Myth: Atheists are members of a secretive evil conspiracy whose objective is world domination.

Fact: Well, okay, that one's true. But don't tell anyone

thank you 04SCTLS. that pretty much sums uo my sentiments.

I found this essay from emusings to be of particular interest and very pertinent to the current election.

IMO anyone who runs for public office on a christian fundamentalist ticket and unequivocably states that the bible is the word of god is unfit for public office.

Why I reject the fundamentalist Christian god

As an atheist, I reject all gods and all religions alike. But this does not mean I spend an equal amount of time and effort arguing against each one I do not believe in. Since it is invariably the fundamentalists and conservatives of a given religion who feel the need to proselytize and preach to others, who attempt to gain secular power, and who - in some instances - use force and coercion to impose their views on those who believe differently, Ebon Musings mainly targets them and their arguments, as opposed to the moderates and liberals who do not try to impose their beliefs on others.

More specifically, since the power-seeking fundamentalists and invasive proselytizers in the nation I live in are mainly right-wing evangelical Protestant Christians, it is their views I spend the most time educating myself in and learning to refute. This essay is derived from my understanding of the Bible and conservative Christian theology and explains one of the principal reasons (other than the lack of evidence) why I reject the Christian fundamentalists' god.

Simply put, the Christian fundamentalist god is a colossal screwup. Anyone who reads the Bible can see for themselves that he just can't do anything right. He designs an originally beautiful and immaculate creation which almost immediately becomes polluted with sin, suffering and death. Both times he tries his hand at creating free will, his created beings immediately turn around and reject him. He chooses a people and continually attempts to redeem them from their fallen state, attempts which continually prove to be complete failures. He dispenses punishments for the evildoers and the wicked that utterly fail to stem the spread of evil and wickedness. He deals with crimes and transgressions by lashing out in childish rage, killing not just the evildoer but, often, all the innocent people around him. His final, crowning attempt to save the world from its sin was almost unanimously rejected by his chosen people. And his repeated promises to return to the Earth to set everything right have now been thoroughly broken. I find it impossible to believe that an omniscient and omnipotent deity, if there was such a being, could so consistently and thoroughly screw up; the contradiction between what this god is claimed to be able to do and what I am told he did do is so stark that it defies all reason that such a being could actually exist. But even if he did, such a sorry excuse for a deity would be deserving of no one's worship - which makes the audacity of his followers all the more incredible, to insist in the face of his long string of failures that he is a wise and loving ruler worthy of our adoration!

Let us consider in more detail some of Yahweh's more notable blunders.

In the beginning, according to the Bible, there was nothing but God and the void. After a timeless eternity, God decided that this was an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and in six days created the heavens, the Earth and all the life upon it. Adam and Eve, the first couple, lived in a bounteous, peaceful paradise where all was bliss and there was no unhappiness, no pain and no death. So far, so good. Unfortunately, this was to be the first thing Yahweh would get right for a long time.

As it turned out, at some point during those first six days God had also created the angels, to serve him and praise him for all eternity. However, one angel didn't care for this arrangement. Satan - who according to some sources was the highest and wisest of all the angels - denounced God, declared war on his maker, and convinced a full third of the heavenly host to join his rebellion against the throne. How he was able to accomplish this is not clear. Did God create one-third of his angels defective?

At this point, God could have used his omnipotent power to zap Satan and the rest of the rebel angels out of existence entirely. Or he could have changed them with a snap of his all-powerful fingers, fixing the flaws in their personalities and returning them to a state of goodness and obedience. But he did neither. Instead, for unclear reasons, he actually engaged the rebels in battle, and of course defeated them easily. He then cast them out of Heaven and created a fiery pit called Hell in which he would imprison and torture them forever as punishment for their treason.

This solution was much crueler than the other options described, since it produced an enormous amount of unnecessary pain and suffering, whereas the other options would have produced none. Still, it would have sufficed to end the threat that Satan and his followers represented - except for one thing. Somehow, God failed to specify that the rebel angels would actually have to stay in the fiery prison he created for them. Instead, he allowed them to leave whenever they wanted, to roam the Earth tempting and inflicting suffering on humans.

And of course, this is exactly what happened. Almost immediately after creation was complete, according to the fundamentalists, Satan took the form of a snake and traveled to Eden to entice Adam and Eve to sin. He easily succeeded in doing so, apparently because Adam and Eve were also defective; God's complete failure to warn or protect them doubtlessly also played a part. (God's failures in regard to the whole Eden affair are too numerous to list here; for a full catalogue of them, see "Sins of the Father" and "That Fateful Apple".)

So, again, God failed. For the second time, his experiment in free will backfired, and his created beings disobeyed and rejected him. Adam and Eve joined Satan's rebellion and were tainted by sin.

At this point, God could have forgiven the humans, who after all had sinned only out of ignorance, and used his almighty powers to cleanse and redeem them. But he did not. Instead, he threw a temper tantrum, tossed them out of his Garden, and condemned them with a curse to live mortal lives of suffering, toil and death. But apparently God's aim was off, because it wasn't just the two of them who were affected. The curse fell upon the entirety of creation, affecting not just Adam and Eve, but every other living thing, all of Adam and Eve's descendants, and all the descendants of every other living thing for all of time,