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, even though all these other beings were completely innocent of the apple incident, even though most of them did not even exist at the time. The original perfection was shattered and twisted, the curse of sin infected all living creatures, and the entire Earth became a place of suffering and death.

By now Yahweh's original creation was a failure, in ruins. One-third of his angelic servants had rebelled and abandoned him, his perfect world was ruined and spoiled, his human children were lost in sin and darkness, and Hell was empty as the demons roamed the world and tempted humanity still deeper into evil.

Apparently unable to deal with this, God inexplicably turned away from the universe for a while - perhaps to sulk. For many centuries he was absent from the world, doing essentially nothing while it slid deeper into sin. Unsurprisingly, when he finally chose to come back, things were a mess. Humanity had become a race of hopeless, irredeemably evil sinners who had forgotten about him. ("And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" --Genesis 6:5).

At this point, a solution was needed - this evil had to be stopped. God could have used his powers to make all the sinful people and only the sinful people vanish, blinked out of existence instantly. But he did not. Instead, he spoke to the last righteous man on earth, Noah, and told him to build an ark and take aboard his family and two of every kind of animal. He did so, and God sent a massive, catastrophic flood which decimated the planet and wiped out the sinners, as well as killing millions of innocent animals, plants, and human infants and children in the bargain.

Finally the floodwaters receded. Noah disembarked and released the animals to somehow survive on their own in the now lifeless and barren earth, with no food and no supportive ecosystems, and he and his family repopulated the globe. But once again, God had failed. Though the worldwide flood had been sent to wipe out evil, it utterly failed to do so. Noah's descendants spread throughout the world and, within a matter of years, forgot God entirely and became just as sinful and evil as the pre-flood people. In fact, Noah's very first act after the flood, after sacrificing some animals to God, was to plant some grapes so he could make wine, following which he promptly got drunk, passed out, and slept naked inside his tent. Noah's son Ham accidentally looked into the tent and saw his naked father; for this terrible crime Noah, apparently with God's approval, cursed Ham's son Canaan - his own grandson - and all of Canaan's descendants to a lifetime of slavery.

But, in any case, Yahweh was undaunted. Flush with pride at his "victory" over sin, he again took some time off to pat himself on the back. And when he returned, he noticed that the people of Earth had banded together and were building a mud-brick tower high enough to reach Heaven.

At this point, God could have moved his Heaven higher up - perhaps higher than the few hundred feet it must have been at the time - and enjoyed a hearty laugh at the silly antics of his creations. Instead, he panicked, expressed real fear that they would actually reach him and become as powerful as he was, and frantically responded by scattering the people of Earth, confusing and separating them by afflicting them with many different languages. (It should be noted in passing that God eventually forgot about this whole affair and allowed later humans to build much taller skyscrapers with no ill effects.)

Perhaps realizing by now that his large-scale plans kept failing, God decided to think small in his next attempt. He selected a man named Abraham, appeared to him, and vowed that his descendants would be the Almighty's chosen people, would enjoy divine favor ("And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee" --Genesis 12:3) and would inherit a great nation. Suitably impressed, Abraham left his home at God's urging and set out to the promised land.

God's promise passed from Abraham to his son, Isaac, who in turn had two sons, Esau and Jacob. As Isaac's firstborn, Esau was supposed to inherit the divine promise through a blessing, but Jacob deceived his dying father into giving the blessing to him instead. God, despite his omniscience, apparently was also fooled and honored the blessing, allowing Jacob to unfairly steal his brother's rightful place and become the sire of the chosen people. Jacob and his twelve sons became the Israelites, and the divine promise passed to them; Esau and his descendants, meanwhile, were condemned to live in the harsh desert and serve Jacob's descendants, setting the stage for millennia of ethnic hatred, strife and war.

However, Yahweh apparently forgot about his vow to protect and bless his chosen people, and they were almost immediately enslaved by the Egyptians. For several centuries, God's chosen people labored in bitter captivity, continually beaten by their overseers and forced into backbreaking work building monuments and hauling massive blocks of stone. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people were rewarded for their faith by living and dying as slaves, trusting in a deliverance that never came for them. And what was the reason for God's allowing all this? The Bible gives none. It does not say that the Egyptian captivity was punishment for any misdeed, nor does it say it was intended to teach the Israelites any lesson. As far as we know, it happened simply because God inexplicably failed to deliver on his promise.

However, after about four hundred years (a time period far longer than the United States has been in existence), God finally noticed what was going on and decided to do something about it. He manifested himself to an Israelite named Moses and promised to use him as the vehicle through which he, God, would free his people.

At this point, God could have used his omniscience to determine exactly what punishment he had to mete out to Pharaoh to cause this. Instead, he began to punish the entire nation with progressively worse punishments, thereby inflicting much pain and suffering on innocent people who had no hand in the decision anyway. However, each of these failed to persuade Pharaoh to release the Israelites, and since God must have known ahead of time that they would fail, the inescapable conclusion is that he caused vast amounts of innocent suffering for nothing. Pharaoh was not persuaded to free the Israelites until God killed every completely innocent firstborn child in Egypt. Why didn't he just punish the one person responsible with something that would have been adequate from the start? Who knows?

But after all this innocent death and suffering, the people of Israel were free, and God led them out of Egypt. Then, through Moses, he burdened them with a long and arbitrary set of rules covering every aspect of daily life - what kinds of animals they were not allowed to eat, what activities they were not allowed to engage in on certain days of the week, how they had to mutilate their genitals to show their faith in him, and so on - and specified the horrible punishments for breaking any of them, most of which involved death in various cruel ways. The Israelites hated these rules so much that they rejected God's deliverance, preferring their slavery in Egypt. (No surprise there. According to fundamentalist Christians, the Mosaic law is impossible to faithfully follow. It is little wonder the people preferred their Egyptian taskmasters - at least they could please them some of the time!) As punishment, God forced them to wander in the desert until most of them had died. This included his great prophet Moses, who had given his entire life to leading the Israelites out of Egypt and was rewarded for his service by never even getting to set foot on the earth of the promised land.

Finally, God allowed his people to enter Palestine. Unfortunately, it was already occupied by other people who had taken up residence there during Israel's Egyptian captivity and by now had been living there for generations. At this point, God could have invited the native Palestinians into his covenant, given them the same laws he had given the Israelites, and established an egalitarian society where people of all races could live together in harmony. Instead, he ordered his people to invade and slaughter the natives, killing them to the last man, woman and child, specifically instructing them to show no mercy to anyone under any circumstances. What followed were a series of terrible, bloody battles in which tens of thousands of people died violently. Finally, God pronounced his campaign of genocide a success (Joshua 11:15) - but this was not true. Somehow, he had failed to notice that many of the people he had ordered his chosen to exterminate were still alive (as is shown by repeated biblical references to them after that point; see, for example, Judges 3:5). There was even one instance in which some of these people had survived despite God's efforts to kill them, apparently because their iron chariots defeated his omnipotence (Judges 1:19).

However, after all this death and bloodshed, the Israelites were at last in the promised land. At this point, God formed them into a loose confederacy of tribes and appointed the judges to govern them. This failed. The people continually fell into sin, routinely suffered punishing military defeats from neighboring nations, and were repeatedly enslaved. Each time this happened, they cried out to God and he raised up a judge to save them, after which they promptly fell back into sin.

After several iterations of this, God became fed up and decided that there was only one way to break this cycle of sin and retribution: establish a monarchy in Israel. His first choice for king was Saul, who turned out to be a complete failure. Saul fell into sin, suffered punishing military defeats from neighboring nations, and finally committed suicide rather than be captured or killed in battle.

God's next choice for king was David, and just once - for the first time since creation - it looked as if he might have made the right decision. David and his son Solomon succeeded in rallying the Israelites behind them, and ruled over a glorious and powerful united monarchy, God's ideal state and the culmination of his promises to his chosen people (although God did break his promise, in Genesis 15:18, to give Abraham's descendants all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates: Israel was never this large even at the height of its power). However, Solomon's son Rehoboam proved to be an inept ruler, and in a move God failed to do anything to prevent, his united monarchy, after existing for only two kings, shattered into two separate, warring kingdoms. The vast majority of the tribes seceded, joining the new state of Israel in the north, while only a tiny rump state named Judah was left for David's throne.

In subsequent years, things got even worse. The kings of both nations continually fell into sin, taking all the people with them, routinely suffered punishing military defeats from neighboring nations, and were repeatedly enslaved. The crimes of Israel finally grew so intolerable that God threw a fit and sent the legendarily cruel Assyrian empire to destroy them, carrying ten of the original twelve Israelite tribes off into slavery where they vanished forever from history.

The kingdom of Judah still existed, however, and God tried one last time to save it. He raised up a devout king named Josiah, who was faithful to a degree undreamed-of by any of his predecessors ("And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him" --2 Kings 23:25). Josiah instituted religious reforms, burning the groves and smashing the idols of pagan religions, and made a great covenant with the people to follow the law of God. It seemed as if Judah might finally be saved from disaster - and then Josiah went out to battle with an invading Egyptian army, God failed to protect him, and he was promptly killed by an Egyptian arrow.

The last few kings of Judah were disastrous sinners, undoing all of Josiah's reforms. Realizing that once again he had failed, Yahweh threw another of his temper tantrums and allowed the Babylonian empire to destroy his nation entirely, razing his holy temple to the ground and carrying the last of his chosen people off to slavery in a distant land.

A lesser deity might have concluded by now that the experiment begun with Abraham was a failure, but God was determined to see things through. Grudgingly, he let some of his people return to Israel and rebuild the Temple, and he appointed prophets to keep them on the right track this time. This failed. The chosen people continued to sin, becoming prideful, legalistic hypocrites, and refused to turn from their ways despite numerous punishing defeats and eventual enslavement by the Romans.

At this point, God realized he had one last chance to redeem his people, and he came up with a daring, drastic plan to do it. He descended to Earth and took mortal form, incarnating himself in a human body. Upon reaching adulthood, he sought out his people and told them he had come to give them a completely new message, abandoning his old promises that the Messiah would be a king and military leader. He revoked all the old, cruel laws he had once given them, letting them know that he had changed his mind, that they were no longer necessary. In their place he substituted new, simple principles, teaching them about forgiveness, about their shared humanity, and most importantly, about the deep and abiding love he had for every one of his precious children.

For once obeying the law they had been given so long ago, the Jews promptly seized this incarnated god, charged him with blasphemy, and killed him.

Christians, of course, claim that this was what God had in mind all along, that only through the shedding of his blood could we be forgiven for our sins. However, I am not so sure. Throughout all the millennia God knew the Jews, he failed to ever tell them that this was the method of redemption he had in mind. There is not a single prophecy anywhere in the Old Testament that clearly predicts the sacrificial death and subsequent resurrection of an incarnated god. Besides, God is supposed to be all-powerful. If he wanted to forgive us, why couldn't he just forgive us? Why was the agonizing and bloody death of an innocent person necessary for human salvation? Perhaps it was not, and God's propagandists only attributed this significance to it afterward to avoid this debacle being labeled as another complete failure.

In any case, God returned to Heaven and appointed apostles to spread his new faith to the Jews. This failed, as the evangelists were viciously persecuted and soundly rejected in town after town, winning relatively few converts. Flustered by his chosen people's rejection of him, God had no choice but to abandon them entirely and pass his promise of salvation on to the Gentiles, creating a new religion called Christianity. A church formed and almost immediately fragmented into numerous squabbling sects, all deeply divided as to the nature and intent of God.

At this point, God could have simply stepped in and set the record straight by letting all concerned know what he really meant. He failed to do so, and the church continued to splinter, breaking off into many smaller sects and denominations, consumed by infighting. God could also have sent more signs and wonders, as he routinely did in Old Testament times, to let the world know that the new religion really was of him; but he failed to do this as well, and for several centuries Christianity remained a small fringe group on the verge of extinction, heavily persecuted, its followers routinely tortured and slaughtered by the authorities.

It was only by luck that the new church caught the eye of a Roman emperor and survived. (Of course, God may have had a hand in this, but his inexplicably waiting so long to do it can be considered a failure. Certainly it was no comfort to the thousands who had already been tortured to death or mauled by wild animals in great stadiums for the edification of the masses.) But finally Christianity caught on, and became the dominant religion of Europe.

At this point, God could have used his dominance over the civilized world to bring forth a new golden age of enlightenment and peace. Instead, he suddenly decided to completely stop sending new revelations and miracles, and his church stultified and dragged humanity down into the Dark Ages. Knowledge declined and superstition and ignorance ruled; innocent people were imprisoned, tortured and killed in vicious inquisitions, scientists whose findings contradicted holy scripture were silenced and forced to recant, and plague after plague decimated humanity because, incidentally, God had failed to tell people that washing one's hands, and not whipping oneself or singing hymns, would keep illness away. New denominations arose that almost immediately became embroiled in savage religious wars, including a series of military expeditions called the Crusades that sent millions of people to their deaths, and conquistadors in foreign lands enslaved and slaughtered millions more in God's name. (Somehow, throughout all the thousands of years he had been speaking to humanity, God failed to ever provide a single clear-cut condemnation of slavery.) Kings and popes claimed divine right, stifling democracy and free speech. And all this time, the lot of the common man remained full of misery and suffering.

At any point during this time, God could have stepped in to stop these atrocities and correct people's ignorance. He failed to do so, and it was not until the Enlightenment, when people rediscovered the principles of science and democracy and began to investigate and think for themselves, that things began to improve - no thanks to humanity's cosmic absentee landlord.

And this brings us to today. God has been silent for thousands of years, perhaps realizing that the problems of this world have grown beyond his ability to contain. Humanity now has the power to completely destroy itself, and nearly has done so on several occasions. We are multiplying beyond our planet's ability to sustain life even as we destroy our environment, recklessly expending our natural resources, driving species to extinction, polluting our water and air. Terrorism and armed conflict threaten our safety. Weapons of mass destruction continue to proliferate. The Christian church has fractured into hundreds of sects, some of which are tainted by allegations of institutionalized sex abuse, others of which are convulsed and splintering further over the issue of ordaining gays, and false religions abound. People continue to kill and die over religion, and nowhere on Earth do they do so more fervently or more often than in what was once God's promised land. And, to hear certain Christians tell it, by far the worst sins of society out of all of these - gay marriage and safe and legal abortion - continue to gain ground and societal acceptance.

Soon, according to the fundamentalists' millennialist theology, God will become sick of it all and throw his ultimate temper tantrum, consigning this entire failed experiment called creation to the flame. Soon, Judgment Day will come, humanity will be wiped out, and Satan will have won. Only a select few, a small fraction of all the people who have ever lived, will have made it to Heaven, while billions upon billions of souls will be in Hell, condemned to endless, eternal agony in the flame. The screams of the damned will completely drown out the joyous songs of the saved. And this is supposed to be a positive outcome? This is what God's grand plan will amount to in the end?

Things didn't have to be this way. At so many points throughout history, God could have acted differently, even in small ways, to alter the destiny of his creation. Yet at each critical juncture, at every single step along the way, he failed to do so. Again and again, he failed.

He could have wiped Satan out of existence, changed him to be good again, or at least actually imprisoned him in Hell and not allowed him to roam the world doing evil. Or, instead of leaving the first humans ignorant, unprotected and vulnerable, he could easily have made them so powerful and wise they would have recognized Satan for what he was and rejected him on sight. Even if he had not done this, he could have forgiven the first humans for their transgressions, or at least only punished the two of them and not cast the curse of original sin on the entire planet. It cannot be overemphasized that taking any of these steps would have made all that followed unnecessary. All of God's subsequent plans were merely an attempt to clean up the mess he made by allowing all this to happen in the first place!

Even if all these things had happened, God could have made many different decisions afterward to produce a better overall outcome. For example, he could have stayed with the world after the fall, not allowing it to slide into sin; or, if things came to that, he could have used a miracle to selectively eliminate the evildoers, rather than sending a flood that killed millions of innocent living creatures while simultaneously failing utterly to eliminate sin as it was intended to do. He could have ignored the attempts of humans to build the Tower of Babel (which would itself have taught them a good lesson about humility), rather than punishing them for it with the confusion of languages which would only lead to more misunderstanding and division among people in the long run. He could have ignored Jacob's attempts at deception and bestowed his blessing upon the son it was supposed to go to, preventing millennia of ethnic hatred, resentment and strife. He could have kept his vow to Abraham and prevented the Israelites from ever being enslaved, or at least sent only one sufficient punishment to Pharaoh to obtain their release rather than building up to it and making innocent people suffer pointlessly.

He could have given the Israelites laws that were actually possible to follow, rather than impossible and restrictive ones that would inspire them to hate and resent him. He could have invited the native people of Palestine into his covenant rather than setting the horrible precedent of sanctioning warfare and genocide in the name of God. He could have instituted democracy among his people rather than absolutist monarchy since, after all, there is no guarantee that the son of a good king will be a good king himself. In this way, bad rulers would have been promptly removed from office rather than dragging the entire nation down with them. He could have actually protected the good kings from harm by enemies. He could have given his people messianic prophecies that clearly applied to Jesus, so they would not have rejected him. He could also have chosen to forgive sinners merely through his omnipotent will to do so, rather than through the torturous death of an innocent which itself inspired his followers to commit countless acts of retributive bloodshed throughout the centuries. At any of numerous points throughout history, he could have stepped in with just a little clear guidance, letting confused humans know what he really wanted or meant. He could have exerted just the smallest amount of his omnipotent power to steer people away from sin until they were wise enough to avoid it on their own. He could simply make his presence more obvious to prevent any one of the numerous problems and arguments humanity finds itself afflicted with. The list goes on and on. Suffice it to say - at any time in history when it was possible to make a good decision, Yahweh made a bad one.

And these are just the improvements possible in the plan he actually did use. If God had wanted to make radical changes to this plan, there are many that would have resulted in a tremendously better outcome.

To name one, he could have created, instead of defective humans and angels, free-willed beings who would all freely choose to obey him and do only what is good. Despite what Christian apologists say, this is clearly possible. Although Christians believe God never sins, he is still believed to have free will. Therefore, whatever quality God possesses that enables him to avoid sin, he could have given this quality to his created beings as well. Perhaps it is his holy nature that causes him to detest and avoid sinful behavior, or perhaps it is the intelligence and rationality necessary to fully understand that sin is a futile and self-destructive course. (Surely Christians would agree that this is in fact true?) Doing this would have eliminated the need for a Hell entirely.

Or, rather than waste time setting up a religion called Judaism he only intended to supersede eventually anyway, God could have taken human form and performed his sacrificial death and resurrection immediately after the Fall. In this way he could have eliminated millennia of sin and strife as people futilely attempted to obey impossible laws. With the transforming power of Christ in their hearts and that many fewer arbitrary and bureaucratic restrictions to follow, the Israelites would have been far less tempted by idolatry. With the option of salvation open to everyone, God could have prevented at least one cause of the racial and religious exclusivism which provoked so much hatred and caused so much suffering and so many deaths - both in the pre-Christian period as the Israelites warred with their neighbors, and later on as Christians persecuted and killed Jews for being "Christ-killers".

Most radically of all, God could have dispensed with the whole idea of creating a world of imperfect material beings. Why did he need to mold us out of fallible clay? Why not make us of pure spirit, free of fleshly temptations, free to roam infinite space at will? God could have made us all gods, free to create our own worlds, our own paradises. He could have given us infinite freedom, and instead he imprisoned us in these cages of muscle and bone, imprisoned our souls in vulnerable brains that often obscure our true natures from shining through. He made us able to suffer and feel hurt, made us able to become sick and injured, made us able to die. Why did he do this? Why did God create beings as limited as us, when he could have created so much more?

Of course, the atheist's answer to this question is the simplest. I do not, of course, believe that all the events described above actually happened, or that God was behind the ones that did happen. I am merely pointing out that, even if taken on its own terms, the Christian story implies a deity who is massively incompetent, and this creates a fundamental contradiction with the tenets of Christian belief that there is a god who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and completely good. Since the facts of this world's history are not open to change, and since we are justified in believing things would be much better if there was such a being, the most likely conclusion is that no such being exists. Though some Christian apologists claim the choices God made must have been the best ones possible, based purely on their belief that those are the choices he made, this argument is circular. To genuinely refute the arguments presented above, they would have to show why the choices I describe would have led to a worse world than the one we live in, and this is a challenge I do not think they can meet. What could possibly be a worse overall outcome than the large majority of humanity ending up in Hell forever?

If there really is a god - as unlikely as I consider that possibility to be - the Christian story is a slander on him. It depicts him as so poor at understanding the psychology of others that he simply cannot make free-willed beings who all desire of their own accord to be in fellowship with him. It depicts him as so inept that his will can be thwarted and his plans ruined by the acts of beings who are infinitely beneath him. It depicts him as so short-tempered and malicious that he would think nothing of punishing evil with acts that also inflict massive harm and suffering on those who were completely innocent of the deed. It depicts his power and his imagination as so limited that he cannot think of any way to stop evil other than with destruction, mass death and bloodshed; and it depicts him as so bereft of ideas that, whenever he does destroy evildoers in this fashion, he starts over again with a small group of people who turn out to be just as evil and rebellious as those he destroyed. It depicts him as setting out to make a perfect creation and then blundering so completely and so finally that he will ultimately have no choice but to consign the vast majority of his creations to the fire of torment.

Can a rational person really accept this? Does it make sense to believe that this scenario is the crowning work of infinite goodness and wisdom?

For my part, I cannot believe this. I reject the Christian fundamentalists' story. I reject the theology of a perfect god who set out to bring forth good and brought forth evil. I reject the gospel of universal sin, I reject the gospel of total depravity, and I reject the gospel of eternal pain. I cannot in good conscience or sound mind accept such a bafflingly and frustratingly illogical system. This world is what it is, indifferent to us and sometimes cruel to us, and we cannot change that - but we can stop deepening the insult by telling ourselves that it is presided over by a benevolent deity who approves of the way things are. Instead, we should set aside these unproductive myths and use our intelligence to improve conditions in this life, both by using science to bring the natural world under our control and by improving morality to put an end to the ceaseless and pointless hatred so many people have for each other. Ironically, the belief that there is a good god has often proved to be a powerful impediment to progress, as believers reason that to try to improve our lives is a blasphemous rejection of God's ideal order. However, we are now mature enough to look beyond that superstitious fear. Whether a god got us to this point or not, it is now up to us to do better. We have the tools, and we can and should use them. That is a worthy goal in life, and that is what atheism teaches us

listen its like this

believe that everything came from something, i.e. god is just as ludacris as believing that everything came from nothing, i.e. the big bang

I can believe that something beyond our comprehention created the universe.
It didn't just come from nothing.
ID and darwin can coexhist.
What I don't believe is it was the God as portrayed in the bible.
Or any gods or prophets from the organized religions on this world.
Being mortals we all want to think there's an afterlife but we won't know until we die and then we can't tell anybody.
The universe it too huge and vast and we're such a tiny part of it.
Why create such a vastness and then focus on us humans
as being central to it all.
I think it shows a great conceit on our part.

I think it shows a great conceit on our part.

which is something i lightly touched on before. when you lose god, man loses his all powerful specialness and uniqueness inherent in religious ideals. he becomes just another part of the animal kingdom. that's a thought some just cannot digest. other than a different intelligence than that of most other animals, there is nothing special about man.

that was a good read 04SCTLS. i've never given it THAT much thought, but it does have the overall assumption of how i feel. and yes, more arguement is given to christian/jewish ideals in the west because of thier prominence here. but a good arguement could be made for any religious ideal and thier fallacies that come from enlightenment.

It [the universe] didn't just come from nothing.


According to the big bang theory, it did.

when you lose god, man loses his all powerful specialness and uniqueness inherent in religious ideals.

Then you are missing the whole point of God entirely. To believe in God is to believe in something (or someone) greater then yourself; that life doesn't revolve around you. Ask anyone who believes in a God and this is what they will tell you.
To take away God, in effect, elevates man to that level, or as close as any creature can ever achieve. This is why, IMO, athiesm is inherently nothing more then a self-serving quazi-religion; which is it's biggests flaw.

04sctls, I hope you realize that those last couple articles you printed were nothing more then Christian bashing by people with an irrational hatred for christianity. Loads of distortion and misinformation. Further proves my point that athiesm (at least at it's worst) is not an intellectual search for the truth, but a self-serving attempt to make man into his own personal God. Even as a non-christian, I found those articles highly offensive. You would be a fool to think even for a second that those articles have anything intellignt to say.

FYI; there was much more "preaching" in those articles (by athiests) then I have heard from any christians in the past 10 years (and my father is a retired pastor). There was also as much hatred in those articles as any rant by Hitler or a KKK grand dragon.

Many years ago when I told some people I didn't believe in an afterlife I was surprised to hear them say "I feel so sorry for you"
Someone else said if you believe in God and heaven, then die and find there isn't one well no harm, but if there is one you may have some difficulties getting in.

I think emusings is a very interesting site regardless of one's beliefs. A much smoother even tempered read than anything overdone Hitchens ever writes. A lot of effort has gone into it and even believers IMO can gain reading some of the essays, if only to see what the other side is thinking.

Just callin 'em like I see 'em. Can't do much more then that right now, as I am doped up on pain killers (insert Rush Limbaugh joke here). I had my tonsils and adnoids removed on Wensday.

One thing that did stand out in one of those articles is the ubsurd claim that that the bible doesn't understand human phsychology. Human phsychology, in the broad sense (defined as human nature) is best explained by the bible.; Human nature is inherently selfish. While many people, philosophers and ideologies have tried to say otherwise, all they are doin is simply substituting the definition they want in place of the truth. The biblical definition of human nature has been proven throughout history again and again. Every other definition (without exception) has been disproven.

shag, the bible elevates man to special.

1:26 God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

so man is made in gods image. none of the animals are. man. and he is given dominion over all. sounds a little special to me. as i said, without god, man is just another animal.

04's first article wasn't bashing. it was merely a statement from an atheist explaining his ideal and what he isn't by being athiest. and the second wasn't bashing either. it was what this person gets from reading the bible. it doesn't make sense in the authors eyes. (mine either) and one other thing. who is god talking to in the above quote. "let US make man in OUR image". so there is more than one god?

shag, the bible elevates man to special.

1:26 God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

so man is made in gods image. none of the animals are. man. and he is given dominion over all. sounds a little special to me. as i said, without god, man is just another animal.

04's first article wasn't bashing. it was merely a statement from an atheist explaining his ideal and what he isn't by being athiest. and the second wasn't bashing either. it was what this person gets from reading the bible. it doesn't make sense in the authors eyes. (mine either) and one other thing. who is god talking to in the above quote. "let US make man in OUR image". so there is more than one god?


Yes, according to scriture God made man in his own image. God also gave man dominion over the earth. Even without God, this is generally held true. Man is at the top of the food chain, ect...
We aren't "just another creature", we are the peak of creation (or evolution, whatever you believe); that is something that is accepted beyond the bible, and religion. You are trying to spin scritpture in a way that no one much more qualified than you (theologians, biblical scholoars, christians; basically people who actually study it, and don't try to distort it) does. I will differ to there wisdom and intellectual honesty over yours in this matter.:)
You are trying to spin that christianity is a means to elevate humans beyond their nature. That isn't the case. The scripture you are citing is giving a reason for humans being the dominant creatures on this planet.
For what you say to be true, belief in God would boost ones ego and make one arrogant. While many (I would say the majority) of pastors have an enflated ego and are rather arrogant, it isn't for the reasons you cite. christians generally arrogant but humble. Belief in God is a belief that humbles someone when he realizes there is someone (God) and something (God's plan) greater than him (which is against human nature;selfishness). That is ultimately the test between what you are asserting, and what I am. Are Christians mostly humble and generous, or are the self absorbed? If you find them mostly self absorbed, then you don't know many christian. History alone proves my interpretation here out. Look at all the charities that christians do.

You apply this same test to athiesm, and it stands as what as the opposite. It is inherently self serving (replace God with man, thus making man into his own god). This leads to a affirmation of human nature (instead of changing it, like Christianity strives to do); re-enforcing the selfishness of man. The whole idea of athiesm is to try and intellectually disprove God, an arrogant asumption. as has been shown in this discussion earlier, God cannot be proven or disproven, but athiests assume they are smart enough that to so, even without enough evidence either way. By extension, they insultingly view christians as people who are stupid to not see the world and God as they do.

This whole intellectual attack on christianity, ironically, misses the whole point of christianity entirely; faith. Name one Christian who came to his beliefs on an intellectual basis, you can't. But athiests view faith as an intellectual weakness, which is inherently offensive and arrogant.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/pasc-wag.htm

Better to believe than not.

Atheists put their faith in backlash of politics
By Julia Duin
December 24, 2007


Not since the April 8, 1966, famous "Is God dead?" cover of Time magazine has atheism been the topic du jour.

"Atheism has come into vogue in cycles pretty reliably for the past 300 years," said Nick Gillespie, editor of Reason, a libertarian magazine. "These days, at least you won't get burned at the stake, and you might get a New York Times' best-seller."

A flood of post-September 11 books on the topic have done quite well. Among them are "Breaking the Spell" by Daniel Dennett, Michael Shermer's "Why Darwin Matters," Michel Onfray's "Atheist Manifesto," Sam Harris' "The End of Faith," Ibn Warraq's "Leaving Islam," biologist Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion," and journalist and critic Christopher Hitchens' "God is Not Great."



Reasons for the surge range from a backlash against radical Islam to a general unhappiness with the Bush administration.



"The rise of militant Islam revived questions as to where does faith lead people?" Mr. Gillespie said. "It all proceeds from September 11, which in many profound ways was a religious act."



Plus, he added, the current administration has given religion-friendly policies a bad name.



"To the extent that this administration has been seen as a complete failure," he said, "on the right, you'll see a reach for a new kind of conservatism. It will have more in common with atheism that says religion should not be part of politics."



According to the American Religious Identification Survey, conducted by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, the share of American adults who do not subscribe to any religion increased from 8 percent in 1990 to more than 14 percent — about 30 million people — in 2001.


Forty-three percent of Americans don't attend church," said Paul Kurtz, founder and chairman of the Amherst, N.Y.-based Center for Inquiry. "A lot of people realize they don't believe in religion, and they don't want the state to meddle in private belief. They're looking to literature, ethics or philosophy to get guidance."



His group has established 11 "inquiry centers" — the skeptic's answer to a church building — including one on Pennsylvania Avenue. Nine more for what he called "the unchurched, the untempled, the unmosqued" are planned in the next two years. The circulation of "Free Inquiry," the group's magazine, has grown 30 percent in the past two years to reach 35,000.



"We're peeling back the burqa on unbelief," said Nathan Bupp, Inquiry spokesman.



Other cultural indicators include a March revelation by Rep. Pete Stark, an 18-term California Democrat, that he is an atheist. He is the first known congressman to do so.



Earlier this month, a movie for the unbelieving set premiered, albeit to mixed reviews. "The Golden Compass," a sanitized version of the book by Philip Pullman, glorifies the virtues of atheism and the evils of Christianity.



And the Altadena, Calif.-based Skeptics Society will observe tomorrow as Newtonmass, the 365th birthday of Isaac Newton.



Fred Edwords, a spokesman for the American Humanist Association, says nonbelievers are pouring out of the closet.



"Conferences and events put on by various humanist and free-thought organizations have been bursting at the seams with attendance," he said. "We had 1,000 people at a gathering put on earlier this year by our Harvard chapter. Usually we get a few hundred."



The Harvard gathering, which featured novelist Salman Rushdie, ironically ended up in the campus chapel.



"It was the biggest hall we could get," Mr. Edwords explained.



He cites the Bush administration for the atheist surge.



"You see their favoritism toward conservative religion," he said, "and the influence religion has had on foreign policy, and I think a lot of atheists said, 'We're fed up.' "

Here's what I got:
Libertarians believe that athiesm is on the rise, and want to say it's because of Bush, in a smear attempt to prove him a failure.
His, failure is purely a matter of perception, as no proof is given in the article, as is no proof that athiesm is on the rise.

Something to note; Libertarianism (at it's worst) is to politics what athiesm is to religion. Both are purely self serving; whatever makes me happy is right.

"free-thought organizations"?! That is a joke. Free thought, except what we don't want you to think.

Perception is reality. We welcome that we agree with and dismiss that we do not.

You say there's no proof atheism is on the rise and will undoubtedly dismiss this 2001 survey out of hand for some reason or another.

Many people are fed up with the Bush administration and some are even embarassed and ashamed that such a man is president.

Are there enough of these people to vote the Republicans out of office?

I hope so but that remains to be seen and we're likely to see the dirtiest, nastiest most underhanded election yet.

Let the games begin.


http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris.pdf

KEY FINDINGS
1. Religious Identification Among American Adults
The first area of inquiry in ARIS 2001 concerns the response of American adults to the
question: “What is your religion, if any?” This question generated more than a hundred
different categories of response, which we classified into the sixty-five categories shown
in Exhibit 1 below.
In 1990, ninety percent of the adult population identified with one or another religion
group. In 2001, such identification has dropped to eighty-one percent.
Where possible, every effort was made to re-create the categories respondents offered to
the nearly identical question as in the NSRI 1990 survey.5
As is readily apparent from the first Exhibit below, the major changes between the results
of the 1990 survey and the current survey are:
a. the proportion of the population that can be classified as Christian has
declined from eighty-six in 1990 to seventy-seven percent in 2001;
b. although the number of adults who classify themselves in non-
Christian religious groups has increased from about 5.8 million to
about 7.7 million, the proportion of non-Christians has increased only
by a very small amount – from 3.3 % to about 3.7 %;
c. the GREATEST increase in absolute as well as in percentage terms has
been among those ADULTS WHO DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO ANY RELIGIOUS
IDENTIFICATION; their number has more than doubled from 14.3 million

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

Polling data from the 2001 ARIS study, described below, indicate that:

81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion: 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend has continued, then: at the present time (2007-MAY), only 71% of American adults consider themselves Christians
The percentage will dip below 70% in 2008
By about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S

Perception is reality.
In politics and the uninformed


We welcome that we agree with and dismiss that we do not
Not all of us, and no all the time


You say there's no proof atheism is on the rise
...in the article you sumitted in your last response.
Context.

... [you] will undoubtedly dismiss this 2001 survey out of hand for some reason or another.
Not out of hand. If I don't agree with it, I will be very critical and look to see if it is accruate or not in it's methodology and conclusions. But I wouldn't neccessarily dismiss it out of hand, unless it is conducted by someone, or some organization that has the credibility of Michael Moore, Moveon.org, Media Matters, or some other.

Many people are fed up with the Bush administration and some are even embarassed and ashamed that such a man is president.
Yes, but I have yet to hear a legitimate, well informed reason for such a harsh few.

Are there enough of these people to vote the Republicans out of office?
The question is, "are there enough 'likely voters' that are willing to do so. Likely votes are usually better informed then unlikely voters, and given the only possiblity being Democrats, there are probably not enough likely voters foolish enough to vote the republicans out, this time around. No way to know until the election

KEY FINDINGS
1. Religious Identification Among American Adults
The first area of inquiry in ARIS 2001 concerns the response of American adults to the
question: “What is your religion, if any?” This question generated more than a hundred
different categories of response, which we classified into the sixty-five categories shown
in Exhibit 1 below.
In 1990, ninety percent of the adult population identified with one or another religion
group. In 2001, such identification has dropped to eighty-one percent.
Where possible, every effort was made to re-create the categories respondents offered to
the nearly identical question as in the NSRI 1990 survey.5
As is readily apparent from the first Exhibit below, the major changes between the results
of the 1990 survey and the current survey are:
a. the proportion of the population that can be classified as Christian has
declined from eighty-six in 1990 to seventy-seven percent in 2001;
b. although the number of adults who classify themselves in non-
Christian religious groups has increased from about 5.8 million to
about 7.7 million, the proportion of non-Christians has increased only
by a very small amount – from 3.3 % to about 3.7 %;
c. the GREATEST increase in absolute as well as in percentage terms has
been among those ADULTS WHO DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO ANY RELIGIOUS
IDENTIFICATION; their number has more than doubled from 14.3 million


Finally, some proof has been provided.

Here are my questions:

Are apples to apples bein compared here?
Are consistent methods used for obtaining the data, and interpreting that data?

What is the bigger picture of data, and what does it suggest?
I could very easily pull out numbers from the great depression and the depression in the early ninties and claim that we have been in a depression most of this century. Two points in the data, don't show a trend, or a reaction, or anything. The whole picture is needed.

81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion: 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend has continued, then: at the present time (2007-MAY), only 71% of American adults consider themselves Christians
The percentage will dip below 70% in 2008
By about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S

Same questions as above, but one added point about That last line:

"By 242 non-Christians will outnumber Christians in the U.S."

There is no way to know that except through mathematical models; computer projections. Those have proven to be highly innaccurate. Malthus is probably the best example, but all the claims of doom and in the environmental debate whos time has come and passed without said disaster, further prove it. The flaw is spelled out in the phrase "if this trend has continued" (interesting wording too, has continued?). They are making these predicitons on a very large assumption, which we have no indication is going to remain constant.


Neither of these reports have tied the findings back to Bush, as far as I can tell. Which means that claim is purely projection, and wishful thinking on the sources part.

Yes it says "If this trend is continued"

Also Posen Foundation which funded a good part of this study is a secular Jewish organisation however that alone should not be enough cause to discredit it's findings.

Jews due to their history know religious and ethnic persecution and demagogery better than most.

Please feel free to tear the findings apart and/or find other comprehensive surveys that refute the findings.



METHODOLOGY4
The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2001 was based on a random
digit-dialed telephone survey of 50,281 American residential households in the
continental U.S.A (48 states). The methodology largely replicates the widely reported and
pioneering 1990 National Survey of Religious Identification (NSRI) carried out at the
Graduate Center of the City University of New York. ARIS 2001 thus provides a unique
time series of information concerning the religious identification choices of American
adults.
The data were collected over a 17-week period, from February to June 2001 at the rate of
about 3,000 completed interviews a week by ICR/CENTRIS Survey Research Group of
Media, PA as part of their national telephone omnibus market research
(EXCEL/ACCESS) surveys. The primary question of the interview was: What is your
religion, if any? The religion of the spouse/partner was also asked. If the initial answer
was ‘Protestant’ or ‘Christian’ further questions were asked to probe which particular
denomination.


6
the election in 1976 of President Jimmy Carter, a self-avowed Born Again Christian,
America has been through a period of great religious re-awakening. In sharp contrast to
that widely held perception, the present survey has detected a wide and possibly growing
swath of secularism among Americans. The magnitude and role of this large secular
segment of the American population is frequently ignored by scholars and politicians
alike.
However, the pattern emerging from the present study is completely consistent with
similar secularizing trends in other Western, democratic societies.3 For example, Andrew
Greeley has found that England is considerably less religious than the USA. He also
notes similarly high levels of secularism in “most countries of the European continent
west of Poland.”
METHODOLOGY4
The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2001 was based on a random
digit-dialed telephone survey of 50,281 American residential households in the
continental U.S.A (48 states). The methodology largely replicates the widely reported and
pioneering 1990 National Survey of Religious Identification (NSRI) carried out at the
Graduate Center of the City University of New York. ARIS 2001 thus provides a unique
time series of information concerning the religious identification choices of American
adults.
The data were collected over a 17-week period, from February to June 2001 at the rate of
about 3,000 completed interviews a week by ICR/CENTRIS Survey Research Group of
Media, PA as part of their national telephone omnibus market research
(EXCEL/ACCESS) surveys. The primary question of the interview was: What is your
religion, if any? The religion of the spouse/partner was also asked. If the initial answer
was ‘Protestant’ or ‘Christian’ further questions were asked to probe which particular
denomination.
3 For an interesting comparison, see Andrew Greeley, “Religion in Britain, Ireland and the USA,” in Roger
Jowell et al, ed., British Social Attitudes: The 9th Report (Dartmouth Publishing Co., Aldershot, England,
1992).
4 For a more detailed discussion of the survey methodology, please see Appendix 1.
AMERICAN RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION SURVEY, 2001
THE GRADUATE CENTER OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
7
INNOVATIONS
BETWEEN NSRI 1990 AND ARIS 2001
The NSRI 1990 study was a very large survey in which 113,723 persons were questioned
about their religious preferences. However, it provided for no further detailed questioning
of respondents regarding their religious beliefs or involvement or the religious
composition of their household.
In the light of those lacunae in the 1990 survey, ARIS 2001 took steps to enhance both
the range and the depth of the topics covered. For example, new questions were
introduced concerning the religious identification of spouses. To be sure, budget
limitations, have necessitated a reduction in the number of respondents. The current
survey still covers a very large national sample (over 50,000 respondents) that provides a
high level of confidence for the results and adequate coverage of most religious groups
and key geographical units such as states and major metropolitan areas.
For the sake of analytic depth, additional questions about religious beliefs and affiliation
as well as religious change were introduced for a smaller representative sub-sample of
(17,000) households. Even this sample is about ten times greater than most typical
opinion surveys of the US population. This sub-sample as well as the larger sample were
weighted to reflect the total U.S. adult population
These innovations have provided a much richer data set that goes far beyond the mere
question of religious preference. The new data allow for a much more sophisticated
analysis than NSRI 1990. They offer a more nuanced understanding of the complex
dynamics of religion in contemporary American society and especially how religious
adherence relates to countervailing secularizing trends. The information collected is also
potentially much more useful for the various national religious bodies.

Sorry for the double posting above.

All this data is essentially pre Bush as he was only in office 4 months by the time the survey was completed and totally pre 9/11 which essentially was made possible by belief in (Islamic) religion and rewards in the afterlife.

i don't understand your reasoning shag, other than it comes from a scriptural perspective. being specially created above all else, and given dominion is quite different than ascending to the top by means of a capability above others. i didn't say an arrogance in humanity, but one from a perspective of the animal kingdom. you fail to see that man IS just another creature. as you can see from this view, removing god does not raise man to god. quite the opposite. it brings him back to a larger world view where everything has an importance. and intellectually disproving god isn't hard. there are many things that can't be DISPROVEN, but i don't think you believe in them either. to be able to disprove something requires proof to the contrary. but when there is no proof to back up the first side of the arguement, then the subject is a myth. people can believe all they like, but it doesn't make it any more real. and believers will not realize this, but then that is not my problem or concern.

and no offence decibels5, pascals wager has been gone through before. a non believer is a non believer. it might work for undecideds, but i'm quite sure of my conviction, as much as believers are of thiers. it's a non arguement.

oh,and, merry christmas. it's almost that time for santa.

and shag, if i remember correct, you stated liking sci-fi. a little quote i came across for you.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.

—Isaac Asimov

and for fossten with his supposedly young galaxy amidst older galaxies.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/the-developmentally-disabled-galaxy

it is known to be just as old as the galaxies around it.

Forgot all about this thread. It was fun!

i thought so too.

You realize, there is no such thing as evolution, just creatures that Chuck Norris allows to live. :)

try that google trick yet? go to google .com, type in "find chuck norris", press i'm feeling lucky.

Chuck Norris wasn't born. God created him out of rolled tungsten and breathed life into him.

Chuck Norris wasn't born. God created him out of rolled tungsten and breathed life into him.


That's pretty good.

"Chuck Norris lost his virginity before his father did."

a little history for fossten, from gale encyclopedia of religion. 2nd edition, vol.9

MOSES (c. thirteenth century BCE, but date uncertain),
or, in Hebrew, Mosheh, was the leader of the Hebrews in
the Exodus from Egypt and giver of the Law at Sinai. Tradition
regards Moses as the founder of Israel’s religion—the
mediator of its covenant with God (Yahveh) and its cultic
institutions.
HISTORICITY OF MOSES. Any discussion about the historicity
of Moses is entirely dependent upon an evaluation of the
biblical account of his life and activity. There are no extant
records from Egypt that make any reference to him or to the
Exodus. Yet most scholars believe that a person named
Moses existed and had a connection with the events of the
Exodus and the wilderness journey as described in the four
biblical books from Exodus to Deuteronomy. But there is little
agreement about how much can be known about Moses or
what role he played in the events, because the biblical accounts
have been modified and embellished, and Moses’
place in some of the traditions may be secondary.
The one point that seems to argue for regarding Moses
as historical is his Egyptian name. An explanation of the
name Moses that few would dispute is that it derives from the
Egyptian verb msy (“to give birth”), a very common element
in Egyptian names. This verb is usually combined with the
name of a god (e.g., Re, as in Remesses, i.e., Ramses), and the
shortened form, Moses, is in the nature of a nickname. But
whether in the long or short form, the name is common in
Egypt from the mid-second millennium onward. None of
the persons in Egyptian historical records bearing the name
Moses can justifiably be identified with the biblical Moses,
and to do so is quite arbitrary. The only argument for historicity
to be derived from Moses’ Egyptian name is its appropriateness
to the background of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.
Other examples of Egyptian names occur among the Israelites,
particularly within the ranks of the priests and Levites.
Such names may have survived in Canaan at sanctuaries and
urban centers from the time of Egyptian control of the region
in the Late Bronze Age.
A name by itself, however appropriate to the time and
events described, does not make a historical personality. The
various elements of the Exodus story do not correspond with
known Egyptian history, and historians have usually set
about reconstructing the events to make a better fit between
the Bible and contemporary records. For instance, the presence
of numerous Asiatic slaves in Egypt during the eighteenth
and nineteenth dynasties (1550–1200 BCE) was not
the result of an enslavement, out of fear and hatred, of a specific
people already resident in Egypt, as pictured in Exodus.
Slaves were brought into Egypt in large numbers as prisoners
of war from many different peoples and social classes and
were dispersed throughout Egypt to serve in many different
capacities. Many Asiatics became free persons within Egyptian
society and were found at various levels of rank and status.
The nineteenth dynasty in particular was one of great
assimilation of Asiatic religion and culture in Egypt. Furthermore,
while bedouin were allowed certain grazing rights in
the eastern Delta, there is no suggestion that they were enslaved
or made to do menial labor. Nothing in the Egyptian
records suggests any acts of genocide or any distinct group
of state slaves resident in the eastern Delta.
None of the pharaohs in Exodus is named, but the reference
in Exodus 1:11 to the Israelites’ building the store cities
of Pithom and Ramses is enough evidence for many to date
the events to the nineteenth dynasty. Yet Pithom (Tell el-
Maskhuta), in the Wadi Tumilat, was not built until the end
of the seventh century BCE, and the reference to Ramses and
the “land of Ramses” hardly suggests the royal residence. The
name Goshen, as the region where the Israelites were said to
reside, is known only from the latest geographic texts. The
few specific names and details, therefore, do not point to a
particular period of Egyptian history, and scholars differ on
the dating and background of the Exodus precisely because
so many details must be radically redrawn to make any connection
possible. The quest for the historical Moses is a futile
exercise. He now belongs only to legend.
LITERARY TRADITION. The traditions about Moses are contained
in the Pentateuch from Exodus to Deuteronomy, and
all other biblical references to Moses are probably dependent
upon these. The view of most critical scholars for the past
century has been that the Pentateuch’s presentation of Moses
is not the result of a single author but the combination of
at least four sources, known as the Yahvist (J), the Elohist
(E), Deuteronomy (D), and the Priestly writer (P), and composed
in that order. The existence of E as a separate work
from J has long been disputed; at best it is very fragmentary.
It is best to treat J and E as a single corpus, JE, as will be
done below. The usual dating for these sources places them
in a range from the tenth to the fifth century BCE, although
there is a strong tendency, which the author of this article
supports, to view D (from the seventh century) as the earliest
work, JE (from the sixth century) as exilic, and P (from the
fifth century) as postexilic. This would account for the fact
that so little is made of the Moses tradition outside of the
Pentateuch.
Whether one adopts the older scheme or the later date
for the Pentateuchal sources, a long period of time separates
any historical figure from the written presentation of Moses
in the Bible. To bridge this gap one is faced with evaluating
the diversity of traditions within the Moses legend and with
tracing their history of transmission prior to their use by the
later authors, as well as with considering the shape and color
the authors themselves gave to the Moses tradition as a reflection
of their own times and concerns. The history of the preliterary
tradition has occupied a lot of attention but with few convincing results because it is so difficult to control any reconstruction
of the various stages of oral tradition. One is
therefore left with an examination of the traditions about
Moses in their present literary forms within the larger context
of the Hebrew scriptures.
Moses as deliverer from Egypt. The general background
for the deliverance of the people through Moses is
the theme of the oppression and enslavement in Egypt. This
theme of Israel’s oppression is often mentioned elsewhere in
the Hebrew scriptures as the condition of the people from
which God “redeemed” them, often without any reference
to Moses (note, e.g., Ez. 20). The Pentateuch continues to
stress God as deliverer but now makes Moses the human
agent.
Within the tradition of enslavement the JE writer introduces
a special theme of attempted genocide (Ex. 1:8–22),
which provides the context for the story of Moses’ birth and
his rescue from the Nile by the Egyptian princess (Ex. 2:1–
10). But once this story is told, the theme of genocide disappears,
and the issue becomes again that of enslavement and
hard labor. The story of Moses as a threatened child rescued
from the basket of reeds and reared under the very nose of
Pharaoh to become the deliverer of his people corresponds
to a very common folkloric motif of antiquity. Similar stories
were told about Sargon of Akkad and Cyrus the Persian.

blah blah blah...Just because you can necro a thread and copy/paste doesn't make you a scholar. And your source is suspect because it was written by men, who are fallible. Therefore, it is untrustworthy. Furthermore, none of the men who wrote that encyclopedia witnessed the events which they describe. Therefore, they could very well be describing fairy tales for all the believability said tales convey. For them to try and prove events to be true which they did not witness is to use circular reasoning, and is not credible. Note that this is the same logic you use to try and deny the truth of the Bible.

This thread again?!

there's a lot of effort put in to making facts as correct as knowledge allows from documentated proof. much more reliable than a 2000 year old source that has no living authors. if someone has a place to host a 100mb file, i have all 14 vol. in a zip file. just proves that the bible stories are not infallible as they are changed over time before final canonization. as well, stories from the bible have uncanny similarities to much older stories from other sources. noah and the epic of gilgamesh. jesus and the stories of krishna, attis,dionysus, mithra, horus, etc. check here.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm
and here.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa4.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

and i wouldn't deny the TRUTH of the bible, if it could be proven as true. and i reopened this thread instead of carrying on in a thread not really on the subject of arguement there.

You really have a problem with Christianity, don't you.

there's a lot of effort put in to making facts as correct as knowledge allows from documentated proof. much more reliable than a 2000 year old source that has no living authors.


That is an absurd statement. By that logic, all first-hand accounts of the Revolution or the Civil War, or Lincoln's assasination are not as credible as something someone wrote today about it because the authors aren't living?! That is a JOKE! Direct sources are always, repeat ALWAYS, considered more reliable then someone writing after the fact. Your whole justification behind claiming your source is more credible then the Bible is based on a huge flaw in reasoning.

I also highly doubt your source doesn't share your bias against Christianity.

and i wouldn't deny the TRUTH of the bible, if it could be proven as true.

Again, denying the whole point of Christianity; faith. You keep trying to make Christianity an intellectual debate, which only further demonstrates your own bias against it.

you wish to make it islam, i'll argue against it too. or pick one. i picked christianity because that is the side others chose to argue for. the basis of the bible has been re-written over history, so taking the latest version as proof would be ludicrous. with everything being written so late after the fact, who would be the original authors then shag? things like noah's story coincide with an older tale of the epic of gilgamesh. so the original source would have been lost. it is somebody writing after the fact. genesis wasn't written by adam & eve and then past down. it was written after the fact. you've provided the proof against your own arguement. these are not direct sources that write.some more from gales encyclopedia, vol.1

"ABRAHAM IN THE WORLD OF THE NEAR EAST. The ancestors
of Israel are portrayed in the Bible as living a nomadic
or pastoral life among the older population of Palestine before
the time of the Israelite settlement (c. thirteenth century
BCE). With the great increase in knowledge about the ancient
Near East during the past century, scholars have attempted
to fit Abraham and his family into the background of Near
Eastern culture in the second millennium BCE. Comparisons
are made with the personal names of the ancestors; the names
of peoples and places; social customs having to do with marriage,
childbearing, and inheritance rights; and types of nomadism
in the various stories in order to establish the background
and social milieu out of which the ancestors came.
The effort to place the patriarchs in the second millennium
BCE has been unsuccessful, however, because all of the features
in the stories can be attested to in sources of the first
millennium BCE, and some of the items in the stories, such
as the domestication of the camel or reference to Philistines,
Arameans, and Arabs, belong to a much later time. The special
effort to fit the war between Abraham and the kings of
the east (Gn. 14) into the history of the second millennium
by trying to identify the various kings and nations involved
has failed to yield plausible proposals. The four eastern kingdoms,
Elam, Babylonia, Assyria, and that of the Hittites, referred
to cryptically in this text, never formed an alliance, nor
did they ever control Palestine either collectively or individually
during the second millennium BCE. The whole account
is historically impossible, and the story is very likely a late
addition to Genesis."

You are enmeshed in denial and self deception. I have no desire to drag you unwillingly from such a state, especially in a necroed thread.

The effort to place the patriarchs in the second millennium
BCE has been unsuccessful, however, because all of the features
in the stories can be attested to in sources of the first
millennium BCE, and some of the items in the stories, such
as the domestication of the camel or reference to Philistines,
Arameans, and Arabs, belong to a much later time. The special
effort to fit the war between Abraham and the kings of
the east (Gn. 14) into the history of the second millennium
by trying to identify the various kings and nations involved
has failed to yield plausible proposals. The four eastern kingdoms,
Elam, Babylonia, Assyria, and that of the Hittites, referred
to cryptically in this text, never formed an alliance, nor
did they ever control Palestine either collectively or individually
during the second millennium BCE. The whole account
is historically impossible, and the story is very likely a late
addition to Genesis."
This is the only part I've attempted to research cause the camel thing sounded like some email someone would forward that you'd immediately look up and find out it's a hoax. So I checked it out. But don't take my word for it. Do a simple search on when camels were domesticated and you'll see that they've been domesticated for about 4000 years or so. Some sources will say more than 5000, some state 3500, most are in between. So that encyclopedia is wrong on that account.

The information in that encyclopedia seems to be dated because the cities mentioned in Genesis 14 have been historically proven with the archeological site of Ebla in Syria:

http://www.xenos.org/teachings/ot/genesis/gary/gen14-1.htm

From the article:

"Critics viewed cities like Sodom and Gomorrah as mythical (like Babel) because they had no extra-biblical attestation of their existence. All that has changed since 1975, when archeologists excavated the city of Ebla at Tel Mardikh in what is today north-west Syria. They almost 20,000 of clay tablets (SLIDE) which were the royal archives of the city. These tablets date back to the middle of the third century BC, even earlier than Abraham's time. Tablet 1860 names the five cities of Gen. 14:2--in the exact same order--as trade partners of Ebla!"

Note that the quote states "third century BC", but this is a typo in the article. It should have said "third millenia BC". Do a search on the site of Ebla, too, for further verification.

about camels
http://www.livius.org/caa-can/camel/camel.html

"The dromedary is easy to domesticate and the first evidence for tame dromedaries dates back to the late third millennium BCE. The domestication first happened on the Arabian peninsula, and it seems to have been connected to the exploitation of distant copper mines. However, it was only much later, in the tenth or ninth century BCE, that the dromedary became a really popular animal in the Near East. From now on, long distance trade and desert nomadism became possible. The use of dromedaries in the second millennium BCE by nomadic tribes, as implied in the Biblical book Genesis, is almost certainly unhistorical and shows that Genesis was composed at a later age. The domestication of the Bactrian camel can be dated to about the same time, the first quarter of the first millennium. Again, there are some indications that it happened at an earlier stage, but unfortunately, these clues are not unambiguous. After all, one does not need tame camels to use their dung, bones, or wool. The famous Black obelisk of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (858-824), now in the British Museum, is thought to contain the oldest representation of domesticated camels, but it may still be a wild one. At least one camel was presented by the Assyrians to pharaoh Takelot II (850-825). The first solid evidence of domestication is from Qasr Ibrim, a town in Lower Nubia: it is a radiocarbon dating of camel dung radiocarbon from c. 740 BCE."

but camels aside, if you read, it states trying to put 3rd millenia history in the 2nd millenia history with abraham is how it doesn't work. which would put the writings at a later date.
and the compilation of the encyclopedia is dated to 2005. it has been updated to at least then.

You are enmeshed in denial and self deception. I have no desire to drag you unwillingly from such a state, especially in a necroed thread.

that's your view. quite frankly, i percieve it the other way around.

Hi Guys

God/religion is the crutch of the insecure.

Regards

Dereck

The problem here is a lack of knowledge and lots of arrogance.

For one to say that there isn't a God based on their ability to reason is just as ignorant as saying that the earth is flat.

Science supports theories & "facts" that are changed & discredited all the time.

Science is currently looking @ space for answers to the the unaswered, when there are things on earth yet to be "discovered"(check out the oceans and rainforests)

If you have to have evidence of anything before you believe in its existence, or if you won't believe in something b/c you don't like the way it operates is at best just dumb.

To dispute a faith based claim is simply pointless. You can't reason the existence of God. Debating the fact will not bring "conversion". I think some people here thinks that the answers of others are an effort to convert or make "the way" plain.

Simply put, if you are looking for evidence to disprove or contradict the Bible you will find what you are looking for, simply b/c you are already looking from a biased pov.

Camels were indeed domesticated in Abrahams time. And here's a link to a very informative site linking Abraham with camels:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnocamel.html

I'll rephrase my statement about that encyclopedia: instead of being dated, it is simply wrong.

Regarding Philistines in the time of Abraham:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/583

The last paragraph of that article: "Although critics accuse biblical writers of revealing erroneous information, their claims continue to evaporate with the passing of time and the compilation of evidence."

Hi Guys

God/religion is the crutch of the insecure.

Regards

Dereck

Hello Dereck!

That's a philosophical opinion I don't share. :)

:Beer

Ken

Hi Guys

God/religion is the crutch of the insecure.

Regards

Dereck

"Dereck is a fool!"

Hey! Look! I can make irrelevant personal attacks too!:eek:

Can you back that up with any evidence or are you just talking out your @$$?

"Dereck is a fool!"

Hey! Look! I can make irrelevant personal attacks too!:eek:

Can you back that up with any evidence or are you just talking out your @$$?


Hi Shagdrum

Unlike yourself I made no personal attack on anyone, as Kbob pointed out I was stating my opinion.

And as for being irrelevant isn't this a thread about God/Religion/Atheism?

I have no evidence to back up the non existence of god the same way a believer has no evidence to back up the existence of god.

I have a question maybe you can answer (no one has yet), why do you need to believe in god?

Regards

Dereck

well kbob, your article is very speculative, and i'd say it's source is more than just biased.

"If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if
without it?"

-- Benjamin Franklin (to Thomas Paine, Date Unknown)

Reference: Original Intent, Barton (297); original The Works of
Benjamin Franklin, Sparks, ed., vol. 10 (281-282)

Hi Shagdrum

Unlike yourself I made no personal attack on anyone, as Kbob pointed out I was stating my opinion.

Wrong. Your opinion, as stated was inherently a personal attack on people of faith (opinions and personal attack are not mutually exclusive; on can be conveyed through the other).


And as for being irrelevant isn't this a thread about God/Religion/Atheism?

Yes, and the only way your opinion could be percieved as relevant is if it was ment as a reason to discredit religion, which is the definition of a personal attack. Which, interestingly, is what makes it irrelevant to anyone who knows anything about reason and logic.

I have no evidence to back up the non existence of god the same way a believer has no evidence to back up the existence of god.

This has been pointed out many times, but it seems you are either too lazy to read it or can't grasp it mentally. Religion is based in faith! As such, there is no evidence needed to back up the existence of God, and absolute proof would defeat the whole purpose of religion. You are trying to make something into an intellectual debate that is inherently beyond that.

No one who believes in God needs to justify it, or prove it, and you are trying to make them do so, in an attempt to make them seem foolish. Your actions come across as childish and petty.


I have a question maybe you can answer (no one has yet), why do you need to believe in god?

Never said I did believe in God. As to a "need". Believing in God is a choice. Why do you need to try and prove people of faith wrong? I imagine your motivations are similar to that of an elementary school bully, because it is blatantly obvious, with your confrontational tone, that you are uninterested in any serious debate; you seem bent on demonization of people of religion.

My advise: Grow up.

well kbob, your article is very speculative, and i'd say it's source is more than just biased.likewise

well kbob, your article is very speculative, and i'd say it's source is more than just biased.

Ad hominem reasoning. A source's bias alone says nothing about the truthfulness or falseness of the claims made by that source.

December 21 2012 okay check it out make your own decision as to the truth but think about this...

The Mayans predicted a catastrophic event of earthquakes and volcanoes along with a mass change in our "consciousness" as a species.

Revelation Is pretty much a play by play of this same series of events.

Mayans weren't Christians...

Hmm...

Okay I was raised Christian, but also by wannabe "hippies" so I think pretty deeply about what else makes sense. This correlation makes sense.

So what really matters, and what no one can FULLY deny is the extreme state of despair the planet and her people are in. We are on the edge of something BIG! I can feel it deep down inside, !!!!THE SAME PLACE INSIDE ME THAT USED TO BE AFRAID OF THE DARK!!!!. I have felt it since I was a little kid, and I bet so can some of you, Atheists feel it in their head Spirituals feel it in their hearts and souls. So what to do eh? Well I suggest becoming closer with your friends and speaking to them about and deep dark fears of destruction and death and any other strange dreams you may be having. If not only to become closer to them but to see that you and I are not alone in our fears for the survival of the people of earth. And also to get groups of people together who you trust to help yourselves survive this event. "Now come on" you say... JUST LOOK AT THE WORLD NEWS, LOCAL NEWS, AND SCHOOLS! We are not trending towards good, by any stretch of the meaning. deny it as trends of fluctuation all you want but deep down some of you really feel the anxiety of something huge looming over the horizon, and what it is may be a mystery, maybe not.

Look into what all the native cultures of the planet built in prominent locations. Structures to line up with the winter solstice. WHY!? planting crops I think not... Research, theory, and history show evidence of a great change to come. THE OLD NATIVES BELIEVED IT WOULD COME ON THE WINTER SOLSTICE OF 2012, thus the need for accurate time keeping devices to identify the solstice.

(corroborating evidence)

Mayans say "x" will happen

Bible describe actual event (plus some serious fantasy sci-fi)

Maybe not eh? well okay cool!, we keep on trucking in this direction for who knows how long but eventually something has to give. The people of this planet are less nice, less happy, less content, and less GOOD, overall than they were just 5-10-15 years ago, and its only getting worse. The weather is doing weird stuff, maybe a fluke of trends alone, but in concert with societal changes trending to the worse, I'll be on guard for any signs of impending danger.

Hey I like Barack Obama, but come on other than that we have a woman associated with more conspiracy and generally fishy stuff than Al Capone (no seriously look it up she has a conspiracy sheet pretty long) Our other option is a guy who is having "senior moments" on the campaign trail... well he's using that excuse anyways, still nice guy maybe but I just don't want more of the same. And the man of change himself (Barack) is inexperienced (so who knows what would actually come of his presidency) and although he would probably push for more change for the better than either of the other two, he'll probably be assassinated like JFK for his dissention from the ranks (or just not be elected by the electoral college). So the prospects for our country as of now don't look too good.

America as a measure of the world is not exactly what I am trying to say here but look at other regions. Iraq and the surrounding countries, in or out we are not looking at a nice trouble free region. North Korea alone makes me want to build a bomb shelter in Canada or northern Minnesota. China would love to "Fuzz with our Jive" but thanks to Sam Walton we really don't have to worry about that cuz If they messed with us now they'd really only be shooting themselves in the foot (wal mart imports nearly everything from china) but then again I still worry about the recent military buildups in china. The Russians are rumored to have "misplaced" I believe 80 yes! eighty suitcase sized nukes, powerful enough to destroy a medium city, creepy huh?

I cannot immediately think of any other foreign threats, but it is the cumulative effect of all these things compounded by evidence from mayan sites that point towards a mass change in our consciousness coinciding with a mass destruction of life and land. I guess when 1/3 to 1/2 or more of all the people on the planet are dead within a few days, the rest of us couldn't help putting aside our differences crying a bit, and then hugging our remaining neighbors whilst VOWING never to allow the societies we rebuild to return to any semblance of their former vile states.

Most unfortunate is that I believe a catastrophic event is the only thing could effect these changes!

If the people who witnessed Jesus' crucifixion could speak to us I bet they didn't know what they were witnessing. I'd like to think that since his time we have EVOLVED enough to see and feel the imminent danger we are in!

(I have a very unique belief system, that combines quite a few different thought schools into one creed (read "theory"), email me for further info if you are curious)

Rant Rant Rant....

Blah Blah Blah....

THINK! THINK! THINK!!!!!!!!

FEEL! FEEL! FEEL!!!!!!!

C'MON I KNOW YOU CAN DO IT!

It doesn't matter what you believe or have faith in just that you can see what is going on all around us and see and feel the signs that "times are changing" and get ready for whatever may come.

this is...

What Really Matters...



P.S. It's late and I am tired so I probably missed a few points I'd like to have covered, so for more info on my theory of our destiny, please feel free to contact me for info or just to rant about my "Crazed Apocolyptic Dream"

"I am just a man who might be a Prophet"

I hope all are moved to research the correlation between 12/21/2012 and the book of Revelation, because that alone is enough to also make me want to take extreme cautionary measures in the next few years.

Check out http://www.theveildprophet.com for a good start on 12/21/2012

also you can goto http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6ZShXTK1BA

Please give this some thought, I might be wrong...

BUT JUST MAYBE I'M RIGHT

http://www.ksco.com/pictures/hosts/artbell.jpg

The problem here is a lack of knowledge and lots of arrogance.

For one to say that there isn't a God based on their ability to reason is just as ignorant as saying that the earth is flat.

Science supports theories & "facts" that are changed & discredited all the time.

Science is currently looking @ space for answers to the the unaswered, when there are things on earth yet to be "discovered"(check out the oceans and rainforests)

If you have to have evidence of anything before you believe in its existence, or if you won't believe in something b/c you don't like the way it operates is at best just dumb.

To dispute a faith based claim is simply pointless. You can't reason the existence of God. Debating the fact will not bring "conversion". I think some people here thinks that the answers of others are an effort to convert or make "the way" plain.

Simply put, if you are looking for evidence to disprove or contradict the Bible you will find what you are looking for, simply b/c you are already looking from a biased pov.

and to argue there is a god just because you can read the bible and the fact that it exists is just as highly arrogant and lacking knowledge. your wording troubles me in that it almost sounds like somebody who believes in god is incapable of reason.
and your final statement is reciprocal. believers are just as biased to their side as non believers. the difference is the rationality of the evidence. irrelevant of the small things, the biggest thing to me would be the genesis story and the fact of the fossil record. even if you can make correlations between recent history and the bible, the creation story must be viewed as a myth. it didn't happen as stated. which makes the bible suspect as to it being written by GOD. if it's to be all truth, and something is found to be unbelievable, then it throws the whole book into question. but then, thats just being rational.

even if you can make correlations between recent history and the bible, the creation story must be viewed as a myth. it didn't happen as stated. which makes the bible suspect as to it being written by GOD. if it's to be all truth, and something is found to be unbelievable, then it throws the whole book into question. but then, thats just being rational.There is nothing truthful about what you just said. You cannot conclusively back up the claim that Creation is a myth, simply because you did not witness either Creation or the so-called Big Bang. This is your own logic being used against you. If you did not witness any event in history, then you cannot definitively say whether or not it happened. That is the epitome of agnosticism.

Furthermore, you just stated the exact photographic negative of what I've stated. If your logic is correct, and finding one flaw calls the Bible into question, then you must also admit that if there is merely ONE substantiated prophecy fulfilled in the Bible, then you MUST acknowledge the Bible's supernatural nature.

But I challenge you to PROVE anything in the Bible is false. Saying something in the Bible is "unbelievable" is merely a conscious personal choice on your part, not documentable fact.

and to argue there is a god just because you can read the bible and the fact that it exists is just as highly arrogant and lacking knowledge

Mischaracterization of the argument. The simple fact that the bible exists and they can read it is not being used to justify anything. You are spinning, and attempting to set up a trojan horse.


your wording troubles me in that it almost sounds like somebody who believes in god is incapable of reason.

the choice to believe in God is not based in reason, but in faith. You keep wanting to put it in the realm of reason, thus taking it out of context.

if it's to be all truth, and something is found to be unbelievable, then it throws the whole book into question. but then, thats just being rational.

Depends on what kind of "truth" the bible is preaching. If it is emperical truth, then you would be barkin up the right tree (though the use of the word "unbelievable" is inaccurate). If the Bibe is using analogy, and stories to demostrate certian truths about life (as the Bible does), then that is a completely different thing.

The Bible said the Earth was a sphere (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html) before modern science ever did. How is that unbelievable? What may seem incredible to you now may be revealed later to be true, and you will have your bubble burst.

Here's an hour-long debate (http://www.wayofthemaster.com/mp3/BCAD.m3u) between Ray Comfort, an Evangelist and and Author, and Ron Barrier, a national Atheist spokesman. Pay close attention to the quality and logic of the arguments.

i listened fossten, but to me, there just isn't an arguement for. i obviously have a different view than you. sure tries some interesting logic to try and work you, but it just doesn't fly.

The Bible said the Earth was a sphere (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html) before modern science ever did. How is that unbelievable? What may seem incredible to you now may be revealed later to be true, and you will have your bubble burst.

there were also civilizations that knew the earth was round before middle ages europe figured it out(ancient greece?). where their ideal of a flat earth came from is anybody's guess. maybe a mix of some old pagan beliefs as christianity overtook europe. the bible does have some historical recorded events in it. as to whether they are prophecy or not is to figure out exactly when they were written. and some passages claimed to be prophecy are as far fetched as nostradamus interpretation. just a question for you. who was god talking to in genesis 1:26?

who was god talking to in genesis 1:26?Why do you want to know?

i was just wondering what the thought was at times when it seems like there are more than one god, like god is pluralistic rather than singular. like also in gen 3:22. differences aside, i'm not looking to find something else for arguement. i think the debate has worn itself out. there never will be a winning side against strong opposing views. i like to dabble in history of cultures. i find it fascinating about archeological findings that date man and other hominids together. my view on religion is that it is cultural to areas. explains the broad differences around the globe at various times in history. my looking into the middle eastern background seems to put abraham in a time of change from polytheism to monotheism. and as you read through the bible, it just seems that all evidence of polytheism hasn't been removed. that's why i asked your thoughts, coming from one with strong beliefs within. i'm not taking a stab at you fossten. i'm a person who doesn't believe, but it doesn't mean i don't have interest. just a different perspective. i view the bible historically, not spiritually.

This is a pretty good explanation (http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html) of the Trinity.

a little abstract, but thanks.