In His own words:

"Yes, the sad little cracker has met its undignified end, so stop pestering me. The cracker, the koran, and another surprise entry have been violated and are gone. You'll have to wait until tomorrow for the details, what little of them there are. I must quickly apologize to all you good Catholics who were hoping to attend Mass, since you can't anymore — I have been told many hundreds of times now that cracker abuse violates your right to practice your religion. I guess you'll have to adapt. Secular humanism is a good alternative, if you aren't already flocking to join the Mormons."

They missed the best part of PZ's post!

Anyway, I've got important things to do today. It's my oldest son's birthday, and I told him that as a gift to me him, I'd take myself him to see The Dark Knight. I sure hope the world doesn't end before the movie does.

Paul Zachary Myers is a man after my own heart. Batman is completely awesome.

Anyway, the rest of the Facebook message...

Pray for him and please join me in making Friday a day of reparation. I would also encourage you to NOT email myers.

Oh! Oh! Maybe they're learning their lesson!

Then again, maybe not...

Instaed contact civil authorities in MN.

Contact the civil authorities because PZ desecrated a cracker? What? Are we going to start calling 911 whenever somebody offends a plate of spaghetti? If only the Pastafarians didn't have a loving religion.

I'm sorry, but this is a secular society. You can't throw PZ Myers in jail for desecrating a cracker any more than you can stone homosexuals.

Do not rely on the hate speech argument alone, but also point out he is doing this on the taxpayers dime.

Um... Even if PZ had done the desecration of a cracker in his workplace, what if he had done it on a coffee break? His blog isn't even run on the site of the university he works for. It's on Science Blogs which as far as I know does not receive federal money.

I love America. People are free to offend whatever type of food they want.

Page last modified on July 13, 2008, at 07:23 AM

It's entirely speculative to say that they created the page on 13th July but it would seem logical given that it wasn't there before. You can't tell because they have a password on their edit function. But anyway, besides the point, they've written a lengthy and copyright violating response to some emails that Mark Edon exchanged with David Anderson. I'll respond to it here, it's very revealing, basically showing that they have no evidence to counter the numerous allegations made against them even though they claim they have.

According to the second paragraph, Anderson set up the blog with material

obtained by hacking into private discussion forums.

They haven't produced any evidence of this and Anderson has responded to this here.

Whilst we could spend a long time here refuting all of his various accusations and innuendoes, instead we will just give you a few facts so that you can get a measure of the man and his postings.

In other words, we can't refute his allegations so we're going to try to divert you from his blog by using a guilt by association fallacy.

Next is Mark Edon's email correspondence with Anderson, published, as far as I am aware, without Anderson's permission. Happy to be corrected on that if it's not the case.

Anderson on Education

When I asked David which sciences were suitable for general classroom teaching without reference to his own particularly extreme religious views he told me that;
"All of life is religious. As such, I believe that the idea of non-religious education is impossible. The only question is *which* religion - the secular one, the Muslim one, the Christian one, or another. You shouldn't infer from that that I want to take over any state schools - I don't!"

Personally I am very much against segregated religious schools, we have seen the impact they have in Northern Ireland. I much prefer religious education which covers a range of faiths and atheism for all.

What are we looking for here? Evidence that Anderson is a raging theocrat? All Edon gives us is his opinion on religious schools. And he thinks atheism should be taught in RE? Is it a religion?

I had mentioned to David the now famous Kitzmiller vs Dover trial in the US which covered the relationship between science and religion. David told me that he does not . . .

"accept the "upper-storey/lower-storey" water-tight separation of religion and science. All science must operate on the basis of certain religious assumptions about reality."

That’s telling it to us straight. Another classic "argument" of his was that . . .

Again, what is Edon trying to show? Anderson's views are well known amongst anyone who knows how creationists think. So he doesn't think religion and science are to be separated. And? So do lots of other people. What's your point?

Then Edon on Anderson's example of Irreducible complexity in the eye

When scientists make arguments which are demonstrated to be false then they stop using them - just another reason why creationists and IDers are not scientists.

But according to the BCSE ID isn't science therefore it can't be falsified. Why do those who are certain ID isn't science go around trying to falsify it? Very odd.

Anderson on the Age of the Earth

Yes he thinks it is only 6,000 years old. He doesn't like to admit this though. Direct questions on this subject on his blog or web page are simply deleted. His thoughts on Dinosaurs ;
"They were created on the sixth day, as man was (which is why scientists have actually recovered real dinosaur flesh and blood - which is impossible if they died 65 million years ago - and why there are many evidences from history of man seeing dinosaurs)."

How does he know this? He told me;
"It is possible to tell, because the Bible tells us."

I have all of our email correspondence on file and can back up all of these comments with this evidence if need be.

OK, now you're not showing why this would make Anderson incapable of running a blog documenting your activities? You're just trying to get people to point and laugh thus diverting them away from the frankly damning evidence.

My one little victory with David was to get him to stop stating that he has a "Science Degree" on his blog and instead to state the actual truth i.e. that he has a "Maths Degree". But as you will see on his blog and web site he has managed to convince himself that he is right and I am wrong, even after he changed the wording as I suggested!

This is all you've got and it really isn't that shocking. Maths *is* science. He has a mathematical science degree. He is entitled to call it a science degree. Come on, is this all they have, really?

So can you trust David Anderson to give a reliable and unbiased account of the BCSE? I don't think so, but please have a good look around and make up your own mind.

Why? Because he doesn't hold the same views you do?

David can't even give a reasonable and unbiased account of the changes he makes to his own web site about his own qualifications so I seriously doubt his credentials as either an unbiased or a rational observer.

I'm not sure what this is in reference to but I will say this; at least he will give an account of changes to his website which is more than can be said for the BCSE.

In reference to his other blog in which he talks about homosexuals:

Having a chap with those kinds of views smearing the BCSE is perhaps not such a bad thing after all.

No it isn't and he does a blooming good job of it too.

Bottom line is this, Anderson could be wrong, problem is, they're relying on guilt by association, the old "he's a young earther, you can't trust what he says" fallacy. They won't actually produce any evidence to show that he is wrong, they just moan about how he is then expect you to believe them. Roger Stanyard has done it himself in saying about me

Anyway, I have closed the matter after telling him/her that he/she is a "lying little toad". I have enough to back that up although it took a while to do so.

Please publish it then. For the love of all that is right and good. He must be storing up the information and allowing God to judge me. But that would be pretty odd wouldn't it?

This blog is a statement, to promote the inquiry into axioms: mainstream theism, for example, or otherwise similar unverified claims.

But more than that, to encourage free thought, public skepticism and academic freedom.

I feel that Peter Marshall put it well when he said:

Give to us clear vision that we may know where to stand and what to stand for- because unless we stand for something we shall fall for anything.

A little bit of a digression is necessary here. This is because some well-read readers will want to call me out. They're going to say, "Wait a minute. You quoted Peter Marshall to prove a point about disbelief, but Marshall was a Reverend! You can't do that!"
Well, actually, I can. See, although the beliefs that inspired him to say what he said are diametrically opposed to my own (he was a Presbyterian), I think there is something valuable to be learned from Dr. Marshall. Even though he was a preacher, and no doubt a deeply religious one (is there really any other kind of true preacher?), this was a man that knew what he thought and why. Not only that, but Marshall, despite his financial circumstances, moved to New York when he was 24, which demonstrates that it was likely he was exposed to different faiths and ideas. So all the better to quote the Reverend.

What this ultimately tells you and me is that no matter what beliefs (or lack thereof) we decide on, it is crucial that we consider, then question, then research them... then consider, question and research them again. Skeptical inquiry is, in my opinion, the only thing that makes anything worth believing at all.

At this point, an enormous amount of readers are going to challenge me ( if you are one of them, good for you for taking that step by the way) with protests that faith is comforting, teaches us morals, gives us purpose, and is generally moderate and harmless. I believe my rebuttals to each of these respective points are good ones, but this is an intro, not a novel, so I'll get to those later.

If the content of this post is both fairly new (or at least appealing) to you and, you have stuck around up to this point, I congratulate you. I invite you to explore what is known as skeptical inquiry with me and the wonder and purpose it has the potential to provide in life, if you let it.

To end with a quote from atheist author Richard Dawkins,

I don't think God is an explanation at all. It's simply redescribing the problem. We are trying to understand how we have got a complicated world, and we have an explanation in terms of a slightly simpler world, and we explain that in terms of a slightly simpler world and it all hangs together down to an ultimately simple word. Now, God is not an explanation of that kind. God himself cannot be simple if he has the power to do all the things he is supposed to do.

And that, friends, is worth thinking about.

Then on TOP of that, I have a friend that became a history professor… He used to sell me weed, it was good weed too…. But let me tell you something, HE’S not going to be solving any Grail Mysteries….

]]> http://fungrim.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/mlp-xviii-terrorism-and-atheism/ Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:54:10 +0000 fungrim http://fungrim.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/mlp-xviii-terrorism-and-atheism/ In no particular order.

• p00wned by Russlle's Teacup.
• Terrorism and Radicalization; By Scott Attran (on Edge)
• Like airport security? I don't.

Enjoy!

So, here's what I mean when I say that I'm an atheist:

To steal a chapter title from Dawkins, there is almost certainly no god.

A lot of people -- religious folk, and some atheists -- want to insist that atheism means actively believing gods don't exist. But really it's just the abscence of belief. It's a subtle distinction, but important. I mentioned Dawkins. Dawkin's chapter title in The God Delusion is telling: "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God." It's the statement of a scientist. Certainty is never 100 percent in science. It can't be. But it can be so close as to be never mind. That said, you should always allow for the possibility. That idea applied to the god concept is, of course, agnosticism. In that sense, most atheists are agnostics. I'll probably have a post sometime explaining why, for me, "agnostic" is only useful in that sense.

I call myself an atheist for the same reasons Dawkins does -- because of that "so close as to be never mind." The world may be a flat disc on the back of four elephants standing on a giant turtle flying through space, but the evidence is strong enough to the contrary that a rational person doesn't waste time with such ideas (except when reading a Terry Pratchett novel, which is a Good Thing to Do). Of course, if someone comes up with some real proof, something that real evidence, that would change matters.

I also call myself an atheist because that's the way my mind works. My brain has never been up to the task of ascribing Deity to, well, anything. A religious person sees a beautiful sunset (like the one last night here in Tucson, which was stunning) and says, "Oh! The Majesty of God's Creation!" I see a beautiful sunset and say, "Oh, look, the pretties!"

None of this, for the record, has anything to do with specific deity beliefs. I am 100 percent certain, for instance, that the Christian God, and Allah, and Yahweh, don't exist. I am fully, 100 percent certain that those religions are wrong. I also think that about Thor, and the stories about Thor are way more entertaining than those other guys. So don't feel too bad.

Genesis chapter 17, verse 12: [Circumcise your slaves.. Shows GOD approves of slavery.]
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised.

Exodus chapter 12 verse 43: [Feed your slaves.. Again GOD is okay with slavery.]
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1: [Freed slaves, break up the family, keep the wife and children unless the slave stays for life]
Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them.  When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20: [Its okay with GOD if you beat slaves almost to death, and you are only punished if a slave dies.]
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 32: [GOD places monetary value on human lives]
If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned.

Leviticus Chapter 22, verse 10: [Children born into slavery]
No one outside a priest's family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food.

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

Luke, Chapter 7, verse 2: [Jesus (the Christians' son of GOD) never admonishes the slave master for having a slave, and appears to be just fine with it as if its the norm!!!  Probably because his father was just fine with it himself.]
Now a centurion had a slave who was dear to him, who was sick and at the point of death. When he heard of Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews, asking him to come and heal his slave. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him earnestly, saying, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, for he loves our nation, and he built us our synagogue." And Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this he marveled at him, and turned and said to the multitude that followed him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." And when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well.

Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22: [God commands slaves to obey their slave masters]
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eye service, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task..

Titus, chapter 2 verse 9: [God commands slaves to be submissive to their slave masters]
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity.

As you can see GOD does not admonish anyone for taking humans as property, and in fact gives man instructions on how to effectively do so.  One thing to point out is that there is nothing said in code here, and everything quoted is quite literal.  So if the Bible is the word of GOD, and GOD approves, instructs and forgives slavery, how do you then as me to worship him?  Jesus/GOD seems to be a very big advocate of one of the most heinous human rights crimes ever committed on earth, and by today’s standards may even qualify for a trial for crimes against humanity!

Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup (HT: Albert Mohler)

Matthew 5:38-39

1 Peter 3:13-17

What I want to know is this:  If love is so important to God, why does He define it by a person's genetalia?  Why does He say that it only applies to heterosexuals?  Why does He place limits and regulations on it?  Why does He tell you who you can love and who you cannot?  God is said to value all forms of love: the love between a man and woman, brotherly love, neighborly love, the love of a child, the love of a parent, the love of strangers, the love of life, the love of virtue, the love of forgiveness, the love of God himself.  Why does he invalidate love between gay men and women?  Why is it that a homosexual is ostensibly capable and deserving of all of these types of love - except for one?

Isn't this rather hypocritical of God?  Is the love that homosexuals experience not real?  Does it not live up to God's standard of love?  What about platonic love between two friends of the same sex?  Why is that worthy to God, but suddenly unworthy if the two of them decide to express this feeling physically?  Does their love suddenly become false?  An illusion, a sickness, a trick they've played on themselves in search of comfort and companionship?

If not, why should God have a problem with it at all?  If so, why would God play such a cruel trick on them?

If a child grows up in a home with two loving, homosexual parents, would these Christians tell this child that what their parents feel for one another isn't real?  If these parents are capable of expressing love toward their child, isn't it fair to assume that they know something about their love for one another?  That they know something about love period?  And if gay men and women are capable of expressing and feeling love the same way a devout Christian married couple can, if they can reach that same level of commitment and trust, what exactly is wrong about the relationship? 

Is this what Christians think is moral to teach children, that love is conditional, that love is not for you to decide, that love becomes ugly and sinful if the arbiter of love doesn't approve of who you choose to love?

Actually, I brought it up in Sunday school class and the idea was dismissed as a neccessity and I was told essentially that all I needed to be an effective witness is the bible and faith and I was wrong for thinking otherwise. Well, that might be true in some cases, but not all.

I personally know some intellectual types (even some scientists) that would not be believers today if all they had to go on was the bible and faith because there are so many "scientific" explanations out there for what is contained in the bible (though most of them are bunk) that people who might ordinarily believe are easily led astray.

Don't get me wrong, the bible is a great tool and for my money, I believe it to be true. However, every religious text in the world makes truth claims, are you going to believe them to be true just because they say they are?

The response I got to this last question was "yes but they worship dead gods.". Um, ok if all you have is the bible and faith, then these other religions could claim the same of you. What makes you so sure YOUR God is the one and only if the only arguments you are making for Him are the same ones these other religious fanatics are making for theirs?

The bible gives us a couple of clear commands concerning this:

"but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepeared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect" 1 Peter 3:15 ESV

"4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ." 2 Cor. 10:4-5 ESV

In other words, we are to be ready to give argument for what we believe in a moments notice and DESTROY arguments against God and do it using our minds (thoughts). We are to use reason in our arguments for God.

Face it, you have to meet people where they are, and if they don't even believe in the possibility of God's existence, the bible isn't of much use to them, it's just of use in bolstering YOUR faith and confidence in being an effective witness to them. After all, it's your walk, not your talk that counts in being an effective witness.

Keep that in mind next time you are debating God's existence with an atheist, agnostic, etc and they start arguing the origins of life. How do you debate them on this if you don't have any defense other than "the bible says...". That's great but every other religious text says things too and so does science.

You wouldn't consult a cookbook to find out which mushrooms are poisonous would you? A cookbook and a mushroom guide both deal in relatively the same subject, but on two totally different planes.

Christians, do not be afraid of science. A real scientist approaching things objectively will concur that science does not disprove religion as most would have you believe, it actually does quite the opposite.

I believe that it is for these reasons that apologetics should be taught in church to help people learn to defend their faith, because if we are going out into the world to minister as the bible commands us to do, sooner or later we're going to need to be able to.

What do you think?

i didn't really do much about the organising. i went to the meetings at newq, but i didn't put my hand up for much, and i didn't go to many meetings at other venues, including the important one, that happened to be on my birthday. the group i started so recently went on without me. i keep feeling like i should be apologising, but in fact it's a spectacularly good thing, that i kick started something that is able to run without me.

i also didn't get to most of the events i wanted to, even when it was no longer illegal to be 'irritating', and i stopped hiding under the bed waiting for it to all go away. i missed the world truth day event, world heathens day at unsw, the welcome, the kiss-in, and even the heretics' bbq that sydney atheists put on right at the end. the time got changed a couple of hours beforehand, so i drove in early to check for people wandering around lost, but both gates were blocked off, so i wandered off to meet alex and we went and sat in a park in newtown. when the new time came and we tried to go back, there were roadblocks everywhere and we ended up going in circles. i got summoned by sms so we tried again, and it was even worse - half a dozen road blocks, with a river of pilgrims passing in front. some you could pass, if you waited, but you would always find another.

the one event i did get to, though, was the big protest on saturday. that was good. queer people and atheists, and queer atheists, which is a beautiful sight to see. and some who weren't queer or atheist - the friendly catholics, the raelians (yes i know they call themselves atheist), the polish news team with their wyd lanyards flying agressively. standing around at taylor square went on for long enough to chat to most people i knew, and marching to the park felt positive and strong. not so being let into the enclosure, ringed with police, chanting across the barriers at the tide of pilgrims swarming down the mardi gras route. just wrong, really. we were using old forms of showing our displeasure, with watered down, 'friendly' messages. the tshirts may say pope go homo, but the message of the day was exhorting them to protect themselves. i don't think many of them would care, even if they could hear and understand what we were chanting for all of a few seconds as they walked by our contained protest. mostly, from what i saw, we were laughed at and blessed, which was very unpleasant, as we watched in horror as the hordes just kept coming. if anyone was looking for a show of strength, i was certainly reminded of the way the world works. despite a respectable turnout, as protests these days go, they outnumbered us, by probably a thousand times. they also out-niced us, as wishy washy as our vocal messages were. of course, that's not quite such a reflection of their church. still, there was one incident, to keep it lively; a pilgrim managed to jump the fence, get past the cops and take a swing at one of us. and for the first time ever, the police defended us, and took him away in handcuffs. handcuffs that he held up in victory, but handcuffs nonetheless. the police in this country have been helpful when i've been broken into or had my bag stolen, but not so great when i've been assaulted or crashed into. i have had them be sometimes friendly, sometimes incredibly abusive on the road, and when i've exercised that old democratic right to protest, i've seen them range from officious to menacing to planting a horse's hoof five centimetres from my face. so sometimes it's nice to see them doing their job, and think that maybe here, unlike many places, i won't be dangerously discriminated against for being an out atheist.

—Atheist bumper sticker (via William Lobdell)

Anthony Foster, who is flying from Britain to Sydney, is demanding that Benedict XVI and Australia’s senior Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, beg for forgiveness over the repeated rape of his daughters by the priest at a Melbourne primary school between 1988 and 1993.

Mr Foster said that his daughters had been devastated by the attacks. The elder, Emma, committed suicide this year, aged 26. Her younger sister, Katie, who became a heavy drinker, was hit by a car, aged 15, and now needs 24-hour care.

The Pope, who begins his official duties today at World Youth Day celebrations attended by an estimated 225,000 people, has promised to issue an apology this week to young people sexually abused by priests.

But when asked yesterday about an Australian Broadcasting Commission report on the Fosters’ complaints, the Church’s World Youth Day spokesman, Bishop Anthony Fisher, sounded dismissive. He said that he had not seen the report because he had been at the celebrations. “Happily, I think most of Australia was enjoying, delighting in the beauty and goodness of these young people,” he said, “rather than dwelling crankily, as a few people are doing, on old wounds.”

In an interview with an Australian website at Tokyo airport, Mr Foster rejected the comments and said that they showed “a complete lack of understanding of the victims, that there are so many people out there that really do have open wounds”. His wife, Christine, said that she was also deeply hurt: “There are no old wounds for victims. It is always current.”

The bishop’s comments forced Cardinal Pell — who was Archbishop of Melbourne at the time of the attacks — to try to repair the damage by making a public statement in which he said that he had been “very saddened” by Emma’s story.

She had endured “one of the worst things that can happen to a young woman”, he said. Cardinal Pell repeated his earlier apology to the family.

He did not say that he would meet Mr Foster, who insists that he will only accept the pontiff’s planned apology “if the Pope will embrace the notion of begging forgiveness from victims, and supporting them in every way possible and putting the resources of the Church behind that support”.

In his case Mr Foster said that it had taken eight years to win a financial settlement. He said that Cardinal Pell had introduced a system that imposed a A$50,000 (£24,000) cap on compensation. “It wasn’t just,” he said. Others had been offered as little as A$2,000. Emma and Katie’s attacker, Father Kevin O’Donnell, was convicted in 1996 of the abuse of 11 boys and a girl, aged 8 to 14, between 1946 and 1977.

(The original comments can be seen here)

Sweetwaffles

You said:  "I don’t know what kind of atheists you have been talking to, but the universe most certainly did not come about by random means; unless you define random as coming about without the thought of a higher being."

I define random as being not guided or controlled in any way.  If you attempt to say that the beginning of the universe was guided by natural forces then you're in trouble because the natural forces didn't begin until the beginning of the universe.  You'll be begging the very question asked to you.  If you attempt to say that the universe can be guided by something outside the natural laws, you'll be making an argument for a Guider.  So I ask you:  If the beginning of the universe wasn't random, what was it guided by?

I'll also ask you:  Do you disagree with Bertrand Russell?

"Everything comes about from something else."

The only way you can know this is if you've studied "everything" and discovered the origin of everything.  This is an absolute, faith based statement.

"One cannot say with knowledge that the universe was made by God."

Another faith based statement.  In order to make this statement true I ask, have you searched all of the knowledge in the world and some how discovered than none of it pertaines to knowledge of God's Creation?  Why are you the only one who can make absolute statements?

"And if one cannot explain the origin of the universe (or anything else), it is quite silly to commend an imaginary being."

Your presupposition here is that God is "imaginary", this is something you cannot know.  When reasoning through an argument, it's a good idea to think through the presuppositions one is making.

On a basic level, my attributing the universe to God is no less silly then attributing it to "natural processes somehow", especially when you consider science to be the way all knowledge is gained and how unscientific the phrase "somehow" is.  Your "god" called Naturalism has shown NO power to create while God has.

Greg

"An atheist doesn’t have to know anything about science or adopt any particular worldview; all the atheist has to do is find theistic claims unconvincing."

Stop it.  A human being HAS TO have assumptions and presuppositions.  No human being can have "no position".  One of the main theistic claims is "God exists".  You find this position "unconvincing".  Fine, you're not convinced that God exist, that means your position is that God doesn't exist.  It's a position, and it's an assumption (since the position can't be tested empirically).  Please read my posts "The Myth of Neutrality" and "Worldviews Are For Everyone" and respond to my arguments there. 

"Science has certainly worked better than faith where technological progress is concerned;"

When have I ever argued against "science"?  I love science.  When was I talking about "technological progress"?  Talk about the definition of a strawman!

"I’ll stick to science for explanations about the parts of the universe we do understand, content to say “I don’t know” when no answer exists. Faith isn’t an answer; faith is something someone makes up or accepts."

This makes me think you didn't actually read or understand the entirety of my post.  Scientific explanations are based upon faith.  You have "faith" that nature is uniform.  You have NO reason to believe that nature is uniform except that you believe it is true.  Science is based upon the unscientific principle that EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE acts the same way (this is unscientific because it cannot be tested).  It's also based on the circular reasoning that the future will inherently act like the past (this is something we cannot know).  Please, read the part of my post about the Uniformity of Nature and respond accordingly.

If "faith" isn't an answer, then science is in trouble.

Scott

"If I handn’t read this post entitled “The Atheist is a Thief”, I never would’ve known I didn’t believe in absolutes."

So you do believe in absolutes?  Which ones?  And how do you explain that they are absolute?

"Nature aside, do we actually have to have an answer for everything? In the end that seems to be what is required to disprove god."

Yes, I would say that if you are in the business of attempting to disprove God you have your work cut out for you.  Scott, this is an interesting statement because science drives to explain everything and won't rest with "I don't know's", are you saying that "I don't know" is an acceptable stopping point?

Also, this itself is a strawman.  No where, not once did I say, "well since atheists don't have an answer...".  In short, I'm saying that atheists cannot account for the reality that we see all around us.  I agree with you, there ARE absolutes.  I'm saying that the atheistic worldview cannot account for the existence of absolutes and cannot explain the basis of science (the uniformity of nature).

"You’re the ones making the claim, we’re not."

Aren't you making the claim that God doesn't exist?  This isn't a claim?

"I don’t see god anywhere. I go outside, I still don’t see god. I don’t know anyone else that can tell me that they have seen god."

You cannot see the beginning of the universe and yet you believe God didn't do it.  You cannot see the beginning of life and yet you believe God didn't do it.  You cannot see that nature acts uniformly everywhere (which is the basis of all science) and yet you believe it.  You cannot see small evolutionary changes leading to big evolutionary changes yet you still believe it happened.  Can you see how hypocritical it is to say, "I can't see God therefore He doesn't exist"?

"If we can’t use our five sences to determine the existance of god, than how did we determine he exists in the first place?"

You are assuming that we CAN'T use our five senses to see God.  Everytime I see a beautiful sunset I see God.  Everytime I climb to the top of a mountain I see God.  You cannot use your five senses to see gravity, you can only see what gravity has done and does.  Same thing with God.

"Just because we don’t know everything or can’t explain everything ABSOLUTLY doesn’t prove that god exists."

I never said that.  Not once.  The atheistic worldview cannot account for/explain the most basic principle that science is built upon, the uniformity of nature.  THAT'S what I said.  Feel free to respond to what I actually said at any time now.

James

"Before Christianity was humanities worldview that of disorder?"

Pagans?  Yes!  Fickle, malevolent gods messing with humanity at will is quite disorderly.  What's the point of the question?

labright

"God cannot exist in this universe."

Well, that's settles it I guess.  No more need to discuss because of your absolute knowledge on the issue and absolute statement of what God can't do.  Case close, I'm so glad you figured it out for all of us.

"1. Information must have a physical substrate upon which to exist. There is no information in a vacuum."

I'm not sure that you know this about the atheistic worldview, but it absolutely presupposes that information can come from nothing.  DNA formed itself remember?  Non-information created information with no cause, so information came from "a vacuum" as you put it.  Btw, YOU are the only one who believes information can come from nothing. That is NOT my position at all.  Information has existed in the mind of God long before Creation.

Also, I think is a round about way of saying that only the material exists.  Is that what you are saying?

"2. The Judeo/Christian/Islamo god is an “entity”, has thoughts and acts upon our real world. Actually, that god must operate faster than light to do all he’s attributed to do."

And?

"3. Since nothing material can operate faster than light, on what particles do the thoughts of god exist?"

Actually, your first statement is false.  It would be correct to say "we have YET to discover a material that can operate faster than light" and I'm not even sure if THAT'S true.  Are you saying that God is material?  As in, you could touch Him if you found Him?  Cause if you are, then you've redefined what the Christian worldview is to fit your argument.  Redifining your opponents' argument, and then arguing that redefinition is called a strawman argument and it's a fallacy. 

Upon what substrate do YOUR thoughts exist?  Can you measure them?

You then began to give me a bunch of evolutionary examples.

Evolutionary theory is based on the metaphysical assumption that nature is uniform.  An atheistic universe, which came about randomly and in which only material exists, cannot account for immaterial, universal laws such as the uniformity of nature.  You can't even explain the basis upon which science is built without stealing the Christian worldview and yet you attempt to use science to disprove God.  It's irrational.

"You have a “Need to Seek a Higher-Power”, but atheists don’t. That’s why I can’t covert you, and you can’t convert me. "

So you now telling me my psychology?  Is that how you defend your worldview, but telling me what I need?  You're right however, I do seek a Higher-Power because He created me and loves me.  You, on the other hand, "Seek a Smarter Power".  You believe that men who are smarter than you have figured it all out and you believe what they say is true.  What's the difference?

You are a believer as well.  You believe that empiricism is the answer to all.  You believe that Naturalism explains everything.

"I suspect you’ll not accept this, but it is truth."

I want to be clear.  Are you saying that belief in God is the reason the Earth is over-crowded?  And therefore, once "belief in God" goes away then more people will die and the Earth will less crowded and that's why a non-belief in God is becoming more of a benefit in this day?  More death = good, right?  Are you saying that you're the next step in the evolutionary ladder?  You're more "advanced" than I am?

Click for full comic:

How many butthurt letters to the editor do you think the papers running Diesel Sweeties will get?

So love the snide observations of this clever poster, or hate them, but at least respect it. Obvious as it may be, I am sure it will spark a thousand drunken hours of heated debate over a pint or two in college bars across the country for years to come, as it has for ages before.

However, as I read the book a question kept arising in my mind: "What about faith?" This question resulted from page after page of reasoning that there must be a god.  Of course, God created us in His image and we are certainly rationale beings, created with the ability to reason and think.  Moreover, we are called to utilize these gifts in willful service and worship of God (1 Corinthians 14:12-25), but we are not justified before God based on our reasoning ability.  In other words, I am justified in Christ because of the faith He provided, not merely because I can provide logical arguments for His existence.

As I continued to read, Flew provided a straightforward and honest answer to my question:

"I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena.  It has been an exercise in what is traditionally called natural theology.  It has had no connection with any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous.  In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith" (p. 93).

I'm thankful for his honesty.  And as he says later, "Some claim to have made contact with this Mind.  I have not - yet.  But who knows what could happen next?" (p.158).  As Christians we should pray for the Flew's of this world and lovingly and truthfully share the gospel, being constantly thankful that God makes foolish the wisdom of this world.

In it, we find this:

Of course, the death threats that he’s received are inexcusable from those who claim the title of Christian.  Personally, I say that, despite his obvious attempt to offend the sensibilities of the religious, we should smile and turn the other cheek.  Myers is, as I said earlier in this post, a bitter and sour little man who gets far more attention than he deserves.

"Inexusable" is about right. But Christian? What does that mean? Perhaps I am being too malicious, but I detect a hint of the typical theistic No-True Scotsman fallacy. "No true Christian would wish him death, considering Exodus 20:13, 23:4-5; Matthew 7:12, Jesus himself quotes Leviticus 19:18."

I do not want to even consider every part of the Bible that is atrocious (Leviticus 24:16 and Hebrews 10:28-29 seem appropriate) - needless to say, on either side we can make cases for who is a "true" Christian. The main reason I raise this blog is to show that: yes, in fact, if they were meek, mild Christians they would have turned the other cheek.

They did not.

What on earth do we have here? Even if this blogger does not like PZ Myers (labelling him "a bitter and sour little man" by what standards aside from his postings I'm not sure), he can not deny the ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY OF IT ALL. Yes, sure, we should spare the feelings of the religious by respecting their beliefs and vice versa. But there is a difference between PZ Myers writing on his own blog, KNOWN to be an atheist academic and blogger and Catholics LOOKING for his blog, FINDING IT, SENDING HIM DEATH THREATS and possibly GETTING HIM FIRED.

Until I'm shown otherwise, at these base-levels, I will not budge in my support and defence of PZ Myers.

---

NEW: At this blog, we have this posting:

The Crackpot Professor Now Also Intends to Desecrate the Koran

What an about face! First he would "never" treat the Koran with disrespect, and now he plans do desecrate it along with the Eucharist. We MUST reach out to our Muslim brothers and sisters on this. We could accomplish a lot working together on this issue.

From the crackpot's [PZ Myers'] blog:
"Good grief, but this is tedious. I'm still getting piles of email every day from people 1) begging me not to abuse a cracker because it is so sacred to them, piles of email telling me to 2) abuse a book because it is so sacred to Muslims (I've even been sent two copies of the Koran!), and of course, the 3) bizarre complaint that I'm a coward, afraid to commit sacrilege. You can all stop now. 1) Your personal sense of the sacred in a piece of bread dough is absurd to me and imposes on me no sense of obligation. 2) Since I now own one entirely superfluous copy of the Koran, it will meet the very same fate as the crackers. Thanks to all who have demanded that I treat that silly book with disrespect, I'll have to treat both equally. 3) I have not rushed to be rude to a cracker because, well, it's there, it's ridiculous, and it's not very important. I've been traveling, and I've come home to writing deadlines, and those get first priority. Heck, going into the kitchen right now and fixing myself a sandwich for lunch has higher priority. After I've cleared the deck of my work this week, then I might take a moment to casually demolish a sacred cow.

Now enough. You can all stop dunning me. Be patient, godless ones, and surrender to despair, O Ye Believers."

What a load of bollocks! What do they know about Islam? If you told Muslims that the bread represents Allah, they would be appalled. If even drawing the prophet can incite violence, how will telling them God is made into a wafer, ala the Eucharist, to be consumed!!!
Another thing not being realise is this: Why is it that for naturalists/secularists there is no book that a religious could burn that would incite, for example, the AAS to require them to be fired, killed, etc.? Why is it that we can simply shrug off the desicration of God is Not Great, as I often have to do, and not seek vengeance and blood?

I can answer this question in terms of cognitive psychology and get a fairly balanced answer. The problem however is that it still does not make it right.

I'm sorry to say this, but this is one place where the points definitely belong to us. The absurdity of it all!

It's been two years now, and the town is still divided on the subject. The teacher, Mr. Paszkiewicz is still teaching at the high school (and also runs a local church youth group). On the whole, the town seems to have sided with the teacher's blatant disregard for the law. An article in the Worcester Telegram & Gazatte News follows up on Matthew's story (via this post on Atheist Revolution). It appears that no one has really learned a lesson:

“I could have sued, but that wouldn’t have helped,” said Mr. LaClair, who wants to write a book about his experience.

“If I won the case, I’d only get money. There would be no satisfaction because, even to this day, they (school officials) just don’t understand why I made an issue of what happened in those classes.”

Matthew displays a stunning level of maturity in the face of some small-minded individuals.

“I don’t have any problem with what he believes in,” said Mr. LaClair, who spoke yesterday afternoon at the annual summer outing of the Greater Worcester Humanists group. “But I do have a problem about him talking about his religion in a public high school and trying to convert his students.”

I would been unable to do anything along the lines of Matthew when I was his age (ignoring for the moment that I was Christian at that time).

Ultimately, the “meaning” in theistic life comes from devotion to God so one can gain access to heaven instead of hell. This doesn't solve the problem though, it merely moves it.

What is heaven in religion? Never-ending peace and happiness, being one with God, or the best never-ending party featuring 72 virgins. But how long could you really enjoy heaven? I'm not even talking about the television era short attention span that means its surprising if you're still reading (similarily I'm writing this from the middle of a lecture that I'm half paying attention to). I mean that if heaven is a place where you still exist (as some form of consciousness), then you will get bored.

Eventually, in heaven, you will begin to ask the same existential questions we ask now: “Why am I here?” “What is the point?” “If I blog will people care?” “Why should I do something now when, considering I have an infinite amount of time, I could just do it later?”

And considering there will be an infinite expanse of time, there can be no meaningful answers to those questions.

So here's what I see it coming down to: There is no ultimate point to life. The existence of God/god(s) is meaningless on this point, and merely moves the question to “What is the point of God?” or “What is the point in god creating us?”

So what are we left with? A world to explore, learn, discover, and enjoy, all before we die. And if there is something after death (for which there is no good evidence or argument for), then we will just have to find our own point to those existences as well.

It's your life to do with what you will. Don't waste it, it may be your last!

What is wrong with you people?!

Obviously, there is no god. But if there were... why in the world would anyone with half a brain in their head worship such a masochistic, narcissistic psycho?

Here we have a woman who was raped and tortured every single day, for a year, by both men and women, had her breast sliced with a bayonet, and suffered unimaginable pain, suffering, and mental distress.

But she still believes her all loving, all powerful, all knowing, all merciful god allowed this to happen to her "for a reason."

If so, her god must stand trial for crimes against humanity right along with Radovan Karadzic.

Here is an excerpt:

"Then they started torturing me. I lost consciousness. When I woke up I was totally naked and covered in blood and my sister-in-law was also naked and covered in blood. ... I knew I had been raped and my sister-in-law too." In a corner, she saw her mother-in-law, holding her children and crying.

"That same day we were locked in our house. That was the worst, the worst period of my whole life. That's when it started.

"Every day we were raped. Not only in the house -- they would also take us to the front line for the soldiers to torture us. Then again in the house, in front of the children," Jasmina said through a translator, remembering the 10 other women who were brutalized with her.

"I was in such a bad condition that sometimes I couldn't even recognize my own children. Even though I was in a very bad physical condition they had no mercy at all. They raped me every day. They took me to the soldiers and back to that house.

"The only conversation we had was when I was begging them to kill me. That's when they laughed. Their response was 'we don't need you dead.'"

Once at the front line there were women soldiers who tortured her with a bottle and then slashed at her throat and wrist when it broke. Then the troops cut one of her breasts with a bayonet, said Jasmina, now looking older than her 35 years.

"It lasted for a year. Every day. ... Not all the women survived."

The following year, Jasmina tried to kill herself three times.

"I will never be OK," she said. "I was beautiful once; it cost me my life."

And why exactly did your god allow this to happen to you, Jasmina?

I'd love to hear his side of the story.

Read the full article here.

Is it more amazing to believe that the planets in the solar system move because they are being pushed around by angels? Or that countless many perfectly natural processes are responsible for the formation of, and motion of all the planetary bodies?

Is the majesty of the universe more awe-inspiring because someone snapped their omnipotent fingers to creat it just for US? Or does it take your breathe away to consider the unimaginable vastness that is space, and how it not only doesn't know that we are here, but could care less?

What about the mathematical perfection in some natural occuring phenomena? The molusk shell forming a spiral with perfect proportions? Is it beautiful because someone made it that way, or because the molusk is naturally prone to producing calcium deposites in such a way that they are related to the Golden Ratio, and therefor happen to produce a design similar to the Archimedes Spiral?

How about the many marvels we'rve been able to produce as a result of our scientific understanding of nature? Have you never made breathless by the skyline of a major city at dusk? Ever sat through an entire airplane ride wondering about all the processes and calculation required to result in successful commercial air flight? Have you ever considered how YOU ARE STILL ALIVE thanks to antibiotics and our knowledge of germ theory?

So many things to be amazed over.... Then I see something like THIS:

<

With barely more than 9 minutes of video, my faith in mankind is shattered, and my whole experience of the world around me is cheapened by these charlatans brainwashing and indoctrinating those poor children, who have a real interest in science. If sex crime had an intellectual counterpart it would be THIS VIDEO.

So, after spending several hours in the shower, curled up in the fetal position, trying to get the feel of this video off of me, I decided to write some stuff down. To say that I am offended and affronted would be like saying that the Jonestown massacre was a catering glitch.

Here's the thing. I don't really understand why there is this dichotomy of religion and science. Science isn't even a set of beliefs, it's just a methods of uncovering TRUTHES about reality. So for someone to say that they don't believe in science is to say that they don't believe in reality. Science helps us to understand HOW reality workd, not necessarily WHY. Religion and philosophy can keep the why. Their whys, however, should never be exclusive of the hows provided to us by our knowledge of the world around us.

These schmucks want to come into museums, which are celebration of man's knowledge of nature, and try to say that it's all wrong, fine. But I bet if I decided to take some kids to a church service and explain to them how all the things the preacher is saying are simply wrong because it's physically impossible for a virgin to have a baby, for a man to return from the dead, for a sea to be split open at a man's whim, for snakes to talk, a world-wide flood to occur (while luckily every single species of animal on the planet lived withing walking distance to Noah's house), or for a man to live several days in the belly of a whale.

That would be unthinkable, and rightly so. Why? Because scientific knowledge (whether it's true or not) has no place in religion. Those who claim that it does are operating on a logical phallacy. You can follow science and still believe in religion, but you can't base your religion on science. Well, scientists (most anyway) respect that divide. Non-overlapping magisterium is fine. Why the hell can't religio-nazis respect it as well?

The biggest debates in this country stem from people trying to make scientific claims on the observable world BASED ON THIER RELIGION! And the next person who tries to tell me that Intelligent Design isn't religion is going to get a copy of the Wedge document (wiki it) shoved up their righteous ass.

There is a prayer that I used to know as a christian. Tons of people know it but few actually comprehend it I think. "Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the thing I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the WISDOM to know the difference." News flash! REALITY is one of the things YOU CANNOT CHANGE!