Amazon Vehicles Beauty STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc All-New Fire 7, starting at $49.99 Limited time offer Wickedly Prime Handmade Wedding Shop Book House Cleaning twinpeaksv2 twinpeaksv2 twinpeaksv2  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire 7, starting at $49.99 Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Shop Now Ellen

A blanket negation doesn't equal positive evidece for Godlessness

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 55 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 4, 2006, 7:57:09 AM PST
Although I have yet to read this book, the title and description basically say it all. The author is clearly of the "old school" variety, who thinks that science is a sufficient explanation for everything that exists. However, as I demonstrate on purely scientific grounds in my book THE GOD HYPOTHESIS, the facts of science are precisely what we would expect if there were NO God. I'm talking about scientific facts here, and not scientific conjectures which may or may not be true, like the many worlds hypothesis. It would be patently false to dismiss a theistic universe based on the mere possibility of multiple universes, none of which have been seen. Just because the reality of evil exists in our world, furthermore, is no reason to believe that God didn't create it. Please refer to my previous book EVOLUTION AND THE PROBLEM OF NATURAL EVIL to see how both natural and moral evils are fully compatible with the God of classical theism. Anti-theistic authors like Dawkins have no possible way of explaining how all of the laws and constants of nature literally coalesced out of the Big Bang just a few microseconds after it transpired, fully assembled and ready to generate a life supporting world some 13.7 billion years later. This instant fine-tuning for life is a clear give-away that it was planned and executed by a Supreme Being. Sometimes, preexisting non-theistic prejudices simply get the better of otherwise brilliant scientists, especially when the entire edifice of modern science has at least recently been based on an atheistic model. But what does the author have to say about the fact that the Founding Fathers of the modern sientific movement were essentially ALL theists, as John Barrow has repeatedly pointed out?

Michael A. Corey, Ph.D.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 19, 2007, 3:59:12 AM PST
Is your book filled with similar leaps?

That there is life is no argument for any God, much less a specific one. I get the feeling you know this, however.

Said the water in the pot hole, "My, this hole fits me perfectly. It MUST have been created just for me!"

As to why the fathers of the modern religious movement were all theists, that was the best explanation they had at the time, not to mention the social attitudes associated with atheism were near unthinkable.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2007, 3:16:14 PM PST
R. Tyson says:
You again? Is this fundamentalist spamming?

You speak of evil. Just when did you establish the existence of evil at all? It sounds more like a perception than anything based on reality.

You write, "Anti-theistic authors like Dawkins have no possible way of explaining how all of the laws and constants of nature literally coalesced out of the Big Bang just a few microseconds after it transpired..." Even if you are correct in this statement (and you are NOT), it does not lend support to a theistic point of view. It is a false dichotomy.

Science is not based on an atheistic model. It just does not take the lazy way out and say, 'I don't feel like looking for the real answer, so let's just invoke god-did-it and be done with it.' I find that contemptable.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 25, 2007, 5:19:46 PM PST
Steve R says:
But a blanket affirmation equals positive evidence of God?

Your statement: "Anti-theistic authors like Dawkins have no possible way of explaining how all of the laws and constants of nature literally coalesced out of the Big Bang just a few microseconds after it transpired, fully assembled and ready to generate a life supporting world some 13.7 billion years later." is untrue. Theories abound and none point to a supreme being waving a really big wand. "Instant fine-tuning for life?" Have you even read any of the books and theories you are denigrating?

Your comments belie a resentment toward science (and a transparent support of creationism) for not coming to the "obvious" conclusion that Aquinas's proof from design must be true, when the fact remains that not a shred of evidence supports this extraordinary claim.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2007, 2:18:41 PM PST
David King says:
I'm looking for an honest scientist who will at least admit the possibility of theism. (Of course, any who do admit such a thing are summarily dismissed from the brotherhood as fundamentalists and closet-creationists.) I'm strictly a layman, but I enjoy science very much and of course I enjoy the technology it delivers; but I have yet to read about a laboratory demonstration of godlessness. It seems to me that an intelligent, educated and open-minded scientist should at least be able to acknowledge that a God whose nature puts him beyond material-based inquiry could exist without science being able to detect him. After all, if it is scientifically respectable to acknowledge the possibility of near-infinite numbers of material universes that we're unlikely to ever be able to detect (the many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics, the multi-verse of string theory), what is so outrageous about the idea of God?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2007, 7:31:27 PM PST
Secularman says:
The idea of a god is no more outrageous than the idea of unicorns. What IS outrageous is believing such things exist without a shred of evidence, a repeatable observation, or an iota of rational thinking based on knowledge. String theory is a mental excercise boardering on religion for these same reasons. Why would scientists acknowledge the possibility of a god anymore than the possibility of anything else that is beyond material-based inquiry such as invisible fairies? My question is why don't more theists acknowledge the much greater likelihood that no gods exist?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2007, 7:31:28 AM PST
David King says:
Thank you for illustrating the point I was making. Of course, if unicorns or fairies existed, they would be elements of our physical universe and that is not what we're speaking of. We're speaking of a being capable of creating the physical universe, and such a being's existence would not be dependent on the physical universe or be subject to material-based inquiry. As a theist, I have no trouble acknowledging the possibility that God doesn't exist. I simply find too much evidence that he does exist to believe otherwise. Why can't a scientist accept the limitations of his inquiry and acknowledge the possibility that God does exist whether he believes it or not?

The late Carl Sagan was known for the introduction to his TV series where he said, "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." How did he know that? It was more a statement of faith than a statement of science.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2007, 9:07:52 AM PST
Secularman says:
A being capable of creating the physical universe who's existence is not dependent on the physical universe has no meaning. It's made up fantasy without an iota of evidence (not unlike fairies). Not being able to comprehend the universe is not evidence of God's existence. Carl Sagan knew that the universe actually existed and tried to explain the unkown using the known. Theists insist on trying to explain the known with the unkown by fabricating myths. An intelligent creator is far more complex than the universe and yet you don't question it's origin. Carl Sagan's statement is based on what he knew at the time. If the evidence had showed otherwise he would have changed his tune, unlike theists who never let go of their myths regardless of the lack of knowledge to support their beliefs. What exactly is the evidence that doesn't allow you to believe otherwise?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2007, 10:35:36 AM PST
David King says:
You wrote, "A being capable of creating the physical universe who's existence is not dependent on the physical universe has no meaning." Now you are sounding like a logical positivist, a branch of philosophy which has been shown to be thoroughly inconsistent. Of course the idea has meaning within the context of our conversation. Your declaration to the contrary carries little argumentative weight.

You wrote, "An intelligent creator is far more complex than the universe and yet you don't question it's origin." Ask the question, where did the Big Bang come from? and science gets pretty speculative. It seems to come down to two choices. Either there was an absolute beginning from absolute nothing, or something existed eternally. The first choice seems pretty dubious for obvious reasons, so you're left with the idea that something existed eternally. Sagan preferred the idea of oscillating universes, big crunch follows big bang and repeats. It still doesn't address the question of origin, so we're both in the same boat. Something has to be eternal, and we're just arguing over whether it has a personality or not.

By the way, I do not fabricate myths. I do rely on the Bible, which I have by experience found to be a reliable document.

As to your question about the evidence I refer to, I can only say that God makes himself known to me in my daily life in a multitude of ways. Needs are met, prayers are answered, comfort is received, to a far greater extent than would be expected if I were merely delusional. That is not something I would expect a positivist to understand or accept, but it is something I cannot deny.

Now, what is your evidence that he does not exist?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2007, 11:27:25 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 1, 2007, 11:28:22 AM PST
Secularman says:
Your being has no meaning within the context of the discussion because you do not define this being, and any definition would likewise be fabricated. The inconsistencies of the bible are too numerous to discuss here, so any reliance on the bible is based on faith and not knowledge, so it is a waste of time to discuss.

Where did the big bang come from? Science comes up with theories based on what is known. As we learn by observation the theories change to take into account current knowledge. Since theism is not based on knowledge it is not a viable explanation. Since we know for a fact that matter exists and it can neither be created nor destroyed then logic dictates that all the matter in the universe has existed eternally. In contrast, other than your perception of comfort and answered prayers, we don't know for sure that your god exists. I don't need evidence to prove this. I am not making any claims other than that the universe exists. You claim there is a god. I don't believe you, prove it to me.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2007, 12:15:32 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 1, 2007, 12:17:50 PM PST
Brent Proulx says:
Dr. Corey made the statement that "...all of the laws and constants of nature literally coalesced out of the Big Bang just a few microseconds after it transpired, fully assembled and ready to generate a life supporting world some 13.7 billion years later." Yes, the basic principles that underlie these laws were in place but the universe was not ready to support life immediately. Furthermore, if God did exist, wouldn't he have wanted life to start immediately? Why did "He" wait 13.7 billion or so years to get things going? If God is real and capable of generating the universe and all it's laws, couldn't he have just done so immediately...poof, here are a few billion stars, few billion planets, and all the laws that govern them. I direct those who do not understand how the universe was formed to "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.

My belief is that those who have faith will attempt to solve their problems based on it's teachings, those who do not will use science; thus, we are each stuck in our own little box, unable to peer outside to see the other person who is in their own box right next to us trying to solve the same problem.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2007, 12:16:19 PM PST
David King says:
It is not my intention to convince you of God's existence. He exists whether you acknowledge him or not. Rather, you asked some questions and I answered you honestly. My intent from the beginning is merely to propose this hypothetical question: If there exists something apart from our physical universe, and therefore not available to the type of inquiry you rely on, can you not see that your perceived lack of evidence would lead you to the wrong conclusion? Answer hypothetically. It doesn't mean you believe it, just that it is possible. To put it bluntly, if God exists, you wouldn't know it through science, would you?

Science, for all the wonderful things it does (others might argue that it is not all so wonderful), is extremely limited in its ability to investigate reality. To rely on it as your only source of knowledge is to leave yourself in a rather barren landscape.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2007, 1:05:05 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 1, 2007, 1:06:19 PM PST
Secularman says:
Here is the disconnect. The statement that "there exists something apart from our physical universe" is to me a wishful myth devised to validate the possibilty of a god that can't exist based on logic and reason. The human mind can fabricate infinite hypothetical fantasies that can be claimed to be possible, but in reality are not remotely probable. Science is only limited in that it can't always prove or disprove these fabrications. I have no choice but to rely on science for knowledge because everything else would just be baseless faith.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2007, 2:10:28 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 1, 2007, 2:11:35 PM PST
David King says:
"The human mind can fabricate infinite hypothetical fantasies..." Perhaps not infinite, but certainly numerous. How do you know with certainty that yours is not one?

"...but in reality are not remotely probable." And what criteria does one use to judge that probability?

"Science is only limited in that..." Science is much more limited than that. At best, it can only offer incomplete statements that are certain to be overturned in a short time. Even Einstein admitted that.

"I have no choice but to rely on science for knowledge because everything else would just be baseless faith." You do have a choice. You just don't want to exercise it. Your faith in science is what I find baseless. There is so much we do not understand about our own existence. We don't understand consciousness. We don't understand how we rise up out of the muck of quantum uncertainty. We don't even understand what empty space is. (It has an amazing ability to hold matter, but we treat it as though it's nothing!) Logic and reason dictate that an open mind is a safer bet under the circumstance. A wise man recognizes what he doesn't know.

"...the possibilty of a god that can't exist based on logic and reason." Only if you get to define the terms logic and reason. By any traditional understanding of logic and reason, there is nothing wrong with the idea of an self-existent creator God who continues to exercise providence over our world. Such a god could easily inject knowledge of himself into the world through his revelatory participation in the historical record (the Bible). Such knowledge would be legitimate and accurate, but would not fit your scientific, evidential criteria. Theology (and I speak here only for Reformed Christian theology) is not as simplistic as you imagine. The Bible is not full of contradictions as you imagine. Faith is not what you imagine. A belief in God is found almost universally even in the deepest jungles. Perhaps that is because of a deep need to believe... or perhaps it is because God put that belief there. How do you know?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2007, 6:54:41 PM PST
Secularman says:
There are so many points I'd like to make that I'll have to reply shotgun style.

Fantasy: a supposition based on no solid foundation.
What I believe is based on the known unlike theism which is based on the unknown.

Probablity: the relative possibility that an event will occur, as expressed by the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences.
The actual occurrences of real evidence for god is zero. You do the math.

Science offers incomplete statements that are only overturned by more knowledge gained through science. Religion makes adjustments based on scientific advances, never the other way around. Never.

BTW here is another thought by Einstein:
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

You are correct that there is so much we don't understand. Throughout history our understanding has advanced through science, not by fabricated theistic myths. This will always be the case.

The bible is NOT a historical record. The first records of Jesus' life are from decades after his death. How accurate could it be. One wonders if there even was such a person. Is the bible right or is the koran. Which of the hundreds of contradictory religions are right. Is it one or none. And what of the greek gods and their history. You don't believe in those gods so I guess we're both atheists.

Humans are inately inquisitive and have a need to understand the mysteries of the universe. The ancient myths that humans created are no longer useful for people who want to know the truth. Science has and will continue to answer these questions. Religion provides no real answers, only comfort to those who can't comprehend. How do I know that god didn't put our need to believe there? Because no human that has ever existed has a shred of evidence that such a being exists. The answers to the mysteries of the universe can't be made up by religions. They need to be uncovered by observation and experimentation, things that religion does not provide. A universal belief in gods proves nothing. There once was a universal belief that the world was flat. Thankfully we have science.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 2, 2007, 11:53:38 AM PST
J. O'Neil says:
Mr. King, your want proof that your Christian god is not there? Two words: Child Pornography.

I would encourage you to read about the child sex trade in South East Asia. You god supposedly killed an man for trying to steady the Ark. Why can't he kill child molesters?

Even if your god is really there, he's a failure. Either that or he likes to watch child porn in which case we need to find him and kill him.

(Well, maybe reason will kill him in the end after all)

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 2, 2007, 12:31:22 PM PST
David King says:
Mr. Salhaney - When I made my original wry comment implying that science (or at least the most vocal members of that brotherhood) can be a little uptight and arrogant about the subject of God, I certainly didn't intend to initiate this big of a discussion. So let me make this one observation and then I'll be happy to continue this as long as you wish.

With every post, you've illustrated my point. You offer no evidence to support your side of the argument. You simply use ridicule (i.e., unicorn, fairies, fabrication, fantasy, etc.) and dismissal to justify your non-belief. Your strategy is simply to deny, deny, deny. Now think about that for a minute. What drives you to be so intense in your denial? If, as you say, there is no chance that God exists, why bother to pursue this conversation? If I am so foolish as to believe a fantasy, what purpose does it serve for a smart guy like you to get involved? On the other hand, outright denial is a clinical term for when people refuse to face something that frightens them. Does the idea of God frighten you?

Some Christians argue they can prove God exists. They can't. Some scientists argue they can prove God doesn't exist. They can't. Reasonable people on both sides of the discussion can and do agree that it is and will remain an open question. What is it that drives you to be so stubbornly unreasonable as to insist that there is no possibility whatsoever that you could be wrong in this? That is not science. That is hostility, pure and simple.

You keep demanding evidence, yet you deny my eyewitness testimony as to how God works in my life. I am not alone. You could have your pick of millions who would tell you the same thing. You deny the Bible, yet it too is eyewitness testimony by those who were there. The Bible itself offers evidence by changing lives. It has done so for two thousand years and more. The science of psychiatry doesn't have quite that good of a track record, does it?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 2, 2007, 12:32:04 PM PST
David King says:
Mr. O'Neil - The problem of evil is an old question and is adequately handled only by an intensive study of theology. In other words, there are answers but I don't think you're ready for them. Sorry.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 2, 2007, 3:26:59 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 2, 2007, 4:04:17 PM PST
Secularman says:
Mr. King - your last reply is very confusing to me. You suggest I offer no evidence to support my side of the argument when my argument has focused on the knowledge we gain from science as opposed to the unsupported myths of theism. As my evidence I give you all of the scientific discoveries throughout history using the scientific method: Controlled experiments with repeatable observations, etc. It is you who has no evidence to support your theistic arguments, including claims of the bible being eyewitness testimony.

Also confusing is your insistence of my denial. If you provide no evidence then there is nothing for me to deny except for your unsupported claims. Is it wrong to deny the possibility of unsupported supernatural myths? I would deny all scientific findings if they were only supported by faith.

Why do I pursue conversations with theists? Because I am continually amazed at what people are willing to believe without an iota of evidence. I do not deny your delusion that God works in your life nor for the deluded millions that have come before you. The placebo effect is well documented. Santa Clause brings joy to millions of children and yet he is not real, and no, the delusion does not make him real. Does the delusion of God work better than psychiatry? For some, maybe so, and that is fine. It is not the placebo effect of the delusion that interests me, but the question of what is really real.

Does the idea of God frighten me? Of course not, no more than the idea of Santa Clause. What does frighten me are the fundamentalists of many religions who believe in their respective gods to the point that they are willing to kill for their ancient supernatural myths. I'm frightened by the Christian fundamentalist in the US who are using revisionist history to insert their god into my government when the founders so clearly wanted religion and government separate for obvious reasons (see middle eastern theocracies). I'm horrified by the vicious brutality and hate that religion has brought over the centuries. The delusional comforts don't begin to amend for the suffering that religion has wrought on "God's" children. Of course humans have free will, we don't need a god to have free will. It is the unsupported belief in god that has caused humans to use their free will to slaughter others who believe in different gods, or no gods. If your god were real he'd be a pathetic failure. If you consider this to be hostility then so be it. I believe the hostility comes from religion. Recorded history (the documented kind) shows this to be true.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 2, 2007, 10:19:02 PM PST
J. O'Neil says:
I see Mr. King. I need to spend hours perusing the brain droppings of St. Augustine and then I'll see the light.

If there is one item in Christianity that's NOT "adequately handled", it's the problem of evil. Take the following real life situation:
A shirtless boy, who is maybe 10, pushes himself to the front and gestures for me to roll down the window. "You want girl?" he asks in broken English as the scent of cheap perfume wafts in.
Sitting in another car is Shuvaloy Majumdar, co-chair of The Future Group, a Calgary-based non-profit organization fighting the sex trade. He leans out his window and lies, telling the boy he wants a girl much younger than those on the street. Majumdar has brought me to Svay Pak to show the scale of the child-sex trade, and he knows that children as young as four are available but kept hidden by their pimps in an attempt to avoid police raids. After a brief conversation in Vietnamese with a rough-looking brothel manager, the boy leads Majumdar and three others down a narrow pathway to a small cabin.
Inside, Majumdar takes a seat in a creaky metal chair beside a stained mattress. Within seconds, two girls, who claim they're 6 and 8, join him. Just awakened, they're wearing cotton pajamas and rubbing the sleep out of their eyes. At first, the girls stand silently and rigidly together. The pimp slaps one on the back of the head and the girls begin to awkwardly and unenthusiastically flirt with Majumdar. Shaking, the 6-year-old mumbles, "no boom-boom, just ngam-ngam" (Vietnamese slang for oral sex). But when a photographer who has accompanied Majumdar begins to take some pictures, the pimp and his bodyguards draw guns, thinking Majumdar and the photographer are undercover informants. Thinking fast, the visitors defuse the situation by telling the angry pimp the pictures are for their business - organizing sex tours out of Thailand. The ruse works and the danger passes.
Perhaps one day you can sit with the little 6 year old girl and explain the wonders of theodicy. Maybe she will be ready for the answers that I'm not ready for.


In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2007, 6:47:55 AM PST
David King says:
Mr. Salhaney - It is interesting that you say humans have free will. Isn't that just another perception, an illusion? How can a material organism whose underlying reality is totally random produce such a thing as free will? Is this a concept that has been tested in the laboratory? Is it something you can see, hear, smell, taste or touch? Isn't it interesting that you're willing to have such an intangible concept in your worldview?

What you're missing (or unwilling to admit) is that your whole worldview is based on an assumption. (That's true for everyone.) Your fundamental assumption is that everything that exists must be accessible to the senses. The trouble for you is that it is an assumption, not a fact. It cannot be demonstrated to be true. On the other hand, I start from the less arrogant assumption that our existence is far more complicated than we can account for by using simplistic material explanations. In other words, I start from an open-minded position whereas you begin with a closed mind. That's important because every piece of what you call evidence has to be interpreted through those assumptions. As you demonstrated with the idea of free will, you can't really sustain a radically materialistic worldview. No one can, yet you will continue to deny this because you have no other way of maintaining the illusion that you are being rational and logical.

Regarding your comments on religion, I offer the following:

If you do not recognize the Christian worldview in the plain language of the founding fathers, then you are again demonstrating your ability to deny the obvious. I suggest a tour of the capital or a good history book.

I speak only for a Reformed protestant theology which I have found to be the most careful and logical interpretation of the Bible. I feel no need to speak for other systems of belief.

For every evil done in the name of religion, you can find a hundred done for the ordinary human reasons of greed, anger, jealousy, etc. In fact, the Bible agrees that this is a thoroughly corrupt and despicable world. That includes our best efforts at religion. You're merely confirming the accuracy of the Bible.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2007, 7:19:00 AM PST
David King says:
Mr. O'Neil - Actually I would recommend you start with someone a little more current, say R.C. Sproul.

You bring up a tragic situation in order to make what point - that there is evil in the world? So what? The Bible agrees with you! Do you expect God to make it better? It is us who make the world so evil. Would there be a sex trade if there were not humans desiring to partake of it? Of course not. Do you think you are exempt from condemnation because you find this particular evil disgusting? Don't be silly. How many laws do you have to break before you are a lawbreaker? We are all lawbreakers.

Let me point out one last thing. If there is no God, why should I care what happens to some little girl I don't know? It's survival of the fittest, baby. I look out for myself. But let's say I'm an atheist, but I still want to feel like I'm a good person by showing compassion toward my fellow human beings. In that case, I'm going to be overwhelmed by the evil in the world. Few will join me because they are too selfish or self-centered. I'll be on my own and no matter what I do, tomorrow morning will reveal even more evil has sprung up overnight. It'll be like peeing on a forest fire and I'll soon grow discouraged. I am destined to fail.

It is like the apostle Peter said, "Where else do we have to go, Lord?" Put yourself in the hands of God and he might make a Mother Theresa out of you, and then you might really make a difference.

With all apologies, Mr. O'Neil, I really do not have the time to get involved with a second thread.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2007, 10:42:00 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 5, 2007, 12:57:42 PM PST
Secularman says:
Mr. King - Oh where to begin? Free will simply means that we are able to do what we choose to do. No need to fabricate complexity. And yes it can be tested, we do it and observe it everyday. Like everything we do our choices are a result of chemical reactions in the brain. As always, science will eventually use these known facts to explain the unkown of how it happens as it already has for many things that used to be mystical. Again, as with your god, you are fabricating the unknown to explain the known. Why would you assume that something exists beyond our senses or our ability to theorize based on observation? You're making that up to justify your argument. Also, the notion that underlying reality of material organisms is random is nonsense. Natural selection is NOT random! The mutations may be random, but the selected attributes that survive are not. Natural selection is well documented, therefore the selected proteins that lead to the chemical reactions that lead to free will provided an advantage to humans. As you would expect, higher organisms without the ability to choose amongst a number of options would not be able to compete. Again, using the known to explain the unknown...rational logic at work as opposed to needlessly complex assumptions based on nothing.

Your "opened minded less arrogant assumption" is neither. To assume that human existence is more complicated or has more meaning than what meets the eye is very arrogant, especially when coupled with the "opened minded" position that any half baked fabricated explanation deserves equal consideration with observed facts. Using that logic I could suggest that the universe materialized from the rectum of a giant cosmic bull and you would have to consider it or risk being closed minded. We both know you would dismiss it as not being plausible before calling in the men with white coats to take me away as I babble about things beyond our senses.

As for our founders, it is you who needs a history lesson. I would suggest avoiding the christian revised history books and start with actual historical documents, such as the godless US Constitution. No mention of god, christianity or Jesus. The word religion is only mentioned twice, both times in the negative...Congress shall make no law....and there shall be no religious test. How about the records from the first continental congress that shows that the motion to begin each session with a prayer was resoundly defeated? How about writings from guys like Jefferson, Adams and Madison that clearly show their mistrust and even disdain for the involvment of religion in government. Some founders were christian but many did not strictly adhere as you were lead to believe. In any case what is clear is that the founders believed religion is personal and has no place in government. Tell me if you've seen these quotes while touring the capital.

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

As for evil, when it's done in the name of religion thousands or perhaps millions die. As for greed, anger, and jealousy I'm sure you can usually find a relgious root and if religion actually worked we wouldn't be discussing it.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2007, 1:03:27 PM PST
David King says:
Mr. Salhaney - Where to begin might be to address the fact that your worldview is based on an assumption, not a provable fact. You can try to skirt the issue, as you do repeatedly, but it won't go away. Your statement that free will is simply that we do what we choose to do is not very analytical. How do chemical reactions choose? How do chemical reactions determine truth? What makes one set of chemical reactions more valid than another? These are not lightweight questions. Your statement that science will eventually explain it all is a statement of faith, not fact.

Random activity is foundational to quantum mechanics, which underlies all of chemistry, which underlies all of biology. Our entire physical existence grows out of a level of existence that appears to science to be entirely random. So, your statement that anything random about material organisms being nonsense is in fact wrong. In fact, the idea of quantum uncertainty means there are things happening at this level of existence which science is not allowed to observe. Therefore, according to your standards, those things do not exist. Since those unobservable quantum phenomena form the basis of your physical existence, you must not exist either. Since you do exist, your standard must be incompatible with reality.

Please bear in mind that I am not trying to convince you that God exists. I am merely trying to point out that logic of your argument is deeply flawed. It cannot be sustained. I don't think you can even properly state what you believe without it being self-defeating.

I did not say the founding fathers intended to establish a theologically-based government. I said that their ideas were shaped by a Christian worldview, as their writings show.

I hope we don't get bogged down in history, but the greatest murderers the world has ever known were the atheists of the twentieth century. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all confessed atheists and killed tens of millions of their own people in their mad pursuit of power. Hitler, although he used religious language in his political speeches, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be seen as submitting himself to any deity other than himself. Assuming that you can trace all wrong to a religious root is just another bad assumption on your part.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2007, 2:02:42 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Feb 5, 2007, 2:03:17 PM PST]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  22
Total posts:  55
Initial post:  Dec 4, 2006
Latest post:  Aug 13, 2007

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 10 customers

This discussion is about