Is God ‘Obsolete’?

Is the media obselete? Rapidly advancing is the belief that YES… it IS!!!

“Does science make belief in God obsolete?”
I agree with the “absolutely not,” although it may well be true that science makes it EASIER to switch to atheism.
The problem is that the existence of God is simply not a scientific question. Science cannot and should not have anything to say about it.

Wow abc has an article called “is god obsolete” and an article called “is god a figament of imagination” all in one day, is this a pattern of anti-religion by abc? i wouldnt be surprised.

i find it interesting that so far, none of the prophecies in the bible have been proved false and some, such as the return of israel, have come true. they are already have plans to rebuild the solomon’s temple, probably wont happen anytime soon but the fact that they have plans already set out for it is quite interesting.

I find it interesting that some say religion is harming the evolution of man. National Geographic, a magazine always leaning toward the evolution side, wrote an article on long life, showing that at least one religion in general terms allowed for longer life. i would say that longer life is an advance in the human race, not a hindrance.

What should be asked is not “is God obsolete”, but is religion (in its current state) obsolete.

First off the very question is a bit exclusionary. Why just god singular? or god rather than goddess? I think this is often the case when this debate is put forward in majority judeo-christian majority setting. But it probably makes a catchier slogan than “Are the gods..” Or, “Is the divine…”.
You have to wonder what a supposedly pluralistic country with no establishment of religion is doing making hindu and buddhist citizens pass around money that says, “In god we trust”.
I mean, of course we don’t respect atheists, thats the american way. But disrespecting other people of faith is usually taboo.

Some people will always need a ‘god’.

I think people today think they are soo smart, that they can answer everything and beleive that god doesnt exist based on the current information science has given us, and yet scientists cannot explain why there is a universe, even with the big bang theory. based on the theory there should be no universe, just expanding energy. When the big bang happened both matter and antimatter expelled from the explosion en equal amounts. (creating matter results in creating equal antimatter) So when they both were expelled they collided into eachother resulting in coversion into pure energy. Yet for some unknown reason there was more matter than antimatter resulting from the explosion which defies what science tells us.

Hebrews 11:1-Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
(We walk by faith not by sight)

>>>>GOD IS GOOD!! <<<<
That's amazing that your husband's cancer was healed by God. Just one question Sue, why doesn't god heal amputees?
I'm not arguing for or against your god here, just wondering why it's always vague "healing" and never something obvious.

“>>>>GOD IS GOOD!! <<<<
That's amazing that your husband's cancer was healed by God. Just one question Sue, why doesn't god heal amputees?
I'm not arguing for or against your god here, just wondering why it's always vague "healing" and never something obvious."
Indeed that is a good question but if you watch "Bruce Almighty" you might find a good answer to that. its a movie for modern times and it explains that answer in a funny way.

>>>Indeed that is a good question but if you watch “Bruce Almighty” you might find a good answer to that. its a movie for modern times and it explains that answer in a funny way.>>>>
Sorry, I just can’t accept that a Jim Carey movie contains any useful information.
Now, god may hate amputees. Could be they are just big babies who whine so much that it drives him crazy. Or it could be that God specializes in internal medicine or possibly in divine chemotherapy of sorts. Or maybe rebuilding limbs is just a lot of work and he’s really busy. Maybe tumors are much easier and he’s going for COSTCO-esque bulk miracles here.
I don’t have the answer but I know if I were an amputee I would find God’s track record a little distressing.
I just wish you people would stop denying the other gods though, I just don’t know where you get off doubting them.

Example: if you were about to shoot someone in the head and you knew that there was no god, you would think that there would be no punishment after death for your crimes so killing another would be that much easier. If no one believed in god, then we would be just another species of animals basing all our actions on our primordial instincts, having no ethics or morals to look to because most of what we look to as “good and bad” comes from religion.
adam : there are different levels of moral development. Some people need the direction that religion can give, and some do not. I’m not worried about being punished in an afterlife, but I sure as heck know it’s absolutely wrong to murder someone. It’s really rather insulting when people say that without religion, there are no morals.

Bubba-
Ever think that losing a leg is a blessing because God spared a life?
Lets look at both sides here.

My cousin actually woke up one morning and FOUND a giant goiter on his neck. So clearly god is just shuffling this stuff around. That’s not healing, he’s just passing the buck around trying to confuse you SueEllen.
Honest and true. What? You don’t trust anonymous text on the internet?

“My cousin actually woke up one morning and FOUND a giant goiter on his neck. So clearly god is just shuffling this stuff around. That’s not healing, he’s just passing the buck around trying to confuse you SueEllen.
Honest and true. What? You don’t trust anonymous text on the internet? ”
The fact is, god is not in control, the reason to that is because we have free will. When jesus fasted, the devil said to him that if he were to bow down to the devil, the devil would give him control of all the nations in the world. In the end times however this will all change.

If there really is a god, then why did it let the little 10 year old girl die, who’s parents prayed non stop for it to heal her diabetes. I quess they didn’t have true faith then huh. Or maybe it’s just gods way, or maybe the world is flat, and is the center of the universe.

Well, good to know youve got it all sorted out adam, but that’s not the only view of god, or gods, or the divine.
“I take comfort that faith in religion is plummeting with each generation. The Pew poll shows an 11 point drop in faith among 18-29yos since the late 80s.
That’s why I love fundamentalists and creationists. They do more harm to religion than I ever could.”
This poll actually is part of a prophecy in itself, as the anti-christ will use the notion that there is no god to dominate over all.

“”That’s why I love fundamentalists and creationists. They do more harm to religion than I ever could.”"~adam
-LOL! Yep, together the fundamentalists and the creationists double team to help others and tell them what is what and how what is why what.
Yes the “the anti-christ will use the notion that there is no god to dominate over all” is somewhat commonly recited by some religious believers.
Yes there is some trfalseth with that statement. However, on the other worlds prespective polls are only pushed public if out of the e.g. “3″ neibors or friends sevayed, a majory if by .000001 agreed such that one can sum up their minute intrestes and proclaim the world is coming to an end when it is. OR is the world’s life expectcy growing loger as it is?

Dennis (nice name). we’re here because a man and woman had sex. There is no meaning or purpose. So enjoy it while you can.

Come on read and study the bible right. The soul of that girl is not in heaven. the bible clearly states that when we die we are no more until the second coming of Christ. if we are going to argue the bible, argue it in the right way. and no matter what we say, there is no proof either way. the only thing we have for the bible and God is a lot of evidence, no proof.

We make fun of primitive people who worship tree and water gods, people who maintain mankind began when an intergalactic warlord intervened, etc. But then many, with no more evidence of their god than the aforementioned,espouse something just as goofy …… the mythology of Christianity. For others, it is superstition, while for Christians their theology is truth. There must be some intrinsic values in self-delusion.

May the force be with you.

For all commits there exists a few that are false such that I will not point out but here is the evidence.
T T = T
T F = F
F T = T
F F = T
So, if you tell the truth you are telling the truth. If you tell a lie you are telling the truth for lying about laying. If you lie yet tell the truth, you tell the truth. HOWEVER IF you Tell the truth to lie you lie.

EMF short term Unseen Forces DO Exist, get a magnit or too, some plain printer paper, and a lot of iron metal fine flakes. Put the magents on top of the white paper spread out a bit. Poor the metalic dust falkes over and walla you can see (not directly but indriectly) the invisiable. Just image if earth was in that kind of pardiciment….

Have they take out the thing where you sware on the Bible or God’s blessed name in the obsolite court system yet? I mean, if i was ever called to the stand for anything for anyreason and ask if i would sware by the truth and nothing but the truth so help me God, i would say, NO I DON”T!!! Please say yes they have takeing that out of the system?

Religion only works when you “accept” it, not when you “question” it. That’s why you don’t find many religious scientist.
Organized Religion is a nice little system to maintain public control. Nothing less, nothing more. You can’t learn anything truly new from it though because it is based on trust and doctrine rather than logic and observation.

Q: If science is so smart, why can’t they answer how was the Universe created? What started the Big Bang? Who created DNA? Must be a deity, right?
A: Just because our current technology and understanding is limited, it does not mean that the ‘unkowns’ have to be associated with the mystery man in the sky. For example, if I were to travel back in time and tell Christoper Columbus I can communicate with people half the world away instantly, he would no doubt call me a God. In modern times, it’s called a cell phone…
God to me have the same connotation as Santa Claus, Nessy, Big Foot or Tooth Fairy: imaginary being used as a place holder for myths yet to be explained. But someday, hopefully we will grow up and understand that Santa Claus is just your parents, Nessy is just a log, Big Foot is just a bear, and the Tooth Fairy and God are just figments of your imagination. Lies to comfort yourself.

Thanks Ned, mine wasn’t crashing but It was getting way too time consuming to continue. Now I have to play catch-up.
DeHart-Starr
Using all caps in computer messaging is considered shouting. Most of us do not read them as they are much more difficult to decipher. PLEASE DONT!

Amazing G
Re: “GOD is unknowable”
astute observation. I concur.
bubba
Re: Are “the gods” dead?
Ah yes, especially on Galactica.
But if I may quote an old Pogo cartoon:
GOD IS NOT DEAD, HE IS MERELY UNEMPLOYED.

Religion is a dialog tool with oneself as well as a survival tool for individuals and societies alike! Sciences, can either help us to survive or help us destroy ourself. So since, their objectives are different and similar at the same time, it is biaised to even use one to destroyed another…

DC
If you leave out the old testament I’ll agree with you.

Jock
I caught up on the comments on the other thread. The “cat” tracks that david was talking about were Permian, not Cretaceous. He also was telling you that I claimed that they were reptilian.
What I actually said was that they were more likely therapsid and suggested that he look at the Wiki page on Gorgonopsids for an example. Typically he ignored what I said. I had mentioned that therapsids used to be called mammal-like reptiles but I guess that past tense did not sink in. They were protomammals and some could make such a track which is neither actually cat-like nor dog-like but closer to bear-like (plantigrade}. I have seen all three types in my front yard; cougar, black bear and my own dogs. The bear and dog tracks were easy as I saw the animals making the tracks. The cougar had me puzzled until two days ago when someone finally gor a photo of it – a true cryptid – a dark gray/black cougar (night shot with flash). Until then I was guessing small cougar or big bobcat.
The point is that I live in an area where these animals live and know what cat tracks look like. Big cats can not fully retract their claws like a house cat and digit placement is more parallel than that picture.
Creodonts did not appear until the Oligocene as far as I know but they would have a similar track but with visible claw marks.

DC
Lost a house (1983 to fire), have given a five or a ten to help a stranger get home (probably went towards a bottle but its not my nature to say no) and have read much of the Catholic bible (no old testament), parts of the King James and one that was from a Born Again with large type for my old eyes.
But I am first and foremost a solid believer in reality, evolution and Einstien (yes I have read “Reletivity”).
But I do not accept the old testament as literal truth or history and find much of it highly immoral.

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” – Thomas Aquinas

It is not God that is obsolete, it is our faith that is coming to extinction such is proven by the pestilence in our society. School shootings. Mass murders. Infidelity. Hate. Lack of commitment in marriage. These behaviors will make us obsolete which is why God created His bible for us–so that we may know how to survive.
For those cynics that taunt Christians because of our beliefs, maybe your holy and genius selves can better explain just how gravity is sustained and created. Maybe you can finally and correctly calculate for us the probabilities of creation from nothing. Don’t forget to include in your calculations that we have a perfect temperature on earth to sustain life as well as atmosphere. You’ll need the probability from that in order to determine the beginning of life.
When life began, maybe you could further give us the probabilities of animal life’s beginnings with that of plant life because they’re both needed to sustain the other.
What you’ll find is that the creation of the world from nothing is improbable; actually, impossible. In your arrogance, like Satan, you self-actuators believe you come from nothing to which you will find that’s where you’ll end–nothing.
Good luck to you. As for those who keep the faith, God Bless to us.

BT: “Don’t forget to include in your calculations that we have a perfect temperature on earth to sustain life as well as atmosphere.”
That actually is reasonably likely, considering the billions of stars out there. And the fact that WE happen to be on this one is irrelevant, because if the conditions were NOT appropriate, then we wouldn’t be here to contemplate it in the first place.
Not that any of that really says anything about God and faith. My point is that trying to “prove” it scientifically will remain problematical. Faith should be enough.

God has been pushed back to BEFORE the Big Bang by the increasing ability of science to answer most (but not all) questions relating to events AFTER.
Science can not test beyond this limit. Proof is absent, therefore religion takes over for those who need it.

“adam
If you are a believer you had better hope that they dont rebuild that temple.
It’s return was phrophesized to signal armagedon or some thing like that. But, then again, that is another legend borrowed from Babylon” ~Quietman
Actually i hope that time is coming because that means the end times are coming which also means all the beleivers will be taken up to heaven, inculding me.

Belief in any of the gods portrayed by established religions is ridiculous. There is nothing that sets any of the religions apart from each other in terms of reliability or accuracy. The fact is that we do not know such things. Anyone who claims otherwise is kidding themselves.

The question maybe should be “has science made God in the same category as ET or Santa Claus?” It has…if naturalism is true.
Actually silly naturalists WILL almost universally say that intelligent ET life MUST be “out there”, without any good evidence of that. And that absence of evidence (so far) is good reason to say it is evidence of absence. Yet they “believe.” The reason they believe is their devotion to their religion of atheistic abiogenesis/evolution. If that is true, ETI must out there….IT MUST!
So they believe in something far far less likely than God.

adam
Believers in what? Believers in the afterlife or of some particular faith?

“So they believe in something far far less likely than God.” ~David Willis
Nice one i didnt think of that. My views are kinda different, i beleive that the universe wasnt created in some magical way. i beleive that the universe was created by god through science, meaning that it is possible to explain how the universe was created but there are certain things that only intervention from a supreme being could allow for things to happen. 2 good examples are the Big bang theory pertaining to matter and antimatter inconcistencies, and the complexity of DNA.

David
Why do you insist on creating a schism between science and faith in God? Most of us who have been discussing creationism vs evolution are not athiests, we each, individually have told you exactly that. We believe in God, just not your particular rendering.
Each time I reply to an argument you manage to twist what I say so it fits your argument like saying that I claimed your cat tracks to be reptilian.
I never said it, you did. It is very frustrating to argue with a closed mind.
I don’t know how Jock managed to last as long as he did.

adam
Believers in what? Believers in the afterlife or of some particular faith?
Really the major point is having faith in a divine being that beleives in the qualities of love and peace. I beleive this because there are people around the world who have never heard of the bible and to say that god would single them out is crazy.

Well the evidence that israel has been ressurected and the fact that more and more people are becoming atheists are 2 good points.

I pick out the parts where my concience feels right about because even though the bible is our main relgious text, we have to remember that it was created by man, not by god. The new testiment and old itself are a collection of religious scrolls. the issue is that we have to really think when reading the bible. for instance there are scrolls that say mary magdaline was a prostitue that jesus saved from execution, but there were others that say she was an apostle. WE have to remember at the time of the creation of the bible (which was created by man, guided by god) that many beleived that women were inferior to man so they chose mary as a prostitute over apostle.
so we have to remember that the bible wasnt created by god, it was created by man. god may have tried to guide the creators but humans have free will and where there is free will there is both good an evil, even in the saints amoung us.

ya, quiet thats a great example how why we should not follow every single word in a relgious text unless we knew for a fact that it was created directly from god.

Ned
I checked out the articles that you linked. Interesting stuff. Looks like the Nays have it.
adam
Again I agree with you, wholehartedly.

Stan>>And, if God does not appear for another 2000 years, imagine how hard it will be for a human to believe 2000 years from now, 4000 years removed from God’s last appearance. If God is a God of love, why not give everybody an equally plausible basis to believe, regardless when they live?
>>
Interesting thought Stan. It may surprise you that the Bible actually says that those prophets like Abraham WISHED they could see what we are permitted to know by what the Bible reveals. After all we can see the whole story, and they only got the first part. I Pet. 1:10-11. Even those living at the time of Christ did not ALL get personal miracles…only enough did to give a reasonable basis to conclude that Jesus was deity. Thomas had to see the nail prints…and that was a LESSER faith, in God’s eyes (Jn. 20:26-29). Some may be surprised to know that Jesus didn’t INTEND to heal everyone or end all poverty so as to end suffering…nor did He intend to bash people in the face with the reality of His deity. God could do that each morning for every human in some incontrovertable way…but then that would remove all faith and make it less enjoyable to God when a single person DOES choose faith in Him. Yeah, some will say it is selfish of God to want enjoyment, but if He didn’t have some enjoyment by creating us why would He bother? Humans don’t do that sort of thing either. There is satisfaction God gets from our obeying Him…and it benefits us TOO of course.
This may be a flawed example, but the whole point of “Oprah’s Big Give” was that the people didn’t KNOW ahead of time they’d get $1million if they were the best givers. Maybe they thought of it in the back of their minds…maybe not. But the test of their character was in whether they would do their work of giving even if it was OTHERS who got the benefit…that that was shown by their NOT being told ahead of time.

QM>>>They were protomammals and some could make such a track which is neither actually cat-like nor dog-like but closer to bear-like (plantigrade}. I have seen all three types in my front yard; cougar, black bear and my own dogs. The bear and dog tracks were easy as I saw the animals making the tracks. The cougar had me puzzled until two days ago when someone finally gor a photo of it – a true cryptid – a dark gray/black cougar (night shot with flash). Until then I was guessing small cougar or big bobcat.
The point is that I live in an area where these animals live and know what cat tracks look like. Big cats can not fully retract their claws like a house cat and digit placement is more parallel than that picture.
Creodonts did not appear until the Oligocene as far as I know but they would have a similar track but with visible claw marks.
>>
That just is not true. I gave many sites with pics and quotes of track experts saying felines don’t show claw marks. AND BESIDES…the Creodont pic you sent me to see (yes I DID see it) had huge non-retractable claws! And the tracks I showed you of a cat track in the Cretaceous was NOT plantigrade! It was digitigrade and identical to large cat tracks today! If you say it WAS a Creodont-type reptile, how do you explain no claw marks???
Also, there were TWO tracks. One was a human-looking track (or art?) in what is considered Permian. The other is a cat track in what is thought to be middle Cretaceous.
BTW, I am not impressed with this thread vs. the evolution thread. We were getting better discussion over there I think. Too much bashing here.

i acutally havent read it but i went online to see some about it and i might go out and get the text sometime.

all this religious talking makes me want to re-read the bible and certain biblical texts again.

BTW, I know Jock is a nice guy…I am just testing the consistency of his thinking by challenging him on why atheists have morality systems at all and why they don’t have very subjective morality systems which are simply based on majority opinion.

David: “You mean nothing other than saying “God probably doesn’t exist, so your religion is a farce”?…which is what they DO say.”
Some SCIENTISTS say this when they are being PEOPLE, not when they are doing SCIENCE.
The problem with “non-overlapping magisteria” concept is that we DO have claims to the same ground. Some people on BOTH sides think the worldviews will be non-overlapping only when the “other” side gives up that ground.
I don’t know how to solve that one. All I know how to do is study what I can see. I agree that anything we can’t explain yet COULD be divine design, but I am still curious to look for naturalistic explanations (otherwise this would really boring).
All I was trying to do on the other thread is show that we really do have a lot more evidence than people realize for explaining all of these things naturalistically. That’s just what science does. That’s all it CAN do.
I am convinced that we have explained so much of evolution naturalistically, that the rest seems likely to go the same way, but of course in the end that can only remain a belief. I don’t care what people believe, as long as they try to claim that there is no scientific evidence for a particular thing when there IS.

The last line of my previous comment should of course read: “…as long as they DON’T try to explain…”

David: “You seem very satisfied with that answer for why THIS PLANET is so biophilic. What is your answer for the UNIVERSE ITSELF being so?”
I have no idea what the rest of the Universe is like. I like to hear about it when they find new things, but I know I can never have a grasp on it all, and i don’t feel any need to.

David
Take another look at the links you posted. The shape of the cougars digits is triangular (not fully retractable) with the pad shielding the claw from contact with the ground. The fossil is ROUND toed, not the same.
A bear does not have retractable claws but you do not normally see claw marks in the footprints, you see round pad marks because the claws are pointing more upwards and forwards. I normally dont see claw marks from my dogs unless they are running.

David
Now you are putting words in Christs mouth. I give up. You are definetly a hopeless case.
Jock
I catch you again on the next thread.

David: “You seem very satisfied with that answer for why THIS PLANET is so biophilic. What is your answer for the UNIVERSE ITSELF being so?”
Jock>>I have no idea what the rest of the Universe is like. I like to hear about it when they find new things, but I know I can never have a grasp on it all, and i don’t feel any need to.>>
Well, SCIENCE would tell you it is amazingly “just so”. That is why they had to invent a wacko concept like infinite numbers of universes…to somehow explain it without using God.
You don’t have to personally study each and every point re. the U to conclude it is “too perfect.” Just listen to Richard Dawkins…when he gets around to that part. He concedes that is a problem for atheism.

When readership is down, publish an outrageous article about science, god, atheism, creationism vs evolution, etc. to get passions going. Collect advertising revenue.

Quietman, Christianity started when Adam and Eve sinned for the first time. As soon as Adam and Eve sinned, God gave the very first promise of Messiah that would be born of a woman and crush the serpent’s head. Ever since then the prophets and people of God have believed in Messiah. Everyone of all times have to look to the same Messiah that is Yeshua (the Salvation of Jah)

“”"”That is what they say about difficulties with Evolution too. It is a commitment to a faith to them. It is religion…or indistinguishable from a religion. They must first make a philosophical CHOICE to say “it all is naturalistic, so all things we don’t understand can be explained by better understanding of natural forces.” That is just a philosophical PREMISE…not something rationally derived from evidence. “”"” DWillis
Wrong again. At least you could be honest in your criticisms. You well know that many people of faith support evolution. There is no such choice for them.
I don’t understand why their existence is so upsetting for you that you continually pretend that they dont exist? Can’t you just disagree with them with making them vanish?

Jock>>The problem with “non-overlapping magisteria” concept is that we DO have claims to the same ground. Some people on BOTH sides think the worldviews will be non-overlapping only when the “other” side gives up that ground.
I don’t know how to solve that one.
>
Yep. It is just a weak effort by atheists to placate theists…while giving atheists the superior role of explaining what REALLY is true about the world. And many theists are more than willing to seek a way to find common ground by redefining theism. The solution is really to define science not as “naturalism-only” but rather some idea of “truth” that would be open to being shown something like a miracle or evidence of a non-naturalist origin of life or variety of life. At this point, the powers that be forbid that.
But part of the problem is “how do you prove a negative”? How can a theist PROVE that it is impossible through natural means to create life from dead matter? At what point can a theist say “absence of evidence is INDEED evidence of absence?”
The answer from science seems to be “NEVER.” That is not a rational quest for truth. That is devotion to a philosophy.

Bubba>>Great idea David! We could pattern it after the Inquistion, or the massacres in the crusades! Or the massacre of heretical sects in medieval europe. Or 9/11! Or the salem witch trials. >>
I (and most theists) would agree that such ideas are contemptable. They were perversions of anything that did actually come from God. It is unfair to blame God for man’s screwups. “The abuse of a thing does not argue against the thing itself.” You believe that don’t you? Didn’t Hitler screw up when he sought to do with guns what Evolution supposedly does naturally?
The difference is that Machiavelli or Hitler were pretty close to being consistent with atheistic evolution. It was not really any perversion of that concept. They just wanted to do more quickly and efficiently what nature takes millions of years to do. WHY NOT???…if there is no absolute source of moral truth? I’m sure many atheists disagree, but I think they are being inconsistent. If religion is really bad for mankind and there is no God, then it would be a good thing to irradicate all theists and kill off any others that might come along later. Why is that not a “good” thing?

>>>>I (and most theists) would agree that such ideas are contemptable. They were perversions of anything that did actually come from God. It is unfair to blame God for man’s screwups. “The abuse of a thing does not argue against the thing itself.” You believe that don’t you? Didn’t Hitler screw up when he sought to do with guns what Evolution supposedly does naturally? <<<<
Na, its just rhetoric David, any way you slice it. I'm just throwing it back at you. I'm certainly not blaming your god as I don't believe in him.
Jeffrey Dhalmer believed that eating people would give him the powers of the Emperor from star wars. Should we blame George Lucas? I mean ok, Jar Jar Binks was a bad move but I don't think Lucas would have approved eating people.
People do bad things and religion doesnt seem to be much proof against it. The bible belt has some of the worst crime and divorce rates in the country and prisons are full of believers. That's just people being people.

For those of us that truly understand the power and beauty of science (including evolution), for what it is, the world has more meaning and is far more full of hope than any false God or religion could ever wish to provide with their supernatural religious fairy tales.

bb1970>>more full of hope than any false God or religion could ever wish to provide with their supernatural religious fairy tales.>>
Since you believe your atheism is superior and has no “fairy tales” can you explain what brought matter into existence? What force overcame the gravity of the singularity? What can account for the biophilic features of the U? Where life came from?
All the answers I’ve ever heard on these sounded like fairy tales to me. So if you have something that DOESN’T…please tell us. Jock would be as interested in hearing that as I would, I think.

David: “naturalistic evolutionary view would say that if society is better off by killing off the weak or those with “harmful ideas”…then in the long run the “good” thing to do is to kill them off. If no moral absolute prohibits it and atheists think it will improve humanity, I don’t get why NOT.”
I’m always amazed at how self-righteous religion people can manage to turn realit inside out like that. The only people I have ever heard of actually TRYING to kill off people with “harmful ideas” were religious zealots.
I’m not sure where you get this notion that atheists want to kill you. Some bitter, twisted internet denizens may say things like that, but they are bitter, twisted internet denizens. If we are going to use the worst of a group to tar them all, theists are in BIG trouble.

bubba>>It did not suggest it was a sin or wrong yet many christians today would see it as one. That’s a view that is not directly expressed in the bible so they have their own personal codes.
>>
You are right again. To say that it is sin, when the Bible says it is not necessarily sin…is arbitrary.
The New Testament DOES command masters to be good to slaves and for slaves to not rebel. The Bible does not condemn it nor require it…because it is not intrinsically bad or good. It is neutral. I realize that if I were captured in war and made into a slave, I may have trouble realizing that it was not an intrinsically bad thing…but I think even a lack of freedom may not be intrinsically evil, though I of course would want that in most circumstances. I think that is proved by the fact that some who had a choice (just after the Civil War) preferred to remain in a slave’s position in a household. No doubt that is also true of the slaves in Bible times. The book of Philemon is about that…a slave who ran away and then was encouraged to return.
The same could be said of course about communism or democracy…the NT is indifferent about those systems also. Either system can cause evil things…but not necessarily.

David: “The solution is really to define science not as “naturalism-only” but rather some idea of “truth” that would be open to being shown something like a miracle or evidence of a non-naturalist origin of life or variety of life.”
The solution is NOT to make up new definitions for words that have been around for centuries. Science can only look at naturalistic explanations because that’s what science IS, by DEFINITION. If you want to talk about a larger Truth, then call it something else; like “Truth.” Of course there is a larger Truth than science. THAT’S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING.

that should have been “source of MORALITY.” Sorry.

David: “Theism gives man an objective and absolute source of authority…it is NOT from “self.”
This is just saying that the only reason to do the right thing is because God told you to.

Cturple wrote:
David: You simply want to redefine science to include supernatural explanations? And who gets to decide which supernatural explanations are acceptable? Will we then be adding alchemy, spells and potions to our curriculums? Please – think about what you’re saying. You are arguing against reality.>>
(First, can we please not quote in this way? It leaves the impression that *I* said that (above)…when it was said TO me.)
I agree that it is a difficulty. You can’t just attribute all things we don’t understand to magic or the supernatural. However, some people who believe in (for instance) the Resurrection would have a dilemma. If you only allow for a naturalistic explanation for the empty Tomb…then you would conclude the Resurrection did not happen because it COULD not happen. And the reason it COULD not is merely because you have ruled out all supernatural events…philosophically. What IF there is a God and what IF there have been supernatural events? Are you saying we must never contemplate any way to inquire at all into that question? If someone claimed to walk on water as Jesus did…would you say we must not look to see if He was standing on some plexiglass like Criss Angel does? If no plexiglass or wires or any thing can be found…can we decide THEN it might be supernatural? Or has your philosophy pre-decided all this?
I guess I am wondering…if you had another 50,000 years of science trying to figure how life came from non-life, would that be enough time to decide that it can NOT or at least MOST LIKELY cannot?…and therefore it had to be from some supernatural event? Is it really fair to rule that out totally? If you do that, then you are merely expressing a philosophical CHOICE you made.

David: “why do you have any reason to think that the many problems of Ev. (like lack of TF’s) are NOT rightly solved by God being the creator of that new life form?”
First of all, there are thousands of transitional forms, so you can just stuff that lie once and for all.
And the Creationists don’t want a nuanced creation theory. They want the LITERAL Biblical creation story to be taught in SCIENCE class as if it had equal SCIENTIFIC evidence to evolution. I will fight that with every fiber of my being.

David Willis: If you want to study the supernatural and try to use it to explain natural events – go right ahead. But you won’t be a scientist, and don’t expect anyone to believe that you are. You want to revise science to include YOUR supernatural beliefs, but no other. You pose hypothetical questions, as if they were evidence of something. Yet you actually give us NO evidence of ANYTHING. When you can show that humanity has learned EVERYTHING there is to know about the natural universe, and we are incapable of ever learning anything else, and we still don’t know how life arose – then we’ll have something to talk about. Scientists don’t rule out the supernatural for philosophical reasons – they rule it out because it is NOT SCIENCE. Harvard is working on the origin of life question now. I don’t think they’re going to need 50,000 years.

Jock>>First of all, there are thousands of transitional forms, so you can just stuff that lie once and for all.>>
I guess it depends on how loose you define TF’s.
The best series I’ve ever heard of is the whale…and I think it has about 3 or 4 types of life forms to get from the land creature to the whale. If there are more, please enlighten me. Can’t you agree that we have to believe in fairy tales to think that one day #1 turned into #2 (without any TF’s in between we can find) and then a million years later #2 turned to #3. We see the unique and discrete COMPLETE life forms but not those in between.

jock>>And the Creationists don’t want a nuanced creation theory. They want the LITERAL Biblical creation story to be taught in SCIENCE class as if it had equal SCIENTIFIC evidence to evolution. I will fight that with every fiber of my being.>>
I am agreeing that a science class paid for with public funds is not where you teach that the Bible is true…and it SHOULDN’T be where you teach it is NOT true also. Do you agree?
Also, would you permit or forbid something which seriously challenges evolution (without affirming Bible)…such as some dating methods which are in conflict with AE? I realize you would want to feel they were VALID challenges, but then you’d also want to define that as being only something which supports AE and Ev…so that is not fair.

Suppose I have a giant boulder in my front yard. How did it get there? I could get a geologist to go into the standard geology of how boulders are pushed by glaciers and then buried and gradually it is brought to the surface over great time till it made its way to my yard. And that could be right…OR I could have hired a landscaper who brought it here in a big truck.
Once I RULE IN the landscaper then a non-naturalist explanation becomes very very rational. It depends on what your philosophy rules in or out I guess. And if a philosophy of supernaturalism is TRUTH…then we might expect some things to NOT be explanable by entirely naturalistic means…like the origin of matter or life. OR the variety of life.
I still have no reply to my simple question for theistic ev’s. IF God made the matter and the life…why is it so difficult to say He also made the variety…or that apparent design in biology is ACTUAL design? I can see an atheist struggling to admit that…but NOT a theist!

cturple>>>When you can show that humanity has learned EVERYTHING there is to know about the natural universe, and we are incapable of ever learning anything else, and we still don’t know how life arose – then we’ll have something to talk about. >>
Interesting. How could anyone ever prove there is nothing else to know? I guess you like defining the problem to favor YOU, eh? I think it is fairer to ask the one who claims that all is explained naturalistically to explain it all and then if he can’t, to leave open the possibility it CAN’T all be explained naturalistically.

David: “teach that the Bible is true…and it SHOULDN’T be where you teach it is NOT true also. Do you agree?”
OF COURSE. We never said the Bible wasn’t “True.” We said it was not SCIENCE.

David: ” could get a geologist to go into the standard geology of how boulders are pushed by glaciers…”
Are you suggesting that glaciers do NOT push boulders?

>>>>>I just don’t follow how it is not a consistent application of atheism and ESPECIALLY the concepts of survival of the fittest to not kill off those who are weak and have harmful ideas. It would seem to be the ONLY good thing to do if you believed the final outcome was good. Why would it not be moral? >>>>
Because such things would be wrong and human empathy (evolved or granted) prevents most people from doing such things.
As a counter example I don’t see why you don’t murder children David? If you really believed that babies go to heaven why are you allowing them to grow up and risk hell? Shouldnt you sacrifice your own presence in heaven to ensure that thousands of babies never grow up to burn in hell?

David: “It is mere subjectivism…relativism. If you found yourself in another society at a different time…”
What do you think a society IS. It’s is a group of human beings who have created a social contract. In the United States, we don’t kill people we don’t like (usually) because we have agreed on a Constitution, and a set of laws, AND because it is wrong. Obviously many other societies today and in the past have not done such a good job.

Jock>>>What on Earth do you expect a “transitional form” to be?>>
THAT is the question. Calling a set of organisms that you have arranged according to their similarities is NOT proof of their being transitional. It ASSUMES they are.
For instance, I pointed out that Afrotheria (if the microbiology cladists are right) supposedly has a small group which all evolved from a comman ancestor and ALL of them are closer related to each other than to any organism NOT in Afrotheria. Right?
So we have tons and tons of non-registered TF’s to account for just within Afrotheria. PLUS we have to explain how there is SUCH similarity to forms in other Superorders. We have to figure out how marsupial moles look so much like placental moles…yet the placental mole is more related to a goat or a human than to the marsupial mole.
It’s time then to call upon Darwin of the gaps!

David-
What the heck is this great Biblical moral code anyway? EVERYTHING in the Bible? All that about people who eat shellfish being stoned to death or whatever it is? You don’t think we have to follow THAT one? Why not? Rules are rules. Unless you are suggesting we should decide in our own hearts which rules of morality are truly important?
Hmmm, what does that sound like?

…and if you only rule in naturalistic causes you’ll miss the correct explanation.

Posted by: David Willis-
And once the majority decides subjectively they are right, then they come for your grandmother to kill her off when she is sick. And all you can say is “it is WRONG because…uh…uh…uh…because it is WRONG!…uh…uh…because I THINK IT IS WRONG!”
<
Except majority opinion does not make something right. Do you even read what I write, or are you having a conversation all by yourself in your head?

David: “If you are going to “go” with a subjective source because it informs you that slavery is wrong, then the same subjective source could tell someone else it is right or maybe some other thing is right.”
The point cturple was making is that YOU are suggesting we use an OBJECTIVE source of morality that does NOT say that slavery was wrong. How then did we all decide that it WAS wrong?

David: “No. I am saying they are not the only things that push them, so if you see a boulder you can’t know if it was a glacier or a landscaper that moved it there. You have to rule IN both.”
And if any scientist suggested otherwise they would be fired. Of course what you are talking about here is two naturalistic hypotheses, which is what science is all about.
Maybe then we could, I don’t know…look for more clues?

jock>>I have said about ten times that whether God ALSO had something to do with it is just fine with me, but it is not a scientific question.>>
I guess by that you mean that it is a question that is not addressable at all (even to a “most reasonable” std) by naturalistic methods. I disagree. For instance, I don’t believe in the Resurrection just because one day I decided to believe in it. I believe in it because I think it is more reasonable to believe that than to believe other explanations…and because there are good internal reasons to believe the Bible is a true account of that event as well as other miracles of Christ and others.
Similarly, I don’t agree that the means of having variety of life is undetectable altogether if it was by God rather than a nat. method. I think for instance that finding soft dino tissue is informative. YOU think it informs about magical ways tissue is preserved. I think it informs about that the proper date is younger. YOU think that a human encased in Cret. rock is informative of an invisable tunnel entrance. I think it informs that the dates are bad. YOU think no signals from ET’s is not informative at all about whether life evolves. I think it does help inform us. YOU think C14 dates consistently found it coal shows we can’t possibly get uncontaminated-enough samples, I say it is likely the right dating (approx.)…etc.
BTW, I posted a long post on C14 on the other page and since I doubt it got read I’m going to put it here.

God=Universe
Only the universe as a whole meets the definition of God as omniscient, omnipresent, etc. Thus, as part of the universe, we are part of God. The law of conservation of information (Hawkins) shows that when we die our information (soul?) is recycled by the universe. Kinda neat, huh?

David: “I don’t believe in the Resurrection just because one day I decided to believe in it. I believe in it because I think it is more reasonable to believe that than to believe other explanations…”
That one just leaves me speechless. Are you saying belief is not faith? Or faith is not belief? Or faith is not reasonable? Or is it? What?

The same way the pack animals might have concern for the welfare of the group. Or how a mother might feel the need to care for her infants. I don’t know a great deal about the subject but the behavior of social animals isnt a forbidden subject to biologists. We arent the only animal to live in a pack and know enough not to harm each other.
It’s also interesting how it’s easier for humans to demonize and despise those who look different from their own pack. Whatever form that pack might take.

If you don’t understand WHY slavery is wrong, David, you and society are better off if you stick with the big book of no-nos. Christians get it right at least some of the time. After you read about Kohlberg’s theory, please look up sociobiology. Your lack of knowledge about this topic is embarrassingly apparent.

To David, from cturple >>>>>
I’ve been known to say that I’m wrong more than once, but you’re not likely to be reading it in this thread.

David: “If you just say it is wrong because it is wrong…you have not given a reason.”
OK, why do YOU think it is wrong? Because God said so? Which God? The God that 6th century B.C. Hebrews wrote about? The God that 7th century AD Arabs wrote about? How do you know which one is right? Because your parents said so? Be cause your SOCIETY said so? Because you think so in your heart? WHY???

Posted by: David WillisYou have to be kidding! I’m supposed to make a big list for you? Wasn’t bubba complaining on the other page I was giving TOO MANY examples?
I suggest you reread the other page…and pay better attention.

Make a short list. It should be very simple to come up with a half-dozen or so.
No – make a short list.

I mean if I give you a lie, I may have a chance to convert you and help you go to heaven so that would be a good thing….so I should lie to you about what I really think the answer is. Right?

David: It’s not a trick question.

Jock>>David: “YOU think it informs about magical ways tissue is preserved.”
That is a stupid strawman argument (a specialty of militant creationists, I have noticed).
Why do you say it is magical? Because you don’t understand it? Because you want to make it sound silly? >>
YOU don’t understand it…and no one else does. And yes, it was to mock the idea. It proves to me that hardly ANY evidence you could be shown would cause the slightest wobble in your determination to hold to your view. As I said before. ASK A CHEMIST. He would say it would have to be some sort of magical cause…or virtually so. I would bet he would say (no kidding) that time travel was a more likely explanation. Maybe THAT will be the next thing you suggest! I mean, if you have to go to the point of time travel to explain things, rather than conclude that the God you SAY you have not ruled out may have done it differently than science claims happened…then I guess it is pretty pointless to give evidence to you.
For those not on the other page, I cited evidence FROM EV’s that is not refuted at all, that soft tissues, probably proteins and blood vessels and blood cells, were found in T-Rex bones.
I wonder if anyone thought to C14 test them?

Jock>>Why can it (soft tissue) be preserved for 5000 years in mammoths but not for 65 million years? Why is one “magical” and not the other? >>>
It has something to do with ALL those zeros. Those zeros are your buddies when you need lots of time to let ev. happen. They ain’t your buddies in this case.
>>Because one fits your worlview and the other doesn’t? We know that tissue can be preserved indefinitely if it is sealed off from all decaying agents such as oxygen and bacteria, but how long is indefinitely? 10,000? A million? 100 million? All you know is that it definitely can’t be 65 million. Why? Well, because it just CAN’T!!>>
No part of why is that I can take good science from chemistry and then reason from it, and I don’t have an Ev. agenda. I am just taking the view science took for about 100 years about decomposition of tissue and how molecules decay into other molecules…BEFORE they found the soft dino tissue. That is why it is called a “Dino SHOCKER”. Frozen flesh 5000 years ago is a far cry from unfrozen bone marrow from 65,000,000 years ago. As Schweitzer said, (approx) “we KNOW the chemistry cascades..and it just does NOT happen.” Well it DID…it HAD TO…or else the dating is way off.
I know the tendency is to say “there HAS to be an explanation” for ANY evidence I could POSSIBLY give you. And I suppose with a good imagination and not much restraint of logic you can (or some Ev associate can) invent some “out there” explanation for about anything…even if you must resort to ET’s and time travellers, which some on the other page DID. You should at LEAST put this one in the column for YE creation, UNTIL someone can give a descent scientific answer from a chemist.

How about one? One piece of concrete evidence that supports creationism.

David: “I know the tendency is to say “there HAS to be an explanation”
There seems to be a similar tendency on your part to insist that there has to NOT be an explanation.

David: I would not try to go into that with someone until there was agreement first that it is likely that gods/god/God does exist. I am not being coy…just that some of the reasonings are based on first concluding God exists.”
How convenient. So you are saying that the reasons you think your morality is superior is beyond my understanding. So far I don’t see ANY hint as to why your conclusion is inherently better than mine. Apparently, if only I believed what you believed, then I could believe my morality was superior too! Yeah!!

David: “how would you score yourself on where you are…on the atheist/theist scale”
I never really understood all those definitions. Is an atheist someone who doesn’t “believe” in God, or actively denies any possibility of God, or one who attacks theism in others? I think most philosophers would go for the middle one, but I lot of paranoid Christians seem to think it’s the latter.
I don’t deny God’s existence; I just doubt it.

David: “if I am right, there is a huge loss for atheists.”
I assume that this is getting at the notion that only believers get to go to heaven. Is that why I should believe. I don’t get a reward for being a good person, unless I was a good person AND thought the world was created in six days? How petty.
David, if such a God existed, I wouldnt want to worship him anyway.

David-
I forget. Why are you so sure the Bible is true? Because there is evidence? What kind of evidence? Scientific evidence? Or just evidence that it SEEMS right? Is there more scientific evidence for 6 days of creation and “God did it,” than there is for evolution?
There or enormous quantities of scientific evidence for evolution. But you think I should believe NONE of it. How? Just say it isn’t there before my eyes? You think I should believe the Bible instead? Because… why was that again? Because it’s the BIBLE?

cturple>>Morality based on a reward system is not morality at all – it’s akin to a dancing bear performing for treats.>>
I hadn’t thought of it that way, but I guess it is sort of true that atheists don’t expect to get any “treats”…but still have morality.
Oh wait…that can’t be true because atheists NEED some treats for the animals which developed morality…or they wouldn’t have done that. They had to have some motive of some sort…it helped the pack so I guess that was THEIR treat.
I think you are a little tough on theists to suggest that if THEY didn’t have a promise of a treat they’d be immoral. That was what you seemed so offended by, even though I bent over backwards to agree that atheists have morals and a humanistic reason for most moral choices.
Is it ok if the dancing bear does his “trick” because he loves his Master…and then the Loving Master wants to give a nice treat to the bear who loves Him enough to do his best trying to dance because it pleases His Master? That is a different motivation…and that is the motivation Christians at least TRY to aspire toward.

David: “That was what you seemed so offended by, even though I bent over backwards to agree that atheists have morals”
Yeah sure, atheists have morals. Just inferior ones.

cturple>>to David – you also have a propensity for avoiding or ignoring posts for which you have no reply. Apparently, you’re unable to decide for yourself if it’s wrong for a father to steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving child. I find that particularly sad.>>
I thought you were smart enough to see my answer by reading in between the lines. If it was wrong for me to lie to you, even if I felt a good result would come, it would also be wrong for a father to steal to feed his child. I don’t believe in situational ethics. I may be that God would forgive such a father.
What about stealing from another family who also are starving? What does your morality say there? An animal wouldn’t think twice about stealing it.

jock>>There or enormous quantities of scientific evidence for evolution. But you think I should believe NONE of it. How? Just say it isn’t there before my eyes? You think I should believe the Bible instead? Because… why was that again? Because it’s the BIBLE?>>
No. I would never tell an atheist to believe God exists because the Bible (written by God) says so.
That would be like the sort of circular reasoning and illogical methods an atheists uses…who sees design and denies a designer, or who believes something comes from nothing, or life comes from non-life, or believes ET MUST be out there without any sign or sound from him. I try to be logical.
No, before I would ask someone to accept the Bible as true I would need first to show non-Biblical evidence to conclude God exists. Oh, I should say except for maybe Biblical fulfilled prophecy, but most atheists would dismiss most of that because of the sort of “PROOF” standard they insist on, and God doesn’t seem to want to provide.

jock>>There or enormous quantities of scientific evidence for evolution. But you think I should believe NONE of it. How? Just say it isn’t there before my eyes? You think I should believe the Bible instead? Because… why was that again? Because it’s the BIBLE?>>
I believe there are enormous quantities of scientific evidence for design but that evidence has been co-opted by evolutionary dogma. For example, scientists see slight modifications in lifeforms and assume this is evidence for evolution. But rather, it is evidence for design! Lifeforms would just die out if they did not have the capacity to adapt to changes in the environment – especially given the environmental changes expected to have occurred throughout all history. I would predict that as we learn more about life we will see that the cause of the change is from complex systems within life and not the half hazard result of random mutations. Again, this would be a strong indication of design. Also, I would predict that there are limits to the ability to adapt. Anyone who has designed complex systems in engineering knows the difficulty of changing only one subsystem without the need to make changes to the other interrelated subsystems. The assumed random mutation aspect of evolution breaks down here because the probability of all the specific mutations required between subsystems becomes just too small. So there is an imposed limit to the change that “evolution” can expect to achieve. From the design perspective, it is the functionality limits of the designed mechanism built into life!

The big question is whether God is obsolete. First, ID does not say anything directly about the designer. It just says that intelligence is possible to be distinguished by observing certain types of patterns. Also, there is a process that we can use to distinguish the intelligence. The implications from design, however, would say that the intelligent being is NOT obsolete if the ID methodology shows design. If that being is God than he is not obsolete.
Now Creationism does suppose the existence of God! It is an axiom of Creation that God exists so he would not be obsolete. Let me give you an example. Christian Creationists believe that man lived to the age of 1000 years prior to the flood. The Christian Bible says that after the flood God limited the age of people to about 120 years. It suggests that the age of mankind was designed into us. And science today would support this view. Also, some report that old people (at about 120) have teeth growing back. This phenomena could be evidence supporting the Bible which says that mankind once lived to 1000 years. This design would be needed for humans if they lived to 1000 years!

Posted by: David Willis
to cturple: I appreciate your taking time to provide recommended books. I am sure they make some good points. I am not saying (as maybe some creationists do) that atheists don’t have a good basis of being moral. There are many good reasons they can have to justify morality. I think there are a FEW examples that put them in a difficult position, such as what I’ve discussed…if the whole society thinks their society would be improved in the long run by getting rid of some of them. I agree with the movie Expelled that evolution contributes toward some who would choose genocide…but that it is only a necessary idea not a sufficient one. I think bubba’s “pack/herd” idea has some merit…that that protection of those like ourselves could be part of an animal behavior. But it seems that would only go so far…and it (to me) is not adequate to just say the difference is in degree of intelligence. I can’t say one must have a concept of God to have any morality at all. I do however, think that moral absolutism is pretty much dependent on God, and that sometimes a relativistic morality will cause some awful results. Maybe others would say absolutism would too.
Except none of us agreed with your twisted example of killing people for the sake of society. Yet you just plow ahead as if you had proved something. And your “moral absolutism” is not absolute at all. It changes constantly. Of course, you’ve ignored the examples I provided of that as well. There are many theories about the development of altruism and conscience – and without knowing more than a casual sentence in a news forum, you dismiss it. I think it’s quite obvious to us all – you don’t have any idea what evidence actually is, and whatever doesn’t fit with your views is dismissed – usually caustically.

What i can tell u, is that GOD is just love and from love everything comes.
forget the judge GOD. GOD loves us all.
the only bible written for the humans is the new testament. the old testament has to much ire and just a few people are the choosen ones. “GOD LOVES US ALL”
give love to the people and love you will receive! – that means what you will give you will receive.
maybe this text has not to do at all with the report, but i think its very important that people trust in GODSlove
AND DONT THINK IN MIRACLES, because we are driving our planet!
we are all brothers and together we can build a future with out war!
THINK ABOUT IT!!!!
TRY TO HELP IF YOU SEE THAT SOMEBODY NEEDS HELP!
EGOISM AND IGNORANCE HAS TO FALL!
THINK MORE IN LIVE THEN IN MATERIALISM!!
THANK YOU TO ALL THE READERS!!

>>>>>I don’t appreciate the “lunacy” insult, but I understand. I consider atheism and Ev. lunacy too.<<<<< David
I wasnt referring to you as an immoral lunatic. I was referring to the bronze age herdsman who it was written by and for. By modern standards their system was barbaric.
That's presuming that you know not to own slaves, murder your daughter, etc. I would hope.
And your argument that the word of god would be "interpreted" to mean other than exactly what was written (in a non-symbolic legal context) sort of undermines your other fundamentalist arguments. Of course many people would not "interpret" it, they would do exactly as it says.
But if a clearly stated law can be interpreted then maybe you'd like to interpret genesis and save yourself some trouble.

PQQAm – it is these “shortcuts to truth” that resulted in the deaths of millions of native Americans at the hands of conquerors that believed it was their god given right to dominate them. It is the “shortcuts to truth” that helped perpetuate slavery in this country for hundreds of years. Those same “shortcuts to truth” helped pass laws against interracial marriages, and these “shortcuts to truth” today are preventing another faction of American adults from marrying.
I keep hearing christians say that god gave you a will – yet you’re all very willing to pass the responsibility for your actions onto someone – or something – else. Frankly, I’ve had it up to here with people telling me I don’t know the “truth” because I disagree with their beliefs. Some of the junk that’s been coming out of the so-called “christians” on this thread is offensive, insulting, and very often flat-out false.

cturple>>Your inability to answer this simply floors me. I answered my question – so now you can answer yours. Is it wrong for a father to steal from a starving family to feed his starving child? This can be answered in one word.>>
Your inability to read is what floors me. I already answered this (I’ll repost below) but since you need it repeated, the answer is “yes.” I don’t get my morality by trying to weigh out the situation. I don’t believe in situational ethics or moral relativism as you seem to. Now, instead of trashing me for not answering when I DID…how about your answer to my question? Is it wrong for a father of a starving child to steal the food from his neighbor who has a starving child? One word will answer that too.
The bitterness and hostility here makes me feel pretty unwelcome. (Yeah, yeah, I’m sure some lowlife will say I’m a cry-baby). I’m sick of being told I am dishonest, ignorant, immoral etc…and even told to “go to hell” with no apology to me after I had just a few minutes earlier graciously overlooked MORE trash talk from Jock. I have tried to be nicer than others were toward me to see if that would help, but it hasn’t. If people want discussion with those of differing views, they need to be nicer. I may try some more maybe another time.
Oh, and a reminder…we all ARE betting our lives about the answer. If I am wrong, I would prefer that over being wrong as an atheist. I would think that would cause one to not just want to be 51% certain God does not exist. If it is a tie or even over 10% I would think a wise person would not want to risk what is rised by refusing the evidence of God. Not many theists convert to atheists on their death beds…but it has gone the other way quite a few times! I guess that would be the real test of one’s degree of certainty on this matter. Good “luck” with your betting everyone!
Here is the prior answer: 4/30 12:08am
I thought you were smart enough to see my answer by reading in between the lines. If it was wrong for me to lie to you, even if I felt a good result would come, it would also be wrong for a father to steal to feed his child. I don’t believe in situational ethics. I may be that God would forgive such a father.
What about stealing from another family who also are starving? What does your morality say there? An animal wouldn’t think twice about stealing it.

David: “The atheists have structured it to be very cozy for themselves, since nothing can threatend their philosophy system. It only lets garbage in, hence, only garbage comes out.”
I talked to you for a week because I thought you were a curious person. I answered all of your questions, sometimes several times, because you seemed to have the capacity to think for yourself. I stuck with it, trying to be as polite as possible in the face of your obtuse dismissiveness, long after everyone else had given up. I thought I could at least give you a hint that you might want to check some of your facts before continuing to make a fool of yourself in the eyes of all thinking people.
I should have realized that you were only looking for new ways to feel superior to your adversaries. That you had no intention of acknowledging that there might be anything you don’t know. I only started ratcheting up my rhetoric after you started implying that I was a lunatic for seeing what was before my eyes, and a borderline serial killer for not bowing to the authority of your fantasies.
I deeply regret the time I have spent talking to you. Be assured it will never happen again.

…It was a class — should be CLASH

>>>>I wrote:
I would think a wise person would not want to risk what is rised by refusing the evidence of God.
Should be “…what is RISKED”
>>>>
You “risk” as well David. In fact you and I agree that 99.99% of the god’s and religions put forward are false. It’s only you that blink at the last minute and worship one. With each and every one of those hundreds of living religions and thousands of extinct religions that you deny, you are risking something…
Pascal’s wager only works (as rhetoric) if you refuse to admit that you are in a large casino with many games of chance.

The Timucua began to die after Panfilo de Narvaez and Hernando de Soto invaded their land and began killing them if they refused to convert to christianity, which was how they controlled the indigenous populations. Many archaeologists believe that the hogs that de Soto brought over introduced the disease that decimated them even further. I don’t know where you get your information, but it’s a whitewash. Florida was all but empty when the Seminoles arrived.

Suggesting that it’s 50/50 and then afterwards you select one of a thousand dieties isnt something I accept at all.
For one, there are many possible divine origins without invoking just a single god. That’s stacking the equation in favor of monotheism and even a divine persona before you’ve fairly chosen. There could be a divine cycle with no specific divine persona, etc, etc, etc. Many theoretical concepts before you even get to a “named”, specific diety, let alone one (or six) with an interest in preserving you for all eternity.
There is also evidence to suggest that theists are unable to reason clearly on the subject. Given the geographical distribution of religion it’s easy to see that most people just accept the majority religion of their home. You might think you are better than them and that they “really havent thought about it” where you “really have” but you don’t know that.
Ive heard many people in many places t ell me that after careful reasoning they decided to believe x. Somehow x has always turned out to be the majority religion of that country.

bubba>>Ive heard many people in many places t ell me that after careful reasoning they decided to believe x. Somehow x has always turned out to be the majority religion of that country.>>
That is probably true. It is also quite true that if your parents were atheists then you probably will be too. Is that an indictment of your own atheist view? No…or it shouldn’t be.
The abuse of a thing does not argue against the thing itself. If others are not truly inquisitive and fair in assessing the choices, and then just rubber stamp what is convenient to them, then the god/gods/God won’t be too happy if they get it wrong OR get it right. At least the God of the Bible would not approve of someone serving Him just because his parents did.
You have just decided philosophically to rule out God. Or you have set the bar far higher than you should, given the risk you are taking if you are wrong. A side of me says, “Hey, go for it, pal…couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.” But you have a soul and probably even agree that it is a possibility you may live in some way after you die here. (Maybe not though). And it is my concern for you and your soul (no kidding), if you have one, that makes me urge you to be careful in your “bet.”

david, you’re not even close to grasping my meaning. read the posts again.

>>>>>That is probably true. It is also quite true that if your parents were atheists then you probably will be too. Is that an indictment of your own atheist view? No…or it shouldn’t be>>>>
My parents weren’t atheists. My father is agnostic and my mother has a quiet, non-specific faith. It simply was not discussed at home so I read up on the subject and devised my own opinion. My son is being raised the same way. Ive told him to investigate the subject when he gets older and make his choice. I don’t believe in brainwashing children to believe things I can’t be sure of myself.

bubba>>My parents weren’t atheists. My father is agnostic and my mother has a quiet, non-specific faith. It simply was not discussed at home so I read up on the subject and devised my own opinion. My son is being raised the same way. Ive told him to investigate the subject when he gets older and make his choice. I don’t believe in brainwashing children to believe things I can’t be sure of myself.>>
To try to suggest (as you seem to imply) that all or most christians are “brainwashed” and all/most atheists are objective and left uninfluenced by parents or society…is just bogus.
Plenty of christians become atheists and plenty of atheists become christians…after weighing the options. I suppose to you, all those who become christians just need a mental crutch or they are pushovers and succumb to societal pressures. Seems a bit self-serving to see it that way.
Anyway, I think a careful thinking person who thinks there could be a good chance they will live beyond this life somehow, must entertain seriously that a creator made them and expects something of them. The threshold should be pretty “up there” I would think, to go the otehr direction and be willing to make the “bet” that some atheists choose to make.

>>>>>Anyway, I think a careful thinking person who thinks there could be a good chance they will live beyond this life somehow, must entertain seriously that a creator made them and expects something of them. >>>>
But of course I totally disagree. And I think a “careful thinking person” will decide that the extant accounts are inadequate and lack credibility. I believe a thinking person will think as I do. So this rhetorical line goes exactly nowhere.
Ive read the koran, NT and OT and find them absolutely ridiculous (when they werent boring me to tears). Having read and disregarded the primary sources there is nothing left to say. Using rhetorical devices like, “a thinking person” suggests youve investigated the subject more than I when I see no evidence of that being the case.
In fact, in the case of evolution, I believe I know more than you regarding the evidence. That gives me cause for concern when considering your ability to weigh evidence before drawing a conclusion.

Again David, you are risking the same if youve picked the wrong religion and/or metric of “salvation”. Round and round… Life is risk, etc, etc.
Nothing much else to say, eh? heh

I didnt say I knew much more about “does god exist”. I said I knew more about the evidence *for* evolution. As theistic evolution shows, that is neither an argument for or against a creator.
Please stop misquoting me.
As for what I “admitted’ regarding genetics, you still didn’t understand my point or the purpose of the admission so I just don’t understand how trumpeting your misunderstading is helpful to your cause.
I neither said I knew more than you about the size of god’s head, or the number of dieties, or their chances of existing. Neither did I say I knew more about you regarding the evidence “against” evolution (though I know a fair number of the claims and positions of creationists).
If it’s not “your area of expertise” I don’t understand why you keep mentioning it. I’m content not to argue with you about a subject you say you don’t yet understand anyway.
As for the latest chrisitan embarrassment in Florida; Temporary political progress isnt much if you dont have the science to back it up. And as the founder of the ID movement has said, “we dont have a theory yet”.
But I do applaud the effort as much as you, if only because I believe it damages christianity more than you know.

bubba>> said I knew more about the evidence *for* evolution. As theistic evolution shows, that is neither an argument for or against a creator.
Please stop misquoting me.
>>
Ahem…this thread is about atheism. It isn’t about discussion of theistic evolution after one presumes God (or something like God) brought about life. Discussing what you think evolution may do after God makes matter and the first life and designs the variety of life He wants…sort of cheats, don’t you think? If you believe theistic evolution, then God exists…and He just might have some expectation of you. If you believe God doesn’t exist (or just “won’t say”) then you can’t just ignore the problem of matter and life popping into existence on its own. It is a problem even if you stubbornly contend it is not. Promising us that naturalism will have an answer some day takes more faith than a belief in a Creator does.
>>Show me the math on how my risk is larger. You have no certain knowledge of the number of variants involved or the number of metrics used in all possible theoretical salvation conditions.>>
Here’s some math. If you PRESUME theistic evolution, and PRESUME that God brought matter into existence or life from non-life…then the math is 1/1 (certainty) that some form of crator/god/God exists. The ony question for you I guess would be whether the god/God who made matter and life, may have had a purpose for the beings He created, and if you might need to be concerned about that.

“”"”"Ahem…this thread is about atheism. It isn’t about discussion of theistic evolution after one presumes God (or something like God) brought about life. Discussing what you think evolution may do after God makes matter and the first life and designs the variety of life He wants…sort of cheats, don’t you think?>>>>
If you dont want to address a given point, that’s fine, but its a cop out to misrepresent my words. Saying that the thread is about x and therefore you can alter other people’s words is strange reasoning. I also addressed the thread topic.
Your argument seem to be repeating your previous claims and saying, “my reasoning is superior”, to which I reply, “not by my standards”…. as I said, I don’t accept your premise or arguments at all and you don’t accept mine.
There isnt much to say. heh

cturple>>By the way folks, the Senate did not pass their bill. Florida’s legislative session ended without passing this travesty into law. Yeah! >>
Ev’s are losing ground. Apparently both want a bill, but they couldn’t get agreeable language.
Why would a TRUE scientist NOT want to permit critical anyalysis of ANY view?
Sounds to me like what Galileo faced from the religious powers of HIS day.

Also, let’s remember it is NOT just about VARIETY of life. It is about ORIGIN of life. Those on this blog have suggested rather strongly that there may NOT be a naturalistic answer to that. They HATE to have the task of explaining origin of life or matter. Yet the religion of Science/naturalism keeps looking for one (which is fine) and philosophically rules out the idea that such a nat. answer may NOT be findable (which is not fine).

>>>>Here’s some math. If you PRESUME theistic evolution, and PRESUME that God brought matter into existence or life from non-life…then the math is 1/1 (certainty) that some form of crator/god/God exists. The ony question for you I guess would be whether the god/God who made matter and life, may have had a purpose for the beings He created, and if you might need to be concerned about that. >>>>
Doesnt address your point. You hop around so much. Stick with a claim and defend it or stop making them. You suggested that adhering to a given salvation scheme was less risky than not adhering to one. I disagree.
You must first assume:
a) a diety, dieties or whatever
b) that humanity is a focus of the creation and that the diety is interested
c) that the diety hands out judgement
d) that the judgement results in carrots & sticks
e) determine whether the salvation metric corresponds to one of the existing religions.
Now, the last point, e, is my point. You do not know that a proposed diety has even passed down a salvation metric. Therefore many variant theoretical salvation metrics may be in force. Some of these metrics may not involve the slavish praising of said diety and might involve something corresponding to certain character traits or behaviors. There are many theoretical conditions where I may be found to pass the bar and you do not.
So there is no way to determine which theoretical salvation scheme gives you the best odds or whether having one at all means squat. So to say you are safer than me is not logical or based in reason. Its simply what you want to believe based on your personal bias toward christianity.
It seems like simple faith embrasses you so you have to wrap it all up in pseudo-reasoning.

David – for the millionith time – the theory of evolution does not address the origin of life.

Posted by David Willis -”Would anyone want to tackle this question: IF somehow you could indeed discover (to a reasonable certainty) that human life was the only intelligent life in our galaxy, would that have any negative implication against naturalism (i.e. abiogenesis/evolution..”AB/EV”)? I believe that a fair prediction of “AB/EV” is that other life would originate and then evolve into intelligence. If that did NOT happen, AB/EV has some “splainin’” to do.
Is it a fair prediction?”
First tell us how you would determine that no other intelligent life existed in the universe, and then tell us how we would determine if life was intelligent or not? then tell us how you would prove that human intelligence is the highest level of intelligence possible. Then tell us why you are limiting the search to one galaxy.
After you answer those questions, I’ll tell you if it’s a fair prediction or not.

Actually, to answer the why did God create mankind, the Biblical reason is to take care of the earth and animals and plants and ecosystem. No other reason. None. Not to worship or praise God, just to take care of the planet. Judging by how many religious people there are all over the world, and seeing how our planet is being destroyed by mankind, I guess we’re not doing so great a job, huh.

I hope I’m not booted off this site because I said, “Big Bang”. LOL.

Cturple:>>First tell us how you would determine that no other intelligent life existed in the universe, and then tell us how we would determine if life was intelligent or not? then tell us how you would prove that human intelligence is the highest level of intelligence possible. Then tell us why you are limiting the search to one galaxy. >>
We would develop a means of travel to every planet in our galaxy…and sensor scan (or explore) the surface for evidence of some higher intelligent lifeform. I SAID suppose…IF…hypothetical. Would the absence of life in our galaxy be enough to suggest that AB/EV is wrong. Does it fairly predict that among 100 Billion stars there would be another ETI civ? Is it reasonable that there is only one and it is US?
I asked about one galaxy because it is within our ability perhaps within a million years or so to explore one galaxy. And 100 Billion stars SHOULD be enough…if AB/EV is true.
So is it a fair prediction, cturple?

“So is it a fair prediction, cturple?”
nope.

I agree.

>>>Of course, you could be right and no god/God is out there. If you ARE then I guess you will never know. You only will know if you are wrong. >>>>
Well, I was only answering a point you introduced, not introducing my own.
But this claim above isnt exactly correct either. It assumes a god or gods who is interested in human affairs and provides knowledge or judgement after death. So there could be 1 or 10,000 gods who take no notice of your death, meaning neither of us will know a thing despite their being gods.
That is in addition to the reincarnations faiths, etc.

Can I get an Amen!!!???
You are preaching faith and pretending it’s reason. Youve likely bought into the idea that faith is a poor second to reason. As a result you don’t feel you can just admit to faith without creating all of these “logical” arguments that you don’t seem to be able to sustain beyond stating them.

Such an experiment can’t be conducted, we will likely never travel between galaxies, let alone to them all. Even travel between stars is up in the air.
But there will be investigation as best they can manage. Telescopes will tell us a great deal just by imaging chemical signatures in the atmosphere of other worlds.
But if Harry Potter and Superman teamed up to check every planet and found no life? You could still argue it was just incredibly rare. It would then be up to abiogenesis studies to find a mechanism, or not.
But conversely, if we find life elsewhere, many christians will still have faith. They will just say that the bible didnt tell them everything (or that science is lying, again). heh.

Quote taken from the Introduction of the Centennial edition of Origin of Species: “As we know there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only abhout the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation, where men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by SUPPRESSION OF CRITICISM and the elimination of difficulties is abnormal and undesirable in science.” (Dr. W. R. Thompson, entomologist)
Sounds like what Ben Stein was calling for.

A reasonable person with an open mind would say that if you could somehow prove that every single other planet in our galaxy has no life on it, that it suggests that life and variety here on Earth did not come about by naturalistic means. Odds would be a billion to one against it just happening to occur here but nowhere else in an entire galaxy filled with 100 billion stars.
BUT if you are an Atheist Evolutionist withOUT a reasonable mind and WITH a devotion to your religion of naturalism, you will still believe it happened on Earth naturalistically ANYWAY. Billion to one odds are no problem when you philosophically exclude all else but naturalistic answers. It HAD to have happened naturalistically here even if it never happened again anywhere else in the galaxy. No doubt life here must be from time travellers, ET’s or extradimentional SOMETHING. But definitely not GOD.
Last night on the Science Channel they said that Miller-Urey proved that life could be easily produced on many other planets. Why its just a matter of a few chemicals getting zapped by lightning! It was a total “pulling the wool over the eyes” of the ignorant public. They want on one hand to tell us it is virtually inevitable to happen by chance, but even with our help we can’t seem to get it to happen in the lab. And even though it is inevitable in nature, it’s really no problem at all that it hasn’t produced another example we know of in the whole galaxy. Yet it MUST be out there, even if we can’t find any evidence of it.
Suppose life originated in only 100 other places in our galaxy. If JUST ONE of those evolved into intelligence like ours and they were only (say) a million years ahead of us, the Fermi Paradox would ask why would their existence not be known by all others in the galaxy. AB/EV’s have no answer.

David – It’s a fact that there are multiple intelligences on a single planet. Your argument has already been smashed to bits.

David, weve been over this 100 times. You manufacture impressive sounding claims about 1000000000000000 to 1 but never produce the math.
1)There is no theory of abiogenesis, just a wide range of incomplete hypotheses, so what do you base your impressive calculations on? If we don’t know how life came about, how can you get a number regarding frequency? A: you can’t.
2)Evolution is a theory but it doesnt predict ETIs. It doesnt make any claims about the frequency of life elsewhere at all.
As far as the various SETI projects go, They’ve only searched for narrow-band radio signals and they certainly havent searched everywhere. They just have to guess what the most likely signal frequency would be IF someone wanted to communicate with us. So its possible they might also communicate at another frequency or with lasers or some other technique we don’t know about (or that they simply havent scanned the right place).
Or.. ETIs could just be rare. That doesnt mean that simpler life might not be there. Both aspects will need to be investigated. And they will, regardless of anything said on an ABC message board.

Also not to mention – SETI has scanned fewer than 1000 star systems. they haven’t scratched the surface.

cturple>>not to mention the fact that there are 100 BILLION galaxies. You propose searching 1 hundred-billionth of the universe. C’mon, David Willis. Even your fantasies are fantastic. >>
A sensible mind would say that if you searched 100 billion star systems in our own galaxy and found ZERO other ETI’s…when AB/EV would predict 10′s of thousands to millions…then it is time to form a conclusion that something else besides AB/EV is the cause of life on Earth. One would be absurd to say “we need to search all the galaxies before we could form any conclusion.” That WOULD be what a religious devotee would perhaps say, however.

Posted by: David Willis– cturple>>not to mention the fact that there are 100 BILLION galaxies. You propose searching 1 hundred-billionth of the universe. C’mon, David Willis. Even your fantasies are fantastic. >>
A sensible mind would say that if you searched 100 billion star systems in our own galaxy and found ZERO other ETI’s…when AB/EV would predict 10′s of thousands to millions…then it is time to form a conclusion that something else besides AB/EV is the cause of life on Earth. One would be absurd to say “we need to search all the galaxies before we could form any conclusion.” That WOULD be what a religious devotee would perhaps say, however.
Evolution doesn’t predict any extraterrestrial lifeforms, David. Why do you keep saying that it does? We haven’t searched anywhere close to the number you’re suggesting – which is a ridiculously small number anyway. It’s like you’re saying we looked at one grain of sand and found nothing there, so nothing exists anywhere. Do you have any comprehension of how large the universe is?

Cturple: >>Evolution doesn’t predict any extraterrestrial lifeforms, David. Why do you keep saying that it does?>>
DW: I have used “AB/EV” to refer to atheistic/naturalistic abiogenesis and evolution. That does indeed predict that life will arise from non-life (when conditions are favorable) and then evolve. It (supposedly) arose here on Earth just as SOON as the Earth had cooled enough! Why would we expect that to be true here and not also elsewhere? You are in denial, that’s all…because it is easier for you to defend your position if you say that life is fantastically rare. The absence of ETI signals would not be a big deal then. Don’t try to fool people to think that AB/EV does not predict life on other planets…in fact many THOUSANDS or MILLIONS of other planets. If there is NOT life elsewhere…even INTELLIGENT life…then they have a lot of splainin’ to do. Is there some rationale to explain how life forms on other planets wouldn’t mutate and and be selected like they “did” here…or something wacky like that?
>>We haven’t searched anywhere close to the number you’re suggesting – which is a ridiculously small number anyway. It’s like you’re saying we looked at one grain of sand and found nothing there, so nothing exists anywhere. Do you have any comprehension of how large the universe is? >>
I never said anything about how much searching had been done. My point was purely hypothetical…I meant to expose whether or not you would admit to a fair implication of your view…and you wouldn’t. It is another question as to whether we have searched enough places yet to begin to draw a fair conclusion at least tentatively. The Fermi Paradox says that we wouldn’t have to SEARCH at all! If there were only ONE other ETI civ in our galaxy who was a million or so years ahead of us…we’d all know about it, because they would have completed colonization of the galaxy!
Even if we disregard the FP, and even if we have searched “only” 1000 of the best candidates near us for any radio signs of life (I think it is far more than that)…one who is FAIR would say that so far the evidence weighs AGAINST AB/EV. Why would we expect our solar system to be so much more favorable for life/intelligence than 1000 other stars (especially those we carefully selected)? If I had a view that was found to be wrong in 1000 out of 1000 instances so far, I might want to rethink it some.

Posted by: David Willis
DW: I have used “AB/EV” to refer to atheistic/naturalistic abiogenesis and evolution. That does indeed predict that life will arise from non-life (when conditions are favorable) and then evolve. It (supposedly) arose here on Earth just as SOON as the Earth had cooled enough! Why would we expect that to be true here and not also elsewhere? You are in denial, that’s all…because it is easier for you to defend your position if you say that life is fantastically rare. The absence of ETI signals would not be a big deal then. Don’t try to fool people to think that AB/EV does not predict life on other planets…in fact many THOUSANDS or MILLIONS of other planets. If there is NOT life elsewhere…even INTELLIGENT life…then they have a lot of splainin’ to do. Is there some rationale to explain how life forms on other planets wouldn’t mutate and and be selected like they “did” here…or something wacky like that?
>>We haven’t searched anywhere close to the number you’re suggesting – which is a ridiculously small number anyway. It’s like you’re saying we looked at one grain of sand and found nothing there, so nothing exists anywhere. Do you have any comprehension of how large the universe is? >>
I never said anything about how much searching had been done. My point was purely hypothetical…Do you have any comprehension of that word? I meant to expose whether or not you would admit to a fair implication of your view…and you wouldn’t. It is another question as to whether we have searched enough places yet to begin to draw a fair conclusion at least tentatively. The Fermi Paradox says that we wouldn’t have to SEARCH at all! If there were only ONE other ETI civ in our galaxy who was a million or so years ahead of us…we’d all know about it, because they would have completed colonization of the galaxy! Do you have any comprehension of the Fermi Paradox?
Even if we disregard the FP, and even if we have searched “only” 1000 of the best candidates near us for any radio signs of life (I think it is far more than that)…one who is FAIR would say that so far the evidence weighs AGAINST AB/EV. Why would we expect our solar system to be so much more favorable for life/intelligence than 1000 other stars (especially those we carefully selected)? If I had a view that was found to be wrong in 1000 out of 1000 instances so far, I might want to rethink it some. That is IF I were open to truth, instead of being a religious devotee who ignores evidence.
Evolution does not address the origin of life. I know virtually nothing about abiogenisis and will not discuss it here, other than to repeat that Harvard has a study underway.
As for life on other planets – I DO expect it to be found elsewhere. I expect it to be all over the place. The fact that we haven’t received radio signals from fewer than 1000 star systems is meaningless. We’ve barely BEGUN to discover extra-solar planets. You seem to be under the impression that we know everything there is to know about this galaxy, when in fact, you couldn’t be further from the truth. Yes, david, I’m familiar with the word hypothetical. It is your mantra, and it is wearing on me. Do you understand that hypothetical questions are not worth the paper they’re written on? What if we proved that the tooth fairy was real? Would that mean we should all pull our teeth out and put them under the pillow? What if we proved that Santa Claus was real? Wouldn’t that help revive the US Postal Service? No, David, the total absence of intelligent life other than humans in this galaxy does NOT mean that god created us. There are a number of explanations that we’re not aware of them – the first being that we are so totally unimportant, none of them are interested in us. Another being that they are so different from us, they don’t consider us to be intelligent life. A third – they are too far away from us. A fourth – they don’t know about us. Fifth – they don’t want us to know about them. Sixth – they’re here already. All of these are reasonable hypotheses. Now you’re saying, “I said we proved there WEREN’T any.” It is impossible to prove a negative, David. Your hypothetical question is invalid. You simply want someone to say yes. And again, you are totally ignoring the fact that on this very planet, every animal has a degree of intelligence. Some are very close to being human, and some have a different kind of intelligence that you refuse to recognize. This is one of the reasons your question is absurd. You wouldn’t recognize any intelligence that doesn’t fit within your narrow parameters. And this question – “Why would we expect our solar system to be so much more favorable for life/intelligence than 1000 other stars?” demonstrates three things. One – you don’t understand that 1000 is almost 0 when we’re talking about stars. Two – you don’t understand that life can exist outside of an earth-like environment. Three – you don’t understand that an alien intelligence might not be technologically advanced sufficiently to transmit radio waves, or might have progressed BEYOND radio waves, or might in fact already be extinct.

bubba>>That’s why you need to search for ETIs and simple life. If you find none after an exhaustive search then it’s up to abiogenesis research to establish if it’s even possible. It just doesnt come down to one technique or study.>>
There IS no way to search for “simple life.” Except in our own solar system for the next few thousand years or so we won’t have a way to do any sort of search for life elsewhere OTHER than to search for radio or possibly laser sources…whether intentional beacons or unintentional leakage. So in the ET life detecting field, radio/laser is the only game in town. (Unless you want to wait for UFO ET visitation). It is only possible to search outside our solar system for INTELLIGENT life which uses radio or laser. (There may be a way to eventually scan light spectra from a single planet in another star system for chemicals…but that won’t inform us much about actual life, otherwise, we’d know for sure about our own planets/moons, and they still speculate about them having life). For the past 100 years or so we have leaked signals which would be detectable by about a 200,000 stars and maybe about 500,000 planets. Of that number, those which have “their ears on” and wished to reply to us could have, and that would be about 50,000 stars near us which would have had time to do that. So we know already that no other ETI civ evolved to our state (of using radio and wishing to have contact) in FIFTY THOUSAND other places. ZERO. What explains why we did, and no one ELSE did? Those we could HEAR (not nec. in response to us) would be ANY planet in the galaxy which would have reached radio use prior to 70,000 years ago (maximum length of time for a signal to arrive hear)and survived…so for something like about 10 billion years or so (from galaxy formation to 70,000 years ago)…added to those ETI civs which may not end up surviving but are in their “window of radio use” presently. That is 100 BILLION OTHER PLACES where planets would likely be. I suppose some ev’s will say, “aw, shucks!…you just JUST MISSED them! They had evolved to use radio but then blew themselves up or got hit by gamma rays JUST BEFORE we could have heard them. Ain’t that a SHAME. But we KNOW they are out there! I mean the alternative is God and we don’t like to think about THAT.”
So objecting that we would have to go beyond our solar system ourselves and search in person for lower life forms is simply a stall tactic. No “call” could be made on that till long after we all are dead and gone. The only game WE have is to estimate abiogenesis/evolution by extrapolating from ETI radio/laser signals we’ve discovered…which is ZERO. To a FAIR mind, SO FAR the call goes to saying life/variety has to be designed…not a result of random natural forces.
Also, what is the big problem in expecting development at least SOME of the time of INTELLIGENT life which uses radio? That of course narrows the type of life we are able to count, but it VASTLY widens the area of inquiry! Those odds (to find ETI’s using radio) are FAR better to detect life elsewhere than the odds of finding lower life on the nearest star we could travel to some day in a few hundred years…not to mention the cost. If given enough time, with simple life forms originating and evolving, we can expect intelligence to be selected…one would THINK. After all we are told that DID happen 1 out of 1 times we KNOW about (Earth). It is just ev’s playing hide the ball…first we’re told the problem isn’t the evolving, it’s the origin of life. Now we are told we really shouldn’t expect any evolving of intelligence either.
Yet on THIS planet, SUPPOSEDLY, life originated about as soon as POSSIBLE…and then within about a billion years it made it to radio use…even WITH numerous major extinctions. Now either we are just so UNIQUE (which would have to be explained) or there should be tons of other places (even only in our own galaxy) where the same thing happened.
When you ask the naturalists to be the only score-keepers you can count on their “winning.” They never COUNT a “loss.” Even a simple argument like the absence of ETI signals carries ZERO weight to them…when it SHOULD. (And the “no ET’s” argument is just one of MANY they don’t “count”). EVEN IF you could somehow search every planet in our galaxy and find NO LIFE…the (supposedly open minded!) ev’s on this blog tell us that would not settle the question for them. 100 BILLION “no’s” would not be enough in their mind to keep them from telling us the answer STILL must be “yes” elsewhere! They are not seeking the real answer. They have merely philosophically excluded the idea of God/design altogether. Garbage in, garbage out.

DW>>Of that number, those which have “their ears on” and wished to reply to us could have, and that would be about 50,000 stars near us which would have had time to do that. >
Actually I may have underestimated that by about half.
In 50 ly’s radius of us, there are 7,854 square ly’s. The area of the galaxy is about 7,854,000,000 sq. ly’s(50,000 x 50,000 x 3.1417). In that area we are told there are about 100 billion stars or about 12 stars per sq. ly. That means (assuming we are in a place which has an average distribution…which we may not be) there would be about 100,000 stars which are within 50 lightyears of us.

How is a NASA and ESA scope on the board imaginary? You said we couldnt do something so I corrected you.
I didnt say the results were certain to be x or y, just that the study would be conducted.
The search for knowledge seems to frighten you so much that you won’t even acknowledge it.
“Your” star caculations are off as well. Look up the number of stars believed to be within 50ly. Good luck with your dishonesty in future.

bubba>>”Your” star caculations are off as well. Look up the number of stars believed to be within 50ly. Good luck with your dishonesty in future.>>
I said my guess was based on 100 billion total and assuming we are in an “average” density area. I calculated the area of a disc with a radius of 50 compared to a radius of 50,000. I believe my guess was right with that assumption. I don’t appreciate your extremely TACKY accusation of “dishonesty.”
Also, light is fine to use. I mentioned laser light as a possible indicator of ETI civs. If all you are able to do is identify proportions of elements in the atmosphere of some particular planet around a nearby star, you have not proved life. AND of course that is just a guess about what MAY happen 20 years down the road. AND of course, if you DIDN’T find those elements, you’d still insist that was not anything at all negative for AB/EV anyway! In the meantime, until you DO find those elements that MAY suggest life (or may NOT), the evidence we presently DO have supports our being alone. The absence of ETI signals and the Fermi Paradox (even ONE ETI civ like ours would colonize the galaxy in a few million years or so) are strong indicators that the assumption that life originates and then evolves naturalistically is DEAD WRONG. Of course one can doggedly hold onto his religious BELIEF in naturalism, I suppose, even when that is against the evidence. Which is apparently what some are dead set to do.
Hey Bubba…why do you keep IGNORING the Fermi Paradox?

As for the Fermi Paradox, it predates SETI, its not a product of it. It’s an interesting question but its not a conclusion. It’s similar to the drake equation. Just ideas. So they should have just pointed to Fermi and not even bothered to look at all? I’m sure that would suit you because you don’t want more information, you want to return to the 4th century.
Another comical point is your proposed unrealistic argument that “IF WE SEARCHED EVERY PLANET..” to reinforce your belief in an invisible sky being, and then you chide an actual plan for a NASA telescope as imaginary. That’s comedy gold.

bubba>>But whether you plug in 7k, 14k or 100k, you are still looking at way less than a millionth of the stars in the galaxy getting a signal from us and having time to respond.
What does that establish exactly?
>>
It would establish an estimate of a SMALL amount of the population of potential radio sources we could expect to have heard from…i.e. those who heard us in our first 50 years use of radio and would want to reply. We know that if they are like US, then 100% of that population with capability would want to reply. Our little radio/TV broadcasts leaking out for the past 100 years or so would reach 14000 (by your source estimate) star systems and those within 50 lightyears would have had time enough to blast back to us a beacon signal…like the one we sent out 2/4/08 (the Beatles song).
That does NOT include any estimate AT ALL of the other ETI civs in our galaxy…those outside that tiny 50 ly radius…who also could have been using radio themselves without hearing our signals. Nor does it count any for the 100 billion OTHER GALAXIES we could also have heard from theoretically. It also doesn’t count any civs which are 20 years ahead of us and have already figured how to scan atmospheres of planets to detect signs of life…which bubba has said we will have soon. Any civ in the galaxy with that ability…just 20 years ahead of our own…could have known life was on this planet 500 million years ago. And if only ONE of those civs wanted to shout to us, we would have been blasted with radio beacons all along the way, or at least as soon as those other ETI’s thought we’d evolve to be using radio. And it doesn’t count those ETI civs capable of colonizing a galaxy…enough to make their presence known, with or without radio. All those potential sources (of which the 7000 in Bubba’s lowered estimate is but a tiny fraction)…but we’ve heard BUPKIS. ZILCH. NADA.
Thanks for the nice amendment to my argument, Bubba!

bubba>>As for the Fermi Paradox, it predates SETI, its not a product of it. It’s an interesting question but its not a conclusion. It’s similar to the drake equation. Just ideas. So they should have just pointed to Fermi and not even bothered to look at all? I’m sure that would suit you because you don’t want more information, you want to return to the 4th century.>>
The FP is a simple rationale. If there were another ETI civ WHICH IS LIKE US in our ENTIRE GALAXY which is just a fraction farther along than we are…say by 1-5 million years…then they would likely have already fully colonized our galaxy. NEVERMIND radio. In 5 million years most would see it as very possible if not likely that WE could be the colonizers. But why hasn’t some OTHER ETI civ already done it?
It is simple logic…and it is indeed a paradox!…that is IF you believe the absurdity of AB/EV.

“Astronomers have known that the Milky Way is among the oldest of galaxies. The new observations suggest it was indeed one of the first to get under construction. The study puts its age at 13.6 billion years, give or take 800 million years.”

I think within 20 years we’re going to hearing reports of newly discovered life all over the place. I hope I live long enough to see it. what an incredible time to live!

Cturple>>According to NASA, this breakthrough could be a major step toward discovering life on other planets. Scientists believe that the organic compound detected, methane, can be an integral part in the chemical reactions considered necessary to form life as we know it. >>
Emily Lotilla: YEAHHHH! WHOOPIE! We found evidence of life outside our solar system! We can finally hush up those stupid creationi…..WHAT? You say its methane? You mean the same molecule we know is NOT nec. from life at all and is found in lakes on Titan and nobody considers that any evidence AT ALL that Titan has life? And you say this planet has a temperature of 1700 degrees? Oh. Well that’s different.
NEVERMIND.

bubba>>Its not just a matter of checking which worlds *might* have received a signal, you then have to compare that with how many of those weve checked and using which methods. And once youve done all that, you still have an incredibly small sample. Far less than one millionth of the stars in the galaxy.
I really don’t see how this argument you are making is at all persuasive.
>>
Are we just dickering on the “price” now? What if we KNEW no other life forms existed in our galaxy?…like we had some scanner thingy like Mr. Spock uses to scan for life forms. Are you like cturple (who said it wouldn’t matter)…or would you be reasonable to say it would be a strong indicator that abiogenesis/evolution must be wrong and life must be designed by god/gods/God?
If the latter, then we just have to decide how much sampling is a fair amount to form a reasonable conclusion of it being “evidence of absence.” 7,000 stars (maybe 21,000 planets) in the 50 ly around us all saying “nope” so far, is a large enough sample to get to a 98% certainty (I believe…based on what wiki says under “sampling”). And of course the 7000 number only counts those who could have heard OUR transmissions, and we could expect to be able to detect transmissions from others who are well beyond that 50 ly radius as well.
I guess I would not expect a devoted atheist to see this as “at all persuasive.” The question for me is really about how persuasive it would be deemed by a truly inquisitive agnostic who was welcoming of evidence which is convincing, though perhaps not “undeniable.” I’m not sure I’ve ever met such a person though.

Wow. Ned you sure know how to pick them.
I believe in God. I’m also an extremly firm believer in Science. I’m no Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Budhist, etc. I believe God created the Universe, and the laws that govern it, then let it go 14 billion years ago. I believe he created evolution as a tool to get from goo to humans and all the rest of the animals we find here on Earth. I believe that we are not the only life in the universe and that the same rules governing life on this planet, will hold true for life on other worlds.
Simply put, Science is God’s tool of creation. Not something that disproves or proves God’s existance. These arguments like this will continue untill people understand, or just accept that God created science as his tool, not that man created science.

bubba>>As for statistics; Almost any result you get from the Drake equation is statistically insignificant when factored against 200 billion stars. >>
You have no idea what is true of statistics. I would be glad to submit the question to an unbiased statistical expert. If 7000 stars is not a sufficient sampling to reach a 90% certainty, I would happily retract my argument. To give you a “sample”…it is not at all uncommon that when they want to estimate the views of 200 million voters, they will use a sample of about 500 and then announce that the results are within 3%. That is a 97% certainty. Another example might be the fossil record. How many samples are needed to have a good picture of past animal populations…which were likely in the millions per species?
>>Do you really think those crude statistical metrics can help you find a needle in a haystack? Oh, I wont look in hay pile b because it’s probably just like hay pile a,c and d (99.9% hay). That’s not how you find a needle in a haystack, that’s how you ensure that you don’t find one.
>>
You are assuming a needle is in there. If you saw a field of haystacks and wanted to form a reasonable guess as to whether any of them contained needles, you could do that without going through each one.
You are just in denial. We KNOW other stars have planets. There is no sensible reason to think that a certain proportion of those would have conditions favorable for life as we know it…and MORE could have favorable conditions for OTHER types of life we don’t know about. In the ONE case we know of (Earth) life originated (supposedly) very quickly after it cooled. Then we saw fast development of MANY types of life. You have to deny the simple realities of your atheist doctrine to suggest that it is to be expected that we would not have many thousands of other ETI civs in our galaxy. I guess you will play with numbers and when you don’t like the results you’ll twist them until you do…sort of like some of the dating methods are treated when the numbers aren’t “right.”

To Adam:
a lack of belief in god does not make one more “able” to kill another human being. true morality is NOT derived from fear of punishment after death, but OUT OF a respect for your fellow man.

According to my college profs, any word ending in “ology” means “to study, talk about, or discuss”. Thus, GEology is the study and discussion of rocks, while BIology is the study and discussion of life. So, where does that take us? Everyone has seen a rock, so when I mention geology everyone has at least some idea what I’m talking about – after all, they HAVE seen rocks. Similarly, if the subject is BIology everyone once again has at least some idea what that means – after all, they HAVE all seen life.
Now let’s look at THEology. What does that word mean? Obviously, it concerns the study and discussion of God. Here, we seem to run into a bit of a problem; so far, I have not met anyone (outside a mental institution) who claims to have seen God in any non-metaphysical sense. They can point to a rock, or to something that is alive, and we all know what they mean, but God? You see, there is no concrete frame of reference.
What you may believe about God, up to and including whether or not such an entity really exists and if so what it’s relationship with us might be, is purely up to you to decide. You may get help from family or from a minister/priest/rabbi or whathaveyou, but in the final analysis what you decide to believe is based purely on faith – in other words, a firm belief in something for which there is, and can be, no proof.
Therefore, theology has no relationship at all to the real world in which we all must live. Since we can’t point to God and say, “This is what I mean” and therefore have to take everything on faith alone, no two of us can ever mean exactly the same thing when we try to discuss God. This is a non-trivial problem and its solution, if possible at all, may decide the fate of our species on Earth. So, until we can all agree on the who/what/why of God, let’s not get our knickers in a knot. Science at least gives us answers that do reflect what we can all readily see in the real world.
In the meantime, perhaps we should all look at the cushy living we’re providing for the shamen (no matter what you call them) that claim to represent God but who cannot legitimately claim to any more concrete relationship than anyone else in the world. They tell you to pray for what you need, and if that need is not met their answer is simple: the fault is yours for not praying enough, or in the right way. It is never THEIR fault that the promises they make in the name of God don’t appear – the problem always lies with the suplicant. Something to think about, isn’t it?

I’m not wanting to get into a lot of exchanges on the morality matter again however, I think I may want to revise a position I took earlier, after some more thought. There is a general law from God to not kill, however, in the event of a threat to one’s life, or in administering punishment by government for evil deeds, God does not forbid that. God also tells children to obey parents (and citizens to obey gov’t), but if it would cause a violation of some other law or principle from God, such as self preservation, then I believe I could show from the Bible that a child or citizen would not sin by disobeying. Similarly, the general rule of course is to not steal and to work for one’s food and for food you are expected to provide to your children. “If a man will not work, neither let him eat” is a good principle from the Bible. However, in some dire circumstance, where life is at risk and it is not due to one’s not being willing to work, I don’t believe the general rule of not stealing would apply necessarily. I am not saying that because I have a subjective opinion, but rather because the objective truth from the Bible is more complex or nuanced than my former answer recognized. For instance, Jesus taught that the command to not work on the sabbath (for Jews, not for us today) would not prevent one from getting his ox out of a ditch. So…I believe my answer about a parent stealing food to feed a starving child should be amended because I very well could be wrong as to what God’s will would be based on what is revealed in the Bible (assuming, as I do, that the Bible is from God, and God exists). I had said it would be morally wrong, but I would expect God to forgive it. I now would say that (in a circumstance of pressing need, not an ongoing situation caused by laziness of the parent, etc.) I probably would say other Biblical principles would apply so as to probably not cause that to be a sin needing forgiveness. Especially if there was an intent to repay if possible. In the OT, God had generous laws requiring land owners to not harvest some of their fields so the poor would have food, and that principle helps me to think my prior answer most likely was wrong.

bubba>>
We know of one needle, us, so its natural to look for more. Assumihg you don’t fear the knowledge.
>>
So Bubba, could you form an opinion about other life being not out there withOUT checking every single planet in the galaxy? Suppose in 20 years they used the new method you told us about and they found out that not a single place they check has “indicators of life” in the atmosphere? Is checking a 1000 planets and finding zero ENOUGH? 5000? One 20th of the galaxy? Is there some point where you’d say the fairest thing to conclude is that other planets just don’t have life, because those chemicals you say would be indicators of life are not there? You may say, “life caused by natural forces is just much rarer than we thought” or on the other hand you could say “it is likely not caused by naturalistic forces.” I suppose the first answer is still POSSIBLE, even if you searched every planet in our galaxy and half the other galaxies in the universe and found no other life. But would that be a fair and reasonable response to the evidence? After all it (supposedly) happened relatively quickly and easily HERE…once anyway.
And your point about the needle…that we HAVE one place with a needle (us) is really begging the question. We know life exists, obviously. What we don’t know yet is if OTHER life exists…due to naturalistic causes. We need to find THAT needle. If you wanted to answer the question “do haystacks have needles?” that is different than being told, “at least one of these haystacks DOES have a needle and you need to find it”.
Actually, finding other intelligent life would not preclude God creating that life too, but I would likely conclude that it would probably indicates the Bible is not of divine origin and Jesus is not divine…given what the Bible says. I realize others would differ. However, NOT finding other life…after a sufficient sampling…would tend to disprove the fair predictions of AB/EV and thereby falsify the theory.
BTW, Lawrence’s comments are basically “Deism”. That of course is one possible ID “solution”, however it is in conflict with the Bible and with Jesus being divine. Perhaps that is no problem to L, but I just wanted to be sure we agree on that. You can’t twist the Bible or the words of Jesus to fit such a view.

The point about statistical probability is that you can indeed reach a high level of certainty…but that would not be total certainty. Even if you sampled enough from a population to get to 3 or 4 or even 5 standard deviations, you still are going to be in the 99.5% or so range…and you could be wrong to say no life is out there. When you are talking about 200 billion stars that .5% would still be a huge number. But if you sample enough to say “either ETI life is non-existent OR it is much rarer than AB/EV seems to predict”…that should still help an unbiased inquirer to form a conclusion that the life was designed. I think when SETI began they were certainly NOT of the opinion that in 40 years of searching, with several 1000-fold increases in search capability over that period, that nothing would be found. It surely SEEMS that they have DECIDED the life MUST be out there and will keep insisting that no matter what amount of negative evidence argues against that. Those who are less hard-headed devotees to AB/EV and ET’s (such as taxpayers!) have good reason to say “after 40 years, it is likely not out there to be found.” Haystacks most likely DON’T have needles to be found in them.

Yes…and in the light of facts, it is obscene as well. Us tolerant “thinkers” understand that the believers need their comfort zone,thats great for you and your children. Understand though, Our thinking folks and children find comfort in school for education of up to date factual, mathmatical,scientific and artistic learning, They are not there for your RECRUITMENT or prosthelitizing to your comfort zone.
I won’t raise an addict.

God is love. Pure and simple. Not a man, not anything but invisible love made visible in our actions. Love is patient and kind, not vengeful, not wanting praise, not wanting our money.

Just because we can understand the mechanics of something (DNA, Natural Selection, Quantum Physics, etc.) does not mean there is not a “why” of something. As a matter of fact, the fact that we do question “Why?” makes us different from the rest of the universe. Monkeys, cows, birds, etc., don’t question the questions we ask. A cow has never had the thought cross its mind,”Why am I here?”. If it did it wouldn’t be a cow.

We are still missing the point. It isn’t whether there is a God. It is what we are going to do with what we have. If there be a God then the intention is obviously not to interfere in our growing and learning experience. This implies a desire that we mature and evolve as a species and as individuals into something that is neither a parasite for the planet or for each other. Sounds like a hope that most parents either have or should have. Some parents leave clues along the way.

The title is asking the wrong question. The best question is not “Is God Obsolete?” The best question is; Are irrational religious philosophies that have one foot stuck in the Dark Ages and the other foot stuck in the Middle Ages obsolete? God is not obsolete and never will be. However, limited and inadequate human concepts and perceptions about God are/can be obsolete.
Any religious philosophy that insists that God is too stupid to have figured how to design and create the fundamental forces of nature along with the fundamental particles of energy and matter to develop into our universe through natural random processes is obsolete.
Any religious philosophy that insists God must sustain and control everything that happens instead of relying upon the natural processes God designed and implemented is obsolete.
Any religious philosophy that insists God is both too stupid and too insecure to have designed evolution as the natural process for developing life is obsolete.
Any religious philosophy that insists God is a liar (i.e. create a mature 14 billion year old universe 6,000 years ago and then faked all of the evidence that indicates extreme age) is obsolete.
Or, to put it simply and bluntly, any religious philosophy that insists that God is an insecure, lying, micromanaging puppet master is obsolete. God is not obsolete; only the way humans try to pigeonhole God by boxing God in with irrational limitations is obsolete.

I never understood how “scientists” can make the assertionw, with any level of certainty, that a god cannot exist. Not only are they doing that they attack the public for their beliefs in a god. Who gives these people the authority to attack and ridicule other’s belief? Sorry, but if scientists want to get back any credibility then they need to realize that the Big Band and man from mud theory just isn’t explanation enough for the public. I mean, at least get a bit more creative than life was created from lightening hitting mud or that it was formed on the backs of crystals. I’m not trading in my so-called “fairy-tale” for another. Ain’t gonna happen pal.

Atheism is a Fairy-tale – In recent years, there has been a concerted effort by religious fundamentalists to teach religion in public schools as science. THAT is what gives anyone the right to ridicule it. Religious beliefs have been moved from churches, homes, and hearts into state legislatures and boards of education. It is now a public issue, and is subject to the same scrutiny as any other public issue.

Atheism is a religion – Real scientists rely on evidence, period. There is no evidence to support the existence of a supernatural being. Therefore, discussion of a supernatural being has no place in a science class. Creationism is based on religious beliefs. Fundamentalists are trying to get creationism taught as science. Therefore fundamentalists are trying to get religious beliefs taught as science. And I’m sorry – but your religious beliefs are not “sacred” to everyone, which is why they have no place in PUBLIC schools.

Atheism is a Religion – “What is being proposed by real scientists is allowing the posibility of a god to exist if, especially if “scientists” are going to propose theories of evolution or theories of the beginning of the universe.”
If they are real scientists, and if they have enough integrity to be intellectually honest, then they will admit that because God’s existence or activity is not scientifically testable, then any hypothesis that is dependent upon God cannot be a scientific hypothesis and therefore has no place in a science class. Any and all discussion about God and/or God’s activities is fodder for religion or philosophy classes. It can even have a legitimate place in a literature course. But it does not belong in science classes. We don’t teach algebra in gym classes, nor grammar in chemistry classes, etc. etc.; so we should not teach religious beliefs in science classes.
*** “…an unnecessary attack on sacred religious beliefs.”
And precisely why it has no place in a science class!
*** “Man did not evolve from a puddle of mud and the universe did not sprout out of an explosion in space.”
Prove it! Where is your objective data from repeatable verifiable tests? Where is your objective proof that the Big Bang was not God’s designed process for beginning the natural processes that have developed the universe into what we see today?
Where is your objective proof that evolution is not God’s designed natural process to develop life through billions of years of natural development? Why do you so desperately need God to be a lying, insecure, and stupid micromanaging puppet master?
Why is it not good enough for this discussion to take place in a philosophy class instead of a science class?
Why is it wrong to change the definition of marriage to give certain people equal rights under the law, but it is not wrong to change the definition of science so you can shoehorn religious beliefs into science class?
I know the answers to these questions, but are you honest enought to answer them?

powerintheWord: I’ve seen it. College is changing my life, thank you.

Anyone who studies science believes in a primary cause behind all things. Arthur Clark wrote that in the far future, the term Deus was still in use to refer to that thing and Deus is latin for God.
I think Science is the ultimate search for God. But as with everything else, when truth hits us in the face, we may be forced to realize that God was not all that we imagined.
I like science better than religion because questioning your beliefs and delving deeper into new truths actually leads you somewhere.
Every belief that you are not allowed to question is a form of fanaticism.

“Does science make God obsolete?”
It doesn’t have to. We’ll never know everything about either one. People make assumptions both ways. Some form of religion and some form of science have been co-existing for thousands upon thousands of years now, so apparently it doesn’t have to make God obsolete. Lots among us would just prefer it that way

Hello cturple. What you’re saying is an outright lie. No one is trying to get bible, the Koran or Buddhist study added to science class. What is being proposed by real scientists is allowing the posibility of a god to exist if, especially if “scientists” are going to propose theories of evolution or theories of the beginning of the universe. Even if the Big Bang theory were true, it doesn’t explain much and neither does evolution. Part of the problem with science today is that scientists are taking these concepts and applying them with wild abandon to anything and everything and expecting the public to accept their conclusions as our new religion. It may sound ridiculous but this is the kind of stuff which happens in Communist countries. What is being proposed by real scientists is that we don’t throw god away as a possible explanation for how it all started. To throw it away is not science but an unnecessary attack on sacred religious beliefs. I was brought up to respect everyone’s religious beliefs no matter how obsurb they may seem to me. I’m not forced to accept anyone’s beliefs. In school you are punished if you don’t accept the atheist hardline philosophy and that is wrong. Man did not evolve from a puddle of mud and the universe did not sprout out of an explosion in space.

Atheism is a religion – “No one is trying to get bible, the Koran or Buddhist study added to science class.”
Since you are going to repeat your lie of ommission, I will repeat my response.
This is a lie of omission because it depends upon a technicality. While it is technically true that most, maybe even all, IDers are not trying to get specific verses from the Bible taught in science classes, it is equally true that the ONLY support for most of the IDers “hypotheses” is from the Bible. Also, the ONLY acceptable intelligent designer for most IDers is the Judeo Christian God of the Bible. “Intelligent Designer” is a euphemism (i.e. code phrase) the vast majority of IDers use to avoid explicitly saying God. ID is a religious hypothesis that is dependent upon religious beliefs, period. ID is completely untestable and has absolutely no objective evidence to support it. Therefore it is not worthy of being taught in science classes. However, it is fair game for religion and/or legitimate philosophy classes, and I will completely support anyone who advocates teaching ID as one of many philosophical/religious “theories” in those types of classes. But it is not science.

and I’ll repeat mine……
To: Atheism is a religion – Real scientists rely on evidence, period. There is no evidence to support the existence of a supernatural being. Therefore, discussion of a supernatural being has no place in a science class. Creationism is based on religious beliefs. Fundamentalists are trying to get creationism taught as science. Therefore fundamentalists are trying to get religious beliefs taught as science. And I’m sorry – but your religious beliefs are not “sacred” to everyone, which is why they have no place in PUBLIC schools………….

Just a brief respite. I graduate in December. Summer school starts the 17th – a GIS class, followed by a history class on the Civil War. When are you finished?

I’ll be 55 when I get my BA, and I’m planning on at least an MA. It’s never too late, as long as you’re still breathing!

God has always been obsolete. Humans, as a species, are finally evolving the collective intelligence to the point where we realize this to be true.

What happened before the BIG BANG?

Mad from Mud? – “What happened before the BIG BANG?”
Well, your guess is as good as mine. This is something we will probably never know. Does it really even matter?
From BK…
Wow!!!! Does it really matter what happened before the BIG BANG??? Spoken like a true parrot of “pop science”.

Suellen on this thread commented that “If there is no God what is the point to life?” Well, maybe there is no “point” to life, at least not a point that you might consider worthwhile. But does there have to be a point? We’d like to think so becasue we think deep thoughts, we can self-reflect, and we an build highways, plasma tvs and particle acccelerators. With all that, by gosh, we must be pretty important! There must be a point! But that is conceit- we are not that important. There is no “point” Scary thought. Very scary. Hence, we believe in God to avoid that scary thought. But why must God exist? There is no a priori evidence to support the idea that life must have a “point”. there is, however, a priori evidence ot suggest that life can arise (albeit rarely) with nothing more than energy and organic substrate- no God necessary. So we must consider the possibility that there is no God. Most people don’t, however, because they are afraid. If it makes you feel good to believe, then do it, but at least acknowledge that this is an unsupported belief system, the primary purpose of which is to alleviate fear. Cynthia above says it well: “Every belief that you are not allowed to question is a form of fanaticism.” So question. Vigorously. Maybe that’s what we are here to do- maybe that’s the “point”- use these big frontal cortices to think and question, just as a bird uses its wings to fly- no God necessary for that.
PS: Goiters can resolve spontaneously for reasons limited to described biologic phenomena. The lack of miraculous cures for amputees is an interesting observation- if God really exists, must he be so coy? oops, sorry forgot the faith thing- call me doubting Thomas. Nonetheless, never understood why God insists that we believe in him in the asbence of hard evidence. In fact, the only reason I can think of for this is that he doesn’t exist- very convenient requirement, the faith thing, if that is the case…

pretty circular arguments there, fzl. So there is no way to explain God with reference to anything in this world, huh? Hard to even start a conversation with that primary assumption. And I’d ask you to back up your statement that we can see God through his creations with some data- science provides us with explanations that are at least as valid and complete as religion, in reality more so, to explain all of “God’s creations”. I prefer to call them evolution’s creations, or geology’s creations, etc.. It’s all about empiricism. We are creatures that have eyes, ears, and a frontal cortex- our “purpose” is to use them- make observations with the sensory organs, and use the cortex to create reasonable explanantions and mechanisms that explain our observatiosn (sorta like Darwin did on the Galapagos islands). We are creatures of cognitive empricism, not blind assumption (aka “faith). Be true to what you are, i.e. human; in other words, think about what you see and use your brain to come up with explanations, rather than assume your purpose is to worship a being that you fully admit cannot even be comprehended let alone understood enough to waste your whole life worshipping. Worship reason- it makes more sense. And don’t be too scared- it is scary not having “God” to fall back on…

Since all gods are figments of peoples’ imagination, there will always be gods.

I don’t suppose that God was responsible for letting a school bus full of Catholic children crash. After all, they were on their way to a religious function. Surely, God wouldn’t let so many kids get hurt or killed like that, would he? Why bad things happen to “good” people….oh, yeah, I forgot, there is the big baddie, Satan…maybe he did it…but God wasn’t powerful enough to stop it?

This world didn’t “just happen” by chance. I could point to my shirt and say it just happened, appeared out of thin air. You’d know I was lying. How much more complex than a shirt are this earth, humans and everything in this world? Yet people refuse to believe we were created. Hogwash. God is alive and well. Science is no more than man understanding God’s creations.

Matt – “This world didn’t “just happen” by chance.”
Of course it happened by chance. God designed the natural processes of the universe so that chance would eventually result in what we see throughout the universe today. The omniscient genius necessary to design and implement the natural processes necessary to create the universe and life through natural random processes is far more impressive and awe inspiring than using omnipotent power to do the same with a thought.
*** “How much more complex than a shirt are this earth, humans and everything in this world? Yet people refuse to believe we were created.”
Complexity is proof of nothing more than complexity. Why do you and all other creationists need God to be a stupid lying micromanaging puppet master? Why can’t you and all creationists accept the possibility that God is smart enough to have figured how to use natural processes to indirectly create the universe and life? Big Bang? God’s natural process. Evolution? God’s natural process.
*** “God is alive and well.”
Of course. Your first accurate statement and the only one I completely agree with.
*** “Science is no more than man understanding God’s creations.”
Your second accurate statement – but it is incomplete. Science is much more than the way for us to understand God’s creations. Science is the way for us to understand the natural processes God used.
*** “Yet people refuse to believe we were created. Hogwash.”
What I refuse to believe is that God is a lying micromanaging puppet master who sustains everything and causes everything. That is truly hogwash.