FreeThought Fort Wayne

        Be Reasonable

The score is now… Flying Spaghetti Monster:1 Fred Phelps:0

Posted by neuralgourmet on September 22, 2008

Brian Chilson.

Central Arkansas Pastafarians confront members of Fred Phelps anti-homosexual church in Little Rock, AR on International Talk Like A Pirate Day 2008. Photo credit: Brian Chilson.

Via the Arkansas Times blog we learn that Fred Phelps and his band of homophobic bigots from Westboro Baptist Church were recently driven out of Little Rock by a merry marauding band of Central Arkansas Pastafarians. The Pastafarians dressed as pirates in honor of International Talk Like A Pirate Day,  waved swords and signs bearing slogans such as “God hates shrimp — Leviticus” and “God hates cotton-polyester blends” confronted Phelps’ group. Passing cars honked and waved at the pleased Pastafarians while a nearby TV crew captured their antics, ignoring the group from Westboro Baptist. Eventually Phelps and the other anti-homosexual protesters were forced to pack up their “Fags Doom Nations” and “You’re Going To Hell” signs and leave town. Priceless!

Advertisements

121 Responses to “The score is now… Flying Spaghetti Monster:1 Fred Phelps:0”

  1. cassie said

    arkansas is abbreviated as AR. little rock is not in alaska.

    that being said, nice post.

  2. gotjustice said

    On a related note:
    http://gotjustice.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/why-fred-phelps-one-of-the-strongest-pro-gay-voices/

  3. @cassie: I knew that! Really I did! Thanks for catching my typo. Corrected now.

  4. mightymjolnir said

    Actually, cassie, on this particular day, Arkansas was abbreviated as “Arrrrgh”.

    I’ll be here all week.

    m

  5. Caleb said

    haha that’s awesome…I live near there, I wish I could have been there…

  6. justme said

    No matter how you word it or say it or ignore the facts. The Bible clearly states the facts concerning homosexuals and perverted behavior. It’s that plain and that simple. You can live in your own “dream” world and believe a Most Holy God accepts this type of behavior but deep down inside you know it’s wrong. Fight the people who are trying to show you the TRUTH all you want in the end it will be as God says it will. To those of you who don’t believe in God……..well there is a line in the bible for you as well.

  7. Robert said

    For the overly religious, one day you might understand the difference between supreme being that values all expressions of life and ‘a’ sock puppet supreme being that only values it’s worshippers, until then please stop condemning other people to your hell.

  8. andyscathouse said

    justme:

    That is a great argument.

    “No matter what I say or ignore the facts?”

    Really? Do you have facts or do you have dogma? If there are facts let us know. Who is the one denying the real world and science?

    Who is the humble one here? A literalist reading a 2000 year old segmented scrolls or a scientists accepting where the evidence leads?

    “well there is a line in the bible for you as well.”

    Fear sells and it has done religion wonders but it won’t work on this blog.

  9. @justme Yeah, but I’m thinking you’re the one ignoring the facts. And the fact is not everyone believes in your god or your book. Actually, you’re in the minority because 2/3 of the world doesn’t believe in the Christian god. And even most of your fellow Christians don’t believe in the same god you do, instead choosing to focus on the positive teachings of Jesus rather than the Bronze age bigotry of the Old Testament.

    And furthermore, at least speaking for myself though I dare say that every member of this site agrees, we [b]don’t[/b] believe that your god condones homosexuality because we [u]don’t believe in your god[/u]. What we do believe is that people should be free to live their lives, and love, as they choose.

    So if you want to condemn us for believing in peace, love and tolerance for our fellow humans, well, that’s you’re right. Although I think you might miss the irony in that.

  10. James said

    justme,

    Christians always pitch it to me that John 3:16 guarantees *all* sinners a place in heaven: murderers, thieves… even judgmental bigots. Is this not true?

  11. Justin Ling said

    And, justme, not everybody is religious, nor do you hold any sort of responsibility to protect their souls. Well-intended pandering is something that, I think, most homosexuals have gotten used to. Trying to convince them that their religious and moral code is the right one is something that is as old as time, but if they refuse it; you have no right to continue to restrict their civil rights in the name of your God.

    It’s that simple. This is a sort of crusade you people have deemed necessary to undertake and it’s not right. I mean, you’re no Fred Phelps, but give it a rest already.

  12. DaviDC. said

    Justme, Your God really does hate polyester/cotton blends & also states it’s okay to own slaves & that people who don’t observe the sabbath should be put to death. Why is it that those of your ilk chose to ignore those facts & focus so strongly on homosexuality?

  13. liquidaficadora (Lindsay, really) said

    So, StumbledUpon brought me here.
    I don’t like internet commentary because I feel like it’s completely impersonal and generally gets people saying hurtful things that they would never say (or at least I hope most aren’t that rude) to someone’s face.

    I guess I am breaking a rule; I just can’t seem to go on wasting my evening without saying something.
    I’m a Christian. yup. A “Sunday School” teacher even. (bold confession) I scarcely want to admit it sometimes because like its said gotjustice’s related note – I fear that people think I’m a closet Fred. Truth be told I think about people like Fred Phelps and even people who tout that they “hate the sin, not the sinner” and I want to puke. Chunks. I am sooo sick of it. It’s old. Specifically that phrase it’s not genuine. I just pine for Christians to love people. We drag the 10 commandments around with us everywhere and forget the only ONLY ‘commandment’ Christ (remember him – the word at the beginning of Christ-ian) gave – love God – love others.

    Ok so a thought to my fellow Jesus followers –
    I get it; worry about the “breakdown of the family” etc. If a Christian believes that homosexuality (ha, I am not going to let any readers know what I believe here, suckas) is a sin – alright. But why choose this one? Aren’t there plenty to choose from? What about lying? Or murder? Or lust? Shouldn’t we protest that. Or adultery? Or gluttony? woah. yeah. Why do we choose one as worse? Don’t they all destroy families too?

    I am also painfully tired of my profs and friends who preach some of the same retorts that are here about my dead book and try to pit my faith against science. vomit, and not just because I have acid reflux. I think a faith of pasta is funny (a little depressing, but funny – especially when dressed up like and talking like a pirate), but it honestly hurts when it’s used to mock me for my faith. Tit for tat leaves everyone blind, or some metaphor like that.

    Do you know what I mean? Is enough, enough to anyone else? I like a good debate or discussion, but I am sick of dogma – religious or non. Sick of intellectual and spiritual haughtiness I am sick of protests that protest other people’s protests (even if they are on talk like a pirate day).

    ps sorry about the novel

  14. mooney said

    wow DaviDC,
    I guess your a scholar on polyester/cotten and shrimp. As far as slaves go I think Moses had some run in with a king of Egypt about letting God’s people go from bondage. Oh yeah, it was God’s people that were the slaves…hmmm. You might be confusing the term ‘servent’ which means ’employee’ not slave. Yeah, I think God thinks it’s ok to hire servents.
    People not observing the sabbath being put to death? the ones who were upset about the sabbath were the sinful and spiteful preist who wanted Jesus to die because he was preforming miracles on the sabbath.
    Yeah, Being gay is something that God hates and as a christian, I hate. I’m sure that as a HOMO you hate christians. Fair is Fair. We hate each other, so what’s the big deal?
    The guy who is a homosexual and the guy who is anti-homo (me) both have rights to protest.
    And uh to the guy who says that 2/3rds of the world does not believe in the christian God? False. I would hope that you really don’t think that India and China take up 2/3rds of the earths population, b/c other then the bhuddist monk, the sacred cow and the crazy folks in Iraq everybody else believes in the christian God. and those who don’t still believe that being a faggot is just wrong.
    Sorry, if I’ve offended the faggots out there.
    Peace, Love and Happiness
    Mooney

  15. mehmeh said

    soo…. what ever happened to hate the sin love the sinner? and what ever happened to judge not. yes, homosexuality is just a perversion,but seriously why all the commotion.

    i’m a christian, but seriously, all these ignorant extremists are the reason there are so many atheists today. if you dont know what youre talking about dont speak. and if youre going to go parading around preaching hate you should read your bible again.
    paul said if youre going to do something, even if it has something to do with your faith, if it makes others lose their faith, youre sinning. for instance, mister soul saver over there with his god hates fags sign is making alot of gays mad at god, therefore its wrong
    wouldnt it be best if instead, we befriended these people we see are sinners and try to help them see the light subtly, without destroying any chance they have of salvation?
    perhaps instead of running around with a anti gay sign they should be praying for the souls of some gays.
    and perhaps instead of running around like pirates making the situation worse, you should be praying that these people dont harm the image of what christianity really is.
    if youre an internet user, you already know, true christianity is taking huge blows right now.

  16. Libertys Bell said

    Ok, about science. Serious anthropologists have studied cultures that have accepted homosexuality throughout history. Every major culture that has accepted homosexuality has been destroyed, period. Often times, the destruction cannot be scientifically linked directly to the homosexuality; however, they were still destroyed.

    There are a few small tribes in different areas of the world that practice homosexuality as an acceptable part of their lifestyle. Every one of them oppress women and see women as a necessary evil to perpetuate the tribes’ existences. None of them give women any say in the affairs of the tribe and baby boys are removed from their mothers as soon as they are old enough to be weaned. Most of the boys grow up sexualized while most girls grow up abused and turned into literal “baby machines” as young as 12 years of age (those that make it to that age).

    Conclusion: the empirical evidence of science shows an even bleaker picture for societies that accept homosexuality as the norm than religionists who threaten with an abstract, far off hell. The problem is that this scientific evidence is not PC, so it gets shoved aside and the non-PC religionists may have a point.

  17. LSB said

    To justme,
    God may have a problem with Sodom and Gomorra in Genesis, but for some reason he has no problem with Lot’s daughters intoxicating him, sleeping with him, and then having children by him. Butt sex bad, incest with one’s own father good, according to the Bible. Clearly this is the moral standard humanity should strive towards.

  18. Lucifer said

    What an entertaining event.. Christians are STUMBLING. Universal knowledge is inevitable. Now we just have to redirect the budgets of this holy war to get more stumblers to further churn tomorrow’s thoughts and ideas! Sounds like a plan.

    —commentary—

    mooney. heaven bound?

    mehmeh. mad props

    liberty bells. your tact of language and scientific terminology cannot leave your fallacious logic ignored. Sit down. Try again*

  19. godless said

    The only reason any religion christian, muslum, jewish etc… reject homosexuality is because homosexuals do not procreate thus unable to produce more offspring that can be indoctrinated into said religion. Think about that. Control and suppression of sexual behavior is a cornerstone of any religion. Think about their logic next time you hear them ranting about “evil sinful behavior”. We are all sexual beings but they would have us believe it is wrong unless it is between a husband and wife and only to procreate.
    Oh and there are 6 billion of us on this planet so maybe not procreating is a good thing given the limited amount of resources we are faced with. I see nothing wrong with 2 consenting adults , gay or straight having sex and enjoying it. They want to shame, and if that does not work, threaten us with “eternal damnation”. Very sad really because nothing and I mean nothing will ever get me to believe what they cling to so fearfully. I’m glad that they were able to have some fun even at the expense of this Fred Phelps freak, What a sad man keep up the good work Pastafarians!!!

  20. Crypt said

    Great article – kind of reminds me of dadaists interfering with fascist organisations – (and on that note)

    People who cant accept the message of pastafarianism sicken me -we all know that hatred and bigotry are perversions as outlined in the the FSM’s Eight “I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts”
    but dont worry bigots and fanatics alike – when you die the noodly one will show you the error of your ways.

  21. UnDeluded said

    Yes agreed very enertaining…
    Funny to read that Christians are using science to back up arguments, however untrue they are. The idea that all societies that accept homsexuality have been destroyed. Were they dstroyed by your GOD? Please share this emperical evidence with us Libety Bells. Or perhaps you have be told it over and over, and now you have unquestioning faith it.
    Please correct me if I’m wrong; the only unforgivable sin is to reject Jesus Christ as your Lord and saviour. I’m sure that you all have committed sins, so in Gods eyes a sinner is a sinner. Right? that makes you on a par with homosexuals? So why are you so anti homosexuals? Perhaps some kind of repressed sexual thoughts? Its not like they are going to go forth and multiply and take over the world? Where is the threat?
    How many of you so called good people (endoctrined by the good book) have taken the time to meet and socialise with homosexuals, understand what they think and feel? Have any of you taken the time to show an instrest in their wellbeing. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone.

    And yes Mooney 2/3 of the World are not Christian perhaps you are just living the American dream.

    The reason why there are so many atheist is because we are no longer afraid to speak up, no longer so worried by being ostracised by our families and communities we live in.

    The idea that there is a supreme being that is omnipresent requires no thinking and no reasoning. It encourages misconseptions and lazy thinking. Embrace knowledge and try and learn more, don’t acceot blindly. Let people think and reason for themselves, you’ll be supprised how good we actualy are.

  22. @Undeluded – Actually the unforgivable sin, is to reject the “Holy Spirit” Not Jesus or God. (Check out The Blasphemy Challenge)

    @Mooney – Here you can find an easy to read Pie Chart that clearly shows that Christianity only makes up about 1/3 of religious beliefs across the planet. (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)

    @JustMe – You don’t happen to be a 27 year old blone female from Michigan do you? If so I think we may have had cyber sex once or twice… Jusy sayin’.

    @IncestRapists – Keep on keepin on… It was the Ammon and Tamar story that made me finally realize that god really does condone incestuous sexual escapades….so as long as you are doing it forcefully.

  23. shagnbag said

    Homophobe = closet homosexual, and afraid people will find out.

  24. chris said

    Yaaarrrrr!
    Ramen!

  25. adamtree said

    neuralgourmet said, “And even most of your fellow Christians don’t believe in the same god you do, instead choosing to focus on the positive teachings of Jesus rather than the Bronze age bigotry of the Old Testament.”

    It’s foolish to make a distinction between the two. Jesus, being Jewish, followed what you call ‘the Bronze age bigotry of the Old Testament.’ He even said that he didn’t want to do away with the Old Testament Law.

  26. Andy S. said

    Pastafarians 4 Life Baby !!

    Keep on, keepin on –

  27. I don’t think anything else could have made me this happy today.

  28. real said

    Homosexual acts are permitted by god, so long as they take place between a priest and his alter boys.

    Also, all homophobes are repressed homosexuals. I’ve coined a new term for Phelps and all of his fellow ‘Christian’ homos – “Jesus Fags.”

    So, to all of you jesus fags out there, after you’re done protesting at soldiers funerals you should protest in front of your own houses and churches. Make signs that say “God Hates Homophobes (because they are homosexuals too).”

    I realize that I may have said some fairly rude things here and that was not my intention – but it is my opinion. I encourage all of you to ask your religious leaders to tell you what your opinions are and then blog about them. I look forward to hearing more of your brainwash-hate-speak.

  29. thetechundead09 said

    O.K. I am an atheist but I am not here to attack the Christian faith or any other for that matter. Normally in these times having a religion gives you a moral code to live by and for the most part it falls along the line of “be a good person” and “be nice to others” and gives the promise of a life after death. It is just that at moments like this when one group of people reject and persecute another group just for the reason that a 2000 year old book told them that it was wrong just sickens me. I am a big fan of the pastafarians and am considering joining because instead of responding to situations like this with violence or doing nothing. They attack the idea in a peaceful way and make them see how rediculus their arguement seems to others. I do not think less of anyone based on their religion, sexual preferences, etc. and I expect the same in return. I choose to be an athiest because religions don’t make sense to me and if I’m wrong, then I will gladly suffer for eternity.

  30. Moon Sammy said

    To Liberty Bells:

    In defer to the thoughtful words of Mike Doughty; I think when he was part of Soul Coughing – and I quote:

    “correlation is not causation”

    If you want to debate with the adults, you had better brush up on your use/abuse of logic. Or, you can just accept my arguments because I believe that the song lyrics of Mike Doughty/Soul Coughing are the final word on all acceptable human behavior – the equivalent of your silly old Bible.

  31. SwiftFingers89 said

    I stumbled on this article and the comments amused me, so I thought I’d comment and lay down my 2 cents.

    Now to be frank, I’m not a compassionate person, I care about my friends and family like most people do, and I’m concerned about the problems and hardships that more unfortunate people around the world have to deal with, but I bring this up because I believe that people who I do not like or I disagree with have a fundamental right not to enjoy my company. To place this in other words, the people I don’t like can screw off and do what they want as long as I’m not bothered by them.
    What confuses me is that, logically, the only reason someone would be concerned about homosexuals (who would have no direct involvement in these people’s lives) is that they are deeply concerned for the well being of their soul. If that’s the case, then wouldn’t the next logical choice be to save their immortal souls by trying to convince them their way is wrong? It seems that another method people use is to condemn and ridicule them, trying to do all in their power to hurt these people.
    To summarize this logic:
    Fred Phelps: “My religion tells me that what you do in the privacy of your own home is wrong, so wrong in fact that I will devote large amounts of time and energy into focusing on this one aspect of your life and convince my government to devalue your existence as far as humanly possible. I do this because my religion tells me your soul is damned, and to save your soul I must campaign against your existence.”
    I wish simply to point out the circular reasoning behind this logic. If you really wanted to save someone’s soul from sin, would you not try to help them by convincing them to change their ways?
    The only other explanation I have for this is that you hate homosexuals because your religion teaches you to be intolerant of them, and that somehow by slandering them and degrading and protesting against them you will help your own life. By life I mean your immediate friends and family, because that is honestly the only thing most people care about.
    To finish, I want to bring back my own view of the matter, that people who I disagree with should do their own thing away from me, I don’t need to hate them, and I don’t need to hear what they have to say to be happy.
    So please, if you find yourself telling people how to be and how to live, due to them living a way you disagree with, please don’t. Besides, they probably don’t want to hear what you have to say anyways.

  32. sky said

    to those intolerant of anyone:

    it’s funny how religion can breed hatred while explicitly preaching love. those who truly love could never persecute others….ever. to emulate god is to know love, since 1 john 4:8 tells you (if you need to place stock in the bible) that “whoever does not love does not know god, because god is love.” those of us with any common sense know that love should be the only way to live.

    and yet, here we are. thousands of years of civilization later and we’re still hating. whatever your belief system, it is sure that any minute you spend hating someone is a minute spent unwisely. you believe in hell and hate? that’s the most ridiculous thing i’ve ever heard. i can’t believe someone would risk the idea of eternity in hell for a minute of hatred that doesn’t positively serve anyone in this life.

    i’m not a religious person. nor do i care if anyone else is. it’s your prerogative. but it’s not hard to love, no matter who you are. i love you, despite your ignorance. and make no mistake, intolerance is ignorance. i cry for those of you who cannot understand that.

  33. revertive said

    To Libertys Bell:

    As a “serious anthropologist”, I have never heard of this particular culture. Reference please.

  34. PASTI said

    I LIKE PASTA. MY FAVORITE IS CHEESE RAVIOLI.

    I ❤ CHEESE RAVIOLI.

    DOES ANYONE ELSE LIKE ITALIAN FOOD?

    ALSO, THERE ARE GAY ANIMALS. I SAW A DUDE DUCK DOING A DUDE DUCK. WHEN WILL ALL THE DUCKS BE DESTROYED?

    -PASTALOVER

    PS IF ALL THE DUCKS ARE GONE, WILL THE PRICE OF BREAD DROP? I ALSO REALLY LIKE BREAD.

  35. LegalEye said

    Having read most of this debate, I find it interesting that most of the people here have no idea why Fred Phelps and his ilk are actually protesting funerals.

    If you look at the makeup of his “church” it is only his family (maybe some ardent homophobes have joined along the way) and I know at least his daughter is a lawyer (I think good old fred himself went to lawschool and was not admitted to the bar). They go around essentially using “religious language” as an exception to the First amendment exclusion of fighting words. They then entice people to attack them so that they can cash in with lawsuits.

    His entire ploy makes all of us in the legal profession sick.

  36. Homosexuality is a perversion? Well, probably so. God, Mother Nature, or whoever, made us “heterosexuals”, in the name of an Utter Good, so homosexuality is a perversion.

    However, want to know a little fact? So is not dying. Yes, our stubborn refusal to die when getting old is unnatural and immoral. In short: a perversion. Medicine is sacrilege, since we should die when God, Mother Nature, or whoever decided we should die, not later.

    By the same reasoning, alleviating a headache with a pill is a perversion (God, Mother Nature, or whoever, wanted us to suffer it). Using a transportation method other than walking is a perversion (God, etc, wanted us to walk). TV, internet, radio… even books like the Bible itself, are perversions. Clothes are a perversion, as is using glasses, a watch or shoes. You get the picture.

    All the above are ways in which we, human beings, refuse to follow the natural (divine) order. I command (yes, command) all the followers of the reasoning that homosexuality is wrong on a natural/religious basis, to stop doing the above. At once.

  37. Libertys Bell, the conglomeration of exceedingly weak correlations to create fallacious arguments is not “science.”

  38. brad said

    No matter how you word it or say it or ignore the facts. The Bible clearly states the facts concerning wearing and mixture of cotton and fiber and perverted behavior. It’s that plain and that simple. You can live in your own “dream” world and believe a Most Holy God accepts this type of behavior but deep down inside you know it’s wrong. Fight the people who are trying to show you the TRUTH all you want in the end it will be as God says it will. To those of you who don’t believe in God……..well there is a line in the bible for you as well.

  39. Baalack Sheep said

    Oh my god, I never comment on things, but what mooney said was just too good to pass up! I am simply amazed at the sheer amount of ignorance.
    I’ll ignore all your religious bull crap, but I have to point out your statistical error.
    In fact, only 1/3 of the world is Christian. Do you honestly think there are only four religions in the world? Would you like a list of people that DON’T believe in the Christian god?
    Here are SOME of the MANY people that don’t believe in your god:
    Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Druids, Shamans, Hellenic Polytheists, Norse Heathens, Satanists, Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Buddhists, Shintoists, Hindus, Taoists, Sikhs, Scientologists… and the list continues! There are still many other religions/religious beliefs besides the ones I named that don’t believe in your god.
    For the love of all that is good, open a book besides your Bible.

  40. Songchai Di said

    People like Liberty Bell are the reason all over the world see Americans as bumbling know it alls who like to force thier “facts” down everyone else’s throat.

    Serious anthropologist, yes ?

    Ok here are three cultures that accept homosexuality that have not, as you put it “been utterly destroyed”

    “Every major culture that has accepted homosexuality has been destroyed, period.”

    Sukhothai Culture – Founded in 1238 (Thailand)
    Khmer Culture – Still around since the 1200’s (Cambodia)
    Mon Culture – Since the 1200’s (Burma)

    YOU FAIL !

  41. Pirate Dave said

    Arkansas abbreviation is ‘AR’?

    ARRRRR!!

  42. Oughtist Tic said

    I was once a nice, god-loving christian. Read the readings on the pulpit, bathed in the rituals like a pig in mud on a hot summer’s day. Then I started to think. And the results of my fine auto-diatribe into self-confession was simply that age-old nugget of Socrates’ about the supreme value of knowing the profundity of one’s ignorance. I am still, for the most part, nice. But I hate in different ways now, even though I try not to hate at all.

    Both Atheists and Theists alike could do well to appreciate that humble little gem of offically Greek origin. But it is much more a threat to the Theist than the Atheist, for it requires a step into questioning assumptions that most church-goers simply don’t have the yie-chees to accomplish. It requires complete confession, even as the opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty. Think about it. Think about it.

    A primary reason why we athiests and fellow believers in dis-enchantment have such a problem with you book-blinded innocents is that adherence to your book of rules is actually the status quo in the regimes of power we presently witness destroying this planet. (We can discuss China at another time, if you must, and are able).

    You forget the chaser to “be fruitful and multiply”. It’s “and fill the earth”. The earth is full. Now what? Apocolypse? Sorry, but we gotta say something in response, and apologies if we sometimes rant. But the public face of religion is simply to often too indistinguishable from a symptom of mental illness, or at least developmental delay. Jesus take the wheel doesn’t cut it on the roads I drive.

    If the existence of Love requires the presence of God, then surely He is something on the order of bisexual. Or is that mystery too deep to contemplate for you? Jesus, save me from your followers…

  43. A. Sceptic said

    Why do so many so-called Christians talk about the Ten Commandments, and why do they want the Ten Commandments posted in every Government building?

    The Ten Commandments came down the mountain with Moses.

    Jesus taught the Beatitudes.

    Why don’t those so-called Christians want to post the Beatitudes?

    BTW, there aren’t 10 Commandments. There are 613 Commandments. You can Google it.

  44. elissaF said

    Teaching after teaching after teaching, Jesus was all about inclusiveness. Include women, include sinners, include tax collectors, etc etc etc. Everyone was welcome to God’s love.

    Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.

    And all the (old testament) biblical passages about homosexuality are exactly as condemning as passages about adultery. Think we should start stoning Newt Gingrich and other “immoral” conservatives to death?

    I think McCain would be in there as well.

  45. Pastafarians, bless em oh noodely appendage

  46. a. moore said

    As a born again Christian I find the pitting of science against the bible a projectile vomiting moment myself. science is so far behind the bible it’s not even a challenge.

    The one issue I can’t get over is how every non Christian in the world is an expert on Christianity and the bible. We hear the same out of context scriptures about judging,loving, and how every Christian “they” know is some sort of horrific closet sinner.Everybody is a sinner.

    There are simple people in the world. Just as there are simple atheists and agnostics. There are simple Christians.And guess what? all of us Christians didn’t vote for George Bush. We don’t all buy his lies.

    Though I agree that one sin isn’t anymore damning than another. Defending any sin is more reprehensible to God than the sin itself.

    He expects us to sin. He gave us a powerful gift in freewill. To understand that you really have to think on what freewill is. It’s autonomy from God. He made us that way so that we would choose him. Ever heard a saying that goes like this “if you love someone set them free, if they love you they will come back to you”. Understand He could have made us robots and we would all love him unconditionally…by command.

    Mr phelps is a simple and misguided Christian. He’s only telling part of the story. BTW being queer,gay or whatever isn’t just old testament. read romans chapter 8. One subject it mentions is that in the latter times even our “women will burn in lust for one another”. Anybody notice the explosion in experimenting bi women over the last 10 years? Not Lesbian…Bisexual.

    As for the non believers, you can fall for all the “disorder creates order” [big bang] crap you want too but, life is far too complex to be an accident. This life is an intelligent design. Even Darwin repented. He should. His theories have more holes than the Christian faith.

    That said, I was once a non believer as all Christians. We just woke up while the rest of you still sleep. You all talk as though we were born Christians. No, we were just like you until we humbled ourselves and a miracle happened. God revealed himself to us. We can’t show that or even factually prove that in any way but, through the way we live.

    The Bible lives and breathes. It has an answer for just about every problem life can throw at you and it’s not multiple choice. You have every right to be ignorant. You can deny that every cell in your body has a unique identification [DNA] and you can deny billions of changed lives over the centuries. You can even deny that U.S. law and gov’t is based on Christian -judeo beliefs. Besides , what’s wrong with teaching your children to respect their parents…you. Or to not steal,lie and kill? I just don’t get that at all. There’s nothing overtly religious about not killing,stealing and lying. That’s called civilization.

    However, there’s something magical about this life, this world. Unfortunately some of you have spent way to much time watching sci-fi movies.

  47. I’ve stayed out of the fray but a.moore you not only don’t get it but you are deliberately twisting/lying about/ignoring positions held by many non-Christians/Atheists.

    He expects us to sin. He gave us a powerful gift in freewill. To understand that you really have to think on what freewill is. It’s autonomy from God. He made us that way so that we would choose him. Ever heard a saying that goes like this “if you love someone set them free, if they love you they will come back to you”. Understand He could have made us robots and we would all love him unconditionally…by command.

    I think your conception of Freewill is incorrect, to my understanding Freewill is the ability for all humans to be free to choose any and all behaviors not just the active accepting/rejecting of god.

    Your own god violates this principle in the Old Testament, can you guess what I’m referring too [cough]Pharoah’s hardened heart[/cough]. So your statement is more accurately, “He gave us a powerful gift in freewill (except for when he takes it away).”

    Mr phelps is a simple and misguided Christian. He’s only telling part of the story. BTW being queer,gay or whatever isn’t just old testament. read romans chapter 8. One subject it mentions is that in the latter times even our “women will burn in lust for one another”. Anybody notice the explosion in experimenting bi women over the last 10 years? Not Lesbian…Bisexual.

    1) Romans 8 does not contain the verse you are looking for it’s Romans 1

    2) There is no doubt in my mind that hating gays is perfectly consistent with biblical teachings, I think your biblical teachings are wrong, so thanx for pointing (incorrectly) to biblical text that counters an argument that I wouldn’t make.

    3) Speaking of taking things out of context, Romans 1 is meant not as a condemnation of homosexuality but as a condemnation to those who fix their eyes upon things of the world like hedonism/paganism/things of the flesh and not on things of the spirit,

    “For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

    As for the non believers, you can fall for all the “disorder creates order” [big bang] crap you want too but, life is far too complex to be an accident. This life is an intelligent design. Even Darwin repented. He should. His theories have more holes than the Christian faith.

    Even Darwin repented, ha! That Christian lie has been so thoroughly refuted and exposed that anyone still mentioning it can only be Liar intent upon deceiving. How very Christian of you.

    You can deny that every cell in your body has a unique identification [DNA] and you can deny billions of changed lives over the centuries.

    Non-sequitur much, who denies the existence of DNA?

    You can even deny that U.S. law and gov’t is based on Christian -judeo beliefs.

    Nice try, the basis of our U.S. law does have a shared set of beliefs with Judeo-Christian beliefs but not all of them including some glaring examples (like expressly forbidding laws respecting the establishment of religion). Why would the supposedly Christian founders of our country go out of their way to forbid the creation of an official state religion of Christianity when EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD had an official religion. Please spend at least one brain cell thinking through your assertions, they don’t even make sense.

    Besides , what’s wrong with teaching your children to respect their parents…you. Or to not steal,lie and kill? I just don’t get that at all. There’s nothing overtly religious about not killing,stealing and lying. That’s called civilization.

    It’s not the “moral” 6 commandments I have a problem with it’s the 4 about graven images, the sabbath, no other gods before me & lords name in vain. They have no business being in our court room, unless I’m being prosecuted for Swearing at the Lord in front of a Graven Image on Sunday (or Saturday or Friday).

    However, there’s something magical about this life, this world. Unfortunately some of you have spent way to much time watching sci-fi movies.

    What?

    @a.moore

    FAIL

  48. AH-hahaha.
    I dressed up for talk like a pirate day. And if I was there, I would be running that crazy guy outta town too.

    To everyone up there in the chatosphere,
    Simmer down. Smile. Laugh. Talk/dress like a pirate. Believe in some strange noodley thing that you know doesn’t exist. People who can solve problems without offending or hurting anyone totally rock.

  49. Just a Shrimp said

    I’m just a shrimp, but I too, was offended by the pirates’ blatant attempt to claim:

    “God Hates Shrimp”

    I know I’m not a perfect shrimp. I admit, I’m a bottom-feeder. Sometimes in times of crises, I stray and find myself meandering along the ocean floor gazing way, way up to the ocean surface and wondering, “Does God really care about me ?” Or, was that just an angel I saw floating on the ocean surface, or was it just another empty plastic water bottle ?

    I have some Muslim shrimp friends, but they kinda make me uncomfortable. They constantly refer to the one true God as – Allah, and I don’t appreciate it. When I’m around them I constantly quote scripture to them and try to save them from their evil ways, but I fear it is a lost cause. And don’t even get me started on Mr. Blowfish – he’s all screwed up.

    Back to these pirates though, they are a crude sort of bunch. How dare they claim to know God hates me ? They don’t know God like I do. If the pirates want to throw around judgement on shrimp and other crustaceans, they better check themselves first before they reck themselves. Pirates need to stick to what they do best- pirating.

    And this Flying Spahgetti Monster ? I’m not sold on this entity yet. The bible states specifally to not worship idols. But I have to admit, I am an avid viewer of the television program, American Idol. Who doesn’t love Clay Aiken ? He’s such an adorable, older, version of Opie Taylor.

  50. FuzzyDice said

    Hey, Shrimpy, I’m just wondering-are you an actual shrimp? I mean with the antennae, pleopods and everything? Because I’m pretty sure that the Pastafarians mean you no offense. They are just sick and tired of the “God hates fags” signs and wanted to parody them with something a bit different. They might as well carry signs that say “God hates fuzzy dice.” Seriously, Just a Shrimp, Pastafarians don’t believe in God. They believe in FSM. (Muslims believe in “God”, but they have a different word-do you ever translate “God” to “Allah” when you speak in Arabic?) The Pastafarians who dressed up as pirates weren’t trying to offend anybody other than the people with the truly offensive signs (that say “God hates fags” or similar). There are people out there who hate me because of my skin color, something that I had no say in or control over when I was born. Why does Fred Phelps hate homosexuals? You might as well hate someone for being, say, a shrimp.

    On another note:
    “The Flying Spaghetti Monster (also known as the FSM) is the deity of a parody religion[1] called The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and its system of beliefs, “Pastafarianism”.[2] The religion was founded in 2005 by Bobby Henderson to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution.” -Wikipedia

    Pastafarianism is not a real religion! Pastafarians don’t actually believe this stuff-they just enjoy parodying die-hard religious fanatics who do crazy stuff. “I’d tell you what my religion is, but I can’t because of rules numbers one and two.”

  51. liberty bell, I was going to give you a little advice regarding the scientific process, but was distracted by a phone call. as it is, I would recommend gaviscon for all the hate that is bubbling up inside you. xXx

  52. oh, fnar fnar fnar, I’ve just read a.moore’s post and become a christian. Not just a Christian, but a literalist christian! How wrong I was to be uncertain about that which is unprovable! I now realise that my previous tolerance of homosexuals and those of other religions was so misguided! thankyou mr/mrs moore! now i have seen the light! In fact, I’ve put down my joint and avowed not to smoke any more cannabis, and am coming to your church next sunday. Please give me the address, because if it is frequented by such intelligent and informed people as yourself, that is excactly the kind of community i wish to be part of. xXx

  53. Fogey said

    Repeat after me:

    “There is no god”

    “The bible is a collection of tribal legends and myths”

    “I have no right to impose the things my imaginary friend(s) tell me to do on others”

    “Hating other people is bad and destructive”

    “The sex lives of consenting adults are none of my business”

  54. kristin ludwig said

    Okay, I just had to say something on this. Christians are in fact taught that homosexuality is a sin, but so are about a million other things. The Bible dosen’t give you a number from one to ten on how bad a sin is, and it also says that we aren’t to judge others. These people are claiming to be Christians, They are not nor will they ever likely know the true meaning. Please don’t take how these people are acting and think that is how christians behave, and that includes the people actually condoning these boneheads.

  55. the truth said

    One day the world will be past all this debate and it will be universally accepted that being gay is just as normal as being straight. We look down upon times when people were debating whether or not blacks or women should be able to vote or have rights, but its sad to think that we live in one those times except for homosexuals.
    The world just needs more time, tolerance, and love.

  56. penfold said

    Just to add a little clarity. The bible does not say anywhere that homosexuality is a sin, in fact the idea of homosexuality does not really exist until the 1920’s.

    The sin in the old testament (Leviticus)is a ‘man lying with a man’, i.e. male sodomy, it comes in a section dealing with many sexual practices and is not singled out as being particularly bad, no worse in fact than pre-marital sex, and bearing the same punishment (death) as breaching many of the cleanliness laws that are certainly not observed by any Christians I know.

    In the new testament it is even more vague, the work from the Greek used by Paul is best translated as sexual perversion, it does not specify further, and once again would mean pre-marital sex just as much as sodomy.

    Interestingly each generation has read into these passages its own specific bugbear. For the early reformists in the post-nicea church it was clergy having sex (a very common practice at the time), for some of the early part of American history it was blow-jobs and giving head. It is only a recent development that homosexuality has been the target (as an aside as only male sodomy is mentioned, the bible is quiet on lesbianism!)

    As with everything though there is a fair degree of revisionism here anyhow. For example the early church was developed formally at a time when the most important thinker was a man called Plotinus, his particular philosophy has been crucial in the construction of doctrine, one area particularly was biblical reading. Poltinus was following on from the intellectual tradition of Plato; and so it is ultimately to Plato that many of the most central doctrines of Christianity can be ascribed: the imago dei, the trinity, and most modern Christology (so much so that many early church fathers single Plato out as a heathen likely to receive forgiveness from God). These highly educated men would have been perfectly aware that Plato in the Symposium argues that the most perfect love is sexual love between a man and boy, not only ‘homosexual’ but a ‘pedophile’ to use a couple of anachronistic terms! As sodomy was seen as merely one of the many sexual sins, they did not bar Platonic thinking, they saw his behavior as no worse than the ‘sins’ regularly committed by their rampantly sexual congregations. Bad but nothing special.

    As a general point, the New Testament makes it very clear that sin is an issue between the sinner and God. So even if you do believe that homosexuality is a sin, you yourself are committing one by judging others for it, you are a bad as the Rabbis who judged Jesus at the Sanhedrin. As your gospels makes clear, there is only one with the authority to judge.

    Still I can understand that many Christians hate the liberalization of their world. Many in the past have been equally angry about those who challenge long held beliefs as the following quote shows:

    “So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus “why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?” He replied “Isiah was right when he prophesied about hypocrites … You have let go of the commands of God and are holding onto the traditions of men” – Mark 7:5-8

  57. martini said

    It’s funny how people having strong beliefs in any one religion, or not having beliefs in any religion at all get so much atention in all media, and they always apear to be fighting over something.

    I’ve been thinking a little bit over my religius stands and beliefs, and have reached a conclusion that might confuse some, it is my best guess that the pastafarians will be the ones to understand this first.

    Religiusly speaking, I would be something in the order of a Bhudistical Hindu-Rasta-Pastafarian Atheist. Read some books on these religionis with an open mind and you will see it is not as wierd as it first sounds…

    It seems to me that having only one religion can easily turn you into a fanatic, witch history prooves is not really good for the standing grounds of all beliefs in this world: peace,love and unity. A jolly good example of this is: Christianity! With its many millions of fanatics around the world thruoghout history it is likely to be the couse of more deaths than any other belief.

    But a christian would never resort to means of terrorism to convert other people to their religion right?

    In my eyes, Christians are to terrorism, what Elvis Presly was to Rockmusic. The oldest really big act of terror I’ve ever heard of is ofcourse the crusades.

    Back to the subjekt:
    I think I’ve seen this kind of behavior before; Condemming people of other beliefs, other sexualities, and so on to eternal pain. Edit eternal to a couple of years, and add death by gas after pain, and you have the laws rather impopular government which existed in the early/mid 1900, and disapeared about the same time as the WW2 ended. In case you dont know what Im talking of jet the government I am speaking of were first elected in Germany – a christian country…

    Now ofcourse the big differense here is that they gased “the bad guys” instead of, as we do now, just telling them they where going to hell and so on. A little less conversation and a little more action in the 1940’ies.

    Ofcourse Christianity is not the worst religion in any way, just the one getting the least kritisism in medias, compared to their deeds.

    However, if everyone would be multi-religius, I think it would be less fanatics in this world, thus less violence.

    Sorry for rediculating christianity in this add, Im just trying out what it feels like to be christian, and it seems to be something of a competition among christians to make christianity seem like the stupidest thing in the world. youre all doing a pretty good job I must tell you..congratulations!

  58. Tripzlyn said

    “science is so far behind the bible it’s not even a challenge.” –a.moore

    What?

    Your whole, entire “argument” is unintelligible, but this statement just took the cake… and then ran down the street with it.

    I would just love to hear how modern science has fallen so far behind the miracles found inside the bible. I must have missed the part in the bible where DNA was mentioned…

    And I love this line: “[Darwin’s] theories have more holes than the Christian faith.” Wow. I’m sold. There is just no way to argue with that. You MUST be right.


    Skeptigator: Thank you. You rock.


    Anyway, people are people, regardless of who they choose to love or make love to.

    Consenting adults should be persecuted or hated for living differently than you choose to. Nobody is making you watch. Go find a hobby.

  59. Wayne said

    I love it…somewhere to rant…

    In response to mooney:

    I’m a self proclaimed homo, but I only screw women. Do you hate me as much as I hate you and your god/religion? Remember you idiot, I’m still a ‘HOMO’.

    It’s funny to watch, as our population continues to grow exponentially we’ll see more and more differences in opinions because, well, there are more people on the planet to have differing views! Just like there seem to be more and more baby raping priests.

    If the bible-thumping Christians don’t actually want to play nice-nice with the rest of the human race, I say we feed them to the lions and move on with our lives.

    Things would be so much simpler if we all actually just let people be people and worry about our own lives instead of the lives others CHOOSE to lead.

  60. Raalnan5 said

    as a heterosexual bible beater, I say You go, pirate. I wish I could join you.

  61. Marcie said

    For some of you people who think Fred Phelps and his band of brainwashed followers are okay you cannot be more wrong. I live in Topeka and see what they force onto the children that have parents belong to his so called church. Three yr olds holding these hateful signs being brainwashed and raised to be narrow minded, hateful, closed minded, and as delusional as their parents. To me, the parents having their young kids in these picket lines should be considered child abuse. They have kids holding signs and screaming hate phrases at other young kids entering a church that allows a lesbian as a member. I am straight as can be and I would never teach my kids to hate someone just because they have same sex relationships. We learn in Sunday school that God loves everyone. Fred Phelps had his garage set on fire a few weeks ago. And whoever did it was wrong and hes screaming for justice. What about the justice there should be for these “followers” kids growing up in respecting, loving homes.

  62. Marcie said

    OOps! I should have said the chance to grow up in respecting, loving homes. Too bad we didnt have a little justice for all those soldiers funerals he picketed before the goverment passed that law. In fact, we shouldnt have had to pass such a law if he had respect for his fellow man

  63. slacker said

    @A.Moore
    Even Darwin repented.
    Incorrect. Do some homework. Evolution has plenty of evidence to back itself up, I suggest you do some basic study in evolutionary biology and come back. As for the rest of your statement. well is was just a load of unsubstantiated straw-man arguments. You’re either a bad troll or just another idiot who’s too scared of death to contemplate that there might be nothing after it. Grow some balls and face the real world.

  64. Albert Einstein said

    The entire bible is metaphorical. It is not meant to be taken literally at all. So everyone thinking that there was a jesus, is a heaven or hell, or noah’s ark belongs in a looney bin. Seriously.

  65. Arthur said

    I can vouch that Darwin never repented. According to Stephen Gould, Darwin was already a materialist (atheist) before he step foot on the Beagle.

    Charles Darwin hated Christianity. He also hated majoring in theology forced on him by his father.

    After the Beagle voyage, Darwin wrote:

    “I had gradually become by this time [1837] to see the Old Testament, from its manifestly fake history of the world … was no more to be trusted than the sacred book of the Hindus, or the beliefs of any barbarian. … I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true, for if so plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, my brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. This is a damnable doctrine.”

    Charles Darwin, “The autobiography of Charles Darwin with Original Omissions Restored”, ed. New York: Norton, 1969, p. 87

    Charles Darwin’s mentor was Charles Lyell. Lyell too rejected the Bible and Christianity in his youth, but he kept up appearances so that his efforts at undermining Christianity would not be obvious.

    In his Principles of Geology (1830…), Charles Lyell attacked LaMarck’s Theory of Evolution while coming very close to laying out Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Some Historians have asked why Lyell did not follow his thoughts to their logical conclusion which would have been Darwin’s Theory. Having read Lyell’s writings, it is clear to me that he feared rejection of any materialistic theory of origins of life emanating from him could lead to rejection of his materialistic geologic uniformatarianism which he created to undermine the Noachic Deluge Geology.

    50 years later, Darwin wrote in a letter that he never gave Lyell enough credit for his Theory of Evolution, that much of it came right out of Lyell’s mind.

  66. Arthur said

    It amazes me how many Christians do not even understand there own Bible or the Gospel Message.

    If I were to ask them what is the purpose of the Mosaic Covenant, many would say that these Mosaic Laws are rules of good conduct that we must keep to be all that God wants us to be. To break these laws is to severe our relationship with God and to cause hurt and pain, and to become subject to satan’s power, or something along these lines.

    But the true answer is that God gave us the Mosaic Laws so that sin may increase. All of us are incapable of keeping the Mosaic Law, including the 10 commandments.

    Messiah as Prophet Posted

    I would like to share a rather different view on the importance of the Mosaic Law.

    Yes, some of the Ten Commandments overlap Hammurabi’s Code. It does not take any special insight for humankind to realize that shaming ones parents, stealing, the taking of an innocent life, coveting, etc., are causes of pain, hurt and suffering. I happen to believe that from Noah, that early civilizations consisted of rather moral people and that the growth of unethical conduct (sin) has been on the increase, more or less, ever since.

    Even if people credit the Hammurabi code as containing many statutes found in the later written Mosaic Law, these laws, of themselves, are useless in regards with respect to making people righteous.

    It is my view that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments et. al. for him to give to the people of the exodus, because the people were hard hearted. God wanted them to trust not their own understanding, but to walk with Him by faith and not by sight. They did not know how to walk and live by faith; they wanted a visible clear contract so they would know exactly what God required of them in order for them to receive all of His blessings. Indeed, they received this Law most enthusiastically, declaring at least twice “All that the LORD has spoken we will do!” and entering into this covenant with God based on their pledge of full adherence to the Mosaic Law and the sprinkling of the blood of sacrificed young bulls upon them.

    Ex 19:7-9

    So Moses came and called the elders of the people, and set before them all these words that the LORD had commanded him. All the people answered together and said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do!” And Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD. The LORD said to Moses, “Behold, I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that the people may hear when I speak with you and may also believe in you forever.” Then Moses told the words of the people to the LORD. NASU

    Ex 24:3-8

    3 Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, ” All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do!” 4 Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. Then he arose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 He sent young men of the sons of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as peace offerings to the LORD. 6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and the other half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, ” All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!” 8 So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.” NASU

    The Mosaic Law was weak and useless in that it perfected no one, but rather, proved to be a source of curses for those under the Mosaic Covenant. Rather than decrease sin, the Law increased sin among the people. Every person under the Mosaic Covenant proved himself to be unrighteous, except our lord Yeshua (Jesus).

    To understand more completely God’s plan for offering and providing salvation and blessings to All peoples on the earth, it is important to note that there is a limited value of the Mosaic covenant between God and His chosen people Israel.

    “Oh that they had such a Heart in them…”

    Thus God knew from the beginning, at the very giving of the Mosaic Law, that they were incapable of keeping the Mosaic Law.

    Deut 5:28-30

    28 “The LORD heard the voice of your words when you spoke to me, and the LORD said to me, ‘I have heard the voice of the words of this people which they have spoken to you. They have done well in all that they have spoken. Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear Me and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever!”
    NASU

    Indeed, even after they committed themselves to keeping all the commandments of God, they repeatedly showed what little faith they had in God. All the men over twenty years of age would perish over the next 38 years, not being allowed into the promised land due to their disobedience to God’s commands and their lack of faith in God.

    Once again, after 40 years in the wilderness, Moses addressed all the people of the Mosaic Covenant who were going into the Promised Land and reiterated the importance of keeping the Torah, the Law, and advised them that the reward for keeping this covenant would be great blessings, and he told them specifically what these blessings would be. Deut. 28: 1-14.

    Moses also informed Israel of the punishment (the curses which would befall them) for breaking the covenant between them and God, and he told them specifically what these curses would be. Deut. 28:15-68.

    Though the curses included banishment from the land which God gave them and great suffering and persecution in foreign lands, restoration was also promised to Israel at the conclusion of this time of punishment, per Deuteronomy 30.

    Then Moses instructed the people about the Covenant that bears his name,
    “See, I have set before you this day life and prosperity, death and
    adversity. … I call heaven and earth as a witness against you
    today that I set before you life and death, blessing and the curse.
    So choose life in order that you may live, you and your
    descendants.” Deut. 30: 15 & 19.

    In hindsight, we can see that Israel had chosen death and adversity. But this was no surprise to God, for He knew even as Moses was reiterating the Covenant, that His people were incapable of keeping it and would be, in effect, choosing death and adversity.
    “Then YHWH said to Moses, “Behold, the time for you to die is
    near, call Yeshua, and present yourselves at the tent of meeting so
    that I may commission him”. … And YHWH said to Moses, “Behold,
    you are about to lie down with your fathers; and this people will
    arise and play the harlot with strange gods of the land, into the
    midst of which they are going, and will forsake me and break My
    covenant that I have made with them”. Deut. 31:14 & 16.

    So if the Mosaic Covenant is inadequate to provide Life to God’s chosen, and much less so to the other peoples of the world, then what is God’s plan to bless Israel and the peoples of the earth with life. (Remember, when G-d cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden, He sent a cherubim and a flaming sword, which turned every direction, to guard the way to the tree of life so that man may not eat of it and live forever).

    The answer is given by Moses in Deut. 18:15-19

    “YHWH your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. “This is according to all that you asked of YHWH your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of YHWH my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.’ ” YHWH said to me, ‘They have spoken well. ‘I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command him. It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words that He shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him.
    NASU (Caps mine).

    This prophecy, along with many others to follow, focuses on that male descendant, the seed of Eve, who will crush the skull of the serpent, who will be a great blessing to Israel and the peoples of the world, the redeemer, the Saviour, the Messiah.

    Who is this Prophet? That has been the big search throughout history. It is clear that ever since Moses, Israel has sought and been awaiting this Prophet. In Yeshua’s (Jesus’s) day they asked him, ‘Are you the Prophet whose coming is foretold?’

    Yet, even in Moses day, God let it be known what the name of that Prophet is via a shadow of what was to come.

    Deut 1:37-38
    Not even you shall enter there. “Yeshua (i.e. Joshua) the son of Nun, who stands before you, he shall enter there; encourage him, for he will cause Israel to inherit it.”
    NASU

    The above underscores that salvation, redemption, life itself, has not been achieved through the observance and adherence to the Mosaic covenant, and seems it was not intended to be, but somehow is directly related to this expected Messiah.

    Ro 5:20
    The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; NASU

    Gal 3:19-29

    19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

    But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith, which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.
    NASU

    We, who are Christians, are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant. We can still agree, as people in Hammurabi’s day did also, that things like shaming ones parents, stealing, the taking of an innocent life, coveting, etc., are causes of pain, hurt and suffering. But the keeping of them is not the basis of our redemption, salvation, and righteousness. Paul called the Law worthless ans useless in that it could save no one. As it is written in Hebrews, Yeshua is a High Priest, not of the order of Aaron, but of Melchizedek, Where there is a change of Priesthood, there is also a change of Law. Whereas the Mosaic law was a long list of commandments and statutes that we were required to keep, The laws of Christ keep us and accounts to us righteousness.

    If the Son has set us free, we are free indeed.

    “Come to me all who are weary and heavy laden. I will set you free. My yoke is easy, my burden is light.” Jesus

  67. PerrisTheGreat said

    Im a non believer because im very skeptical about the “mainstream” religions or any “magical” way of life. my mom is a hardcore christian but not the christain fanatic. I do find a lot of their morals very agreeable. Most of them are common sense. My aunt is a lesbian and my mother prays for her but does not hate her. This is very impressive to me because she is not the “closed mind i dont wanna hear it” christian. she and i have had plenty of conversations and debates on whats right and wrong. She still is strong about homosexuality is a sin and she believes it does not start with love but with fetish. And she believes it is just nasty. Which i can understand, i mean come on…anuses are not…nice? again it may be a fetish, like bondage or something like that. you can still fall in love with your S&M partner. Love is great. I forget which person stated that most religions are concerned with procreation. This may be a concern back in the day when ppl were dying of plague or slavery and famine. Nowadays it seems absurd to breed like rabbits. who can afford it and who has the time right? So I feel procreation isnt in the common sense department at this time. I think everyone is entitled to their opinions and everyone with an opinion should be respected despite differences. This may not work out with the high strung individuals who are game for any kind of fight. We should just watch and smile as we would with watching children bicker over whose superhero is better. I myself am an adrenaline junkie but if im going to protest physically, it better be about something that is threatening my life. Other than that, whats the point of protesting against ones opinion. you would be a hypocrite to protest against someones right to have their own beliefs and this applies to both sides. People become outraged because someone else’s beliefs do not tickle their fancy. Oh well right? so what, they arent causing you pain or sentencing you to death. anyways im just going in circles here. the key to tolerance is to shrug and smile. no comments necessary.
    anyways doesnt matter one day i will rule and all will be right in the world….as long as theres a limitless supply of bullets…BWAHAHAHAHA I LOVE GUNS AND FIRE!
    -Perris

  68. PerrisTheGreat said

    to wayne-
    “If the bible-thumping Christians don’t actually want to play nice-nice with the rest of the human race, I say we feed them to the lions and move on with our lives.”

    uh…i think there are other ppl in the world who dont play nice-nice. terrorists, extremists…im not picking sides. im just pointing out that its almost human nature to fight and compete over whose better than who…feeding ppl to the lions isnt very nice-nice either. TO THE LION PIT WITH YOU! BWAHAHA! IM A TRYANT!

  69. DR said

    METAPHYSICS

    Metaphysics is defined as the study of ultimate reality. But what is the nature of that ultimate reality? Is it only material? Is it non-material? The word “metaphysics” comes from the root words “meta” meaning beyond and “physics” meaning the physical world. But is there a reality beyond the physical world? The various answers to this question have produced various metaphysical theories.

    IDEALISM

    This is the view that the only reality is the ideal world. A well known exponent of this view was Plato, a philosopher in ancient Greece. Plato believed that the physical world around us is not real, it is constantly changing and thus you can never say what it really is. There is a world of ideas which is a world of unchanging and absolute truth. This is reality for Plato. Does such a world exist independent of human minds? Plato thought it did, and whenever we grasp an idea or see something with our mind’s eye, we are using our mind to conceive of something in the ideal world.

    There are a number of proofs of this ideal world. The concepts of geometry, such as the concept of a circle, which is a line equidistant from a point, is something which does not exist in the physical world. All physical circles, such as wheels, drawings, ECT. are not perfectly round. Yet our mind has the concept of a perfect circle. Since this concept could not come from the physical world, it must come from an ideal world. Another proof is that from moral perfection. We can conceive of a morally perfect person, even though the people we know around us are not morally perfect. So where does someone get this idea of moral perfection? Since it could not have been obtained from the world around us, it must have come from an ideal world. Platonism has been an extremely influential philosophy down through the centuries.

    DUALISM

    Dualism is the philosophy that there are two kinds of reality, material and immaterial. There is a physical world as well as a nonphysical or spiritual world. There is a problem in showing how the physical world and ideal world are related. Are physical objects imperfect copies of ideal objects?

    In each person there is a dualism according to this philosophy. This is the dualism of mind and body. There is a common expression which speaks of “mind over matter” which assumes this dualism. But a problem arises when trying to explain how the two substances can interact.

    As an example, in movies about ghosts (which are non-physical) if a person tries to strike a ghost their hand goes past the ghost because there is no way to interact with such a being. So while the dualistic view is commonly held there are serious philosophical problems with such a view.

    MATERIALISM

    On this view only the world of matter is real. Thoughts, ideas and other non-physical things are merely movements of physical matter or chemical reactions. There is no reality beyond the physical.

    THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

    Here is a metaphysical problem which has puzzled thinkers through the centuries. It is stated this way:

    If God is all powerful and all good then there would be no evil in the world.

    But there is evil in the world.

    Therefore God is not all powerful or all good.

    If the first two premises are true must the conclusion be true? Some answers to this have tried to deny the first premise by appealing to our free will as the source of evil. This however does not account for natural disasters and similar types of evil.

    Others have tried to deny the second premise by saying that these calamities are not really evil; they build our character and make us stronger.

    Others have accepted the conclusion and often postulate another being, such as a devil, who has power in the universe.

    GOD

    There are a number of logical arguments given for the existence of God. These arguments rely only on human reasoning, they do not invoke religious faith. They were proposed by philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas and Saint Anselm during the Middle Ages in Europe.

    The Cosmological Argument:

    If there was an infinite chain of causes of the universe then there would be no universe now.

    But there is a universe now.

    Therefore there must be a first cause of the universe.

    The Argument from Design:

    Most organisms in the world act for a purpose.

    Most organisms are not aware of acting for a purpose.

    There must be a superior being directing their purpose.

    The Ontological Argument:

    The concept of a supreme being is of a being with all perfections.

    Existence is a perfection.

    The supreme being must exist.

    All three of the above arguments have been analyzed and criticized a great deal. They do show how human reasoning tries to grapple with the concept of a supreme being.

    This is a subject i find interesting. (i’m not arguing for anyone, just putting this here for the fun of it.
    “God bless” stumbleupon! 😉

  70. DR said

    Plus.. The flying spaghetti monster is freaking awesome…

  71. Ryan G said

    This is one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a while!

  72. Arthur said

    The cosmological argument is a sound argument. Our universe has existed for a finite time. If there were an infinite number of universes, all of them combined must have begun a finite tme ago. Therefore ALL must have come into existence a finite time ago and therefore matter and space requires a first cause, because that which comes into existence must have a cuase and the first cause must be infinite, and as shown below, must also be intelligent, therefore that first cause is what we call God.

    Amazingly the Bible that we Christians and Jews claim as being given to us from God accurately points out that God created the universe Ex Nihilo, and that God who lives in an everlasting present, knew the end of all matters from the very beginning.

    I’ll begin with my first argument that time can not have an infinite past, which is St. Anselm’s argument. It is based on the fact an infinite series of real events can not conclude on any single event:

    A moment is the shortest time in which a movement of any (real) material object can be observed by us humans.

    A. An infinite number of moments can never conclude. (There can always be one more moment in an endless series)
    B. If there were an infinite number of moments before today,
    then today would have never arrived. For the present moment
    would be the one that concludes this infinite series of
    moments.
    C. But today has arrived.
    D. Therefore, there were only a finite number of moments before
    today. (Thus the universe had a beginning).

    Another way of looking at it is that: If the universe, or the sum of all possible universes have an infinite past, we should never have arrived at this current moment. There must be an infinite amount of time between any moment in the infinite past and our current moment in time.

    The Teleological Argument.
    1. Every intelligent design has an intelligent designer.
    2. The world manifests intelligent design.
    3. Therefore, the world had an intelligent designer.

    I. The universe has a single Creator because; since this is an ordered universe, a unified and interdependent whole, it argues for one unified cause of all.

    II. The Creator is infinite because; since every finite thing needs a cause, the first cause must be infinite.

    B. The Moral Argument.
    1. Every moral prescription has a moral prescriber.
    2. There are absolute moral prescriptions.
    3. Therefore there is an absolute moral prescriber.

    C.S. Lewis states the Moral Argument as follows.

    1. This Moral Law can not be the result of herd instinct or else the stronger impulse would always win, but it does not. Furthermore, moral law would always lead us to follow instinct rather than oppose it (e.g. to place ourselves in danger to help someone in trouble), as we sometimes do. Finally, if the moral law is just herd instinct then herd instincts would always be in accordance with moral law, but they are not. Even love and patriotism are sometimes wrong.

    2. That moral law is learned through society does not demonstrate it to be merely social convention because not everything learned through society is based on social convention (e.g. math, logic). Evidence of this is that the same basic moral laws can be found in virtually every society, past and present. Furthermore, judgements about social progress would not be possible if society were the basis of the judgements.

    3. The moral law is not to be identified with the laws of nature because the latter is descriptive (simply is), not prescriptive (ought) as moral laws are. Indeed, factually convenient situations (the way it is) can be morally wrong and vice versa. For example, someone who tries to trip me and fails is wrong, someone who accidentally trips me is not.

    4. Neither can the moral law be mere human fancy, because we can not get rid of it even when we would sometimes like to do so. We did not create it; It was impressed upon us from without. If it were fancy, then all judgements would be meaningless, including “Hate is wrong” and “Racism is wrong”.

    (C.S. Lewis ‘Mere Christianity’)

    C.S. Lewis goes on to point out that the moral Lawgiver can no more be part of nature than an architect can be part of a building.

    C. The Argument from Evil:

    Injustice only makes sense if their is a standard justice by which something is known to be unjust. Absolute injustice demands absolute justice. As on former atheist put it:
    “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of cruel and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. … Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist- in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless – I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality – namely my idea of justice- was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turned out to be too simple.
    (Former Atheist, C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)

    _ Nothing will come of nothing. W.S.

    God does exist, and that certainly is good news for you, for then it is possible that you will never die, but that life continues after our body ceases to function here on planet Earth. And God is preparing us for that future by teaching us how to love one another and to do the good He created us to do.

  73. Adam said

    Arthur:
    Congratulations. You could pass an introductory philosophy class at a junior college. For one thing, the cosmological argument is NOT a sound argument. The very basis for your argument is flawed. You’re supposing The Universe (which is to say the concept of all-existence) is finite. But you really have no basis for this. You assume we are the first sentient life, the first inhabitants of this universe, the first universe (which is to say an individual representation of The Universe). Don’t try and get all high and mighty with arguments that came about in 1000. And as for your C.S Lewis quote, you apparently don’t get atheists. You think I came to the conclusion that God doesn’t matter/there is no justification for faith within Him/Her/It, simply because the world was ‘cruel’? Come on, now. I’m not a 12-year old. I shrugged off God because we, humanity, don’t need him anymore. We need each other, not a doctrine that calls for the culling of our minds or the use of fear as a means towards salvation. And your last line is ridiculous and reveals a little too much:
    ‘God does exist, and that certainly is good news for you, for then it is possible that you will never die, but that life continues after our body ceases to function here on planet Earth. And God is preparing us for that future by teaching us how to love one another and to do the good He created us to do.’

    For one, you’re admitting your fear of death. Get over it. We are systems imperfect. Instead of hoping on ‘eternal life’, you should just make this life, the one you are experiencing now, the one you are guaranteed, as much of your own life as possible. This is your one chance to bring your projects into actuality, and you’re letting it slip by. Also, you have such a sad view of humanity. It doesn’t even deserve to be called humanity. Existence precedes essence. We are NOT born into a purpose. We are NOT a mechanical part in a fate woven by a deity with the depth of a twelve year old. We are NOT servants to those who are more powerful (God,tyrants, bullies) if they are unjust.
    We Refuse.
    We Revolt.
    We Revise.
    We are the new Atheists. We are the villains of society, simply because we refuse to allow emotive language sway our sense of judgement and analysis. You can hate me all you want, but the future will thank us.

  74. Arthur said

    Adam,

    To begin with, I do not hate you and I certainly did not write anything to suggest I might. If anything, i love you and I refer to the greek word ‘philos’ for the type of love i mean.

    Cool down, have a pepsi, I am merely sharing my worldview and my reasons for it, as food for thought. You may dismiss it in many ways you please, but such summary dismissals do not make a refutation.

    Let me clarify the scientific usage of the word ‘infinite’. Nothing in the real world is infinite in size. All learned scientists are fully aware that this is true. When a scientist talks of the universe being infinite, they mean it in the topological sense only. In this sense the earth is infinite because what ever direction you go, you can always go another foot. That is what they mean by the word ‘infinite’. Thus many astonomers believe our Universe to be infinite because they believe it to be shaped like tire tube, and thus no matter how far you go in any given direction, you can go another lightyear in that same direction. You may be passing the same terrain/space over and over, but you can keep on going, at least in the imagination since we do not have the means to actually do so in reality.

    In the real world, there is no such thing as a universe that is actually infinite in size. The universe is known to be of finite size. Even under the dubious Big Bang Theory, The Big Bang Theorists know the universe is finite in size, and they have an estimate for it’s ever increasing diameter.

    I’m sure it excaped your notice, but it is irony that you ascribed the term ’emotive language’ which is lacking therein, but is found aplenty in your reply. 🙂

    You also described yourself in the plural implying that you are part and parcel of a cadre who operate under the banner:

    “We Refuse.
    We Revolt.
    We Revise.”

    Sounds like pirates to me 🙂

    Best Wishes always,

    Arthur

  75. Steven said

    Great news. Good warriors!

  76. Steven said

    Whoah, I didn’t read the preceding comment arguments. I was referring to the articles.

    You crazy religious folks belong in asylums. Sorry about insults, Webmaster. Erase my insults if you will, but I committed some time ago to religious intolerance: I tolerate no religions. All religions start with a presupposition that I must believe in something unreal, intangible, and unlikely. That’s dumb. I’m not. I have no room for fools. Grow up.

    The article: impressive warrior work of intelligent people. Thanks for the information.

  77. Arthur said

    No need to censor Steven on my account. I grew up in the Bronx and went to school in the South Bronx, and I have very thick skin. i have no problem with the manner by which Steven expressed himself. Beyond this, he has left me with nothing more to respond to. Perhaps a very clever reply. 🙂

    TTFN

    Let’s talk of worms, graves, and epitaphs. W.S.

  78. Sun said

    YES! One day in the near future, the Wise Ones will rule.

  79. Arthur said

    Getting back to Adam’s post:

    Adam: “For one, you’re admitting your fear of death.”

    Like the Apostle Paul, I have no fear of death. For me, to die is actually to gain. It is a mere transition to a much better world.

    Adam: “Instead of hoping on ‘eternal life’,…”

    I don’t hope for eternal life, I have eternal life.

    Adam: “you should just make this life, the one you are experiencing now, the one you are guaranteed, as much of your own life as possible.”

    I have.

    Growing up, We were very poor, our food was stale bread with milk, sugar and cinnamin mixed together, and spaghetti. I was extremely skinny. I had friends, we built huts in a nearby woods, played stickball, punchball. In my teens and early twenties I excelled in chess tournaments, I graduated college over a 5 year period, earning four degrees (Physics, Math, Electrical Engineering and History). I fellowshipped with an evangelical church youth group, became a Ranger and Chief ranger of 15 to 30 boys in Christian boys brigade over a twenty year period, and was a mens softball player/manager for 15 years, President of the league for one year, managed 12 Little league teams, coached several other Little League teams, was Vice President of the Little league for 4 years, married, raised a family, started my own business and earned over $ 100,000 annually over a 15 year period and was very respected and liked business man; Vacationed in Barbados, Bermuda, Tahiti, Disney World several times, Pheonix (great Massages), Portland and Astoria Oregon (Beautiful), Hawaii (It was so beautiful that when we landed and got off the plane, my four year old son looked around and asked me and my wife – “Is this Heaven?”), we went to Australia for 5 weeks, to a Christian summer resort in the Andirondack Mountains a dozen summers or so, took my boys separately to one on one father and son camps on numerous summers, I did a father-Daughter camp also, took my daughter to an incredible date to the American Museum of Natural History when she was 8 years old, and out to a great dinner with me, and we had many valentine day dates, and she played little league one year, and she took up dancing for several years, and in Tae-Kwon-Do she earned a black belt.

    I attended $100 + dinners with special Speakers many times. I am a longstanding member of Gideons International, and I do the work of an evangelists. Of course my wife and I have given to many charities and to good causes that are not political. Even when I was still in High School, I supported and corresponded with a child in India for several years.

    Recently I became disabled and can’t work anymore, this abrupt loss of income led to bankruptcy and I may even lose my home soon: but having been so blessed to live life to the fullest, I can’t complain. My two oldest children are attending an excellent college on full scholarships – both did great on their SAT’s, one was a congressional page, and my youngest is in High School and doing well.

    How are things going for you Adam?

  80. Oughtist Tic said

    I am glad for your prosperous and magnanimous life, Arthur. And you are clearly well versed in the discourses which you supply (though you might also share your knowledge of their critiques as well, for they are just as legendary and compelling). I would ask you, though, whether you have certainty in your belief in god. Faith excludes certainty. The truly faithful one has no need for proofs. Indeed, proofs diminish the mystery. And the mystery is All.

    Alas, it would be a much more heavenly world if the believers weren’t so consumed by certainty. Faith is a gift that god bestows, so the story goes. We unchosen ones, however, must rely on our own good graces, and watch as the world’s religions converge on themselves in their orgy of conceit. Might the most faithful, in the end, not be the good athiest, who bears no relationship with an idolization but lives in the certainty that she is responsible to the extent she is able for herself and those amongst whom she has been thrown? No reward assumed? Just a belief that Kindness ought to rule…

  81. Kat said

    a.moore: “Anybody notice the explosion in experimenting bi women over the last 10 years? Not Lesbian…Bisexual.”

    …shut the fuck up.

  82. Kat said

    Arthur I’m glad you clarified that this “God does exist, and that certainly is good news for you, for then it is possible that you will never die, but that life continues after our body ceases to function here on planet Earth. And God is preparing us for that future by teaching us how to love one another and to do the good He created us to do.” is an opinion because it sounds a lot like you actually think you’re speaking factually.

  83. minor fiat said

    the urge to homosexuality is as scientifically predictable and biochemically explainable as are other sexy urges we have. likewise violent, selfish and other tendencies. varying traditions outlaw some of these urges (infidelity, polygamy, rape, etc.) and legalize others (marriage, sex at various ages and between various ages, suicide, alcohol, tobacco and firearms).

    seems that without a static tradition or code of practice then it’s just a matter of making it up as we go, which would always leave someone out of the ‘fun’ and others offended.

    do-no-harm libertarianism, where consent is the only stipulation in any activity, runs into at least two problems. one is the ever-gray area of defining consent. think of the disempowered, such as mentally, physically, socially or emotionally disabled and/or immature. think of the things i might do with my neighbors willing dog to the horror of your local animal rights agent. think of a cult of paint-ballers consenting to play with real ammo. abuse of power in relationships is not what most people would want.

    the other problem with raw libertarianism is that we already have traditions which would have to be scrapped. this won’t be allowed without some totalitarian ruling. take for instance marriage. we have an approxiamately universal and pre-historic tradition of what it is and what it doesn’t allow. this has become, in a messy way, part of statuatory law. and much like the legal relationships between parents and children is only there because of tradition and social convenience.

    so what about a libertarian society that allows traditional subgroups to co-exist? this mutual tolerance is sort of where we are today. but it’s uncharted territory with limited success, medocre prospects and it only works if the traditions are liberal-ish and flexible. while hoping for tolerance think of all the things that traditional aboriginal peoples wouldn’t tolerate; think of the murder they did tolerate. think of the things decent sunni and orthodox jews and amish and baptists and good old fashioned shinto bhuddists wouldn’t tolerate in their streets or schools or TVs. mutual toleration actually works between some groups but not all. further complicating would be to manage freedom of speech; how should i react to the ‘fact’ that john lennon burnt a fag before he said “woman is the nigger of the world”? speech is tricky.

    so we might continue as we are picking and sampling our way forward into unknown terrain, making up rules to suit the squeakiest or most influential wheel, hoping that things will get better than current trends imply. or secondly we might mandate raw liberty as a grander experiment. or thirdly a monolithic new world order could be imposed by some new-age ‘taliban’. or finally we could have a global moment and all accept some inspired plan. those who wish for any of the first two options should accept the risk of being overun by one of the latter options. if you believe in prayer or thought-form-accretion i suggest we pray for the last option.

  84. oi nutter said

    it’s weird how atheists can come off just as bad as the religious zealots. well, actually its not that weird. seriously though folks, life is about loving and learning. dont dwell on the negative. have fun. shake things up a bit, think for yourself. be creative.

  85. Arthur said

    Hello Oughtist

    “I am glad for your prosperous and magnanimous life, Arthur.”

    I may have painted a picture too rosey. I did not mention that I also have generously suffered ‘The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune’ and have sailed through the ‘Sea of Troubles’ and long endured ‘the heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to’. I can say ‘I’ve been more sinned against than sinning.’ For instance, in Juniour High School I had severe acne that led many to disrespect, scorn and ridicule me constantly for three years; My 1st born son was born with physical defects and throughout his childhood he was not treated very kindly by other kids, and oh how a how a father can hurt for his sons pains; and two people close to me that I trusted deeply betrayed me in a business deal that raped and destroyed my business, and much more that I will not talk about. As a Christian, I simply forgave and kept moving on, but the pain was real.

    I must go now, I will continue my reply at a later time Oughtist.

    And you are clearly well versed in the discourses which you supply (though you might also share your knowledge of their critiques as well, for they are just as legendary and compelling). I would ask you, though, whether you have certainty in your belief in god. Faith excludes certainty. The truly faithful one has no need for proofs. Indeed, proofs diminish the mystery. And the mystery is All.

    Alas, it would be a much more heavenly world if the believers weren’t so consumed by certainty. Faith is a gift that god bestows, so the story goes. We unchosen ones, however, must rely on our own good graces, and watch as the world’s religions converge on themselves in their orgy of conceit. Might the most faithful, in the end, not be the good athiest, who bears no relationship with an idolization but lives in the certainty that she is responsible to the extent she is able for herself and those amongst whom she has been thrown? No reward assumed? Just a belief that Kindness ought to rule…

  86. LogicIsCool said

    I wasn’t going to post here today, even though many of you have interesting and thoughtful arguments. Then I came across our good friend Arthur’s post claiming that the cosmological argument is logically sound. Quite incorrect, as I will explain.

    Your first point is that the universe MUST have a beginning because if there were an infinite amount of days before this one, we could not have arrived at today. This is logically incorrect. If you view infinity as a straight line, it has no beginning nor end. Yet it has an infinite number of points on that line. Each of those points would be reached at one instance or another along the course of “infinity” if we are using “infinity” to describe “time.” Today would simply be one of those points. Today is not the end of the line, which is the one point that infinity can never reach. The only way this argument holds is if tomorrow never comes. I’m not saying that the universe and time are actually infinite, but using this logic you certainly cannot prove that they aren’t.

    The next point is an assumption, pure and simple. “Every design has an intelligent designer.” I can assume that some designs do not need an intelligent designer, but rather evolve based on natural selection and adaptation to surrounding environments. The difference is that my assumption is backed up by loads of scientific research. The same cannot be said of your assumption.

    “The world manifests intelligent design” is yet another baseless assumption. If the design is so intelligent, and furthermore was designed by a “perfect” creator, it would seem to me that things like genetic disorders and species becoming extinct because they can’t compete simply would not occur.

    “There are absolute moral prescriptions” = Assumption. Clearly there are not absolute moral prescriptions. Different civilizations across the world have conceived of morality in different ways. Just because most moral codes contain things like “murder is bad” is not an indicator of an absolute. It’s just one of the more obvious things that human beings have a problem with. I don’t want to get murdered and neither does anyone else. It’s that simple. And I would point out that there are places where even those human prescriptions don’t hold, ie cannibalistic tribes.

    You then proceed to argue that since everything finite must have a cause, the creator must be infinite. Well, earlier you argued that we couldn’t arrive at today if there was infinity before it. So explain how “god” arrived at the “day” when he created everything. That day was a point in time just like this one, and by your argument that day could never have been reached because god existed infinitely before that. Logical fallacy much? Yeah, whoops.

    C.S. Lewis’ arguments are no more compelling, but you have to admit that the guy put a lot of thought into it, even if he arrives at some very strange results. He argues that to understand a cruel and unjust world (which he describes as a crooked line) one must have some idea of a just world (a straight line). He then of course does the religious person’s favorite thing – assume – that because we have an idea of what justice is it must have been imposed on us from something other than ourselves. What he of course fails to realize is that our idea of justice is derived from our EMPATHY with other human beings. We can easily identify things that we do not like having done to us. It’s not much of a jump from there to extend that idea to the people around you. Gosh, maybe if I don’t like getting stabbed, other people wouldn’t either. Our moral codes are derived from the human species organizing itself into larger groups which made defining morality a necessity. And like I said, empathy plays a huge role. You, as a human, understand pain and empathize with others experiencing it. Those of us who have a strong sense of justice and fair play (which I define as equal treatment for all) seek to prevent any human from undergoing harm.

    Lewis also does some arguing against what he calls “herd mentality.” Our morals must not be a part of our own “herd instinct” because we don’t always respond to the strongest impulse, and because we sometimes even go against it by placing ourselves in harm’s way for the sake of others. Well, to start, I would have to argue that there was a time when humanity could be referred to as a “herd mentality,” but I would like to think that most of the people reading this feel that we as a species have moved past water buffalo on the evolutionary ladder. To say that the stronger impulse of our “herd mentality” would always win if there were no outside influence is another assumption. Why is it not possible for us to simply have eventually come to realize that we could protect ourselves not only along with, but BY protecting other people? And even his idea of “herd instinct” is incorrect. He characterizes the action of putting ourselves in danger to defend another as against the “herd instinct.” Really? I am sure that the intelligent people reading this post have seen numerous examples of animals putting themselves in danger to defend another animal. In short, Lewis’ arguments, like Arthur’s, are based fully on assumption and fallacious logic.

    As a side note, I enjoy Lewis’ writing. I also found Arthur’s post to be well-written and possibly quite convincing to a person who has a limited understanding of logical thought. Unfortunately, for someone who is experienced in critical thinking, it really doesn’t take long to smash through it.

    “God” does not exist, and it is fortunate for many of us that he does not for it saves us from that wonderful promise of an eternal bonfire. Believing that this is the only life I get, I am inspired to make it the best I possibly can and to do good things without needing to be rewarded with eternal bliss for it. I, and others like me, are working towards our best possible future by promoting tolerance for all people regardless of faith or lack thereof, regardless of private choices such as sexuality, regardless of personal decisions that are the very basis for the greatness of our species: our individuality.

    I am an atheist. I do not believe in god because there is absolutely zero evidence to support its existence. That being said, I fully support anyone’s right to worship how they choose. I expect the same treatment. This, of course, includes the government adopting policies that are based on religious ideals that are not universal and are clearly opposed by large segments of our society. If you are a christian and think that homosexuality is wrong, then don’t be a homosexual. You do not have the right to tell another person not to be one. I am an atheist and I think that christianity is wrong. So I’m not a christian. But I don’t go around trying to get our government to ban christianity, now do I? That is justice. People living their lives how THEY choose, not how you do.

    I look forward to comments. Thanks for reading, everyone have a great day!
    Logic

  87. LogicIsCool said

    Another response to Arhur:

    You say:
    “Alas, it would be a much more heavenly world if the believers weren’t so consumed by certainty. Faith is a gift that god bestows, so the story goes. We unchosen ones, however, must rely on our own good graces, and watch as the world’s religions converge on themselves in their orgy of conceit. Might the most faithful, in the end, not be the good athiest, who bears no relationship with an idolization but lives in the certainty that she is responsible to the extent she is able for herself and those amongst whom she has been thrown? No reward assumed? Just a belief that Kindness ought to rule…”

    I always admire a religious person who can admit there is no certainty in their faith.

    But in an earlier post:
    “God does exist, and that certainly is good news for you, for then it is possible that you will never die, but that life continues after our body ceases to function here on planet Earth. And God is preparing us for that future by teaching us how to love one another and to do the good He created us to do.”

    So which is it? Do you THINK god exists? Or do you KNOW?
    Even I, as an atheist who believes in the practice of science, must admit that there is a small possibility of the existence of a god. If I were offered scientific proof of god, my opinion would change. One hundred percent certainty in any opinion is NEVER a good thing. You should always be open to the other possibilities, at the very least to learn from them.

    Logic

  88. Oughtist Tic said

    Arthur,
    Quick, they’re confusing us! Clarify, clarify… But I’m sure you’re a fine person, so I won’t be too concerned about the transposition of my identity.

    I would, however, like you to consider the issue of identity transposition, yourself, a bit. You mentioned that, as a Christian, you forgave those who trespassed against you. Now, Christianity, like most any socially relevant belief system (religious or otherwise), has certain psychological benefits. And it is well, so far as it goes, that you identified your theological persona as the cause of your ability to forgive. But might it not have been, rather, that you lucked out and simply had the psychological bearing to choose that disposition? That is, that you so happened just to be a nice guy? Surely many non-Christians have the same capacity, even as many Christians don’t. Perhaps such capacities are more a matter of mental health than divine inspiration.

  89. LogicIsCool said

    My apologies to both Arthur and Oughtist. I attributed Oughtist’s words to Arthur, having missed Oughtist’s original post. Don’t forget those quotation marks Arthur! So, revising my statements:

    Oughtist, the qoute in my above post was actually from you, not Arthur:
    “Alas, it would be a much more heavenly world if the believers weren’t so consumed by certainty. Faith is a gift that god bestows, so the story goes. We unchosen ones, however, must rely on our own good graces, and watch as the world’s religions converge on themselves in their orgy of conceit. Might the most faithful, in the end, not be the good athiest, who bears no relationship with an idolization but lives in the certainty that she is responsible to the extent she is able for herself and those amongst whom she has been thrown? No reward assumed? Just a belief that Kindness ought to rule…”

    I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment, that faith and certainty are a bad mix. But always remember, there are good and bad people on all sides!

    And to Arthur: seeing as that quote was not actually yours but Oughtist’s, my question remains. Do you think god exists, or do you know?

  90. sam said

    take garlic and crush, fry gently with cubed bacon, add a measure of flour and salt and pepper and pour in milk to a creamy consistency, remove from the heat and add grated cheese, mix with cooked pasta.enjoy.

  91. maenfraemer said

    Arggh… Jesus loves ye! The Westboro Baptist Church is another matter.

  92. Sodelicious said

    A…hem I’m pretty sure this article is a joke.

  93. Andy S. said

    Logic is Cool, Post # 86:

    Great post ! Thanks for taking the time to write it.

    I admire the way in which you present your position all the while, staying positive, civil and respectful.

  94. LogicIsCool said

    Andy:

    Thanks for taking the time to read it! It wasn’t a short post, and I appreciate the feedback.

  95. Arthur said

    LogicIsCool Says: October 8, 2008 at 6:53 pm

    “Your first point is that the universe MUST have a beginning because if there were an infinite amount of days before this one, we could not have arrived at today. This is logically incorrect. If you view infinity as a straight line, it has no beginning nor end. Yet it has an infinite number of points on that line. Each of those points would be reached at one instance or another along the course of “infinity” if we are using “infinity” to describe “time.” Today would simply be one of those points. Today is not the end of the line, which is the one point that infinity can never reach. The only way this argument holds is if tomorrow never comes. I’m not saying that the universe and time are actually infinite, but using this logic you certainly cannot prove that they aren’t.”

    LOL, I go away for a few days only to find this argument. You should not take my words so lightly, I’m usually accurate in what I write, though we all make mistakes, at least on occassion. But I did not make a mistake on the cosmological argument.

    What you failed to do was to separate the ‘Abstract’ from the ‘concrete’, and that is why yoy arrived at this false answer.

    A number line is an abstract concept and only abstract concepts can have infinite members. Indeed, between any two points on an abstract number line there are an infinite number of points. Even whole numbers go on to infinity in both directions. But these are abstract concepts, and not points in the real world.

    Nothing in our real ‘concrete’ universe can be infinite.

    Sand on a beach is a concrete item in the real world. Between two grains of sand on the beach there is not an infinite numbers of grains of sand because sand occupies a finite space and time in the concrete world that we live in.

    Time is not an abstract concept. Time is based upon movement or changes in matter/energy. I defined moment as: “A moment is the shortest time in which a movement of any (real) matter/energy object can be observed by us humans.” However, we could use your earthly time frame of days, it makes no difference.

    Take a single moment or day in the infinite past that you state must exist. Starting from that point in time, we should never arrive at today since there must be an infinite number of days passing before you arrive at today. But we have arrived at today, thus there can not be an infinite number of days between today and your alleged day that existed an infinite number of days ago. Therefore the sum of all time must be finite.

    This was just a quick reply, I hope to read and perhaps respond to the remainder of your post at a later time. I must confess that I just bought ‘Sid Meiers Civilization IV – Colonization’ and have become addicted to it, and it is consuming much of my free time.

    Greetings and best wishes to all.

  96. Arthur said

    LogicIsCool Says:
    October 8, 2008 at 11:37 pm
    “My apologies to both Arthur and Oughtist. I attributed Oughtist’s words to Arthur, having missed Oughtist’s original post. Don’t forget those quotation marks Arthur!”

    I copied oughtist words, I responded to his first words, I didn’t see the remainder of his words which were below my sight of vision on the computer screen when I pressed the’submit comment’.

    It could have been that my mind was more focused on going out and buying ‘Sid Meiers Civilization IV – Colonization’.

    LogicIsCool Says:

    “So, revising my statements:

    “Oughtist, the qoute in my above post was actually from you, not Arthur:
    “Alas, it would be a much more heavenly world if the believers weren’t so consumed by certainty. Faith is a gift that god bestows, so the story goes. We unchosen ones, however, must rely on our own good graces, and watch as the world’s religions converge on themselves in their orgy of conceit. Might the most faithful, in the end, not be the good athiest, who bears no relationship with an idolization but lives in the certainty that she is responsible to the extent she is able for herself and those amongst whom she has been thrown? No reward assumed? Just a belief that Kindness ought to rule…””

    Excellent thoughts LogicIsCool.

    However, there remains a problem. By what standards is it by which we judge ‘kindness’ or ‘good’.

    Is kidnapping a street kid with no future, and keeping him/her in a ‘dungeon’ until they are ‘broken in’, then providing them with a home, work skills, cleanliness, good health, attention, and perhaps they will really like the sex too, and former street kid comes out to be a winner all around. Is this ‘good’? Can this be thought to be ‘kindness’?

    Al Capone paid for the funeral of some of his victims,also giving money to the widow and her children. Does this count as thoughtful, kind, and good?

    John Gotti ordered the murder of the father of the family living next to him because the father accidently ran over and killed John Gotti’s child. Was this justice on Gotti’s part ‘good’?

    Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists Party (NAZIS) were merely following Darwinian evolution to its’ logical conclusions by exterminating the Jews and other inferior races such as the poles, slavs, etc. so that his aryans would continue their upward evolution unimpeded and uncontaminated, an effort executed in good Darwinian fashion.

    Darwin himself predicted in his book, ‘The Descent of Man’, that apes and negroes would be annihilate by the more evolved caucasians. That is how descent with modification works, according to Charles Darwin. The superior must eliminate the inferior. This is ‘good’?

    It is a central tenant of Islam that their purpose on earth is to bring all humans into subserviance to Allah (and by coincindence – to themselves, being that they are Allah’s faithful representatives).

    Can you say that any above is good and kind, or not good and not kind? By what standard do you know? Are you your own authority?

    Genesis 6: 5-6

    “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was on evil continually. The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.”

    LogicIsCool Says: “I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment, that faith and certainty are a bad mix. But always remember, there are good and bad people on all sides!”

    Are you ‘certain’ about this ‘faith’ you have in this philosophy of yours?

    LogicIsCool Says: “And to Arthur: seeing as that quote was not actually yours but Oughtist’s, my question remains. Do you think god exists, or do you know?”

    Yes, I am certain. This is because I understand Him and His word, the Bible, and I see the good He is preparing for us. I see that God is good, and His love is real. His ways are best. His words are beautiful. Without Him, I would never known real truth and beauty.

    I’ll share an experience I had some years ago, that I have never shared this with anyone before. Hey, after all, you are a bunch of swell guys and gals and I appreciate your sincerity.

    At a time when everything seemed to be going wrong for me and i was really hurting on the inside, I was in bed and it was like a dream one may have right before awakening. I was taken up from earth in the spirit, I met with some angels, they were telling me that I could die on earth now, God can use me on some other planet in the universe. In my mind, the offer was a great one, but I turned it down because I wanted to be with my family because I felt they needed me. As I relayed my decision, the angels went away and Jesus came to me, not in any physical form, I just recognized Him, words were said that I don’t remember, then He came into me as a bright light there flowed from Him to me literal ‘love’ that flowed right into my chest area, it was the most wonderful feeling I ever had. It lasted several minutes, then He left and I awoke.

    I would have dismiss this as a mere dream, except that the powerful wonderful glow in my chest remained, I felt totally recharged in a manner greater than I ever felt before. it was wonderful, it was great, and I never felt like this before. And it did not go away as I expected it would. It lasted for many weeks.

  97. Arthur said

    A short note to Andy. I know Larry Moran, he came to my defense a few times on TO, particularly when i was explaining to several evolutionists that Puntuated Equilibria is not complementary to Neo-Darwinism/The Modern Synthesis. I also debated many others on T.O in 1995, 1996 and 1997 including Chris Nedin and PZ Myers. Several top scientists came to my aid when they saw I was getting snowed on T.O. including Wegener on Plant evolution and Yockey on thermodynamics.

    Until recently, there was uncertainty in the final tally of the Huxley Memorial Debate. That is why Wilder-Smith was trying to obtain the transcripts of that debate. He thought it may have been 114 or 115 votes he got out of a total of about 300. Evolutionists argued that the creationists received only 15 votes out of 298 votes. However, a voice recording was discovered and the Tally of votes were clearly 198 to 150. For a copy of this recording of the debate – http://www.tonguesrevisited.com/oxford_union_debate.htm.

    Thanks for your patience.

  98. LogicIsCool said

    “Alas, it would be a much more heavenly world if the believers weren’t so consumed by certainty. Faith is a gift that god bestows, so the story goes. We unchosen ones, however, must rely on our own good graces, and watch as the world’s religions converge on themselves in their orgy of conceit. Might the most faithful, in the end, not be the good athiest, who bears no relationship with an idolization but lives in the certainty that she is responsible to the extent she is able for herself and those amongst whom she has been thrown? No reward assumed? Just a belief that Kindness ought to rule…””

    “Excellent thoughts LogicIsCool.”

    Those were Oughtist’s thoughts, not mine.

    “However, there remains a problem. By what standards is it by which we judge ‘kindness’ or ‘good’.”
    Read the rest of my post, I explain morality a bit. This is a common religious argument, that we could not have morality without god. It is not at all difficult to see how we, as humans, could have arrived at our own concept of morality without a deity. By claiming that we cannot you show that you think we are less than we actually are.

    “Yes, I am certain. This is because I understand Him and His word, the Bible, and I see the good He is preparing for us. I see that God is good, and His love is real. His ways are best. His words are beautiful. Without Him, I would never known real truth and beauty.”
    I don’t really want to go into all of this… But to start, how do you know the Christian god is correct, and not Allah, or Zeus, or Odin, or any other? The only thing you have to go on is the Bible. For many people that is enough. For me it’s not even close.

    “Adolf Hitler and his National Socialists Party (NAZIS) were merely following Darwinian evolution to its’ logical conclusions by exterminating the Jews and other inferior races such as the poles, slavs, etc. so that his aryans would continue their upward evolution unimpeded and uncontaminated, an effort executed in good Darwinian fashion.”
    This needs to be put to bed. Hitler was a Catholic. Read Mein Kampf. He repeatedly talks about how he is on a mission from god.

    You don’t seem to understand the concept of infinity, and the argument has nothing to do with “concrete” vs. “abstract.” As I said before, if today were the last day ever, your argument would hold. But by your argument, NO point of infinity could EVER be reached because it would have infinity before it. This is logically unsound. And it hurts your concept of god, because by your argument, god, being infinite, could never arrived at a point where he would have created everything because there was infinity before that point. Your own argument disproves your concept of god.

    “Are you ‘certain’ about this ‘faith’ you have in this philosophy of yours?”
    That god doesn’t exist? Not one hundred percent, no. That is impossible. I have to admit the possibility that god exists, just as you have to admit the possibility it does not. But you don’t.

    “I would have dismiss this as a mere dream, except that the powerful wonderful glow in my chest remained, I felt totally recharged in a manner greater than I ever felt before. it was wonderful, it was great, and I never felt like this before. And it did not go away as I expected it would. It lasted for many weeks.”
    If this works for you, great. It cannot convince me. The mind is a powerful thing. If you want to believe something, chances are your mind will eventually make it seem real to you.

    “Yes, I am certain. This is because I understand Him and His word, the Bible, and I see the good He is preparing for us. I see that God is good, and His love is real. His ways are best. His words are beautiful. Without Him, I would never known real truth and beauty.”
    Faith and certainty are a bad mix because you have now given yourself license to take everything in the Bible literally and use it how you will because it is “god’s will.” We see people doing this all the time today, with one of the most prominent examples being the war against homosexuals. We can go into all the inconsistencies, outright errors, and atrocities in the Bible if you would like, which are part of the many reasons why I refuse a Christian god or any other. I’ve read the Bible, and there is not one single thing in there that makes me think that god wrote it, or that he exists. It is no different from any other ancient religious book. If you believe the Bible, why not The Illiad?

    “Genesis 6: 5-6
    “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was on evil continually. The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.””
    Well that would certainly make me feel all warm and fuzzy to be one of his beloved children…

    “Is kidnapping a street kid with no future, and keeping him/her in a ‘dungeon’ until they are ‘broken in’, then providing them with a home, work skills, cleanliness, good health, attention, and perhaps they will really like the sex too, and former street kid comes out to be a winner all around. Is this ‘good’? Can this be thought to be ‘kindness’?”
    This is a case of “do the ends justify the means.” I usually say no. The ends do not justify the means. But, this is not universal and I’m sure I could think of an exception given enough time. The real point here is that we as a society decide what is right and wrong. That’s why we have laws, and why we have laws that are not based on the Bible. Because we have thought of things the Bible didn’t. Which is another argument against the existence of a “perfect” creator.

    Logic

  99. Arthur said

    I have read your response to the standard arguments for God, and ultimately, they are all debatable. If I were arguing that design means a Designer, I would limit that argument to the design required for life and the extremely rare and extremely specified arrangements of the molecules required for the first life, and thereafter, the transformation of this first progenote to all the species known today. The absurdity of belief that this can happen is without any scientific merit. I have presented such in my other postings. For instance, It is a clear violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I succesfully debated Professors on Talk Origins who taught the 2nd Law of thermodynamics and tried to claim otherwise. They were embarrashed by their claims and they did not even know why the 2nd Law always holds true. I explained it to them. My background includes earning degress in Physics and Math. I am also an electrical engineer and I understand what HOX genes do. As central control panels are to the workings of all the electrical and pnuematic systems in a high riser building, so are Hox Genes to the body of each diverse type of creature. How could a body reproduced without them?

    The fact is, science requires cause and effect, and evolutionists can not provide any cause and effect on how molecules could possibly form the 1st known progenote, nor can they provide any cause and effect on how molecular arrangements in living beings evolve from the single replicating progenote to the diverse forms of life we know today. Cause and effect are critical to all branches of science. The total absence of any known cause and effect that can lead to new body organs and systems reduces the Theory of Evolution to a non-scientific meta-physical research program. In short, a belief in evolution is tantamount to a relgiously held belief.

    Logic says: “You don’t seem to understand the concept of infinity, and the argument has nothing to do with “concrete” vs. “abstract.” As I said before, if today were the last day ever, your argument would hold.”

    LOGIC, you just proved your argument to be wrong. I will use your own logic to prove this is so. Starting from today, no matter how many days pass, time will always be finite. You will never get to a day that you can say “on this day, I have gone infinitely into the future.” Time from this day on will always be finite, no matter how many days pass.

    As I have logically pointed out, the same is true when looking back into the past, regardless of how many days you look back, you will never get to a day that you can say, this day lies in the infinite past. As as I said in my post, you can’t get to today from any day in the infinite past. If you do arrive at today, the series of days was not infinite. It is a principle in math that any series of non-concurrent real events (such as the passing of days/moments) that concludes with a current event can not be infinite.

    Before you attempt to refute this again, please check with someone who has a college degree in math.

    LOGIC Writes “But by your argument, NO point of infinity could EVER be reached because it would have infinity before it. This is logically unsound. And it hurts your concept of god, because by your argument, god, being infinite, could never arrived at a point where he would have created everything because there was infinity before that point. Your own argument disproves your concept of god.”

    I had to go back to see what I wrote, for I know I could not have meant what you just claimed.

    By using the word ‘point’, you are returning to the abstract concept of numbers or numbered points on a number line. We know there are an infinite series of numbers on the number line. But, if you were counting all the numbers between 1 and 2, and if you actually arrived at the number 2, then the series of numbers between 1 and 2 would be finite. However, in reality, we know this would never happen.

    But we are not talking about ‘points of time’, One atomic second is defined as the time it takes for the cesium frequency to oscillate 9,192,631,770 times. It is not a point in time, it is a physical duration of an actual physical event.

    Infinite has several meanings. Our discussion is about the impossibility of having an infinite series of real non-concurrent real ‘concrete’ events,

    In topology, Infinite means a surface by which you can always travel a little further without coming to an end. Thus in topology, a baseball has an infinite surface.

    We now are aware that our universe is expanding and therefore it had a beginning. every even must have a cause. Since our universe is an effect at the moment it came into existence, it must have a cause. Going way back to anciet Judaism, their scriptures always taught that God is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. That he created what we see exist He created from nothing, and He did so through Jesus in the very beginning. The Bible informs us that at the time He created the cosmos, He also created The Kingdom. He sent us to the Cosmos to prepare us for the Kingdom, that when we arrive their, we will be transformed through Jesus to do the good that He created us to do. For He knew us before He created us, He predestined us for the Kingdom.

    He is the Everlasting Being, who abides apart from our universe and our time. He is the ‘I Am’ who lives in the everlasting present, who sees the end of things from the very beginning of things.

    These are extraordinary statements made when we knew very little about the nature of time and our universe. It is in this sense that He is described as ‘Infinite’, the everlasting Being and the first cause of all that exist, for the first cause can not come into existence, for then, it would need a cause. He is the uncaused cause for everything we see and know.

  100. Oughtist Tic said

    Wow. So much for discrete points of inter-related dialogue, synthesis, and manageable debate. I think the following piece of traditional scripture might be relevant to the discussion (from PRIMAL MYTHS: Creation Myths Around the World, Barbara C. Sproul, Harper Collins, 1991, pp. 194-5):

    “There are some monks and priests who declare as a doctrine received from their teachers that the beginning of all things was the work of the god Yahweh. I have gone and asked them whether it was true that they maintained such a doctrine, and they have replied that it was; but when I have asked them to explain just how the beginning of things was the work of the god Yahweh they have not been able to answer, and have returned the question to me. Then I have explained it to them thus:
    “There comes a time, my friends, sooner or later, …when the world is dissolved and beings are mostly reborn in the World of Radiance. There they dwell, made of the stuff of mind, feeding on joy, shining in their own light, flying through middle space, firm in their bliss for a long, long time.
    “Now there comes a time when this world begins to evolve, and then the World of Yahweh appears, but it is empty. And some being, whether because his allotted span is past or because his merit is exhausted, quits his body in the World of Radiance, and is born in the empty World of Yahweh, where he dwells for a long, long time. Now because he has been so long alone he begins to feel dissatisfaction and longing, and wishes that other beings might come and live with him. And indeed soon other beings quit their bodies in the World of Radiance and come to keep him company in the World of Yahweh.
    “Then the being who was born first there thinks: ‘I am Yahweh, the mighty Yahweh, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-seeing, the Lord, the Maker, the Creator, the Supreme Chief, the Disposer, the Controller, the Father of all that is or is to be. I have created all these beings, for I merely wished that they might be and they have come here!’ And the other beings… think the same, because he was born first and they later. And the being who was born first lived longer and was more handsome and powerful than the others.
    “And it might well be that some being would quit his body there and be reborn in this world. He might then give up his home for the homeless life; and in his ardor, striving, intentness, earnestness, and keenness of thought, he might attain such a stage of meditation that with the collected mind he might recall his former birth, but not what went before. Thus he might think: ‘We were created by Yahweh, eternal, firm everlasting, and unchanging, who will remain so for ever and ever, while we who were created by the lord Yahweh…are transient, unstable, short-lived, and destined to pass away.’
    “That is how your traditional doctrine comes about that the beginning of things was the work of the god Yahweh.”

    Oughtist here again…okay, so I substituted Yahweh for Brahma, naughty me, but I think the analogy sticks. It is Gautama, of course, providing the narration.

    So, Arthur, even going with you on the mystical revelation front, how are YOU equipped with “standards” by which to judge your celestial experience? Granting even that it occurred, by what manner of deliberation are you able to assert that you weren’t simply captured (analogous, perhaps, to your homeless street boy example) and courted by one of many other possible “god realms”? Perhaps there’s a great experience to be had in Odin’s quarters as well? What is your standard of critical awareness here?

    My standards of critical awareness are an ongoing work in progress, gathered from my experiences in this life. Indeed, I garnered some from a religious upbringing, but I also garnered some from other sources, some of which led me to throw out the religious bathwater (I kept the baby, in the form of some rules for daily living).

    Anyhow, just a thought…

  101. Megan said

    Here’s my take.

    We observe the universe. By that, I don’t simply mean the stars, but ourselves, the miniscule, and the enormous. We seek connections and understanding.

    Scientifically, we put together ideas of how things work. We test those ideas. If the ideas make predictions that are borne out, we keep them, and if they break, we fix them, until we get closer to making “rules” about what we see.

    The real world is far messier than scientific theory though.

    Whether there IS or IS NOT a god is fundamentally a pointless question. Think about that. Does it really make a difference? Infinity doesn’t really exist. We mathematicians made up a concept called infinity for “grows without bound”. You can’t have an infinity of something, infinity plus one does not make sense, there’s no such thing as an infinite number of anything.

    Time is a tricky concept. We don’t really understand it very well, stuck inside it as we are. The idea of something “being outside of time” is pointless. They can’t “do” anything without the passage of time, since DOing something requires time, and change. For “God” to “decide” that “he” wanted (past tense) to “create” a universe for whatever reason, requires time. There requires a “before the universe existed”. Time, in our understanding, is inextricably linked to our universe, space, and maybe even our own perception. So the idea of before the universe can have absolutely no bearing on the “now” of the universe. This is what the big bang theory is really all about. It posits a singularity (or possibly really really close to one) at which point any possible physical laws break down and cannot exist (zero-space and thus zero-or-infinite time).

    I need a book, but I’m getting off my own topic here.

    My point is that either GOD exists in time (ie. could think, act, create, etc, but then couldn’t have created time itself) or exists out of time (in which case couldn’t think, act, create, etc, since those things take time).

    If you **require** a creator god, you have to jump through a LOT of hoops to make it logically sound, but maybe our primitive ape brains just can’t handle it. I grant the possibility of a deity.

    If you **forbid** a creator god, you have to jump through some hard-to-understand statistical probability, but it can work logically. (The argument is basically: time is infinite, there is no such thing as ticks or between ticks, time is a conceptual line, you can always subdivide it. The universe must have always been and must always be since it could not have had a creation-date (most human brains don’t like that idea, sorry). Which brings us to more useful questions like… why does it LOOK like it’s growing from where we are in it? I grant the possibility of no deity.

    So there might be one, there might not.

    This is a metaphysical question, and one that has little bearing on our existence.

    . If we assume that Deity X with Book Of Rules Z is the right one, then how come there are others? Wouldn’t that book be actually completely perfect? Why would a deity let it contain errors or contradictions? If the deity’s purpose for us is to know and accept the deity as our (lord and master)/(benevolent creator)/(evil dictator), why would there be any doubt? Show me a holy book that NOT ONLY is completely error-free, but also perfectly predictive of things we haven’t done yet, and maybe I could believe in this deity too. For example, why don’t any of the holy texts refer to space exploration, the content of the sun, the non-flatness of the earth, etc. These were supposed to be INSPIRED AND PERFECT (at least perfect enough that we can QUOTE them as good enough reason to … well good enough reason to justify just about anything)

    If the “god” that birthed judaism, christianity, islam, etc is real, I hope to never make his acquantaince because he is either the most vicious, the most petty, the most confused, or the downright evillest entity ever. (Being part of that monstrosity for eternity is scary… I’ll take Hell or Oblivion thank you).

    “When you realise why you deny all other religions, you might understand why I deny yours.” (or something like that, my apologies to the one i quote)

    The truth is simple enough, but it scares people. This is it. There’s no imaginary “friend” who loves you but will torment you if you deny his existence. Men created gods to explain that which they didn’t understand yet… the sun, the moon, the stars, the earth, nature, love, compassion, society, and a host of others. Other, more evil men warped gods to control the population with fear.

    Without god, mankind can just get on with being nice to each other because – well we found it works better to run societies that way.

    Without gods, good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. We will reward the good and punish the bad as society should. For good people to to bad things takes an excuse… like “god hates fags”…

    ***Climbs off soapbox***

    I don’t know why I bother in a forum like this though… the atheists already know… the religiousists (?) will just go “BLIP”

  102. Megan said

    Dammit … I shouldn’t post when I’m that tired. I so did not make my point clear. Ah well.

  103. Arthur said

    LogicisCool wrote: “And to Arthur: seeing as that quote was not actually yours but Oughtist’s, my question remains. Do you think god exists, or do you know?”

    Though I answered this from my personal perspective above, I meant to add that I understand your problem with religious certainty. Every child tends to conform to the belief system they inherit from their parents and culture. And since these belief systems are religions (and atheism is not an exception) and are in most cases incapatable with one another, they can’t be all be true. So the certainty of many can not be justified.

    And religion aside, many of our other beliefs that we are so certain about often turn out be just plain wrong.

    But it would be foolish to conclude that because we are fallible, we ought to believe nothing and reject everything (e.g. Skepticism).

    One can learn good insights from Buddhism’s 8 Fold Path. These ideas are indeed food for thought. Yet, ultimately, I reject Buddhism because the success at one escaping all pain and suffering is dependant on one’s own efforts to achieve perfection by transforming themselves into attaining a life where one succeeds in keeping all that is required by the 8 Fold Paths.

    This achievement required under Buddhism is equivalent to the the Greek Myth of Sisyphus. For his transgression of telling on Zeus, Sisyphus was compelled to roll a huge rock up a steep hill, but before he could reach the top of the hill, the rock would always roll back down again, forcing him to begin again. This task binded Sisyphus to an eternity of frustration.

    We find in the Old Testament of the Jews that God gave the Israelites a Sisyphean task, If they kept all of The Mosaic Law, God would shower them with long life and the many blessings which Moses delineated. But if they broke any of the part of this Law, many curses would befall them. The people of the Exodus were fully informed of the Whole Mosaic Law, and they all agred this Law was good and they willingly entered a contract with God to keep it, For now they could see exactly what God required of them that they may receive the great blessings from God. God did not want to give them that law, He wanted them to walk in faith in Him as their father Abraham did. But the people did not understand how to walk in faith, it made more sense to them to enter into a contract with God in order to eran their blessings from God.

    As it turned out, a very strange thing happen to the people who placed themselves under the Mosaic Law. Rather than becoming their guide for good living, happiness, and all those blessings God promised them; the Mosaic Law had the opposite effect of stirring the passions of their flesh and causing them to break the commandments even more so than they would if God had never given them the LAW. For the Mosaic Law had the effect of focusing peoples minds on the sins mention in the LAW, and like riding a motorcycle, where one looks is where one goes. Even more so with sin as it arouses the passions of our flesh. Constantly tall a child to not pput beans in his ears and it will not be long before he has beans in his ears. Paul, the Apostle, points out that the Mosaic Law was given that all sin may increase, Paul called the Mosaic Law worthless in that it could not save anyone.

    Paul says The LAW was our tutor until Jesus Chris arrives. For Gods plan from the very beginning was to save the inhabitants of our world through His Son Jesus (e.g. Genesis 3:15, Psalm 2, Isaiah 53).

    Jesus only preached to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus called the gentiles dogs. For Jesus too was under the Mosaic Law. The Jews were looking for a Messiah that would destroy the Romans and set them free. Instead of delivering them from the Romans, Jesus revealed to them just how badly they had strayed from the Mosaic Law and how they dishonored God. In turn, the Leaders of the Jews accused Jesus of trying to convict them of breaking the Mosaic Covenant and rob them of eternal life.

    Jesus replied: “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is in these that they bear witness to me, and you are unwilling to come to me , that you may have life. I do not receive glory from men; but I know, that you do not have the love of God in you. … Do you think that I have come to accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believe Moses, you would believe me; for wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, you will not believe my words.

    Jesus was the only human to keep all of the Mosaic Law. Yet, He was hung on a cross to die. Though Jesus was worthy of all the blessings of ascribed under the Mosaic Law, Jesus chose to take upon himself all the curses ascribed under the Mosaic Law, He took our punishment upon Himself, what greater can a man have for his fellow humans. Thus the finished atonement of sins by Jesus on the cross allowed God to null the Mosaic covenant and repace it with a new covenant under Jesus. A new covenant not just for Jews, but for anyone who wishes to enter therein. For the New Covenant has new laws. Under the Mosaic Covenant, we had to keep God’s Laws to be saved.

    Under the New Covenant, God keeps us and by His new Laws we are kept and are assured of eternal life and life abundantly.

    Jesus – “Come to me all who are weary and heavy laden, for I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from, for I am gentle and humble in heart. And you shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

    Christopher Hitchens, in a recent speech blasting Islam and how they stole from, and butchered, the Jewish and Christian scriptures to make the Koran, stated that if he chose a religion, it would not be Christianity as he sees it today, but that he would choose to be a follower of Jesus.

    I realize this is a pro-atheist blog and I beg your forgiveness in advance of bringing my contrary views here. But since i do actually believe that stuff, I would feel so guilty for not sharing my most precious thougts with you, particularly since I understand The Bibles message and gift more than most any christian you will ever meet. I would to share more of what I know, but I dare not for fear of offending some. I do respect you as you are, I do believe you are honest to yourselves and too others. Yet, so am I.

    To Andy: This is what I left the Catholic Church, they focus far to much on not sinning, and going to a made up place called purgatory for your sins, and buying yourself or a loved one out of purgatory with financial gifts to the church. This is not the New Covenant, The New covenant is all about walking with Jesus, just as God walked with Enoch and Enoch was eventaully taken up to Heaven.

    John tells us:

    1:7 If we walk walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the Blood of His son Jesus cleanses us from all sin.
    1:8 If we say we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
    1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. [Thus God can do in us now what Buddhism only dreams will occur by our efforts over many life times]
    1:10 If we say we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. [Ths it is not our goal to become sinless. Holiness is not the absence of sin in our, rather, it is the presence of God in ue life). God, who dwells in us, via the Holy Spirit, it is His job transform our inner nature so that we will natural be doing the good that we always have wanted to do. Our job would be to simply stay in fellowship with Him daily.]

    Thus I find the focus of the Catholic Church on keeping the Mosaic Law, and in general, emphasizing a focus on not sinning to be robbing their members of the true focus of the Gospel message, which is fellowship with and each other and with God and it us God who to works in us to tranfornm our nature, work that we do not have to do ourselves.

    And having come to this forum by accident, I too have been reading your posts and using your resources to learn from you: what atheist believe, and the arguments, their real life stories and problems encountered when they embrace atheism or those who become gay. For many there is a lot of difficulty and pain on both sides of the coin – so to speak. It’s beeen informative.

  104. Every child tends to conform to the belief system they inherit from their parents and culture. And since these belief systems are religions (and atheism is not an exception) and are in most cases incapatable with one another, they can’t be all be true.

    Atheism is neither a religion or a belief system Arthur. It is simply the lack of belief. There are belief systems such as metaphysical naturalism which have an implicit lack of belief, but lack of belief does not imply any belief system.

    And having come to this forum by accident, I too have been reading your posts and using your resources to learn from you: what atheist believe, and the arguments, their real life stories and problems encountered when they embrace atheism or those who become gay.

    If you truly want to learn about atheists, then this is perhaps the most important thing you can take away from your visits here. If someone tells you they are an atheist, then they haven’t really told you anything about themselves at all except they don’t believe in any gods.

  105. LogicIsCool said

    “LOGIC, you just proved your argument to be wrong. I will use your own logic to prove this is so. Starting from today, no matter how many days pass, time will always be finite. You will never get to a day that you can say “on this day, I have gone infinitely into the future.” Time from this day on will always be finite, no matter how many days pass.”
    I hope everyone else on here can see the absurdity of this comment. Of course you could never say “on this day, I have gone infinitely into the future.” Because infinity, as a concept, is ENDLESS. You can’t ever reach the end of infinity, because if infinity truly exists, IT HAS NO END. This is why I question your understanding of the logical concept of infinity. You haven’t proven a thing with this point.

    “By using the word ‘point’, you are returning to the abstract concept of numbers or numbered points on a number line. We know there are an infinite series of numbers on the number line. But, if you were counting all the numbers between 1 and 2, and if you actually arrived at the number 2, then the series of numbers between 1 and 2 would be finite. However, in reality, we know this would never happen.”
    Mathematically, this holds. But applying infinity to the concept of time, which is what we are doing, it does not, because time necessarily moves “forward.” An “infinite” amount of numbers exist between 1 and 2 because you can keep adding another zero behind the decimal. But if you look at the distance between 1 and 2 as a timeline rather than a mathematical concept, the numbers in between points on the line become simply smaller fractions of time. For example, in the mathematical concept, 1.1 and 1.12 and 1.112 and 1.1112 and 1.1111112 can be expressed as “infinity” because you can just keep throwing on more 1’s and 2’s. There are an infinite amount of numbers. But in the concept of time, if we are moving between 1 and 2 seconds, 1.1 and 1.12 and 1.112 are just smaller fractions of the same moment being passed. If 1 is a second, .1 is a tenth of a second, .01 a hundredth, and so on. You can add as many 1’s as you want to the decimal, but you are not creating “infinity” in between 1 and 2, you are simply describing a smaller interval of time. We will, of course, arrive at second number 2.

    “In short, a belief in evolution is tantamount to a relgiously held belief.”
    Not even close. There are centuries of scientific research backing the theory of evolution. It may not be perfect, but that’s just the point. No one says it is. Which is exactly how it differs from religion. As science continually studies our world, new information is discovered, new theories are developed, and if a theory is discredited by empirical evidence then those scientists who believed that theory either change their view based on new data or become relics within the scientific community. Religion is completely removed from any such practice, because they already “have the answers.” Religion starts with an assumed worldview, that there is a god, and then looks at everything through that lens, using all they see as “proof” that god exists. Skepticism, on the other hand, is not the belief that “we ought to believe nothing and reject everything,” but rather we ought not believe anything that has no proof. We are empiricists, basing our beliefs on that which we can see, and touch, and test. What I see as foolish is believing in something that has no empirical evidence whatsoever to support its existence.

    Megan says in regards to the existence of a deity: “So there might be one, there might not.”
    Megan identifies herself as an atheist. Take note – she admits the possibility of a god! Even though there is no empirical evidence to support it, she acknowledges that however small, there still exists the possibility of a deity. This is just good old practical thought. You can’t prove god, but you can’t disprove it either, so it would simply be foolish to deny any possibility of a god. The skeptics out there, myself included, are just waiting for some cold, hard facts to back up all this god talk. I ask any reading this to contrast this view with that of the religious people they speak with.

    Arthur, you are fond of quoting the Bible, believing it has some very wise things to say. Allow me to retort with a few quotes by some folks who are generally considered to be very intelligent people.
    “Faith is believing what you know ain’t true.” – Mark Twain
    “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” – Benjamin Franklin
    “In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
    “Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.” – Thomas Jefferson
    “Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies.” – Thomas Jefferson
    “Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.” – Benjamin Franklin
    “Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
    “All thinking men are atheists.” — Ernest Hemingway
    “Faith means not wanting to know what is true.” — Friedrich Nietzsche
    “Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile.” — Kurt Vonnegut
    “The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life.” — Sigmund Freud
    “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” – Susan B. Anthony
    “When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a normal and wholesome life.” – Sigmund Freud
    “Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever conceived.” – Isaac Asimov
    “I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God. So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake… Religion is all bunk.” – Thomas Edison

    Logic

  106. Oughtist Tic said

    Can someone remind me what cometh before the fall? Summer? No, Pride… yes, that’s it. Arthur, you most learned of Christians ever, I’m still curious what your standard is for being critically aware about your religious entailings. Quite seriously. If you have something independent of the entailments, I’d be interested to know. If you don’t, well, then join the club. You don’t. Live with it!

  107. LogicIsCool said

    Arthur says: “And since these belief systems are religions (and atheism is not an exception)…”
    It most certainly is. Atheism is the absence of religion. There is no atheist dogma. There is no atheist holy book. And, most importantly, there is nothing that atheism takes on blind faith. Atheism is an empirical position taken by those who require evidence to believe something. Religions make extraordinary claims about the nature of our universe, then back them up only with ancient books full of inconsistencies and errors. This is not enough. If I were to tell you that our world is threatened by the Dark Lord Sauron, which is an extraordinary claim, would you not require proof to believe it? Of course you would. Now consider how you would feel if I handed you “The Lord of the Rings” as my proof. If you understand this, you understand why a rational person cannot accept the Bible or any other religious text as proof of a deity.

    Neuralgourmet says: “If you truly want to learn about atheists, then this is perhaps the most important thing you can take away from your visits here. If someone tells you they are an atheist, then they haven’t really told you anything about themselves at all except they don’t believe in any gods.”
    Exactly.

    Megan says: “If the “god” that birthed judaism, christianity, islam, etc is real, I hope to never make his acquantaince because he is either the most vicious, the most petty, the most confused, or the downright evillest entity ever. (Being part of that monstrosity for eternity is scary… I’ll take Hell or Oblivion thank you).”
    I agree. I’m against tyranny of all forms, which is most certainly what the Christian god represents.

    Arthur says: “…problems encountered when they embrace atheism or those who become gay.”
    I haven’t encountered any problems upon realizing that there is no reason to believe in a god. In fact, I have generally felt better for it. Instead of going around trying to see things in a way that will make me believe, I view the world only as it is, and love it for what it is. As for “becoming” gay… well, there are all kinds of problems with that statement, as it’s pretty plain that it is not a choice, but I know several homosexual people, and the biggest problem that they encounter as a gay person is intolerance, mostly stemming from the religious. In fact, their stories all coincide on the fact that they were absolutely relieved when they were finally able to share who they really are with their loved ones. They actually felt better after coming out, no longer denying their own feelings. Intolerance of homosexuality is DISCRIMINATION, plain and simple. It’s so sad to me that we still find segments of our society struggling for the same rights every one else has. Have we really forgotten the civil rights movement, or women’s suffrage? Apparently we’ll always find someone “inferior” to crap on. How utterly miserable it is that we can’t just live and let live.

    Arthur says: “I realize this is a pro-atheist blog and I beg your forgiveness in advance of bringing my contrary views here.”
    No need to ask forgiveness. Most of us have no problem debating the topic. I certainly don’t.

    Arthur says: “But since i do actually believe that stuff, I would feel so guilty for not sharing my most precious thougts with you, particularly since I understand The Bibles message and gift more than most any christian you will ever meet.”
    How do you know that? Are you gifted with some sort of divine intuition? A lot of religious people who you’ll find posting on a message board like this think they are an expert on one holy book or another. Isn’t there something about humility in the Bible?

    Arthur says: “I would to share more of what I know, but I dare not for fear of offending some.”
    Fear not, we can take it. If an atheist has spent some time debating things like this on internet forums, he/she has no doubt been called immoral, amoral, a sinner, satan, stupid, foolish, arrogant, ignorant, intolerant, bigoted, and many other nasty things. I know I have. Just from a general observation, it’s far easier to offend a religious person than an atheist. Atheists aren’t trying to protect anything (ie a supernatural worldview).

    Arthur says: “I do respect you as you are, I do believe you are honest to yourselves and too others. Yet, so am I.”
    Great. As long as it stays personal, and we can have these honest discussions, then I have no problem. Many atheists may see religion as silly, akin to believing in unicorns, but as long as you do it in your own house and keep it to yourself, there isn’t much to complain about. When the unicorns start telling you to hate gays or kill infidels, then we have a serious problem. And when a bunch of people who believe in the unicorns start trying to make laws to govern the rest of us, even those of us who don’t believe in the unicorns, then we’re really in trouble. Sound familiar to anyone?

    Logic

  108. frog_e said

    I just don’t understand why who someone else is having sex with, should matter a single iota to anyone… there are so many more enlightening and useful topics to debate. Personally, I figure if more people embrace homosexuality, there would be less over population and we may actually have enough food to feed the people that are already here. I don’t think it would be such a big tragedy if the human race became a little smaller and stopped putting so much stress on our seriously troubled planet.

    As for your Christian God, (while I know it is completely useless to try to ever get a Christian fundie to see reason), how an all-powerful, omnipotent being, capable of creating the universe could possibly care that one of his animals is having sex that may not produce offspring, is a completely ridiculous, selfish and typical human assumption… get over yourselves, you are dust, like everything else.

  109. Arthur said

    Arthur replied to “LogicisCool”

    “LOGIC, you just proved your argument to be wrong. I will use your own logic to prove this is so. Starting from today, no matter how many days pass, time will always be finite. You will never get to a day that you can say ‘on this day, I have gone infinitely into the future.’ Time from this day on will always be finite, no matter how many days pass into the past.”

    LogicisCool replies: “I hope everyone else on here can see the absurdity of this comment. Of course you could never say “on this day, I have gone infinitely into the future.” Because infinity, as a concept, is ENDLESS. You can’t ever reach the end of infinity, because if infinity truly exists, IT HAS NO END. This is why I question your understanding of the logical concept of infinity. You haven’t proven a thing with this point.”

    Your statement here is simply a declaration, human ‘concepts’ are not evidence of reality, you have not provided any factual proof what-so-ever that time is infinitely long in duration. I believe this is the third time you are making this declaration without any proof proffered on your part. There is an urban legend that if one says the same thing 3 times, it must be true. Is this what you are counting from those who read this ;).

    Arthur wrote: “By using the word ‘point’, you are returning to the abstract concept of numbers or numbered points on a number line. We know there are an infinite series of numbers on the number line. But, if you were counting all the numbers between 1 and 2, and if you actually arrived at the number 2, then the series of numbers between 1 and 2 would be finite. However, in reality, we know this would never happen.”

    LogicisCool replies: “Mathematically, this holds. But applying infinity to the concept of time, which is what we are doing, it does not, because time necessarily moves “forward.” An “infinite” amount of numbers exist between 1 and 2 because you can keep adding another zero behind the decimal. But if you look at the distance between 1 and 2 as a timeline rather than a mathematical concept, the numbers in between points on the line become simply smaller fractions of time. For example, in the mathematical concept, 1.1 and 1.12 and 1.112 and 1.1112 and 1.1111112 can be expressed as “infinity” because you can just keep throwing on more 1’s and 2’s. There are an infinite amount of numbers. But in the concept of time, if we are moving between 1 and 2 seconds, 1.1 and 1.12 and 1.112 are just smaller fractions of the same moment being passed. If 1 is a second, .1 is a tenth of a second, .01 a hundredth, and so on. You can add as many 1’s as you want to the decimal, but you are not creating “infinity” in between 1 and 2, you are simply describing a smaller interval of time. We will, of course, arrive at second number 2.”

    OK, we are now well passed the point of having a serious discussion. You have taken this discussion into the twilight zone. I personally do not care if in your mind you abstractly divide a second of time into an infinite number of imaginary segements. The fact remains, a second is still a second, your dividing a second into meaningless infinite segments does not in any way elongate TIME, much less support your belief that time extends an infinite duration into the past!

    And FYI – matter/energy changes are not continous on the molecular level, rather, changes in position or energy states occur in discrete jumps, and not in any kind of continous manner. Thus your suggested ever increasing decimal places of time change leading to infinitely small time segments of a single second will eventually enter a real world physical realm where no time change at all could have occured. Thus the smallest actual time segments are also discrete because time is a function of matter and energy fluctuations – which happen to be discrete (non-continous).

  110. Arthur said

    neuralgourmet Says:

    “Atheism is neither a religion or a belief system Arthur. It is simply the lack of belief. There are belief systems such as metaphysical naturalism which have an implicit lack of belief, but lack of belief does not imply any belief system.

    If you truly want to learn about atheists, then this is perhaps the most important thing you can take away from your visits here. If someone tells you they are an atheist, then they haven’t really told you anything about themselves at all except they don’t believe in any gods.”

    Not that it matters much to me how one thinks of themself, But I do not find what you say to be true.

    I have a positive belief in the existence of God. Atheists, unlike agnostics, have a positive belief that no God or Gods do exist. Since neither of us can support our belief via the scientific method, our stated beliefs about the existence of God is in the realm of metaphysics (outside of Physics), which is the same as saying, ‘we both entertain a religious belief with respect to the existence of God’. We both accept our worldviews by faith, and not as a result determined from Hard Science’. Our difference in this matter does not set me against you, I could still be your friend, and, friend or not, I would still want to do right by you.

  111. LogicIsCool said

    Arthur seems to have a hard time following this discussion, and keeping track of who said what.
    He says: “Your statement here is simply a declaration, human ‘concepts’ are not evidence of reality, you have not provided any factual proof what-so-ever that time is infinitely long in duration. I believe this is the third time you are making this declaration without any proof proffered on your part. There is an urban legend that if one says the same thing 3 times, it must be true. Is this what you are counting from those who read this ;).”

    First off, you were the one to introduce the concept of infinity into the conversation, in order to “prove” god. I am simply using the concept of infinity as you did (which is a series of events that has no end) to show that your argument is unsound. It is a concept you still have not demonstrated that you understand. You seem to be trying to argue that we can’t have a concrete definition of infinity since it is a “human concept.” Um… ok, so why did you introduce that concept as a part of your “proof”? And I guess we can’t argue anything, because every argument everyone has ever had is based in the realm of “human concepts.” I have shown repeatedly that your argument is unsound based purely on logical grounds, and you have simply responded with assaults on points I’m not even trying to make. I have never once stated that time is actually infinite. I have simply shown how you cannot prove that it is finite with your logic. I will leave it to the readers of this post to decide for themselves.

    “Your statement here is simply a declaration, human ‘concepts’ are not evidence of reality…”
    Since everything we know is based on human “concepts”, by this statement you are saying that every point you have tried to make is simply a declaration with no proof, since your human “concepts” are not evidence of reality. What about your human “concept” of god? Uh-oh. This is at least the second thing you have said that contradicts your own arguments. You should be more careful.

    Arthur says: “OK, we are now well passed the point of having a serious discussion. You have taken this discussion into the twilight zone. I personally do not care if in your mind you abstractly divide a second of time into an infinite number of imaginary segements. The fact remains, a second is still a second, your dividing a second into meaningless infinite segments does not in any way elongate TIME, much less support your belief that time extends an infinite duration into the past!”

    Again, I have no belief that time extends infinitely into the past. You are the one who possesses the belief that it does not. I take the only reasonable position: I don’t know. Neither position is provable by logic, much less the elementary logic you applied. “I personally do not care if in your mind you abstractly divide a second of time into an infinite number of imaginary segements.” Um… this was your point. Here, I’ll paste it for you. “By using the word ‘point’, you are returning to the abstract concept of numbers or numbered points on a number line. We know there are an infinite series of numbers on the number line. But, if you were counting all the numbers between 1 and 2, and if you actually arrived at the number 2, then the series of numbers between 1 and 2 would be finite. However, in reality, we know this would never happen.” Here you are trying to prove that time must be finite because we could never reach 2 starting at 1 because there are an infinite number of points. I’m not at all sure how you suddenly think I’m the one making this point. My point was to compare this mathematical idea, that there are an “infinite series of numbers on the number line,” with the idea of infinity with regards to time. If you try to count every “number” in between 1 and 2 you will be counting forever, as you claimed. When applied to time, however, this is no longer the case. I showed quite clearly why that is, and quite clearly how the “infinite series of numbers” becomes represented as simply smaller fractions of the same moment when we apply it to time. Thus, your attempt to prove that time is finite based on this mathematical concept failed, and your attempt to pin your own strange logic on me has also failed.

    Arthur says: “You have taken this discussion into the twilight zone.”
    Everything I have said on this post has been in direct response to a topic that you have introduced. Infinity and the infinite number line are the two most prominent examples. You introduce these concepts, make faulty claims about them, and when they are plainly refuted you resort to claiming that I was the one to introduce the ideas and that they have no place in the discussion. If you have a hard time debating these things on logical grounds, don’t bring them up. Again, I will be happy to leave the decision of who has the upper hand in this conversation to the readers.

    Arthur says: “And FYI – matter/energy changes are not continous on the molecular level, rather, changes in position or energy states occur in discrete jumps, and not in any kind of continous manner. Thus your suggested ever increasing decimal places of time change leading to infinitely small time segments of a single second will eventually enter a real world physical realm where no time change at all could have occured. Thus the smallest actual time segments are also discrete because time is a function of matter and energy fluctuations – which happen to be discrete (non-continous).”
    Lol, I think you’re over-complicating things a bit. “Thus your suggested ever increasing decimal places of time change leading to infinitely small time segments of a single second will eventually enter a real world physical realm where no time change at all could have occured.” Sigh. I did not suggest anything of the sort. All I said was, and I’ll try to be as clear as possible, that your point that there are infinite numbers between 1 and 2 on the number line does not correspond directly to time because those “infinite” numbers aren’t “infinite” in the sense of time, but rather DESCRIBE smaller portions of the same moment. Whereas 1.01 and 1.001 are two points you would have to count on the number line between 1 and 2, when time is applied they are now just smaller descriptions of the time between 1 and 1.1. 1.0001 is a smaller portion of this same moment passing, not another “point” you would have to “count” to make it to the number 2. If you can’t understand this, I don’t know what to tell you. This is pretty basic.

    The bottom line of this entire discussion is as follows: You CANNOT prove god by logical means. You CANNOT disprove god by logical means. When I see someone claiming that they have a logical proof of god (such as Arthur with the cosmological argument) I feel compelled to display the faulty logic that is used in every single case. Arthur’s logic here is not sound, as I have shown, yet he clings to it as if it’s his only hope of survival. I came across something similar recently. A man named Perry Marshall made the claim that he could prove god so an atheist message board challenged him to a debate. Over the course of several years, Marshall was soundly defeated, his logic shown to be full of holes. Yet he cannot acknowledge this. In fact, he claims victory! This is the religious mindset. “I believe something, I know it’s true, nothing you say or do or show me could EVER convince me otherwise.” I don’t think it’s necessary for me to explain why this is an absurd mindset. I think I have done all I can here. Arthur, in the words of Morpheus, “I can only show you the door. You have to walk through it.” I hope the readers of this post at the very least will recognize the absurdity of claims of “logical proofs of god.”

    Logic

    Here is the link to Marshall’s debate on the atheist blog: http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=135497&page=1
    It isn’t short, but you don’t have to read very far to see a few people tear his argument down. Look for the posts about inductive logic. Note how Marshall doesn’t respond to the people who actually destroy his argument, but instead focuses on the people who debate him about what constitutes a “code,” when in fact that point is moot as his conclusion is not supported by his premises (which several posters demonstrate very clearly).

  112. LogicIsCool said

    Well, I was done, until I saw this:

    Arthur says: “I have a positive belief in the existence of God. Atheists, unlike agnostics, have a positive belief that no God or Gods do exist. Since neither of us can support our belief via the scientific method, our stated beliefs about the existence of God is in the realm of metaphysics (outside of Physics), which is the same as saying, ‘we both entertain a religious belief with respect to the existence of God’. We both accept our worldviews by faith, and not as a result determined from Hard Science’.”

    Atheism is not a positive belief. It is not a belief at all. It is the absence of a particular belief, the belief in a deity. It is DIRECTLY comparable to not believing in unicorns, or leprechauns, or goblins. None of these things have any evidence to support their existence, just like god. Therefore, it is the DEFAULT position to not believe in these things, and perfectly reasonable and rational to require evidence in order to believe. You can think all you want that not believing in unicorns is a “positive” position, but you’ll still be wrong.

    There is an idea of god. There is no evidence for this idea. Some people take it on “faith.” This is a positive position. “I have no proof, but I will believe it anyway.” Atheism is the exact opposite of that. “I have no proof, so I won’t believe it.”

    I’m sure that most people on here can easily see the difference. Now I’m really done.

    It’s been fun, good luck to all of you.
    Logic

  113. Arthur said

    frog_e Says:
    October 18, 2008 at 12:54 am
    “I just don’t understand why who someone else is having sex with, should matter a single iota to anyone… there are so many more enlightening and useful topics to debate. Personally, I figure if more people embrace homosexuality, there would be less over population and we may actually have enough food to feed the people that are already here. I don’t think it would be such a big tragedy if the human race became a little smaller and stopped putting so much stress on our seriously troubled planet.

    As for your Christian God, (while I know it is completely useless to try to ever get a Christian fundie to see reason), how an all-powerful, omnipotent being, capable of creating the universe could possibly care that one of his animals is having sex that may not produce offspring, is a completely ridiculous, selfish and typical human assumption… get over yourselves, you are dust, like everything else.”

    Frog E, You seem to be addressing your post to me since I’m the only one on this topic, at least that I am aware, who is a fundamentalist Christian. I do not know if you are a female or male from your ID as ‘Frog E’ (in fact, real frogs are ambi-sexual and can also impregnate themselves ;). If you and some adult of your sex want to engage in sex, go for it, it has nothing to do with me.

    If you want to know what I think about it, I would only give you the same advice that i would give heterosexuals who seek to enter such an intimate personal relationship: After all is said and done, is either of you going to be physically or mentally hurting?, have bought thought it out? communicated? Have been honest with each other? understand the extent of commitment before hand? Do you both genuinely care for the other? or is one of you a taker who will steal something valuable from the other person and then just walk away after your done with the other person, leaving the damage behind?

    A trail of broken relationships, and pursuit of unattainable, unrealistic, self-centered, all consuming quests will end in a lot of pain. Delusion will do that to one.

    As a Christian, I find that the words selfless, thoughtful, kind, patient, self-control, merciful, forgiving, discrete, sincere, committed – to be the foundation of good relationships.

    Adios

    “The common curse of mankind,- folly and ignorance.” W.S.

  114. Arthur said

    LogicisCool writes: “First off, you were the one to introduce the concept of infinity into the conversation, in order to “prove” god.”

    This is your 1st falsehood. I never used the word “prove” in my introductory to St. Anselm’s’ brilliant cosmological argument. Here is what I wrote in it’s entirety from post # 72 with respect thereto.

    I wrote in post ’72’ above:

    The cosmological argument is a sound argument. Our universe has existed for a finite time. If there were an infinite number of universes, all of them combined must have begun a finite tme ago. Therefore ALL must have come into existence a finite time ago and therefore matter and space requires a first cause, because that which comes into existence must have a cuase and the first cause must be infinite, and as shown below, must also be intelligent, therefore that first cause is what we call God.

    Amazingly the Bible that we Christians and Jews claim as being given to us from God accurately points out that God created the universe Ex Nihilo, and that God who lives in an everlasting present, knew the end of all matters from the very beginning.

    I’ll begin with my first argument that time can not have an infinite past, which is St. Anselm’s argument. It is based on the fact an infinite series of real events can not conclude on any single event:

    A moment is the shortest time in which a movement of any (real) material object can be observed by us humans.

    A. An infinite number of moments can never conclude. (There can always be one more moment in an endless series)
    B. If there were an infinite number of moments before today, then today would have never arrived. For the present moment would be the one that concludes this infinite series of moments.
    C. But today has arrived.
    D. Therefore, there were only a finite number of moments before today. (Thus the universe had a beginning).

    Another way of looking at it is that: If the universe, or the sum of all possible universes have an infinite past, we should never have arrived at this current moment. There must be an infinite amount of time between any moment in the infinite past and our current moment in time.

    LogicisCool wrote in post 111:

    “I am simply using the concept of infinity as you did (which is a series of events that has no end) to show that your argument is unsound.”

    This is your 2nd falsehood. You clearly have been applying the concept of ‘infinity’ to a number line, a number line is an abstract concept and we both agree that between any 2 numbers there will always be an infinite numbers.

    On the other hand, from my initial post # 72, it is clear that I am discussing infinity within the bounds of our concrete universe, and in context of the concrete units of time, be time given in moments, seconds, or days.

    Definition of Abstract:

    1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
    2. Not applied or practical; theoretical.

    Definition of Concrete:

    1. Of or relating to an actual, specific thing or instance;
    2. Existing in reality or in real experience; perceptible by the senses; real:
    Concrete objects such as tress.

    Here is your 3rd falsehood:

    LogicisCool wrote in 111 [“Your statement here is simply a declaration, human ‘concepts’ are not evidence of reality…”

    Since everything we know is based on human “concepts”, by this statement you are saying that every point you have tried to make is simply a declaration with no proof, since your human “concepts” are not evidence of reality. What about your human “concept” of god? Uh-oh. This is at least the second thing you have said that contradicts your own arguments. You should be more careful.]

    You either do not know the definition of the word ‘concept’ or you simply purposely attempted obscure its’ definition with your wordy special pleading of what you felt it meant.

    Definition of Concept:

    1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
    2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion.

    General ideas, thoughts, notions are not evidence of reality, though they may lead to Hypothesis that can be critically tested by trial and error, observation and repetition, which may eventually lead to a better understanding of reality or be thrown out if proven to be erroneous.

    But even worse, You take my sentence right out of context. It was ‘YOUR’ concept, notion that the word ‘infinity’ as used on abstract concepts such as numbers, can equally be applied to a concrete concept, such as ‘time.’ There are no concrete infinities in our universe except the topological definition of ‘infinity’ which I have clearly distinguished from our discussion relating to the question ‘Can Time is be infinite?’

    You cut half my sentence off, here it is in full:

    Arthur wrote: “Your statement here is simply a declaration, human ‘concepts’ are not evidence of reality, you have not provided any factual proof what-so-ever that time is infinitely long in duration.”

    Yet this is what you declared what you would do in your intial reply (post 86) to my (post 72).

    Logic is Cool wrote in post ’86’ above

    “I wasn’t going to post here today, even though many of you have interesting and thoughtful arguments. Then I came across our good friend Arthur’s post claiming that the cosmological argument is logically sound. Quite incorrect, as I will explain.”

    Read A, B, C, & D from my post 72, that’s the cosmological arguement that shows that time must be finite. Now let’s look at LogicisCool’s prffored evidence that the Cosmological Argument is not sound.

    “Your first point is that the universe MUST have a beginning because if there were an infinite amount of days before this one, we could not have arrived at today. This is logically incorrect. If you view infinity as a straight line, it has no beginning nor end. Yet it has an infinite number of points on that line. Each of those points would be reached at one instance or another along the course of “infinity” if we are using “infinity” to describe “time.” Today would simply be one of those points. Today is not the end of the line, which is the one point that infinity can never reach. The only way this argument holds is if tomorrow never comes. I’m not saying that the universe and time are actually infinite, but using this logic you certainly cannot prove that they aren’t.”

    This is LogicisCool’s falsehood #4.

    LogicisCool writes: “If you view infinity as a straight line, it has no beginning nor end. Yet it has an infinite number of points on that line. Each of those points would be reached at one instance or another along the course of “infinity” if we are using “infinity” to describe “time.” ”

    LogicisCool confuses the abstractness of a number line with the concreteness of time duration. Number lines do not physically exist, time duration does exist physically, time is a measure of change in position and/or states of matter and energy. A train maitaining a constant speed 10 miles an hour entering a 10 mile tunnel will fully exit that tunnel in 2 hours. Time is a function of Matter and energy changes.

    LogicisCool writes: “Today would simply be one of those points. Today is not the end of the line, which is the one point that infinity can never reach. The only way this argument holds is if tomorrow never comes. I’m not saying that the universe and time are actually infinite, but using this logic you certainly cannot prove that they aren’t.”

    Here, LogicisCool appeals to a logical fallacy known as Loaded Phrases to deceive me, his audience?, and perhaps himself.

    LogicisCool writes: “Today would simply be one of those points. Today is not the end of the line, …”

    But TIME is not an abstract number line and TODAY is not a point on an abstract number line. A Day is a concrete unit of real Time duration just as Brick is a concrete unit that takes up real space. A Day is roughly 60X24 minutes long. It is not a dimensionless abstract number on an abstract number line. Unlike the number line LogicisCool constantly references, between any two days there are no infinite number of days. From a day in the infinite past, you could never arrive at today. Thus any day in the past until now must be a finite time. And no matter how many tomorrows may come and go, one by one, time from this day forward will always be finite also.

    Thus the Cosmological Argument is sound, notwithstanding LogicisCool’s views to the contrary. Just Ask any good mathematician or physicist.

    But we already know today that our expanding universe came into existence a finite time ago.

    And LogicisCool, though your logic is not cool, just pushy, Best Wishes to you always.

    Peace,

    Arthur

  115. Arthur said

    LogicisCool: “There is an idea of god. There is no evidence for this idea. Some people take it on “faith.” This is a positive position. “I have no proof, but I will believe it anyway.” Atheism is the exact opposite of that. “I have no proof, so I won’t believe it.””

    “I have no proof, so I won’t believe it.” Seems your hiding your positive belief that there is no God into a negative statement and using the word ‘it’ to say “I wont believe there is a God.”

    This seems to me just another way of saying: “There is no God!” And you have no proof that this is true. However, I see that under your new definition, at least it is new to me, It allows you to believe there is no God without any positive cause for believing so.

    The Agnostic says, “I have no proof there is a God, and I have no proof there is not a God, So I do not know if there is a God or not.”

    I came here by chance. I liked meeting people here and enjoyed your resources and learning your views. But there is a wide chasm in between us and I believe I may have become an irritant to you, that exchanges seem to be more hostile rather than a sharing of ideas.

    Thanks for allowing me to visit, I do wish you all the very best. With some sadness I say Farewell. with each day grow i a bit weaker.

    Be it heaven, be it hell,
    I hear the sounding of the knell. W.S

    Or From that deadly play ‘Hamlet’ –

    Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow
    of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath
    borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how
    abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at
    it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know
    not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your
    gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment,
    that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one
    now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen?

    or on a more positive note, also from Hamlet:

    “To thine own self be true,
    And it must follow as the night the day
    Thou canst not then be false to any man.” W.S.

  116. LogicIsCool said

    Well, I knew I’d get pulled back in. There’s so much here, I don’t even know where to start. Here goes.

    Arthur says: “This is your 1st falsehood. I never used the word “prove” in my introductory to St. Anselm’s’ brilliant cosmological argument.”
    Ok, you never used the word prove. Unfortunately, the cosmological argument is an attempt at a logical proof of god. By claiming it is a sound argument, you agree that it succeeds in its “proof.” Therefore, while you yourself never actually used the word “prove”, you support a proof of god, therefore implying that you think it “proves” god. Pretty nit-picky in my opinion.

    Arthur says: “The cosmological argument is a sound argument. Our universe has existed for a finite time. If there were an infinite number of universes, all of them combined must have begun a finite tme ago. Therefore ALL must have come into existence a finite time ago and therefore matter and space requires a first cause, because that which comes into existence must have a cuase and the first cause must be infinite, and as shown below, must also be intelligent, therefore that first cause is what we call God.”
    This sure sounds like a proof to me. Where this statement goes horribly wrong is that the Big Bang Theory, the most widely accepted scientific theory for where our universe came from, allows for the existence of matter and energy before the creation of our universe as we know it. According to the theory, all matter and energy were collapsed into an infinitesimally small point which eventually exploded (the Big Bang) to form what we today call our “universe.” Thus, matter and energy existed prior to our universe, and as you explained, time is related to matter and energy. If matter and energy existed before the Big Bang, then so did “time.”

    Arthur says: “I’ll begin with my first argument that time can not have an infinite past, which is St. Anselm’s argument. It is based on the fact an infinite series of real events can not conclude on any single event…”
    Well, here is your biggest mistake. Assuming that “today” concludes an “infinite series of real events.” This is why I stated that for your argument to hold, tomorrow must not arrive. Because if tomorrow does arrive, then today, in fact, did not conclude an infinite series of events. The series continues with the next day, and the next, and so on.

    Arthur says: “”LogicisCool writes: “Today would simply be one of those points. Today is not the end of the line, which is the one point that infinity can never reach. The only way this argument holds is if tomorrow never comes. I’m not saying that the universe and time are actually infinite, but using this logic you certainly cannot prove that they aren’t.”

    Here, LogicisCool appeals to a logical fallacy known as Loaded Phrases to deceive me, his audience?, and perhaps himself.”
    First of all, loaded phrases are not a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are devices that use either faulty logic or incorrect assumptions to attempt to prove a point. Like the cosmological argument. A loaded phrase, also known as emotive language, does not necessarily employ faulty logic or incorrect assumptions. What it actually does is attempt to sway the opinion of a listener by appealing to emotion. I’m assuming the reason Arthur thinks this is a loaded phrase is because I used the phrase, “The only way this argument holds is if tomorrow never comes.” I’m guessing that Arthur thinks I’m trying to play on our common fear of oblivion. “Oh no, if tomorrow never comes that would be bad! I sure hope Logic is right,” is along the lines of what Arthur must think I’m trying to make you feel with that statement. I’m not doing anything of the sort, and if you read the posts thoroughly not only will you see that it is not meant to scare anyone, but it is also a perfectly valid refutation of his assumptions.

    Here is an example of a logical fallacy.
    Arthur says: “”Arthur wrote: “Your statement here is simply a declaration, human ‘concepts’ are not evidence of reality, you have not provided any factual proof what-so-ever that time is infinitely long in duration.”

    Yet this is what you declared what you would do in your intial reply (post 86) to my (post 72).

    Logic is Cool wrote in post ‘86′ above

    “I wasn’t going to post here today, even though many of you have interesting and thoughtful arguments. Then I came across our good friend Arthur’s post claiming that the cosmological argument is logically sound. Quite incorrect, as I will explain.””
    This is called a straw-man argument. Arthur claims that I made a particular argument that I did not, and then attempts to refute it. By defeating an argument that he claims I made, he tries to demonstrate that he is winning the argument. What he is really doing is refuting a claim that I did not make. My words were: “Then I came across our good friend Arthur’s post claiming that the cosmological argument is logically sound. Quite incorrect, as I will explain.” Nowhere in this statement do I claim to be able to prove that time is infinite. I only claim to be able to show that the cosmological argument fails to logically prove time is finite, thus failing to prove it must have a cause, thus failing to prove a creator. Arthur sets up his straw-man, that I said I would prove that time was infinite, and tries to refute it. I didn’t say that I could, so this is a moot point.

    Arthur says: “There are no concrete infinities in our universe except the topological definition of ‘infinity’ which I have clearly distinguished from our discussion relating to the question ‘Can Time is be infinite?’”
    Assumption. Correction: There are no concrete infinities in our universe that we have observed. And furthermore, since we know that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, it stands to reason to assume the possibility of matter and energy being “infinite.”

    Arthur says: “This is your 2nd falsehood. You clearly have been applying the concept of ‘infinity’ to a number line, a number line is an abstract concept and we both agree that between any 2 numbers there will always be an infinite numbers.”
    This is a discussion about god. Abstracts are inevitably going to enter the equation. And I find it somewhat humorous that you think the abstract concept of infinity does not apply here. It most certainly does, since it is exactly what you are trying to disprove. Again, let me make myself perfectly clear. I am not in any way, shape, or form arguing that the universe is actually infinite. I am simply using these arguments to show that Arthur has failed to show that it is not.

    Arthur says: “Unlike the number line LogicisCool constantly references, between any two days there are no infinite number of days. From a day in the infinite past, you could never arrive at today. Thus any day in the past until now must be a finite time. And no matter how many tomorrows may come and go, one by one, time from this day forward will always be finite also.”
    This is where Arthur seems to get confused. The number line can be looked at as “concrete” units. You just have to stay on the proper side of the decimal. As I explained earlier, when using fractions, you can get infinite numbers between each point. But if you use the whole numbers as our concrete units (how about days) we will see that time in between two points on an infinite line is indeed finite. For example, a line of infinity would include the numbers 2 and 358. They are both present on the line. But I think we can all agree that the distance in between 2 and 358 is finite. They are 356 days apart. This has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the line is actually infinite. Arthur’s example, choosing a specific day in the past and stating that the time from that day until today is finite, is correct. What he fails to understand is that neither of these points is the start or the end of infinity, which are the only points unreachable by infinity. This neither proves nor disproves infinity. It does, however, leave infinity as a possibility, something Arthur won’t admit to.

    Arthur says: “Thus the Cosmological Argument is sound, notwithstanding LogicisCool’s views to the contrary. Just Ask any good mathematician or physicist.”
    If this argument is sound (and if it is, it “proves” there is a creator) it seems strange to me that we don’t have tons of people shouting from the rooftops that finally we have proof of god’s existence. If all good mathematicians and physicists thought this to be a logically sound argument, why is it that I had never heard of it in a school classroom, but instead learned of it from pro-religion internet bloggers. The reason is that it is not logically sound. It is a logical fallacy that attempts to deceive those untrained in critical thinking to believe in a god, and more specifically, the Christian god. Just like Perry Marshall’s “proof”, if any of you checked out that blog.

    Arthur says: “And LogicisCool, though your logic is not cool, just pushy, Best Wishes to you always.”
    I’m not sure how logic in itself can ever be pushy… unless it is fallacious logic used to push a specific worldview onto someone else. For what it’s worth, I don’t think you are attempting to push false beliefs on someone, but rather that you actually believe what you are saying and believe the argument to actually be sound. You seem genuine, even though the logic is not good. Best wishes to you as well.

    Arthur says: ““I have no proof, so I won’t believe it.” Seems your hiding your positive belief that there is no God into a negative statement and using the word ‘it’ to say “I wont believe there is a God.””
    Apply this exact statement to any other mythical creature, such as unicorns, and you will understand why it is a negative position. Empiricists, which is what most atheists identify themselves as, simply require proof or at least some evidence to believe something. I have no proof or evidence of unicorns, so what reason do I have to believe they exist? The same applies to god. If you think that your non-belief in hobbits is a positive position, alright, but I think you’re missing the definition.

    Arthur says: “I came here by chance. I liked meeting people here and enjoyed your resources and learning your views. But there is a wide chasm in between us and I believe I may have become an irritant to you, that exchanges seem to be more hostile rather than a sharing of ideas.”
    I’m not sure how I came off as hostile, but if I did I apologize for that. I do not begrudge you your faith, nor your right to believe. I simply have a problem with “logical proofs of god,” since none of them use good logic.

    This is truly my last post. I felt it necessary to defend the “falsehoods” that Arthur claimed I employed. Having done so, I don’t think that there is anything else that I can say that will make my point any clearer. Do I deny the possibility of a god? Absolutely not. However, I see no evidence to support god, nor has any “logical proof” of god ever done anything for me other than to make me upset that such “proofs” could even be called logic. Therefore, I will not believe in a deity until I am provided with some actual “concrete” evidence. I think this is a perfectly rational position.

    I’ll be back to see if there are some responses to these posts, but as a writer, I have reached the end.
    Logic

  117. People said

    pro gay voice are diapearing. But i found some of the progay articles in http://www.uniquerocks.com/society/why-gay-marriage-will-unbalance-the-society.html

  118. […] #01 The score is now… Flying Spaghetti Monster:1 Fred Phelps:0 […]

  119. Ben~ said

    Fun fact;

    I’m gay.

    And my boyfriend and I attend church regularly. I, myself, am a firm believer in God.

    Out of curiosity, am I the only one here who caught that part in the new testament about love? It only talks about it a few times. You know, that part about loving your fellow man? The parts about acceptance? Love thy neighbor? I think those are all relevant themes throughout the Bible, right? I don’t think it said “love only those who do not sin,”. But, then again, I’ve only read the bible about 6 times.

    You extremists have probably read it enough to find a loophole that gives you the right to hate an condemn, and I’m sure God has personally spoken to each of you and confirmed that none of YOU have sinned.

    Right?

    OUCH BURNNNN

  120. Ben~ said

    Also, Arthur, prove that there isn’t a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    😮

  121. i dont hate said

    i am a sorta-catholic. its hard to describe but i do belive in god… but i dont belive in humans. we have a huge capasity for hate and not much for anything else. to all athiest who blame religion. your wrong. greed, lust for power, and hate arnt taught from religion. they come just as naturlly as anything else. to people of all faithes who think that atheists will go to hell. your wrong. the measure cant come from worship as there is too many kinds. i think all people have the same chance. there is one and only one real rule to follow. dont be a dick. its that simple. and that hard, its really easy to be a dick, i would know im sorta catholic. the only recommendation i can make is the i dont give a fuck method. if what some one is doing makes them happy and you are nothurt by it. dont give a fuck. im sorry for the typos…. iv also been drinking tonight. and you know what? i wont go to hell for that either.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: