Mad at god

The idea of getting mad at god seems about as silly as being angry with a leprechaun. Some people do believe in god though and occasionally they get into squabbles with him. When some of these people get mad at god they stop going to church. Others research alternative philosophies and try to find a world view that makes sense to them. Some people start their own groups or become immersed in work. Some simply choose not to think about it. Some people become political, some atheist and some humanitarians. Not Thomas Kyle Nursey though. When 23 year old Thomas of St Augustine Florida became angry with god he decided that the only way to solve the dispute was to drive his Ford F-150 through the front door of the local Catholic Church. Luckily for him god has offered to forgive him in exchange for 150 hail marys, a 15% increase in his tithe, and the donation of his first born sons young virgin ass to the parish. Ok, I made that last part up, but hey, this is the Catholics we are talking about.

Scamming the scammer

Have you ever been sent one one those scam emails? This is what I like to do when I get them!

I AM MRS FATIMA NORA HASSAN, NOW MRS THERESA COLE, A WIDOW TO LATE
SHEIK MADU HARRIS, I AM 56 YEARS OLD,I AM NOW A NEW CHRISTAIN
CONVERT,SUFFERING FROM LONG TIME CANCER OF THE BREAST, FROM ALL
INDICATION MY CONDITIONS IS REALLY DETERIORATING AND ITIS QUITE
OBVIOUS THAT I WON'T LIVE MORE THAN
THREE MONTHS, ACCORDING TOMY DOCTORS, THIS IS
BECAUSE THE CANCER STAGE HAS GOTTEN TO A VERY BAD STAGE.


MY LATE HUSBAND KILLED DURING THE U.S RAIDAGAINST TERRORISM IN
AFGHANISTAN,AND DURING THE PERIOD OF OUR MARRIAGE WE CULD'NT PRODUCE
ANY CHILD.MY LATE HUSBAND WAS VERY WEALTHY AND AFTER HIS DEATH, I
INHERITED ALL HIS BUSINESS AND WEALTH.


THE DOCTORS HAS ADVISED ME THAT I MAY NOT LIVE FORMORE THAN THREE
MONTHS,SO I NOW DECIDED TO DEVIDE THE PART OF THIS WEALTH,TO
CONTRIBUTE TO
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHURCH IN AFRICA, AMERICA ASIA,AND EUROPE AND
ALSO TO HELP THE NEEDLY ONES.

I AM WILLING TO DONATE THE SUM OF $12,000.000.00 MD U.S DOLLARS, TO
THE LESS PRIVILEGED AND CHURCHES.PLEASE I WANT YOU TO NOTE THAT FUND
IS LYING IN A BANK AND UPON MY INSTRUCTION, MY ATTORNEY, WHO
PRESENTLY IS IN AFRICA
DISTRIBUTING RELIEF MATERIALS TO OF BOMBLAST IN SLERRA-LEONE, WILL
FILE IN AN APPLICATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE MONEY IN YOUR NAME.

LASTLY, I HONESTLY PRAY THAT THIS MONEY WHEN TRANSFERRED WILL BE SURE
FORTHE SAID PURPOSE, BECAUSE I HAVE COME TO FIND OUT THATWEALTH
ACQUISITION WITHOUT CHRIST IS VANITY.

MAY THE GRACE OF OUR LORD JESUS THE LOVE OF GOD AND THE FELLOWSHIP OF
GOD BE WITH YOU AND YOUR FAMILY.

I AWAIT URGENT REPLY
YOUR'S IN CHRIST
MRS. THERESA COLE.




Dear sister in Jesus

I am glad to help out with this noble cause. Please tell me what more
I need to do to help you out. I know that time is very important so I
am ready to move quickly. I have prayed on this issue and I believe
that God has brought us together to make a great change in this
world. Please write back soon and we can work out the details of what
you would require.

In our Lord



Dear Beloved

First let me thank you sincerely here for your quick response to my request. I pray that the good Lord will give you the desired strength and courage to achieve your heart desire which is raising this organization to help the Aged, Children and your National Park Project. In fact I would whole-heartedly dedicate this fund to you and your society organization because of its humanitarian purpose, I will give directives to my Lawyer to make sure the funds gets to you without delay. One important favor that you will do me is to make sure that my name and my Husband's name has a stand in your Society Organization.

I would want you to send me a Copy of your international passport or Driver's License, and all the necessary documents concerning your Society my Lawyer, He shall use all these to secure all the Documents that shall accompany the money to you through Diplomatic Means .My Lawyer's name is BARRISTER PEDRO RUI MENDES, A PORTUGUSE NATIONAL BUT BASED IN LONDON WHERE HE HAS HIS LEGAL CHAMBERS.

His e-mail address is: ruipmendes@yahoo.co.uk so write him now and tell him that I directed you to contact him for more details on how to deliver the funds to you through diplomatic Courier Means, also I will forward all your information to him, I will also tell him about you right away and he will be expecting your mail, please I will like you to hasten up because It will be of a great JOY to me if I will still be alive to see this Great Project Growing up, With this I will die a more Happier death. I will attach a copy of my picture in the Hospital now so that you will always have me in mind and consider my kindness too ok? Please on receipt of this picture i am sending you now, you must keep it very safe in your computer as this is the only i got now for future references ok?

I must let you know that due to my present health condition that is fast detoriating now, i would love this whole transfer to be completed within a short time because i wish to witness the commencement of this project before i go to answer my glorious call.

Finally, i must advice you here that if in any case you find yourself incapable of carrying out this project with needed attention, please do not hesitate to show your incapability so that i shall go to Lord in prayers for another capable SOUL.

Finally, also forward to my attorney on his above email address, your direct contact telephone/fax numbers including cell phone if any for easy communication, your contact address, your age, current occupation and position.

Yours in Christ Always,
Mrs. Theresa Cole




Dear Christian Sister Mrs. Cole

The Lord has filled my heart with happiness and sadness at the same time. It heavies my heart that such a loving and caring soul must be taken from this earth at what seems to be a most inopportune time. I spoke with my bank about the transaction this afternoon and not only will they back me in continuing forward with this process but they have also agreed to display a commemorative plaque regarding your generous contribution to our great Lord’s work. The bank manager was a bit skeptical regarding the transaction though and suggested that I verify that you are real by having you send me $2 U.S.. Currency through the postal service. Please include your personal return address. The bank says that this can be used to verify an actual location so that we can be assured that the account is not a dummy account and that the money will indeed go to do the Lord’s work. The account that we will be using already has roughly $25,000 in it that we are saving to feed starving children just across from the Mexican border. As soon as I receive these documents from you I can forward you my bank account number, passport and drivers license. I believe that the Lord has brought us together. Please work quickly to verify yourself and may the Lord bless us both. Let me know if this will be possible and I will send you a physical address.

In Christ



Hello My Dear Beloved
Greetings in The Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ,

Many Thanks for your mail just received and the content quite understood. In regards to your e-mail, I must tell you that I feel so sad and disappointed that you did not believe that I am real after sending you my picture just because your bank manager is skeptical about the transaction.

OH’ WHAT A SHAME” WHERE IS YOUR FAIRTH DEAR?

Well, I am sorry to tell you that what you ask me to do is not possible as the funds has already been packaged and sealed by the Diplomatic Courier Company that are going to deliver the funds to you in your country in a CODED BOX as a consignment because due to the 9/11 RECENT BOMB ATTACK in united states, the funds shall be packaged in a CODED BOX as a consignment and delivered to you at your door step in your country through diplomatic Means.

FOR MORE DETAILS, CONTACT MY ATTORNEY ON HIS EMAIL AS I HAVE GIVEN TO YOU BEFORE.

Honestly, I still don’t understand the reason why your bank manager should be skeptical about the transaction, but GOD WILL BEAR ME WITNESS IF I AM FOR REAL OR NOT.

My Dear, I want you to understand that this transaction is not by force, and I will not beg you or force you to do this wonderful work of God Ok? So if the skeptical of your bank manager will make you not to continue with the God’s work, then just forget it.

For your information, this funds will be delivering to you at your door step via a diplomatic Bankers Courier Service and not bank to bank transfer, so let it be known to you that this transaction has nothing to do with your account for now.

You are only required to receive the funds from the diplomatic agent who will be delivering the funds to you in your country and then have it deposited to your bank account yourself.

Moreover, be informed that all the legal documents of this funds has been secured and changed in your name and it cost me about 8,500.00 Pounds Sterling to Secure the documents including Affidavit of change of ownership on your behalf through the help of my lawyer who swear out the Affidavit on your behalf from HER MAJESTY here in London, and I have to closed down my account to secure all these necessary/legal documents on your behalf because I don’t want to bother you about the money for obtaining the documents.

So, there is no how I can even get a cent not to talk of sending you $2 U.S Currency through the postal service now Ok? So, like I stated on my email to you yesterday, if you are incapable of carrying out this project with needed attention, please do let me know your incapability so that I shall go to Lord in prayers for another capable SOUL Ok?

Once Again, Thank you for your kind understanding.
Remain Blessed in the Lord Jesus, Amen.
Truly Yours Sister in Christ,
Mrs. Theresa Cole.



Yea Dear beloved sister Mrs. Theresa Cole

After attending a 42 hour humanitarian relief effort I crashed into my bed for a long sleep. I awoke in the middle of the night to a vision from our great Lord. He told me that you are for real and shamed me for questioning you. It was at that moment that I realized the error of my ways and decided that I needed to meet with you personally to give you the requested documents and lay my hands on you in prayer. I have emptied my life savings and booked a flight to London where I hope to meet with you and your lawyer. I leave in just a little bit so please email me back with the address of the hospital that you are staying at and I will be with you shortly. Also I plan on looking up your lawyer and personally hand delivering the said documents so that you will be spared any shipping fees to the United states. I await your swift reply and look forward to meeting with you soon and eventually, spending eternity in heaven with you.

In Christ our savior



Thank you for your mail and the content quite understood, but unfortunately that won’t be necessary as the funds has left this morning to
PARRIS FRANCE
due to your late response because the Courier company here where the funds was deposited doesn’t tolerate any delays once consignment is packaged for shipment.

So, due to the delay and late response from your end, they have moved the consignment to a security Company in Paris France where you are requested to go and pick up the funds I a cash payment from the officials in the security Company in Paris.

So, be informed that the funds
($12 Million) is now in Paris France in your name, and all you need do is to prepare to make a trip to Paris France. Also be advised to council your flight booked to London and re-book your flight to Paris France Ok?

Documents are not required from you in Paris as my attorney has already sworn an Affidavit of change of ownership of the funds that backed up the and accompanied the consignment/Funds to Paris France. You can as well go to Paris with either your driver’s license or your international passport just for proper identification by the officials in Paris Ok/
However, I also want to inform you that my attorney have just traveled to Africa to defend one of his client who has a Court case with the Government there in Africa, but he shall be communicating with me, you, and the people in Paris France as long as he stay’s there in Africa.

Finally, I have been instructed by my doctor to stop clear off computer because of my present health conditions that gets worst every day and i am going down, so I will be off the computer for some days now or weeks and will not be able to look at my e-mail as the case maybe.

So, for more details on how you are going to Paris, contact my attorney on his email as I gave to you before and asked him to give you more details on how to go Praise to claim the consignment/Funds. My attorney is fully aware of the whole things regarding the France issue as he made the arrangement with the Courier Service here in London because of your delayed. So, also furnish my attorney with the following informations bellow:

Your Full Names and Your Full Contact Address
Your Full Accessible Direct Contact Telephone Numbers including Cell phone number if any. Age Sex, Marital Status, Current Occupation and position.

Once Again, the e-mail address of my attorney is ruipmendes@yahoo.co.uk so kindly contact him now with the requested informations, and also ask him to give you his number he is using temporally in Africa so that you can reach him and talk with him as well and also give my lawyer your own number.
I will also instruct my lawyer to contact you, you should try and contact him because he is always a very busy person.
I will have to stop here for now.
Thank you and remain Blessed in the name of the Lord.
Thanks and God Bless.
Truly Yours Sister in Christ Jesus.
Mrs. Theresa Cole.


Verily I say unto you Miss Sister in Christ our Lord almighty, hail to the all powerful, in Jesus almighty holy divine name Mrs. Theresa Cole..

I have landed in London and checked my email at a local internet station. I was very saddened to see that you had changed the location of the money transfer to Paris France. At this point the money is second to me and I simply want to meet with you and lay my hands on you in prayer. I do not feel that it is appropriate for me to contact your attorney until I have met with you face to face. I know you said that you needed to step away from the computer because of your deteriorating health but I trust in Jesus that he will bring you to your computer one last time to check your email. An even greater blessing happened to me. Yeah truly God is great. Since I was out of money and stranded here in London I had no other option but to go to the embassy. I told the officers there about you and your generosity. I showed them all of the emails and the pictures that you sent me and it turns out that they were looking for you to! They agreed to help me find you. Praise the Lord, they were able to pinpoint your location through the IP addresses that you were using to send your emails and have already set up an airplane. I will be with you shortly to sit by your side through you final hours..

With love in Christ

New Author

I would like to welcome Telos as a contributing author to the Angelsdepart blogsite. Telos is an English writing major with an art history minor. She is one semester away from graduation and is already being courted by several major publishing houses. She is also a fairly recent de-convert from Christianity. I think you will enjoy her post.

Story #19

Intergalactic Hussy has started a site for atheist, agnostics and free thinkers to post their deconversion stories. I thought this was a great idea so I submitted mine. Please take a moment to visit the site and give her your support.

Story #19

The truth hurts

An Imaginary Friend

This is the conclusion to the god debate. All italicized quotes are Bnonn's words from our previous debate.............


When agreeing to enter a debate on any topic where the authors will be “emotionally” tied to their argument, one needs to remember that there will be no winner. The debate will simply be an exchange of ideas. For example in the preceding debate on the “existence of a god” or “whether or not we can know a god exist” between Bnonn and myself, one would have to wonder how to determine “a winner.” I am certain that the atheist will look at the debate and say “Nice job putting this guy in his place angelsdepart” and Christians will look at it and say “you defended Christianity valiantly Bnonn.”

The truth is, that since neither side can actually be proven, this discourse was about nothing other than winning a debate. No lives will be saved, no minds will be changed, and no one will be enlightened. Certainly from an atheistic or agnostic worldview this is no big deal. Religions and their inferior ideologies tend to be so weak that they hunger for more and more converts in order for them to feel that their beliefs are justified. In the past they often had the power to kill anyone who spoke out against their belief systems. interestingly enough Christians love to bring up John Calvin.

John Calvin of course was a cold blooded killer. Please click the above link for the whole story. If we are to have any sort of respect for a Christian apologist then we need to somewhat call his life into question. If he was mean at times or stole a candy bar when he was a kid then that would seem forgivable. If he was so unsure about his beliefs that he needed to kill anyone who disagreed then we can assume something entirely different about said source.

Since the power of the Christian ideology is beginning to wane, they do not have the luxury of destroying dissenters. This has led to an avalanche of free thinkers and an immense progression of civilization in general. In the present day Christians simply tend to create rhetoric and false dilemmas that do not allow for any other worldview to be considered.

It is my contention that atheism is a claim so fantastic and outrageous that the Christian need not offer any proof for his position; but rather, he need simply destroy the atheistic worldview and leave the biblical one standing in its place, to be assumed by merit of its obvious truth………………. I am indeed saying that to prove my viewpoint all I have to do is destroy the atheistic worldview.

the difference is that reality is unintelligible and impossible if there is no God.


Although Bnonn appears at many times to be acting intelligently his antics are equivalent to a child pounding his/her fist and stomping his/her feet screaming “I’m right because I say so.”

So even if it is the case that revelationism (sic) does not establish the truth of Christianity automatically, you should still recant your previous agnosticism and earnestly try to determine which revelation is true. I say this only to remind you that your agnosticism has been soundly refuted and you have therefore lost the debate

Bnonn began the debate with immaturity and arrogance. He uses name calling and ad hominem attacks with full understanding of how damaging this was to his argument and how insecure it made him appear.

yet equally you will be forced to acknowledge that there are many stupid atheists (yourself included, as I have shown)

You don't lend yourself any credibility by being a hypocrite.

Are you not concerned that, by taking such a simplistic and childish approach to the topic, you will be exposed as a fool when your opponent offers some proofs for God's existence?

This leads me to the suspicion that you are simply unequipped from an intellectual and/or argumentative point of view to actually engage anyone in such a debate.

I don't hold out much hope for your further statements in this debate.

After being called out on his immaturity Bnonn surprisingly had the grace to admit his mistake and apologize, although the result was his insults being more subdued and clever

permit me to apologize now for any irrelevant ad hominem in my previous post.

Anytime a point was made during this debate that Bnonn could not answer he attempted to save face by saying it was nonsensical or that it ignored the actual argument at hand. These tactics were used even if the arguments were essential.


Now, you say of war and atrocities that, "The Christian Bible certainly supports this kind of behavior." Again, let me remind you that, even if it does, this is irrelevant to its truth.

Secondly, what relationship does the alleged lack of proofs for God's existence have with the possibility of proofs for his non-existence?

Nonetheless, your request for scientifically verifiable miracles does not make sense

so to focus on the flood is really to ignore the far more fundamental disagreements which we face.

What I found really interesting in this debate though is that Bnonn’s whole premise seemed to rest on the idea that empirical proof was not sound. Bnonn feels that we cannot “know” anything through testing but only through the divine revelation of god. Of course god’s divine revelation is revealed through our ability to test things over and over again so not only is it circular logic but the difference between the two is negligible. Regardless Bnonn can’t seem to make up his mind on the topic.

without citing any kind of empirical evidence for your various claims

So far, you have offered numerous reasons for doubting the truth of Christianity. These reasons have basically been empirical in nature, one way or the other.

Empiricism is founded upon logical fallacies, and therefore cannot produce justified claims to knowledge

I would like to challenge your supposition that proving something again and again over multiple trials gives us any greater ability to make assumptions about the possibility of it happening in future, given the same circumstances.

Bnonn seems to take the lead from the Bible itself when it comes to contradicting himself

From an ethical standpoint it should go without saying that I deny that the Bible approves atrocities whatsoever

God has allowed, and even at times commanded atrocities.

It seems that Bnonn's belief that all knowledge is divinely inspired has taken away his ability to seek knowledge on his own and think for himself. As a matter of fact Bnonn asserts that in order for something to be disproven one must be able to prove all of the potential alternative explanations for the given event.

That is to say, if you claim to know that the Flood did not occur (and here is why I concede no point at all regarding it), then you must also claim to know all the other things, including philosophical ones, upon which this alleged knowledge is based.

Of course this is obviously false. We can know that many things are not true without knowing all of the possible outcomes. Such nonsense could only come from one who believes that knowledge can only be gained through communication with a magical creature in the sky.

If there is a god, I want to know him/her. I want someone to present proof. I am more than ready to believe in a god but I will not believe in or worship a god that wants me to accept him/her without any evidence for his/her existence. I spent 22 years being indoctrinated in religion, I led a very successful ministry and led many people to Christ. I knew all along that something was fishy with the whole system but I accepted, on faith, that everything I saw going on around me was a part of god’s divine plan. Faith is not sufficient. Faith is a fancy way of saying that you will be punished if you seek knowledge and truth.

Only in humanism do we really have the tools to enjoy and value life. To a Christian, this life is just a step. If someone is murdered or taken in a natural disaster or sent to war and blown to bits, the Christian believes that they have simply moved on to heaven. Death is not a sad occasion in the Christian worldview but a joyous one. Their loved ones have simply gone to be with Jesus in paradise. It is only through the shedding of these primitive belief systems that we can truly understand what is most valuable. This life is short. It is precious. When it is over there is nothing more. So believe what you are going to believe, but humor me on one thing. Take a walk. Stare at the stars. Make someone smile. Be nice for no reason. Do what you can to make the world a better place regardless of what you believe, because all we have in life is each other.

No Proof (The final response to god)

My voice is in bold print as always!

I would like to start this rebuttal by commenting on your defense of the scripture verses that I posted as contradictions. You took two verses that I actually posted as having no contradiction then refuted them as if they did. This misunderstanding is not conducive to either of us in this debate so let me clarify.

Your fourth example (1 Pet 5:8) indicates no apparent contradiction at all, since 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, which you list in contradiction to it, do not state which angels were imprisoned;

See I had actually listed both of these examples under the answer “no” for is the Devil free to roam and tempt us. If angels sinned and were cast into hell then wouldn't they be devil's or demons? How does this not pose a contradiction? Since you have failed to address this appropriately I will consider that you have conceded this point and move on to the next.

So omnipotence does not imply the ability to do logically absurd things, like creating uncreated beings, or imagining square circles.

I don’t believe that this was ever implied. This completely ignores the blatant contradiction that was pointed out!

Your assumption of a contradiction here is caused by a failure to understand the overall context of the story, which results in a failure to correctly identify the causality of the people's defeat. God generally uses normal means to accomplish his purposes

There are two major issues that I take with your refutation here. The first is that in order for your explanation of why god has not contradicted him or herself here to work, you have to say that god did not follow through with his/her promise because his/her people failed to “devote them to complete destruction.” This seems to be a recurring theme in the bible. It seems that god tends to enjoy solving disputes through violent means.

What would be really impressive in situations like these is if god made himself/herself known directly to the enemies of his/her people. A direct revelation from god could not be refused. There are many examples of god making people’s hearts hardened and making them disobey his/her command, but he/she never coerces someone to follow them.

The second thing is, if god normally works through average everyday means then how do we know that it is god working? If we assume that it is god working but he/she is working through everyday means then how is that any different than there being no god?

Would they have prevailed against the chariots if they had obeyed God? Of course they would have. God, being all-powerful, was in absolute control of the situation and could direct it as he pleased.

In this statement you present even another perplexing issue and that is the issue of free will. If god is omnipotent and all knowing then god is aware of the outcome of everything in the universe. I would hope you would assume that god knows the future. Assuming that we agree on this then it would seem silly for god to issue a covenant knowing full well that it would be broken. How can you say that if they had obeyed god that they would have prevailed when obeying god was not even an option and god knew it in the first place. If this is the case then god was being deceitful here, which is, as I might add, something that he is not able to do.

Furthermore there is a countless amount of absurdities and direct contradictions in the bible that are impossible to reconcile. A couple of these are the two conflicting accounts of the creation story. In Genesis 1:25-27 we see clearly that humans were created after the animals and in Genesis 2:18-19 humans were created before the animals. As we agreed, if the bible has just one error then it cannot be the holy, inspired, divine, perfect word of god.

All this considered, the conversation on the completely ludicrous account of Noah’s flood, seems to have been dropped. I know that our debate format has not been formal, but had it been then this would have been considered a conceded point.

Regarding the issue of the reliability of oral tradition I have to say that your sources seem to be a bit biased. Even so there are some serious issues in the threads that you have linked me to with oral tradition regarding the canonization of the bible.

“it also ignores the considerable importance given to rote memorization in Jewish society of the time, which would have permitted reliable oral transmission, even for longer material.”

If we are to assume this true then we need to also assume that every single book that is in the bible was created out of this specific tradition. Regardless, if in fact it was the whole founding tradition of a particular culture to pass things on orally instead of writing them down then there would still be a large degree of error. This is if we assume that they were particularly skilled at it. Just because a particular technology was the best at one time, doesn’t mean that it still wasn’t prone to the errors that are related to it in the first place. (By the way your link from carm.org was either ripped off from McDowell or vice versa. Also anyone can edit a Wikipedia entry. I think you could think of all of the issues that may bring up for your citation.)

Therefore, we can certainly say that the condition upon which your premise rests is amply met: God has allowed, and even at times commanded atrocities.

This is good enough for me! There is nothing for me to debate if you agree with me. You follow this by breaking down a logical statement as fallacious when it is clearly logically sound. There are many instances in the New Testament where violence is specifically spoken out against . Although I will admit that it is my own assertion that god is not worthy to be worshipped if he commands atrocities, my assertions can also be backed with scripture.

For example in Luke 17:2 Jesus states that if someone were to even offend a little child that he would be better off having a millstone tied around his neck and to be thrown into the sea. (Mathew and Mark seem to disagree with Luke on the semantics of this statement.) Despite this “god” (who, stay with me now, is Jesus) commands children to be killed on several occasions. Number 5:11-21 commands a woman who has committed adultery to abort her child. Numbers 31:17 presents a command to kill young male children. Hosea 13:16 has accounts of unborn children being “ripped up.” In 1st Samuel 15:3 god commands the death of “suckling” infants. There are also a few examples of god being worshipped for slaughtering babies Psalms 135:8, 136:10, 137:9. I am more than happy to go on.

I would like to challenge your supposition that proving something again and again over multiple trials gives us any greater ability to make assumptions about the possibility of it happening in future, given the same circumstances………The problem you have is that probability is measured by dividing the number of actual situations of something by the number of possible situations……..In other words, the accuracy of any scientific experiment is completely unknowable, and thus will never increase even if you were to run experiments until the proverbial cows returned.

If it is your goal to attack and disprove science in order to strengthen your own worldview then that is fine. Probabilities would probably be the worst arm of science for you to go after because it is one of the most precise.

For example we do have a way of knowing exactly the potential outcome given consistent variables. If you are coming up with slightly different outcomes it is likely that your variables have not been consistent. For instance, in your example regarding a measurement taken on the speed of sound, I would question whether or not the scientist was controlling for variables, such as wind speed, air density and elevation.

Let’s say we have two six sided dice. On each dice each number has the exact same possibility of coming up on each roll. The previous roll will not affect the later roll. We can predict and prove over multiple trials that the number 7 will come up more often than any other number. This is because seven has 6 ways of being made on the dice. 1+6, 2+5, 3+4, 4+3, 5+2, 6+1. Whereas 6 and 8 only have 5 ways each 1+5, 2+4, 3+3, 4+2, 5+1 and 2+6, 3+5, 4+4, 5+3, 6+2. It continues to digress. 5 and 9 have 4 ways to be made, 4 and 10 have 3 ways, 3 and 11 have two ways, 2 and 12 have one way. Not only can we use probabilities to test this but we can also use empirical experiments.

In the short run you may see numbers that defy what we know the actual probabilities to be but the more trials we run, the closer the numbers will come to the actual probabilities. This particular example is the foundation of the casino industry. The static nature of these laws are what cause casinos to consistently thrive over the long run with only a slight edge in the numbers. To say that we can’t know anything through repeated testing is entirely un-provable because it is so obviously false.

Therefore, performing repeated experiments is self-evidently pointless from a logical point of view, since you can have no idea whether this is helpful or not.

These calculations are extremely helpful. Being able to “know” and “measure” things is incredibly important. When an airplane takes off the pilot needs to take note of the starting altitude, the temperature, and the wind velocity in order to set his speed appropriately. If there was no way to accurately measure the environment then the pilot would have no way to know how much speed and distance he will need in order to get his airplane airborne. I would suppose that if we were to rely on god for these calculations that we would see a sharp decrease in airplane safety. I am thankful that our country is not that fanatical yet!

After all, it's not reasonable for you to ignore results which are outside your arbitrary margin of error if you don't presuppose that your results will be consistent in the first place.

Yes I agree, but you are assuming that scientist do this. If you know a scientist that is doing this then he is not following the scientific method and his research would be considered invalid.

For example, why do you assume that only one of the results can be correct? Why do you not instead assume that, at that one particular point in time, the experiment yielded a different result, making the whole question of probability moot?

I don’t assume that at all. As a matter of fact I have conceded that the reason why our knowledge does not stay consistent is because the variables consistently change. Water boils and freezes at different temperatures depending on your current elevation. If we know several of these measurements then we can come up with a formula that will allow us to figure out these access points at any given elevation without actually going there. We are also able to use measurements from the past and present to predict (and rather reasonably well) events that will occur in the future. Some examples of this are solar and lunar eclipses as well as the appearance of comets.

You assume that the future will resemble the past, and that an experiment conducted in one location will yield the same result when conducted in another.

Uniformity is only a baseline that is assumed in an environment where all variables are controlled. Your statement here is false.

I have shown that scientific theories do not describe reality as it actually is, and never can; that they are not actually empirical at all; and that they are founded upon assumptions which are rationally unjustified. Attempts to justify them result only in circular reasoning and other logical fallacies. The form of reasoning in the scientific method itself can be essentially represented as follows:


This object is spherical.
Billiard balls are spherical.
Therefore, this object is a billiard ball.

This is a perfect example of faulty logic. You have applied it here to the scientific process even though science would not derive this result. Once again you have committed the strawman fallacy. Many objects are spherical. This seems like a feeble attempt to make a philosophical point. Unfortunately your premise has completely fallen short of acceptable.

Thus, since the assumptions underlying all scientific reasoning are logically fallacious, it follows that all scientific theories are logically fallacious also.

I do not know how to say this without sounding like I am being mean, but I need to call into question your education regarding science and it’s methodology. You seem on the surface to be reasonably intelligent yet some of your beliefs are wholly rooted in superstition and faith. Intelligent people that believe in gods and fairy tales tend to do so because they are very good at coming up with intelligent explanations to explain away the obvious contradictions in their worldview.

If you would like to take the stance that we have no way of knowing anything except through god and that we must rely on god for everything, then I must insist that your actions follow your words. The next time you are sick you should rely solely on prayer to help you. Do not go to the hospital, do not buy medicine and while you’re at it you might as well drop that insurance plan. You need to do away with thermometers and clocks and any other “inconsistent and manmade” measuring device. You should not use automobiles or airplanes since their construction and daily operations rely solely on the calculations of the scientific method.

It is time for you to rely wholly on god and to cease to borrow from the world of science which you seem to abhor. If you are not willing to live this way then you really have no reason to continue. Religion was sufficient to quell the intuitive nature of humans before we had the means to discover the world for ourselves. Now it appears to be a relic that will fade as the world becomes more and more educated.

Incoherent ramblings

The following italicized comments are responses from Christians about Christopher Hitchens book "god is not great, how religion poisons everything." These were taken from the comment section at amazon dot com. They are very amusing! Enjoy!


couldn't even capitalized the "g" in God. You think by writing this garbage he's going to change thousands of years of religion. Sounds full of himself to me! Have fun in Hell!


This book is a sign of the times we're living in: THE LAST DAYS…………..Wisdom is seeing life and people and circumstances from God's perspective. This book sees everything from man's perspective. It glorifies man and his abilities instead of glorifying man's creative and HIS abilities. God exists and He reward those who diligently SEEK HIM! I'm giving this book 1 star, because it DOES show us that God's prophetic calendar is indeed "ticking away!"

How can people believe this guy. He's an unhappy, ANGRY, man, just like most athiests are. I might could listen to his arguments if they weren't all tainted with such contempt and anger. Be happy, then write the book!
I believe in God. Hitchins doesn't. That's fine with me. Sooner or later, we're all going to KNOW.

If folks would read the Bible then they'd see that God warns that Satan will also be in our temples. I feel sorry for those who can not accept the fact that God is real. It is a huge ego that leads so many in today's world to try to explain God away rather then accept Him. He does truly exist and those who are led to explain Him away will one day regret that effort. So be it.

God is found by those who want to find him. If you don't know whether or not God exists I dare you to sincerely pray this prayer: "God if you are real reveal yourself to me. If you do I will follow you". If you will not do that then God will leave you to yourself. I can only tell you that you will have made a very bad choice.

I challenge any skeptic to find a ten square mile spot on this planet where they can live their lives in peace and safety and decency, where womanhood is honored, where infancy and old age are revered, where they can educate their children, where the gospel of Jesus Christ has not gone first to prepare the way. If they can find such a place, then I would encourage them to emigrate thither and there proclaim their unbelief"

Note: ALL PAGANS WILL FIND THIS REVIEW UN-HELPFUL - I predict that less than 1 in 20 will consider themselves to be believers in the one and only TRUE God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. As the Bible states: ... a remnant shall be saved (Romans 9:27) !!! PRAISE THE LORD !!!!!

COMMON SENSE AND STREET SENSE DO NOT REQUIRE BOOKS TO LEARN. RELIGIOUS SENSE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE BIBLE, TORAH, KORAN, BOOK OF MORMON OR ANY OTHER BOOK. THOSE ARE ALL GUIDES TOWARDS THE FOUNDATION OF THEIR FAITHS AS WELL AS STRENGTHENING THE FAITH, CONVICTION AND DEVOTION OF THEIR MEMBERS. THE LIGHT OF CHRIST PROVIDED IN ALL MEN (AGAIN, WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IN HIM OR NOT)WAS CREATED AND GIVEN BY GOD TO ALL OF US. FACT OF THE MATTER IS...ALL PROCLAIMED ATHEISTS ARE OBVIOUSLY GOING TOGIVE THEIR STAMP OF APPROVAL ON THIS BOOK WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS LL THOSE WHO HAVE A SUPREME BEING, WHETHER GOD, ALLAH, BUDDHA OR ELVIS ..ARE ALL GOING TO GIVE WITH FEW EXCEPTION, POOR REVIEWS...SO IT DOESN'T TAKE THAT MUCH TO READ INTO THESE COMMENTS AT ALL..

May GOD have mercy on you for your wrong and evil thoughts, you will see one day when you are judged by GOD, please change!

How in the world can anyone think God is not great??? It is true, many get hung up on religion, but how can you look around this world and not see HIM? He created EVERYTHING! This man is a total wacko. I am truly offended by even the title of this book. PLEASE DO NOT READ OR BUY IT!!

I can't believe people get away with writing stuff like this in this country. Maybe in the USSR, but not America. I thought people got blacklisted for having opinions such as this. I guess I was wrong, our country needs a new Senator McCarthy. This guy promotes atheism, a dead give away that shows without a shadow of a doubt that he is a communist. Communists should not be allowed to have the same rights as people. This man should be blacklisted, and taken to prison, and possibly deported to Cuba or North Korea. It appears that even though the Soviet Union collapsed, they won the Cold War after all.

God is not the Problem, or the belief in him. The problem is people. This book is written by an angry person who knows nothing.

Don't waste your time with this book. People like Hitchens espouse that there is no God but have absolutely no grounds to prove it. The reason that they don't believe is because they don't want to believe so they can disengage their conscience from behavior. There is absolute truth b/c if there wasn't, truth could not be truth.

Athiests think they are the most "open minded" of men, and that those who have any faith are old fashioned and close minded. They fail to see that they are the close minded ones, not accepting what the overwhelming majority of humans have believed for the many thousand years they have been around. Athiests go against human nature. They are like anorexics, who refuse to take part in what would keep them alive.

I has not gone unnoticed that Mr Hitchens is called by the name of God, and
his title for this newest "cleverness" is rightly missing a capital G. The Spirit will eventually catch him unawares. When that happens, I will gladly read a future (humbly) written volume by him. The new enlightenment hasn't reached him yet, he's still working off the old one.

How ironic that this man's name means "bearer if Christ!" But it is appropriate. I believe that the end result of his attempts to discredit Christianity will be that more people will become Christians. Reading through the book, you get the impression that he hasn't the faintest idea what Christianity is. It would be like me writing a detailed account of a trip to Mars. He's just completely out of his element.

Keep slamming down that single malt ol' man. These alcohol inspired rantings must make sense to you at least. This book is sure to find its way to Wal-Mart's dollar bin.

On proof and doubt (aka The "God" debate)

A quick update on the timeline of this debate.


1. I tell Frank Walton that I could beat him at a debate so he challenges me

2. Frank is not capable of setting up a moderated forum for the debate and forfeits.

3. So that the effort is not wasted I post my opening statement for the debate as a blog and offer to answer any questions.

4. A user named Bnonn, from New Zealand offers to pick up where Frank left off. I accept and his rebuttal is posted on his blog.

5. I respond to Bnonn’s post

6. Bnonn responds back.

Below the conversation is continued. I have tried my best to shorten this up a bit. My voice is in bold print. Enjoy!




First and foremost I would like to thank you for your last reply. It has much less in the way of name calling and ad hominem attacks. I feel that we are better situated to move down the road towards an intelligent discourse now. I also want to thank you as I feel that this is the first time that I have actually debated a topic with someone in this online forum who has shown some degree of intelligence. It is rather refreshing. I am going to try my best to shorten this response a bit but given the amount of information that we seem to be dealing with here I think that it may be a challenge.

Your first point is as follows

then what of the over 100 million people killed by secularist regimes and ideologies in just the last century……more people in the 20th century were killed by secularist regimes, led by secularist intellectuals in the name of secularist ideologies, than in all the religious persecutions in Western history.

Because I have already dealt with this issues at length in my post entitled Now introducing “Ms. Information!” I will not go into it in great detail again here. I will say that there is a vast difference between the motivations of the evil secularist groups and the Christian groups that carry out these atrocities. Most Christian atrocities in our history have been carried out in the name of Christianity. The idea has been to further their religion by any means necessary. While there are many secularist regimes that have carried out evil atrocities they generally do not do so in the name of furthering any ideology other than their own personal quest for power. With that being said claiming that these secularist committed such atrocities because of atheism is similar to saying that they all did so because they wore hats.

Many times in these “secularist” led evil moments in history, religions tend to lend a hand regardless. This is often overlooked for obvious reasons. Here is a quote from the above mentioned link that may shed some light on what I am trying to say.

“Stalin of course was a known atheist but this particular instance was not a religious issue for him. It was a political one. What comes as more interesting though is that Stalin was working in tandem with the Jesuit’s also known as the” soldiers of Christ” who were actually the driving force behind convincing Stalin to use his army to “Liquidate their rival religion” of the Lutheran order!”

What does this prove about the truth of any ideology, religious or not?

Well if you are willing to concede that at least some of these atrocities were carried out in the name of religion then you would also have to concede that it said something about its ideologies. If Christianity's teachings were clear that violence and killing were wrong then these atrocities could in no way be attributed to the faith. The fact is that the Bible in many instances condones similar acts of violence as a means to further god’s word.

"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:16-18

In order to get from the proposition The Bible approves wars and atrocities to the proposition The Bible is therefore false, some kind of second premise is required.

Well I suppose that my second premise would have to be that if the god of the Bible is real and did allow these atrocities then he is not worthy of being served. This would directly contradict the Biblical claim that god is worthy of being served. If the Bible is the perfect, divine, inspired word of god, then it cannot contain even one contradiction.

However: if we accepted an empirical standard for the sake of argument, you nonetheless still failed to engage with what empirical evidence there is

Once again in regards to the particular topic that you are referring to, I did provide empirical evidence. I restated that evidence in my last post. If you consider that evidence invalid then that is one thing, but if you are simply ignoring it then we are not on track to have a constructive conversation.

In fairness, the thrust of my comment was, as per above, that you were being inconsistent.

If that is what you meant then this is actually the fallacy that you committed.

Angels, I never suggested that you had assumed the premise that God does not exist.

No? Then please explain the following statement taken from your initial response.

“Firstly, it amazes me that you would enter into a debate on the existence of God, but start it by assuming your own conclusion. The very question at hand is as to whether there is any proof for the existence of God! Are you not concerned that, by taking such a simplistic and childish approach to the topic, you will be exposed as a fool when your opponent offers some proofs for God's existence?”

Or this one.

“If you wish to assert that your claim, that God does not exist, is reasonable, and that the Christian's claim is unreasonable, then you must actually demonstrate this instead of just assuming it without proof.”

Moving on

You are being asked to disprove the existence of something that has absolutely no proof for its existence in the first place." I objected to this statement on the basis that we have not established that no such proof exists—and that, by assuming this, you have effectively closed your mind to the affirmative position, making the debate moot (excuse the pun). As I will show, there is a positive abundance of proof for the existence of God.

Yet these proofs have still not been presented.

Could I ask that you clarify your position regarding what burden of proof the atheist carries, and why?

I suppose that an atheist would have as difficult of a time answering this questions as a Christian would. Let me remind you though that I am not an atheist. (I am agnostic) Again, I do not feel that there is proof to support either side. If there was, then it would be unlikely that there would even be an existing debate on the topic.

With that being said, the atheist is not the one making a positive claim. This is the beauty of the scientific method, (which I fully endorse) if a positive claim is made, then there must be evidence to back it up. I do not want to speak for atheist (perhaps my wife would be better suited to answer this question as she is an atheist) but I believe that it is as absurd to require that they have to prove whether god is real or not. There is an equal amount of evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian god as there is for Isis, Thor, Zeus, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Allah, and batman. Yet we are not asking atheist to prove all of those things to be untrue. If you seriously wanted someone to take an argument for the existence of god seriously then you would need to start in the same way as you would with any other positive argument. That is by presenting evidence.

Nonetheless, your request for scientifically verifiable miracles does not make sense, either within your own worldview, or within mine. In my worldview, I contend that God upholds all things by the word of his power (Heb 1:3) and that in him we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28). Therefore, whenever someone is healed, whether by an apparently normal means or not, God is working.

Let me get this straight. You are claiming that even if someone was healed through the work of a doctor or through man made medicine, that it would be considered to be a miracle because it is ordained by god. This assertion assumes, without proof, that god is real. Furthermore if I were to accept this as true in addition to the firsthand account of Biblical authors we would still be left with a dilemma. Why did a steadfast and never changing god all of the sudden cease to bless us with extraordinary healings that don’t involve the interference of man? Why can’t we test someone with cancer to make sure their disease is real and then send them to a faith healer and test them again to see that they are healed? Why does god not want us to have evidence of his extraordinary works?

Then, within your own worldview, if a healing occurred which appeared to be exceptional in some way—that is, if there was no explanation for it according to our current understanding of science—you would surely not recognize it as a miracle per se.

Un-true, the very definition of a miracle would force us to accept it as such if it were not scientifically verifiable.

You would deny that it necessarily proves anything supernatural

Actually it would completely change my view. Do you have evidence to present?

Since your worldview assumes from the outset that everything operates according to mechanical, natural laws, with no God involved (correct me if I am wrong), you have a priori precluded the possibility of miracles, and so anything which the Christian might claim as a miracle would be dismissed as a phenomenon which merely requires further study.

You are wrong. My world view allows for the possibility that there could be a god, and so things could be explained in such a manner as to be attributed solely to him. I have not precluded the possibility of miracles, but rather have asked for you to show me an example of a miracle so that I can examine it for myself. It would seem that this whole course of discussion has simply been a way for you to avoid producing proof by substituting what you believe I will accept as a "plausible explanation."

In textual criticism, it is normal to treat an historical record as accurate until evidence arises which suggests otherwise…………………..Many archaeologists, for example, were skeptical of the existence of cities like Bethel and Dan, even considering them to be myths, until these places were discovered and excavated.

While I think that it would be agreeable that many of the cities mentioned in the Bible have been verified to be real cities what was in protest was lack of evidence for many of the events that the Bible says to have happened. It is reasonable to think that if someone created a story, that they could tell it as if it happened in a city they lived in or knew of. For instance Italy is written about extensively in Dan Brown’s “The Davinci Code.” We could certainly use his book as proof that the city existed but we would not suddenly consider his story to be true just because he got a few facts about the local area correct.

But is it even likely that a proud dynasty, whose ruler was supposed to be a god, would meticulously record a crushing defeat such as that under discussion? It is perhaps more probable that the next Pharaoh would declare the whole event be stricken from history.

Even so, there would be an immense amount of archeological evidence to back up at least some of the claims. For the amount of time that the Jewish people were in captivity on Egyptian soil you would expect remnants of their culture to be left behind. Do you mean to tell me that in addition to striking the defeat from the records that Pharaoh went around and made sure that every remaining artifact on Egyptian soil and in the dessert were completely destroyed? Maybe you mean to say that god took care of that evidence.

How about evidence of an entire Egyptian army swallowed up into the Red Sea. How was that cleaned up? Christians claim the Holy Bible to be the perfect inerrant word of god. If it is found to have one mistake or contradiction (which it has many of) then it can no longer claim to be as such. The Bible may be a mediocre and biased historical record at best but as the “word of god” it fails miserably.

As regards the accuracy of the New Testament, and its canon, you evidence similar prejudice. The original manuscripts of the New Testament were completed probably no later than 100 AD (not around 233 AD as you claim)

I submitted evidence for my date, please submit evidence for yours.

Furthermore, oral tradition need not be prone to error in the way we tend to assume. A little research into cultures in which oral tradition is maintained will reveal that it is remarkably accurate across vast periods of time—certainly one generation would not be a problem

This cannot be a serious claim. Tell me one other scenario where oral records are considered to be accurate. Even today the incredible inaccuracy of oral records can be shown to have little or no value. People tend to expand and elaborate on stories as they get passed. Could you imagine going to court for a speeding ticket and someone showing up to testify against you that was a friend of a friend of a friend of the police officer who issued the ticket. Would you consider it fair? Well the court wouldn’t. The court would demand the officer’s eyewitness account of the events. Is it too much to ask that I demand the same thing?

The gospels were all written by eye-witnesses, and barring an existing prejudice there is simply no reason to doubt them as historical records

This has already been said better than I can say it.

“Quite a few collections of stories about Jesus circulated in the early church, among them The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, and the Secret Book of John. Some of these gave very different and in some cases conflicting accounts of the gospel and, most importantly, of Jesus' alleged resurrection. Some argued for the physical resurrection, with the mantle of leadership falling on those who had experienced it firsthand: the apostles. Others said the resurrection was a spiritual event that anyone could experience. Some thought this latter "heresy" would have led the church away from an organized entity into a situation where anyone could judge the truth for themselves. As Elaine Pagels points out in The Gnostic Gospel, this was no trivial matter. The decision on which interpretation was "correct" was central to the future of the church.……….. For now we'll just say that Iraneus, the bishop of Lyons in 180 AD, decided that the validity of any work had to be judged by whether it was "apostolic." That is, it should have been written by or for one of the twelve apostles. But, as Pagels goes on to say, regardless of whether the names given to the Gospels are those of the actual authors or merely reflect a claim to apostolic authority, "we know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the Gospels."Cite

I would ask that you not cite examples taken from the Skeptics' Annotated Bible, since it does not list discrepancies which are born out of genuine textual criticism, but transparently seeks to compile every possible example of passages which an ignorant and credulous reader might take, at face value, to be in variance (therefore violating the "benefit of the doubt" principle I mentioned before).

If we cannot take the scriptures at face value then how are we supposed to take them? Very well then, I will select two contradictions for you to explain to me.

Just to be fair let’s start with some easy ones.

1. Is God all powerful?

Yes
Is anything too hard for the LORD? Genesis 18:14
Then Job answered the LORD, and said, I know that thou canst do everything Job 42:1-2
Ah Lord God! ... there is nothing too hard for thee. Jeremiah 32:17
Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard for the Lord? Jeremiah 32:27
With God all things are possible. Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27
The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. Luke 18:27

No
And the Lord was with Judah; and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. Judges 1:19
And he could there do no mighty work. Mark 6:5
It was impossible for God to lie. Hebrews 6:18

2. Is the Devil free to roam and tempt us?

No
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. 2 Peter 2:4
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day Jude 6

Yes
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour. 1 Peter 5:8

I'm not interested in a dialog regarding the actual science of the Flood, per se—rather, I am going to simply use the science as a means to interact with the philosophy; the ideas and assumptions which must be true for the science itself to be cogent……………….This entire calculation is predicated upon the assumption that Mount Everest existed in its present form when the Flood began. This assumption, however, is clearly at variance with the biblical worldview, since most Christian scientists believe that the large proportion of tectonic activity which the earth has experienced occurred during, and possibly shortly after, the Flood itself. The objection assumes a "stable state" earth onto which the Flood abruptly poured, ignoring that the Bible teaches that the earth is only perhaps 7-8,000 years old.

O.k. then, let’s assume that the earth is only 7-8000 years old. In that amount of time what do you think is the largest possible growth that a mountain could have risen up to. Let’s say that Mt Everest was half the size it is now back in 7000 B.C. or whenever you want to assume that the great flood happened. If this was the case then we still need approximately 180 inches of rain per hour to fall from the sky for 40 days straight in order for it to cover the whole earth with water. Could you imagine this intense downpour and the damage it would have even on a boat. The water pressure alone would tear a wooden boat apart. This is not even taking into account the potential for water evaporation.

“The Flood could not have covered the whole world, it could not have laid down every sedimentary rock bed, and Noah could not have rescued every living species. The rocks put the lie to all that.”Cite

In other words, the history of science is all about being wrong. The principle of falsafiability itself is an open admission that a theory cannot be scientific unless it can be proved wrong.

Actually when something can be “proven” wrong it is no longer considered to be scientific. In order for something to be scientific it must be repeatedly testable and proven consistent over many trials.

what benefit do you see to the testing and re-testing in science, which you defend? You have implied that it is important, and that it makes science superior, but you have not stated why. What is the purpose of repeating an experiment, and why do you believe it is valuable?

This is not a serious question is it? If we can prove that something happens again and again over multiple trials then we can make strong assumptions about the possibility that it will continue to happen under those same circumstances.

For example, let’s say I have an electrical current flowing to a light bulb connected to a switch. When I turn on the switch the light comes on. I try again, and it comes on again. I have now tested the theory that the light will come on and can assume that it will continue to do so unless one of the variables changes.

Let’s look at the same experiment through the eyes of a divine creator. “God has commanded that the light bulb turns on when I flick the switch. It comes on because god has willed it so. If it ceases to come on then it is because god has ordained it not to. Allowing for multiple trials grants us the knowledge to know and manipulate our environment.

Attributing causes to a creator that may or may not be there leaves us rather helpless when things go wrong because we assume that they were meant to be. If this assumption is made then we are likely to sit complacently and let life wash over us like a wave. This type of mentality is very dangerous.

A response to a response

Bnonn posted a refutation of my opening statement for the debate about the existence of god. My response to him is in the bold print


you then proceed to introduce your topic by making an introspective and obviously passive-aggressive commentary regarding the history and motivation of religion, without citing any kind of empirical evidence for your various claims-.

First and foremost please keep in mind that the original rules for my opening were to keep it under 1500 words. I would have loved to go into more detail. With that being said you claim that I did not provide any empirical evidence for any of my claims regarding history and the motivation of religion. I think that it is obvious that you did not click on the links that I provided in the document itself.

The first link under “horrible actions” list the many victims of the Christian faith. It covers the persecution of pagans including the destruction of pagan temples and the death of anyone worshipping any other god’s than the Christian one. It moves on to the Crusades to which the timeline and death toll are horrifying. Then it moves on to the murders of “heretics” and “witches.” Then it starts into the long history of religious wars and Christianities involvement in the persecution of the Jewish people as well as native peoples. Then there are some stories regarding the Nazi extermination camps specifically for children that were run by Catholic priest. There is even a video that was posted on YouTube.com and on Frank Walton’s page that asked atheist why Christians should even let atheist live. The Christian Bible certainly supports this kind of behavior.

Your little dissertation sounds rather like a conspiracy theory, starting with an obvious falsehood ("the arguments for God are typically from emotion and introspection"), moving directly into implicit and unjustified premises (that arguments for God should be empirical in nature; and that empirical arguments are sound), and then proceeding on to provide a speculative, unsubstantiated, and frankly bizarre explanation of the topic at hand.

You chastise me here for saying that evidence for god should be empirical and that empirical evidence is sound. You say that this premise is unjustified. In the previous quote you chastise me for not citing any empirical evidence. You do realize that you can’t have it both ways. If you are going to say that empirical arguments are not sound then you cannot attack me for not having one.

You don't lend yourself any credibility by being a hypocrite.

You seem to have a working knowledge of logical fallacies. The particular one you have used here is called Poisoning the well

Firstly, it amazes me that you would enter into a debate on the existence of God, but start it by assuming your own conclusion. The very question at hand is as to whether there is any proof for the existence of God! Are you not concerned that, by taking such a simplistic and childish approach to the topic, you will be exposed as a fool when your opponent offers some proofs for God's existence?

There is nothing in any statements that I have made that assume that god does not exist. If nothing else I think I have been pretty clear about my position. My position is that no one can know. There are more than two answers to “does god exist.” Mine is that there is no way to know and that I have not yet seen evidence to suggest that he does. I am not worried about being exposed as a fool either. This would be the best thing that could happen. If I were to assume that god wasn’t real and the an opponent were to offer me proof of his existence then I would accept god and his teachings, thus being “saved” and I would go to heaven. If god is real then I hope someone can prove me to be a fool. Your third sentence contains a fallacy called the personal attack

Secondly, what relationship does the alleged lack of proofs for God's existence have with the possibility of proofs for his non-existence? To offer an empirical analogy, there is no proof that light has mass; yet there is plenty of proof that it does not.

Yes, that was the point of my whole article. No proof either way. I never claimed that there were proofs for the non-existence of god either. I claimed that there was no method of knowing for sure on either side.

Accepting this for now (though it is not a law of logic, but rather a convention of debate), how do you know that it is the Christian who is making the fantastic or outrageous claim, and not yourself? It is my contention that atheism is a claim so fantastic and outrageous that the Christian need not offer any proof for his position; but rather, he need simply destroy the atheistic worldview and leave the biblical one standing in its place, to be assumed by merit of its obvious truth.

Here you are committing the false dilemma fallacy. You are saying that for your viewpoint to be true all you have to do is destroy the atheistic worldview. I did say that the Christian claim is fantastic and outrageous but I never claimed that the atheistic view was not. To put those words in my mouth makes you guilty of the strawman fallacy. This is where you ignore my position and substitute a misrepresented position for me. It is usually a very effective fallacy because people tend to take you at your word and not actually research the source materials for themselves.

If you wish to assert that your claim, that God does not exist, is reasonable, and that the Christian's claim is unreasonable, then you must actually demonstrate this instead of just assuming it without proof. Since you have already accepted a formal debate on the topic, you have implicitly acknowledged in so doing that both positions require equal scrutiny.

Again, I never asserted that god does not exist. In formal debate the burden of proof is often placed on one side or the other. In this case we are saying that it relies on the side of the ones making the outrageous claims. Some outrageous claims that Christians make are as follows

1. God will heal the sick

2. God can cure cancer

3. God will take care of you in your time of need

4. God answers prayer

5. God can raise people from the dead

Yet despite these claims we have absolutely no evidence that god has accomplished any of these objectives. With the introduction of the scientific method it appears that these miraculous occurrences have somewhat become a thing of the past. If I am wrong, then I am excited to hear you empirical evidence where any of the above 5 assertions have been witnessed in a scientifically verifiable environment.

The various assertions you've made so far seem basically to undermine the entire formal debate process. This leads me to the suspicion that you are simply unequipped from an intellectual and/or argumentative point of view to actually engage anyone in such a debate.

Two whole sentences of the personal attack fallacy

What is circular about citing historical records in support of a premise? Is it circular reasoning to cite Plato's Apology in support of the existence of Socrates? Certainly, our single extant copy of that work, separated in origin from the events it describes by over half a century, is far less reliable than the hundreds of accurate biblical records we have, which are further corroborated by secular records and archeology. You are assuming the consequent again; your reasoning essentially is: God does not exist; the Bible attests to God's existence; therefore the Bible is not an accurate record.

Strawman again? I never asserted that god does not exist. I do not state that the Bible is not a valid historical record because I assume that god doesn’t exist. I state that it is not a valid historical record because of the overwhelming amount of evidence against it. Here are a few examples for you.

1. We have an extensive knowledge of Egyptian history yet there is no archeological or documented evidence of Jewish slaves, the seven plagues, an entire Egyptian army that was swallowed up by the Red Sea or thousands of slaves wandering in the dessert for 40 years. You would think that we would be able to find something to support the claims made in the book of Exodus. Cite

2. The stories of the life of Jesus were passed on for a long time through an oral tradition. There was not a huge desire to write them down since they believed that the end of the world was coming soon. There were many different accounts of the life of Jesus and a massive game of “telephone” began. While the original authors of the gospels cannot be verified what can be verified is that they were written between 30-200 years after the death of Jesus. Some of the gospels disagree with each other on various events and offer us many contradictions to attempt to resolve. The books that would eventually become the New Testament were decided by a popular vote of bishops at the Synod of Hippo in 393 A.D. In this vote many books were left out that the church felt would be confusing including a testament supposedly written by the prostitute Mary Magdalene and a testament of Peter that claimed that non-believers that died and went to hell would have a second chance to repent and reap the rewards of heaven.

Typically when the creation of a document is flawed and the data in the document contradicts itself we tend to think that the document does not have any value.

But again, this is the very question at hand, and if the Bible is an accurate record, then it does constitute empirical evidence for God's existence.

So then you agree that if the Bible is a contradictory and flawed document then it does not constitute empirical evidence for god’s existence right?

The precise nature of that evidence should probably be debated, but to simply dismiss it reveals a strong prejudicial assumption which is completely contrary to the intent of the debate. If you are going to refuse the Bible as an empirical proof, then you must explain why. Since its accuracy can be established extremely strongly, I would suggest that you will have to appeal to historical skepticism, which makes any historical proof impossible—but that could have unfortunate consequences for your position as well, as I will mention below.

Well I have not dismissed it. Here is an entire list of Biblical contradictions for you to browse through.

Firstly, let us be done with the "what Christians are trying to present to us" line, and stick carefully to what the Bible presents about God.

But wait, aren't you a Christian trying to present to me what the Bible says about god? Click the above link and explain the countless inconsistencies then.

Many people claim to be Christians but have utterly no idea who God is. So, secondly, can you please explain the inconsistency you perceive between God's actions toward man, recorded in Scripture, and God's character, also recorded in Scripture? God is certainly loving and forgiving, but he is also holy and righteous, just and jealous, and wrathful toward sin. Your argument appears to hinge upon a misrepresentation (or at least a misunderstanding) of God's character. A correct understanding of both theology proper, and anthropology, will reveal no inconsistency whatsoever.

This is a claim without proof. You are assuming it to be true. This is commonly referred to as the composition fallacy.

Rather than engage in an extensive detour so as to educate you to the point where you are competent to engage in a debate which you have already accepted, I would direct you toward a series I have written titled 'On Strawmen', which should adequately correct your misconceptions about biblical teaching.

Questioning my competence in place of attacking my arguments is again, the personal attack fallacy.

This is a large area of study, and one in which you are apparently ignorant if you are seeking to use it in defense of the secular position

Personal attack again.

The existence of flood myths in various cultures constitutes a compelling proof for the actual occurrence of the flood described in Genesis. You are presupposing that all these myths are simply invented, which is clearly a far more extraordinary claim than to suppose they all have a common basis in fact.

There are floods all over the world and for people that are not aware of the size of the world; it is understandable how they would think that if their little portion of the globe flooded then it must be the entire world flooding. The idea of a global flood is not only unachievable through any sort of natural method but also is archeologically falsifiable.

“Mount Everest is the highest mountain "under the whole heaven." It reaches an altitude of 29,028 feet, which would be a height of 348,336 inches. For enough rain to fall in a period of 40 days to reach the peak of this mountain, the cloud formations would have to drop 8,708 inches of rain per day uniformly over all the earth. This would amount to 363 inches per hour or six inches per minute. Can any reasonable person believe that it once rained continuously for 40 days and nights at an average rate of six inches per minute? A rainfall of six inches in one day is a veritable downpour. What would six inches per minute sustained for 57,600 continuous minutes be like?” Cite

If you want to keep going with this we can discuss the improbability of the ark being able to house two of every animal and the possibility to Noah being able to redistribute all of the animals to their appropriate regions after the flood.

You seem to think that Christians are always of subpar intelligence. Yet, I have shown so far that your opening statement is replete with logical fallacies, errors, and unjustified assertions, and virtually devoid of any genuine logical reasoning whatsoever.

Strawman again! I never said that Christians were of subpar intelligence. I said that religion gives people with subpar intelligence the motivation to keep living, working and producing for their societies. How did you interpret this to mean that Christians all have subpar intelligence? Are all religious people Christians? I would ask that you read through my document again without bias so that you can truly understand what is being said. You yourself have already made the distinction in your response here of the difference between god’s word and those that represent him. This is a similar differentiation.

So, at best, you would appear to be on the same level as you allege for these Christians. That said, this is an obvious example of argumentum ad hominem, and, even if true, proves nothing whatsoever about the truth of Christianity. Certainly there are some stupid Christians (at least by your measure of stupidity); yet equally you will be forced to acknowledge that there are many stupid atheists (yourself included, as I have shown).

OK here is an example of Ad Hominem.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

Where did I attack you then say that you claim was false?

Oh, and yes there are many stupid atheist and many intelligent Christians. As a matter of fact one of the most intelligent people I have ever known is a Christian. Please point out where I said that all Christians were stupid.
By the way, your last sentence is a great example of Ad Hominem.

However, given the abundance of believers in the high ranks of academia, past and present, it is simply absurd to claim that Christianity is applicable to only those of subpar intelligence. I would offer that John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Gordon Clark, or Vincent Cheung are not the sorts of people anyone could call stupid without being mocked.

Wow I wouldn’t be using people like John Calvin to further your arguments for good upstanding Christians. I admit in advance that this is Ad Hominem but it is worth noting.

“Calvin believed that execution of dissenters was important not simply because it rid the world of heretics but also the public staging of it will send fear into the hearts of would-be apostates. Thus when a prominent citizen of Geneva, Jacques Gruet, complained about Calvin's increasing control over the affairs of the city, Calvin had Gruet executed by being burned alive. Sometimes he would give dissenters a choice between death or repudiating their works by making these heretics personally burn their books themselves.” Cite

Further, how do you know that Christianity has some "vague moral values", and that "the idea that God is necessary for moral behavior is not necessarily true"?

Because people that have never heard of God have similar moral codes.

What moral standard are you using to make such an allegation? What proof do you have that moral behavior was "developed through a meme as a means of survival"? You are again begging the question, thus basing your argument upon the very conclusion you are trying to prove. This would appear to be a very embarrassing thing for you to be doing, considering the way in which you lambast Josh McDowell for that exact fallacy (worse, in fact, since it is far from clear that McDowell actually commits that fallacy in the way you claim!)

The meme theory is just a theory. I never claimed it to be true, just one possible explanation. I do not think that you are in any position to attack me for using logical fallacies though. As a matter of fact the only concrete claim that I am making is that we do not know anything for certain. If you are right submit your proof.

Firstly, in order to draw the conclusion that this shows that moral behavior evolved, one would first have to assume evolutionary theory—at which point, you're effectively begging the question. It could, of course, equally be the case that the causality goes the other way: that is, that killing, raping, stealing and so on are evil because God has given human life a certain value, and these things are destructive to life.

First I am not begging the question because I have made no conclusions. Second you are begging the question by assuming that god has given human life a certain value. Let me show you.

1. God has given human life value

2 Because human life has value killing, raping and stealing are destructive to life.

X Assumption that god exist Cite


Secondly, neither your own view of morality, nor the biblical one (and they are quite different) comports with evolutionary theory in any case. For example, in your case, from an evolutionary point of view survival of the group is the ultimate good, and there is no means which is not acceptable to this end.

Not True. You are assuming that there is an ultimate good. Evolution does not assume an ultimate good. Evolution has no course and no purpose. Life adapts to an ever changing environment. I actually never understood why Christians didn’t embrace this. If god was going to create an ever changing world, then why wouldn't he create creatures that adapted continuously to an ever changing environment?

Therefore, there is no reason for individuals to not suffer, or for other groups to not be entirely destroyed, if it furthers this end. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, an evolutionist can certainly not criticize Stalin or Hitler (or war in general), since they were simply working to achieve the end of the survival of their groups, at the expense of others. Evolutionary theory, in fact, makes the concept of morality quite unintelligible, and one of the approaches I would take in refuting your worldview would be in showing this at more length.

Strawman, I never stated that my position was survival of groups “AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS.” Again you have misrepresented my position. I also never claimed to agree with evolutionary theory 100%. I didn’t even address it. I just offered one tidbit as a plausible explanation. One thing that you seem to be confused about is that evolutionary theory does not deal with morality. It is simply a theory on the progression of life.

The biblical view of morality also does not comport with evolutionary theory; or, more precisely, it comports far better with a state of affairs where God actually exists. Consider, for example, the first three of the Ten Commandments: to have no other God, to make no idols, and to not take the name of God in vain. These are the first of the commandments—what survival advantage do they convey? The only possible answer I can see is if you suppose that it is to encourage the cohesion of the group under a single religion. But if this is the case, then you have no basis to criticize this system of morality (yet atheists frequently do).

The first three commandments have nothing to do with the cohesion of a group. You are assuming in your argument that god is real and you haven’t even taken steps to offer proof. Let’s pretend that the preceding were performed by a group of people though. Of course they don’t have a survival advantage. This would actually be evidence that they were unnecessary. This is unless of course the people that committed these actions were suddenly struck down by god. Then, following these rules would have a distinct survival advantage. If uttering the word “god dammit” were going to get you struck down by god then it would be rare that you would hear someone say it. Have ever heard anyone say that word?

If it is an evolutionary system, then an evolutionist ought to approve the actions of the Israelites in destroying other cultures, and killing those of their own people who disobeyed the commandments. Strangely, few evolutionists take this position. This highlights an inconsistency that belies the real state of affairs, and puts you in a catch-22: either you should accept biblical morality, or you should come up with another theory about how morality works. Secular humanism asserts the equal rights and inherent value of all human beings—which is a decidedly un-evolutionary sort of moral assertion. It also relies on some kind of concept of "rights" and "value" which simply doesn't exist in a materialist, evolutionary worldview.

I think I need to use your own words to respond to this.

“to provide a speculative, unsubstantiated, and frankly bizarre explanation of the topic at hand.”

Please tell me what the Israelites killing other cultures and killing their own people has to do with anything that we have discussed here. If actually does then tell how you reconcile using this example given the inconstancies in the story itself?

But what does this prove? Your statement seems to suppose an implicit moral judgment, which is that science is superior to Christianity by reason of its ability to admit when it is wrong. But consider:Firstly, you are supposing that Christianity is wrong, and that it refuses to admit it. Again, this is really the very question at hand, so you are again question-begging.

Secondly, you are supposing that science's "flexibility" makes it a superior method of discovering truth. But the very basis for this supposed flexibility is the fact that, so far, it has always been wrong, and has had to revise its theories for this reason. In other words, you are claiming that a method which openly results in error, and which can never prove that it is right even if it is, is a superior knowledge-acquisition process to that of divine revelation, which is never wrong and never needs revision!

You have to be kidding me. There are so many errors in the Bible. I have listed several. Then you are going to say that the flexibility of science is a flaw. If I am wrong about something and I admit it, correct it and present the new right answer to the world, then you would take issue with me? Science is a way of knowing things by testing and re-testing. Do you understand the many things that you would be without in this day and age without the trial and error process? Electricity, telephone, the computer that you are typing this on. Seriously, do you think that god created all of those things?

What does the behavior of Jesus' followers have to do with the truth of his claims? I have personally met a lot of Christians, and most have been moderate, intelligent people with an enthusiasm for knowledge and reason—an enthusiasm informed by a proper understanding (albeit often an implicit one) of the underlying issues of epistemology, which are critical to any pursuit of these things. They are certainly not hateful (unless you mean they hate sin), un-accepting (except, again, of sin), and neither name-call nor engage in bigotry. They do not insist on everyone becoming a Christian.

This is an appeal to popularity. Although I will admit that my assertion was based on experience, I don’t believe that I ever stated that this was reminiscent of “all Christians.” Did you click on any of the links for examples though? You are quick to cast off those that claim Christianity but "embarrass" the faith, while claiming all of those close to you who you feel "embrace" it. Do you know the name of this fallacy?

Perhaps you are thinking of extreme Muslims. A Christian preaches the good news because he is commanded to in Scripture, and desires to see souls saved rather than damned in hell. But he does not insist on people becoming Christians, and indeed he knows that they cannot apart from God's sovereign work in their hearts.

So, not only have you misrepresented Christians, but you've engaged in another ad hominem attack. If this is the most powerful argument you can muster by way of closing, I don't hold out much hope for your further statements in this debate. That said, I understand that Frank is not planning to respond, since you have not chosen to pursue the debate on the terms he originally requested (ie, a formal and moderated forum).

As far as Frank is concerned, he only needed to ask for more time. I was not willing to be dragged along indefinitely by him especially after fielding well over 80 inflammatory comments. At first glance it appeared that your response was intelligent, collective and civil. I have witnessed nothing but name calling, empty assertions and strawman attacks. I am happy to continue this debate, but I suggest that you continue in a civil tone. If you feel that I have not been civil please point it out and I will do my best to accommodate in future conversations.

Christians should not be allowed to drive!

The thought occurred to me the other day that if we are to take Christians seriously then we have to take them at their word on all of the things that they claim to believe in. This got me thinking about the common Christian belief in “the rapture.”

For those that are not familiar with this notion, let me briefly explain. The Christians believe that when Jesus died and went to heaven that he promised he would come back again and take all of his followers up to heaven with him. This would happen while they were still alive and in their fleshly form here on the earth. The rapture will precede a time on earth called the “tribulation.” During the tribulation god’s wrath will be brought down on a defiant Earth. God will spare those that were loyal to him. Immediately before the tribulation occurs he will take his followers up to heaven in the rapture.

I know it is a very confusing fairy tale as there are some guest appearances by four men riding horses through the cities of the great nations (probably the U.S.) and killing the wicked that remain behind. (I hope those horse riders can withstand our advanced weapons technologies.) Then there will be a guest appearance by this guy called the “Anti-Christ” (Most likely played by Anthony Hopkins in the eventual made for T.V. movie version) who will cause some very serious shit to go down! Anyways it is all very serious and scary stuff that has allowed authors Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye to get filthy rich off of the naive Christians through their “Left Behind” fiction series.

I digress though. The point of my rant here is that if we are supposed to take Christians at their word then we must believe that they will one day just “poof” vanish into thin air. If this is the case then we should act now to make sure that anyone that claims to be a Christian is not allowed to have a drivers license, operate heavy machinery, fly a plane or serve in the military. I mean seriously, if they are going to just vanish one day, could you imagine the devastation and chaos of millions of vehicles and work post suddenly being unmanned? It is important that we begin to protect our safety right away by taking away the rights of Christians to be involved in anything in this world that could affect anyone else.

In all seriousness we should at least ban people from driving who have this bumper sticker on their car.