Heaven is a 'fairy story', says Stephen Hawking

"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."

-Thankyou Stephen. Now please explain to everybody how the institutionalization of this meme now threatens the world with total destruction.

It's a miracle he is still alive .. oh wait that would be a fairy tale :)

I don't have such an issue thinking that something had to start the process of the Universe .. when someone explains how something comes out of nothing, I will change my ways.

If matter can not be destroyed or created and needs a dimension to exist, Big Bang is only the moment after the beginning. What happened before that?

@ iknow... Apparently, you have no problem believing that a god can come out of nothing, and create an entire universe out of nothing.
What is it that you "know"?
And this "god" that is hiding in the nanoseconds before the big bang... I suppose it has revealed itself you mankind in the Bible???
Ya... right.

it seems more proper to view the whole living universe as a single entity and that all things in it are contributing/integral pieces. (See article on mathematical modelling of ecosystems and then, by extending that concept to an ever expanding group of sets and subsets, view it as a fractally constructed entity.)

Of course, by using that methodology, logic dictates that our living universe is itself, a cell in an even larger "entity".

And this "god" that is hiding in the nanoseconds before the big bang...

This is exactly it. Way back when whoever came up with the concept of a god, humanity had no explanation for any natural phenomenon. Science (if you can bare to call it that) consisted of "god did it."

Imagine knowledge as a spectrum. Early on "god" would have been an unbroken line filling the whole spectrum. A few thousand years ago a guy named Thales came up with the idea that the world is predictable and can be understood. He was the first person to believe that our spectrum of knowledge could be filled (even entirely) with something other than "god did it." We started to figure things out. We figured out the weather, probably the main impetus for the imagining of gods in the first place. Lightning is static electricity, not Zeus.

Gaps started to form in our knowledge that were not explained by a "god". Eventually these gaps became wider and eventually took up more of the spectrum than god itself. cont

God eventually became the "god of the gaps." Now I would say god is the "god of the gap" because it has been banished to all but the most fleeting moments of creation. It's general consensus that the Standard Model can extrapolate the evolution of the universe back to all but the first trillionth of a second or so.

So your god is relegated to the first fleeting moments of creation. Why do you feel the need to believe in God at all? Why is God any less silly than Zeus throwing lightning bolts? What if scientists can push it back even more, to the first attosecond? Would that be good enough? What if we could prove an oscillatory universe? Would that be good enough?

No it wouldn't. You believe in a god because you want to and for NO other reason. Don't pretend otherwise.

Stephen Hawking has now proven without a doubt that hate and atheism are closely intertwined analogously like space and time.

Frank Herbert - You are THE MAN. I especially love this quote:

"You believe in a god because you want to and for NO other reason. Don't pretend otherwise"

Isn't that what its all about. Some people are confortable with the unknown. I personally don't have any idea what will happen when I die. I "believe" that I will continue to exist in a way, or that my "soul" or life energy will change forms. The point is that NO ONE KNOWS! You must be able to accept that there are things that you are not able to understand. Most people fill those gaps with religion. Steven Hawking is just saying, quite simply, that belief in Heaven fills a gap of uncertainty for those who are afraid of the unknown. Have you ever noticed that the intelligence and religion are often seperate?

Without making a comment on theology, I believe that it is supreme arrogance to say that mankind knows so much about the cosmos that there is definitely not some kind of intelligent design involved. Who knows for certain if there is something beyond and can prove it? Nobody. Stating otherwise as proven fact is arrogance. It is all belief. Hawking believes differently than some others. Nothing wrong with that. But it is not science. It is belief.

Well, at least we already know it's going to be one of *those* threads.

Yeah, cuz Steven Hawking made on of *those* kind of comments, LOL

Again an atheist shows his ass.

And "they" have the f******g nerve to call religious people judgmental bigoted jerks....

Stick to physics Stephen, because you humanity needs a shitload of work bud.

Perhaps the universe itself and what we are pleased to call 'God' are one and the same. Which would mean that we are all bits of it.

"Arrogance" is christian dog-whistle code for blasphemy.

And "they" have the f******g nerve to call religious people judgmental bigoted jerks....

Some of your posts on this site have been among the most bigoted I've read on the entire internet and I frequent Free Republic due to a morbid sense of curiosity. You should seek help.

"Arrogance" is christian dog-whistle code for blasphemy.

No, arrogance is the Christian recognition of blatant hypocrisy.

I don't care what you believe, I care how you treat other people based solely on their beliefs. You and Stephen need some work there.

Some of your posts on this site have been among the most bigoted I've read on the entire internet and I frequent Free Republic due to a morbid sense of curiosity. You should seek help.

The truth often does hurt frankie. I know you should seek help based on the posts I've seen you make here.

Perhaps the universe itself and what we are pleased to call 'God' are one and the same. Which would mean that we are all bits of it.

As an atheist this idea (pantheism) appeals to me. Pantheism and "clock-maker" deism (I don't have a better term, "weak deism" maybe) are about as far into theism as I'm okay with.

And even then the clock maker hypothesis still runs into the problem that all gods run into: who created the creator? With a pantheist perception of reality I can see this not applying. A universe/god could just simply be I suppose, but if god and the universe are indistinguishable in practice the ideology is really no different from atheism except for that tiny kernel of theism at the center of the philosophy.

Whatever the Universe has in store for us, I am definitely confident in saying Christianity is bullshit. "Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb," to quote South Park. They were just talking about Mormonism though. I think it applies to the whole damned thing!

Exceptional claims require exceptional proof. This works both ways.

I am definitely confident in saying Christianity is bullshit.

LOL...nuff said.

Perhaps the universe itself and what we are pleased to call 'God' are one and the same. Which would mean that we are all bits of it.

What you are referring to is: Mother Nature Universe Theory (MNUT).

I cant help but notice that the Atheists are always calm and collected when discussing thier beliefs, while the more religious people are loud, angry and brutal.

I cant help but notice that the Atheists are always calm and collected when discussing thier beliefs, while the more religious people are loud, angry and brutal.

You from a planet called Earth? Blue one, round, third one from the sun?

You believe in a god because you want to and for NO other reason. Don't pretend otherwise.

Thus the reverse is also true, you do not believe, because you do not want to.

And even then the clock maker hypothesis still runs into the problem that all gods run into: who created the creator?

If this is a legitimate question, then you have less standing by not answering who created matter prior to the big bang.

But to answer your question, why should a true God, ever be subject to his own creation? This is the problem with the greek mythologies, the pantheisms, the atheisms. They fail because they expect a true God to be subject to man.

In which case you would be correct. However, the reality is that if God does exist, then he certainly could never have been created, much less subject to man's frail definition.

There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.

Perhaps that is why, Christ offers a new/restored body...

For a guy though, that spends most of his time talking about Black Holes and the lack of light...that's quite an ironic statement too :)

Hawking believes that gravity is responsible for the beginning of the universe. He doesnt explain what is responsible for the existence of gravity. Thats inconsistent.

There is no real evidence for things like the big bang and stellar evolution. No one ever observed these things. Its based on faith, just like believing in God is based on faith.

Contrary to the big bang, God was indeed observed when He manifested in the flesh as Jesus Christ, the image of the Father. The eye-witnesses of Jesus wrote the NT for us to know God intimately. The Holy Spirit is available through faith and the new birth in the Name of Jesus Christ.

Its not too late for prof Hawking. Famous atheist professor Anthony Flew changed his mind on atheism a few years ago. Based on the design and purpose in the universe and mankind, he concluded that there must be a God.

The Big Bang is supported by evidence. Christianity is not. Yellowdart, please get your facts straight.

Famous atheist professor Anthony Flew changed his mind on atheism a few years ago. Based on the design and purpose in the universe and mankind, he concluded that there must be a God.

And IIRC, he didn't convert to Christianity. Nice try though.

Believe what you want, just dont try to convince others, its annoying.

Believe what you want, just dont try to convince others, its annoying.

Ditto

I wouldn't go so far as to call myself an atheist. Such an absolute conviction to the absence of a god seems a bit...faithful.

I much prefer 'tooth fairy agnostic'. I cannot prove 100% that there is no tooth fairy, so I am agnostic about her existence.

And Dr hawking would know this how, exactly? For some, Science is God. We all want to believe in something greater than ourselves, but some are so into control that they want to make their own God.

The big bang is also contradicted by a lot of evidence, such as the horizon problem, lack of antimatter and missing monopoles. The rescue device is the application of yet more unverifiable artifacts such as inflation, dark matter or quantum gravity. That's blind faith.

Dr. Hawking cannot prove that heaven is a fairy tale, but then neither can religion prove it exists. Both science and theology require a leap of faith.

Religious people always try to trick you into an argument about the existence of 'god'.
And Hawkings only partly escapes that.
The point is that religion is an explained phenomenon.

J.

I agree with Steven.. In physics, or any exact science for that matter, there is no place for God. But that in itself doesn't mean there is no place for God in the Universe. After all, in many scientific fields we don't have a clue of what makes the Universe tick. There is a place for Aether, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and what have you. So why not God? Aristotle reasoned something like an 'Unmoved Mover' and from there in philosophy many things are possible, like many later philosophers have shown us. Even God. Many scientists don't have a problem with the concept of God. As long as this concept doesn't interfere with sciencentific proceedings.

A future society where technology and medicine will make everyone happy, healthy and wise, as long as we all be nice and get really good at science and technology. Sounds a bit like a kind of heaven, where we can all travel up into space above the clouds. I think all of the ancient civilisations realised understood progress and the future. Mummification and storing of organs etc. for reincarnation may be proof of this. But some kind of ancient numbskull fanatics have turned this potentially common sense way of thinking into a stupid fantasy which has screwed up peoples priorities for most of the last two thousand years rather than being focused on improvement of the real world.

Steven is spot on. Religion in all its forms is responsible for diminishing free will and not taking your destiny into your own hands. Same with astrology or clairvoyancing. The proof is in these pages, where seemingly well educated people clearly choose to ignore basic scientific principles of geology and paleantology and come up with a series of convoluted reasons that the entire universe, earth and all its living and dead species where created mere thousands of years ago instead of BILLIONS.....and in the space of a week......even the fossilised rock dino eggs.....

No Mahal Kita, Occams Razor makes it a necessity 'to remove God from the equation'. You cannot be a true scientist and believe at the same time, that's a contradiction.

J.

You cannot be a true scientist and believe at the same time, that's a contradiction.

sci·en·tist/sntist/
Noun: A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

Sorry, you're entitled to your OPINION, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Are you saying that Issac Newton wasn't a scientist? Did he do bad science because he "believed"?

Check your obvious agenda at the door next time...

No Mahal Kita, Occams Razor makes it a necessity 'to remove God from the equation'. You cannot be a true scientist and believe at the same time, that's a contradiction.

J.

sci·en·tist/sntist/
Noun: A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

Sorry your entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts or definitions. You're wrong...period.

It makes me wonder if Dr. Hawking thinks Issac Newton who also held the Lucasian Chair (and which he's fond of pointing out in interviews) was a bad scientist because he believed. Did Newton do bad science? Anyone? Bueller?

Modulus,

Science can try and improve the world, but at the end of your life you will still die. What will you do about that? If there is a heaven, will you be admitted based on your past decisions or are you going to be lost in the fires of hell forever?

By the way, those people that mummified bodies did that because they believed in an afterlife, as research of those cultures shows. Not because they watched a lot of Star Trek.

Sorry for the double post, didn't look like the initial one went through.

Fossils do not require billions of years. In fact fossils can ONLY form when they are rapidly buried, not gradually. Rapid burial happens in events like a mudslide or a flood. The most important flood in the history of the earh can be found in cultures all over the world, and is described accurately in the Bible (Noah)

Johannes414, go fuck yourself. This isn't the place for your scaremongering. If you want to threaten people with fire and brimstone have some children and torture them with your theology until they off themselves. Asshole.

Quoted by : Johannes414
"By the way, those people that mummified bodies did that because they believed in an afterlife, as research of those cultures shows. Not because they watched a lot of Star Trek."

How would you know what ancient peoples thought or believed?

If there is a heaven wouldn't it be cram packed full of milions of insects,dinosaurs,trilobites etc. which have all passed away in the last 3 billion years with no concept of wrong or right.

Please can you explain to me why a supernatural being that can create universes and life forms would design humans to have self conciousness and powerful decision making capabilities on a just to then damn them to eternal torture unless they willingly act like robots and follow instructions from a book.

If their is an afterlife I am sure every living thing no matter what ridiculous rituals they practiced in their life would all be welcome. In actual fact I am sure it would be more like 'Valhalla' than heaven.

I wonder how measuring rods and clocks would behave in heaven.

Hawking got that one right!

Fossils do not require billions of years.

You're right; hundreds of thousands, or millions, of years are sufficient.

The most important flood in the history of the earh can be found in cultures all over the world, and is described accurately in the Bible (Noah)

No. There are various flood stories, but they seem to be based on *locally* memorable floods. People tend to live near water, un-amazingly, so they tend to get affected by the water--including floods.

There has never been enough water on Earth to submerge the highest mountains (as claimed in Genesis); "the whole world flooded" should be read as "the whole *known* world flooded."

(from Wikipedia): The Black Sea deluge is a hypothesized catastrophic rise in the level of the Black Sea circa 5600 BC due to waters from the Mediterranean Sea breaching a sill in the Bosporus Strait. ... While it is agreed that the sequence of events described did occur, there is debate over the suddenness and magnitude of the event.

This is all conjecture. Facts differ from beliefs. The value 1 (there is one apple) differs from saying there is a red apple. The number 1 is fact as given, while the color red is limited to what is un/seen or conjecture.

To dismiss a religion, one must dismiss all religions; including atheism (its antithesis). The radicals in any belief system can become dangerous. To say, I dont know is a fact in most situations. I dont know while respecting other beliefs is a positive way of life (this is what I believe).

This is all conjecture. Facts differ from beliefs. The value 1 (there is one apple) differs from saying there is a red apple. The number 1 is a "given" fact while the red color is limited to what is un/seen or conjecture.

To dismiss a religion, one must dismiss all religions; including atheism (the antithesis of religion). A radical in any religion or atom can become dangerous. The acknowledgment "I dont know" is (in most cases) the truth.

Have you ever noticed that the intelligence and religion are often seperate?

Yah when one is there the other isn't, usually. Unless the religionist is an atheist marrano, for pragmatic or illicit purposes.

I don't care what you believe, I care how you treat other people based solely on their beliefs

But your indulgence in your soporific god-loving enables others with the same penchant to brutalize disbelievers in the most horrific of ways. You feel good about that?

We can't expect them to give up their idiot beliefs until people like you do. Until then we're stuck battling their exploding pops and their potential for wanting to fill up the earth with more of them and fewer of us.

while the more religious people are loud, angry and brutal.

MM curses and calls people morons because he seeks to demonstrate that real men can also love the longhaired soft-spoken love guru. Right tough guy? Perhaps turning the other buttcheek leaves you feeling a tad... vulnerable.

I agree with Hawking`s sentiment, but not his delivery. Most humans are religious, and it doesn`t help to be condescending towards them... even if they are misguided.

That being said, people who defend religion (and religion in science) should stop referencing scientists/philosophers like Aristotle or even Isaac Newton. The people were intelligent, but still uninformed. The amount of knowledge the modern highschool student has about science (and as TRUTH) would put Newton to shame. I`m sure in 300 years, people will reflect on Hawking as a genius, despite the gaps in his knowledge.

... lol... today's high school student...

There is no real evidence for things like the big bang and stellar evolution. No one ever observed these things. Its based on faith

Lies lies lies.

Fossils do not require billions of years. In fact fossils can ONLY form when they are rapidly buried, not gradually.

LIES lies lies.

Johann may start to suspect the nature of these concocted deceptions after being here awhile and reading the truth. Those who foist them selectively ignore evidence which proves them false.

The most important flood in the history of the earh can be found in cultures all over the world

Useful memes can spread with suprising thoroughness and speed. Agriculture, Clovis tech, Facebook are examples. The deluge is the convenient basis for the 'chosen people' meme which derives from the biological 'our tribe is better than yours' imperative. It is also used to convince people of the afterlife. 'God saved us once and promised to do it again if we serve him right. So let us die in battle for him.'

I found it a bit heavy-handed, some years ago, when Dawkins said something like... Christians do not deserve a voice in any intelligent conversation. (I didn't use quotes cause I'm not exactly sure of the quote). However, I'm starting to sympathise with his point of view. It's hard to believe, in 2011, given the continued, abhorent behaviour of organised reglions that we even bother talking with/to these lunatics. Dudes (Christians) surely you can find another forum at which your fairly-tale babble would be much better received and even, possibly respected. Not here.

No Mahal Kita, Occams Razor makes it a necessity 'to remove God from the equation'. You cannot be a true scientist and believe at the same time, that's a contradiction.

God was already removed from the equation because the physical world is, as far as I understand, not the domain of God. Einstein: "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." Trying to understand the nature of God through the workings of our spacetime continuum is futile IMO.

Dudes (Christians) surely you can find another forum at which your fairly-tale babble would be much better received and even, possibly respected. Not here.

Well they are compelled to preach and proselytize despite what MM says above, because their books tell them to and their beliefs depend on mutual support with others. So they show up here and try to redefine science in terms of gods will and then tell us they know this to be true because it makes them FEEL so good and don't we want to feel this good too?

Drunks are not alcoholics in their mind if they are drinking with others. Religionists need to share and will get petulant if you do not see the light.

No Mahal Kita..

I tried to remove my post, because now seems to be a contradiction.

Exceptional claims require exceptional proof. This works both ways.
He is entitled to his opinion. It's up to all of you to behave yourselves.

The world dances around his head, and he fails to hear the music. Sad little man.

He's never made a woman scream "Oh God". While I can't personally relate, I can stretch my imagination to understand his bitterness.

Could it be God is a reality that transcends duality, and hence is unknowable to us in his full essence? Could he transcend the categories of Being and Non-Being? Could he -it -she whatever, be the source of all consciousness?

na, im sure its all just neurons firing, and there is no ultimate reality. That makes more sense.

(giggling)

Many of the religious posters here have been ignorant, and many of the anti-religious posters have been bigoted/rude. Both need to improve, but I'll address the latter.

The anti-religionists need to get the burr out of their britches and realize that humans had and still have genetic incentives to have religion. The only way you'll get rid of religion in humanity is by either wiping the believers out (like that'll go well) or by out-breeding them. I doubt that'll happen either.

If it is so important to you, perhaps an alternative solution could be found. It's pretty clear that bigoted statements has NOT significantly changed anything..... rather it makes believers more firm in their belief.

this coming from someone who believes in aliens.. what a jerk. someone should push him down a flight of stairs and watch how quickly he believes in God suddenly. all these deniers will be crapping their pants soon when the end comes, and it isn't a matter of if, it's when. "then they will know".
those who mock are all going to wish they hadn't been so ignorant and instead listened while you had the opportunity, though it's up to you if you want to be like those unbelievers in Noah's day, you can join them and become a fossil.

@Bog Mire:

The proof is in these pages, where seemingly well educated people clearly choose to ignore basic scientific principles of geology and paleantology

This is so ironic! Those who believe in the evolutionist fairy tale ignore the basic scientific principle that organic matter decays rapidly no matter how well-preserved. Protein and DNA doesn't last more than 100k years at the most.

YET - they want us to believe that actual identified and verified collagen, protein and blood remains in dinosaurs fossils, lizard, salamander and other fossils have been preserved for 60-380 million years!!!!
They also ignore the basic principles of science used by archeologists to date items using carbon 14 radiometric dating. Why? Because they completely ignore the very significant amounts of C14 present in ALL the fossils, claiming it wouldn't last for millions of years. Those can't ALL be contaminated, now can they?
Just who is ignoring basic science in favour of their own fairy tale?

Both science and theology require a leap of faith.

Cognition based on falsifiability provides a higher degree of certainty than cognition based on non-falsifiable methods.

Cognition based on social interdependencies provides a higher degree of acceptance than cognition based on denigration and projection of inferiority complexes.

anyway don't bother wasting your spit people. most of the users on here are semi-retarded and wouldn't recognize common sense if it slapped them in the face.

I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail.

Really?

Computers don't think. Is Hawking suggesting he doesn't think?

Computers don't have consciousness. Is Hawking suggesting he's unaware?

Computers don't make value judgements. Is Hawking suggesting he has no values?

Computers can't conceptualize. Is Hawking suggesting he's a man without concepts?

Computers have no depth. Is Hawking suggesting he has no feelings?

Sorry to burst your bubble Dr. Hawking, but humanity is more than the sum of its mass...

Computers have no humility. Is Hawking suggesting... oh, wait ...never mind.

people who defend religion (and religion in science) should stop referencing scientists/philosophers like Aristotle or even Isaac Newton.

No. It's quite enlightening to abandon comic-strip thinking and view the true difficulties on the path of human evolution.
Or should the defenders of science refrain from referencing scientists/believers like Theodosius Dobzhansky?

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail.

Really?
Computers don't think. Is Hawking suggesting he doesn't think?
Computers don't have consciousness.

You know that, but ...:
Hawking doesn't suggest to not be thinking. Instead, he suggest that computers will be thinking one day.
Hawking doesn't suggest he doesn't have consciousness. Instead, he suggest that computers will be self-conscious one day.
And so on ...

Is it possible theres a correlation between our ability to use our brain and our understanding of the cosmos?

What's truly amazing is that science and spirituality were never mutually exclusive, the elaborate supression systems of man simply made us believe so.

Science will come to prove what spirituality has discussed for thousands of years. It's all really just math and physics of our future. So, everyone just relax and do some meditation or something...

It seems unlikely for a heaven to exist but no one can convince me there is no transfer or afterlife of any kind. Steven Hawking or not...things like black holes, time, energy, infinite universe, multi-verse, branes and an unknown number of dimensions tell me that this universe is pretty crazy and much of what it consists of is unexpected. So no one really knows but everyone will find out.

Cognition based on falsifiability provides a higher degree of certainty than cognition based on non-falsifiable methods.

Cognition based on social interdependencies provides a higher degree of acceptance than cognition based on denigration and projection of inferiority complexes.

We can unanimously agree then? What constitutes a 'distortion' of cognition?
:)
(Cognition 'distortions' are labeled as 'contaminations' of the personality.)

By the way, my real name is God. My friends all call me by my nickname: Stephen Hawking.
:)

Hey, do any of you guys think he might just be saying these things in public because hes tired of being admired and labeled as the smartest guy in the world?

Anyone worked out the *true* answer yet? Hm thought not. I'm still looking for the question myself.

kev wrote: '....Protein and DNA doesn't last more than 100k years at the most."

Yet Kev seems to think all was created only a few thousand yago. Weird. In Kev's and MM's world there is no such thing as 100k years ago. Again; weird. As for the rest of his "argument", I admire your blind faith and will definitely respect your right to such outlandish beliefs but for the umpteenth time - PLEASE GET OFF THIS SCIENCE SITE. Please. It is what Jesus would do.

This is so ironic! Those who believe in the evolutionist fairy tale ignore the basic scientific principle that organic matter decays rapidly no matter how well-preserved. Protein and DNA doesn't last more than 100k years at the most.

Lies lies lies. How would Kevin know these things either way? He ignores what researchers tell him. His knowledge is faith-based and therefore inapplicable. He lies to sell his product, drugs and fairy stories. How's business Kev? Kevins god says it's ok to lie when selling Kevins god of Truth. It's also ok to steal, rape, murder, and ruin when spreading the Good Word because it says so, in their books.

Let's face it. Mr. Hawking is reaching out... he's desperate. He wants someone to show him how people can be turned on a dime from disbelief to full belief through the power of God's grace.

Well Mr. Hawking, here's what you do. 1. Own up to, and repent of, all wrong you have done. 2. Ask God to change your life and to set you free. 3. Accept His grace.

Then your eyes will be opened to see things you've never imagined. Your former place in history will dim compared to your new position. Your joy will be complete.

And the fairy tale that says there is no devil, and they all lived happily ever after, will be replaced with reality and Truth. Not only that, but you WILL KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THE TRUTH.

Rather than debate the validity of a God or religion,
how about shifting down a level and consider mental focus.

Science is systematic knowledge. Knowledge is verifiable by the senses.
Reason is focus on knowledge, on ideas that connect to reality.

A belief is a focus on a idea unconnected to reality.
Therefore belief is not a valid means of perceiving reality.
Having faith in a belief compounds the error.

Rationally the most one can say is, the question of god is speculation.
If any have evidence that connects to reality of any such being, let them produce.

More likely, god did not create man man created god in imagination.

[Sorry for the xpost but I needs an answer TODAY]

Dear Lord of Goodness,
I've got a problem. I understand you are going to start making all those who choose to believe in the reality you've created, rather than the nonsense you wrote in your book, suffer unspeakable torment and boils this weekend.
http://www.ebible...s/may21/

Should I renew my motorcycle insurance this week, or would that be a sign that I further doubt your unending goodness? Would a mc help me avoid the worst of the tribulation at least for 5 months until you put most of us in hell for eternity? Will crazed cops begin to shoot motorists without the proper paperwork, after this weekend? Seriously, it's over $100.

Signed
Consternated
(you know who I am)

-I am just wondering if I can even ride a mc with boils on my ass-

The boils have arrived:
http://www.latime...63.story

-Along with war, famine, earthquake; and locusts right on schedule:
http://www.cicada...ere.html

There's some ridiculous hate going on in this thread from both sides.

There's some ridiculous hate going on in this thread from both sides.

I HATE what religions have done to the world. I HATE what they threaten to do to science, education, peace, reason, and each other. I HATE having to watch exploding religionist populations in the middle east pushing through their borders and ending up in mass graves.
http://www.latime...66.story

You should hate these things too. Everyone who hates these things should speak out, NOW, and demand an end to religion. Expose it for what it is. Do not stop until they are back in their basements where they belong. Before they bring Armageddon upon the world all by themselves with no help from any god.

The only way to save the world is to end religion. Ironic, isn't it?

The only way to save the world is to end religion. Ironic, isn't it?

Gonna start lining people up against walls are ya?

Nah, LSD, Carl Sagan's Cosmos, and 13 hours can fix just about anyone.

Nah, LSD, Carl Sagan's Cosmos, and 13 hours can fix just about anyone.

Ahhh, I just wondered, because when I read this psychotic drivel...

Johannes414, go fuck yourself. This isn't the place for your scaremongering. If you want to threaten people with fire and brimstone have some children and torture them with your theology until they off themselves. Asshole.

It's easy to picture you lining people up and blowing their brains out. Based on your posting here I'm pretty sure that's what you want to do anyway despite your denials...

It's despicable that you abuse children and the vulnerable with such psychotic drivel as the bible.

Also, what's worse: "lining people up and blowing their brains out" or damning them to an eternity of torture? Just wondering.

It's despicable that you abuse children and the vulnerable with such psychotic drivel as the bible.

I'm supposed to care what a bigoted judgmental small minded person like you thinks why...exactly?

Also, what's worse: "lining people up and blowing their brains out" or damning them to an eternity of torture? Just wondering.

Are you attempting to justify your homicidal fantasies by the old "two wrongs make a right" fallacy?

I win. Goodbye.

I win. Goodbye.

You lost, and as you leave don't let the door hit you too hard.

Anyone worked out the *true* answer yet? Hm thought not. I'm still looking for the question myself.

Yes, the answer to your question is 42.

The only way to save the world is to end religion. Ironic, isn't it?

Yes, heaven will come to earth when god finally leaves it.

More grist for the mill:
'Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says'
http://religion.b...ar-says/

-Most of whats stated in the article has been known by biblical scholars for some time. Nice to see it being published in the mainstream though.

I would go even farther and say the entire bible is a concoction of various tribal legends and pseudohistory, edited and re-edited throughout the ages in response to use and discussion, for the purpose of Shepherding people for the preservation of the State and not the salvation of souls. You only have to promise the latter to ensure the former, which the book makes clear if studied from this Perspective.

For this Purpose it has been spectacularly successful, the result of the evolution of state religion through trial and error.

The only way to save the world is to end religion. Ironic, isn't it?

Gonna start lining people up against walls are ya?

Nah you guys love to do that to each other, or love volunteering for martyrdom. We've just got to sit back and make sure it all stays contained. And then put the blame where it belongs, after it's all over- on those of you who survive. Kind of like nuremburg. Sounds like a Plan. Sounds like it's been done before eh?

Nah you guys love to do that to each other, or love volunteering for martyrdom.

So the Soviets, the Nazis and the Atheist regime in China do didn't/doesn't do this? Ever read a book Quasimodo?

We've just got to sit back and make sure it all stays contained.

WOW, doing an extraordinarily shitty job of that then...even on your own team...

And then put the blame where it belongs, after it's all over- on those of you who survive. Kind of like nuremburg[sic]. Sounds like a Plan. Sounds like it's been done before eh?

So you DO know about Nuremberg? And you have the nerve to mention it in regards to atrocities connected to religion? You don't eat books Otto (or burn them), you read them.

Well we all experience optical illusions.
There are even sound illusions.
Ironically called the Shepard tone.
Sensory perceptions. Susceptible. To illusion.

If each and every word is assign only one, unique meaning,
then dictionaries become meaningless. You can't use words to describe unique meaning. So what is the language of God?

Inaccessible.

You cannot be a true scientist and believe at the same time, that's a contradiction.

scientist/sntist/
Noun: A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

Sorry, you're entitled to your OPINION, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Are you saying that Issac Newton wasn't a scientist? Did he do bad science because he "believed"?

Check your obvious agenda at the door next time...

Hmm, Your readings skills are lacking, I said 'true scientist'. So I'am discussing semantics here not textbook definitions.

Newton was 'investigating the nature of reality' and introduced the scientific process (which resulted in the definition you quoted) along the way. "God" knows what reality was in those days. So your remark is meaningless.

And what is 'my obvious agenda'? Maybe you could enlighten me.

J.

The Bible presents the most reliable text from ancient history. To reject it is to reject every document written before 500 AD. The text of the NT is available in over 5,000 copies in Greek. The oldest extant documents date back to 150 AD, and show an almost 100% match with the Bible text available today. To say that the Bible was somehow edited or subject to deliberate fraud is evidence for willing ignorance, a sin according to the Bible.

Not a single ancient document, artifact or other piece of evidence exists that supplies any credence to the modern myth that the Bible was altererd in any substantial way.

Hmm, Your readings skills are lacking, I said 'true scientist'. So I'am discussing semantics here not textbook definitions.

First off who the hell are you? Is this your sockpuppet account that you hide behind occasionally or your "true" account? Secondly your semantics are truly your opinion so are about as meaningful to this discussion as any other...

As long as we're clear her that ACTUALLY and FACTUALLY you can be a scientist and believe, your bigoted opinions aside....

Newton was 'investigating the nature of reality' and introduced the scientific process...

So a believer introduced the process you claim that you can't be a believer and follow? Did I get that right? Are you being purposefully intellectually dishonest or are you REALLY that stupid?

And what is 'my obvious agenda'? Maybe you could enlighten me.

J.

Well of COURSE it's to keep any believers out of your "club". It's what all bigots do...exclude others on the basis of their race or beliefs.

God was already removed from the equation because the physical world is, as far as I understand, not the domain of God. Einstein: "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." Trying to understand the nature of God through the workings of our spacetime continuum is futile IMO.

All your thoughts and ideas are part of the physical world, so by your saying, God cannot be known. 'Believing' seems a bit futile if you don't know what to believe in.
Its also a bit strange that several documents exits on which several religions are based with very clear and precise knowledge about several Gods. That contradicts your statement in a big way.
But so far for your 'argument'. The fact of the matter is that religion is already explained by science.

J.

"There has never been enough water on Earth to submerge the highest mountains (as claimed in Genesis); "

A global flood would dramatically change the geological landscape and features. Those mountains would not have been there at that time, as is demonstrated by the fact that even the Himalaya's contain fossils of sea creatures.

"the whole world flooded" should be read as "the whole *known* world flooded."

Why? Provide some proof. The Bible affirms that the whole earth was flooded in different verses. A localized flood is simply not implied by the plain reading of the Bible text.

The bible isn't evidence you sped.

All your thoughts and ideas are part of the physical world, so by your saying, God cannot be known. 'Believing' seems a bit futile if you don't know what to believe in.

http://en.wikiped...theorems

:)

First off who the hell are you? Is this your sockpuppet account that you hide behind occasionally or your "true" ...

No mystery here, just a second account. But wow, 1 minute response time, did you wait for me to reply?
You know, trying to insult someone and 'shouting' doesn't help to get your point across.
But to comment on your comment: you seem to fail to understand what I'am saying, you should reread my comments and think a while before you respond.
I only need to add one thing: I'am not a member of a 'club', I don't like clubs, so that makes your comment kind of silly.

J.

All your thoughts and ideas are part of the physical world, so by your saying, God cannot be known. 'Believing' seems a bit futile if you don't know what to believe in.

http://en.wikiped...theorems

:)

Discussing what you cannot know is a waste of time especially if a clear multidisciplinary explanation for the phenomenon exist.

J.

"God" knows what reality was in those days.

Is this one of those famous idiomatic idiosyncrasies of this specific language? Of course, I can not 'hear' the inflections of the words I read.

Specifically:
Is the quoted expression to be taken as;

"Who knows what reality was (taken for) in those days?"

or alternatively;

"Only "God" knows what reality was (taken for) in those days".

Which of those expressions comes closest to conveying the meaning of your original words?

Yes. I agree. His remark is meaningless.
He might assert no one can be true to anything, noting that, no life is without contradictions.

My interjection is for clarity only. Not to distract from the forthcoming enlightenment.

"God" knows what reality was in those days.

Is this one of those famous idiomatic idiosyncrasies of this specific language? Of course, I can not 'hear' the inflections of the words I read.

Specifically:
Is the quoted expression to be taken as;

"Who knows what reality was (taken for) in those days?"

or alternatively;

"Only "God" knows what reality was (taken for) in those days".

Which of those expressions comes closest to conveying the meaning of your original words?

Yes. I agree. His remark is meaningless.
He might assert no one can be true to anything, noting that, no life is without contradictions.

My interjection is for clarity only. Not to distract from the forthcoming enlightenment.

Both I would say. I was poking fun at "the true believers". A bit of humor.

J.

Hi Frank,

Bible is not true you say? If you are correct, life is a cosmic accident without purpose, love and affection are just chemical illusions, there are no moral absolutes and knowledge is just brain trickery. Sounds incredible to me.

If you are wrong, you will one day die and stand in front of the throne of God and be judged into the eternal flames of hell for being willingly ignorant.

Life is short, eternity however is a very long time. Chances are you are wrong about most things.

Thanks for threatening me with hell, again. I wasn't kidding the first time when I told you to fuck off.

Chances are you are wrong about most things.

Irony.

So the Soviets, the Nazis and the Atheist regime in China do didn't/doesn't do this? Ever read a book Quasimodo?

Yeah you godders are in good company.

So you DO know about Nuremberg? And you have the nerve to mention it in regards to atrocities connected to religion?

Yeah nazis learned a lot from the Inquisition and the Crusades.

You don't eat books Otto (or burn them)

THATS what I did with my bible and my koran (and my bhagavad vita and my Phenomenology of Spirit, and my dvd of the little mermaid) -I forgot-

"the whole world flooded" should be read as "the whole *known* world flooded."

Why? Provide some proof.

No you. Your babelbook doesnt count.

The Bible affirms that the whole earth was flooded in different verses. A localized flood is simply not implied by the plain reading of the Bible text.

HOW do you explain that the OT authors copied the pagan Sumerian flood myth almost word for word? Their hero was NOT noah. Jehovah didnt even exist back then.

The Bible presents the most reliable text from ancient history. To reject it is to reject every document written before 500 AD.

You only think this because you are willfully blind. Extremely so. Youre willing to believe the Liars who told you this rather than consider any of the TONS of accepted and corroborated evidence out there. WHAT is the matter with you??

Most biblical scholars, whom god loves LOTS more than you, will nevertheless tell you that the bible is full of historical fabrication. There are TONS of religionist books out there that will tell you the same thing, because their apologist authors were FORCED to accept all this undeniable evidence.

And you still deny it. No matter how many in a generation are saved, a new one will follow them who are corrupted by religion and therefore ignorant of the Truth.

Thanks for threatening me with hell, again. I wasn't kidding the first time when I told you to fuck off.

Thats all they got Frank. Believe or suffer. The prospect of you suffering eases their troubled souls. Sometimes they will make good on this threat as god does not act quickly enough for them.

Religionists are a vindictive, malicious lot. Especially when you threaten their drug supply with the truth. Addicts are all like that. Psalms are full of pretty verses saying 'boy are you gonna get yours'. The prophets loved that sentiment.

If you are wrong, you will one day die and stand in front of the throne of God and be judged into the eternal flames of hell for being willingly ignorant.

Last time I heard God has that sort of thing covered...

You been talking to him lately?

Discussing what you cannot know is a waste of time especially if a clear multidisciplinary explanation for the phenomenon exist.

J.

So discussing mathematics is a waste of time?

Both I would say. I was poking fun at "the true believers". A bit of humor.

:) I like Pokomon (poking fun)too. I reached level 56.

You know that, but ...:
Hawking doesn't suggest to not be thinking. Instead, he suggest that computers will be thinking one day.

Not in this article.

Hawking doesn't suggest he doesn't have consciousness. Instead, he suggest that computers will be self-conscious one day.

Again, not in this article.

And so on ...

Who are you to speak for Hawking?

Anyway, human brains and computers are NOT analagous.

@joefarah:

Well Mr. Hawking, here's what you do. 1. Own up to, and repent of, all wrong you have done. 2. Ask God to change your life and to set you free. 3. Accept His grace.

Am I to understand then that you are not a Christian? ...'cause I don't see anything about Christ in there. Just sayin'.

Wow. For a bunch of atheists who claim higher ideals, you sure are quick to downrank someone for simply stating brains aren't like computers.

Ironically, if brains were like computers, it would never occur to you to downrank - thus you've proved my point!

Hey, do any of you guys think he might just be saying these things in public because hes tired of being admired and labeled as the smartest guy in the world?

Im serious. Haven't you guys ever got the impression that he doesn't like being placed on high and referred to as the smartest man on the planet? Do you think he might be pushing the public away a little by voicing his opinions in an abrasive way?

Wow. For a bunch of atheists who claim higher ideals, you sure are quick to downrank someone for simply stating brains aren't like computers.

Tell me about it! these guys are so bent out of shape, they downrank a legitimate post because they think I'm trying to make a religious point or something.

Yeah you godders are in good company.

Yeah...atheists.

You see Otto a person doesn't require religion to be moral, neither does religion guarantee morality in a person. So too does it follow that because someone is religious that they are not automatically evil, nor that because someone is an atheist that they are not automatically evil either. Your problem is that you're a bigot and so you're blind to these obvious human truths.

Yeah you godders are in good company.

Yeah...atheists.

You see Otto a person doesn't require religion to be moral, neither does religion guarantee morality in a person. So too does it follow that because someone is religious that they are not automatically evil, nor that because someone is an atheist that they are not automatically evil either. Your problem is that you're a bigot and so you're blind to these obvious human truths.

Ok so we agree that religions have nothing to do with morality despite what they say. So what are they good for besides convincing adherents that people who believe in other variations are to be shunned and discredited? Well?

Ok so we agree that religions have nothing to do with morality despite what they say.

No we don't, that's what you WANTED to hear. I said EXACTLY what I meant, read it again.

So what are they good for besides convincing adherents that people who believe in other variations are to be shunned and discredited? Well?

Nothing you'd understand even if I spent ten years explaining it to you. It's something you have to come to on your own, and I have little doubt you'll go to your grave missing out on half of your humanity. THAT is the hell you're facing Otto...the other one I can't speak to, it's just not my job.

LOL, another Christian resorting to hell. Seriously guys, just give it up. Hell doesn't exist and none of your enemies are going there. Suck my chubby.

LOL, another Christian resorting to hell. Seriously guys, just give it up. Hell doesn't exist and none of your enemies are going there. Suck my chubby.

You honestly are an idiot, no really your intelligence is at about the level of a pre-adolescent...either that or your illiterate. It's also painfully obvious that your emotional maturity is even lower than that.

Besides didn't you "declare victory" up thread? You doubting that now? It's really easy to get under your skin Frank :) All someone has to do is mention hell and you FREAK OUT...you must REALLY be scared of it to come out of the woodwork and throw around obscenities like a 12 year old....did he really say suck my chubby?? LOL.

I'm supposedly the pre-adolescent emotional retard, yet you are the one threatening people with eternal damnation for disagreeing with you. Think about that.

I'm supposedly the pre-adolescent emotional retard, yet you are the one threatening people with eternal damnation for disagreeing with you. Think about that.

Like I said...illiterate. Try actually READING what I wrote. Sound out the big words if you need to frankie. If you do good maybe your mom will give you a lollipop...

Too be fair, I just skim through the christians' posts because I can't stand to sift through that much bs. Sorry, try not being an idiot and I'll read your posts thoroughly.

No we don't, that's what you WANTED to hear. I said EXACTLY what I meant, read it again.

Oh I think you need to read it again. You've basically declared that religion offers no moral advantage over atheism. We could throw innumerable examples at each other and come up even. Religion hides behind moral codes to excuse the many immoral things it requires adherents to do.

So what are they good for besides convincing adherents that people who believe in other variations are to be shunned and discredited? Well?

All religions share this trait, which is obviously institutionalized bigotry is it not? Xians threaten unbelievers with eternal pain but they do it in such a kind and loving fashion don't they? Poor frank was the recent victim of just this sort of brutality.

Too be fair, I just skim through the religionists' posts because I can't stand to sift through that much bs. Sorry, try not being an idiot and I'll read your posts thoroughly.

Being fair, you ARE and idiot as evidenced by almost everything you post, but most especially this last gem.

So, you accuse me of something I didn't do, insult me at the level of a child for doing what I didn't do because you couldn't be bothered to actually read what I wrote, and then blame ME for your incompetence, ignorance, and childish behavior....

Am I getting that right?

If I were the atheists I'd be asking you to stay the hell off my side...

What happens to the dark energy and dark matter memory the computer is made from after the computer dies? Does the memory go to computer memory Heaven?

[Missing out on the spiritual rewards of religion or whatever] is the hell you're facing Otto...the other one I can't speak to, it's just not my job.

Translation: Your life is hell for not believing and when you die well... let's not talk about that.

MM, you realize lying is a sin right?

[Missing out on the spiritual rewards of religion or whatever] is the hell you're facing Otto...the other one I can't speak to, it's just not my job.

Translation: You're life is hell for not believing and when you die well... let's not talk about that.

MM, you realize lying is a sin right?

And now you're adding putting words in people's mouths to your idiot bag...brilliant. Keep 'em coming, or alternatively declare victory again, pick up your toys and go away until someone mentions hell again and scares the crap out of you...

If I were scared of hell I'd be a christian ;-)

What happens to the dark energy and dark matter memory the computer is made from after the computer dies? Does the memory go to computer memory Heaven?

The answer to the question is yes! They say lost computer memory goes to 'Never, Neverland,' but it actually goes to spacetime for safe keeping for anyone in the future to read and see!

Damn this guy could've paid for my motorcycle insurance-
http
://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/14/new-york-man-spends-life-savings-ahead-21-doomsday/

The answer to the question is yes! They say lost computer memory goes to 'Never, Neverland,' but it actually goes to spacetime for safe keeping for anyone in the future to read and see!

Everybody [sane] knows the only immortal thing in this universe is Information.

If I were scared of hell I'd be a christian ;-)

No actually Christian's aren't scared of hell, there's another idiot point for you. Christian's know they're saved. You really don't know much do you? Even though you like to pretend you do...

Besides I can tell you're scared of hell, just like anyone else here can. It's blatantly obvious it pushes your button like nothing else. Might wanna look to that...

Hi GhostofOtto,

The Bible writers did not copy the Babylonian or Sumerian accounts. In fact the work of reputable scholars (H. V. Hilprecht for instance) confirms this based on comparative textual analysis and facts about the transmission of ancient texts in general.

Basically, Genesis is more likely to be a precursor. The other texts come in multiple versions and are internally inconsistent, and do not provide any credible geographical data. Genesis has remained the same while the Babylonian texts have degraged over time. The reason is that they took the original and corrupted it to fit their polytheistic traditions.

You claim that there are "tons of historical fabrications" in the Bible. I can tell you that you are wrong. There are no fabrications in the Bible, and the so called contradictions have been dealt with by Bible scholars. It is up to you to prove otherwise. He who avers must prove.

I'd like to point out something.

The reason that many scientific intellectuals are so anti-christianity is because there are some who continue to treat science the same way that the catholic church treated galileo.

On the other side, the reason so many scientific intellectuals believe in god, is because the more they know, the more firm their belief in some creator, do to the simplicity and elegance the universe is built upon. As well as the belief in free will, which necesitates a soul beyond scientific explanation...etc. However, they certainly don't take religion the same way your traditional evangelical or catholic would.

If there is a god, then he created the universe according to the physical and natural laws, and I don't think he would see a need to break his own laws. If there is no god, then our universe is a rather random conglomerate from which order arises.

either way, both sides are out of bounds to disrespect the other

You claim that there are "tons of historical fabrications" in the Bible. I can tell you that you are wrong.

Yah I know you can because you have little regard for unpleasant truths.

"Hilprecht was born in 1859 at Hohenerxleben, Germany. He graduated from Herzogliches Gymnasium at Bernburg in 1880. Afterwards he went on to the University of Leipzig where he studied theology, philology, and law, receiving his Ph.D. in 1883. From 1885 to 1886 he became an instructor in Old Testament theology at the University of Erlangen."

-Sorry your religionist apologist reference is a little outdated? And does not take into account the big mountain of irrefutable evidence compiled in the 20th century. Archeological evidence which proves there were no 2M hebrews in Goshen, there was no exodus through egypt-occupied sinai, there was no murderous joshuan rampage through the levant, there were no great solomon/david empires, etc.

NONE of this happened, none existed. All lies and fairy tales.

The reason that many scientific intellectuals are so anti-christianity is because there are some who continue to treat science the same way that the catholic church treated galileo

No, the reasons are a little more definitive than that. Note the religionist above who will continue to lie through his teeth to defend his personal pacifier (dummy for you brits.)

either way, both sides are out of bounds to disrespect the other

I dont think you quite understand what is at stake here. The middle east is set to explode from the results of religionist reproductive aggression. Religionists are desperately trying to take away your grant money and teach your children all about the glory of gods creation.

We might possibly be about to suffer yet one more religionist-inspired world war. Perhaps you havent heard what bill maher has to say?
http://www.youtub...TVUulGwc

"Religion must die for mankind to live." Watch the whole thing and ask why you dont want to speak up.

Hi GhostofOtto,

Your "mountain of evidence" sounds quite humorous. But on a serious note:

Proof is a tricky subject. As the old Greeks like Euclid discovered, all proofs have to rely on at least several assumptions which cannot themselves be proven. So a person who demands hard proofs is doomed to failure.

Every proof ultimately is founded upon basic assumptions that are simply assumed true. This is the element of faith underlying every belief about our universe.

It is a Christian teaching that faith does not come to us through reason alone, but by the grace of God. If a person opposes even the possiblity of God's existence, then any arguments or evidence can be rationalized away.

You will never meet God if you willingly deny His existence. As a result, it will even become impossible for you to believe in Him. That fact will seal your fate in the afterlife, because heaven or hell starts in every mans heart here on earth.

Actually, Stephen is saying:
"I suffer misery and pain"
"And the only two choices are..."
"Kill me"
"Kill God"
Either choice suffices to stop my suffering.

Your "mountain of evidence" sounds quite humorous.

Your ardor for biblical deception is humorous as well.

You know it is hard to find flood myth references untainted by religionists on the internet? Most want to claim that hebrews started it, but this is obviously not true. There were no hebrews when the story they copied was originally written:

"The similarities between the Babylonian story and the Hebrew scriptural story of Noah's flood are obvious. The Hebrew account is almost certainly an adaptation of the Babylonian account for we see that the Hebrew story is not only younger than the Babylonian story but has a Mesopotamian setting.

Article Source: http://EzineArtic.../5476480

It is a Christian teaching that faith does not come to us through reason alone, but by the grace of God.

How can one have faith in a god who wrote a book which fails to describe the world he allegedly created? One or the other is deception. Men write books not gods.

So a person who demands hard proofs is doomed to failure.

Ah youre just obfuscating. Irrefutable evidence is when archeologists thoroughly explore a site where a great construction project is supposed to have stood and find nothing of the sort down to bedrock.

Or when the site of a great city shows only little hilltop villages. Or where 2M people were supposed to have lived, only little settlements and no infrastructure near the scale needed to support them.

Or NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of any great destruction of canaanite cities as described in your godnovel.

Or egyptian military outposts spotted throughout land they obviously controlled, at a time when 2M slaves were roaming through it for 30 years.

NO mention of david, solomon, moses, joshua, jesus etc etc in the physical evidence; only much to refute it.

If your god made it happen and then made it evaporate, then he is none other than the Great Deceiver. How would you or any xian ever know the difference?

There are many opinions about the Bible. Most are predicated upon the assumption that the Bible cannot be true. If that is your starting point, it will be your end. All that I can say is: try to stop repeating someone else's opinions and start to have one for yourself. If you are willing to exercise a little faith, the Bible will prove itself in your heart. If not, even the most convincing evidence will do nothing.

I don't agree that the Bible fails to describe the world adequately. Your assertion is based upon naturalistic assumptions. God created the universe as very good, but man through sin separated himself from God. That is the main message of Genesis 1-11. All that we see today is the result of man's sin versus God's will to redeem him. That is why the world is both beautiful and nasty. Jesus Christ is God's final plan to save every human being from sin and death. The offer depends on faith and repentance entirely.

NO mention of david, solomon, moses, joshua, jesus etc etc in the physical evidence; only much to refute it.

I agree with everything except, 'no mention of David'.

There is a group of egyptian stellae that mention 'The House of David', but it was in conquest, and speaking of a lesser tribe of Judah.

There are no fabrications in the Bible, and the so called contradictions have been dealt with by Bible scholars. It is up to you to prove otherwise. He who avers must prove.

I can prove a contradiction for you, one that cannot be "dealt with". It's one of many contradictions found in that Book, actually....

So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."
--Genesis 32:30

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God...
--John 1:18

There are many opinions about the Bible.

Youre not LISTENING. ABSENCE of supporting evidence and PRESENCE of conflicting evidence. Theres nothing THERE. It all never HAPPENED.

Religionists have been combing these sites in desperation, and are seen walking away weeping and rending their clothes. Too bad.

God created the universe as very good, but man through sin separated himself from God. That is the main message of

Blahblah. Who retreats into scripture when faced with the Truth? You do. Scripture is there for the purpose. Truth hurts. Reality is uncomfortable. This does not mean it is not True, and that we should not hang on to it for dear life. It is our ONLY Salvation.

hes one mans voice out of 7 billion - a scientist who thinks like a scientist and sees nothing wrong in his own mind - its all down to the way we are or have been nurtured

If you were Stephen Hawking who can no longer hangout with the boys like he use to, wouldn't you hate God?

Why all the fuss; it was just an opinion of an attention seeking bitter and twisted man? He may be smarter than the average person, but ultimately just as hopelessly ill-equipped to grasp the totality of our existence.

For those offended believers in God; the fact that something like this upsets you indicates that your faith is not as strong as you claim it to be.

For those who think that any finite amount of scientific information about the world can be extrapolated to form definite conclusion about entirety of existence; this makes you believers into a fairy-tale of another kind reaching the state where everything is known would surely be your kind of heaven.

krundoloss from May 16 I've noticed intelligence and spelling are also often separate.
And TabulaMentis, I see no reason too conclude Stephen Hawking hates something for which he finds no evidence of existence.
You are welcome to believe in a god, just leave the rest of us out of it, thank you.

@SH
The wiki article on the tel dan stelae indicate that the issue of exactly what the inscription refers to, is far from concluded.

Philip R Davies, a minimalist, offers convincing arguments. Lester grabbe supposedly speaks for a consensus:

"Lester Grabbe identifies the general scholarly consensus as regarding the Stele to be genuine, and as referring to the House of David.
'The Tel Dan inscription generated a good deal of debate and a flurry of articles when it first appeared, but it is now widely regarded (a) as genuine and (b) as referring to the Davidic dynasty and the Aramaic kingdom of Damascus.'"
http://en.wikiped...an_Stele

-But he is a religionist and holds a DD:

Professor Lester Grabbe

MA (Pasadena), PhD (Claremont), DD (Hull)
Professor Grabbe teaches Old Testament and early Judaism. 
Research: early Judaism; Northwest Semitic philology

-I think T Thompson makes a point that the 'House of david' myth could already been in use by Levantine tribal leaders.

TabulaMentis, I see no reason too conclude Stephen Hawking hates something for which he finds no evidence of existence.
You are welcome to believe in a god, just leave the rest of us out of it, thank you.

Why would I do that and leave all the fun for you to enjoy. While you are letting your fingers run way typing nothing, then explain where the Big Bang originated?

Why would I do that and leave all the fun for you to enjoy. While you are letting your fingers run way typing nothing, then explain where the Big Bang originated?

I don't know is and always has been an answer for any question, that is perfectly acceptable.

Not knowing doesn't imply a God.
To example this: if I ask 'How did your god create you?' you can't give me any specifics, does that automatically mean your God doesn't exist? No. It simply means the answer is 'I don't know'.

There are a great many more unknowns on your side of the fence than mine. For you to assert answers that cannot be proved makes you seem nuttier than squirell feces.

;)
Whew! I am ready to convert.
The only catch is:
Show me (preferably measurable) anything that never changes.

Language. Don't go there. A minefield for notorious change.

I suggest that the agnostics and atheists start thinking about where the Big Bang originated and then start thinking about a possible God! Stephen Hawking for years has been trying to figure out where the Big Bang originated. This article proves Stephen Hawking is not as smart as he and others think!

I gave you something to do. (Figure out)
Not something to judge. (Smart)

God.

Your welcome. :)

Hi Silverhill,

Thats not a contradiction. If you knew something about the theology of God's manifestations you would not have presented this example. The man that appeared to Jacob was a theophany. This is a temporary manifestation of God in the form of a man or an angel. Examples are the angel of the Lord in the burning bush and the angel of the Lord who appeared to Abraham in Mamre. On the other hand, God has a real image (icon in Greek). This image is His eternal likeness, the way God will be seen by His creation. That likeness is the only begotten (monogenes) Son of God, Jesus Christ. Unless someone has seen Jesus, he has not really seen Gods face but just a shadow or a temporary role.

Not something to judge. ("If you knew something...")

God.

Your welcome. :)

Unless someone has seen Jesus, he has not really seen Gods face but just a shadow or a temporary role.

Not so thou unholy deceptionist;

"Ex 33:11And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. 20And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. 23And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen."

Unless someone has seen Jesus, he has not really seen Gods face but just a shadow or a temporary role.

Not so thou unholy deceptionist;

"Ex 33:11And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. 20And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. 23And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen."

Obviously it was cousin it from the Adams family.

Johannes414, here are some more to chew on:

We see in Ezekiel 18:20 (NIV):
...The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child.

But we see in Exodus 20:5 (NIV):
...for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me...

or:

We see in Matthew 5:22 (NIV):
[Jesus said] But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. ... And anyone who says, "You fool!" will be in danger of the fire of hell.

But in the same book we see:
Matthew 23:16-17 (NIV):
[Jesus said] Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.' You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?

So God contradicts Himself, and Jesus is in danger of hellfire, by His own words.

to all:
The EvilBible.com website has a large list of Bible contradictions and other unpleasant aspects. Check it out (but remember to bring an open mind; you'll need it).

don't forget, guys: tomorrow's the day!

May 21, 2011 - day of rapture, day of reckoning, day of judgement.

see ya all in hell!

don't forget, guys: tomorrow's the day!

May 21, 2011 - day of rapture, day of reckoning, day of judgement.

see ya all in hell!

Nah god loves truthsayers and truth seekers. Hell will be full of religionists arguing about just whose fault it was they all ended up there.

Silverhill,

Context my dear Watson, context. Textual analysis is mainly based on that principle. There is a difference between the two examples of sin and punishment. The key factor is repentance. If people collectively decide to disobey God and deny Him, their sins are propagated even through the generations. This is consistent with the Bible stating that the sin of Adam is in fact present in every human being:

Rom5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Sin will keep a man out of heaven forever. If people however repent and turn to Jesus Christ for redemption, they can receive forgiveness of sins. So in fact those quotes you used outline the core doctrine of the Bible: sin can only be forgiven through repentance and personal faith in God.

Considering the May 21st hype: the Bible explicitly warns that no one will know the hour or day:

Matt25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

So anyone who claims otherwise is by definition a false prophet, just as Jesus warned us:

Matt24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

Jesus will come back, and it will be soon. But soon can be days, months or years, for the Lord is patient. The end time clock so to speak has been running since Jesus Christ died on the cross. But the day is unknown. Until that sudden return there is a chance to repent and know God.

Considering the May 21st hype: the Bible explicitly warns that no one will know the hour or day

But far earlier than this he told his chosen people:

"Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

-And he warned them many times of his plans, as he did Noah, and Lot, and during Passover, etc. And he does seem to spell out this May 21 thing in revelations although I can understand how most would not believe this.

But it could be true and the reason why you haven't gotten the word is...

"Matt24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."

...because of your own self-deception? Perhaps your beliefs are, like the 1000s of others on the planet (except at most only one), false?

@Tabula:

I suggest that the agnostics...start thinking about a possible God!

You are an idiot.

don't forget, guys: tomorrow's the day!

May 21, 2011 - day of rapture, day of reckoning, day of judgement.

I can only hope. If on the 22nd Tabula, Johannes, Q_C (if he's not Jo), and Kevin haven't all been already sucked up into Heaven I'm going to be seriously disappointed.

see ya all in hell!

I don't know if our universe has a God or not, but hanging with *their* god would be like having an acid trip in Hell anyway.

@Gawad:
I suggest you buy eye glasses! Below is what I said:

I suggest that the agnostics and atheists start thinking about where the Big Bang originated and then start thinking about a possible God! Stephen Hawking for years has been trying to figure out where the Big Bang originated. This article proves Stephen Hawking is not as smart as he and others think!

I can only hope. If on the 22nd Tabula, Johannes, Q_C (if he's not Jo), and Kevin haven't all been already sucked up into Heaven I'm going to be seriously disappointed.

I plan on being around on May 22, 2011 and December 22, 2012. But I may not be around in 2060 if you stupid agnostics and atheists do not get your act together!

don't forget, guys: tomorrow's the day!

May 21, 2011 - day of rapture, day of reckoning, day of judgement.

I can only hope. If on the 22nd Tabula, Johannes, Q_C (if he's not Jo), and Kevin haven't all been already sucked up into Heaven I'm going to be seriously disappointed.

see ya all in hell!

I don't know if our universe has a God or not, but hanging with *their* god would be like having an acid trip in Hell anyway.

And what will you do if the rapture *Does* come on the 21st, and all the evangelicals on physorg are still here telling you "i told you so"

...and there may be a lot of confused buddhists up in heaven after the rapture...

@Gawad:
I suggest you buy eye glasses! Below is what I said:

I suggest that the agnostics and atheists start thinking about where the Big Bang originated and then start thinking about a possible God! Stephen Hawking for years has been trying to figure out where the Big Bang originated. This article proves Stephen Hawking is not as smart as he and others think!

I already have contacts, thanks. I suggest you buy a dictionary and look up "agnostic". Maybe that at least will give you a clue.

don't forget, guys: tomorrow's the day!

May 21, 2011 - day of rapture, day of reckoning, day of judgement.

I can only hope. If on the 22nd Tabula, Johannes, Q_C (if he's not Jo), and Kevin haven't all been already sucked up into Heaven I'm going to be seriously disappointed.

see ya all in hell!

I don't know if our universe has a God or not, but hanging with *their* god would be like having an acid trip in Hell anyway.

And what will you do if the rapture *Does* come on the 21st, and all the evangelicals on physorg are still here telling you "i told you so"

...and there may be a lot of confused buddhists up in heaven after the rapture...

Arrg. That would really be hell, wouldn't it?

arrg. that would really be hell, wouldn't it?

It seemed like an appropriate punishment for atheists/agnosticts/nonbelievers.

Frank, from your comments and your rating of my comment, I believe you should look at the context first before you rate, because that wasn't a slight against the nonreligious.

regardless, I don't see why both sides are arguing here. Is anyone really expecting to convince anyone away from their beginning position. It's humorous, and that's why I'm treating both sides flippantly.

There's a certain amount of 'faith' in any spiritual view, whether religious or non, because it's regarding something that at the core is (as of yet) an unscientific but true concept. The idea that we have free will beyond the chemical reactions that make us: Ergo, a soul. anyone trying to prove anything beyond that is trying to catch water with a strainer.

I know that there are provoceteurs in this argument as in "he started it" but I'm older than 6. Atheists and christians together now, give me a one, I know you will.

I already have contacts, thanks. I suggest you buy a dictionary and look up "agnostic". Maybe that at least will give you a clue.

Once you figure out where the Big Bang originated, then you will have several choices in how it was started. There is where the math makes the difference. Stephen Hawking has not figured that out as of yet.

Johannes414, you haven't answered TheGhostofOtto1923's post about Moses having seen God (even if only from the back).
==========

You said: "Jesus will come back, and it will be soon. But soon can be days, months or years, for the Lord is patient."

But Jesus (the Lord) said, in Matthew 24:34,
"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
~2000 years (and counting) is certainly longer than any normal idea of "a generation", no? So why claim differently?
=========

And then there's the report in 2 Kings 2:11 --
"As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind."

But John 3:13 says, contradictorily,
"No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man." (That same Son of Man who explained that He was not Elijah, when He was asked.)

When All comes (to pass?)
There is 'room'* (rent free?) for All for all time.
God.

Your welcome. :)

*meaning cut short due to the use of language at hand.

Genesis 1:26 (NKJV)
26 Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

If man was created in gods image. Why would god have a navel, teeth for chewing food, feet for walking, ears for hearing and lungs for breathing? Unless the place god was at when he was designing the cosmos, earth and humans etc. had places to walk, food to eat, airwaves, air to breath etc. etc.

Gene

Hey Bible crazies, there are really four Gods:

Electromagnetism, the weak force, the strong interaction and gravitation.

GEEZE - just reread the article ....SH did not say anything nasty or hateful ... just the believe in some God is like a belief in a "fairy story" (I rather like fairy stories).

All sorts of people have been saying that for all sorts of years ..... he is not telling people how to live, what to believe, which leaders to follow.

and for this he gets slagged by cheap shots about his disability, his intelligence and scientific history.

Methinks some people here have bigger personality problems than Mr. Hawking.

Silverhill,

The explanation is that there is more than one meaning for the word "heaven". The Hebrew word shamayim can refer to the physical sky or universe as well as to the abode of God.

However, I do believe that Elijah was taken into the heaven as in God's heaven. To understand the difference between Elijah's heaven and the heaven Jesus is referring to, we must know that Jesus will usher in a new heaven and a new earth:

Rev21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

After death people will not directly go into the new heaven because it is a future place. Instead they will be with the Lord in a special resting place, or with the devil in hell.

Only on the day of resurrection will hell cast forth it's dead for their judgement, and will Jesus open the new and everlasting heaven and earth for the redeemed.

Continued:

Regarding the question about "this generation", again the context will provide us a clue. This generation seems to refer to the people that will witness the blossoming of the fig tree in v32. The fig tree is often regarded as a metaphor for Israel. Therefore when Israel is again blooming as a country the end is near. Israel was founded again in 1948.

An alternative explanation however is that "generation" refers to a spiritual generation, or that all the events in Matt 24 have already happened in 70 AD, which is called preterism. Both expanations are not very appealing nor convincing in my opinion, so I tend to go with the first.

@ Johannes414

"Only on the day of resurrection will hell cast forth it's dead for their judgement, and will Jesus open the new and everlasting heaven and earth for the redeemed. "

Punishment before judgement - sounds like Bush's/Obama's Guantanamo.

I'm atheist that won't beat around the bush. I think that you are repulsive, ignorant trash of humanity. You seek every opportunity to demonize atheism. Blame the Devil for all your evil deeds taking no responsibility for them at all and then have the audacity to call us arrogant.

I'm atheist that won't beat around the bush. I think that you are repulsive, ignorant trash of humanity. You seek every opportunity to demonize atheism. Blame the Devil for all your evil deeds taking no responsibility for them at all and then have the audacity to call us arrogant.

Not all religious people have such inclination. When you generalize as such, you're no better than those you revile.

True generalizations can lead to many wrong conclusions but Christians hold to much power within the government. Thats where generalizations become necessary in order to under mine their authority.

Hi RedComet,

I have not attacked you in any way, so I do not understand your name calling. I dont know you and you dont know me, so staying polite is the more rational thing to do.

You call yourself an atheist. That is your God given right.

But one question though: Calling something "evil" implies a moral judgement. But atheists do not believe in moral absolutes. Good and evil are relative and conventions invented by people. So why would "demonizing" be a bad thing in an atheist world ? Based on what moral code would you call such a thing evil?

@ Johannes414

"You call yourself an atheist. That is your God given right."

Love it ..... I gotta follow you a lot more. :) :) :)

I'm not sure if there is some supreme being that created everything, I definitely don't rule anything out until hard proof is given. I would say the facts definitely lean more towards there not being one, but, like I said, an open mind is best and one shouldn't rule out any possibility.

All that said, I do think it is absolutely hilarious that people think an all loving Christian God will send people to a torturous hell for all eternity just for simply not believing in him. I would like to think that, if an afterlife and supreme being does exist, it would be a place for everyone that was mostly good(maybe even bad, because, does stealing from people really warrant an ETERNITY of torture?), despite their beliefs.

In the end, EVERYONE should keep an open mind, because, when you really do your research, NO ONE knows how things started, scientists or religious people, we are all guessing at this point.

Oh my God, we are still here. Either that guy was wrong or we are all a bunch of demons!

Implying that atheist don't have morels is one of the most commonly used attacks against atheist. This implies that atheist are unfit for public office. For the most part everyone has morel absolutes if someone kills someone in cold blood thats wrong I dont need a book to tell me that. It is said that atheist are angry people. I think you would be a little ticked off if you where in are position.

atheism is just as much a religion as any religion...

doubts belie ones own insecurity...

confidence in ones beliefs displays their faults...

The row one hoes will carve their beliefs.

ILIAD The Webster definition of Atheism a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity. There are many things that you could say which would have similar meaning the way that I make toast is religious.

Also Johannes414 The archaic Definition of Atheism is wickedness ungodliness.

"atheism is just as much a religion as any religion... "

What a wonderously silly thing to say.

Where are the Priests? ("Don't follow leaders, watch for parking meters..")

What is the dogma? It sort of begins and ends with there ain't no god.

What are the vestments of atheism? Blue jeans and T-shirts?

I know priests, I know ministers and rabbis and imams ....but know no one that devotes their life to atheism. It just t'aint that important.

Did you study in the Karl Rove school of debate? Rule #1 accuse your opponent of any sin you commit.

So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."
--Genesis 32:30

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God...
--John 1:18

Seeing a vision of God in a dream and seeing eternal God himself are two different things.

Here, "Seen" comes from the greek "Horao," which was used in teh verse from John, has as one of it's meanings "discern," rather than "Optomai," which is "to gaze".

In English, the word "see" or "Seen" can mean both to look at stomething and to "understand" something.

See (verb) to understand intellectually or spiritually; have insight: Philosophy teaches us to see.

Discern: to perceive by the sight or some other sense [b]or by the intellect[/b];
2. to distinguish mentally; recognize as distinct or different; discriminate: He is incapable of discerning right from wrong.

Guess you didn't know teh definition of "See".

Ezekiel 18:20 (NIV):
...The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child.

Exodus 20:5 (NIV):
...for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me...

Here is the second half of the sentnce, in verse 6, read it in context.

Exodus 20,6, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments

God has never hurt even one righteous person...

Deut. 7,9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Maybe if you actually cared about knowing the truth...

Matthew 23:16-17 (NIV):
So God contradicts Himself, and Jesus is in danger of hellfire, by His own word

Jesus IS God, and is not in danger of judgment. He is omnipresent anyway.

Matthew 24:34,
"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
~2000 years (and counting) is certainly longer than any normal idea of "a generation", no? So why claim differently?

The context indicates its a warning to a single generation at the end of time; that all of this will happen within a time span with an unknown starting point, but lasting one human life time.

2 Kings 2:11 --
"As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind."

John 3:13 says, contradictorily,
"No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man." (That same Son of Man who explained that He was not Elijah, when He was asked.)

See below. I need more space. You're ridiculous and not even trying, except trying to deceive yourself maybe.

So how could Elijah go to heaven if Jesus said nobody had gone to heaven.

It was explained partyly, but "Heaven" has multiple applications, and there are at least 3 different "heavens," all spoken of by the same word.

Paul, 2 Corinthians 12,2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

The first heaven is the atmosphere.

The second heaven is the celestials, the visible universe.

The third heaven is where the angels are, and God manifests himsef to them. Because God is eternal, what they see is a manifestation of himself, and nont the totallity of his eternal being.

There is no contradiction between any of the three verses for several reasons:

1) Elijah and Jesus went to two different heavens.

2) Jesus is God incarnate and has known the Father personally.(1 Tim. 3:16).

3) At the time Jesus said that, nobody else had been there, but if someone goes after Jesus spoke that doesn't make his statement untrue. It was true at the time he said it, because it was referring to the time period which was prior to his own resurrection.

Anyway, nice refuting your pathetic non-contradicting "Bible contradictions".

Most of this realy isn't even hard passages to understand. I can only conclude that you really don't want to understand, as I can see no other reason to keep intentionally taking passages out of context, or else ignoring adjacent text which explains things more clearly.

I mean, do you quote mine everything and then complain about "contradictions" that arise because you take everything out of context?

What sort of reading comprehension scores did you get in high school and college?

You're either an idiot, or else you're being intentionally misleading.

Since even an idiot would understand these passages, I must conclude you are the latter, rather than the former.

Oh yeah, gave it a 5. Not because I care about the article, but the exposing of your willful deceitfulness deserves to be boosted to the top.

Seeing a vision of God in a dream and seeing eternal God himself are two different things.

I agree. That is why I bring up Abraham who not only saw Jehovah he RECOGNIZED him thus strongly implying that he had seen Jehovah before. AND he then washed Jehovah's feet and fed him.

Guess you didn't know teh definition of "See".

Guess you haven't read Genesis.

God has never hurt even one righteous person...

You have not read Exodus where he slay ALL the first born of Egypt. Even the cows. Which means INFANTS were slain. Funny how Christians forget this stuff they don't want to think about.

You sure do have reading problems. Anyone that claims the Bible has no contradictions is either illiterate or incapable using logic. You can type so it is reasonable to assume that you read. That leaves you as completely inept when it comes to logic.

Ethelred

If there is a God, who brought the creation into being, he must have all knowlege and intellegence beyond our comprehension, a being like this would surely not wish the living beings he created to wear daft hats and silly clothes, and eat odd foods at certain times in the name of religeon?

If there is a God, who brought the creation into being, he must have all knowlege and intellegence beyond our comprehension, a being like this would surely not wish the living beings he created to wear daft hats and silly clothes, and eat odd foods at certain times in the name of religeon?

I think you have put your finger on it there, rayk .... judging a very spiritual God by very materialist standards, is always doomed to defeat. From Hawking's point of view, that of science, God is just a mental ontological construct as much as any fairy tale.

That is enough for him, even as it seems it is not enough for many here posting in this thread.

I don't have such an issue thinking that something had to start the process of the Universe .. when someone explains how something comes out of nothing, I will change my ways.

Heaven is a metaphor for one of the virtual realities that make up the universe. Its anti-reality, a big(!) particle, is Hell. Heaven is here and now and what you make of it, so is Hell. I'm in Heaven and you can't get here.

Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth.

spectator has avoided a valid query in a remarkably similar manner to our well known M erely M ortal crank friend. Interesting. Or is he Q uite C oincidental?

All beliefs are similar to religions ... "scientific beliefs" are founded on organized bits of information which currently appear to be correct to a lot of different people who study, learn and experiment religiously over each minute component subject.

However no one should be certain of anything enough to think they are absolutely right about anything ... other than death and taxes.

Everything believed is just a personal best guess based on everything they know.

The real problems arise when individuals start believing someone else's bullshit without making up their own minds, with their own thoughts based on their own understandings that they worked reasonably well and hard enought to conclude for themselves.

Arguing with an Atheist about the contents of the bible is laughable. Most Atheist believe that the bible is completely unsubstantiated. So arguing the supposed quotes of Jesus and his followers seems to only create friction. There are so many other reasons to give up Christianity sexual repression, living a life of fear to name a few. Accepting that the bible was not the beginning of reason is a good start though.

One ape endlessly pounds another with a Bible...

The second ape returns the favor with "On the Origin of Species"...

A third ape sits to the side and laughs at the spectacle...

Which ape is the most sensible?

It depend on whether or not the third ape gets killed by the others ideology

I do not understand your name calling. I dont know you and you dont know me, so staying polite is the more rational thing to do.

People tend to hold Religionists to a higher standard because they claim to ascribe to a god which created morality. Religionists act accordingly, typically arguing from a moralistic standpoint. So when a religionist is caught being dishonest, as you have in many threads even though you have been participating for only a short time, people may respond more strongly than to an average troll.

You say you aren't here to change minds yet you preach constantly. You cite sources which you are obviously unfamiliar with because they are shown to directly contradict the point you are attempting to make. And when this is proven to you you simply declare that it is not so, ignore it, or quote some ambiguous bible passage.

You repeatedly do these things and expect to be treated politely? Even apeman uba admits his mistakes on occasion.

Here, "Seen" comes from the greek "Horao," which was used in teh verse from John, has as one of it's meanings "discern," rather than "Optomai,"

Huh. So you're saying that in order to properly understand this book that god wrote I need to know Greek? I would think god would have spelled out the difference between see and discern, because he would be of infinite articulateness, and easily transposable.

Guess you didn't know teh definition of "See".

In Greek?

partyly, but "Heaven" has multiple applications, and there are at least 3 different "heavens,"

Again why is the perfect book not perfectly clear? It would have been easy for god to spell out the difference. Without having to pay priests to argue about it for us.

Jesus is God incarnate and has known the Father personally.(1 Tim. 3:16)

As Timothy was written by an imposter I would not tend to believe anything in there. As was half of pauls ascribed works. Not to mention that phony ending on mark. And yam suph- oops

FWIW the Qu'ran is seen by Muslems as the actual transcribed word of God ... not as seen by someone, or as told to someone, but Muhammed took them down word for word, like a secretary. That is why they tend to get so excited when a Qu'ran is disrespected.

For a good take on the 10 Commandments here is Christopher Hitchens (about half way down the page) http://feeds.tvo....easVideo

One ape endlessly pounds another with a Bible...

The second ape returns the favor with "On the Origin of Species"...

A third ape sits to the side and laughs at the spectacle...

Which ape is the most sensible?

The one with the viewpoint supported by tangible evidence, logic, and reason, i.e. the one with the "On the Origin of Species."

Genesis 1:26 (NKJV)
26 Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

If man was created in gods image. Why would god have a navel, teeth for chewing food, feet for walking, ears for hearing and lungs for breathing? Unless the place god was at when he was designing the cosmos, earth and humans etc. had places to walk, food to eat, airwaves, air to breath etc. etc.

Absolutely HILARIOUS!!! Thanks.

:) Fun. Sometimes.
Since when does any language in any form do justice?*

*This question's origin stems from Map vs. Territory thinking.

I am happy we have a word called 'emergent'.
The word reminds me of another word: 'sleep'.

We can change the territories (properties). (Do away with sleep)
If words or we go extinct, then mapping again is sure to follow.

All of this heated debate over books written by the human hand.

If you question the authenticity of the NT you also have to question the veracity of anything written about Augustus, Julius Caesar and Nero. Furthermore, you would have to question even the existence of people like Alexander the Great and Plato. The Bible, and especially the NT, paints a completely different picture.

The gospels and the letters of Paul were written within 30-60 years after Christs death and resurrection and the oldest surviving copies of Bible books date back to 150-200 AD. NT quotations date back to 90 AD with Clement and Ignatius. Almost 5000 Greek texts with a wide geographical variety remain.

Any source on aforementioned historical persons was written some 100 years after the facts, with the exception of Caesars Gallic wars. Of that treatise, we have 10 copies left, the oldest of which dates back to 900 AD. Extant historical accounts on ancient Rome (Plinius, Tacitus) is a thousand or more years removed from the originals.

It depend on whether or not the third ape gets killed by the others ideology

Indeed...

http://en.wikiped...0.931921

What if Charlie Sheen is GOD? Jokes

Bart Ehrman is indeed the new poster child of Bible scepticism. After the radical Jesus Seminar with their coloured beads, The Da Vinci code with its fiction and conspiracies, and Jacobovici's alledged Jesus tomb, we now have a Bible expert who launches attacks at especially the NT.

He now has his 15 Biblical minutes of fame. Ehrman is a decent scholar, but he is not very objective. Once a student of eminent Bruce Metzger, he moved away from Christianity because of personal challenges with certain Christian doctrines. He makes interesting reading, but his arguments are in fact old and unconvincing. He will be the secular media's favourite until somebody new comes along.

Through all of this, the Bible will remain. Like so many sceptics before him, Bart Ehrman will leave the stage and pass into history one day. The book that has survived 2000 years of intense scrutiny and persecution will as always emerge without blemish and spot, triumphant.

If you question the authenticity of the NT you also have to question the veracity of anything written about Augustus, Julius Caesar and Nero. Furthermore, you would have to question even the existence of people like Alexander the Great and Plato. The Bible, and especially the NT, paints a completely different picture.

Most of your examples are well corroborated by different, unconnected sources. Most of what's in the bible can only be found there. A great deal of it is flat wrong, as proven again by well corroborated, disconnected sources. Not the least being the many many empty pits and trenches dug by archeologists, where the bible says great construction projects ought to be.

Through all of this, the Bible will remain

Through the concerted efforts of scientists and scholars we now know that most of the bible is deceptive fiction. This scholarship will continue to grow the more we learn, and soon the world will follow euros in discarding both book and church completely.

The book that has survived 2000 years of intense scrutiny and persecution will as always emerge without blemish and spot, triumphant.

The book and related institutions have survived through the ages mainly through brutal suppression of heresy and enforced ignorance. We will tolerate this no more.

It's greatest problem is that it is sold by deceitful, self-important people like yourself who are easy to expose. Whether you realize it or not your participation here only makes it easier to discredit religion and demonstrate the kind of dangerous crap it's composed of. Every time you avoid an accusation or ignore an obvious truth, we win and you lose.

Your pretension and pontification might get you points in bible study but it makes you look bad here.

It depend on whether or not the third ape gets killed by the others ideology

Indeed...

http://en.wikiped...0.931921

Indeed...

http://en.wikiped...uisition

For instance;

The gospels and the letters of Paul were written within 30-60 years after Christs death and resurrection

-When in fact the truth is a little more complex, and revealing:

"The gospels were apparently composed in stages. Mark's traditional ending (Mark 16:9-20, see Mark 16) was most likely composed early in the 2nd century and appended to Mark in the middle of that century. The birth and infancy narratives apparently developed late in the tradition. Luke and Matthew may have originally appeared without their first two chapters."

-And so on. None are original, having been copied from an earlier document named 'Q'. There are significant differences and discrepancies among the four. As such simply none are reliable.

The one with the viewpoint supported by tangible evidence, logic, and reason, i.e. the one with the "On the Origin of Species."

You obviously didn't understand the analogy. They're apes. They have no comprehension of the titles or content of their books.

The point was, it's barbaric to demand that another bow to your ideology.

Stephen Hawking is an idiot with a high IQ.
A good scientist knows that God and heaven can not be proven one way or the other with current science. His opinion is neither science nor rational since he has only his own tiny mind to discern and one cannot discern God with one's mind.
It is a matter of faith...much like the Big Bang theory. It is impossible to know in an empirical sense.

Hawkins is LESS influential amongst his peers than Richard Feynman. In a BBC interview Feynman never explicitly said there is NOTHING after death, I know, I'm a great theoretical physicist. Feynman knew u had to PROVE THINGS i.e. do science!

Einstein said science will "NEVER" - that's the word he used - explain consciousness.

Those who think neurons firing can cause consciousness are being about as mindless as those who believe without question a religious doctrine fed to them as children.

What Einstein knew is that if you can reduce consciousness to a MECHANISM, then there is NO SUCH PHENOMENON as consciousness, JUST THAT MECHANISM. But, as I'm conscious, it must be a very REAL PHENOMENON.

Heat is the movement of atoms, but that does NOT explain the heat we feel as conscious beings.

All science has done is explain how particle interact with each other. Particles moving about CANNOT explain the flavours I taste, sounds I hear, colours I see, pain I feel, or my sense of existence.

And just to add to my post above, this is what Einstein was against - turning humans into mere mechanisms, which is exactly what Dawkins and Hawkins are trying to do. We are much more than mere machines - "cogs revolving".

The computer model of the brain has fallen flat on its face as a way to explain the conscious mind. Neuroscientists CANNOT explain how matter can cause consciousness (I know as I've read the research), and, I'm with Einstein on this - it NEVER WILL!

We are molecular machinery.

richard31415
That was good for a laugh all Fields of science are actively seeking the truths of which you speak.

tjcoop3
Stephen Hawking is an idiot with a high IQ. Oxymorons are intended to confuse people from the real question at hand. No scientist holds the big bang as a faith it is a theory put forth that explains the origins of the universe based on observations.

you're missing the point, religion is for the living not for the dead...

Religion particularly Christianity is indeed for the living. It is used by the rich to oppress the poor.

you're missing the point, religion is for the living not for the dead...

Let me shorten that a bit; religion... is dead...
-Yah that sounds better-

And the Buddhist says: why waste time trying to conceptualize what can't possibly be known?

GhostofOtto,

"None are original, having been copied from an earlier document named 'Q'"

The elusive Q again. May I remind you that no epistemology of this supposed Q exists. No document, no reference, nothing. It's purelly hypothetical. Despite the fact that the earliest gospels are less than 30 years removed from the events, not a shred of eividence exists that they were based on an earlier written account. In fact more likely is the traditional theory that while the apostles were still alive the first 25 years, there was an oral tradition. This is supported by the many Bible scholars.

GhostofOtto,

"and soon the world will follow euros in discarding both book and church completely."

Is that a prediction? I think that could put you in the category of Camping and other false prophets. In Europe traditional Christianity that is based on creeds and is declining, but mainly pentecostal churches are on the rise. Millions of immigrants are flooding into Europe, and by the year 2050 the majority of the big cities will be dominated by various ethnic groups.

Try to look past your cultural myopia and realize that if you set one step outside of Europe, religion in all it's forms is thriving. In China and India, millions of people are converted to Christ every year. It's these area's where the majority of the populus will be, and not in Europe.

"We are molecular machinery"

Part of us anyway. Every machine is built by an engineer. The human machinery was engineered by God, not randomness.

"May 21, day of rapture..." - damn, we missed it again!

just to get in the mood, on 21st I went to see giger's exhibition. and man!... forget necronomicon, forget ctulhu; you should see "reverend".

the essence of a missionary.

it was Johannes414 looking at me from that picture.

Discussing what you cannot know is a waste of time especially if a clear multidisciplinary explanation for the phenomenon exist.

J.

So discussing mathematics is a waste of time?

Discussing that you cannot know isn't a waste of time, discussing what you cannot know is.

J.

The elusive Q again. May I remind you that no epistemology of this supposed Q exists. No document, no reference, nothing. It's purelly hypothetical. Despite the fact that the earliest gospels are less than 30 years removed from the events, not a shred of eividence exists that they were based on an earlier written account.

You mean PARTS of the earliest gospels as I pointed out to you and you ignore? The evidence for Q is in the gospels themselves as deduced by objective analysis, not wishful thinking of blind adherents. The evidence for re-editing by multiple adulterers is present throughout the NT. Revelation by committee. Divine inspiration of gens of anonymous clerks, monks, and politicians. Tweaking for fun and profit. Science reveals what the church knew and hid for centuries.

Is that a prediction? I think that could put you in the category of Camping and other false prophets.

Perhaps I exaggerated a bit. Still 5% to go.
http://www.youtub...a_player

Try to look past your cultural myopia and realize that if you set one step outside of Europe, religion in all it's forms is thriving. In China and India, millions of people are converted to Christ every year.

This is why they're called developing countries. As the people develop a rational view of the world through education and learning to live within their means they begin to discard fantasy and the weakness of succumbing to mindless superstitions like Christianity. Millions? Millions more are rejecting all religion.

Discussing what you cannot know is a waste of time especially if a clear multidisciplinary explanation for the phenomenon exist.

J.

So discussing mathematics is a waste of time?

Discussing that you cannot know isn't a waste of time, discussing what you cannot know is.

J.

Godel showed clearly that we can never truly know mathematics, therefore according to your logic mathematics is a waste of time.

Be consistent at least with your OWN arguments or kindly STFU.

We are molecular machinery.

Why should one pay attention to anything machinery has to say?

There seems to be a huge gap between Christians and Atheist. For the most part Atheist have had to grow up being exposed to Christians and are forced to learn many of their traditions. But the same can not be said in the inverse.

People do you realize you dont even have to believe in science to be an Atheist? You could believe that all the answers in the world can be solved by 3+3=6. Every one else would just think that you are either severely mentally impaired or your schizophrenic.

What's amatter eminem, you took issue with something I said? I do apologize I didn't watch that whole vid before posting it and didn't realize it was CBN. But facts are facts. Euros are casting off the faith which caused their forefathers so much misery and reaching zero pop growth to boot! Win-win.

Of course the only solution CBN offers to Islamist incursion is to restore what they call 'moral resistance' to this defilement, and resuming the aggressive type of overpop growth which your Xian wars need and want. The 'children of our youth', 'quiverfull', to meet the Saracens in the gate so to speak. There has GOT to be another way don't you agree?

They're also very wrong about rampant religionism across America, although they are right about this general perception among euros. Where various religions come together and education prevails, religionism in general declines. This is true in the more populous regions of the US. The bible belt still needs growth.

Johannes414
Why do you continuously come here to try and defend Christianity to us. It seems more like you are testing your faith against us. Has it held up is that what you are looking for? At the very lest you could acknowledge that there are some problems with Christianity.
Your statement about how you believe that Atheist are short sited. Comes from thousands of discrimination against Atheism. Again you show how little you know about Atheism the church tells you what to believe, how to dress, how to interact, gives you your world view, represses sexuality and tells you how to vote. You call us short sited why?

Why should one pay attention to anything machinery has to say?

Lol, why should one pay attention to anything you have to say? What you say, at least in these discussions, is clearly more algorithmic than any thought process an AI would follow.

This just goes to show you the inherent bigotry in christians, the inherent "us and them". The first few AI are going to have very rough lives.

You call us short sited why?

His brand of theism is a mental disorder.

ECOnservative put it nicely when they said "We all like to believe in something greater than ourselves." That desire is the basis of all religions.
It is evidenced by the multiplicity of religions, each claiming to be the only true path.
Prosolitising is simply the efforts of those who are plagued by doubt needing to convince others of the 'correctness" of their beliefs to reinforced their own weak faith.
Then there is the tendency for one set of believers to attack those who believe differently. As if that proves anything other than they are savages and barbaric.
No religion is or ever has been capable of producing ANY evidence to prove their claims.
Each and every religion is a fiction, a belief in magic and superstition.
There is absolutely no evidence to prove the existance of any God and there is no logical reason why such an entity should exist.
So let us hear it for Hawking and Dawkin and the rule of logic..

GhostofOtto,

"This is why they're called developing countries. As the people develop a rational view of the world through education"

This remark borders on racism. It does not only show your prejudice, but it's also false. You are in fact saying that because people are not from the west, they are ignorant.

The notion that somehow non-Europeans are stupid because they did not go through the enlightenment and therefore are stuck in religion, can be easiliy refuted. First of all, freedom of thought historically is always connected to freedom of religion. Luther preceeds Hume.

South Korea as a highly industrialized country has one of the highest percentages of Christians. In China, mainly the educated middle class is interested in the Bible. The reason is that Christ motivates people to investigate and think independently. The apostles made extensive use of reason and philosophy to do their apologetics. Those who are looking for truth automatically gravitate towards Jesus.

Au-Pu

"There is absolutely no evidence to prove the existance of any God and there is no logical reason why such an entity should exist."

So explain the origin of logic and reasoning? What causes our ability to think logically?

RedComet,

Why the bitterness? I have never said anything like that to you. My point is that atheism is simply an inconsistent worldview. Atheism must presuppose theism to be true if it wants to use reason and logic.

By the way, it was you who used the words "repulsive ignorant trash of humanity" referring to Christians.

This remark borders on racism. It does not only show your prejudice, but it's also false.

Uh no it doesnt. There are many developing countries spread around the globe, full of all kinds of people. The Truth is that, as their obsolete religion-based cultures are thrown off one way or another and replaced by secular western culture, they become more peaceful, more productive, and more egalitarian.

Why is that you may ask? Well, this is because religions are ALL exclusivist and depend upon exacerbating DIFFERENCES among people. A religion which endorsed the beliefs of others would not survive for long.

Christ motivates people to investigate and think independently

Please note the hidden message: Christ AND ONLY christ. ONLY christ motivates. ONLY christ is fair. ONLY christ saves. Etc. All other religionists are spewing the same tripe about their own personal deities. This restricts development and keeps people ignorant. How can this be good??

So explain the origin of logic and reasoning? What causes our ability to think logically?

Sorry to jump in but thats an easy one. Logic is necessary to interact successfully with your environment. Any organism will act logically in order to survive and propagate.

You mean your god wants to take credit for that too? He has already stolen natural tribal law. He tried to explain how nature works but he got that woefully wrong. He himself appears to be constructed in a most illogical and nonsensical way- lets see is that 1 god in 3 parts or 3 gods in 1, one of which is half-man and the other is a vapor of some sort...?

Logic and reason are the basis of life. As such life requires an environment based upon totally dependable laws. You say your god can suspend these laws any time he chooses, in order to grant favors to his chosen people. How can logic and reason possibly exist with that caveat? How can life survive if natural law is arbitrary? This OFFENDS logic.

Why the bitterness? I have been denied jobs based on being atheist I have no voice in the government and fanatic Christian are trying to exclude me further from being apart of any real debate within the government. You have merely reset the question. You dont even make an effort to see it through are view point to an atheist you are the one who originally made the assumption that there was a god or do we not even have a view point to you.

First of all, freedom of thought historically is always connected to freedom of religion. Luther preceeds Hume.

Luther was a racist. Luther was the main reason for the 30 Years War which killed perhaps 1/3 of the german people. The reasons? Things like whether or not god had a mother, or whether the eucharist was the actual blood and guts of a godman or not, or whether it was ok to charge for absolution. Salient issues like that were the reason whole congregations were burned in their churches.

Hume offered a convincing argument against miracles and wish-granting, the very basis of the voodoo shamanism that you preach. I dont see how he and the luther monster are related. You and CBN would want to see another lutheran resurgence in europe, wouldnt you? So many new issues to fight and kill and die and butcher and burn for arent there?

Modernmystic
You tried to expose atheist as being violent Atheist are not violent humans are violent.

Stephen Hawking is wrong. The universe exists, Therefore it was created somehow, even if it has evolved since. I define God as the creator of the universe. The question is not, did God create the universe? Rather the question is, who or what is God?

GhostofOtto,

Luther was mainly a reformer and a child of his time, and his culture. Doesn't atheism teach that there are no moral absolutes? Right and wrong are just human conventions when God is left out. If Luther decided to be racist, it's his culture remember? What are you to judge him?

Despite the historical travesty you try to espouse, my point was merely that without Luthers criticism of the corrupted Catholic church and papal power, humanists would never have emerged. The first humanist was clergyman Erasmus, and reformers like Tyndale and Wycliffe translated the Bible into the common languages. For this they paid with their life. Spiritual freedom always preceeds political and scientific freedom. The enlightenment was predicated upon the reformation, and that is a plain historical fact.

"Logic is necessary to interact successfully with your environment"

The contention is not that logic works. Of course logic works, it functions universally. The question however is: how did universal logic come about? How can a random explosion generate abstract laws of logic?

Abstract laws of logic also exist distinctly from our brains. So what makes our brain matter obey these abstract laws? If our thinking is just composed of brain states, how can we actually really know anything?

RedComet,

Calm down. I don't think atheists are morally inferior or bad people in any way. And I certainly disagree with any government promoting a certain type of religion. If you as an atheist have ever suffered discrimination by Christians, I can say they were wrong.

You have the full right to call yourself atheist. It is my right however to disagree with your views. It is my strong conviction that in reality there is not such thing as atheism.

The reason is that material atheism is inconsistent. Atheists claim that morality is relative but when they come home they love their wife and kids and complain about the immorality of the world when they see the violence on the evening news.

This worldview is one of the easiest to refute, because in fact it refutes itself. The truth is that because of sin, humankind is separated from God. The natural mind is corrupt and needs reconciliation with God through the love of Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, who came to save sinners.

how did universal logic come about? How can a random explosion generate abstract laws of logic

-But why mommy, why? You are asking improper questions. Because you're trying to evoke improper answers. Neither your god nor any god is necessary to explain how things work. Including our brains.

Abstract laws of logic also exist distinctly from our brains. So what makes our brain matter obey these abstract laws? If our thinking is just composed of brain states, how can we actually really know anything?

Dont throw philo nonsense at me. Brains EVOLVED as organs in charge of senses and of processing the data those senses collect. It EVOLVED to figure out the best ways of surviving in order to propagate. This essentially explains all of human behavior. You delusionists want to think we're more complex than this but we're not. We have and need no connections to that which does not exist- the metaphysical. Your bread and butter.

The more we learn the more obvious this becomes.

The Christians that discriminated against me where following the teachings of the bible and their church. Atheism can't be refuted through biblical teachings this is a cop out. When you put people in to these differing levels of sin you create a class system. This is where you personally contribute to the discrimination.
I will not calm down I will fight people like you to my grave.

This worldview is one of the easiest to refute, because in fact it refutes itself.

Blahblah?

The truth is that because of sin, humankind is separated from God. The natural mind is corrupt and needs reconciliation with God through the love of Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, who came to save sinners.

You certainly are a pureblood. "I'll just insert the party line here after the nonsense statement. It sold in Peoria..." -But not here. Let me rephrase your blahblah;

The truth is, because of rampant overpopulation and the need to counter it, humankind had to be separated from the true nature of their state. The natural mind had to be convinced that it was corrupt in order to accept the blame for the misery and deprivation which was not it's fault.

In this manner the people can be made to participate in healthy wars in the name of miscellaneous gods and mangods, and they will even come to believe that they are killing for the god of love in the flesh.

-Or somesuch.

hmmm...
(in response to retort/s)
1) I believe there is positive & negitive
---Just because someone truly does not believe does not make them evil; tis evil actions which define the evil person.

2) Atheism to some is like a religion:
---The extremists want the pope dead (see the French revolution, the atheistic leader was himself beheaded because of his hate for religion).
---For fun, watch the South Park episode 1012/13
-----For even more fun watch 1008 (WOW spoof... lol!)

Luther was mainly a reformer and a child of his time... Doesn't atheism teach that there are no moral absolutes? Right and wrong are just human conventions when God is left out.

I guess you missed the part of my story when devout godlover Germans slaughtered each other for 30 years over details? This is always the case. Sunnis and Shiites and coptics are proving the point as we speak.

And there certainly are moral absolutes. They existed long before religions appropriated them. Humans EVOLVED in the context of endemic tribal conflict. The successful tribes were the ones with the strongest internal cohesion coupled with the greatest concerted animosity toward enemies.

Coincidently this succinctly describes the nature of religions. They institutionalize the tribal dynamic, enabling it to be applied over ever larger pops and regions. Internal trust and goodness enables more effective performance on the battlefield. Re joshuas Hebrew scourge. God was just a brilliant ruse.

Lol, why should one pay attention to anything you have to say? What you say, at least in these discussions, is clearly more algorithmic than any thought process an AI would follow.

This just goes to show you the inherent bigotry in christians, the inherent "us and them". The first few AI are going to have very rough lives.

And yet you still didn't answer a simple question. You diverted, quite clumsily as is your MO.

No I simply pointed out that you're wrong on YOUR OWN terms, no religion needed. If all you are is a machine as YOU said so yourself...WHY listen to a word you have to say?

You won't answer because you CAN'T give a straight answer and be self consistent.

This explains the state of humanity pretty well:
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf

Once weapons use enabled us to kill off our predators, humans were left with the greatest and most unnatural enemy of all- the next tribe over. It is not hard to realize the vital role religion played in assembling ever-larger forces, and assimilating conquered tribes. For more explanation read the OT. It's all there.

Godders think it's about saving their souls because of course we are all the center of our world. But the bible tells us of how vital the concept of faith and the notion of personal salvation is, to the prospect of saving the world from the scourge of unfettered humanity.

We want immortality for ourselves and our loved ones so much that we will do almost anything to obtain it. The People who offer it don't even have to offer any proof at all if they can offer it with sufficient Authority. Doesn't take much at all.

There seems to be a huge gap between Christians and Atheist. For the most part Atheist have had to grow up being exposed to Christians and are forced to learn many of their traditions. But the same can not be said in the inverse.

Which traditions are those? What atheist holidays have I missed? What culture of "there is nothing" have I not been exposed sufficiently to? Methinks you doth protest too much. For not being a Christian you sure have a big cross you've nailed yourself to.

People do you realize you dont even have to believe in science to be an Atheist?

Uh...so?

You could believe that all the answers in the world can be solved by 3+3=6. Every one else would just think that you are either severely mentally impaired or your schizophrenic.

Schizophrenic people generally don't have a problem doing math...in fact quite often they excel in it.

Oh, and Otto, Buddhists don't offer immortality...

@Eminem
"Buddhism teaches that there is a cycle of birth, death, and rebirth and that the process is according to the qualities of a person's actions. This constant process of becoming ceases at the fruition of Bodhi (enlightenment) at which a being is no longer subject to causation (karma) but enters into a state that the Buddha called amata (deathlessness).
According to the philosophical premise of the Buddha, the initiate to Buddhism who is to be "shown the way to IMMORTALITY (amata)", wherein liberation of the mind (cittavimutta) is effectuated through the expansion of wisdom and the meditative practices of sati and samadhi, must first be educated away from his former ignorance-based (avijja) materialistic proclivities in that he "saw any of these forms, feelings, or this body, to be my Self, to be that which I am by nature"."

-I found this in WIKIPEDIA by using GOOGLE.

Johannes414:
You still haven't answered TheGhostofOtto's post about Moses having seen God (even if only from the back). Or mine, about Jesus cautioning against calling people fools -- and then doing so Himself.

However, I do believe that Elijah was taken into the heaven as in God's heaven. To understand the difference between Elijah's heaven and the heaven Jesus is referring to, we must know that Jesus will usher in a new heaven and a new earth

The new heaven is not what was being referred to, at that point. Jesus could not have come from a heaven that did not yet exist*, so He had to be referring to the existing heaven -- unto which you agree that Elijah was taken.

*Unless you wish to retreat into the notion of "God can do anything, even ignore temporal sequence". But if you did that, you would not be arguing from a rational viewpoint; you would just be hand-waving, which serves no purpose.

'This generation' seems to refer to the people that will witness the blossoming of the fig tree in v32. The fig tree is often regarded as a metaphor for Israel.

"Seems to"..."often regarded"..."metaphor"...Do you have any *certainties* to offer, or just nebulous interpretations?

The human machinery was engineered by God, not randomness.

Molecular self-assembly is not random! The tendency for chemicals to combine in certain ways represents a bias in the system, and biased systems are not random (think: loaded dice). You may well ask, "Where/Whom did these tendencies, these biases come from, then?" I don't know for sure. Maybe *that's* where we could see the Hand of God in action: writing the rules of combination?

Despite the historical travesty [TheGhostofOtto tries] to espouse,

He's not *espousing* the Lutherian travesty; he's *expounding* on it.

How can a random explosion generate abstract laws of logic?

See above, about nonrandomness in the universe.

spectator:

Guess you didn't know teh definition of "See".

Guess you didn't know that I am quite aware of the various implications of "see", and that I feel that a God who wishes His Word to be incontrovertibly known would ensure that that Word was forever unambiguous.
As TheGhostofOtto put it, "Again why is the perfect book not perfectly clear? It would have been easy for god to spell out the difference."

So God contradicts Himself, and Jesus is in danger of hellfire, by His own word

Jesus IS God, and is not in danger of judgment.

Jesus said that it was Very Bad to call people fools, but did so Himself. Therefore His behavior was bad by His own estimation. The perfect, omniscient God (whether in the form of His Son or not) would not make such a mistake.

At the time Jesus said that, nobody else had been there, but if someone goes after Jesus spoke that doesn't make his statement untrue. It was true at the time he said it, because it was referring to the time period which was prior to his own resurrection.

At the time prior to the resurrection, the new heaven did not yet exist, so Elijah had to go to the 'true heaven' -- whence came, and whither went, Jesus.

What sort of reading comprehension scores did you get in high school and college?

Quite high ones, actually. What kind of scores did you get in your logic classes? What about your open-mindedness "scores"? (Before you try to raise "pot and kettle"-type objections to that last, consider that I still regard it as a possibility that there was a Creator entity -- but that I wish to be convinced by irrefutable evidence thereof, not just someone's insufficiently supported story.)

Modernmystic

Congratulation you took all three quotes out of context. But thats what your good at right.

And your god saw fit to bless me with Asperger syndrome

The new heaven is not what was being referred to, at that point. Jesus could not have come from a heaven that did not yet exist*, so He had to be referring to the existing heaven -- unto which you agree that Elijah was taken.

Just for the record, Enoch was taken to heaven to meet god and returned to the earth unsinged. This is alluded to in Hebrews 11:5 and described in depth in the books of Enoch, not canon mind you but pretty damned interesting. Freemasons regard them highly.

They also talk about the nephelim and where knowledge comes from, and about dividing the people up and setting them against one another. Which is exactly what religions do! All kinds of info on Managing the human animal.

it would be funny if half of the gods were alien life forms.
or maybe they were just high.

Oh, and Otto, Buddhists don't offer immortality...

Some Buddhist cultures believe in a form of immortality, actually most do... But those are not true Buddhists because it contradicts with Pali Canon.

The mathematics forum has provided the following:

"What does it mean for something to exist? Isn't it enough that we can give a precise definition to something and utilize that definition to advance our knowledge of things that do exist?"

To both camps. A simple statement.

This applies to God and dividing by zero.
Both 'exist' by definition. Quarrel preciseness thereof.

Please consider that your past counterparts (the human race) had definitions that were held to be necessary, sufficient, and complete.

We now know all definitions are necessary, insufficient, and incomplete.

God is a fairy tale.
Mathematics is a fairy tale.

To learn "of things that do exist" utilize ANY definition that deepens your meaning of what you need or want of "things that do exist" for you.

This message brought to you by your sponsor: Information.
Your co-sponsor for this message is: Advancement of Knowledge.

And heavens sake, tread not, where angels fear to go:
The Dark.
:)

To learn "of things that do exist" utilize ANY definition that deepens your meaning of what you need or want of "things that do exist" for you.
So if I was a wealth industrialist I should pose as a Christian in order to exploit a cheap and malleable work force.
Your message was pointless drivel.

Otto: Please give TRC one of your pamphlets. It seems he is ready to enroll! Another convert!

To learn "of things that do exist" utilize ANY definition that deepens your meaning of what you need or want of "things that do exist" for you.
So if I was a wealth industrialist I should pose as a Christian in order to exploit a cheap and malleable work force.
Your message was pointless drivel.

Hushes poetry posts are
empty and annoying but easy to ignore. I was going to say this earlier but I thought 'why bother?' Poetry does not add content to a message. This is also deception.

lol Pyle
@TRC
"So...force." Non sequitur at best. Language itself needs consensus among it's users, so users are at least given the potential to agree.

In a consensus about God, you can be sure (as sure as God) that if such a consensus is ever reached, the words of that consensus will never use the words 'should', 'could', 'would' 'maybe' and 'if', (just to name a few).

And I? I will let you know if you ever reach consensus about literally anything you have known, know now, and will know.

That, I will do for you. I will let you know.

lol. Otto has spoken. To post or not to post. Well, Otto certain did answer that. That's consensus. Everyone agrees.

Otto used the word "but". To be consensus, the word "but" must enjoy the same status as mentioned above. Poor Otto. No consensus yet.

hush1: I was serious. Otto and I are going to rid the world of the idiocy people refer to as organized religion, one physorg commenter at a time.

I appreciate your "poetry" more than the Otto does though. I manage to tease at least a giggle out of almost every post. That Otto only appreciates the message doesn't mean the lighter side of these boards goes unenjoyed.

@Pyle
Thanks for providing to the lighter side.

"Otto and I are going to rid the world of the idiocy people refer to as organized religion, one physorg commenter at a time."

Nobel. :)
'Nobel geht die Welt zu Grunde' (The darker side)

Which I don't believe. I believe:
'Davon geht die Welt nicht unter'(The lighter side)

Which ends my commentary for this thread on the side most enjoyed.

lol. Otto has spoken. To post or not to post. Well, Otto certain did answer that. That's consensus. Everyone agrees.

Hey I'm just saying, if you have something to say then say it plainly and clearly so it's easier to tell what you're trying to say without having to decipher it first. Maybe your posts aren't empty but it is hard to tell versteht?

I bought a book which translated a Shakespeare play into modern English. That was a real pleasure to read although I realized I had heard all the jokes before.

Thks. German/English is my language, my vocabulary. Monologuists view this vocabulary as two separate languages, not one. I was completely baffled by the word "poetry" in regards to your replies addressing my comments. You were first to bring this association to light. When writing my English commentary, the silent German counterparts run parallel behind the English words of commentary.

I see, I am attempting to do 'justice' to both sets of words - the written English commentary and the unspoken parallel running German dialogue underlying the English commentary.

I believe you have sensed this 'justice'. I know now, the 'justice' I attempt to apply between the two 'different' languages (and words) are 'poetic' justice. There will never be a one to one equivalence of meaning, try as I may.

As you, I find pleasure in poetry. Even if the 'poetry' here is 'poetic''justice'. A disservice to readers is not intended. "I like your way with words" has been the reaction of other readers.

As you, I find pleasure in poetry. Even if the 'poetry' here is 'poetic''justice'. A disservice to readers is not intended. "I like your way with words" has been the reaction of other readers.

Perhaps by justice you also mean economy a little bit, yes? Otto finds no pleasure in poetry. His nose wrinkles as he writes this. The hairs on his elbows bristle. His spine shivers when he thinks of poetry. No- quivers. 'His spine quivers' -yah that's better.

OK I will try not to clutter up the message board but when I see low hanging fruit like that its hard to ignore.