A caller presents a moral argument for the existence of a god and Matt completely breaks down the flaw in such arguments.

 

Matt Dillahunty (born March 31, 1969) is a public speaker, internet personality and the president of the Atheist Community of Austin. He hosts the live internet radio show Non-Prophets Radio and the Austin-based public-access television show The Atheist Experience.  This entire episode can be watched from their archives.

Anti Atheist wrote:

explain to you . you must be kidding. it is a matter of faith and as we all know you do not believe in that
let me ask you a qustion. if you were standing at the bedside of your critically ill son whose life hangs in the balance who do you turn to?
i think we have answered your question

I would turn to the trained medical professionals who have spent years being educated in the science of medicine. They would be the only "who" to whom I could turn because imaginary invisible beings, being ethereal, do not qualify as a “who”.

Assuming I were in your position and believed in an all knowing god.  Logically, that god would already know if my son were going to live or die. That god would have already decided if it were going to intervene and save my son, regardless of my how much I asked that god to intervene. Praying to that god is therefore pointless.

Assuming my son were ill and assuming that I worshiped a god which actually existed, why would that being allow my son to become critically ill in the first place? Assuming that god created everything that exists, why would he have created pathogens that are constantly try to kill us or given us bodies capable of forming terminal cancers? Is god just a child with an ant farm? Does he toy with us and place us in circumstances to see if we will turn to him as you do?

Is God willing to prevent my sons suffering, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then why is my son suffering? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why would I call him God?

When you assert an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present god that created everything in existence it makes no sense whatsoever to turn to that being for things like critical illness.  That being is ultimately responsible for creating the problem in the first place.  That being knew when created everything that the person for whom you are praying would be in that very position and apparently decided to do nothing to prevent it.

Now, there is no doubt a psychological effect which may reduce the stress of dealing with a loved one the verge of death.  It may make you feel better to convince yourself that a magic sky wizard can intercede on your behalf and save your loved one from dying.  However just because something makes you feel better does not make it true.  In fact I would argue that it could possibly make things worse because you will inevitably have cases where the loved one dies in spite of dozens of people praying that they live.  How do you explain that?  Did god not care? Was he busy?  The most common answer I have heard is that the death was just part of gods plan. Well if that’s true and god is going to do whatever the hell he wants to do anyways, then why the fuck even bother praying in the first place?

Humans get sick, some die, it’s a fact of life. It wasn’t until a few centuries ago that science began give us the tools needed to do something to prevent some of those deaths. So you can do what our ignorant superstitious ancestors did before the advent of medical science if you like and you think it makes you feel better, but make no mistake. The only thing that will actually do anything meaningful to save the life of a sick or injured family member are the actions of well trained men and women who have attained enough knowledge to diagnose the problem and set about fixing it with the tools of science.

Anti Atheist wrote:

at first i thought i might apologize but since you constantly have to insult the side that believes in faith i wont. sorry ass christain aren’t i

What you mean to says is that at first thought you might apologize but since your religiously motivated hatred for those who refuse to accept your claims is so strong you will not.
You still cannot distinguish ridicule of the belief from ridicule of the person. You might avoid feeling so falsely insulted if you could start to manage that.
Don’t let your conscious bother you to much.  I know your angst is motivated by your religious indoctrination, it doesn’t bother me.

Cyclist wrote:

I have met several atheists over the years and the one common theme is they all are convinced that they are the smartest ones in the room. In reality, some are intelligent but for the most part, most are not that intelligent, they just spout someone else’s ideas and thoughts.

johnheadPlease let me clear up this misunderstanding of yours and explain why your conclusion is flawed. I’ll admit that in a room full of religious people it’s hard not to feel like the smartest person in the room but smarts, whereby I mean intelligence, is not the problem. I have said over and over again and I’ll say it once more, I AM NOT CONVINCED AND DO NOT THINK THAT I AM SMARTER THAN YOU.(I do think I am smarter than Anti-Atheist but he went out of his way to proved that)Intelligence is not measured by someone’s ability to construct original thoughts and idea, if that were remotely true then every single religious person would be disqualified. All they spout are the ideas and thoughts of 2000 year old biblical authors.

Cyclist wrote:

As I said some that I’ve come across are very intelligent. You seem to be someone I would put in that group. However, most that I have come across are very condescending and dismissive of people who are believers. As if those who believe are somehow less intelligent or gullible.

A good rule of thumb for me…if one has to try and prove how smart they are or if one feels the need to use ridicule as a part of their argument, they are probably not that intelligent.

johnheadYou’re half way correct. Condescending and dismissive are apt terms but those terms apply to the belief itself, not the believer. This is one of the biggest hurdles I’ve come to face in debating this issue over the years. Believers like you find it nearly impossible to separate yourself from your belief.I responded with condescension toward your belief in the supernatural because science and reason is superior to superstition and wish thinking. I respond dismissively toward your belief because in the absence of good evidence or logical argument there is no reason to take your belief seriously.

I respond as much as possible to YOU with understanding and concern because I use to be in your shoes. I use to regurgitate all the lame and debunked creationist clap-trap about intelligent design this and random chance that. I wanted to believe what my parents and grand-parents and preachers told me was true because why would they lie. Then I realized that they were not intentionally lying about anything, there were simply passing on what they were taught as children. They were never taught to think critically but rather to simply believe it without question on authority alone.

Nobody is trying prove anything about how smart they are to you or anyone else. You do not even know my real name so what the hell good does it do me to convince you I’m some sort of genius, I mean just think about what you’re saying. I don’t give a damn how intelligent you think I am. I am trying to give you the simple tools to think critically. You don’t have to subject yourself to an imaginary being, you can be good on your own accord and not be afraid to live your own life and think your own thoughts free from the tyranny of an invisible celestial dictator.

lowboy wrote:

Is pedophilia and beastiality there own business ? do you consider gay marriage normal behaviour. can two male gays copulate and procreate by making a child.

Is it normal behaviour for one male to use his wenie to penetrate the anus of another,

is the aids virus really caused by the invention of diet coke? afterall they both appeared on the scene at the same time.

you miss my point. I dont wont the in your face attitude these people have toward those of us who are straight.

live that lifestyle if you wish but dont try to make me accept it as normal behviour.

johnheadYou continue to draw this nonsensical parallel between homosexuality and child abuse. Let’s be clear on our definitions, pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children. When someone who has this disorder acts upon it we call that child abuse or rape of a child.

PLEASE STOP BEING WILLFULLY STUPID. The difference between gay marriage and pedophilia is clear, one involves two consenting adults and the other does not.

Do I consider gay marriage normal behavior? Sure, why not?

Is it normal behavior for one male to use his weenie to penetrate the anus of another? If your gay then it is absolutely normal. If you were doing it then it would be abnormal, because you’re not gay.

All I can do is speak for myself and say it isn’t my cup of tea. The question is where do you get off telling anyone else what they may and may not do in private? Where do you get off dictating what another man does with “weenie”? We already know you think you can tell a woman what to do with her uterus so I guess it only makes sense.

Can a male gay couple make a child? No, but that is that not relevant to marriage. If you were impotent and unable to impregnate your wife would it be right to deny your right to marry her? No, you married your wife because you loved each other and wanted to dedicate yourselves to each other, not because you needed a baby making machine.

I’ve met a hand full of gay people in my life and none of them have been in my face about their sexuality. What you probably mean by in your face is their unwillingness to keep quite about being second class citizens and the denial of their pursuit of happiness and their call for equal rights, yea that’s totally putting their lifestyle in your face.

You don’t have to accept them as normal. You can sit at home or church and talk about how abnormal you think they are until the cows come home. It’s like racism, you can think black people are inferior if you like, hold meetings in white outfits with pointy hats, burn crosses every week it make you feel better; but the law will afford equal protection regardless of skin color and soon it will afford equal protection regardless of sexual orientation.

lowboy wrote:

ok sir i am back. i read it. where is the word marriage and dont call it a civil right. that battle is yet to be fought.if it had said among these rights are the pursuit of happiness ,well maybe but that is another document anf where do it say you have the right to be happy.
do you know of any case where the court has overturned a local or state election where there were no irregularities and the majority of the people expressed thier right.?
from what i hear most legal scholars were surprised they even took it. they could have refused and that goofy lower courts ruling would have been law.
they got enough protection under current state and federal law.

johnheadEqual protection under the law is a Civil Right, that battle was won on July 9, 1868.  I did not say you have a right to be happy.  You have the right to PURSUE happiness. So it was in another document, so what?  The constitution does not GRANT RIGHTS, it only establishes the government and defines its powers.  We don’t have freedom of speech because of the first amendment, the first amendment is a specific prohibition on government power. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are self-evident and exist prior to any constitution. Marriage is one the “Blessings of Liberty” mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution if you are worried about seeing it written down.  It doesn’t matter if the local or state election were held without irregularities and the majority of people voted for something, civil rights are not subject to majority opinion. The majority has no “right” to discriminate and deny equal protection to the minority.  The Supreme Court takes up cases which have seen differing opinions across the country so as to set the record for the entire country.  They entitled to more than “enough protection”. They are entitled to equal protection under state and federal law.

lowboy wrote:

ok knucklehead . that amendment was to make the blacks citizens as a result of the dred scott case.some courts have used it for other situations.most of them a stretch.

here is what the justices will havr to decide; If same sex marriage is a fourtenth amendment right, then it will be extremely difficult to forbid other types of marriage that are clearly deterimental to society,such as polygamy and yes pedophilia.

if i want to marry my dog is that a 14th amendment right. if i want 15 wifes, is that a 14th amendment right?

states presntly govern marriage and i think you are going to find it will remain that way.

the us constitution does not guarantee you the right to be happy.

Maybe jefferson was focused so much on religion he forgot that. he also never envisioned that a small foolish,and mentally ill minority would be cast upon us by evil.

johnheadCivil Rights being denied to black citizens might have been the origin of the 14th Amendment but you are ignoring that it was not about black people it was about CIVIL RIGHTS BEING DENIED to black people.

Marriage is a civil (as well as religious) institution; married couples benefit from more than 1000 benefits under federal law. Equal protection requires equal access to civil benefits of marriage. Denying equal access to the benefits of marriage is a denial of civil rights and a violation of equal protection.

Nobody is advocating for polygamy. Nobody is advocating for pedophilia. Those two things are entirely separate and distinct from two consenting adults agreeing to care for one another. Your argument is a slippery slope fallacy. Tell us how gay marriage and GAY MARRIAGE ALONE is a determent to society. How would two men or two women being granted the privileges of a married couple harm you or anyone else? I submit that there IS NO HARM, and therefore NO REASON to discriminate against them.

A dog cannot consent to a marriage. A child cannot consent to a marriage. Those examples are vapid.

Correct, the US Constitution does not guarantee you the right to be happy. I never said it did, so now you can stop acting like I said that. The preamble to the Constitution reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The pursuit of Happiness is one of the “blessings of liberty” and your religiously motivated disdain of gay people drives you to deny them their pursuit of happiness, to deny them equal protection, thus denying them their civil rights.

Nothing is being “cast upon you”. You just hate that your religious edicts, which have been forced upon other people that your religion deems worth of execution, are now being cast off as the ignorant remnants of our superstitious ancestors. Equal rights for gays is another nail in the coffin of religious ignorance and bigotry. The age of reason is coming and appeals to godly authority as a justification for the mistreatment of others is loosing more power every year.

Cyclist wrote:

Hypothetical question. Would God be pleased if every Muslim converted to Christianity, lets say….First Christian Church? Which as you know are kissing cousins to coC.

johnheadHypothetical question. If Santa Clause were to loose weight would he not be able to deliver presents faster because the reindeer could fly faster? Let’s say he lost half his current weight, would that mean that the sled would fly twice as fast?

Answering that question is as pointless as attempting to answer yours.

 

Cyclist wrote:

I didn’t ask you asshat. Why do you feel the need to insert yourself in conversations between other people? Besides your input is rarely intelligent or insightful.

johnheadI know you didn’t ask this ass-hat anything.  I felt like inserting myself because it’s fun, not to mention this is a public forum.

My input is "rarely intelligent or insightful" says the man debating the wants and desires of an imaginary, invisible being.  Yea, your views about my intelligence or insight do not carry much weight when your idea of intelligence and insight revolves around magic and superstition.

Why not tackle these problems why you are at it.  How does the tooth fairy afford to pay every child for their teeth?  What does the tooth fairy do with the teeth?  Do you think the tooth fairy resents Santa getting milk and cookies?  Why does the Easter Bunny lay eggs when rabbits are mammals?

I figure if you’ve found the answers to the mysteries of one invisible being you might be able to answer those mysteries as well.

Cyclist wrote:

Again, you compare God with children’s fairy tales, how bright you are. You’ll know the difference one day but unfortunately for you it will be too late. Have fun with your useless and pointless life.

johnheadI am not just comparing your god to children’s fairy tales; I am outright telling you that your god is nothing but a children’s fairy tale. Your god’s inability to act upon reality is indistinguishable from the inability of Santa, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny to act upon reality.  There is a book about your god and there are books about the other guys. Your god requires faith to be believed, so do those other guys.

You are even using your god to instill fear just like stories about the bogey-man, who isn’t real either you will notice.  I’m a grown adult, stories about monsters hiding in the dark no longer scare me and, unlike you, similar stories about celestial monsters coming for me after I die no longer scare me either.

Threats of Hell and Damnation are the last resort of religion.  You have given up attempting to demonstrate your god claim with evidence or reason and that frustrates you.  Instead of considering that you might be wrong and were taken in by a children’s fairy tale, at the cost of your ego, it feels better to tell me that I will be burned alive forever at the hands of your celestial monster a.k.a. GOD.

Cyclist wrote:

Dude, I am far from frustrated. Your just not worth wasting anymore time on and I really don’t feel the need to try and prove anything to someone as closed minded and lacking of any real intellect as you. You seem to really enjoy adding ridicule into all your post in regards to people who do believe and it frustrates you that people are not wowed by your insights.

When you start using ridicule and sarcasm, you have lost.

johnheadIf you’re not frustrated then what are you?  It’s not a polite reaction to tell another individual who says they have not reason to believe anything you say regarding knowledge of a god that they will be tormented for all eternity.  It’s actually kind of sick when you think about it.  I’m sure you would never willingly drop someone into a huge fire pit and then take pleasure from the sight and sound of that person writhing in agony, even for the amount of time it would take them to actually die.

It really says something about your religion and the god you claim exists when you write that not only will I be burned alive after I die but that the writhing and agony will never end; that somehow I deserve to burn in agony forever simply because I refuse to accept what you are asserting as fact without convincing evidence.

I love how you manage to convince yourself that someone who is CONSTANTLY ASKING YOU FOR EVIDENCE is somehow close-minded.  An actual close-minded person refuses to consider an idea no matter what.  Not only have I considered the idea of religion and your specific god, for many years I believed what you are saying to be correct.  Now that I have the ability to apply reason and a willingness to objectively examine evidence, I find that that the reasons and so-called evidence for your god are fallacious. Examining a claim and making the determination that it the claim is unsubstantiated is NOT closed-minded.

The kind of open-mindedness you are advocating is actually called credulity which is a state of willingness to believe in one or many people or things in the absence of reasonable proof or knowledge.  That type of open-mindedness is not the good kind.  Real intellect is being able to discern between the good and the bad open-mindedness.

I do really enjoy ridiculing your claims but I do so for a good reason.  I find ridicule to be an awesome tool in revealing absurdities.  The magical claims in the bible are in fact ridiculous, strip away the religious reverence and voila, instant ridicule.  I’m not frustrated by your failure to see bull-$hit when it’s right in front of you.  I look forward to the next ridiculous argument you come up with attempting to make sense of all the bull-$hit so I can expose it too.

You are incorrect in your belief that ridicule and sarcasm loose debates.  Ridicule and sarcasm are valid tools when used to in concert with valid logic to refute a claim.

Cyclist wrote:

People resort to ridicule and sarcasm when they have nothing worthwhile or relevant to add. Valid arguments don’t need ridicule or sarcasm to prove a point, nor do people who have something intelligent to say. An intelligent argument can stand on its own and has no need for ridicule and sarcasm. An intelligent person can make their arguments without the use of ridicule and sarcasm.

You have exposed nothing except your inability to make an argument without ridicule and sarcasm.

johnheadWrong. Have you ever laughed at a comedian? If so you were probably laughing at his having ridiculed something or addressing something with sarcasm. Those things do not preclude the comedian being correct about something worthwhile or relevant.

You are technically correct when you say arguments do not need ridicule or sarcasm to be valid; with that I will agree.

Let me see if this helps. Ridicule and Sarcasm are not needed in the same way that PECAN PIE doesn’t need to be WARM or served with VANILLA ICE-CREAM. Although I could eat cold PECAN PIE, as valid and intelligent as it may be by itself, if I can make it hot and throw a scoop of vanilla on that bitch, I’m going to do that instead. The heat and ice-cream just drive home the flavor of the PECAN PIE.  Likewise, ridicule and sarcasm drive home the absurdity of your religious claims and arguments.  Your claims and arguments are ridiculous, I am just ‘driving home the flavor’.

What I expose with every post is that your god is nothing but a figment of the imagination and you can’t stand it when I show you using ridicule and sarcasm.

lowboy wrote:

i dont know if it was a big bang but something sure as hell blew up and that is why all those meteors are hitting us.

maybe blowing it up was gods way to start the creation and considering the way it was put back together it takes a fool not to believe a higher power did not have a hand in doing it.

It moves better than a rolex watch.

johnheadMore precisely, space-time inflated. There is a long chain of events which lead to the existence of meteors but needless to say we have a very good explanation of their origins.

A fool is the one who claims "it was put back together" by some magical invisible man.  We know the fundamental forces of nature which lead to star formation and planetary accretion. We know which of those forces gave rise to chemistry and the operations of life.

The fool is the one who has failed to educate themselves on these discoveries and instead relies upon ancient myths and legends to conclude that a being with a mind and a will just did it all in six days.  The fool ignores the fact that his explanation actually explains nothing whatsoever. Magic is not an answer, it is an excuse for ignorance.

Please tell me how you draw a comparison between the cosmos and a Rolex watch?

lowboy wrote:

the cosmos design is perfect. arolex watch near perfect. only a fool would not know the difference.even the most expensive timepiece requires adjustment. the cosmos is perfect and to my knowledge has never neede adjustment.

you are a fucking idiot not to know perfection is more than an accident and something mankind can never achieve.

johnheadCall me a fool if you like but I think your reasoning is flawed.  First off, what is your definition of perfect?  Second, if the cosmos is "perfect" then please describe how an "imperfect" cosmos would appear.

You continue to draw a correlation between a watch and the cosmos but we know that a watch is man-made because watches do not occur naturally but the cosmos IS all that is NATURAL.  We know that a watch has a purpose because man built it for a purpose, to measure the passage of time in distinct units which we humans have defined based on things we observe in NATURE.

You may call me all the names in the book but you are the one asserting perfection and being completely unwilling or unable to explain what it is about the cosmos that makes it PERFECT.

The fact that mankind cannot reproduce the entire cosmos has no bearing on your argument.  Our inability to craft something we observe in nature does not infer that it was crafted by something or someone else nor to then conjure up a specific deity that gives the remotest shit about any of us.

So please explain to this foolish fucking idiot how you came to the conclusion that the cosmos is perfect and what an imperfect cosmos would look like.

lowboy wrote:

you have just answered all your questions yourself. re-read your post.

has to be magic or i got a bad case of, if you dont know, i aint gonna tell ya.

johnheadThank you for surrendering the argument.  You could have be intellectually honest and just admitted your argument is flawed instead of asserting that my question to you was simultaneously my own answer as if that makes sense in any sort of rational reality.

I asked you to support your assertion of a "perfect cosmos" by describing an "imperfect cosmos" and the best thing you can manage is "you have just answered all your questions"? Then follow that up with "if [I] don’t know then [you] aint gonna tell [me]"

Thank you for admitting that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

lowboy wrote:

TRY THIS FOR AN ANSWER AND DONT ASK FOR PROOF BECAUSE THE PROOF IS IN THE STATEMENT.

THERE IS NO IMPERFECT COSMOS. EVERYTHING IS IN PERFECT SYNC.

HAS YOUR LIFE EXPERIENCES NOT SHOWN THAT? ACCIDNETS OR BIG BANGS DO NOT RESULT IN PERFECTION

johnheadAgain, you keep employing the word perfection without justification.  The word "perfect" is intended to distinguish one thing from everything else.  For example, I could assert that in my opinion a certain woman has a ‘perfect’ body only because I could provide examples of other women with ‘imperfect’ bodies for comparison.  I could assert that a certain object is perfectly spherical or perfectly circular because I can cite examples of objects which are neither.

You keep writing that the cosmos is ‘perfect’ yet we only know of one cosmos, there is nothing from which our cosmos may be distinguished.  It is therefore dishonest and irrational to assert that what we observe is perfect unless you can answer the necessary question, compared to what?  If, as you say, there is no ‘imperfect cosmos’ then there can be no ‘perfect cosmos’ for the same reason you cannot have ‘up’ without a ‘down’ or ‘front’ without a ‘back’.  Your argument from perfection is fallacious.

You say everything we observe is perfectly synced?  Again I have to ask, what would an out of sync cosmos look like?  The cosmos is predictable because the laws of gravity and electromagnetism are universal.  Gravity pulls things into balls and causes massive things to orbit each other.  Electromagnetism gives rise to stars and eventually life.  The cosmos simply IS the way it IS and there is no evidence thus far that some super intelligent being has spend eons mucking about in our one little galaxy, with our one little solar system, on this one little rock for 4.5 billion years just to finally make YOU and ME.

The cosmos is also not an accident.  Accidents are events which occur contrary to intended events.  There is no evidence of intent therefore cosmos we observe cannot be accidental.

Lastly, inflation does not result in perfection because, as I have pointed out, the cosmos is not ‘perfect’; it just exists.

Dude wrote:

Let me ask you atheists something. Can you "prove" that love exists? Is there a scientific method that can conclusively prove that love exists? No. But do you love your children, parents, siblings or spouse? Sure you do. Well…..prove it scientifically.

johnheadLove by its very nature is immaterial.  Love, like hate, is the label we use to describe what motivates certain behaviors we observe in humans.  I can provide evidence of love insomuch as I can point to examples of certain actions which carry that label.

I am sexually faithful to my wife.  I provide for her well-being with food and shelter.  I tend to her needs when they arise and protect her from harm.  My selfless behavior toward my wife is indicative of what we collectively label love.  Love and hate are abstract concepts and not something which can be directly measured and quantified.  They are just employed to describe human emotional and physical reactions.

Now, if we define love and hate by their corresponding physiological reactions then you could scientifically prove they exist by constructing an experiment which shows physiological reaction [A] occurs when people report loving something and physiological reaction [B] occurs when people report hating something.

Ultimately though LOVE is a human construct to describe strong emotional connections we form with other humans or sometimes animals or even inanimate objects.  One reason we know it is real is because we are able to ask each other the question and get a real answer.  On the other hand, your GOD does not answer questions in any meaningful objective manner.  Your GOD does not act in any way distinguishable from every day natural and random events.  There is no scientific method that can conclusively prove that your god exists outside the confines of your imagination.

We can dance the philosophical dance all day, my inability to convince you scientifically that love exists adds not one iota of weight behind your assertion that god is real.  At the very least I will concede that your god is as real as love in the sense that both ideas are creations of the human mind.

MrDesoto1 wrote:
Do you have any credible, scientific proof of these “souls”?
Working for the Lord wrote:
Yeah but it requires being dead.

johnheadBeing dead provide evidence of nothing.  I know it’s a hard thing to imagine because life is cool and the thought of death gives you pause, but when you die that’s it man, you are done, over with.  Sure you’ll have family and friends that will remember you but you yourself will be no more.  I feel like a parent having to explain that Santa Clause isn’t real, but it needs to be said.  You’re diluting yourself to avoid the realization that death is final and enjoying the thought of living forever.  But it’s not going to happen.  You’re not going to heaven and we aren’t going to hell for disagreeing with you. When we both die we won’t being meeting anyone or doing anything.  The living cells that comprise our brains will have died and what makes you who you are will be no more.

So what does that mean.  It doesn’t mean life is meaningless as religious people like to claim.  What it means is that your life is more valuable than you could have ever imagined.  There are billions of galaxies and billions of stars and billions of planets but there is only ONE you. You will only happen once.

There is more than enough to do in this life.  There is more than enough to learn in this life.  There are more than enough people to love in this life. Why not stop wasting this one life you know you have by pretending you’re going on to a second one as a reward for giving up the very thing that makes you one of a kind in the first place; YOU MIND.

Cyclist wrote:
The truth is, 1)You can not prove that God does not exist so your assumption that he does not is just a theory. 2)You can not prove the theory of evolution as science to date has not been able to create life from inorganic material and the problem is that if you can’t get something from nothing, it’s pointless thinking you can accurately explain the next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything. That is a HUGE problem, and, 3)To discount ancient history, manuscripts, archeology, similarity in oral and written traditions (many cultures have a flood story and a creation story that are similar in nature)is just ignorant.

johnhead1) I do not bear the burden of disproving the existence of an entity which by design is unfalsifiable.  My assumption that your god is entirely man-made is not a theory.  Actual theories are well-substantiated explanations of some aspect of the natural world.  Your god is super-natural and therefore outside the bounds of theoretical explanations.  My non-belief in your god is a conclusion founded upon the complete absence of anything remotely resembling evidence pointing to your god being real.  You have come to the same conclusion regarding every other god ever claimed throughout the history of man-kind.  You are an atheist with regard to literally thousands of other deities.  When you finally get around to understanding the real reason you lack a belief in those gods, you will understand why I lack a belief in yours.

2) The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life from inorganic material.  You are confusing ‘evolution’ with ‘abiogenesis’ because you are scientifically ignorant.  Evolution is a FACT; organisms change over time.  That’s all evolution is, change over time.  The theory of Evolution by Random Mutation and Natural Selection explains the mechanism by which life evolves and branches into many different species over millions of years.

a. Your assertion that without a Creator you cannot get ‘something from nothing’ is a fallacious argument from ignorance.

b. You claim that we cannot “get anything, let alone everything” must also apply to this supposed creator.  This phantom Creator is ‘something’ is it not, and ‘something’ cannot come from ‘nothing’, so what created your asserted Creator?

3) The fact that “many cultures have a flood story and a creation story that are similar” does not lead to the conclusion that a man was instructed to build a gigantic floating zoo, holding every land animal on the planet, floating for 40 days and nights, before landing on a mountain top, after which he repopulated the world via incest.  That you insist on claiming your specific myth is what happened is ludicrous to say the least and is what is actually ignorant.

Cyclist wrote:

1. No science has been able to prove any viable theory for origin of life. Assumptions have to be made that can not be proven by any science.
2. Random mutation and natural selection do cause change within species but do not cause an organism to change species. That is impossible.
3. Where did the very first organic material come from.
4. What you consider fact is simply your belief in someone’s take on trying to explain things like God or no God, origin of life, age of the universe, etc.
You’ve drank just as much koolaid as I, just a different flavor.

 

johnhead1) Again, I’m forced to weave though your misapplication of concepts. There is no ‘proof’ or absolute ‘truth’ in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.

What I was explaining to you was the difference between ‘abiogenesis’ and ‘evolution via natural selection’. We may not know the exact process by which the first self-replicating molecules arose but we do this; the elements which compose life on earth are abundant both on this planet and the galaxy and, there is nothing in chemistry which would prevent self-replicating molecules from arising on their own.

Your claim that because you cannot fathom life arising via natural processes it must be a supernatural sky wizard playing a cosmic game of the Sims is just a special pleading argument in addition to an argument from ignorance. You assert as a general rule that the ‘something’ which we know exists cannot come from ‘nothing’ yet you except your god from your own rule.

2) Random mutation and natural selection do not cause organisms to change species, correct but that’s not what the theory says. The theory says that over time species diverge via genetic drift over successive generations. They eventually drift so far that they become two different species.

3) The first ‘organic material’ which composes life (carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc.) was produced inside the core of a massive star which blew itself apart billions of years ago. You really should brush up on your cosmology.

4) What I consider facts are observable, testable, and repeatable. I believe facts because of those attributes. Your god, like every god, is neither observable or testable. Because I base my belief on objective evidence there is no need for koolaid, someone take is irrelevant unless it matches experiment and observation. This is another attempt to pull my position down to your level because your fully realize your position is untenable, it is a product of wishful thinking and a willingness to become convinced that imaginary beings are real.

 

Cyclist wrote:
1. Give me an example of a species that experienced genetic drift over a period of time to create two different species.
2. So this massive star which blew apart billions of years ago produced the material which composes life. Where did the massive star come from?
3. Explain why your observable facts have so many holes. Since explosions cause disorder and chaos, how could a Big Bang bring about order to the complex level as to create life? If said order did come into being by a massive explosion billions of years ago, why have we never been able to observe a self replicating organism form by itself?
4. If all the galaxies were created as a result of a massive explosion billions of years ago, why do the closer galaxies have a higher degree of red shift than the further galaxies which are blue, suggesting that they are moving toward us as opposed to away from us?
I’m sure you will use big words to try and explain how stupid I am, try not to condescend, just answer.

 

johnheadYES! Now you are catching on. You’re asking for evidence. The absence of knowledge is not stupidity. Stupidity is the inability to obtain and grasp knowledge. I did not always know these facts either, I do not think you are stupid.

1) EXAMPLE: Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the species interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.

2) The massive star came about when, under the force of gravity, hydrogen gas was drawn together toward a single point. The rise in pressure lead to a rise in temperature until, at 3 million kelvin, 5.4 million Fahrenheit, hydrogen atoms began fusing into the helium atoms. Helium is fused into heavier and heavier elements until iron at which point the star blows apart; iron taking in energy when fused as opposed to giving it off.

3) The Big Bang is not what brought about order to the complex level we see today. It was just the initial expansion of space-time. What we see today the the result of 13.7 billion years of contact interaction between gravity and electromagnetism. I don’t know if you’ve looked at some of the Hubble images but the cosmos is far from orderly.

4) We have not seen a self replicating organism form by itself because such an event occurs on time scales larger than the history of the human race. Though we have not seen it, we know of possible ways it could have happen which do no violate the known laws of physics. In a universe as vast as the one in which we live it appears life was bound to happen somewhere.

5) You have it backwards, the galaxies where are further away are more red shifted. This is called Hubble’s Law and gives rise to something called Hubble’s Constant. The universe is in fact expanding faster and faster by the second. There are some galaxies like Andromeda which are moving toward us, gravity has overcome expansion with regard to these.

 

Cyclist wrote:
1. Still a wildflower, not a different species.
2. Where did the hydrogen and the helium come from?
3. So gravity and electromagnetism created life?
4. So you can’t prove it. Though a mathematical possibility, it is unlikely I will ever win the Tour de France.
5. in an article called The Evolution of the Universe, John P. Huchra and Margaret J. Geller tell us that: “There appears to be a relatively random distribution of small distant blue galaxies,” and that “Each square degree of sky contains more than 300,000 blue galaxies”.
The more of yours and others writings I read, I realize how much you really don’t know. You base your belief on assumptions which you can not prove. Just like I base my beliefs on assumptions I can not prove. The difference is where we look for our answers.

 

johnhead1) Wildflowers come in many different species.  A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.  The flowers in the example could not interbreed because their genetic makeup had ‘changed over time’ <- EVOLVED to the point where the had diverged into two new species of wildflower.  That happened in less than 100 years.  Do you not think that larger changes cannot take place over millions of years?

2) The hydrogen of our baby universe was the result of charged subatomic particles pairing up to form natural atoms around 380,000 years of cooling following cosmic inflation.  Hydrogen = 1 Proton + 1 Electron  It doesn’t get much more simple than that.

3) Gravity and Electromagnetism created life in the sense that without these forces there would be nothing heavier than hydrogen and chemistry would not exist.  Gravity pulls matter together and matter interacts with other matter according to the laws of electromagnetism.  They are only two of the four fundamental forces which we know to govern the universe, the other two being the Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces.

4) Science is not used to prove anything, proof exists the form of observable facts and mathematics.  What I keep trying to tell you is that there is nothing in nature which prevents self-replicating molecules from forming and that’s life is at its most basic level.

You laugh at the possibility of life arising via natural processes but turn around and with complete conviction assert that a magic invisible being produced life by merely TALKING.  Are you serious?

Science doesn’t know and has made no claim to know the exact means by which life arose naturally.  We may never know how it happened because we only have one planet where we know life exists and we can’t travel back in time.  That fact does not give you licenses to assert, in the absence of knowledge, whatever fairytale notion best appeals to you.

5) The quote you cite having to do with blue galaxies refuting the big bang was cherry picked by creationist and has already been accounted for by cosmology.

An observer at a lower gravitational potential than a source (“downhill”) will observe radiation to be blueshifted to shorter wavelengths.  This is a natural consequence of conservation of energy and mass–energy equivalence, and was confirmed experimentally in 1959 with the Pound–Rebka experiment.  Gravitational blueshift contributes to cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy via the Sachs–Wolfe effect: when a gravitational well evolves while a photon is passing, the amount of blueshift on approach will differ from the amount of gravitational redshift as it leaves the region.

How much I don’t know is quite a lot and I will admit it.  Everything I have ever read by religious people tells me that they actually think they can know everything!

You are right about one thing, we look in different places for answers alright.  Where I look uses observation and experiment, where you look uses an old dusty book full of magic stories.

“ANTI-ATHEIST” wrote:when it comes to exposing your mistakes it bothers you does it not? You guys are as FAITHFUL to your religion of non religion as we are our true religion otherwise you would not be on here acting as missinaries and debating.. If you cant accept your dogma as one of hate and feelings of insecurity caused by pareents who negelected you in your formulative years then that is a handicap you must bear. Yeah i know you became an atheist when you got older and could reason, another way of getting the attention you never received as a child. You feel by being different you will gain your place in our world.Where will you go when you die and I am not reffering to heaven or hell. Unless you choose cremation how can you allow yourself to be laid to rest in a cemetery full of religios dead and monuments.it is what it is . requires just as much FAITH as do any other of our recognized religions.accept it and live with it.

 

johnheadIt would be to my benefit to have my mistakes pointed out to me.  How else would I correct them.  Please, by all means ‘expose’ me but please do so by citing evidence or a flaw in logic and not appeals to supernatural authority.

You dishonestly and intentionally confuse the meaning to different words; the meaning of ‘faithful’ with the religious meaning of ‘faith’.  I am ‘faithful’ to my wife insomuch as ‘faithful’ means trustworthy and dedicated.  That is entirely different from having ‘faith’ in my wife.  First, I know my wife is a real person with a real personality.  The ‘faith’, by which I mean ‘trust’, I have in my wife is based upon the evidence gathered during the totality of my past experience.

The type of ‘faith’ possessed by religious people like yourself is blind, meaning that one must accept, in the absence of evidence, all the tenants and claims of your religion and defend those tenants and claims against all evidence to the contrary.

We are not here as missionaries and science is not a religion. We do not require nor demand you blindly accept the scientific discoveries of the past few hundred years.  We do not demand your blind obedience to anything and we will never assert that you will be punished in some imagined after life for failing to educate yourself.

That being said, we will demand that you provide evidence for your claims.  We will refuse to submit the one think that separates us from the other animals, reason, to your invisible, mute, and apathetic celestial dictator.  We will not abandon our reason and take on the mind forged manacle of your religion in exchange for some false promise of immortality.

There is no dogma of non-belief, dogma is a belief, but this is you being dishonest again.  We do not hate you.  Insecurity actually leads to delusions of having a cosmic babysitter, like Jesus, not atheism.  My parents have always and still love me unconditionally.  They provided for my every need until I was an adult.  Attacking me and making false assertions about my childhood adds not one iota of weight to your belief in some magic sky wizard.  You could be 100% correct in your accusation and at the end of the day your god would still have no evidence of being real or having any measurable effect upon reality.

We didn’t choose to stop believing to get your attention and I already have a place in this world absent my position regarding religion.  I at least stopped believing because I realized that when stopped giving religion a pass regarding reasoning skills I use for everything else in my daily life there was no reason to believe it any longer.  It’s that simple.

The phrase ‘religion of non-religion’ is as absurd now as it was the first time you posted it.  It is a gleaming example of an oxymoron.  Likewise, not believing something cannot require faith because faith is used to justify the very thing atheism lacks.

My goodness does your dishonesty know no bounds?