What books can you recommend help atheists amicably discuss religion with believers.

As long as questions are considered attacks and people choose to be insulted by carefully phrased, calm, rational speech, I think we’re at an impasse.

We’re already trying rational discourse, and it’s not accepted.

That said, I do believe a new book has just been released called ‘How to Create an Atheist’ or something like that. Hement Mehta of the Friendly Atheist blog has promoted it. I’d like to give it a read.

Oh dear “God”....you must be a masochist. haha
Fine…here’s one I have really enjoyed, not exactly an athiest work, more a science oriented work, but certainly can be used in “argument” against fundamentalism. A deep and complex read and fascinating.

www.wakeuplaughing.com/SponEvo_Info.html

Speaking as an atheist vaguely interested in western theism, I really liked Thomas Cahill’s Desire of the Everlasting Hills. It’s a good read about the life and times of Jesus, and takes a Catholic yet critical approach. The author is learned in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. I think he learned Hebrew for one of his other books, The Gifts of the Jews, also a good read but not as much about theology.

Who Wrote The Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman is also really recommended, and puts a lot of what are crudely called “contradictions” of the Old Testament into their historical context. I think I may have recommended it to @ETpro before. Make sure you get the latest edition.

If you’re talking about the right wing fringe this book might help you understand their thinking.
It’s written by a former fundie who help architect the current fundamentalist movement.
He’s not an atheist but he is a sane orthodox Christian now.
The book is fiction but it gives you a good picture of how the fundie mind works.

War & Peace?

Not a book, but there are really solid arguments from Iron Chariots
If you need a book to tell how how to hold a conversation/argument without getting nasty (not that I’m trying to insult you, @ETpro—this applies to everyone), then that’s a matter of basic social skills.

I’m not sure you need anything so specialized. I mean, you know the arguments they’ll put forward. You have your own arguments to counter them. The problem comes is in treating the person you’re talking with respectfully. If anything, I think you want a book about listening and putting yourself in the other person’s shoes.

It’s not enough to just say the right things to make them think you’re listening, when in fact you’re waiting for your turn to hammer them over the head with your point. People can see when you’re doing that (and I also don’t mean literally you). I think the challenge is to actually hear what they say, and empathize with them to the point that you understand what they are trying to communicate to you, rather than just tallying errors you can respond “Gotcha!” to when it’s your turn to speak.

Wait….. Do you want to “amicably discuss” or convert?

I haven’t read it, but Francis Collins is the director of the NIH. I’ve heard many interviews with him and he’s a bright guy.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/1416542744

There’s the Russell/Copleston Debate.  Which was an event rather than a book, but you can listen to it.  Honestly though, the civility is more of a consequence of the rather restrictive rules of formal debate (and being from a stiffer Britain than we have today).  As an actual argument it didn’t get off ground as Copleson’s argument required a necessary first cause, an intellectual assumption Russell could not accept as scientificaly or philosophically valid.

I think it’s a 2-way street. Atheists discussing amicably and vise-versa. I find that so many believers seem to think that Atheists have no knowledge of religion and therefore theists always seem to want to convert Atheists back to Theism. Atheists ARE very knowledgeable,- that’s why we’re Atheists. I think the majority of non-believers are more than happy to discuss amicably, just sans the conversion attempts.

@kipler, fluther has plenty of atheists who would rather convert than discuss. Many theists here understand that many atheists here are knowledgable and are happy to discuss until the conversation turns condescending and judgmental which happens often and which is why I almost didn’t even participate in this thread.

@Judi – I think you’re confusing Agnostics with Atheists. No sane Atheist would consider converting. And if Fluther had so many Atheists who had converted, they wouldn’t be Atheists.

@kritiper, I wasn’t clear. I meant atheists who want to convert theists to atheism.

I don’t know if such a book exists, but if atheists assume they are more intelligent than theists as @kritiper does, it really shows their bias. The truth is, both atheists and theists are all over the map, intelligence wise, sanity wise, etc. My son in law is atheist, but is also mentally ill to the point that he’s barely functioning. Talking with him about anything, let alone religion is a lost cause. I also know some atheists who would not be considered very high on the IQ scale, and others here on Fluther who are members of Mensa.

Edit: I have a theist relative who is a scientist in NASA, and many other extremely intelligent relatives in similar positions that require high intelligence.

You certainly aren’t going to win points with many theists if you relate to them from such an exalted point of view.

Agreed, @snowberry. There’s no IQ requirement for being either an atheist or a theist. What a preposterous idea.

@glacial @snowberry
I think that preposterous idea stems from the notion that most atheists have, that atheism is a (the) logical consequence of observing the world around us. They put or imply theism to be a logical fallacy. The idea is that if one would only sincerely look, one would have to come to the conclusion of atheism.

That doesn’t seem to be working that way in real life.

What books will atheists recommend to de-convert a believe then?
Why all the angst about atheists v. believers anyway?
Live and let live and let all believe as they wish as it’s no business of anyone else surely.

@SomeoneElse While there are infinite differences amongst theists and atheists the belief or non belief in a diety tends to be very central to one’s understanding and expectations of the world and the people in it. Because these beliefs tend to back up very different and often passionately contradictory positions, positions that are so closely linked to their spiritual or secular origins that they become incomprehensible without such a foundation, the question of God or no? can easily be the difference between being able to understand and accept another’s personal ethic and philosophy and coming to a stony impasse.

Why would I want to?
Every other topic, be it politics, science , social issues, can be discussed in a fierce and heated manner, and it is seen as completely acceptable, even expected, to do so.
This is aggravated by religions’ millennia-long history of oppression and imposed scientific retardation, and yet we are somehow expected to afford special respect towards religion and the discussion thereof.
I find this assumed right of religion to special treatment ludicrous.

@Seek_Kolinahr Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Rest assured that I have no illusions I will succeed in convincing every person I debate. There are those whom you can show that they are using circular logic, and even get them to admit the same, who will then go right back to saying the same thing they just agreed was flawed, and will do so ad infinitum.

But I know that it’s possible to sometimes show someone who is operating from flawed, circular logic or false premises that error, and in fact convince them to look at things in a new way. At the same time, I’d like to make sure I am open to being convinced as well, as I am not immune to the same logical traps.

I rarely catch the live stream on Sundays, but The Atheist Experience, a live call-in talk show on Austin’s Public Access Channel 16, runs every Sunday. You can catch the most recent show and back issues here. Matt Dillahunty is an extraordinarily patient and articulate debater. On numerous occasions, I have heard him talk a caller through their fuzzy logic, and have vicariously witnessed the blinders falling off their eyes. I listen to learn from his style, and that of his various guests and stand-in hosts. Of course, there are these as well.

Hemant Metha has three books out, I Sold My Soul on eBay: Viewing Faith through an Atheist’s Eyes, The Young Atheist’s Survival Guide: Helping Secular Students Thrive, and The Friendly Atheist: Thoughts on the Role of Religion in Politics and Media. I have all three on my Want to Read list at Goodreads.com

@Coloma I am in fact a masochist, but that has nothing to do with the existence of a deity. :-) Thanks for the link. Great stuff. Duly added to my Want to Read list.

Sorry. I really thought you wanted an amacable discussion. Now I realize you were just seeking evangelism techniques. I can be so naive sometimes.

Forgive me if I was unclear. Hement advertised the book on his blog, he is not the author.

You can’t convert a theist to atheism. It happens on its own. For many people, obviously, it never happens. Children have a natural tendency of magical thinking. If the adults are theists, this magical thinking tendency is perpetuated and shaped and solidified into whatever religion the parents are in.

In my case, interestingly, both my parents were Jewish atheists but I grew up a theist. It wasn’t until I was well into adulthood that I shed my final vestiges of magical thinking and became the atheist skeptic I am today. (But I’m still Jewish).

And this condescending attitude is why an “amicable” discussion is impossible.

My point made.

@Judi To be fair, just as one doesn’t have to be “knowledgeable” to be an atheist, one can have a “condescending attitude” and still have an amicable discussion (not that that is the ideal).

A discussion of magical thinking is not even necessarily condescending. Have a look at the Wikipedia definition of this phrase (“Magical thinking is the identification of causal relationships between actions and events where scientific consensus says that there are none”). It is not in any way disparaging.

‘Naive’. There’s that beautiful word again. Us Christians have been labeled that somewhere before I recall, some non-Christian’s just love it when we live up to their standards. O_o

Not all Christian’s just for the record, just wanted to straighten that out!

The Art Of War by Sun Tzu

Enormous Evangelical Theist Tools Vs. Enormous Evangelical Atheist Tools: Living In A World Where The Loudest Talker Wins by Jon Wilcox

Why I Am Not A Christian

Bertrand Russel

I love Russell but he can be a bit snarky. Though, as I recall that one is a collection of essays on a wide range of topics so maybe it would be gentler. It does have my favorite Russell essay Nice People.

What ever!

@ETpro You should read G K Chesterton who said this ‘There is no such thing as fighting on the winning side; one fights to find out which is the winning side.’

@fundevogel

snarky!?!

Perhaps exasperated with cloudy thinking would be closer to the mark. I am reminded of an idiot interviewer bringing out the exasperation in Russel.

@glacial Exactly. I wasn’t trying to be condescending at all. Children DO have a tendency towards magical thinking that are perpetuated by the parents (Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, God heals the sick, whatever). Sometimes they grow out of it, sometimes they don’t. When I was a kid, I used to believe that evil spirits lived in mirrors and Ouija boards. As a young adult, I believed in the healing power of positive thinking and prayer, crystal energies, and pyramid power. That is what I mean by magical thinking. I’m nearly 50, and it’s only in the last 5 or 6 years of my life did I eliminate the vestiges of that type of thinking (I believed in accupuncture, chiropracters, herbal medicine, etc.) . It all changed for me when I discovered and understood Bayesian statistical scientific analysis. (Seek, look at my “religion” on my FB profile)

That all said, I’m a firm believer in Oliver’s Woofing Theorem. :-)

@Rarebear Woof! Oh shit.

@Neodarwinian I like him fine, but he’s got wit like a razorblade.

Personally, when my mom insisted on sending me a Jesus book I gave her terms. She could only give me one and that was it. I agreed to read it so long as she would read one book of my choosing. I went with Jesus, Interrupted as I thought it would be something she could find interesting and informative with where she already was. It addresses very specific issues regarding the textual authenticity of the Bible without coming out guns blazing proclaiming there is no god. A book like that is less aggressive so it is less likely to make religious readers defensive. And, for what it’s worth, we both honored the arrangement and moved on, so, mission accomplished.

D’oh! I’m mixing up my Ehrman. It was Misquoting Jesus I gave my mom. And the stronger of the two in my opinion.

Ehrman is once of my favorite theists. I have three of his books. I didn’t buy Jesus, Interrupted, because reviews I trust suggested there are other books that offer the same information, presented better. I have Lost Scriptures, Lost Christianties, and Misquoting Jesus.

@Seek_Kolinahr When I was looking for the book on Paperbackswap, I came across this. My thinking is it’s some biblical literalist who disagrees with Ehrman. I’ll have to get the book now.

http://www.paperbackswap.com/Misquoting-Truth-Guide-Timothy-Paul-Jones/book/0830834478/

Why is it necessary to try convert theists to atheists? If you think converting all theists you run into on the regular is going to turn the tide of damage done in the name of religion you are sorely mistaken. So why even bother? Mind your own business, let people hold onto their “magical thinking” and keep your mouth shut.

What you are talking about attempting sounds obnoxious and arrogant you know, kind of like those people who knock on your door and give you pamphlets about their religion.

Why do you wash your hair, if it’s just going to get dirty again?

No one, @Rarebear included, is going door to door attempting to deconvert people. However, we do often enter into discussions about religion, atheism, humanism, and skepticism.

One problem I continually run into is my discussion partner claiming victory by insult. That is, ‘what you said hurts my feels, so I’m right and you need to shut up’. Of course, the same rule doesn’t apply to the nonreligious. Not that I take offense to non-personal attacks anyway. My ideas are subject to change with new evidence, and I welcome the challenge.

I, since I can only speak for myself, do my best to debate in an impersonal manner, making my points as clear as possible without offending my discussion partner. I do not resort to ad hominem attacks or logical fallacies to support my position. So when the inevitable happens and someone whines that their feelings are hurt, I’m seriously tempted to give up attempting to be nice, take the gloves off, and go balls-out anti-theist.

It would be easy.

But I don’t want to be that person.

@Seek_Kolinahr well that is a silly analogy. WTF does dirty hair have to do with trying to change someone’s entire belief system?

There is a huge difference between discussing religion and wanting to find tools to help convert people to atheism. The truth of the matter is that debating religion is much like debating the death penalty, abortion and the Affordable Care Act, you are basically wasting your time and energy because you are highly unlikely to change their minds and, as you said yourself, highly likely to hurt their feelings.

The urge to take off the gloves and be a full bore ani-theist kind of makes it sound like you have a chip on your shoulder. Is this about you helping other people break free of the delusions that cause them to believe in God, or working through your own issues wth religion?

Wow. It took you exactly one paragraph to make it personal. A new record.

LOL, personal? What, by pointing out flawed logic? Hmmm, isn’t that the entirety of the anti-theist argument?

The analogy (which by definition doesn’t relate directly to the subject at hand… being an analogy and all) was to illustrate that we all fight uphill battles every day. That doesn’t mean we should throw up our arms and say ‘fuck it,what’s the point?’

If you’ll read the question again, @ETpro, @Rarebear and I, as well as several other jellies, don’t want to evangelize. We are all stuck in this ongoing issue where we are consistently being accused of attacking theists, causing them insult. The accusations have gone on unprovoked for so long that you would have a hard time actually finding a personal attack to a theist committed by a longtime nonreligious member.

We’ve been on eggshells for AGES. And still, it’s perfectly ok for others to ask about chips on our shoulders, or insult our parenting, or bring up completely unrelated personal history as ammunition in what should be an amicable discussion.

This thread is basically asking ‘what the flaming hell do we have to do to be allowed to talk like grownups again?’

@Seek_Kolinahr so you are simply looking for a way to defend yourself from the unprovoked attacks by believers? Is this for the real world or on the internet? (I ask that because of your sentence about “longtime non-religious members”.) That seems incongruent with the original question which clearly mentions changing people’s minds. I (purposely) haven’t said whether I believe or not, but I will say that, dirty hair analogies aside, it seems fruitless to try to convert people either way and almost surely a path to personal attacks and hurt feelings on both sides.

Yup. What Seek said.

I personally think it’s fruitless to hang around religious discussions telling people how fruitless their discussions are, but you’re in good company. The are two or three others who also don’t contribute to the discussion except to state their objection to its existence.

@Seek_Kolinahr I answered this question clearly by saying the whole premise of wanting to change people’s minds about their beliefs is fruitless. Now it is clear that you don’t want to hear my contribution to the discussion, but it makes the answer no less valid.

sigh

It’s all part of the problem we’re dealing with.

The question is how can we participate in the discussion without offending anyone. We’re already being told to shut up. The answer is no. We’re willing to meet halfway and go out of our way to be accommodating to the theists’ emotional responses. But no, we will not simply remain censored.

A man convinced against his will is of the same conviction still (old time platitude)

@bolwerk Thanks for the recommendations. I’d have never thought to include Thomas Cahill’s book since it attempts to look at the historical Jesus and while we have some first and second hand recollections of his life and death from his disciples, and people who studied their claims about him; such anecdotal accounts are the least reliable form of historic evidence. But if you found it interesting, I’ll add it to my “Want to Read” list. The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels (Hinges of History) is a must read, as I often wonder in amazement at the fact this small band of desert nomads had such a profound effect on so many humans. Both works added to my Goodreads.com Want to Read list.

@Judi Thanks for the suggestion of And God Said “Billy ”. I definitely would like to understand more about the right-wing fringe thought process. On the Want-to-Read (WTR) list.

@ucme Ha! Yeah, I can my mission as being that forbidding. While I realize you’re joking, I read War and Peace, in High School. So whatever good I’ll draw from it is alreacy in place.

@Michael_Huntington “And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” Just think how cool we’d be today with chariots of depleted uranium (M1A1 Abrams tanks). No, I don’t need a book to be able to debate, but knowledge is power.

@glacial Excellent point. Being able to really hear an argument and respond, even when I disagree with the argument, in a way that lets the person who advanced the argument know I understood. Maybe a guide to serving on a high school debate team might be just what the doctor ordered

@Judi I want to debate in such a way the truth is likely to prevail.

@Rarebear It’s The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Given the author’s credentials, I would expect he’s present well-formed arguments. On the WTR list, but not high in priority, as I have almost certainly heard every argument again and again. Would you agree, or am I underestimating the power of this writer?

@fundevogel I’ve heard that argument far too many times to give it more than a cursory hearing since I am not in that debate. Dr. Copleston runs off the rails when he states that the cosmos must have a cause external to itself and this being… He has provided no evidence that the cause of the Big Bang is a being. Furthermore, he cannot provide any such evidence. But you’re right, the general air of dignified, academic debate in evidence on the tape of the meeting is refreshing. Thanks for the link.

@kritiper I agree. I’m sure there are the exceptions that prove the rule, but most atheists come to that position after considerable study and questioning. They come to atheism when they find that the arguments for theism either employ faulty logic or tautologies erected atop absent foundations.

@snowberry There are bad actors on both sides. It been in the news that a self-described “militant atheist” named James Maxie viciously beat pastor, The Reverend Norman Hayes after Maxie and his girlfriend attended worship services at Rev. Hayes Ohio Church. I think the Reverend was out of line asking Maxie’s girlfriend if she was abused by atheist Maxie; but his behavior certainty did not rise to the level that justifies an assault. Of course, from the Inquisition forward to this very day, the Christian churches have blood stained hands as well.

I did not see @kritiper claiming superior intelligence. Saying that you arrived at a position after a great deal of study is not a claim that your intelligence it superior to all who hold a different position. Such deliberate twisting or your opponent’s words is one of the debate strategies sure to derail amicable discussion and harden positions into ones of anger and personal attacks.

@whitenoise OK, I can certainly agree that telling someone up front that you think their world view is logically flawed and wrong isn’t likely to lead to open exchange of ideas or the conversion of anybody. It’s only going to harden positions.

Nonetheless, there is atheism, and there is theism, and they cannot both be true. Atheism is a pretty straightforward thing. Among theists, there are thousands of gods, and as this question points out, even if we limit the discussion to one god, there are a myriad of ways that this, that or the other sect of theist worshiping that god claim to be the ONLY way to satisfy their god. So logic does tell us that a very large number of theists hold a position that is not true. We have thousands of mutually exclusive positions. In that case, no more than one can be right. The rest are all wrong.

@SomeoneElse I’d be fine with live and let live it that were the option. It is not. We have Intelligent Design and Creationists in all over the South trying to throw out real science in favor of teaching Creationist Intelligent Design, which is NOT science. We have some Christians, Jews and Muslims all determined to provoke a nuclear war over the temple mount; all of them convinced that destroying all life on Earth will catapult them into the glories of Heaven. We have Sharia law, genital mutilation, death sentences for converting from one faith to another and on and on. It’s foolish to play live and let live with people convinced their god commands them to not let you live.

@ragingloli Why? Because I’d like to be as effective as I can be at stopping the sort of death wish religion described in my response to @SomeoneElse.

@all More tomorrow. The hour is too late.

@ETpro: it tries to study the historical context before and after. It does so imperfectly, but critically. At worst, it gives you tools to discuss Jesus from a theist’s POV.

@ETpro You are right about @kritiper‘s comment. I did not read it thoroughly. Thanks for catching that. And thanks for agreeing there are “bad actors on all sides.” It is unfortunate that so many atheists think that believing in God is a sure sign of lower intelligence.

My 2 cents, before I run like the wind, ....

Nobody knows anything for certain. The real issue here is not defending belief systems it is being open minded enough to say those 3 little words that stop ego in it’s tracks.

I don’t know!

Nobody holds the monopoly on ultimate truth. In order to know for certain we all have to die in which case it is true, dead men don’t talk. lol
Yep, I am much more in the atheist camp, however…I can easily say ” I don’t know” and neither do any of you.

So now that I have withheld a little and I have read some of the answers to the questions.

I am sorry but is it just me or did the the opening comment ironically start off as little chomp! chomp! if you know what I mean.

̿ ̿ ̿̿̿̿̿’̿’\̵͇̿̿\=(•̪●)=/̵͇̿̿/’̿̿ ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿

Also just a note that technically I did set sail on the last comment about faith and religion, I’ve also securely attached this to my ship.

It is to my knowledge from reading and rereading the question that the OP is actually asking for advice to possibly learn how to better debate with and potentially have an adult conversation with someone without it devolving into attacks of the opposing side and ironically what is going on here IMHO right from the beginning :I.

I commend @ETpro for this question. Although I probably am not as conventional as the OP but I do wish, hope and pray for the same thing! :)

I get it and no one gets it more than I do that atheism and theism on Fluther is a hot topic out here between a few and that it can and does rile up both sides. I am learning with little trepidation that it is much easier to set sail and go whichever way your boat takes you or floats you, whichever the case may be, and try by all beans if possible to never commandeer another persons boat. :/

With all that said, @ETpro I’d like to give you the opportunity to hopefully enjoy reading the introduction to the second edition of a debate on atheism and theism between 2 philosophers J.J.C. Smart and J.J. Haldane. Posted here.

After you have read this and if you are further interested and have not read the book before I have mentioned it to you, you can buy a copy here.

@KaY_Jelly If your intention is not to be taken by an approaching vessel, might I suggest that instead of hoisting the white flag of surrender, you display either the K or kilo flag (meaning “I wish to communicate”) or perhaps the X or x-ray flag (meaning “stop carrying out your intentions and watch for my signals”). ;)

@glacial duly noted! I have now switched to the more difficult to raise but appropriate flag considering my etiquette in this thread now. ε(●̮̮̃•̃)з

Why would they want to discuss it? Really now?

@Judi What did I do to deserve that attack? I genuinely do want to learn how to keep discussions amicable. And I feel I have just as much right to expound my thoughts about belief systems as Christians, Muslims, Hindus and other theists do. If you are aware of some reason I, and other atheists, should not have freedom of speech; please explain what it is.

@Seek_Kolinahr Aha. One more book for my WTR list on Goodreads.com then. Thanks for the clarification.

@Rarebear I have listened in on calls on The Atheist Experience where a theist saw the circular logic they had been using to support their belief system, and they did indeed convert. It’s not an everyday occurrence, but it does happen. I do think that when it does, the theist has been bothered for some time by inconsistencies they have increasingly recognized in their faith, and that’s probably what prompts them to call in to an Atheist Q&A show to begin with.

To add to your note about your giving up Woo, what’s truly remarkable is I finally gave it up as well, but I am still NOT Jewish. :-)

@Judi Amicable discussion is most definitely possible, and has been going on right on this page. It’s not possible, though, with individuals who believe that they have the right to state their beliefs, and that those who agree with them are welcome to say so, but that all who disagree are displaying a “condescending attitude”.

@glacial That is so true. Certainly, the “militant atheist” I mentioned who was arrested for attending church and savagely the pastor after the sermon was acting in about as cloddish a manner as a human being can achieve.

@KaY_Jelly Ha! Someone would have to be seriously naive to read through all the multitude of differing positions this, that and the other Christian subscribe to, as listed in the OP details, and still see them as one cohesive group that can be described by generalizing about “all Christians”.

@Blondesjon Thanks. The Art of War is an excellent book that will help one prepare for any conflict, be it debate, street fight, or war between nation states. I’m not finding the second title.

@Neodarwinian Added to WTR list. Thank you.

@fundevogel Damn. And here I thought @Randy wrote that.

@flutherother That is definitely why I debate theism vs. atheism.

@Neodarwinian True. There are lines of apologetics that are quite predictable and have been shown again and again to be based on false assumptions. To try to have a meaningful discussion with someone who just keeps reiterating the same flawed claim is indeed exasperating.

fundevogel & Seek_Kolinahr Thanks. More for the WTR list.

@LilCosmo I know this thread has gotten long, and it is easy to miss earlier posts, but I answered the “Why?” question in my previous post telling SomeoneElse why I feel I have as much right and duty to persuade people as theists have. If you think Christian evangelists have an exclusive right to spread their beliefs, and nobody else enjoys such a right, I’d be interested in knowing what leads you to that belief. If you think the zeitgeist is a static thing incapable of ever changing, I’d also like to know what evidence you have for that belief.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in trying to change our minds about holding forth for what we believe by telling us “whole premise of wanting to change peoples’ minds about their beliefs is fruitless” when that is precisely what you are trying to do—change our minds?

@graynett Agreed. And personally, I have no intention of trying to convince anyone against their will.

@bolwerk Thanks. It’s on the WTR list.

@snowberry I find that one’s religion (or lack thereof) is an incredibly poor predictor of IQ.

@Coloma How very true. And that is one area where atheists do seem to excel—in admitting they do not know. If you want absolutism, that’s theism’s realm.

@KaY_Jelly Thanks, and kudos on some great ASCII art. I definitely will read the link, but it’s 2:36 AM here now, so manyana.

@LornaLove There must be some reason. Look at the number of tomes in any good library. Discuss it they do.

@ETpro a tilty hat and a

´*•.¸(*•.¸♥¸.•*´)¸.•*´
«´¨`•°ThankU°•´¨`»
.¸.•*(¸.•*´♥`*•.¸)`*•.

@ETpro thanks for the condescending response!

It is clear that you did not read my posts thoroughly (perhaps because the thread has gotten too long). I made it very clear that it is a waste of time for either to try to change the other’s mind. This is a subject that arouses passion and by its nature causes lots of hurt feelings – that is made clear by the very fact that you felt the need to ask this question. So I wonder what makes you think it is any more appropriate for you to pontificate than it is for people who believe in God.

Do I believe that people’s beliefs are always static and unchanging? No. Do I believe that theists and atheists badgering one another in attempt to change each other’s beliefs is what will be a catalyst for either to change? No. It really isn’t about either side “censoring” themselves, it is about neither side expecting to change the other’s mind with attacks on the other’s beliefs.

People do change their minds. It happens every day.

I was a Sunday school teacher and youth group leader, had been a fundamentalist Christian for many years. I taught Bible studies. And I rejected my faith in direct response to a sustained apologetics debate in a Myspace chatroom. It took months to go from conservative Christian to liberal Christian to apatheist to atheist, and another year before I said the word ‘atheist’ to another person.

All of this is moot anyway. People talk about religion, just as they do About sports, politics, and food. The atheists of Fluther – most of them anyway – are interested in doing so with as few hurt feelings as possible. This is a good thing. We could very easily allow the discussion to degenerate to childish rants or meme-posting threads, but we don’t. We want to talk like adults. And the desired end result is not necessarily the deconversion of fellow members. Some of us take what we discuss here and apply it to our conversation with the Jehovah’s Witnesses that knock on our door, or family members who keep mailing us books about Jesus, or the local commission meeting discussion on the intelligent design debate.

The conversation is there. We have to show up to be accounted for. History has so far not been kind to silent atheists.

So are you saying you are unreligioulsy religious, @Seek_Kolinahr that you’re ‘something’ to believe in is a preffered ‘nothing’ to believe in.

How is atheism any different?

too. early.

My aforementioned Francis Collins was an atheist turned theist.

@kay not all atheists are rigorous skeptics. I can probably speak for Seek here when I say that she and I and most atheist skeptics try to live our lives without belief and only accept things that have evidence.

I said nothing of the sort, @KaY_Jelly.

I don’t choose to believe in nothing. I am no longer convinced there is something to believe in. Big difference.

“Just be good, i’m good, not because I think i’ll go to heaven, but because when I do something bad I feel bad & when I do something good I feel good.”

Derek (Ricky Gervais)

@Rarebear OK. Did I miss something or is the joke on us and did you not just say in a few comments back that you believed in ‘woofing’, which you have to seriously know it is an infallible practice!

@Seek_Kolinahr OK. You can see it that way if you choose.

Besides, once you were convinced it’s at that point when you made your choice, whether it was conscious or not, I have no clue.

@kay. That was a joke.

I want to reply, but that sentence made no sense, Kay.

@Seek_Kolinahr
“History has so far not been kind to silent atheists.”

Really? Has history be kinder on outspoken atheists?

Theism is the norm and overall people, including theists, are not very tolerant of others that challenge their beliefs. So far it has sucked in most parts of the world to be an atheist, I fear.

(Based on over 40 years of personal obsevation and on what I have learned from thousands of years of history.)

Acceptance of atheism has been getting better since we’ve become more vocal.

I doubt that. Most atheists have become more vocal, because there is less risk to it, I feel.

@Rarebear So that was a joke! Well I am glad I double checked that! And then people wonder why mixed messages are sent and how come theists get all offended and cannot figure out if what is being said is a joke or not and on open forum on the internet with a bunch of different characters and I say that in the highest regard from all across the country with different religions and non-religions, I wonder why it happens?

@Seek_Kolinahr It does make sense! I guess I have to break it down. The first part do I really have to break that down?
“You can see it that way if you choose.” It was a riddle of sorts. Sorry.

The next part I said, “once you were convinced it’s at that point you made your made your choice” and I said that because you did say “I am no longer convinced there is something to believe in” did you not?

Which then led me to believe that you had to be convinced otherwise from what you once believed in in the first place. I really don’t see how hard this is to understand. :/

So therefore once you were convinced from believing into disbelief it was at that moment you made a choice, whether or not it was conscious or not, all events that led up to that moment were the choices you made, I personally believe at some point you still had and and still do have a choice.

With all that said IMHO you do choose to believe in the nothing rather than the ‘something’, because I can come up with at least one logical explanation as to how we cannot get something out of ‘nothing’ which would prove self defeating on your part.

Ex nihilo nihil.

@KaY_Jelly Sorry, I thought my little smiley face would have tipped you off. Any reasonable person who Googled “Oliver’s Woofing Theorem” would realize that the whole thing is written tongue-in-cheek.

My beliefs and choices are not subject to your opinion, humble or not.

@Rarebear My husband was a CFL football player I know all about it.

@Seek_Kolinahr OK you wanna play that way on an open and very public forum. Alright then.

۰۪۪۫۫●۪۫۰TeamJelly ۰۪۪۫۫●۪۫۰

?

@KaY_Jelly If you know all about it, then you’ll also know that it’s a joke. So I don’t understand why you were trying to call me out in a cognitive dissonance that I do not have since I was obviously kidding.

Both @Seek_Kolinahr and I have publicly said that we were both former theists who came to atheism through time by ourselves. Nobody tried to convert us. You keep stating that we have to “believe” in atheism. Atheism is simply an absence of belief.

I hate to keep speaking for @Seek_Kolinahr but I’m reasonably certain she would agree with the following statement. Show me verifiable evidence of a deity and I’ll be happy to start accepting the deity as real. Note I didn’t say, “believe”. I do not “believe” in anything. I only accept reality and evidence. When I make arguments, I come from my viewpoint of trying to present only verifiable evidence, be it with deities, herbal medicine, or Bigfoot. People can choose to read and agree or not. People are entitled to different understandings. People, myself included, can even be wrong.

It’s just that some people are more wrong than others. :-)

You’re allowed to speak for me. Henceforth you shall be the Mouth of Kolinahr.

okay, I spit out the Diet Pepsi I was drinking all over the keyboard

Haha. I’m not really even sorry.

@KaY_Jelly “So therefore once you were convinced from believing into disbelief it was at that moment you made a choice, whether or not it was conscious or not”

I’m not trying to steal @Rarebear‘s new title or anything, but I hope I might be able to clear up how atheism isn’t a choice for most of us. Think of something you are certain of in the world. It could be the color of the sky or that all angles in a triangle add up to 180 or whatever. I’m going with the sky because it’s faster to confirm with my eyes than the triangle thing is. As I write this I believe the sky is blue because that’s what my eyes tell me. I can’t choose to believe otherwise because it is contrary to what my senses tell me. In a bit I expect the sky will change color though. Maybe it will just get dark, maybe it will be pink, I don’t know. But if I am looking when my eyes tell me it’s pink I will believe that the sky is pink. This change in what color I believe e sky to be isn’t a product of choice, it reflects a change in the data my brain is using to determine the color of the sky.

I don’t speak for all atheists of course, but I think what Seek is getting at is that her expectation that there is no god is the only conclusion that she can draw from the data available to her. If she were a computer she could crunch that data a thousand times and always get the same result. Until the data changes to something that gives a different story she can do nothing but accept the product of the data she has.

You canonized me as an atheist saint, so you get to be the High Priest of Kolinahr.

woo hoo!

off to print new business cards

And I should of just left it alone. :/

I took the “not believing in anything” argument to another level that’s all.

Now I have to explain this all and it will be long, so sorry. :/

It’s obvious you are in a place of non-belief, I have been there myself, my point though is that IMHO it was a choice and that was the point of my whole comment and why I said ‘ex nihilo nihil’ because logically speaking everything that begins to exist has a cause.

If you have decided—(well according to you that decision wasn’t a choice but rather persuasion) to “only accept reality and evidence” then logically your decision or stance or whatever you call the place you are in right now makes no sense, the place of non-belief, if we were logically speaking and I was logically speaking and if I refer to wikipedia on the “First cause argument” and I did “states in summary:”

1.everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3.therefore, the universe must have a cause

This here is where my belief and faith in God comes in. Those 3 points make logical sense to me, I can not definitely prove that God exists but as of yet no one can prove to me that He doesn’t exist and until then everything that begins to exist has a cause, that we do know for sure.

“You keep stating that we have to “believe” in atheism. Atheism is simply an absence of belief.” Actually atheism is really the absence of belief that any deities exist, it’s not the absence of belief, I am not being condescending but that is absurd.

These are a few quotes from Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy under philosophy and basic beliefs:
Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it’s the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophy of mind and epistemology. The “mind-body problem”, for example, so central to philosophy of mind, is in part the question of whether and how a purely physical organism can have beliefs. Much of epistemology revolves around questions about when and how our beliefs are justified or qualify as knowledge.

What is is to believe?
It is common to think of believing as involving entities—beliefs—that are in some sense contained in the mind. When someone learns a particular fact, for example, when Kai reads that some astronomers no longer classify Pluto as a planet, he acquires a new belief (in this case, the belief that some astronomers no longer classify Pluto as a planet). The fact in question—or more accurately, a representation, symbol, or marker of that fact—may be stored in memory and accessed or recalled when necessary. In one way of speaking, the belief just is the fact or proposition represented, or the particular stored token of that fact or proposition; in another way of speaking, the more standard in philosophical discussion, the belief is the state of having such a fact or representation stored. (Despite the ease with which we slide between these different ways of speaking, they are importantly distinct: Contrast the state of having hot water in one’s water heater—the state of being “hot-water ready”, say—with the stuff actually contained in the heater, that particular mass of water, or water in general.)

It is also common to suppose that beliefs play a causal role in the production of behavior. Continuing the example, we might imagine that after learning about the potential demotion of Pluto, Kai naturally gets absorbed in other interests and does not consciously consider the matter for several days, until when reading his son’s science textbook he encounters the sentence “our solar system contains nine planets”. Involuntarily, his new knowledge about Pluto is called up from memory. He finds himself doubting the truth of the textbook’s claim, and he says, “actually, there’s some dispute about that”. It seems plausible to say that Kai’s belief about Pluto, or his possession of that belief, caused, or figured in a causal explanation of, his utterance.

So you see you do indeed believe it just happens to not be a belief in a deity but what I call a ‘belief’ in atheism or a ‘belief’ in a non-belief if you will. And IMO you made that choice.

This is a quote from The Center for Study and Society of Secularism:

“Before we deal with these questions it is important to note that human mind cannot remain bereft of beliefs. Of course nature of belief may vary and may even be antagonistic to each other or non-conforming to each other. But nevertheless human mind cannot be comfortable without certain beliefs. In this sense secularism or even atheism acquires form of belief and is defended as vehemently as religious belief.”

“Atheism thus cannot be described as state of non-belief. A religious person who believes in God may describe it as non-belief but it is non-belief in God, not non- belief per se. It is certainly a form of belief. A secularist may be either atheist or agnostic or may even accept existence of God though not as part of some formal religious belief but as some kind of super power or even as creator.”

~Institute of Islamic Studies
By dr. asghar ali engineer.

@Seek_Kolinahr OK. Thank you Star Trek. o_O

We should form a Church of Kolinahr.

@LilCosmo “It is clear that you did not read my posts thoroughly (perhaps because the thread has gotten too long)” Ha! Where was I condescending compared to that? The badgering going on here has come from you.

@Seek_Kolinahr Thank you. That is precisely the spirit this question was meant to express.

Wow everyone’s getting religious! She^^ wants to form a church, and he^ is talking about ‘the spirit’!

Looks like my classes in the art of persuasion are working.

What. That is not witchcraft. I stopped doing that years ago. That is ‘something’ else. Most likely nothing. Don’t worry you’re in good hands.

٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ ✪ ٩(-̮̮̃•̃)۶ ✪٩(̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾)۶ ✪٩(-̮̮̃-̃)۶

@KaY_Jelly (good gods your name is hard to type on a phone)

Tl;dr

I don’t concede the first cause argument anyway. And copypasta sucks.

You know what the problem with philosophy is? It is all bullshit. Nice mental gymnastics, but ultimately meaningless, because you can not test if it is true.
Also, argument from authority.

@Seek_Kolinahr
I do not accept the first cause argument either. Neither of the 2 axioms, that everything has a beginning has a cause, and that the universe had a beginning, can actually assumed to be true.
And even if they were, the jump from ‘something caused the universe’ to ‘god did it’ is a completely irrational jump, never mind going on to specify it as the abrahamic god.

It’s pretty silly when step two of one’s argument is to make an exception to step one.

Everything has a cause!
except god

OK so logically speaking what are you’re thoughts?

Currently my thoughts are centred on whether I’ll hear my alarm clock in four hours if I take a sleeping pill right now.

But I’m assuming that’s not what you’re asking.

Thoughts on what subject, specifically?

LOL. I don’t know anymore. At this point it really doesn’t matter because I am also tired and my head is buzzing no thanks to my neighbor who’s been playing loud music for the past 2 nights from 11–3am and would not answer her door. I am amazed I can put together these sentences. Maybe we will have to continue another time.

Have a good night.

Also just to touch on what you said about “everything has a cause except God”. This is where I must insert the teleological argument which states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. ;)

There is a difference between being designed, and just appearing as if.
See evolution.

My nearsightedness, faulty gallbladder, clinical depression and malformed feet disagree with your premise.

@fundevogel Being human we want to go beyond what our senses tell us and that’s what leads to disagreement. We can agree that the sky is blue but we want to know why the sky is blue and there can be more than one explanation for that.

There is a scientific explanation which says light is made up of wavelengths we perceive as colour and which are scattered by the atmosphere making the sky blue. There is also the religious explanation which says the sky is blue as it was designed to be the most pleasing colour it could be and that sunsets could have no better colour than their familiar reds and golds.

In the one explanation man is nothing and in the other he is everything but it all comes from the sky being blue.

I personally think the atmospheric scattering and the happenstance of our eyes not evolving violet photoreceptor cells is way more fascinating than ‘god thought we’d like a nice blue’.

The fact that you have any sight at all and a gallbladder and you can still walk and you have the emotions to know whats going on tells me that the above must still be true otherwise without those things you’d be dead.

Be lucky you can complain.

There are ways to help prevent and or correct those things, which therefore only indicates that my above comment could be correct.

Actually, I don’t have a gallbladder. Had to have it removed. The design of my digestive system was so miraculously perfect, that every woman in my family going back five generations has needed a cholecystectomy.

But I’m a lucky one. I wasn’t designed with a perfect 23rd chromosome. Or perfect childhood bone cancer. Or perfect hermaphrodita.

Why the sky is blue

I hope that the book called “God 9.0” by Tilmann Haberer, Marion and Werner Tiki Küstenmacher will soon get translated to English. They describe the beliefs in God 1.0, God 2.0, God 3.0 all the way to 9.0 (from 3000 BCE through the Age of Enlightenment till the 21st century). It’s important to understand that even today there are people who believe in God 2.0, like young earth creationists for example. Or God 4.0 like Catholics who agree with the Vatican doctrines.

I found an English article related to it, which gives some impressions about the book
http://www.ievolve.org/god-9-0-does-christianity-have-a-future-by-tilmann-haberer/

The ideas can improve the debates between atheists and religious believers.

@flutherother & @Rarebear It doesn’t matter what color the sky is. The point was that how I interpret the color of the sky is wholly depend on data external to myself and that my belief of what color it is thus a consequence of the only way my brain can process that data. In other words, no choice was involved in the establishment of whatever color I believe the sky to be.

Honestly it’s only blue, like, half of the time.

@fundevogel But your visual perception has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with neuronal pathways in your eye and visual cortex.

It’s analogy. About data analysis. We take in data, it tells what color to see the sky as. We take in data it either makes us believe or disbelieve in god. That is all.

@fundevogel Ah. I partially agree with you. I would add that the data needs to be repeatable, verifiable, and objectively measured.

@Seek_Kolinahr Do I detect a bit of sarcasm?

Anyway, who ever said those issues were perfect? Other than I guess the gall bladder thing which if you do recall I did say that there are ways to help prevent and or correct those things. My mother had gall bladder stones and had her gallbladder removed as a corrective surgery I suppose you could say. I know all about health issues, I have many myself. But I wasn’t trying to make this about group therapy. :(

But do not be fooled, if you really think about it everything must have a cause (of course I look towards this):
Exodus 9:14
For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.

And it doesn’t always mean we will be perfect and lord knows that’s the truth! As we are truly infallible:
Acts 13:38
Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins

Numbers 15:39
And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord, and do them ; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring:

And we also cannot stop searching for knowledge and we don’t follow what God has sent his only begotten son to earth to tell us:
Genesis 2:9
And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

So now let’s take for example this knowledge that we just cannot stop thrusting ourselves right into and look at the fact that there are no reported killer whale fatalities on humans in the wild, but yet there are captive killer whale attacks on humans which ironically have been fatal to humans!

So yes I am saying there just might be a reason for these things happening, you might not like it, maybe I don’t like it, but things just don’t magically appear and if you believe that, well then your logic is flawed even more than I thought..

“Two possibilities exist…
Either we are alone in the universe or we are not.
Both are equally terrifying.”
~Arthur C. Clarke

(It seems that the idea of logic I am proposing to you may think is slightly irrational I am not sure why, since it is logic and that is the point of it but it is obviously very different from your idea and your idea, albeit valid, seems slightly irrational to me (which is why I started believing) thus we’ve come to an impasse and really I can keep going on and on and in circles forever about how passionate I am if you’d like and so can you but you are just proving that you are just as passionate about ‘non-belief’ as I am about belief. Do I have to keep doing this :/)

What the flaming hell are you talking about? Killer whales? The scriptures you’re posting don’t even match your comments.

Arthur C Clarke was talking about extraterrestrial lifeforms in that quote, not god. He’s an atheist sci-fi novelist.

You don’t need a book. All you need is empathy.

@KaY_Jelly – You really opened a can of worms with the idea that “since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer.” So one might ask “so what designed the “Designer?””
So you see, your POV on that is a catch-22, catch all non-answer. It explains and/or proves nothing.

@mattbrowne An on-topic answer! Thank you ever so much.

@Seek_Kolinahr

Sigh.

You see it proves how one sided you really are. I don’t give a rat’s ass what he believes in. I know all about him, but that wasn’t my point, my point is that I like his quote.

After you read my comment you seriously cannot connect the dots of it all? Well I can. And I’m not going to keep explaining and explaining. Read it more than once. Have it translated by someone else if you have to.

And the scripts do match, maybe you need them in the much easier to understand NKJV.

I’ve been working a lot lately and I’m going on about 8 hours sleep for the past 3 days. Give me a break.

Oh my gosh. @kritiper I wasn’t trying to ‘prove’ anything. It is a logical argument. Look it up. It’s called the teleological argument. That’s t e l e.. o forget it.

@KaY_Jelly
Sorry… it is an argument and possibly a philosophical, but not a logical one.

”the teleological argument which states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer.”

That is as logical as waking up and remarking that … it seems there is no breakfast, someone must have eaten mine.

There are a multitude of other explanations possible so the must is a fallacy. All one needs to do disprove it, is put forward one other solution.

For instance… there is no design, but we are just predisposed to see design wherever there is none.

Ok. @whitenoise

Check this out! It’s interesting anyway on the philoshy of it anyway.

I also said was going on 8 hours of sleep.

http://www.manyworldsoflogic.com/teleologicalArgument.html

Perhaps @ETpro you might like that as well ;)

It’s becoming clear to me that I need sleep.

No matter what kind of argument I have it is valid.

Here is the end quote from the website I provided in case you don’t want have time to click the link:

Of course, someone had to ask the further question: But how did the atoms themselves originate? Aren’t we forced by logic to suppose they were originally created by God? Leucippus had thought about this possibility, and he had rejected it as an unnecessary explanatory inference. It is simpler, he argued, to hypothesize that the atoms have just always existed. If we suppose they are eternal, then we have no need to explain how they came to be. This logic caused Leucippus and his fellow atomists to hypothesize that three things are eternal and uncreated: atoms, motion, and empty space, which the atomists called “the Void.” Nothing else exists, argued the atomists, in particular, no Designer of the cosmos exists; everything is just atoms and the void. And with that, Leucippus closed his philosophical shop for the day, saying in so many words, “Time to go home, the questions have all been answered.”

Argumentum verbosium
Argumentum ad hominum
Inconsistent comparison
Circular reasoning
Red herring

@Seek_Kolinahr Did I miss any?

I can’t answer that without committing an ad hominem.

I had a nice little discussion with a pair of mormon missionaries on the street today.
I now own a Book of Mormon.

@ragingloli I saw the musical. I figured the musical is exactly the same as the book.

@Rarebear
It has a hand written sermon style text, in German, on the first page, written by one of the missionaries.
(The girls were from the US).
It is full of grammatical errors.

@ragingloli Sounds fun. I hope it includes the bit about the golden tablets.

@KaY_Jelly Some other thread, but engaging in a debate in this thread about the Theological Argument would be very directly counter to my purpose in asking the question. I would just remind you that Cicero wasn’t making an argument for the Trinity but for Jupiter. Was he right?

Did you put my argument together yet @Seek_Kolinahr?

Let me put it together for you once and for all and decode my obviously devinci coded comment for you. Maybe after I explain it you might understand what I was talking about. And I apologize if I have made it a mathematical equation thus making it harder for you to understand.

“Everything must have a cause.”

This obviously is me agreeing with the statement and argument I made earlier about
ex nihilo nihil or the first cause argument.

Then I gave you the Exodus 9:14 script. If you read exodus 9…oh I will just take the liberty to give you most of the ‘story’ so you may hopefully get the point I was going for that everything has a cause, . They are in the NKJV for easy translation!

Exodus 9:14 for at this time I will send all My plagues to your very heart, and on your servants and on your people, that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth.

15 Now if I had stretched out My hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, then you would have been cut off from the earth._

16 But indeed for this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.

17 As yet you exalt yourself against My people in that you will not let them go.

18 Behold, tomorrow about this time I will cause very heavy hail to rain down, such as has not been in Egypt since its founding until now.

19 Therefore send now and gather your livestock and all that you have in the field, for the hail shall come down on every man and every animal which is found in the field and is not brought home; and they shall die.

20 He who feared the word of the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh made his servants and his livestock flee to the houses.

21 But he who did not regard the word of the Lord left his servants and his livestock in the field.

Me using that script as a reference is also me slightly pointing to the idea that possibly all the since we were having group therapy sessions about health issues sickness in the world might have a cause (ex nihillo nihil again sorry I can’t help myself) and I am even pointing to the teleological argument and IMHO I think the cause is beyond our human knowledge.

Which is why I said we can not stop searching for knowledge. Which brings me to the scriptures about the tree of knowledge which those I hope are self explanatory.

I also threw in a couple of scripts about the fact the we are not ‘perfect’ per-say, just to confirm the idea that He knows we are infallible. Again translated in the easy to understand NKJV.

Acts 13:38 Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins

And the next one:

Numbers 15:38 Speak to the children of Israel: Tell them to make tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a blue thread in the tassels of the corners.

39 And you shall have the tassel, that you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them, and that you may not follow the harlotry to which your own heart and your own eyes are inclined,

40 and that you may remember and do all My commandments, and be holy for your God.

41 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the Lord your God.”

Then I go further by making the comment about whales. Yes whales. Why whales? Well because I’m a vegan and I care about all creatures so it’s the first thing that comes to my mind.

And of course I needed to make another point so I was just further proving that with genesis 2:17 because we are interested and we always have this thirst for knowledge and want to do things like study killer whales in captivity yet doing so has literally killed us (But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.) and leaving them in the wild where they belong hasn’t harmed us at all. I was comparing the 2. The knowledge we thrive of the whale is like a modern day tree of knowledge scenario! That is just one idea, there are others, but as I said the fact that I am compassionate about creatures that is the reason why I thought of whales first or even at all.

And then I gave the quote. Not because of who it is written by, but because of the shear meaning of the quote and how well it summed up everything I was talking about. But I suppose since Arthur C. Clark is the authority on things that exist outside the universe then we theists also might as well close shop. Because he is not the authority on knowing whether or not something or nothing exists or else he wouldn’t have pondered the idea of which I refereed to which is why I referred to it because regardless of what he meant at the time he thought up the quote or even his credentials on the subject at that time, the quote is valid and can strike a chord in the heart of believers and non-believers of any faith believing in a deity or not.

Yes I agree my argument was foggy and somewhat of a half assed logical argument so you just had to search for the logic I apologize, I have been tired and overworked.

How did you like my irrational rant where I was telling you @Seek_Kolinhar that I wasn’t going to keep explaining and explaining it to you was great wasn’t it?!

Oh and now since I have had some sleep I just have to make an extra side note, the teleological argument is a logical argument. It is an inductive logical argument. It just may not be “logically tight enough for us it has been and can be easily criticized, but that does not mean it is not logical.

I hope this clears it up.

@ETpro I understand. See just above, my explanation that the teleological argument just isn’t logically tight enough. Therefore we must move to tighter arguments so the link I posted in this comment is a must read, it gives a nice laypersons explanations on both the teleological and the cosmological arguments! :)

Peace out.

Tl;dr

When I was in Egypt, I saw the pyramids. There was no way that this could have been made by Egyptians, thousands of years ago. They must have been made by aliens. They cannot just have appeared there.

Don’t ever get my husband started on that one. I could kick myself for recommending Fingerprints of the Gods to him.

It’s Arthur C. Clarke, not “Clark”.

And out of curiosity, I’m wondering if you could have just been a little more condescending in your statement @KaY_Jelly when you wrote “And I apologize if I have made it a mathematical equation thus making it harder for you to understand.”

@KaY_Jelly Nooooooo! As much as I know I should stay out of this, I just can’t. No argument, however exhaustive and no matter how often it finds new ways to restate its founding premise, is any stronger than its founding premise.

“Everything must have a cause.” We simply do not know that. It’s our human experience that this is so, so it tends to ring true to our intuition. But we’ve been around as intelligent, tool shaping beings for about 100,000 years, give or take, in a Universe that has been around for 14.73 billion years since the Big Bang, and we have no idea what might have come before that. For that tiny microsecond of cosmic time, we have been observing cause and effect in one teeny, tiny spec orbiting one average star out on the fringes of a decent sized spiral galaxy holding 300 billion stars. Looking out into the night sky with our most powerful telescopes, we see that there are as many as 400 billion galaxies out there, some smaller than our Milky Way, but some much larger. That’s just the observable Universe. We don’t have a clue whether there is more beyond what we can see, or not. And even what we can abserve is so distant we have no idea how cause and effect always behaves there.

So to claim we know everything about how cause and effect works throughout all time and everywhere in the Universe is simply nonsense. If we compared the universe to all the grains of sand and soil on earth, haven’t even observed a single atom or a single grain of sand’s worth of the entire Universe and all it may contain. Claiming that because we see effect follow cause here and now, it must always have done so is an argument from a false premise. No amount of downstream embellishment turns a false premise into a valid premise.

Finally, even if everything must have a cause, which is entirely possible, jumping from there to a claim that you know what the cause is requires verifiable proofs, not verses from ancient myths laid down by bronze age nomads convinced they lived on a flat earth and the sun was moved across the sky daily by Yahweh. Such proofs amount to a denial of the antecedent fallacy.

@ETpro There was a recent report by a guy who sent a balloon up to the high atmosphere and found a few bacterial particles in it that looked weird. He basically said, “These bacterial particles look weird, therefore they must be alien in origin.”

Phil Plait eviscerated him.

@whitenoise “When I was in Egypt, I saw the pyramids. There was no way that this could have been made by Egyptians, thousands of years ago. They must have been made by aliens. They cannot just have appeared there.”

As I understand it you’d be surprised what a little thing like slavery can accomplish in such situations.~

@fundevogel who were slaves in Egypt?

@Rarebear Same sort of leap. And one that doesn’t bring God in, and so can hopefully be grasped even by dedicated theists. Thanks

@fundevogel You should brush up on your understanding of what’s real history and what is Talmudic myth. Even Israeli historians who are highly motivated to prove that the Passover is based on real history have admitted that there isn’t a shred of historically valid evidence to support it having ever happened. The historically verifiable evidence says the Pharaohs taxed the people, then paid workmen in grain and in the promise that the only way to an afterlife was to help the demigod Pharaoh build a spectacular tomb, and by thus being so useful to Pharaoh, get carried into the heavens when his ship buried inside the tomb ascended to the Sun. We also know the ships are still here. One more heaven myth debunked.

@fundevogel
My understanding is that nowadays historians think slavery was not a very big element in the production of the pyramids.

Actually, I am under the impression that slavery does not create the most productive workforce anyway, from an economical point of view. If it did… well I guess it would still be abundant in the US.

@Rarebear Oh I see, you want to do this eye for an eye. OK.

What would you like me to say or do about this idea that you think I was being condescending?

Would you like me to back peddle and soothe your feelings to make you feel better, and possibly lift you up? Well at this point I am focusing a little more on the fact that my fathers anniversary of his death just passed and now my husbands anniversary of death is coming up and 3 days after that my best friend died.

I am however wondering how much better you think you are when you feel you have to point out my spelling mistakes? And at this point in the game you are worried about my errors??? LOL!

And that’s Sir Arthur C. Clarke to you! Or you can also refer to him as Sri Lankabhimanya or both if you’d prefer.

Counter-punch!

I think I made some sort of argument about not being perfect a while back.

“The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”

Annnd, bipolarbear out. (And just to verify I am talking about myself when I say bipolarbear since I do have bipolar and I freaked out a bit there.)

@ETpro I was actually wondering why you hadn’t and when you were going to step in ;)

Anyhow, I didn’t actually state that I knew without a doubt what the verifiability of the cause was. I did however say specifically “everything must have a cause (of course I look towards this)” and then I gave the scriptures, stating that I being a believer look towards the scriptures as my personal proof, others such as yourself who are non-believers probably do not look towards the scriptures and look towards another area.

You have a great argument though. I always loved our debates on atheism and theism. The atheists are lucky to have you.

Just one thing though, you mentioned ”since the Big bang, and we have no idea what might have come before that.” This tells me that maybe you believe that the big bang occurred. Correct me if I am wrong but if that is the truth then I just would like to say that following the non-believer viewpoint, the Big-Bang is debatable. It requires the non-believer to make an unbelievable “leap of faith,” this goes against the non-believers usual “evidence and reality” viewpoint when as even noted here in an above comment non-believers say they “only accept reality and evidence.”

Some Christians have problems with the estimated age of the universe it’s true, but the Big-Bang theory is within the Christian viewpoint, I won’t speak for all Christians but hopefully some at least do believe that everything that begins to exist must (or in your words @ETpro, probably does) have a cause. As I have already explained I being Christian for one observe that everything that begins to exist must (or probably does) have a cause.

With that said I am sure you know that the Big-Bang is a theory on the idea that the universe began to exist, so how do you state ”since the Big bang” leading me to believe that you acknowledge that you understand the universe was caused at that time but then (as you said: “We simply do not know that. It’s our human experience that this is so, so it tends to ring true to our intuition.”) directly afterword say “and we have no idea what might have come before that.” Which implies that you don’t know…so you either do know or you don’t know, and in this context the burden of proof is yours if only for a moment and then you’ll come up with a great comeback and this all leads right back to your beautiful sentence “No argument, however exhaustive and no matter how often it finds new ways to restate its founding premise, is any stronger than its founding premise.” ;)

Actually, I was referring to your condescending comment to @Seek_Kolinahr not me.

@Rarebear Ugh I know!

The rest of it, TL;dr

@KaY_Jelly
Would you care to rephrase your latest comment to @ETpro? I tried several times, but I just cannot understand what you are trying to say…

@whitenoise That’s my point. There’s too many font changes, bolding, and minimizing. Makes it confusing. I read and respond to clear and concise arguments, not rambling examples of argumentum verbosium.

@KaY_Jelly

I understand this is a hard week for you.

But frankly, your comments the last few days on this thread have made absolutely no goddamn sense. Why don’t you take a break, process your feelings for a few days. If you want, I’ll ask a question about the telelogical argument next week and we can argue until our fingers fall off.

Oh my gosh.

You know, if had given an irrational rant you may have already blown a dozen comments loaded with the illogical fallacies I had committed.

Anyway, here it is hopefully in more ‘laypersons’ terms.

#1 non-believers like to point fingers at theists that we have faith or believe in the ‘supernatural’ that is common knowledge.

#2 @ETpro chose to bring up the big bang, and logically his sentence makes no sense to me, this sentence:“We simply do not know that. It’s our human experience that this is so, so it tends to ring true to our intuition. But we’ve been around as intelligent, tool shaping beings for about 100,000 years, give or take, in a Universe that has been around for 14.73 billion years since the Big Bang, and we have no idea what might have come before that.”

3 The comment is illogical to me.  The first part is saying:
“We simply do not know that.” And @ETpro is referring to the first cause that I implyed.

After that he states “we’ve been around as intelligent, tool shaping beings for about 100,000 years, give or take, in a Universe that has been around for 14.73 billion years since the Big Bang,” which leads me to believe he is a believer of the big bang…_which is a theory for a first cause explanation?  O_o

#4 So then I’m implying that it takes a big “leap of faith” to accept the big bang.

Yes many atheists agree with the big bang which only further gives light to the idea they too believe in a first cause and that they do indeed believe in something without evidence. But then further being proven right here in this thread
(thank you @Rarebear for the proof.)

I also stated for @ETpro to correct me if I was wrong, but I believed he agrees with the big bang.  He brought it up, not me, and he also states that:

“a Universe that has been around for 14.73 billion years”.

That is approximate to the time of the big bang, ‘give or take’.

So it becomes quite clear that the argument is somewhat flawed.

Yes this rings true for me, I can state for certain that I as a Christian have faith.Non-believers don’t believe in anything except “reality and evidence”, and the big bang is far from both.

And in all honesty what ‘evidence’ does atheism hold, because if you have it, then again “Time to go, the questions have all been answered.

Are we really going to debate the Big Bang now? And are we going to talk about what a “theory” is in scientific terms? Because your use of it shows that you don’t know what it means.

1) People who believe in God are, by definition, believers in the supernatural.
2) The Big Bang is the accepted cosmological origin of the universe
3) Nothing needed to “happen before” the Big Bang. And if something did happen before the Big Bang, the discovery of that is called, wait for it, “science”.
4) It doesn’t require a “leap of faith” to accept the Big Bang. It requires an understanding of basic cosmological physics. If you like I can lay out the evidence, but it’s far out of the scope of this question.
5) A “Theory” is a hypothesis that has undergone repeated rigorous scientific testing and is accepted by the scientific community as an accepted explanation. As far as a layperson like yourself is concerned, a “theory” means “fact”.
6) “Faith” means “belief without evidence”. That’s fine. As long as you accept it for what it is.

@ETpro & @Whitenoise I wasn’t thinking at all about Jewish slaves when I made that quip. I had just been under the impression for ages that that particular ancient civilization (and most of the others) owed a certain debt to slave labor. I hadn’t heard the paramids’ builders may have been paid laborers, though it still sounds like a pretty shit gig.

They were paid in beer, if I remember correctly. Kinda like helping to fix your buddy’s roof.

The pharaos were living gods to the peasants. It would have been an honour for them to toil away for them.

@fundevogel It probably was a shit gig.

It’s kind of funny, whenever I go to a Passover Seder, I always make the point that the Jews were probably never in Egypt, let along slaves. It usually doesn’t go very well, but by now people know what a skeptic I am.

@Rarebear I haven’t been in that boat before but I’m currently reading Norman Finkelstein so it’s weird to follow up a chapter on fraudulent holocaust memoirs with news that the whole Egyptian enslavement may not have been historical.

There’s myth and propaganda everywhere I guess.

“Are we really going to debate the Big Bang now?”
Actually my comment wasn’t really directed towards you, so complaining about it to me and then starting a debate with me is silly isn’t it?

1)People who believe in God are, by definition, believers in the supernatural.

What? Who’s definition, your definition? What definition?
The actual definition is this: the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation

No where under the word theism is the synonym supernatural…. go on look it up, if it is I will fall over. lol. So I rest my case, it is indeed common knowledge thanks for proving that.
‘Your definition’ even though well liked is ludicrous and is like me saying People who don’t believe in God are, by definition, believers in literally nothing at all.

2)“The Big Bang is the accepted cosmological origin of the universe.”

Why do you say that? It is not the only plausible theory! It’s just the most popular. Talk about appeal to popularity.

3)“Nothing needed to “happen before” the Big Bang. And if something did happen before the Big Bang, the discovery of that is called, wait for it, “science”.”

Nothing needed to happen before the big bang! LMFAO. If nothing happened before the big bang then that is called, what for it, ”supernatural”, I’ll get to that soon enough.

4)‘It doesn’t require a “leap of faith” to accept the Big Bang.”

Even though we know through logical principal because biologists have shown us ample amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell also with that molecular progression they have discovered thousand’s upon thousand’s of superbly designed ‘models’ at the molecular level, have you ever really watched something grow and how we the intelligent designers can manipulate them science and people do it all the time wait take a mental break and watch in time lapse for faster viewing an MSR cell undergoing two cycles, pretty remarkable!

We also logically know just by looking at any piece of technology we have made behind that is an intelligent being to put it together and to design it that also requires some intelligence, because we do know logically that the car keys just don’t disappear and reappear in obvious or near impossible to find places. So IMHO understanding all that we logically know a “leap of faith” is required otherwise where did you say the keys went? Ay, caramba, supernatural.

Nam si de nihilo fierent, ex omnibus rebus translation? Suppose all sprang from all things: any kind.

I also do know about the zero energy universe hypothesis which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. So yes to come from nothing that would be the only kind of universe that could do that, assuming such a zero energy universe is already nothing. The universe therefore would need to be flat and with todays experience the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. So is it plausible? Sure it is. But it is also plausible that it was designed that way. :)

5)”A “Theory” is a hypothesis that has undergone repeated rigorous scientific testing and is accepted by the scientific community as an accepted explanation. As far as a layperson like yourself is concerned, a “theory” means “fact”.”
If this question is in response to my #3 I actually was not questioning what the big bang was I put a question mark in the wrong spot, I was questioning if ET is a believer of the big bang.

A theory is a prediction for a class of phenomena. It is a “fact” because we have observed similar phenomena but You can not prove any theory to be true. unless you or science observed the big bang happening 13.8 billion years ago and have proof of it?

6)”“Faith” means “belief without evidence”. That’s fine. As long as you accept it for what it is.”

Wow. Actually there are about 5 different definitions of the word “faith”. I fall more correctly under a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
As in: “Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises”

What is to come of this next? I’m putting my white flag back up I need my flip flops/flag.

Did everyone see that? Because I will not be doing it again
~Jack Sparrow

Jesus Mary and Joseph.

This thread is a train wreck.

Well one of us surely doesn’t seem to be on track anymore.

@KaY_Jelly
The christian God is supernatural. More than that… He is super all. Beleiveing in God therefore is believing in the supernatural. It is not in the definition of thesim. It is in the Christian definition of God.

Getting back to the question at hand:

I just realzed you shoul definitely read the work of dr. Frans de Waal.

On his latest book:
“But unlike the dogmatic neo-atheist of his book’s title, de Waal does not scorn religion per se. Instead, he draws on the long tradition of humanism exemplified by the painter Hieronymus Bosch and asks reflective readers to consider these issues from a positive perspective: What role, if any, does religion play for a well-functioning society today? And where can believers and nonbelievers alike find the inspiration to lead a good life?”

Check this wikipedia page on him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal#Selected_bibliography

Or this link on his latest book:
http://books.wwnorton.com/books/detail-inside.aspx?ID=24800&CTYPE=G/

White flag and x kilo flag together are confusing. Lol. I’m having a white flag burning party, all are welcome.
Flip flop/X flag is still a go.

^as a reference to your answer to my comment, see #3 in my comment above as my answer.

Or shall I say…

“If we don’t have the key, we can’t open whatever we don’t have that it unlocks. So what purpose would be served in finding whatever need be unlocked, which we don’t have, without first having found the key what unlocks it?”

I can’t say I’ve ever seen a key and said to myself “Holycrap! I bet this opens something really cool. Let’s go on a massive manhunt for the lock this key matches!”

I have seen locks that made me say “I wonder how I could open that…”

I’m given to understand that a bobby pin will work wonders in these situations.

And away we go!

1) “Supernatural“Something natural is something that can be measured and explained by a scientific experiment. God is not something that can be measured and explained by experiment, therefore it is supernatural.

2) “Big Bang” You can’t just point to a blog and discount the Big Bang. Even you know better than that (maybe you don’t). Now, if you pointed to this paper, which I’ve read and I have discussed with Perlmutter (who won the Nobel in physics last year and is an acquaintance of mine) I would have been more impressed. But you didn’t.

3) Did you really laugh your ass off? I hate it when people do that. The concept of time starting at zero is difficult for most lay people to understand, and I don’t expect you to. It’s like dividing by zero—you can’t do it. People who study this are very comfortable with the idea of a singularity and the quantum fluctuations that can occur with that. They’re also comfortable with the idea of true randomness. But lay people such as yourself are not. It is entirely possible that there was nothing before the Big Bang, and that’s not even time. We’re talking nothing. Again, we’re talking the concept of zero time (not even frozen time)

4) What does cell division have to do with the Big Bang and faith? Your humble opinion is wrong. You don’t need faith to understand it. You need math skills.

5) “A theory is a prediction for a class of phenomena.” Again, you’re wrong. A prediction is called a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that’s been rigorously tested and is an accepted explanation. I’m guessing that you think that gravity is “just a theory”? Jump out your second story window and test that, why don’t you?

6) You can flavor any different type of faith you want, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, homeopathy, whatever. It’s still belief in something without evidence.

Seek, at least Kay made some cogent arguments this time.

@KaY_Jelly and any others – IMO, the “Big Bang was one of possibly gazillions of “Big Bangs.” There was stuff out there before the event, as was the void. It didn’t all magically appear and come into existence at that moment. Just throwing this in for clarification. The space or void and all of the matter there is (again IMO) always was and always will be.

@whitenoise Thank you for an actual on-topic post. I will most definitely check it out. @kritiper While that’s certainly possible, it is by no means the only possibility. Just as @Rarebear notes, it is also possible there was NOTHING before the Big Bang. If you’re interested in a quick introduction to how that is possible, watch this short video Then this slightly longer video that builds on the concept the first one explains, but assumes you already know that.

@Rarebear Who died and made you the authority? Fallacy #1 committed. You know better than that right? You can talk to Dr. Seuss for all I care. Calling me a ‘layperson’ over and over again doesn’t make you the authority. This is the internet. If you want me to believe whatever you tell me based on a whim, you are going to have to prove it!

AAHHH. LOL of course you would think that because that is what you think I base my belief system on!

I am going to tease you with one point from all 6 you gave and I could give all 6 but seriously I am officially tired of this. 0_o

6) You can flavor any different type of faith you want, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, homeopathy, whatever. It’s still belief in something without evidence.

Unfortunately what you fail to see is that there actually is evidence in the logical arguments I believe I mentioned here I don’t even remember anymore, but I have them below now for sure, and there even is 1 or 2 more. I am sure I even told you they were logical arguments and they were refuted, (I am not scrolling through everything my eyes feel like I am looking through buckets of sand).

If the arguments I listed were not valid, logical arguments with actual evidence as you think, then Christian apologists like William Lane Craig would not use the arguments for defending the Christian faith when debating atheists.

Evidence is in the first argument, the teleological argument. And evidence is in the second argument which is called the cosmological argument and according to William Lane Craig (philosopher), the argument successfully demonstrates the existence of an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful, personal Creator of the universe and the only thing that hasn’t been proven: omnipotent, omniscient, good, creative of design, listening to prayers, forgiving sins, and reading innermost thoughts he also continues that the argument doesn’t aspire to prove such things.

There are other arguments like the fine tuning argument, See here. And the moral argument which is an argument for a moral lawgiver.

You must be right. There is no evidence there.

“John More: I belong to no club, and if you’re unwilling to allow any discussion…”

“Lancaster Dodd: No, this isn’t a discussion, it’s a grilling! There’s nothing I can do for you, if your mind has been made up. You seem to know the answers to your questions, why do you ask?”

“John More: I’m sorry you’re unwilling to defend your beliefs in any kind of rational…”

“Lancaster Dodd: If, if you already know the answers to your questions, then why ask PIG FUCK? We are not helpless. And we are on a journey that risks the dark. If you don’t mind, a good night to you.”

Anyway I am done here. And good night to you. :P

I give up.
Sorry ET for the irony of how this question turned out.

@ETpro – Granted, there are other possibilities no matter how remote. I don’t believe that any person in his or her right mind would think that there was once nothing, then an explosion from which all matter appeared. That is just too much of a S-T-R-E-T-C-H of the imagination.

@Rarebear Been there, done that, got the Tee-shirt. You point out the fallacies, and you get the a new rendition of the same plus a self-declaration that the fallacies are not there.

@kritiper Are you just going from common sense, which we’ve demonstrated above to be hopelessly inadequate for this task, or are you in possession of some peer reviewed studies nobody else has heard of (which also stretched credulity).

It’s a bit like whack a mole.

@ETpro – Just pure obvious, simple common sense. One could endlessly debate the variations of gray between black and white but sometimes you merely have to consider if it’s just black or just white. It may seem wholly inadequate, but sometimes the most obvious answer can be the correct one. No need to overthink it! See it as it is, for what it is.

@kritiper I can point out to you tons of things that are common sense, but are bass-ackwards wrong.

I happen to like to think. So speak for yourself.

Whack

@Rarebear Actually, the funny thing is, I never claimed to be the authority on anything, I am however lol that you think I am.

If I was an expert, such as yourself, clears throat or rather as you are implying, I personally would be using my spare time more wisely than this. I have admitted to being irrational. What errors have you admitted to? None.

It is ironic alright. Looks like you’ve been hit in the arse with the big ol’ boot of irony and some how you are still wandering around here trying to play games with Christian’s and in a self admitted twist of irony as you obviously can’t have an honest or true debate with me because I am a Christian or others it’s all about knocking us down instead…Read one of the books recommended on this thread. WHACK!

The worse part is I’ve been here long enough and I’ve watched great people ‘fall’ from getting ‘hit in the head’ enough times by these ‘whack-a-mole’ game players such as yourself. And I can tell you that whack-a-mole and ‘whack’ comment of yours is bullshit @Rarebear and you know it is!.

So, no you do not have to accept any of the arguments I have put forth as evidence nor do I yours, but I have to admit that you really are not as much of the expert as you think you are because you have missed all the arguments I gave.

So in other words you are just trying to make a game of this because with all the evidence I laid out for you and I’ve even said:

“I being Christian for one observe that everything that begins to exist must (or probably does)have a cause.”

I never actually stated whether I do or do not believe in the big bang so ad nauseam to the idea of debating the big bang because if you were much more aware then you would of caught that the statement ex nihilo nihil alone is proof that I believe in at least #2 of ex nihilio which is, ‘the universe began to exist’, this is where I will now confirm for you that I do believe the big bang is a cause but I will look towards the fine tuning argument for the answer, you on the other hand will look towards…what was it again? Oh that’s right ‘Nothing.’

@KaY_Jelly And the cause is God, who doesn’t have a cause, because everything has a cause. You can’t prove that, but you say so.

God doesn’t count as part of everything. The Universe does. You can’t prove that, but you say so.

You and William Lane Craig with your on-again, off-again absolute truths deserve each other. You set up a set of a-priori definitions that have no particular basis in fact, but serve your purpose, then argue from those definitions. It’s called a false premise fallacy.

@ETpro

“Curiously, Goldstein doesn’t fault the cosmological argument for having a false premiss. Rather the problem she sees is “explaining why God must be the unique exception” rather than the universe itself. If she had faithfully reproduced the cosmological argument instead of this caricature, she’d know the answer to the question. Proponents of the first version go on to argue that the universe began to exist and so must have a cause, while proponents of the second version proceed to argue that the universe does not exist by a necessity of its own nature and so must be contingent. These are important and controversial claims; but they will not be discussed if the argument is so misrepresented that these premisses don’t even appear.”

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/36-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god#ixzz2jl9KFQYT

@KaY_Jelly

Maybe if you stop trying to defend your faith with what could easily be perceived as false logic, you make more of a point when you object to people ‘attacking’ your beliefs by addressing the logical fallacies that come with it.

@whitenoise “stop defending my faith” you’d be so happy!

Logical fallacies are easier to pick out than understanding arguments for God, especially if you do not want to understand the arguments. I could write a 5000 page essay brimming with amazing arguments for God and most non-believers may read the first page, after that it is waa waa waaaa a-priori.

Do you even know what ETpro is saying when he states that myself and William Lane make a-priori arguments?

A-priori= derived by logic without observed facts.

@ETpro You did pick out the false premise, I am however curious as to why you see it a problem that God must be the unique exception, rather than the earth itself.

Ok. I can keep going.

And besides if God does not exist than moral objectives do not exist.

See the wiki version of the moral argument here.

objective morals do not exist with a god either.

No one would read a 5000 page essay on anything.

If you can’t say it succinctly – at least getting the main point across before getting into details – you probably don’t understand it very well.

@Seek_Kolinahr I tell residents that they should be able to present the most complicated patient in the world to me in 5 minutes or less if they really understand the clinical issue.

@KaY_Jelly

As always you read selectively. I didn’t say ‘stop defending’ I suggested to stop doing that with shaggy logic.

I understand what @ETpro is saying and I think he’s right about your faulty reasoning.

Faith isn’t about logic. Don’t go that way… It’s a dead end street. Or as they say in the country I live… phylosophy…. that’s the tongue of the devil.

Against my better judgement, I’ll jump back in:

—” I am however lol that you think I am.”—
What the hell does that mean?

“If I was an expert, such as yourself, clears throat or rather as you are implying, I personally would be using my spare time more wisely than this.”
Ah. So you’re saying only ignorant people should spend time on Fluther.

“I have admitted to being irrational.”
At least we agree on something.

“What errors have you admitted to? None.”
The only error I made was engaging with you.

“Looks like you’ve been hit in the arse with the big ol’ boot of irony and some how you are still wandering around here trying to play games with Christian’s and in a self admitted twist of irony as you obviously can’t have an honest or true debate with me because I am a Christian or others it’s all about knocking us down instead”
This is a run on sentence, difficult to read. I’m not interested in knocking Christians down. I’m interested in science, pure and simple. If anybody, Christian or otherwise, is going to start saying inaccurate things about science, then I will engage. You can believe in your God, that’s fine.

“Read one of the books recommended on this thread. ”
Point. But again, I’m not interested in attacking religion, as I am Jewish. I am interested only in the advancement of science education.

”‘whack’ comment of yours is bullshit”
No. That’s called “metaphor”. Perhaps you’ve heard of the word.

“So, no you do not have to accept any of the arguments I have put forth as evidence nor do I yours,”
Your arguments are not evidence. You seem not to know what the word “evidence” really means. Evidence, in science, is something that has been shown in experiment, to have validity. And I haven’t bothered to post real evidence of the Big Bang as it’s out of the scope of this thread, but if you would really like to learn about it, I’ll be happy to accommodate. I have a feeling you’re not, though.

”“I being Christian for one observe that everything that begins to exist must (or probably does)have a cause.”
Well, that’s not a sentence in proper English grammar. But no, things don’t need to have a cause beyond what is required by the laws of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, relativity, evolution, and other natural laws.

“I never actually stated whether I do or do not believe in the big bang…”
Another rambling sentence that one needs tea leaves to decipher. Whether or not you believe in the Big Bang (capitalized) is immaterial. That doesn’t make it any less true.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away
~Phillip K. Dick.

@Seek_Kolinahr My absolute favorite quote ever.

My second favorite quote is, “What do you call alternative medicine that has been proven to work? Medicine.” —Tim Minchin in Storm

@whitenoise OK. So then I will “Stop ‘trying’ to defend my faith.” And you’d be so happy!

I officially hate this place. And I can see 100% why people like mouse got bullied off.

#1 You don’t even understand the idea that I am LAUGHING OUT LOUD at the fact that you possibly think I am the authority. Do you have issues with English?? Or are you a troll?

#2 I was implying that you are ignorant. DO NOT turn this around and try to outcast me by making me look like the bad guy more than you already have been trying to do. Keywords in my sentence were “I, you, yourself and personally” none of the words have anything to do with the masses.

#3 I have a brain condition. Your treatment towards me has been ridiculous to say the least and at best you have tried to outcast me.

#4 Your only ‘error’ is talking to me? And could you be any more self righteous and sanctimonious?

#5 You must really think I am an idiot and that I have absolutely no clue about the game whack-o-mole and the message you are implying.

#6 OK. And no you are not attacking religion, you are attacking me personally, offense taken.

#7 Metaphor? (Add sarcasm here) I’ve no clue what that is! The fact that you still said it at all is bullshit. So what are you trying to imply with the metaphor again??

#8 You are confused. I am looking at this philosophically and obviously that isn’t clear enough for you. No wonder you do not understand what I am talking about. You can’t compare apples and oranges but you keep doing it and calling me the idiot for it!

#9 You are really grasping at straws. @Rarebear Is it your intention to try to possibly make me feel like an imbecile or try to make feel small and weak does that make you feel like the better person? See below for the answer.

#10 And I will say it to you now like I said to etpro “You did pick out the false premise, I am however curious as to why you see it a problem that God must be the unique exception, rather than the earth itself.” I actually don’t care anymore, but I was just making a point of it now, and proving there are flaws in your logic.

You guys can sit here and bad talk philosophy all you want but there are also well known atheists that are philosophers. Like Sam Harris. And when he debated William Lane Craig, he actually came up with some really good arguments against Williams theist debate. Usually most atheists that debate William run away with their tail between their legs.
Speaking of that, the very well known atheist Richard Dawkins will not even debate William Lane. I urge you to read the link I am about to post and then read the letter written at the bottom addressed to Richard Dawkins which is ironically written to him from an atheist. http://www.bethinking.org/what-is-apologetics/introductory/dawkins-refuses-god-debate-with-william-lane-craig.htm

@KaY_Jelly
Just read what I actually write instead of what you think I write. Again: I don’t suggest that you should stop defending your faith… All I suggest is to stop doing that through logical arguments that can so easily be refuted. For instance by just looking them up on the internet and dive into one of the places that refutes them.

IMO logic isn’t the best path to discuss whether religion is good or not. Religion should have its virtues and as long as it adds value to your life (without taking that away from others)… please enjoy your religion. The problem with the logic that you put forward is that there will always be some inconsistency in it and then people will attack that inconsistency as a loose thread. (And as you must know, many people just cannot help themselves pulling loose threats – like me.)

They aren’t necessarily attacking you or your religion, but you guys still end up quarreling over things that shouldn’t matter so much. Religion is the consequence of a choice: the choice of faith. Faith is choosing to believe in something, despite a lack of evidence. Your efforts in trying to provide evidence is actually counter the very notion of ‘having faith’.

I promise you one thing: the moment you (or anyone) can prove the existence of God, that is the moment religion dies. From then on, God would become like any other ‘proven authority’ in our lives… something we ignore unless necessary. God would become like the government in Washington. We would all know it’s there and unless it actively reaches out to influence our lives, we would all ignore it.

@KaY_Jelly
re You guys can sit here and bad talk philosophy all you want but there are also well known atheists that are philosophers.

I would never badmouth philosophy. I actually took a very interesting course at Yale in moral philosophy. I think it is a very intriguing field of science and still cherish the thoughts of that class. And you are right: many of the great philosophies support atheism (and a morality that doesn’t need a God).

I would however not put William Lane Craig in any row of great philosophers. From what I have seen of the esteemed gentleman and his discussion style, I would likely also walk of from discussing with him. Not because his arguments make sense, but rather because they make so little and it is very hard to discuss with someone that is hell bent on disregarding logic and raping reality.

A fool’s paradise is a wise man’s hell! – Thomas Fuller

@KaY_Jelly Mouse didn’t get bullied off. Her attempts to bully others failed, and she was unable to stay here without being able to have super powers.

Re: Dawkins -

Agreeing to ‘debate’ with Craig would give credence to him. William Lane Craig is an expert in nothing, has accomplished no great achievement or contribution to society or the font of human knowledge, and has no idea how to conduct a respectful debate.

There is no debate if a person is going to spend their time throwing noodles at a wall by the handful, then boasting triumphantly when one sticks.

Of course, this analogy is flawed, because given sufficient time, every one of his arguments is refutable. It simply takes more time to be correct than it does to rant inanely one’s personal opinion like it’s solid fact.

And that is why Dawkins won’t debate him.

@ETpro . . . You and I both know that Mouse was as much a bully as you are a bible thumping Baptist.

From the “debates” with Craig that I have seen, he just tries to needlessly overwhelm the audience and the opponent with unnecessary philosophical terminology, to distract from the holes in his actual “arguments”.

Mouse has a kind heart. She would never bully anyone. I can’t sit and say nothing about that comment. That’s absurd and the most ridiculous thing I have ever read here at Fluther.

Amen blondies! ;)

“Craig is an expert in nothing”. Ok you are right. Now that’s logical (again with the sarcasm) and I guess you are the expert in bullshit.

@ETpro _Thank you! And speaking for myself, I think the more complex you want to make something, the more complex the answer will be that you seek. Better sometimes to look at something and see it for the simple thing it is instead of making the answer impossible to find by overthinking it. But I’m not saying that you shouldn’t think about it. Think about it all you want and make it as extraordinary as you like.

“the most ridiculous thing I have ever read here at Fluther”
And wow, is that saying something :)

@kay Shalom aleichem.

I didn’t know Mouse that well. She and I didn’t travel in the same circles. I do understand how people can commit Fluthercide. I’ve done it.

Dawkins on why he won’t debate with Craig

”
In the interests of transparency, I should point out that it isn’t only Oxford that won’t see me on the night Craig proposes to debate me in absentia: you can also see me not appear in Cambridge, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and, if time allows, Bristol.

[...]

And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig’s words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well.”

@Seek_Kolinahr Thanks for posting – I hadn’t seen that before.

@KaY_Jelly

I suggest you read the link provided above by @Seek.

That is definitely not running off with a tail between his legs.

William Lane Craig is a bully. Dawkins is absolutely right not to debate him.

@ETpro Mouse didn’t get bullied off. Her attempts to bully others failed, and she was unable to stay here without being able to have super powers.
The biggest load of bullshit you have ever said, and you say a lot of bullshit.

^He is a fanatic @chyna about his beliefs. When people get hurt by him, he can’t see it in any other terms than he was a victim and they deserved it. For reference, look at the Taliban, or any Tea Partier.

@Seek_Kolinahr

I have read that before. You can point all you want at his reasons but I have looked and looked into it until my eyes have bled. I can tell you for a fact that his reasons are irrational beyond all belief. I am not the only person who thinks this.

He goes on and on with his tireless, delusional, irrational ranting about Craig believing in genocide and why would he debate with someone who defends Gods commands and Deuteronomy and so Dawkins says “Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn’t, and I won’t.”
Should I mention Stalin here?

This is all coming from a guy who wrote “The God Delusion.”
How do you not see this? I am sorry, but talk about blind faith.

So now I have to wonder that since Dawkins obviously doesn’t even believe in God or any of the factual parts of the bible hence his book “The God Delusion” and the fact that he is an atheist then why does he believe that genocide even took place without scientific proof?

Of course we will never hear that answer, because he cowardly left his chair empty and refuses to debate with logic, preferring to live in his own world of delusion.

In a twist of irony, what many people might not know is that Dawkins and Craig have actually had a debate, it was just not one on one.

Also, Dawkins has a lengthy list of people he will not be bothered to debate.

#1August 13, 2012

Professor Richard Dawkins has refused an invitation to debate with a Free Church of Scotland minister on the Isle of Lewis, claiming it would not look good on his CV.

#2 I could keep going but I will just get to the point.

In this video Dawkins says he refuses to debate with creationists because ‘would a geographer have a debate with a flat earther?’
Should I refer back to the fact that he has actually had debates. :/

LOL. And when he does actually decide to do a debate, he usually loses.

Like here.

“William Lane Craig is Christianity’s #1 living apologist. Wake up, fellow Atheists … and see clearly what … is happening here. If we expect Christians to be honest about anything, we as a group need to be honest as well, and honestly face the fact that Craig is kicking our collective (butt) and we’re apparently too dumb (as a group) to even know it!”

~Mark Smith, Contra Craig Website

@Blondesjon, @jonsblond, @chyna & @Imadethisupwithnoforethought I can refer you back to the thread where this all went down and show you who was doing the name calling. Would that matter?

I have been an active member for 5 years @ETPro. Almost as long as Mouse. I see what goes on here and I don’t need a link. Everyone here knows that Mouse is not a bully. You are unbelievable.

Mouse may not be completely blameless in the tussle that led to her leaving, but she’s in no way a bully. C’mon, @ETpro…let’s drop this line of discussion.

we all have our moments. but mouse is no repeat offender

@jonsblond & @augustlan I’d be happy to bury the hatchet if @jonsblond would. He’s been posting snide remarks in just about every thread I start since that dust up. I liked Mouse and she was on my friends list. I’m sorry if my lack of belief in her God got under her skin. To be sure, I defended my position vigorously in numerous discussions. I’ll admit I was harsh at times.

But in the thread in question, I’d already tried to reign in my rhetoric and I did my best to avoid tit-for-tat with her. It was her decision to keep pushing, and her decision to leave. I really regret that happening. And I agree she wasn’t a repeat offender. She just went off in that particular thread. But her reason for going off was to control what could and couldn’t be discussed here. And that’s not OK with me.

Common guys… Mouse left. She did. She chose to do so.
Let’s all not allow someone that has left control our interaction here.

Even if @ETpro were a total jerk, then it still is mouse that left. Mind you, though… she didn’t just leave @ETpro… she left all of us. For her leaving she is the only one to blame.

@ETpro can be a zealous atheist at times. Annoying even. As can a lot of theists on this site… Get over it. There are a lot of beautiful people on this site, including, amongst others, professional aliens, the jons, the blonds and the ones that know it all and the Jellies with Kays and geese.

Stop blaming other people for actions that mouse took. If someone misbehaves, then just tell him, or her… and move on. When people continue to misbehave report them or ignore them. Stop carrying grudges, though.

@whitenoise This isn’t about Supermouse leaving, it is about @ETpro trying to portray her as a bully. She is not a bully and a few of us felt the need to clarify that false statement.

^^Yep.

I just don’t get this bullying vibe, it’s the fucking internet, stand up for yourselves & tell them to fuck off.
Words on a screen baby, words on a screen.

@whitenoise What @chyna said. And the only person blaming @ETpro for Mouse leaving is @ETpro. He’s mentioned it more than once on several different threads (as if he is proud of it).

@ETpro I’m jonsblond, the wife of @Blondesjon. Did you mean him with that comment? I rarely answer your threads.

@jonsblond “And the only person blaming @ETpro for Mouse leaving is @ETpro.”

@ETpro did not bring up Mouse in this thread, @KaY_Jelly did (“I officially hate this place. And I can see 100% why people like mouse got bullied off.”) – as she has more than once on several different threads, as a way of saying that atheists are mean. @ETpro was defending himself. And I think he is right about her behaviour on that thread.

I really try to ignore this stuff, but let’s not rewrite history here.

In the past couple of weeks I seem to notice again and again that it is brought up that mouse left because of @ETpro and our perceived overall dislike of religion and bible bashing, here on fluther.

I haven’t been witness to the specific thread. I am however ready to move on. Let’s focus on the living.

I am not rewriting history here. Would you like an expample of what I’m talking about? Here ya go

Shall I spend my morning searching for the other examples?

@jonsblond No one is asking for that. In fact, several people are asking for not that.

For the record, if any want to actually look at the thread in question, it is here and the Mouse’s first response to it was what touched off the fight. Unless the moderators ask me to comment further, I will now fall silent on the matter.

[mod says] Let’s move on, folks. Get off the he said/she said train, and back to the actual question.

This question alone in and of it self could of been used for learning and good reading material once the debate started.

We all have opinions granted, and you can take mine or leave it and I can do the same, but their are IMHO a few points of a debate that you can’t learn that from a book. Take for example, usually easy but not always, is
#1 staying on topic in the content of your debate and make it good.
#2 Having a logical argument.
#3 Rebuttals.
#4 And being respectful.

Without those 4 the debate will dissolve quickly. Of course this just my opinion.

Well liked jellies leaving is a sore spot for some, me included, and I apologize if what I said brought up ill feelings for anyone.

“I’m not an activist; I don’t look for controversy. I’m not a political person, but I’m a person with compassion. I care passionately about equal rights. I care about human rights. I care about animal rights.”
~Ellen DeGeneres

What usually happens is that people like to re-enforce their argument with emotionally laden language, which turns into a flaming session. It’s nauseating regardless of which side it comes from.

@snowberry . . . As our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ said, “Let he without sin cast the first stone.”

It’s funny how that’s become a metaphor, but it’s one of the few times Jesus was speaking literally.

Just an observation.

Conclusion: Jesus is against the death penalty, well that, or maybe this.

Stoning or no there was still a message there. A pretty good one too because you could attribute the quote to Steve the Skeptical Gentile and it still means the same thing.

Jesus wasn’t against the death penalty. He was just embarrassed that he threw like a girl.

You guys are disturbed.