Comments by darwin2

Comment #63480 by darwin2 on August 14, 2007 at 1:05 pm

Comment #63315 by PeterK on August 13, 2007 at 9:55 pm
49. Comment #63297 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Comment #63287 by PeterK on August 13, 2007 at 7:54 pm
"Darwin2"

"Before you post again, do you think that you would be able to envision an argument, or a series of events that would make you doubt the existence of God?"

I am willing to listen openly to any arguments and am willing to engage in a mutually respectful dialogue with anyone who would like to discuss in depth their arguments against the existence of God.

"Thank you for your response, but you haven't answered my question. It is a 'yes' or 'no' question."

My answer is "NO."

52. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63476 by darwin2 on August 14, 2007 at 1:00 pm

Comment #63314 by Lauregon on August 13, 2007 at 9:44 pm

My beliefs are my subjective conclusions based on my observations of life. Objectively speaking, I realize my subjective beliefs may be totally wrong. If consciousness continues after death, we will get a wealth of scientific evidence to pursue this issue further. - Darwin2

"If that were the case, one might think with all the consciousnesses throughout history and prehistory, that by this time numerous consciousnesses would have managed to come back to make sure the pre-dead know unequivocally that consciousness survives physical death. Oh, wait! That happened a lot back in the 19th century in the table-rocking, wall-thumping spiritualism craze! Dang. We were just born too late. :("

SEE COMMENT 98

53. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63474 by darwin2 on August 14, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Comment #63308 by lordfenriz on August 13, 2007 at 9:18 pm

darwin2,
If consciousness continues after death, we will get a wealth of scientific evidence to pursue this issue further.

"Why don't we have the evidence now? If consciousness continues after death, it has been doing so for a very long time."

Let me answer your question by giving you a summary of my beliefs. I believe humans have eternal souls and our eternal souls are relatively new creations of God. I believe God created our eternal souls in a perfect state of pure energy and as pure energy we could assume any physical form we chose and travel to any place in the universe we desired. We were literally born into paradise and heaven. I believe God has a divine purpose and destiny for creating our eternal souls and that divine purpose is for us to participate in the creation process with God by becoming gods ourselves, imitating God and using our god given powers to create our own universes and beyond. To accomplish this God gave us free will and wants us to use our free will to learn, obey and master the laws of physics specifically how to use energy correctly. When our souls were created, we were immediately instructed by highly evolved spiritual beings as to why we were created, what our purpose and destiny was and what we needed to do to achieve our divine destiny. However, shortly after God created our eternal souls we began to make mistakes by misusing or free will and violating God's laws of physics specifically by using energy incorrectly. Soon our mistakes accumulated to the point that they caused us to descend into the temporary hells of the physical world of which Earth is one of these temporary hells and where our eternal souls presently find themselves encumbered in these temporary human bodies. Our mission on Earth is to address and correct our mistakes and to take steps to learn, obey and master God's laws of physics specifically to learn how to use energy correctly so that we can ascend back to that perfect state of pure energy that God created us in and where we can fulfill our divine destiny. The law of physics that will enable us to accomplish this is the law of reincarnation and karma. The sooner we learn, obey and master the laws of physics, the quicker we will fulfill our divine destiny in life.

So to answer your question, we don't have evidence now because we are temporarily blinded in this short lifetime by our mistakes in the past.

54. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63465 by darwin2 on August 14, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Comment #63305 by dr in the house on August 13, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Darwin2

"If you had really read and understood the many books dissecting the god hypothesis/delusion you would not repeat the same tired arguments here as they have all been robustly rebutted previously by people far cleverer than you or I. At the end of the day, "extra-ordinary claims (the existance of a supernatural being) require extra-ordinary evidence" and therefore it is up to believers (like you) to posit proof/evidence which makes these claims worthy. The onus is glaringly not on the "non-believers" to argue against something that there is no evidence for. Don't you understand this? You put no evidence forward in support of your claims, and yet insist that atheists "disprove" your beliefs. Can't you see the innappropriateness of this way of thinking? I can believe you are 66 as you sound like my catholic mother who has her head in the sand the same as you.."

Scientifically and objectively speaking it is possible for God to exist and for consciousness to survive the death of the physical body. What I find interesting and quite fascinating is that many of the people at this website seem frightened that this possibility may be true and are reluctant to discuss the ramifications of the possibility that God may truly exist.

55. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63460 by darwin2 on August 14, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Comment #63304 by lordfenriz on August 13, 2007 at 8:51 pm

"It doesn't end at God unless you arbitrarily choose to end it at God. The infinite regress follows from your argument. This is a fact of logic. Again, logically, you can't state that complexity requires a designer in order to prove God's existence and then not apply that same premise to God. If you don't apply premise 1 to God, you are essentially "cherrypicking" the rules of logic to suit your argument. Regardless of whether or not you want to end it at God, this doesn't follow logically from your argument. "

"If God, a highly complex being, can exist without a designer, then the Universe can as well."

"You are basically saying this:

"With the exception of God, complexity requires a designer. But why the exception? If you can imagine a complex God without a designer, why can't you imagine a complex Universe without a designer?"

All I can say is that this is what I truly believe in. I can't imagine a universe existing without a designer. The exception is God because God is the Originator.

56. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63453 by darwin2 on August 14, 2007 at 12:07 pm

comment #63299 by MrEmpirical on August 13, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Darwin 2,

"Do you have any evidence for God's existence?"

"You keep saying things such as "Behind the laws of physics is God". Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Remember, whenever you posit God to explain a phenomenon (e.g. the laws of physics), you must then ask "What explains God?" or "What created God?". This leads to an infinite regress, despite the fact that many theists believe that God terminates infinite regressions. Thus, you can see that to posit God as an explanation for natural phenomena is pointless, gratuitious, unhelpful, unscientific, and just plain irrational (unless you can produce empirical evidence of God's existence...we're waiting)."

At this time, I have absolutely no scientific evidence to support my beliefs. My beliefs are my subjective conclusions based on my observations of life. Objectively speaking, I realize my subjective beliefs may be totally wrong. If consciousness continues after death, we will get a wealth of scientific evidence to pursue this issue further.

57. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63303 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 8:43 pm

58. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63300 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 8:36 pm

Comment #63294 by Theocrapcy on August 13, 2007 at 8:15 pm

"@darwin2 : "But I believe it is unrealistic and unscientific to use the atrocities and stupidities of organized religion as a proof against the existence of God."

"I disagree. Religious atrocities are direct proof that their god is false, and their behaviour is man-made. Especially when competing deities claim to be one and only."

"Religion is a vestige of our primitive tribalism, it has no place in modern world, which is where it is struggling to survive - and why it lathches on to developing world which more resembles the kind of primitivism it relies on to thrive."

Theocrapcy, I agree totally with your assessment of organized religion. I too see it as a vestige of primitive tribalism with no place in the modern world. However I do believe in one God but not their sick version of Him.

59. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63297 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Comment #63287 by PeterK on August 13, 2007 at 7:54 pm
"Darwin2"

"Before you post again, do you think that would you be able to envision an argument, or a series of events that would make you doubt the existence of God?"

I am willing to listen openly to any arguments and am willing to engage in a mutually respectful dialogue with anyone who would like to discuss in depth their arguments against the existence of God.

60. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63296 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 8:22 pm

Comment #63263 by lordfenriz on August 13, 2007 at 5:50 pm

"Sometimes the obvious answer isn't the correct one. "The earth is flat" was the obvious answer in the past to questions concerning the shape of our planet."

"Dawkins addressed your complexity argument in "The God Delusion". Please read and understand the book before you make a post. Your argument looks like this"

"Complexity requires a designer"
"The Universe is complex"

"The Universe required a designer"

Yes! Yes! That is exactly how I think

"Dawkins points out that any designer of the Universe must be equally, if not more, complex. By your own premise, complexity requires a designer. Thus, God must also have a designer. Moreover, God's designer must have a designer. And God's designer's designer must have a designer, ad infinitum. This leads to an infinite regress. If you can arbitrarily stop the regress at God, then Dawkins can arbitrarily stop it at the Universe."

I have read Dawkins book as well as those of Harris and Hitchens. The design argument doesn't go ad infinitum. It stops at God.

61. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63293 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 8:12 pm

Comment #63218 by sane1 on August 13, 2007 at 2:27 pm

"DARWIN2: Your reasoning that "because it is complex, it is designed" does not hold water. Once you grasp evolution, you'll find it silly. read the Selfish gene, or any number of other books explaining evolution."

I believe in evolution!

62. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63292 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 8:08 pm

Comment #63216 by Robert Maynard on August 13, 2007 at 2:22 pm

"darwin2,
I wish I'd known posters like you would be so belligerent as to re-post comments you made months ago, practically verbatim, so I could keep my replies stored somewhere rather than waste time writing them again."

"This has happened before, and you're still mistaken. If you're not willing to admit your version of the watchmaker analogy has been pulverised by multiple posters in the past, why should anyone give your dissonance (and senility) addled mind the time of day?"

"Give me a break" indeed..:

SEE COMMENT 38

63. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63290 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 8:05 pm

Comment #63214 by Elli on August 13, 2007 at 2:17 pm

"darwin2, out of curiosity how old are you? you seem like a very young person, as you have misunderstood even a high school level grasp of evolution. If you are very young, as I suspect, I commend you for coming on this site to learn more about science and hope you will take the words of the wonderfully erudite contributors here to heart."

I am 66. I believe in evolution totally. I believe God chose evolution and natural selection as the method for creating all life forms. Now tell me specifically how I have misunderstood even a high school level grasp of evolution. And please tell me in any of my posts to this website when I have denied the reality of evolution.

64. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63289 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 7:58 pm

Comment #63208 by keith on August 13, 2007 at 1:52 pm

"Darwin2,
We have actually had this scenario many times before. A believer who hasn't read much science but thinks he has most of the answers comes onto this website and tells us all about science, sometimes adding that the people on this website are arrogant. Some commenters, who actually know quite a lot about science, then take the trouble to put the (not-arrogant) believer right on various points he has misunderstood. The believer then repeats his original posting as though this were a reasonable response. After a while the polite commenters become less so and finally realise they are banging their heads against a brick wall, though some valiant souls keep trying.

Please, try to imagine for a moment how a doctor might feel if a patient starts telling him that the reading of tarot cards is a much surer way of reaching the correct diagnosis. If you can, then you'll get some idea how some of the scientifically-literate commenters here feel about your silly posting."

SEE COMMENT 38

65. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63286 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 7:53 pm

Comment #63205 by Oliver Leif on August 13, 2007 at 1:37 pm

"The god/ID argument is a logical fallacy and it fails to prove anything."

See comment 36

66. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63285 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 7:48 pm

Comment #63204 by codexaenir on August 13, 2007 at 1:35 pm

"Many things wrong with your argument. First of all, you have yet to claim that order and purpose can't come without a designer. Are the 99 percent of the kinds of life that have existed on this Earth all part of the "grand, perfect design?" What about failed solar systems and natural disasters?"

I do claim that order and purpose can't come without a designer. Yes the 99 percent of the kinds of life that have existed on this Earth are all part of the grand perfect design. Failed solar systems and natural disasters are caused by bad individual and collective Karma.

"The most fallacious part of the design argument is when the theist claims things they cannot possibly know. The theist claims to know that not only that a supreme supernatural being exists, but that the qualities of the being's design can be carried by analogy to human engineering. David Hume called this an incomplete analogy. For the design argument to carry weight, one needs to experience a variety of different universes to determine whether this one is designed or not."

I believe there are many other universes other than ours and God is behind the design and creation of all of them.

67. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63284 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 7:46 pm

Comment #63200 by USA_Limey on August 13, 2007 at 1:26 pm

"Your trite, wishy washy, fuzzy feeling logic is embarrasing on this site."

"I see you in my imagination, clenching your eyes tightly together"
"I want to believe,
I want to believe,
I want to believe"

Let me repeat a reply I sent you today at the Brookers Screen Burn thread. You complained that I repeated myself repeatedly with the exact words and here is my response to you:
Yes, I have used it and I will continue to use it. I realize my comments annoy you. But remember this. You don't have to read my comments. When you see darwin2 is making a comment, all you need to do is skip over it and go to the next comment. This will serve a dual purpose. First, it saves you the mental torture of having to read my comments and many of these comments will be word for word repeats of what I have said in other threads. Second, I feel very uncomfortable torturing you with my beliefs. If I know you are now skipping over my comments, I will feel better knowing that I am not torturing you. At the same time I can still in good conscience post my beliefs on this website.

68. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63282 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 7:42 pm

Comment #63199 by Aaron on August 13, 2007 at 1:25 pm

"The space shuttle design is the product of artificial selection process by people. The reason people designed space shuttles is because natural selection selected the genes that made our ancestors curious about their surroundings which increased their probability of survival. Working backward from there every step back to nothingness in the universe is quite understood by science and completely natural."

Yes work it as far back as science can and science will say they can't go any further. If they open their minds and go one step further they will find God, The Supreme Designer and Creator of our universe and all universes that may exist.

69. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63281 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 7:41 pm

Comment #63198 by steve99 on August 13, 2007 at 1:18 pm

"You keep getting this wrong, no matter how often it is explained. The universe is NOT complicated at all. It is very simple indeed... at one point it was no more that pretty evenly distributed hydrogen + helium with slight randomness, probably imposed by quantum effects. All you need is that, combined with a large-scale attractive force (gravity) and you get concentrations of mass and energy that allows non-equilibrium thermodynamics to work and you get spontaneous generation of order and structure. This requires no creator or designer at all."

Steve99 that is your subjective opinion that "this requires no creator or designer at all." At this point in time you can't prove your contention and neither can I. Death will give us the correct answer. If consciousness survives death and hopefully it does, then we can continue this dialogue.

70. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63280 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Comment #63197 by bladesman on August 13, 2007 at 1:17 pm

"I don't ever recall anyone - certainly not Professor Dawkins - using the argument 'X number of people died or were tortured today as a result of religion therefore God does not exist.' The atrocities and stupidity are however, a damn good argument against organised religion. The simple fact of absolutely not one shred of unambiguous evidence in thousands of years of human history is all the argument against God that anyone needs."

Most organized religions are atrocious and stupid but please don't blame their pathetic actions on God. The evils of organized religion are a direct product of the evil actions of humans. Humans created these evil actions and humans must take responsibility for them. History gives a great argument against organized religion but not against God.

"And as for the rest of your proposals, all that needs to be said is - infinite regression. If the universe is so vastly complex that it needs a designer/creator...then that designer/creator must be vastly more complex than the universe...so who designed/created him/her?"

As Harry Truman once said: THE BUCK STOPS HERE. We can apply this analogy to God.

71. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63279 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 7:36 pm

#63191 by Moridin on August 13, 2007 at 1:06 pm

"darwin2, a space shuttle is not a biological entity. Furthermoore, complexity is not the way we see if something has been designed or not, it is its artificiality. We know that a paper clip has been designed by looking at it, but it is so far from complex as you can get, but it is artificial. Biological life is natural."

Our universe follows the laws of physics and these laws apply to both biological and non-biological forms of life. Behind the laws of physics is God.

72. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #63265 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 5:53 pm

Comment #63237 by MadAboutIt on August 13, 2007 at 3:53 pm

"By the same token we can look at the human brain and from the effects of injuries to it. We can see that emotions, language, intelligence and consciousness are all simply processes within its physical form. It is reasonable to assume therfore that when the organ ceases to funtion so does its conciousness."

There is no doubt in my mind that our human bodies will cease to function when death occurs. But if we have an eternal soul and subjectively speaking I am convinced that we do, our eternal souls will survive the death of our present physical body as it has survived the death of many other physical bodies it has occupied.

"I think it is very clear that the scales are weighted very heavily indeed against conciousness beyond the grave, but I think it would be presumptuous to try to put a value on it."

You have already put a value on your belief which cannot be scientifically proven and you put your value in excess of 50% when you state that the scales are weighted very heavily indeed against consciousness beyond the grave. I am more objective when I give both propositions a 50/50 chance of being true.

73. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #63260 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Comment #63189 by Dr Benway on August 13, 2007 at 1:02 pm

"When I use the phrase "quite spiritual," I mean I believe in One God, the Supreme Designer and Creator of our universe. I believe I have an eternal soul. I believe God has a purpose for creating my eternal soul. And, I believe my eternal soul survives the death of my body."
"But, according to a later post, you give this only a 50% chance of being true. However you sound entirely convinced that:"

"Most of the dogmas of organized religion like original sin, redemption, the existence of the devil and eternal damnation are superstitious, ridiculous, illogical and evil."

At this point in time there is no scientific evidence to back up my beliefs. That is why I say objectively speaking there is only 50% chance of my belief being correct that God exists and consciousness survives after death. It is strictly an either or proposition. Objectively I also believe most of the dogmas of organized religion like original sin, redemption, the existence of the devil and eternal damnation are superstitious, ridiculous, illogical and evil. This is obvious with a simple analysis of these atrocious dogmas.

"I must point out that the happy claim that life continues after death and the less happy claims about sin and hell share the same basis - that is, all these notions were pulled from someone's ass."

You must be talking about your own claims and beliefs. I've seen this type of psychological projection many times in my life. You have my deepest sympathy.

74. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #63259 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 5:29 pm

Comment #63182 by USA_Limey on August 13, 2007 at 12:23 pm

"Darwin2, will you please stop trotting this out. You have used it in several threads now, you used it word for word in response to me some weeks ago on another thread, it seems to be your standard fall back position."

Yes, I have used it and I will continue to use it. I realize my comments annoy you. But remember this. You don't have to read my comments. When you see darwin2 is making a comment, all you need to do is skip over it and go to the next comment. This will serve a dual purpose. First, it saves you the mental torture of having to read my comments and many of these comments will be word for word repeats of what I have said in other threads. Second, I feel very uncomfortable torturing you with my beliefs. If I know you are now skipping over my comments, I will feel better knowing that I am not torturing you. At the same time I can still in good conscience post my beliefs on this website.

"It is also complete BS. If your consciousness survives, but not in the form you expected how will you have been proved correct? I asked before in the other thread and you never responded: when you end up after your dead in Thor's great hall what will you say to him before he squishes you with his hammer for not believing in him?"

My beliefs are only BS if they are not true as your beliefs are only BS if they are not true.

"Your childish assertion that if your consciousness continues after you die this will prove you were right is idiotic because the assertion assumes that existence will match your beliefs. Simply breathtaking arrogance is all that is."

Yes, you are correct that was arrogant of me to say that. I apologize. But that is what I believe.

75. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63190 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 1:02 pm

I agree with Hawkins that organized religions are divisive, dangerous, superstitious, illogical and extremely annoying at times. But I believe it is unrealistic and unscientific to use the atrocities and stupidities of organized religion as a proof against the existence of God. I disagree with Dawkins who proposed that the preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrates that the possibility for the existence of God is very low, almost zero. I am perplexed that scientists can actually come to this conclusion. I believe the opposite of what Dawkins says is true and that the preponderance of scientific evidence demonstrates that the odds are very high, almost 100% that God, the One Surpreme Being, Designer and Creator exists. Would a scientist conclude that the Space Shuttle, one of the most complicated aircrafts in existence, was made by natural selection. The obvious answer is that intelligence was behind its design and creation. The universe is infinitely more complicated that the Space Shuttle and must have had a Designer and Creator. So you atheists out there give me a break. Let's get scientific here and conclude that the probability that God exists is very high.

76. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #63180 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Comment #63021 by Damien White on August 13, 2007 at 12:02 am

"Seems to me that darwin2 doesn't realise the difference between hope and faith."

My beliefs give me great hope and comfort but I also realize my beliefs may be totally wrong. If consciousness continues after death, I will find that my beliefs were correct. If consciousness ceases at death, I will never know if I was right or wrong.

77. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #63179 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 12:09 pm

Comment #62979 by AntonAAK on August 12, 2007 at 6:04 pm

"Fortunate indeed. Except that according to most religious doctrines which I have read the majority of people will, if they wake after death, awake to an eternity of torture. Their crimes could range from murder, rape and theft to loving someone of their own sex, switching on a light on Saturday or dying prior to baptism."

"This will have happened to the vast majority of people who have ever lived and is going on right now. Your God is torturing people as we speak."

The dogma of eternal hell is a BS dogma and one of many dogmas of organized religion that are superstitious, ridiculous, illogical, divisive and evil. The dogmas of original sin, redemption, the existence of the devil and eternal damnation are good examples.

However I find most practitioners of organized religion to be beautiful and highly ethical people with a genuine concern about the welfare of their fellow humans. The problem I find with practitioners of organized religion is its believers fail to understand and appreciate the ramifications of many dogmas their religion teaches. I offer a challenge to these people. I challenge them to read books like "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris and "god is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens. If they do so, I am confident they will discover that many of the dogmas that organized religion tyrannically compels them to believe are truly evil and a direct insult to an Infinite, All-Knowing, All-Powerful, Loving, Merciful and Perfectly Just God.

78. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #63178 by darwin2 on August 13, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Comment #62952 by BAEOZ on August 12, 2007 at 1:01 pm

"Hi darwin2. I believe this is called begging the question. Your answer involves that which it is trying to demonstrate. You have to demonstrate that human self awareness continues after death or, at least, that it's reasonable to presume this before you can use it to argue anything else. You then say that if you are fully conscious when you die then you will learn the correct answer that human self awareness occurs. But this is the issue at hand. Very circular. Demonstrate it's reasonable that a human's consciousness (whatever that is), can continue post mortem, before you argue from this premise."

My statement also implies that it is possible that human self-awareness may not continue after death. Looking at this issue objectively it is reasonably possible that consciousness continues after death. It's a 50/50 proposition. 50% chance it does continue. 50% chance it doesn't continue.

79. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #62951 by darwin2 on August 12, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Comment #62812 by sabre_truth on August 11, 2007 at 3:27 pm

"Does this mean that experiencing the beauty of the starry sky is going to make me believe in astrology, or the drama of a thunderstorm evokes a worshipful feeling towards Thor? Certainly not, but these and other experiences do inspire me and give me a sense of wonder at being alive in this magnificent world. That to me is the truest essence of what it is to be spiritual."

That is another aspect of spirituality I agree with.

80. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #62950 by darwin2 on August 12, 2007 at 12:55 pm

Comment #62807 by Janus on August 11, 2007 at 2:28 pm

"since punching yourself in the throat would do us little good, perhaps it would be better to break all of your fingers instead."

I am sure you would have done well during the Inquistion. Your comment helps me understand why our planet is so violent and screwed up.

81. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #62949 by darwin2 on August 12, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Comment #62788 by steve99 on August 11, 2007 at 12:35 pm

"Just doesn't work that way, sorry. You see, religion *starts off* with the belief that these things are possible, it does not provide any evidence for them being so."

Analyzing these issues from a strict scientific and logical perspective, you have to conclude that it is impossible at this moment in time to objectively address them. The most brilliant scientist living today can't prove that God does not exist and human self awareness ceases at the death of the physical body and the holiest religious leader living today can't prove that God exists and human self awareness continues after the death of the physical body. The correct objective answer will occur when you die. If you are fortunate when you die and find yourself fully conscious in the after death state, you will learn that the correct objective answer is that human self awareness continues after death and God exists. If human self awareness ceases at the death of the physical body, then you are not fortunate and will never know the correct objective answer to the above issues.

82. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #62948 by darwin2 on August 12, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Comment #62787 by mpbrockman on August 11, 2007

"The unspoken plaint behind your post is "If only everyone was as open minded as meeeeeeee...". There is such a thing as being so open minded that your brains fall out."

Examining the question of the existence of God from the strictest objective scientific perspective, a good scientist, even Einstein who stated he was an atheist, has to conclude it is possible for God to exist. Therefore it is scientifically worthwhile to explore the possibility that God might truly exist. And if He does what possible ramifications does His existence have for the human condition?

"Perhaps you could acquaint yourself with the the numerous scientists who have attempted to treat god and "the soul" as legitimate objects of inquiry (I might suggest V. Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis"). It is my observation, however, that directing serious scientific inquiry towards answering the "god question" is generally about as productive as directing serious scientific inquiry towards the "leprechaun question."

If consciousness continues after death, you will find that the "god question" is a very productive scientific inquiry.

83. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #62945 by darwin2 on August 12, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Comment #62783 by Friend Giskard on August 11, 2007 at 12:16 pm

"Why not two gods? Is that not possible? Or three? Or none?"

Good point, but my subjective belief is that it factors down to One Supreme Being, the Supreme Designer and Creator of our universes and all universes that may exist.

"The way to decide whether a thing is true is by studying the evidence, not by looking into fanciful belief systems."

I agree totally. One very concrete reality is that we die. If consciousness continues after death we will get the evidence to prove the existence of God. If consciousness ceases after death, we will never know if God exists or is in fact a fantasy.

84. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #62943 by darwin2 on August 12, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Comment #62781 by Corylus on August 11, 2007 at 12:06 pm

"There are some scientists who do study religion seriously (although I admit that most do focus on other things!) You might find the following article of interest - I know I did."

That's an excellent article. I believe the researchers may be correct in concluding that religious ecstasy is an illusion and may be kind of brain damage-temporal lobe epilepsy. If they are correct their conclusion still does not disprove the existence of God. I have never had a religious ecstasy experience. I believe in God strictly through my observations of the universe.

85. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #62942 by darwin2 on August 12, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Comment #62778 by Quetzalcoatl on August 11, 2007 at 11:58 am

"you say that you describe yourself as "quite spiritual". What does that phrase mean to you?"

When I use the phrase "quite spiritual," I mean I believe in One God, the Supreme Designer and Creator of our universe. I believe I have an eternal soul. I believe God has a purpose for creating my eternal soul. And, I believe my eternal soul survives the death of my body.

86. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #62776 by darwin2 on August 11, 2007 at 11:52 am

"Spirituality is what cretins have in place of imagination. If you've ever described yourself as "quite spiritual", do civilisation a favour and punch yourself in the throat until you're incapable of speaking aloud ever again. Why should your outmoded codswallop be treated with anything other than the contemptuous mockery it deserves?" CHARLES BROOKER

I do describe myself as "quite spiritual" and I have no intention of punching myself in the throat until I am "incapable of speaking loud ever again." However I strongly agree with Brooker when he says "Welcome to a dangerous new era - the Unlightenment - in which centuries of rational thought are overturned by idiots." Not all but much of the new age medical treatments and beliefs are BS. Most of the dogmas of organized religion like original sin, redemption, the existence of the devil and eternal damnation are superstitious, ridiculous, illogical and evil. However I do believe that science and religion can be complementary and compatible. If religious people studied science with an open mind, they would acquire a greater appreciation of the magnificence, immensity and infinite power of God and would become more tolerant of those who have different beliefs then the beliefs of their own particular religion. If scientists studied religion more seriously, they would conclude that it is possible for one God to exist and for human self-awareness (THE SOUL) to continue after death.

87. Beyond Belief: Atheism (with AC Grayling)

Comment #57158 by darwin2 on July 18, 2007 at 12:31 pm

The term "theistic evolution" describes the true nature of evolution. God the Supreme Designer and Creator of our universe and all other universes could have created our universe in 6 days if He so chose but Darwin clearly demonstrated and proved that He didn't use this method but rather used evolution and natural selection to create all life forms on our planet and probably throughout our universe and all other universes that may exist.

88. An Atheist Responds

Comment #57148 by darwin2 on July 18, 2007 at 11:54 am

Comment #56828 by Elli on July 17, 2007 at 12:33 pm

"No. You will only begin to understand more fully the nature of consciousness."

Yes you are correct. But if we do find ourselves conscious on the other side, we will get the correct answer to the question of whether or not consciousness continues after death. Then after finding out that consciousness does indeed continue after death, we can more scientifically address the issue of the existence and nature of God.

89. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56818 by darwin2 on July 17, 2007 at 11:58 am

Comment #56801 by USA_Limey on July 17, 2007 at 9:45 am

"Well well, I think we finally have you pegged."

Is that a compliment or a put down? I will take it as a compliment. However, if it was meant to be a put down, please elaborate so I can get the correct meaning of your remark.

"Got your shield with the big red cross on it yet?"

No, I am a peaceful man. I abhor violence.

90. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56815 by darwin2 on July 17, 2007 at 11:49 am

Comment #56799 by irate_atheist on July 17, 2007 at 9:23 am

"So, Darwin2 my little friend, on what solid evidence do you base your belief?"

"Not just deluded wishful thinking?"

"*sighs*"

"And then people wonder why I'm irate..."

I have absolutely no scientific evidence to base my beliefs on. My beliefs are subjective and based on my observations on life. I believe in One God who is Infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful, loving, merciful and perfectly just. I believe God is the Supreme Designer and Creator of our universe and all universes that may exist. As I have said these are my subjective views. Examining my views objectively, I realize my views may be totally wrong. We are all destined to die and death will give us the correct answer. If after our death we find ourselves conscious on the other side, we will know the correct answer.

91. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56812 by darwin2 on July 17, 2007 at 11:36 am

Comment #56627 by NormanDoering on July 16, 2007 at 4:07 pm

"If God told you to go kill children, would you do it?"
"Or gay men?"
"Or your own son?"

Sadly, the answer to these questions is sometimes yes. There have been several stories in the news this past year where Muslim women who have been raped have been killed by their father or brother who seems to believe this is what God demands. This belief and many other beliefs of organized religion are insane. I believe in God but I don't need to ask God if what I am doing is right or wrong. I definitely agree with Hitchens on this point.

92. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56810 by darwin2 on July 17, 2007 at 11:24 am

Comment #56581 by robert s on July 16, 2007 at 1:15 pm

"I don't think Hitchens thinks the heaven he fears exists either."

"I can see why it might be better all-round if our critical thinking skills survived into an afterlife (if there is an afterlife, a rather large if), but that's a long way short of actual evidence for thinking that this is actually the case."

"I can think of lots of things that would be nice if they were true, but aren't."

Death will give us the correct answer as to whether or not there is an after life. I believe there is. In the interim, we shouldn't worry about death but rather should responsibly enjoy nature's magnificent beauty to the fullest extent we are capable of experiencing.

93. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56578 by darwin2 on July 16, 2007 at 1:06 pm

Hitchens graphically describes the evils, superstitions and illogical dogmas of organized religion. He also says heaven as detailed by organized religions would be hell if we had to worship a celestial dictatorship for all eternity. I believe the evils of organized religion have crippled Hitchens' mind into believing that it is not possible for God to exist or for consciousness to exist after death or for heaven to exist. I believe the heaven that Hitchens' fears is not the one that exists. In this lifetime Hitchens and most atheists have learned to use critical thinking to develop their beliefs in life and to explore the many wonders of nature. To think these critical skills that we have in this lifetime would be taken away from us in an afterlife doesn't make sense. If there is an afterlife and I believe there is, I believe these critical thinking skills will continue but at a much higher level and the universe will be ours to explore and conquer.

94. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56561 by darwin2 on July 16, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Comment #56203 by PeterK on July 14, 2007 at 1:01 pm

"I think the reason why every atheist I know is able to see the simple logic this statement, and how the two ideas contradict each other, and somehow it always seems to be beyond the grasp whenever presented to any theist."

"(a)Either the theist doesn't understand the logic (and this is why he remains a theist.)
or Or(b) he does understand it, and rather than just admitting God is omniscient and omnipotent but only within reasonable parameters ( thus limiting His power )he again counters with an inapplicable argument, rather than just conceding his assertion was wrong."

I believe God created the laws of physics and does not interfere with them. I see no contradiction between omniscient and omnipotent.

95. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56560 by darwin2 on July 16, 2007 at 12:19 pm

Comment #56432 by Lauregon on July 15, 2007 at 6:00 pm

"If I were posting on a religious believer's board, I might be said to be evangelizing religious believers with my non-theist views, though that would require a broadening of the most common definition of the word "evangelize." As it is, I'm posting as a non-theist on a non-theist board where it's not necessary to evangelize for non-theist views. You, on the other hand, are a theist posting on a non-theist board. That makes you an evangelist for your theist views. Please try to understand the difference---and please try to understand as well that the burden HERE and NOW on this board where you are evangelizing for theism, is on YOU to prove that your idiosyncratic, cherry-picked, supernatural "God" exists. The non-existence of something that isn't factually known to exist doesn't have to be proven to not exist. It's very foolish of you to keep missing that point."

You are right. I am the aggressor. I am posting on a non-theist board and you are not posting on a theist board. You have called me an evangelist. Too be quite truthful I felt insulted at first by being called this name. But the more I think about it, the more I like it. Yes from now on I will consider myself an evangelist whose mission is to enlighten atheists that it is possible for One True God, the Designer and Creator of all universes to exist; it is also possible for consciousness to continue after death; and it is also possible for science and religion to be compatible and complementary.

96. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56558 by darwin2 on July 16, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Comment #56428 by PeterK on July 15, 2007 at 5:52 pm

"The problem with this above declaration is that if it were a valid argument, any person could claim the existence of anything, and attach limitless characteristics to it and then claim some sort of logical victory because no one can 'disprove it."

"Again, I don't think you've ever read or absorbed the contents of any book or documents that argues
against your position. In post #116 Laurengon mentions that the burden of proof lies with the person you postulates the existence of something. And in this case that would be you"

This is a website that allows participants to freely express their views on science and religion. I enjoy this website and enjoy expressing my views on these subjects and equally enjoy hearing the views of others. I realize my views on the issues on the existence of God and the survival of consciousness after death are my subjective views as are your views to the contrary. Objectively neither you or I can scientifically prove our views are correct. I live my life according to my beliefs and I lead a very moral life. Although your views differ from mine, I am inclined to believe you as well as most other people on this website lead very moral lives too.

97. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56421 by darwin2 on July 15, 2007 at 5:14 pm

Comment #56416 by krogercomplete on July 15, 2007 at 4:56 pm

"You're a dummy head!"

"No, YOU'RE a dummy head!!!"

OUCH! DOUBLE OUCH!! TRIPLE OUCH!!!

98. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56420 by darwin2 on July 15, 2007 at 5:10 pm

Comment #56291 by PeterK on July 14, 2007 at 7:25 pm

"You're here as an insistent evanglist for YOUR singular ideas, but you have no ability whatsoever to support them with anything other than stubborn declarations of virtual certainty."

"so far, that's about it."

Please see comment #137.

99. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56418 by darwin2 on July 15, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Comment #56282 by Lauregon on July 14, 2007 at 6:16 pm

In other words, you're an orthodox believer---with privileges.

That's an excellent description except I don't believe a Jew, Catholic or a Protestant would call me orthodox.

100. Sean Hannity with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #56417 by darwin2 on July 15, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Comment #56278 by Lauregon on July 14, 2007 at 5:56 pm

"I also don't believe you're really here to exchange ideas as you've claimed. You appear to be here to insist without proof or substance of any kind that YOUR subjective idiosyncratic beliefs are correct, while those of non-believers are incorrect. You're here as an insistent evanglist for YOUR singular ideas, but you have no ability whatsoever to support them with anything other than stubborn declarations of virtual certainty"

I do not have any scientific evidence to prove my contention that God exists or that consciousness continues after death. You do not have any scientific evidence to prove your contention that God does not exist or that consciousness ceases at death. You accuse me of being an insistent evangelist to support my singular ideas about God and the survival of consciousness but aren't you an insistent evangelist to support your singular ideas about the non-existence of God and the cessation of consciousness at death. My fellow insistent evangelist it is a pleasure to meet you.