151. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164830 by gr8hands on April 20, 2008 at 6:20 pm

Kardashovel, read The Physics of Star Trek by Lawrence Maxwell Krauss, and you will be enlightened and educated in why wormholes allowing time travel into the past is pure fiction.

It also debunks, sad to say, some of the other Trek goodies. Great for dramatic plots, but bad on the science aspect.

152. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164463 by gr8hands on April 20, 2008 at 9:40 am

It's almost sad (and unfortunately too typical) that Remnant doesn't understand how to use the Strong's reference works, demonstrating that he's not a linguist, historian or biblical scholar.

I'm reminded of Alexander Pope in An Essay on Criticism, 1709:

A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.

epeeist is right that if a theist starts spouting their . . . stuff, we should refrain from further discussion with them until they provide evidence that god exists. Answering their questions does very little.

Of course, it could be like taking 6,000,000 sperm to break down the egg until that 6,000,001st gets through. But in this forum that's a tedious amount of work.

It's also sad that he doesn't see the hypocrisy of chiding us for taking scripture out of context, and then immediately taking scripture out of context himself. It just makes me shake my head.

153. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164212 by gr8hands on April 19, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Remnant, you are confused about what "refute" means. I suggest using a dictionary.

While there, look up "sophistry" and then look in a mirror.

Being that I am a seminary trained biblical scholar (but yet an atheist), I doubt that you are capable of showing any area where I have a misunderstanding. That is arrogant pride on your behalf, and you should repent of that sin. Unless, of course, you're merely a hypocrite.

Since you consider it a waste of time to educate us, you are clearly not a christian or interested in following the commandments of jesus.

We have no use for those who come to quote scriptures they don't understand, condemn science they don't understand, and are rude.

I suggest that you simply leave this forum. I, for one, will simply ignore your posts -- unless you provide evidence that god exists. That I would examine, but nothing else. Without that, you really have nothing of interest to offer.

154. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164195 by gr8hands on April 19, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Remnant -- I've shown just a few (of the many) samples showing the bible is not inerrant. Why cling to that false belief in the face of evidence to the contrary?

155. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164189 by gr8hands on April 19, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Remnant -- Jonah 3:10

And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

Since god was going to do evil, god cannot be perfectly good. Since god repented, god sinned and cannot be perfect. (1 Chronicles 21:15 and Amos 7:6 also show god repenting -- yet this clearly contradicts Numbers 23:19 that states god is not a man, that he should repent)

In Isaiah 13, god commands

Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it.

Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.

So . . . god commands them to perform abortions. Doesn't this also violate the Commandment "thou shalt not kill"?

Or Second Kings 2:23-24, where Elisha prayed to god to send a bear to kill some rude children -- and god sent a bear that tore the children to pieces.

Is this the god you profess to worship? Is this the source of your morality?

156. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164171 by gr8hands on April 19, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Remnant wrote:

Now little man, why don't you why don't you provide the scientific evidence where life has been created from non-life or where something was created from nothing.

If you had actually read through this thread, you would see where I have answered this question.

Read Did Life Begin In Ice? in the February, 2008 Discover Magazine, and you will see scientific evidence of self-replicating RNA spontaneously developing from mere chemicals -- life from non-life.

Now, where is your evidence that god exists? (Remember, using the bible as a resource has as much validity as saying Harry Potter is real because you've read all the books and seen all the movies, and a billion people must be right.)

157. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163389 by gr8hands on April 18, 2008 at 9:25 am

Egomaniac -- read Did Life Begin In Ice? from Discover Magazine's February 2008 issue. It shows proof that self-replicating RNA spontaneously emerges from chemicals in freezing temperatures. No god required.

Bonzai -- all religious concepts are the result of indoctrination. Children are not born knowing the concept of god or believing in one. Feral children do not spontaneously develop the concept away from parents/society. And there are many examples of isolated pockets (even a single household) of one religion surrounded by a society of a different religion -- think jew or jehovah's witness or wiccan.

thisisme -- irate_atheist is correct to point out that you must first demonstrate that god exists before you can ascribe any attributes to god.

After the arduous requirement of proof of existence, then you have to prove that this being is a divine one, as opposed to just a space alien.

After that, you have to prove that this god interacts and communicates with humans in a way we can experience and understand.

After that, you have to prove that this interaction has communicated some kind of morality or attributes from this god being that are relevant to humans today.

Until then, until all of those are fulfilled, you have no logical, moral, ethical or reasonable leg to stand on, and are merely spouting nonsense from a delusion you share with others.

158. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162752 by gr8hands on April 17, 2008 at 11:57 am

Frankus1122 -- I would submit that whenever you use the word "decision" it is "reason" which is being applied. Emotions are feelings, not choices or decisions or conclusions or speculations or hunches or . . .

But that being said, only Vulcans are capable of pure reason without the taint of emotions. For humans, they are intertwined.

159. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162721 by gr8hands on April 17, 2008 at 10:57 am

thisisme -- you are in error when you state

Any ethical theory that does not provide a universal standard does not allow criticism of others. This should be obvious.

We can criticize any theory which is internally inconsistent -- which would be all religions.

We can criticize any theory which has no evidence to support it -- which would be all religions.

We can criticize any theory which has as a tenet that evidence against it must be ignored -- which would be all religions.

We can criticize any theory which has as a tenet that the rules apply differently to some than to others simply due to birth/gender/orientation or other arbitrary and uncontrollable conditions -- which would be most religions.

We can criticize any theory which has as a tenet that it cannot be questioned -- which would be most religions.

Sorry, thisisme, but you clearly are confused about this issue -- and I'm only mentioning one of the many errors in your post.

160. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162710 by gr8hands on April 17, 2008 at 10:28 am

In the Star Trek episode "Galileo Seven" Spock does something in desperation, and is called on it by McCoy. Spock's response, to paraphrase the exchange, was that since he logically concluded that an emotional response was necessary, it was therefore a logical decision.

A person usually uses reason to include emotional responses/reactions such as "love". Adding emotions to the equation does not make it less reasonable. (In fact, ignoring emotions would not be reasonable.) It is when emotions over-rule reason that problems occur.

This is exactly like the false dichotomy between Justice and Mercy -- true justice has to include mercy.

161. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162645 by gr8hands on April 17, 2008 at 7:02 am

Any response to a child about the existence of god other than "no, there is no evidence that any god exists" is a lie and wrong. Period.

No child is "indoctrinated" into not believing in god -- it is how they are born. The only indoctrination is into somehow believing in the concept of god, not the reverse.

Liken this to "are there monsters under the bed?" Any response other than "no" is simply wrong.

162. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162302 by gr8hands on April 16, 2008 at 2:26 pm

PhD(c) is used to denote they have not completed their dissertation, but have completed all their classwork. Technically a "candidate" [thus the (c)]. We used to say "ABD, All But Dissertation" but others want to have credit for being a "doctor" without the reality of it. That rascally requirement for a dissertation keeps many people from finishing the doctorate . . . and rightly so.

163. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162188 by gr8hands on April 16, 2008 at 9:39 am

thisisme -- for every so-called moral absolute right from the mouth of god (say, the 10 Commandments), there are examples in scripture where the holy people were either commanded by god to disobey those Commandments, or did so without condemnation from god.

Take "thou shalt not kill" -- yet the Israelites were commanded to kill again and again - men, women and children.

So clearly there are no absolutes obtained from scripture. First Moses said god said divorce was okay, then jesus said it wasn't. First eating pork was taboo, then it wasn't. First you had to be a jew to be the apple of god's eye, then you had to be a christian.

Changes. If ANYTHING changes EVER from sin to not sin (or vice versa), then there is NO absolute morality. You are confused about what the word "absolute" means.

164. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162176 by gr8hands on April 16, 2008 at 9:18 am

thisisme -- Sorry, but your "objective" moral guide is utterly subjective in every way. You claim to be able to know god's values, attributes, choices, beliefs, nature, etc. -- but without any PROOF.

In short, you have made up objectivity -- which is of even lesser value than what an atheist might choose, because they would likely use some kind of reality-based logic. Fantasy-based logic is a contradiction in terms.

Your claims of knowledge about god is like someone believing that Harry Potter is a real human being with magical powers!

Sad, really. But definitely not "objective". You are confused about what that word means.

165. Blasphemy

Comment #124565 by gr8hands on February 9, 2008 at 8:57 pm

Styrer wrote:

gr8hands - if, sir, I am just an upstart punk twerp with poorly formed views, you're of course free to take those views to task and show them up for the bilge they may be. I would be the first to be grateful for your doing so, believe it or not. But simply resorting to an ad hominem does you, me and the ideas no good whatsoever, unless you explain clearly why my ideas should be dismissed. As the saying goes, either put up or shut up.

You are clearly confused about what "an ad hominem" is. I suggest http://www.merriam-webster.com/ for a nice free online dictionary. Stating you are (or appear to be) confused is not "an ad hominem," it is stating a conclusion based on your improper use of various words, including "ad hominem." You appear confused about that concept, which is why I accurately labeled it so and wrote it.

Unless, of course, you have confused my post(s) with someone else's post(s) -- that can and does happen. So, I suggest you review what I have actually written, to see if it matches what you believe I have written -- perhaps you will be surprised. Or not.

I don't need to resort to calling people names -- their poor writing, poor ideas, poor scholarship, errors, lies, or whatever -- speak for themselves. I just point them out. Although I have called someone a liar who was lying, and stupid when they kept saying stupid things (I did apologize).

When you're confused, I don't have to go into a long explanation on every point, detailing why you should be dismissed, giving well-researched citations and hyperlinks -- the confusion is reason enough on its own for you to be dismissed, and I've done enough to identify that.

It is then up to you to demonstrate that you are either not confused, or request assistance, or somehow clarify yourself. I have no intention of doing that for you.

You'll find a little less snarkiness will be well received -- when you reply with wit like "are you on the piss?" then we can't really take you seriously. I usually just ignore you, as you haven't shown me that your posts are worth reading. I just did a quick search on my login name, and came up with your comment, so I felt I should reply this once.

166. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #124562 by gr8hands on February 9, 2008 at 8:41 pm

Steve Zara, others here are quick to point out some of the flaws that Torkel Franzén clearly showed with Chaitin's work. Chaitin's constant is an interesting theory, but certainly not universally accepted in the world of mathematics.

But, you are free to presume that it is true and would render my statement inaccurate. I am just stating that it would have to be proven true first for me to consider accepting it.

167. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124558 by gr8hands on February 9, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Everyone -- Please read "Did Life Begin in Ice?" from Discover magazine, the February issue I believe. It shows evidence of how chemicals in ice actually form into more complex formations -- leading even to self-replicating sequences of RNA. This shows evolution actually creating the precursors of "life" from mere chemicals. It completely explains how "life" got here -- without a designer/god/genii/whatever.

krisking, Artful_Dodger, and too many others, you need to download for free the book at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876 which will explain evolution in an easy-to-understand way, and clear up most of your confusion.

FitzRoy, I'd say evolution wins the explanation ratio hands down, rather easily. Just start a list for both of all the applications and ramifications and outgrowths due to them, and tally it for yourself.

AllanW, here is the information you need to refute the others: it is a fact of history that most governments have kept most of their people illiterate most of the time (until very recently, and still in many countries). And since the royalty governed based on some version of "divine right" -- this oppression was directly due to religion.

In fact, it was the advent of science advancement in the form of the printing press -- quite apart from religion -- that allowed average people to even be allowed to read their own holy books! (there are a few exceptions to this, but not many) And most religions were against this, because they felt only priests/religiously trained should have such access! Which is why it took decade upon decade for the change to occur.

168. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #123119 by gr8hands on February 6, 2008 at 1:24 pm

I am reminded, Epinephrine, that we keep changing the definition of "exact" as we get better precision. Your points are well taken.

I wonder what grand mathematical theories would have arisen had we been born with 12 fingers. . . or a different number on each hand . . .?

Steve Zara, I believe we will continue to shrink the "unknowable or intractable" into a smaller and smaller space -- perhaps to a singularity.

As an aside, does anyone know why there is no "preview" function any more?

169. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123074 by gr8hands on February 6, 2008 at 12:31 pm

I refuse to go the Vox's website -- he may get income from the number of people who go there, and I don't intend to let him have a single penny off of me!

170. Blasphemy

Comment #123059 by gr8hands on February 6, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Styrer wrote:

Do you really think, Steve, that the comment 'Friends don't let friends commit, or condone, evil' is a comment made by a friend, about a friend, to a friend, or in any combination of these? Do you 'let' your friends do anything? Do your friends 'let' you do anything? If you can answer 'yes' to either of these, you should get yourself some new friends.

No, we have friends because we have built up a relationship with them over time based on, at the least, mutual respect. Other factors can only enter into such a relationship later.

Dennett's use of 'friends' by-passes all normal methods and discourse of friendship establishment. His imposition of 'friendship' between non-consenting factions not only smacks of huge condescension; it also tastes of enforced propitiation. In short, of appeasement.

I have already quoted the other disturbing expiatory sentences from this article. I won't repeat them.

Styrer is confused about friendship, much like he is confused about the concepts of appeasement and intellectual honesty.

I do not think anything in Dennett's letter was "disturbing." In fact, the only thing "disturbed" appears to be Styrer -- given the vehemence of his trolling language.

Perhaps Dennett considers Islam a "great faith" because a Billion people follow it -- more than any other single religion. You can email him: ddennett@tufts.edu and get the answer directly, without speculating. You can ask him all the questions you want about anything he's written or said. (I suggest using a more respectful tone than is being used too often in this thread. I mean, he's a busy man, and why should he take time to answer ranting/rude emails?)

171. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120656 by gr8hands on February 2, 2008 at 8:34 am

Kardashovel wrote:

I was engaged in discussion with your betters.

This one sentence demonstrates that you are an idiot. It renders everything else you've written as suspect. It taints everything you will write in the future.

I shall point out the obvious -- no one is "better" than anyone else. Perhaps with the good fortune of being better educated, better trained, in an environment that fosters growth and maturity. But a "better" person? Of more intrinsic worth and value as a human being? Absolutely not.

It is just such thinking which is one step away from ethnic cleansing and genocide -- and not a long step!

What is not surprising, is the person making such a stupid claim will consider themself one of those "better" people. Arrogance in the extreme.

Please leave this forum -- you have demonstrated that you have nothing worthwhile to offer. I, for one, wish there was an "ignore" feature found on some other forums, where I wouldn't have to even look at your posts to pass them by. An apology now would be too little, too late.

172. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120470 by gr8hands on February 1, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Once again:

micaht -- I'm still waiting for you to supply the page number(s) in Vox Day's book that provides proof/evidence of god's existence -- or you can submit a retraction, statement of error -- or be branded a liar along with Vox Day.

173. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120146 by gr8hands on February 1, 2008 at 9:43 am

micaht -- I'm still waiting for you to supply the page number(s) in Vox Day's book that provides proof/evidence of god's existence -- or you can submit a retraction, statement of error -- or be branded a liar along with Vox Day.

174. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120109 by gr8hands on February 1, 2008 at 9:08 am

michat, the central theme from atheism (and Dawkins' book The God Delusion) is that there is no evidence that god exists.

The only possible way to refute that, or "crush" that (as you put it), is to provide evidence that god exists. Unless Vox Day does that, he is a liar in his claims to have done so, and so are you for perpetuating those claims.

So, please provide the specific page number(s) where Vox Day provides evidence that god exists in his book. If you are unable to do that, then you are rightly to be labeled a liar, and we should ignore you.

Sounds tough? That's just how Science works. Once you've been caught faking data, no one trusts you (nor should they -- just ask the South Korean scientists caught up in that scandal).

175. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #119049 by gr8hands on January 31, 2008 at 9:30 am

What a bunch of crap! This thread has been filled with a really high concentration of nonsense -- even from people who should know better.

Vox Day claims to disprove the best arguments of Dawkins -- since the main "argument" is that there is no proof of god's existence, the only way to disprove that would be to supply proof of god's existence! (as Steve Zara keeps requesting)

Because Vox Day has made erroneous statements in his interview, he has no credibility that his book will be any more accurate. So there is no logical reason to read his book. (Would you bother reading an arithmetic book written by someone who kept making simple arithmetic errors in a discussion of their book?)

I won't comment on the snarkiness shown by far too many people. It isn't showing very many people in their best light.

As for Kardashovel's assertion that there was no time before the beginning of the universe -- that makes a very illogical and unsupported statement that there was a "beginning of the universe". Do a search for a discussion I had with Steve Zara on that topic for more clarification.

(On a side note, there is no way to demonstrate whether "time" itself actually slows or speeds up, or whether it is merely the mechanisms used to measure "time" that do the slowing/speeding up.)

I agree with Steve Zara's suggestion on books/authors. For those looking for an Internet site showing good cosmology made reasonably easy, try http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/ and check out the various links. DISCLAIMER: there is no absolute consensus among cosmologists on all topics, so this is just presenting some of the views, theories, experiments, evidence, etc.

Kardashovel is indulging in foolishness by bringing up biblical tenets about heaven/hell -- perhaps he is confused by our constant request for "evidence."

Cartomancer -- you're so much smarter than Einstein is . . . he's dead and you're alive. Now a different question is whether you're smarter than Einstein was when he was alive . . .

176. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118264 by gr8hands on January 30, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Cartomancer, loved the poem!

Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem.

177. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118252 by gr8hands on January 30, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Smith, your "quote" of The God Delusion left out the very important next sentence:

It was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment, and I was surprised that it earned a round of enthusiastic applause from that Irish audience (composed, admittedly, of Dublin intellectuals and presumably not representative of the country at large).

You also left off the remainder of that paragraph, where Dawkins relays the story of a Catholic woman who has been sexually abused by her parish priest, but later told him that it was not as harmful as the mental abuse caused by the Catholic dogma of her Protestant friend going to hell.

Perhaps you should re-read -- and comprehend -- the entire paragraph, and the following two, and then look at how your comments are not backed up with the facts.

Vox Day is in error, as are you.

178. The New Theology

Comment #118230 by gr8hands on January 30, 2008 at 1:47 pm

brother john -- you do realize that if you do not provide any evidence or proof of the existence of god, after claiming that you have it, you will have branded yourself as unreliable.

Not just unreliable in this one instance, but since you've devoted your entire life to a career based in part on god's existence, you cannot expect anyone to take your opinions about anything seriously.

I mean, if you can't either be honest about the basis of your life's work, or can't tell whether it's been based on a delusion/whatever, then why should anyone accept your opinion or conclusions about anything?

I'm not trying to be snarky. If I were to claim that I was fluent in Icelandic, but was not able to demonstrate the ability to read/write/translate/understand Icelandic, why should I be considered an expert on anything related to the Icelandic language? To take the analogy further, why should my opinion about any foreign language be given any weight? If I've been shown to be untrustworthy, doesn't it naturally taint everything I write?

That's why we kept asking if you were certain that you had evidence, even giving you the face-saving out by giving specific criteria. You're really in something of a pickle now. You can't simply ignore the questions and expect us to forget it. You can't just move to another thread in this Forum and not have us again start to ask the question. It really does follow you around, like a criminal conviction -- not to further punish, but as a warning to others.

So, if you can't provide the evidence of god's existence that would meet the basic criteria of evidence laid out for you, then do the brave and honest thing and say so. We don't even ask that you "confess" or do an act of contrition. Just don't try to weasel out of it or ignore it. We all deserve better than that.

179. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117724 by gr8hands on January 29, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Vox who? And why should I care?

I don't bother reading the tripe of someone who can't bother getting the facts in their interviews right -- it is unrealistic to think their book is any more accurate. Who wants to waste their time with more of the same?

Steve Zara, I suggest you publish a book of blank pages, and put on the title: All the collected proof that God exists

It would be sold for a novelty, like the "blank" book Sex Secrets of Pope John Paul II.

180. The New Theology

Comment #116099 by gr8hands on January 25, 2008 at 1:37 pm

brother john, you wrote:

I think "most" is a bit exaggerated. Every area of study e.g. science, history, psychology, economics, mysticism, literary criticism... has its own set of tests/criteria for validity/relevance/whatever. Some of those areas will have subdivisions:eg/ science – I'm no expert in that area but I presume we will find that evolutionary biology will have some tests/criteria specific to itself different from, say, those applicable in chemistry or nuclear physics. Agreed?

No, not agreed. You are confusing what is valid "evidence" from what is a valid or relevant "test" -- and they clearly not the same thing. However, to be fair, if you would let me know of ANY area of legitimate scientific study where they would accept as evidence something that did not pass that list of criteria.

You wrote:

I realise you would dismiss mysticism as an area for legitimate study. But, then, you have to. Your atheism will not allow you to consider it valid. That is the crucial weakness of atheism: it is forced to exclude anything that is a possible legitimate challenge to its dogmas.

You are still confused about what "atheism" is -- an atheist is someone who does not believe in god(s) or believes there is no proof that god(s) exist [burden of proof being on those who claim god(s) exist]. There are atheists who believe in mysticism, astral projection, telepathy, UFO's, and all manner of other things that have no proof. It isn't directly related to their atheism.

I do, by the way, believe that mysticism is an area for legitimate study -- and it has been. The evidence arrives at the conclusion that mystical and supernatural events/experiences/etc. do not exist (or rather, that there is no conclusive evidence that they do exist). But, I think claims deserve legitimate study -- however, look at the list of what is evidence, and you'll see that most of what mystics use for "evidence" really isn't.

The only "legitimate challenge" to atheism would be proof of god's existence.

You wrote:

I know too you atheists don't like the
word "dogmas" applied to your beliefs – but the application of the word is legitimate..One of its basic definitions is a deeply held belief which is basic to a particular mindset or position.

Again, brother john, you are confused about what an atheist is: to repeat, an atheist is someone who does not believe in god(s) or believes there is no proof that god(s) exist [burden of proof being on those who claim god(s) exist].

Here's a link to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary www.m-w.com/ so you can look up "dogma" -- You are confused because you appear to think atheism is merely an "opinion" rather than based on facts or evidence.

You wrote:

"The" intercessory prayer experiments? Which? You need to specify. What criteria were they set up under? Who were the participants? There are lots of questions you would need to answer before your bald assertion has any useful relevance.

All legitimate scientific intercessory prayer experiments have failed. If you believe there is one where intercessory prayer was shown to be effective, please provide us with the link.

You are also wrong that it is a "bald assertion" -- it is what the evidence showed.

You wrote:

The funniest gambit you play – a sign either of poor thinking or plain naive deviousness is the assertion that a negative statement does not need proof. You must really think people like me are gullible to swallow that bit of nonsense.

You are confused, brother john. We atheists are not making a negative assertion -- we are saying that your positive assertion (that god exists) has not been proven. I'm not making the claim that intercessory prayer is ineffective, it was theists who claimed that it is effective, and it failed to be demonstrated in all the tests. We're not saying there are no UFO's, only that those who claim there are need to prove it!

You wrote:

4...I wonder if you agree with this criterion regarding "tests" or "criteria"?

brother john, you are again confused. I am asking about evidence not "tests".

You wrote:

If I say that a particular person has had a personal revelation from Christ about something or other, say his death on the cross or his resurrection – I cannot say that that is evidence that Jesus either existed or was crucified or rose again. It is only evidence that that person had this "revelation" (whether genuine or otherwise – I do know that according to the atheist creed such experiences must always be dismissible for some reason or other – your privilege to assert this).

Wrong. It is only evidence that the person is claiming that they have had a "revelation" -- that's quite different, I hope you realize. Those unsubstantiated claims aren't something we "must" dismiss -- we just need evidence to corroborate it. Without that evidence, there is no reason to give it any credence.

You wrote:

That test - as you understand it - is simply your assertion that all religion or religious phenomena are bollocks. Consequently it is not a test at all. It is a disguised statemnt of belief. It is a disguised form of your belief re that area of religion which believers would use the term "revelation" for.
So as you understand it, I do not agree with it...

brother john, you remain confused. We're not discussing "tests" but "evidence." Unless you can devise a way to prove that someone's claim of a "personal revelation" is real and comes from a deity, as opposed to: the person is lying, imagining, delusional, hallucinating, on drugs, dreaming, merely confused, the victim of a prank/hoax ... why should we accept it as "evidence"?

You wrote:

6...Final point. I agree with your "hearsay" test. My only concern with regard to it is, again, how you may interpret the word "hearsay". Again, going on the evidence of many other website contributions, I think that under the word "hearsay" you may actually be referring to "eyewitness accounts". Which is a totally different kettle of fish - with its own tests for reliability.

At least you can see that "heresay" doesn't rise to the stature of "evidence". And you see that "eyewitness accounts" will require "tests for reliability" and so you're agreeing that the eyewitness accounts on their own do not constitute valid evidence. It appears you're making some progress.

brother john, stop with the quibbling. What is your "evidence" for the existence of god? You claim to have it, or know where it is, what it is, etc. Put it out there. All this grandstanding doesn't fool anyone, and only makes it appear that even you don't believe it.

181. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115799 by gr8hands on January 24, 2008 at 8:05 pm

Melomel -- when someone claims there is a particular quote in a particular book, and we supply a link to the text of that book where you can clearly see there is NO such quote . . . how much more persuasive do you need to be?

I would say that it is the idiots who refuse to accept facts right before their eyes who have the problem.

182. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115796 by gr8hands on January 24, 2008 at 8:02 pm

I think too many of you are missing the point that Science has determined that there is only one human "race" -- all so-called others are artificial, not accurate genetically, and useful only for discrimination.

Unless someone would like to point out evidence that counters this belief.

183. The New Theology

Comment #115608 by gr8hands on January 24, 2008 at 11:53 am

brother john,

One definition for falsifiability is the property of a theory to possibily be shown false.

(You "agree with all the criteria/tests" I gave, but yet you don't know what one of them means . . . seems kind of suspicious.)

Of course I didn't provide an exhaustive list, because that would include a myriad conditions. These few are more than ample for most situations.

You're quibbling a bit about the "experiments" part. I'm not saying "let's construct an experiment," but I'm saying if you have "evidence" which is the result of an experiment, then that experiment needs to meet certain criteria to be considered valid. Is that where your "evidence for god" exists, in the results of some kind of experiment? [NOTE: the intercessory prayer experiments have all failed to prove that intercessory prayer was effective.)

As for inconclusive results, I'm not saying they have no value, only that they do not provide evidence for or against something. I think we both understand that common definition.

So back to the original question: does the "evidence" you claim exists that proves the existence of god meet the small list of what actually is legitimate evidence? If so, please provide it.

184. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115233 by gr8hands on January 23, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Tony Campolo is, in this instance, a liar.

Here are the complete sentences in Darwin's book that even have the word "negro" in it:

The savages in South Africa match their draught cattle by colour, as do some of the Esquimaux their teams of dogs. Livingstone shows how much good domestic breeds are valued by the negroes of the interior of Africa who have not associated with Europeans.

If it could be proved that the Hottentot had descended from the Negro, I think he would be classed under the Negro group, however much he might differ in colour and other important characters from negroes.

That's it. Make your own evaluation based on the evidence.

You can download the entire book for free from www.gutenberg.org and do a simple search and see for yourself.

Tony really blew it. I believe the phrase (and the title of a book) is: Liars for Jesus.

185. Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

Comment #115219 by gr8hands on January 23, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Of course, being kosher is also against the law in terms of equality towards women -- they can't be menstruating or pregnant and have anything to do with the food's preparation.

Imagine having to ask that every day when a woman comes in to work? "Are you menstruating today? Are you pregnant today?"

See how silly that is? It has NOTHING to do with keeping food safe from disease. It has to do with what that old society viewed as being "unclean", "defiled", or not.

186. The New Theology

Comment #114981 by gr8hands on January 23, 2008 at 11:20 am

brother john,

Allegations are not evidence.
Heresay is not evidence.
Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence.
Personal revelation is not evidence.
Anecdotes are not evidence.
Rumors are not evidence.
Wild speculation is not evidence.
Wishful thinking is not evidence.
Illogical conclusions are not evidence.
Disproved statements are not evidence.
Logical fallacies are not evidence.
Poorly designed/executed experiments are not evidence.
Experiments with inconclusive results are not evidence.
Experiments that are not and cannot be duplicated by others are not evidence.
Dreams are not evidence.
Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence.
Experiments whose methodology is not open for scrutiny are not evidence.
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence.
Information that is only knowable by a privileged few is not evidence.
Information that cannot be falsified is not evidence.
Information that cannot be verified is not evidence.
Information that is ambiguous is not evidence.

Now, you claim that you have proof, evidence of the existence of god. Does it pass all of the above tests for being real evidence?

Not to put too fine a point on it, brother john, but when you've joined an elite brotherhood (like becoming a priest), which requires certain oaths, and is quite guarded of what you can and cannot preach/print, then it casts some doubt on the validity of your research. Teilhard de Chardin had his writings suppressed by the church during his lifetime.

Imagine what would have happened if he had come out saying "all my research concludes there is no, and never was any, god"? Do you think the church would have supported printing that? In fact, do you recall any active priest being allowed to publish such a book? Wouldn't they be immediately excommunicated? Isn't that a severe threat under which to do "research"? Doesn't that threat taint the openness required to do real research?

But I digress. Please send us a link with your "evidence" which passes all the conditions I set above. Or admit that your "evidence" does not qualify.

187. Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

Comment #114978 by gr8hands on January 23, 2008 at 11:00 am

Ron Paul video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

And when a question is asked, and it's answered, it's not "taken out of context."

188. Top 10 Reasons to Believe Logic Over Religion

Comment #114977 by gr8hands on January 23, 2008 at 10:57 am

No, notsobad, "herbs and chiropractic" for very specific conditions (and certainly not the quackery which is claimed), ARE already part of medicine.

There is no such thing as "alternative" medicine (or "Chinese" medicine, or "new age" medicine, or "holistic" medicine). Either it is medicine, or it is not. The claims of the woo-woo are an alternative to medicine.

If it works (and I'm not talking about the placebo effect), then medicine grows and embraces it. But since 99.9% of it is never tested in a proper double blind test, it hasn't proven that it actually works.

189. The Moral Instinct

Comment #113867 by gr8hands on January 20, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Steve Zara, I was with you right up until you wrote

In complex systems like those in biology you get emergent behaviour that have little to do with the underlying mechanisms.

I would have to say that emergent behavior is entirely dependent upon the underlying mechanisms -- if you change the underlying mechanisms even slightly, you tend to completely change the emergent behaviors.

But that is a rather trivial point in this discussion.

190. The New Theology

Comment #113865 by gr8hands on January 20, 2008 at 8:05 pm

Whenever people tell me about the comfort factor of their religion, I always tell them that I wouldn't rely on tissue paper seatbelts, regardless of how comfortable they might feel. They'd be worthless in a real emergency.

I would have to point out that nobody is actually comforted by their religion -- because they're not singing and dancing and happy that their child has died and is with jesus.

If they really believed their child was alive in a perfect body enjoying bliss with jesus, they would be so proud, so happy, so pleased.

You don't see the parents of those kids who get accepted to West Point go into hysterics of grief, tearing at their clothing, crying how their life is devastated when the kids leave. This is clear proof that the theists don't believe what they spout about life everlasting and joining together with family "on the other side."

191. The New Theology

Comment #113463 by gr8hands on January 19, 2008 at 4:03 pm

brother john, you're back? You haven't responded to some of the questions I put to you in a previous thread.

192. The New Theology

Comment #113462 by gr8hands on January 19, 2008 at 4:02 pm

While the article is all smarmy and touchy-feely in tone, it still begs the question: What evidence prompts one to believe this load of crap?

One is not born believing in anything supernatural. Not one single feral child spontaneously self-developed belief in a deity. Shermer and Dennett have clearly marked the origins of religion in humans (and it was not always with us).

So why do Collins and others believe in something that has never actually communicated with humans? At least SETI is using the existence of humanity as the basis of their reasoning that there is possibly something else out there. But where is any evidence that would prompt Collins to believe an aloof non-intervening god exists?

I've read his works, and he never points it out. It all comes down to "feelings" and faith. Sorry, but while brilliant in terms of working on the Human Genome Project, Collins fails in basic Science: where is the evidence?

193. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #113117 by gr8hands on January 18, 2008 at 3:31 pm

I was not particularly surprised when Jimmy Kimmel and company, as part of "The Man Show", put up a desk in a town square to get signatures "to end the suffrage of women."

They got lots of laughs at people's expense of not knowing they were signing a petition to take away women's right to vote.

194. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #113115 by gr8hands on January 18, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Quill, I agree with your comment that what matters is policy. However, Obama was clear that he would not agree with legislation that made same-sex marriages legal, and it was due to his faith. He said it at the televised "gay debate" (which was not a "debate" but was run by the gay community).

If he had been pandering to the audience, he would have not have been so bold. Even the various moderators (one who was straight) pointed out to him that his stance was not logical or equal, and it didn't matter to him, because of his faith.

Watch them all for yourself: http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2007/08/10/video-the-presidential-forum/

That kind of policy decision-making process worries me.

195. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #112857 by gr8hands on January 18, 2008 at 7:36 am

To the claim that Obama is not a faith head, he was clear that it was his faith that caused him to be against same-sex marriage, even though in the same breath he claimed to be for total equality. Even when it was pointed out that total equality would mean he should support same-sex marriage, he said he was against it, again, for faith reasons.

Even Clinton, who has been very good to the gay community, used that as her reason for not supporting same-sex marriage (while endorsing everything up to that).

Faith. Not science, not rationality, not equality, not fairness, not common sense, not reasonableness. Faith.

196. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #112149 by gr8hands on January 16, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Steve Zara, you're contradicting yourself.

The statements "You can only have a history if time is linear" and "the sending of signals of some kind back in time" contradict each other.

We haven't even accurately identified what time is within the consensus of the scientific community, let alone built anything to detect it. So I am somewhat skeptical about the described retrocausality experiments (I've read them and found them completely unpersuasive).

Until we have actual proof to the contrary, there is no reason to consider time as anything other than linear. (Speaking of controversial, Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is anything but accepted by most scientists.) Even in your time loop system, time would act at any point, or indeed among all points, in a linear fashion. At least as it has been described by Gott.

Actually, a time loop is one of the first examples I heard presented of a cyclical model, so there isn't a consensus about your negation of it as a sample.

There is no such thing as a "cycling constant" that can or can't be changed.

You don't have any proof for that sweeping statement, nor is there likely to be any without the evidence of a rather large number of cycles to be compared.

edit: unless you mean a toggle switch for cycling itself, which isn't what I meant. But, logically it would also apply. That kind of toggle switch may not exist, but you can't determine that in the midst of a single cycle.

Unless you're willing to concede that there was a beginning to the universe, it has to have been around eternally in some kind of cycle, doing some kind of time loop, or existing as a singularity until this Big Bang. A cycle just makes the most sense. To me.

197. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #112132 by gr8hands on January 16, 2008 at 12:13 pm

Steve Zara, "some" cosmologists believe god created everything. (You can probably find at least one cosmologist who will believe just about any zany idea.)

You say "the time dimension is looped." Does it loop back upon itself, and then merely repeat what has already happened? Does it loop back and something different happens?

If I go to the edge of the known universe, and shoot a missile into the void, when the "loop" occurs, what happens to the missile? Does it continue moving forward with it's own linear timeline? Will it at some point cease to exist because the universe's timeline has looped?

The Cyclic Model doesn't need to be in a time loop. (As I wrote earlier, the ekpyrotic model you keep referring to was developed and replaced by the same person[s] -- Steinhardt [and others]. There is no need to keep mentioning it as if that somehow reinforces your argument or weakens mine.)

Of course, there is no evidence of a time loop. In fact, there is unlikely to be a way to get evidence of a time loop, as we are not able to measure time itself.

There is only an "issue of the constants eventually hitting values that lead to an end of the cycling" if you presume that cycling is a constant that can be changed. I don't make that presumption.

It is likely that cycling is independent of constants, regardless of their values, as the universe has already gone through infinite cycles.

198. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #112119 by gr8hands on January 16, 2008 at 11:09 am

No, Steve Zara, your example from Li and Gott (which are the Möbius loop example I gave) does not avoid the issue for the universe as a whole -- it would still have to have been eternal.

Indeed, your time looped universe could be considered an example of the Cyclic Model which you are arguing against!

The Cyclic nature may not be a constant subject to being altered.

You are confused when you state

the issues with eternal or cyclic universes, in which the origin is pushed back infinitely, but is, in some sense, still there.

Those two concepts do not have an origin "pushed back infinitely" -- they do not have an origin. Anywhere or anywhen.

199. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #112106 by gr8hands on January 16, 2008 at 10:33 am

Steve Zara, I got confused when you wrote

However, still suffers from the "how did this get started?" question.

That made me think you were asking that question. Glad, then, that we agree that it isn't a reasonable question.

As for the "why is it this way" then the Cyclic Model makes the most sense, in that each cycle would have different 'settings' for the various constants -- some would support life, most would not, but each new cycle would bring new settings.

Of course, that doesn't answer the "why is it a Cyclic Model and not some other model" -- but you must agree that it has to be some model. A truly random number generator will spit out a number . . . why that number? It really isn't a valid question.

Again, too much intensity on the "why" portion tends to presume an entity to have made a selection for a reason.

I also disagree with your statement and sentiment

"Something always was" comes from a naive view of time.

Even if space-time were like a Möbius strip (or some similar shape) it still would have had to "always was" to be anything but nonsense.

Of course, you could, perhaps, share with us your non-"naive view of time" that would shed light on what you're trying to say. But do make it science based, as you mentioned "philosophers" having problems with the Cyclic Model -- I don't accept philosophy as an equal to a truly rigorous science like cosmology.

200. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #110891 by gr8hands on January 13, 2008 at 7:01 am

Steve Zara, if you go through and read the link provided, through the various FAQs and explanations, you'll see that there is no "how did this get started" question to be answered.

You cannot escape the fact that SOMETHING always was -- theists claim it is god® (through the magic of being outside of time/dimension/physics), while the cosmologists are coming down more and more on a version of the Cyclic model (the ekpyrotic model was a precursor to it, also originally presented by Steinhardt and others).

Either a god created everything, and then what created the god? Then what created that creator, ad infinitum. Or else the universe (in some form/dimension/whatever) always existed, and is going through various changes eternally. There are no other logical options.

The "how did this get started" question is a false question, much as the "what is the purpose of life" is a false question. A start presumes something to start it (which would need something to start that), and a purpose presumes a conscious purposeful creator.