JackC

It's a good thing to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out.

It's not what they believe in, it's the fact that people have an inbuilt willingness to base their life decisions on and in some cases kill and die for, matters of complete blind faith and they are oblivious to the stupidity of it. That's the problem.

You have got to be shitting me. None of these criteria provide any measure of the truth of the claims contained in the bible. It would be just as much use to stick "as seen on TV" in there.

So you don't believe what you read were the words of Shakespeare? Does it matter who wrote it? Romeo and Juliet is a great story but that's all it is. Shakespeare never claimed to be anything other than a playwright.

Dunno. Muslims believe god did but it was probably a bloke called Mohammed. The trouble is people are known and documented liars, manipulators, delusional psychotics and fraudsters, whereas the number of confirmed gods remains at zero so I know where I'd place my bet. I don't know why you asked that question, you already knew what I'd say. You're either pulling my chain or don't have the foggiest idea what I'm talking about.

In recent years, scientists who work for and advise the federal government have seen their work manipulated, suppressed, distorted, while agencies have systematically limited public and policy maker access to critical scientific information. To document this abuse, the Union of Concerned Scientists has created the A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science. http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html

My point had nothing to do with how "well written" the Bible is. So what did you mean by "look into it... I'm speaking of the authorship, a comparison of the manuscripts, its internal cohesiveness, etc. etc.". If your own criteria isn't a measure of how well written a book is, then what is it? Again, no, that's not what I mean. By laying aside your bias, I mean research the facts as objectively as you can... with an open mind, being willing to discover something you might not want to discover. (And before you ask, Yes, I have reviewed my own position, several times, and have been willing to change it if I could find an objective reason to do so.) Sounds like you've read some of the redaction critics-- fine. Now read the other side. (If you'd like a short reading list, try Gary Habermas, F.F. Bruce, and, on the lighter side, Josh McDowell's Evidence Which Demands a Verdict, I & II) Question: If I am undecided on the existence of God (which is about as open minded as you can get) can I use the Bible/Koran/Vedas as evidence for the existence of God(s)? Answer: No. We can't use a sources claims as "proof" of the very claim it assumes, that's called begging the question. We can say, "The Bible says God exists" and we can say, "The Bible assumes God exists" BUT, we cannot logically leap from that to "Therefore, God exists". Try this argument out on the Koran. If you do not accept the Koran's claims that Allah is the one true god and Muhammed is his prophet then you must reject the claims of the Bible by the same reasoning. Before we can even get to objectively reviewing the evidence, we need to throw out the logical fallacies. Using the Bible as evidence of God's existence is a big fat logical fallacy that appologists use regularly. By the time we've done pruning the non sequiturs from the appologists argument, there's not usually a whole lot left.

Utter nonsense. A completely circular argument. Atheism is not a disbelief; it is a lack of belief. There is a distinct difference between the two. Your definition is like saying that my not believing that dragons exist in Middle Earth is a form of faith because, after all, I have no “evidence” that neither dragons nor Middle Earth exist; therefore, my “disbelief” in dragons or Middle Earth is an act of faith. Completely circular and invalid logic. For some reason, people, even agnostics, take for granted that at least the possibility of God exists, and therefore it can only be rebutted with certainty with hard “evidence”; and if there is no hard evidence in rebuttal, then non-belief is an act of faith. And yet these same people have no difficulty in not believing in even the possibility of the existence of Middle Earth, or monsters (I mean real monsters) under my bed, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (I mean a real monster, made of spaghetti, which flies, and is omniscient and omnipotent). They don’t view that as an act of “faith”; they simply do not have a belief that those things exist, and that’s that. Put another way, the existence of a deity or deities is somehow accorded a superior possibility than any other human-contemplated, non-physical, non-corporeal concept. I think that’s intellectually dishonest, and I call bullshit on it. And that’s why atheism is neither a “faith” nor a “belief”. I nominate this for post of the week. 10/10.

I don't think you got my point; here it is again: Scripture is data, but you won't understand that unless you lay aside your bias and look into it... I'm speaking of the authorship, a comparison of the manuscripts, its internal cohesiveness, etc. etc. and so forth and so on, etc........ Oh I got your point alright and it basically boiled down to the Bible says God exists, the Bible is well written, therefore God exists. Erm no. Klingon history is more internally consistent than the Bible. I'm sorry but the Bible is only evidence of the beliefs of whoever wrote it, not that those beliefs are true. By lay aside your bias, you actually mean "believe it".

OK. In that case, a persons religion is about as important to others as their personal choice in music. Trying to put the 10 commandments on a courthouse should be recognised as being as relevant as putting up the lyrics to Bat out of Hell. I think there's something wrong with the analogy. I'd question you putting philosopy in the list though.

So what? Evidence is evidence. Is the news footage of the WTC on 9/11 evidence that a plane flew into a building? History is not science either. If religion shouldn't be held to the same levels of scrutiny as science or any other real world discipline, what levels should it be held to? And you're going to have to justify why it gets a special pass. Is this horse dead yet? My flogging arm is getting tired.

Is Homer's Odyssey considered non-fiction? Is the bible considered non-fiction? Do you consider the Koran to be evidence of Allah? What about the Vedas, are they evidence of Ganesha? It depends who you ask as to what answer you get. Now take a working light bulb. Is that evidence that electricity flows when you throw the switch? Can you use a compass to show that the earth has a magnetic field? It doesn't matter who you ask, the answer is always the same. If what you consider to be evidence depends on whether you believe it or not, then it is almost certainly nothing of the sort. True evidence is not dependent on the observers beliefs.

As sure as I could be. Part of the scientific method is that you are prepared to change you mind about what you think you know when new information becomes available. That's how progress is made. Would you be prepared to change your mind about your faith if you were presented with information from the real world that contradicts scripture? Scripture is not data, it's heresay. There is no way that an editted translation of second hand information, written decades after the event would ever be allowed as evidence in a court of law. It just wouldn't wash. You seem to have an odd idea of what constitutes data. Is Homer's Odyssey evidence for the existence of Zeus? In order to believe that scripture is evidence of god, you first have to believe that god exists and that is begging the question. All you can deduce from scripture is that the people that compiled it all believed a similar story about god. I don't take Homer's word on Zeus nor I do I take John's word on Yahweh. I just can't.

I agree to a point. I know even the most reprehensible speech should be protected, but I guess I do draw the line somewhere. To me it is the abuse of minors. Say anything offensive you want, but if your whole organization is about the abuse of minors (and that is what I think of NAMBLA) then I guess I draw the line without apology. I'm all for freedom of speech but I think there is a responsibility that goes with it and it should be accepted by those who open their mouth. I guess I agree with you here.

Do you have anything to back that up and explain what you mean or should I just write you off as a waste of time now?

According to the link, it was a freedom of speech issue (or at the least the ACLU publicly state that they saw it as one). Defending freedom of speech is a good thing isn't it? Even if you don't agree with what's said?

Do they? If you can't find it on the ACLU website, I'll take any reputable news source. So pony up, or don't you believe your own sig line?

Are you familiar with the ACLU? I looked on the ACLU website for their stated aims and nowhere did I see oulawing christianity as one of their goals. On the contrary, they seem to advocate freedom of religion along with all civil liberties. Perhaps I missed it, could you point it out to me please? After all I think facts are important and should be checked before drawing conclusions.

And you said this to Pajarito: Somewhere along the way you decided to accept the idea that Time began with the big bang and that before the big bang there was nothing, not even time. All I'm pointing out is that you already "blindly accept" some things. No one doesn't blindly accept certain things. It's not a fault; it's just something we all do after pondering whatever evidence exists and adopting a philosophical framework to fit it into. Not quite. I said "Time is supposed to have began with the big bang". Wheather I accept Big Bang cosmology is not stated but from what I've read, it seem plausible although I still have my doubts. If I so desired, I could read the literature, rework all the mathematics, review the astronomical data and make an informed decision based on the evidence presented therein. Now from what I've read, god does not seem plausible but that is as far as I can go. I can do no experiments, "god theory" is not existant, I can't review any data, I'm stuck with scripture. If I want to go any further, I have to blindly accept and that I cannot do.

Good question.There was a recent article in New Scientist magazine that sort of addresses this question. I thought it made quite interesting reading.

God is above his creation. What? That's it? That's all you've got? By that logic, if god exists something had to cause him. Oh I forgot, your ad-hoc rules don't apply to your ad-hoc god. And you're not human I suppose? So exactly how am I supposed to understand this crap with my limited human intellect? Just give up and blindly accept it like you do? Not an option for me I'm afraid.

That's a meaningless question. Time is supposed to have began with the big bang so there was no "before". Even if there was a before, our universe (and all that we can know) started with the big bang so what preceded it is forever beyond our view. I'm suprised that as a scientist you don't know that. If god lit the fuse, and we can never know if he did, theres no evidence that he did anything else.

So you didn't read what I posted. Thanks, it means a lot.

You implied that by saying god has always existed. You can't have always existed (requiring infinite time) without the possibility of infinite regression (requiring infinite time). Your argument is basically "Everything except god must have a cause" because that's the only way you can get round your infinite regression problem. If this argument is valid then it must also be valid to say "Everything except the Universe must have a cause". Anyway "cause" is a temporal concept that requires time. All human concepts of a caused beginning necessarily have something before that beginning (including the cause); this is not true of time itself. So the universe (which includes time) does not even need a cause.

Good fucking grief, you just said that god is the uncaused cause and he has always existed. Either you have infinite time or you don't. How can you not see the holes in this?