The Big Bang

Popular does not mean intelligent

2011-10-14T21:39:00.000+05:30

Was on a flight the other day with a very popular actor. I had a bottle of water with me (pet bottle) that I had taken a sip from and closed tight while in flight. After landing in Chennai we all got into the transfer coach that would take us to the airport terminal. Had experienced this before and was excited to see the crushed effect on the bottle I was carrying. Happily I point it out to him presuming he'd revel in the joy with me but he opened his mouth. "Ah, you are implying that we too are getting battered by air travel just like the bottle but since we aren't plastic we cant observe it", said he. Alas, the orgasm of knowledge is so lost on him. Wanted to scream out to him - 'Air Pressure you nitwit! I took a sip of water in flight in an artificially pressurised cabin that was not equal to pressure at sea level so when we landed and the aircraft doors opened the atmospheric pressure crushed the bottle'. I did not however. I had a smile on my face. Tsk Tsk Tsk..

To kill or not to kill

2011-01-06T16:21:00.000+05:30

I am against the death penalty and no, it has nothing to do with leniency or mercy. Throughout history it has been assumed that death is the severest punishment that could be handed down to a criminal but I want to present another perspective. I’m hoping to change people’s opinion on executing someone even if he is guilty of murder. I am not in any way compassionate towards people who never felt the same when they snuffed another’s life out. It’s that I feel death is too easy a way out for the perpetrator of the crime and in some cases death is exactly what the perpetrator wants. I agree that an ‘eye for an eye’ and ‘a tooth for a tooth’ sounds like the most logical thing to do and if it was my family that was harmed I too would probably cry for blood but for now I’m not overcome with emotion and therefore can think with a clear mind. So here is my proposition.

Take the case of Ajmal Amir Kasab, the only terrorist who was captured alive during the Mumbai terror attacks. That little prick along with his comrades wrecked havoc on a prosperous city in the name of an illogical human concept called religion. Thanks to texts in the sacred books, it was possible for a bunch of anti-India, anti-‘anything but their religion’, anti-progress guys from across the border to brainwash Kasab and his mates, and to make them embark on what they thought would get them on a fast track to their god. We all know what then happened and now almost the whole of India is waiting to see him hang but I think that would be the most stupid thing to do. He came here prepared to die and to become a hero in the eyes of his fellow deluded nuts. Killing him will only get him what he wants and strengthen the position of all those who were instrumental in executing the terror plan.

I say keep the perpetrator alive for the rest of his natural life but keep him confined and isolated. Denying a man contact with a fellow human being will eventually drive him insane and he’ll beg to be killed. Every moment of his waking life he should remember why he has been incarcerated and as in the case of Kasab it will deny him his dream. He was eager to die and go indulge in his orgy as had been promised to him by his religious leaders. Seventy Two doe eyed virgins are supposedly waiting to f*** him till eternity. He is a healthy young guy and that would mean he should be around for at the least another forty years. Forty years of deprivation will force him to reflect on all the things he did and drive him nuts. What could be a better deterrent to prospective terrorists than the thought of having to jerk off till the lines on their hands wear out?

Born again or peer pressure?

2010-09-05T20:21:00.005+05:30

I was in first year college when a group of senior students invited me and my close group of ‘first year’ friends to a picnic at the end of what they called the ‘ragging season’. The spiel they gave was that they wanted to get to know us better, to bury the hatchet and become friends. It sounded like quite an offer considering that this could be an opportunity to finally live out Nehru’s words of ‘where the mind is without fear and the head is held high’, for till then most of us, barring the few madmen like me, were living like African slaves in the midst of Klu Klux Klan territory. The deal was simple. The seniors would pick us up on the following Sunday morning, drive us out to their friend’s farm house, spend the day ‘getting to know each other’ and have some fun feasting on biriyani. For those of you who have gone through college in a land away from home, you would know that the bait of a biriyani is irresistible.

Came Sunday morning and our bunch walked toward the designated pick up spot and lo and behold stood a big bus that could fit forty people in it. We soon realized there were other freshers invited to the same do. This was going to be bigger than we thought. Before long we set off from there to the farm house. Being new to Bangalore, my only gauge to finding out how far we were then venturing was based on the dwindling traffic count and on the width of the roads getting narrower. The last fifteen minutes of the journey was on unmettled roads with no other vehicle in sight. We were soon in the middle of nowhere. When the bus finally stopped, the sight that greeted us was another surprise. There were five more buses like the one we travelled in already parked at the venue. It was only on entering the farm house that we realized the magnitude of what we had gotten ourselves into and we were subjected to our final jolt on reading the banner that welcomed us – ‘The Jesus Retreat’

We had been lured to a religious camp with the promise of biriyani. We were now no different from the donkey that followed the carrot at the end of a stick, which again is not very different from those who wait to die and go to heaven. We were fools stuck in the middle of nowhere in an era with no cell phones or GPS devices. There was no access to public transport, heck there was no road, our itinerary was decided and we had no escape. That day I saw things I had never seen before. There were people crying asking forgiveness for sins, jumping around possessed by the spirit, experiencing the spirit knock illnesses out of them, dunking themselves in water (baptism) being born again and so on. The last time I had seen something like that was at a trance party where everyone was stoned on acid and grass. Though they’d protest to classify the former as ‘sacred’, the emotions I saw at both the events were exactly the same – psychotic.

Years later, I saw glimpses of a similar event on the facebook wall of a pastor. Pictures of people being lured to a farmhouse with the offer of a picnic suddenly interspersed with the pastor standing in the middle of a swimming pool dipping people in it in the name of baptism. It’s herd mentality and peer pressure at its best. I responded and here is the story –

Adithya wrote on the Pastor's page:

Wow Pastor .. and all it took was a swimming pool :) I presume its some sort of club .. and surprised they didnt have a problem with people dipping themselves fully clothed .. must let others know that pool is now dirty :) Been busy but got to research on the 'Discovery Institute' that you keep referring to.. looks like they are a bunch of jokers no one in the scientific community takes seriously ..

CM Pop: Sorry, this somehow rubs me the wrong way. I don't mind discussion... even when one seems to be completely determined to make sure they do not see Truth, but to belittle another's faith simply to amuse oneself is immature and amazingly annoying to me tonight. As a general rule I have a good sense of humor and like to cause trouble along with the next guy, but you seem to be a pest. You quote others in order to sound credible but even the sources are laughable. I realize that this is a conversation that has been kept ongoing much because of other people that are reading along. You are not in search of Truth, you are merely on a quest to hear yourself wax eloquent on a topic of which you know nothing about. Contrary to popular belief Christians are not meat heads, air heads or closed minded. Makes me want to barf the way people have run around trying to find you sources that you would deem appropriate/credible. Who died and made you God? Oh wait... forgot He doesn't exist. Just a heads up... you can deny the existence of something as adamantly as you want, but that doesn't make it so. Reminds me of my 3 year old who covers her eyes and tells me that I can't see her. Fortunately, she'll grow out of that.

CS Pop: Amen. I agree. Well put CM Pop.

Adithya: Ouch :) Pop sisters... awfully touchy here arent we? :)) .. CM Pop, I did not see a pic of you taking a dip so how were you involved? Guess you are already invested in the faith. Were you & your sister the ones who paid for it .. probably by donating to the Pastor's church who organised it? Its fun to hang around and herd people like cattle into a ranch whilst initiating them into your cult.. isnt it? :)

Lets get certain things in perspective. Belittling ridiculous rituals is one way of maintaining sanity, for such rituals cannot be viewed with seriousness. People who call this out are not merely amusing themselves but also educating the undecided bystanders that there are those who view such rituals as being utterly hilarious and juvenile. Though I cannot deny that it is quite amusing to watch grownups indulging in activity that best befit children trying to form groups to play softball... I find it cute :)

In addition to that .. I think it is the duty of every third party observer to belittle another's faith. If one were to respect another's faith just because it would it would hurt the other's feelings, we would have to condone rituals like 'head hunting' in Papua New Guinea or Female Genital Mutilation (where they cut out the clitoris of young girls) among certain populations of Muslims .. there are many more. Your ritual of dunking people in the pool might be benign but its as ridiculous.

Why dont you just keep doing it and people like me will keep ridiculing it .. let the faith stand the test. There are others, the bystanders, the fence sitters, the undecided who too are reading this.. let them choose which perspective is right. Let me turn your words back on you, 'you can claim the existence of something as adamantly as you want, but that doesn't make it so' either... You see your approach is wrong.. one should not believe in things without seeing them.. my 10 month old pushes the curtain out of the way when I try to hide behind it.. thats the curiosity you should strive to acquire. The universe is far more breathtaking than the stupid concept of god made it..

Having said all this it does not matter if it sounds 'amazingly annoying' to you. Where is the question of discussion when you have already made up your mind about your so called 'Truth'? You hold up a fairytale book and claim that is evidence.. reality doesn't work that way. I have no issues with you. The Pastor had invited me to come have discussions with him and here I am. My views are addressed to him but should you choose to interact with me, be prepared for the reality I fling back at you.

CS Pop: Oh, I am quite astounded by your ignorance and lack of tact. For you to compare something so sacred as a baptism to barbaric customs such as genital mutilation or head hunting shows just how ridiculous your thought process is.

CM Pop: Don't bother CS Pop, his tactics are that of a 5 year old and do not deserve response$. People do not understand not because they can't but because they won't. One day "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess"... my only regret is that a lot of people will be sad that they purposely blinded themselves. Look at it this way... if one of us is wrong it will be a whole lot better to be us than him. Reality? Surely you jest. You wouldn't know reality if it walked up and slapped you. Just hope the worst you get is a slap. For the record, the only thing paid for at this event was lunch... do you also object to lunch? Or perhaps you just to refuse to believe it exists.

CM Pop: Btw, just wanted to let you know that the behavior your 10 month old is displaying is something that all children do. It is part of Jean Piaget's observations in childhood psychology. Your child is showing their understanding of "object permanence". He/she now understands that just because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there... it still continues to exist.

DNE: Matthew 7 comes to mind...

TSC: Yes, J, he can find the truth and go to the Father, just like we did if he wants to.

And if he doesn't, who cares? To tell you the truth, I do. Not that there's much you or I can do about it, but we can remember that but for the mercy of God, we could be just as hostile to God as he is. I'm not going to argue with him, just for the sake of arguing, but he's a human being created by God in God's image, whether or not he acknowledges it. It's not right to treat him otherwise.

CM Pop: Funny, I can't see any of J's comments... Did you block and unfriend me J? Weird. Anyway, TSC, you are correct. It does matter very much and it is sad. Sometimes I think even as Christians we do the same thing... We live as though He doesn't exist when selfish desires and agenda cloud our vision of what is truly important. Thanks for speaking up.

DNE: Hmmm, maybe the comments were removed CM Pop. They were there but are now gone. At least TSC made reference to them so you know they were there!

CM Pop: Oh well, doesn't really matter if I get to read them or not. Just thought it was odd since I can usually see J. Not a big deal. How are you my cute, trouble making sister? Rainy and gray up here. I love rainy days!

DNE: rainy here to sweetie. Though the sun is really trying to peek out. I am a rainy day girl too!

MH: It is a pity that a human being has to look at a 10 month old child as nothing mere of a biological mutation of a lower genetic lifeform without also looking at them as an animal with absolutely no purpose for life, but to merely exist. I'm sure you cannot love your animal beast of a child, because, well, love is not physically evident as being seen, but only felt. And emotions cannot possibly be real because we cannot witness them with our eyes and are simply an illusion of the mind, sort of like faith, right? "one should not believe in things without seeing them" You are simply an accident that just happened, basically. Tsk, tsk. What a pathetic way to view life that was given to us by a Higher Authority. Have you recently checked for insects on your child's scalp to eat? Or are we too sophisticated for that today? And why is that? It is because we were made apart from animal. I believe everyone knows that it is appointed and destined for man to die once, and then face judgement. We will all give an account for every action and deed. Can one truthfully say that this thought has never entered your conscious or subconscious minds?

CM Pop: I seem to have stirred up a hornets nest.

DNE: Ha ha CM Pop, BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Adithya: It is nice to be in the midst of members of a cult. Do you realize that all those who have been responding are those who are heavily entrenched in this deluded belief? Imagine realizing that you wasted all your life chasing a lie :)

You aren’t able to see J’s comments because he is a racist and the Pastor removed his comments when he realized this. Here is what he wrote, "Pastor, why are you waisting your time on this idiot. He looks like a muslim any way, let him burn. He made his decision, let him burn. He'll never see or feel what we have expierienced. He will never know the truth. And if he wants to, let him find it himself. He can go to the father, just like we did. And if he doesn't, who cares……………… We need to get you a superman shirt, I guy ridicules the church and you stand up for him. It doesnt get any better then that."

@J: I think muslims are as deluded as every other religion is. The rest of your words just sound like a guy who is stoned .. I am not interested in experiencing your delusion.

@CS Pop: Spare me the holier than thou attitude. I am indeed trivializing your ‘sacred’ baptism for the stupid ritual that it is. I presume you would define barbaric as an act that can result in bodily harm; maybe I can guide you to a list of people who lost their lives in this ‘sacred’ baptism of yours… let us then come to a conclusion of whose thought process is ridiculous.

@CM Pop: Don’t pat yourself on the back.. ‘hornets nest’ Lol :))) When reason and logic is not on your side, you resort to sarcasm :) You are sore because my ‘tactics’ are disastrous for justifying your juvenile delusions .. I should not have expected better from someone like you, especially the capacity to posses the intelligence to understand reason. My dear, if this is your style of responding to reason I can pay you back with the same coin.

“People do not understand not because they can't but because they won't” Absolutely right.. therefore my conclusion on you should be that you understand that you are stupid in your god delusion but wont accept it..

“Look at it this way... if one of us is wrong it will be a whole lot better to be us than him” .. this argument is called ‘Pascal’s wager’ .. meaning, it’s a safer bet to believe in a god, coz if there is one then you are safe, otherwise you don’t loose anything anyway :) .. a sort of ‘god will reward you for believing in him’, stand :) Maybe you are right.. maybe there is a god.. but you would still lead a happier life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him, fasting for him, sacrificing for him and dunking in the pool for him.

On the lunch.. no I don’t object to a free meal, especially when you can get a full house on it where you can sell your snake oil… try feeding people who are starving and with no kickbacks in mind like hoping they join your cult by dunking in a pool.. it will give you more satisfaction to be selfless.

“Reality? Surely you jest. You wouldn't know reality if it walked up and slapped you”. Are you implying that staying deluded will save you from the slap? For the record, the definition of reality is, ‘the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be’… your fear psychosis of a divine watchman checking your every move and expecting you to surrender/bow/worship him is called paranoia not reality.

On the topic of "object permanence", Jean Piaget observed that, ‘it is through touching and handling objects that infants develop object permanence’. Don’t twist his observation to suit your delusion. If the child has never touched an object the child does not believe it exists.. you and your likes on the other hand will believe in the existence of an entity called god merely because a third party insists it exists..

@DNE: Before you quote Matthew 7 consider this… John, chapter 5, verse 22 says, "For the Father judges no man but has committed all judgment to the Son" (meaning Jesus himself is the judge). Jesus then contradicts himself by saying, "I judge no man" (John 8:15) and "I did not come to judge the world (John 12:47)." Jesus then says, "You (disciples) shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28). Unfortunately, this contradicts Jesus' original warning to them: "Not to judge, lest you be judged (Matthew 7:1)." .. Jesus to me sounds quite deluded and undecided.. I wouldn’t take the words literally :)

@TSC: Drop your superiority attitude. It makes me laugh. Your so called truth is just that.. ‘your truth’ .. it is not independently verifiable. It is for this reason that a rationalist would call it a delusion. In the modern would people who hallucinate things like going to ‘the father’ are usually put on drugs to get a hold of reality so spare me the nonsense.

@MH: I don’t look at a 10 month old that way at all… you need to get an education to understand how people like me view children. A child is the product of the passion between two individuals devoid of the interference from any supernatural watchdog. Its quite magical what I experience about a child.. I am not tied to a stupid creation story :) Incidentally from a moral stand point even if your god were true, the derogatory reference you made about ‘cannot love your animal beast’ would apply to this god.. for that is what your god is… a murderous, blood thirsty beast. I think it is far more pathetic to think that some higher supernatural entity created us for no apparent reason except probably for his entertainment.. all he is bothered about is trying to watch your every move and ensure that you bow to him and accept him as being the almighty creator who will burn you in hell for eternity if you refuse to surrender.. your god is full of love alright .. love for himself. Tsk tsk tsk…

TSC: Adi, you're long-winded (or would that be long-worded?), but despite your proliferation of words, you have yet to present a reasoned case for the non-existence of God.

I don't know why you think I have a superiority attitude. In fact, it seems to me that I have a higher view of you - a human being created by God in God's image - than you have of yourself - a human being ...
well, I'm not sure what your view of yourself is...

Which leads me to make an observation. Not only have you not presented a reasoned argument for the non-existence of God, you haven't responded to other points and questions I've raised here either.

(1) I posted an article http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo7/7clemmons.php in which I made the point that atheism is not based on reason or science but is the result of a faith choice made apart from reason and science. You said you were reading through the material I presented and would come back. I presumed you meant that you would respond to the points presented, but you haven't done that yet. Either you're still going through the material and references or you've abandoned the pursuit.

(2) You suggested I expand my education and you recommended a YouTube channel called "Thunderfoot." I asked you to point me to the one or two videos you found most persuasive so that I could watch them. You haven't done that either.

What you have done is engage in mockery of people who hold a different view from yours. You're certainly free to do that, but the longer you do so, the weaker your case appears. So I invite you to make your best case for the non-existence of God. Until you do so, I maintain that you've simply made a faith choice to disbelieve.

CM Pop: Took a few days to get all that together did it, Adi? Proverbs 26:4 comes to mind.

CM Pop: Btw, my apologies for J's comment. None of us are more deserving of God's grace than another. He loves me no more than he loves you. You too are precious.

Pastor: I see your heart, CM Pop, in apologizing for J, but in fact it doesn't make sense to do so. J is simply a mirrored image of Adi's extreme faith only on the other end of the spectrum. Adi is bombastic; a mocker, a propagator of deadly ignorance who is getting his jollies ridiculing believers everywhere. J's response, whether we like it or not, is purely Adi reaping what he is sowing. As believers in a gracious God, we need to live above reciprocating ignorance but you can no more apologize for J's reaction than you can for poverty in the world.

CM Pop: The only problem is that Adi, not a believer, has no reason to respond in a way that a Christian should. J... who calls himself a Christian is called to a higher standard. I am not surprised or even shocked by Adi's statments, but we should be different. Just because I can't rid the world of poverty does not mean that I cannot be truly sorry for it. Heaven help us if God did not bestow enough grace so that we all truly did reap what we have sown.

Pastor: All you have said is true, but once again you are holding J to a presumed standard, an ideal of Christian propriety that is not reflective of his station in life. Christianity is not "one size fits all." It is a collection of believers living at various levels of faith and righteousness, maintaining a relationship with a truth giving God and hopefully progressing toward an ultimate unity. If you don't like J's volatile reaction you need to address that with J not apologize to Adi. You could have made the same point to Adi by eliminating your first sentence and subtracted the inflammatory edge.

SBM: Hey Adi. I finally watched those videos links you gave me on the other thread here in the Pastor's page. You can see my response there.

In regards to this thread, one of your statements stood out to me and I quote it here:

"Imagine realizing that you wasted all your life chasing a lie :)"

I just wanted to tell you that I actually don't have to imagine that. I have already gotten to the point of realizing I wasted almost all my life chasing a lie.

SC: This whole conversation makes my heart ache.

Adithya: @TSC – It is the duty of the one who makes the claim to provide evidence. You make the extraordinary claim for the existence of a god so please provide the equally extraordinary evidence required to prove his/her/its existence. All I am doing is saying that you are lying by laying claims to absolutely natural occurrences as being acts of a god. BTW it is logically impossible to provide evidence for the non-existence of anything let alone a god. For instance there is no way that you can disprove that Santa Claus does not exist. However if I cry out hopelessly like you do with your case of a god, that Santa Claus too does exist then the onus to prove his existence would be on me. I can in the mean time engage you in endless circular arguments about the existence of Santa Claus all based on conviction but that is stupid and your claims on god are just that. Do you understand the logic now?

I accused you of expressing a superior attitude because of the words you used in communicating with J implying quite snobbishly that you are on higher ground. Go back and read it. I actually have a far greater valuation of myself than your ridiculous assumptions.. so once again spare me the superiority attitude.

As for your article in the Christian magazine published by the Fellowship of St. James.. I was sincerely hoping that you wouldn’t rake it up. I spent a good lot of my time going through your article and all the supporting material to come away with utter dismay. I really thought you were writing something serious especially the way you lured me with words that sounded like you were neutral and objective. Here are my conflicts:

[1].I read Gary Wolf’s article directly on the Wired magazine website and heard his podcast on the same article. The article is a willful mischaracterization of his interviewees. He starts by inventing derogatory words like how the creationists do, he coins ‘New Atheism’ to slot militant atheists like Dawkins. Wolf like all the Vatican and the creationists I have seen is highly intimidated by intelligent debaters like Dawkins. Wolf's religious bias is displayed in his disrespect toward everyone except an evangelical priest. “Pastor Matthew offers a gift to his flock. They sow their seeds, and he blesses them. It is a direct exchange.” That the pastor’s blessings are being bestowed on members who support the pastor financially by offering donations seem harmless to him but rationalists see this direct exchange otherwise. This is not an analysis of Wolf’s article so I will stop with so much but if you so wish I can gladly point out his inflammatory statements that mislead the reader.

[2].With regard to your references to the Time magazine article. You paint a picture of utter conflict between Dawkins and Collins. Your interpretation is quite selective, choosing to edit the whole picture and present points that seem to suggest support for your case. You claim that Collins stated that science and god can coexist. He answers in the negative to a similar question but the question on god and science coexisting was never posed or answered. That is ‘quote mining’. You choose to describe Collins’ actions in grand words and downplay Dawkins’ a behavior I noted through the article while making references in support for your case. The concluding words Collins uses in the Time Magazine interview sums up the situation well. He is not in conflict with Dawkins. ( http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-1,00.html)

Let me not continue dissecting your article. The point I make is that your article with its misinformation amounts to contempt. As a writer you have a right to write what you wish. You wanted to know my opinion and my opinion is that your article is sad. I wanted to ignore it.

[3].I directed you to a channel. The choice to educate yourself with it is your choice. Like how I read not just your article but even those that you had made reference to, I suggest you see each and every one of his videos. Asking me to point out one or two videos is pointless.

To assume that I have made a ‘faith choice to disbelieve’ is a sad reminder of how religious folk like you have not even understood the basics of people who ridicule you. Atheism is the lack of belief. It is not a religion like yours. ‘New Atheism’, ‘Evolutionism’, ‘Darwinism’ and the likes are pejorative words the likes of you use in total ignorance. Get it clear.. my stand is a lack of faith.

Pastor: Poor Adi. Still swimming in a sea of honey and declaring there are no bees. The onus is on you to disprove God because the vast majority of the world sees Him, acknowledges His existence, and can see His design all around them. There is no greater faith required by any religion than the faith that atheism requires of its followers.

Adithya: @The Pastor - I can see the bees ;)

SBM: Adi, you say your stand is a lack of faith. Is it only a lack of faith in a creator or a lack of faith in everything in general?

TSC: Whew ... now I detect a hornet's nest. If your stand is a lack of faith, Adi,wouldn't that make you an agnostic? Perhaps you and I define the terms differently, but I define atheism as the assertion that God does not exist. Or the belief that God does not exist. But you're right - it's a stretch to provide evidence for the non-existence of anything. That's one of the reasons why I suggest atheism is a faith choice made apart from reason or science. Agnosticism - that would be a different matter.

You seem not to like the fact that Gary Wolf coined the term New Atheism, but I wasn't aware of any religious sympathies on his part. He's certainly never stated any in any of his writings that I've read. Personally, I never thought of New Atheism, Evolutionism, or Darwinism as pejorative terms. I just thought they were descriptive lablels someone came up with. I'm not sure why you have an averse reaction to them.

There really is a conflict between Collins and Dawkins. Collins believes there is a God and identifies himself as a Christian. Dawkins believes there isn't a God and identifies himself as an atheist. Collins goes into more detail in his book, The Language of God, but you don't have to read his book to get that. It was clearly stated in the article, although I don't know why you might pull out that part of the article for contention.

Of course I present the points that support my case. That's the reason for writing the article in the first place. The question is whether I've presented facts and sound resasons to support the points or not. I think I've presented facts and used them the make a pretty decent argument. Atheism is a personal, philosophical choice made apart from reason or science.

And I think I understand the basics okay. The fact that you resort to ridicule, I'm afraid, only indicates that you've stopped reasoning and are reacting out of emotion.

I can offer you three lines of evidence for the existence of God. I'll be back with them.

TSC: “Where is the evidence for the existence of God?” I suggest to you that you already have evidence in three forms, all of them observable realities to be reckoned with:

1. The Universe. A vast, extraordinary universe exists, the pondering of which only reveals how small and inconsequential we are in comparison. Moreover, there is self-replicating life on at least one planet in that universe. Life!
2. Moral law. Your conscience tells you right from wrong. Not only are you conscious of right and wrong, you’re conscious of your own existence. There’s right and wrong, there’s reason, there’s consciousness, self-awareness, and intelligence.
3. Witnesses. People who believe in God and have come to know him personally have spoken to you about him.

The question to consider is, which worldview better explains the existence of an extraordinary universe, life, moral law, human consciousness, even something as everyday as your love for your child? The atheistic worldview offers one set of explanations for the existence of those realities – a rather paltry one I suggest, while the theistic worldview says God is the author and architect of them.

People choose differently and they’re free to do so. You say that to believe in a Supreme Being amounts to delusion, and you dismiss them as cultists. You’re free to do so, but I just don’t see that the Pastor or I or the other people on here really speak like deluded, brainwashed cultists.

Adi, it’s not my goal to convert you to my way of thinking, but I submit to you, again, that either God is or he isn’t. But I also suggest to you that he IS based on evidence you have already seen, known, and heard. Evidence exists outside you, inside you, and my friend, it speaks to you personally through people like the Pastor, me, and others. What you do with it is your responsibility.

BP: "...the vast majority of the world sees him, acknowledges his existence..." The same can be said of children in the case of santa claus. But at some point, even children at an early age are able to discern myth from reality despite being coerced by their parents (with some degree of remorse) that the legend of santa is indeed fact. But with each generation, the myth of santa claus is perpetuated. Most of what is currently held sacred is not sacred for any other reason other than it was thought sacred yesterday.

But this thread has become so meandering that I just wanted to go back and ask the question....really? A swimming pool? People come to this emotional, life-altering (and bizarre) conclusion that they must be ritualistically dipped in water to "join the club" (not unlike fraternity hazing if you ask me) and it takes place in a swimming pool? When my kids go swimming at the rec center, is there secretly some pastor hiding in the bushes claiming to have baptized them? But I suppose that's no more creepy than eating the body of Christ in the form of a cracker and drinking his blood. Someone behaving in such a manner all alone would be considered stark raving mad. But when a bunch of people partake in such practice together, following along for generations, I suppose the vast majority of the world is susceptible to collectively acknowledge just about anything if it is sold with conviction.

CANNONBALL!!

Adithya: @TSC - The word agnostic is not a religious stance. Over the years the word is being increasingly used to denote a category that denies the existence of god as described in all religions (like the god of the bible) but is unsure about the existence of some supernatural power. The use of the word 'Agnostic' originally is in the sense of noncommittal.. therefore an agnostic would still have to take a side.. an Agnostic theist or an Agnostic atheist. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not believe in the existence of any deity as described in any holy book, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.. they take the stand of till proven otherwise, it is considered non-existent. It is more logical on the lines of 'innocent until proven guilty'... it also signifies that such atheists are open to the concept but reject it only because there is no proof and that should they be given proof they will accept it.

I belong to this category that is open to the possibility but is dead sure that the god as explained by the Christians (or any other religion) does not exist. If there is a god it is beyond the comprehension of your likes. In the face of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence either scientific or reason based, for the existence of a god till date (because all religious claims can be explained by natural phenomenon not requiring the interference of any supernatural entity), I am a staunch atheist. A faith based choice is one that is made in the positive despite the absence of evidence, like how the religious folk choose to believe in a god despite the absence of evidence of any god activity. Atheism on the other hand is a lack of belief in a supernatural entity due to the absence of evidence.

Having said this I should respond to your claims of evidence made in your subsequent post which I argue is explainable by science as a natural phenomenon. I shall come to that. Let me proceed in the order you wrote and come to your statement on Gary Wolf before that. The terms ‘New Atheism’, ‘Evolutionism’, or ‘Darwinism’ have been coined by creationists and other religious groups not by scientists or atheists. The purpose of coining such terms has been with the sole aim of portraying people who are atheists and people who agree with evolution, as being members of some cult like yours. Do not equate us with you all. Our understanding of the world comes from what is being observed and not from what is written in some book. Use of such words against us is the equivalent of calling an African American a ‘Nigger’. How would you like it if we started referring to you all as ‘Delutionists’?

You made references to the Time Magazine interview (God vs. Science) in support of your stand ‘atheism is not based on reason or science but is the result of a faith choice made apart from reason and science’. I have already covered this misunderstanding of yours in an earlier paragraph. On the question of conflict between the two - That Collins is god believer as opposed to Dawkins is the basis for the interview. Go and read how Collins ends the interview. Collins has no conflict on the scientific platform with Dawkins. The pricking point is Dawkins’ refusal to let Collins creep the god factor into science. Collins is of the opinion that all the unanswered areas are the work of a supernatural, but Dawkins disallows the claim saying that they are merely ‘yet to be discovered’. Mind you Collins is not anti-evolution, so you creationists must use his name with caution. “The question is whether I've presented facts and sound resasons to support the points or not. I think I've presented facts and used them the make a pretty decent argument” – You have distorted the facts in the interview to make it appear as support for your stance and your reasoning is based on the distorted facts, therefore your argument is sad.

The main difference between you and me is the fact that I openly ridicule faith based on a holy book whereas you try to make a mockery of science by distorting the facts. Your idea of reasoning is to try and fit scientific findings like a square peg in the round hole of your religious book.. what does not fit is being branded in the negative. There is ample evidence in support of evolution, age of the earth etc. but since such findings belittle your book you resort to the behavior I accuse you of.

Adithya: @TSC - Now let’s tackle the 3 points that you present as evidence:

1. The Universe: The reasons for your inconsequential feeling and the existence of life are observations not proof of a god. The rising of the sun was considered as one such proof till we found out otherwise. Scientists are working on it so be patient and don’t jump the gun to credit the observed, as evidence of a creator. The answer could be something as simple as the rising of the sun.

2. Moral law: The concepts of right and wrong are relative to societies. In your country a woman who wears clothes that reveal her face, hands and feet in public is doing nothing immoral however in Taliban society she would be put to death. However there are universal concepts of right and wrong, for instance the act of murder is universally wrong. This is not because some god has declared it to be wrong but because it is a behavior that is undesirable within society. Murder is wrong only because it is an act that you would not wish done onto you. This is also the reason why christians today cherry pick and shy away for verses like Exodus 21:15. Even though god asked you to kill children who disobeyed parents you don’t. The morality is inherent in you because those who practiced behavior that went against harmony died/were killed by others in the tribe and did not reproduce to pass on such behavior, and that my dear is the realm of evolution. There is no right and wrong, only desirable and undesirable acts. Desirable acts are those you like to do and like done onto you and undesirable the other way around. Consciousness/self awareness and intelligence are a result of the activity inside your skull. We are not the only animals that posses it. Incidentally morality too is not a quality isolated to humans .. look at a school of piranhas for instance.. they gang up to eat prey with utter ferocity but never attack each other.

3. Witnesses: So have people who have seen ghosts, UFOs and little children who have seen Santa Claus. That is why rationalists are sure that what you are experiencing is a delusion. FMRI scans on people experiencing god can demonstrate how this is just abnormal brain activity that can be reproduced in healthy individuals using drugs or direct electrical stimulation of the brain.

The atheistic world view is not the opposite of your world view. It is a view that offers a far better explanation to the ‘existence of an extraordinary universe, life, moral law, human consciousness, even something as everyday as your love for your child’. The view is not paltry in any sense of the word. It is far more fascinating than a simplistic view that a supernatural creator is responsible. Your view is a dead end and should people through the ages have accepted that as an answer, we would never have made any of the advances of the modern world. The earth would have been the center of the universe and it would have been flat. It is but for those who challenged the holy books that we are what we are today as a society. From a period in time where everyone on the planet was deluded about a god we have reached a point where one third of the world scoffs at the idea. Give it sometime and reason and science will prevail spelling an end to irrational religious belief.

Consider how you chose to end your message – “Adi, it’s not my goal to convert you to my way of thinking, but I submit to you, again, that either God is or he isn’t”. We have been on this road before. There could be many more possibilities in addition to god is or isn’t.. could be god as you know it isn’t but as is known to the African tribes is, or we could be experiments of a far more advanced alien race or we could be a giant toy land in Santa Claus’ backyard.. it could be anything… but looking at the observable universe and the evidence available the most probable truth is as is seen by the atheist.

Pastor: Point of Fact, Adi: Francis Collins IS a creationist. He happens to fall into the category of Theistic Evolutionist.

I appreciate both of your posts above. Though I may not agree with much of what you said, I found your response to be honest, thoughtful and far less vitriolic then usual. So, if nothing else comes of these exchanges, maybe we are all learning to behave a little better than when we started.

There are other things I would like to address such as the misinterpretation of Exodus 21:15 (He who strikes his father or mother shall surely be put to death) within the context of the old law versus the paradigm of grace ushered in by Christ, but that will have to wait. I have other emails to answer in a very short amount of time.

By the way, how is it you speak and write so fluently in English? You are native to India, born and raised there?

Pastor: BP, let me explain the pool. We do have baptistries available to us but first, I prefer outdoor baptisms in lakes or rivers as they tend to follow more literally the example of Christ when He was baptized in the Jordan River by John. Second, the pool you see in the pictures is on the beautiful property of a couple in our church who graciously invited us down for a day of baptisms, picnic, cook out, games and music. I chose to do it there to honor this couple because of their extraordinary journey in faith. I won't go into detail in this public forum but suffice it to say, they have endured hardships before meeting one another that included violent abuse, sexual abuse, threats on their lives, family estrangement, abject poverty, and the like. As each of them came to Christ and eventually found one another, they have married and built a beautiful life, a life of such change and blessing centered in their faith in God. I wanted to do the baptism there to honor what genuine faith produces. It was one of the best days of the summer for everybody accept the 80 or so (store bought) chickens that were slow cooked over a barbeque pit on a rotating rack.

And, YES, after the baptisms were over there was a cannonball competition....no joke! A believer will never be able to convey to an unbelieving mind the power and pleasure of the fellowship of those who have received the salvation of Christ. Baptism is not about joining a church or a denomination or a club. Baptism is an individual decision to make a public profession of a personal acceptance of the sacrifice Christ made for us on the cross. It is our way of identifying with His death, burial and resurrection. We are laid down as a symbol of death, buried beneath the waters, and raised to a new life as we are lifted from the waters. It is a beautiful symbol, whether you are a believer or not, and certainly should be respected for the devotion that accompanies it, not mocked, as by some, out of ignorance.

TSC: Adi, if you call me a delusionist, I'll let it roll off. I've been called worse - by one of my own daughters, as a matter of fact.

A few responses; the rest I'll leave as is:
The Pastor already mentioned it, but the New Testament sheds light on a lot of the Old Testament directives. There are biblical explanations for why I haven't stoned my children.

"There is no right and wrong, only desirable and undesirable acts." That would indicate that my writings aren't wrong. They're merely undesirable to your way of thinking.

" Give it sometime and reason and science will prevail" It appears that you have faith that scientific advancement will confirm your atheistic worldview. I don't. We hold different beliefs and adhere to different faiths.

Feel free to ignore this, but for the benefit of anyone else following this thread, here's an article I wrote which identifies three observable facts of life that science used to believe it could adequately explain, but scientific advancement caused those explanations to look less and less plausible. http://terrellclemmons.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/darwins-quantum-leap/

And finally, for BP: Your comment reminded me of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5abEm1241kY Somebody sent it to me a while back, and I think I laughed till I cried. Enjoy.

Adithya: @The Pastor - In his 2006 book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Collins considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and intelligent design.

SBM: Great aticle TSC. It provides information that can be verified elsewhere; which I will take the time to investigate.

TSC: Perhaps we're using the terms differently, Pastor, but Adi's right. Collins isn't a creationist. Actually his stance with respect to evolution is quite similar to Dawkins's. I pointed that out in that article, but Adi seems to have missed it.
Thanks SBM.

Adithya: @TSC - I should have just stopped reading when you started referring to evolution with the derogatory term 'darwinism' but I continued.. I stopped reading your article any further when I reached this point, "Naturalism, as a worldview, says that nature or matter is all there is; the supernatural does not exist or, if it does, is entirely irrelevant to life in the natural realm. Johnson deftly pointed out that naturalism is not a scientifically deduced fact but rather a philosophical presupposition." I want you to realize that you distort facts terribly.. If you must write, research properly and present your points with the truth.

To the first part of that paragraph, the 'Naturalism' you describe is 'Metaphysical Naturalism' also called 'Ontological Naturalism' or 'Philosophical Naturalism' .. this has nothing to do with science... this is just one example of how you blatantly lie to support your nonsense.

To the second part of your paragraph, 'Johnson deftly pointed...', note how you shower people who speak on your behalf with embellishments like 'deftly' to describe their work. You seriously believe that a mere professor of law, a born again christian has the authority to speak on matters he cant even fathom .. someday when you are in hospital you should get a surgery done by your local plumber to understand how stupid your certifications are.

Adithya: @TSC - I havent missed anything. I pointed out The Pastor's misunderstanding of what Collins' stand is .. not The Pastor's fault really because people like you write ridiculous articles that mask the truth to make it appear like they are speaking on your behalf. You never once in any article mentioned that Collins is not a creationist

Pastor: Again, Adi, you are obviously not an academic and have little understanding of logic and reason as it relates to academia. You speak of specialists as the only credible voice in fields that are studied by academics of varying specialties. Academia is more interrelated than your black and white examples.

TSC, I sent my copy of Collin's "Language of God" to my father so I cannot verify the truth of your and Adi's position about creationism. If I am wrong and he is not creation inclined, I will admit it and withdraw my last post. You will see that I have made only one reference to Collins and his book in all of the exchanges between me and Adi and Sajith. This is primarily due to the fact that I found Collin's conversion to be a bit suspect with his continued loyalties to evolutionary absurdities. I did go down to North Carolina and visit with the man who "led Collins to the Lord" and found him to be strange in faith as well. I stand by the statement, however, that he is a theistic evolutionist, because ultimately it is the only category by which we can understand his eclectic faith.

BP: Adi -- Very well said on the Universe, Moral Law, and Witnesses conversation.

Adithya: @The Pastor - I am not going to flaunt my degrees like you so ridiculously tried to flash your titles conferred on you by a mere theology school... How condescending of you it is to assume that people whose native tongue isn't English may be viewed with surprise? There are those in India who will speak your language better than you.. this query of yours just exposes your ignorance of the real world. How is it obvious to you that I am not an academic? On what grounds do you claim that I have little understanding of logic and reason relating to academia?

You want me to be wrong so you can sell your snake oil. You want me to be wrong so you seem credible in imparting advice on matters that you dont have any authority over. For instance, you are a theologian who dabbles in psychology and you want people to believe that you are someone who is qualified to do so.. I'm calling your bullshit. You are not a specialist and you should stick to talking only about your book.. let the experts of the respective areas handle the rest. Stay out of it Pastor.. you are doing more damage than you can imagine.

SBM: Are you suggesting that you are an expert Adi? I find that interesting, considering you left your chosen field of engineering (which is truly a shame, because you clearly are very educated) to become a self-employed actor.

Adithya: @SBM - I claim no such thing but I open my mouth if and only if I have evidence to support my claim. I do extensive research on any topic that I speak on and should I be shown that I am wrong I very graciously step down and accept the knowledge with humility. I am also hungry for truth and am not shy of accepting that I am wrong if I am presented with the evidence.. a trait I have never observed among religious folk who are sunk deep into their faith. My stand is never one of faith.. I do not believe because of conviction but because of evidence and evidence alone.

I dont think the world will miss me much by my not pursuing a career as an engineer. India produces limitless numbers of engineers every year... I am pursuing my dream.. there is only one life.. its now or never.

Pastor: Adi I'm going to start calling you "Septic" because you are so full of crap. I have never once flaunted any degrees on here, nor have I tried to sell myself as an expert in any of the fields you mentioned. Neither was I condescending about your fluency, that was a sincere question and a recognition that you speak my native language well and I don't speak yours at all.

The grounds on which I make my claims about your lack of academic prowess is that you separate and compartmentalize academic fields as though they are unrelated and require different acumen in order for someone to speak with authority. Should I consider your claims about the non-existence of God irrelevant and without veracity because you don't have a theological degree?

TSC: From http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo7/7clemmons.php "The most significant difference between the two scientists is not that one believes in biblical creation and the other in Darwinian evolution. Both affirm Darwinism. The salient distinction is that Collins allows for the possibility of God, whereas Dawkins does not." I thought that was fairly clear.

Other than that clarification, I don't see any basis on which to respond to your criticisms. By which standard do you presume to tell me how I should write? By an objective standard of right and wrong that actually exists in reality or by the relative standard which says there is no right and wrong, only desirable and undesirable acts?

TSC: Pastor, I think you and I are just using the terms differently. I would also consider him a theistic evolutionist. Just not a creationist.

SBM: Thank you for clarifying Adi.

I also like to research topics that interest me and am always seeking the truth. We are probably more alike than you care to admit. (I am not an engineer, more of a technician, and have worked around engineers for a long time)

I would sincerely like to see your evidence. Perhaps I've missed it in all of your diatribes?

Adithya: @The Pastor - Let me refresh your memory:Pastor wrote - "I do not sell anything and my livelihood is acquired as much in the secular business world as it is in my pastoral role. The income I receive for ministry is for working with people; relationships, marriages, addicts, troubled children, the needy, the sick, and those who are simply lost in life".Adi wrote - "The sad part is that he really thinks he is qualified for such a job.. he thinks his snake oil really works. These people who study theology are of the opinion that they have the authority to practice serious subjects like psychology and counseling".The Pastor further wrote - "....my work in psychology and counseling is the result of my advanced education in those fields not some presumption that I should be accepted as an authority because I am a pastor".

And yeah.. I am full of crap. Thanks Pastor
·
Adithya: Lol.. 'theistic evolutionist' .. what will you creationists come up with next? 'holy rapist', 'moralistic murderer'????

Pastor: Where did I flaunt degrees in that?? You were saying that I am unqualified to do the work I do because I am a religious zealot not a trained professional and I answered by telling you that I am trained. Again, I have not flaunted degrees in front of anybody, so, you are still full of crap.

Pastor: BTW, Theistic Evolutionists is an old term accepted by Christian and secularists alike, not just religious vernacular.

Adithya: @The Pastor - I accused you of flashing your titles .. 'trained professional' my foot! "Theistic Evolutionists is an old term accepted by Christian and secularists alike" ... really? what is it that you imply by 'Secularists' and which individuals are you referring to?

Pastor: Theistic Evolutionist first was being used in the late 19th century. It has been accepted by the National Center for Science Education and the American Association for the Advancement of Science; both anti-creationist institutions and the second, militantly so.

TSC: Actually Pastor, the NCSE is militantly anti-creationist too, to the point where they've actively suppressed information that conflicts with their preferred worldview. I wrote on it last year too.

Adithya: @TSC - ".......they've actively suppressed information that conflicts with their preferred worldview" .. correction. 'they've actively disallowed creationist claims that conflicts with the scientific worldview' .. scientific organisations dont sit around a table and decide on a preference .. if a claim does not stand the test of science they throw it out the window, there is no 'suppression'

TSC: correction: They have allowed a metaphysical presupposition of materialism to constrain their science. It is one thing to say, "The natural world is all that can be scientifically examined." It is another thing to say, "The natural world is all there is."

Adithya: @TSC - metaphysics has no voice in science just as much as santa clause has no voice in court.. science is not a matter of philosophy. You are distorting facts again..

TSC: Exactly. Metaphysics has no place in science. That is why the proclamation that "The natural world is all that exists." falls outside the realm of science.

Adithya: @TSC - " They have allowed a metaphysical presupposition of materialism to constrain their science" - so what was those string of words? Metaphysics is nonsense like religion .. either what is observed can be explained by science OR if not explainable today, is being investigated and will be explained in due course

Adithya: BTW Science speaks on matters that is observed .. are there UFOs or god? Maybe there is.. but there is absolutely no evidence for their existence till date.. the conflict with religion is their stupid belief that what is observed is the work of the unobserved god

TSC: Adi, at this point there are three lines of dialogue between you and me that are unresolved. I’m not willing to start another until we resolve them.

(1) I have put forth the statement that either God is or he isn’t. In other words, either there is a God or there isn’t. You responded with this:

"There are too many holes in your argument TSC .. you try to portray your case in a format that sounds logical but your examples are fallacies. What you are offering is a modified form of ‘Pascal’s Wager’. You are forcing a question whose answers are limited and these questions are based on certain assumptions. The problem with this sort of argument is that it merely touches on whose assumption is correct.. it does not address the question at all. For instance:

You ask, “The pivotal question is, what is actually true? Is there or is there not a God?” … “There is a god/there isn’t a god … One and only one of those statements is true.”

Not necessarily. Both the statements could be wrong. You need to add more options. It could be that god as is taught to the children by the hulking pastor and his likes is wrong. To the question, ‘who made us all?’, the answer could be different gods for different parts.. like in a factory assembly line each part of us could have been made by a different god and then finally the stork put us together and delivered us to our parents.. possibilities are endless, so the answer is not just ‘is there or is there not a god’. "

I clarified what I meant when I said either there is a God or there isn’t:

"I'm talking about a self-existing, transcendent, omnipotent God, the scope of whose being is so huge and magnificent that you and I, mere humans, can only begin to grasp it, who created the entire universe, including you, me, and everyone else participating in this conversation. A God who, as I mentioned before, exists regardless of whether anyone acknowledges him or not."

That clarification didn’t particularly call for a response, and you didn’t give one. That was fine, but then I put forth the same statement in a later thread and you responded with the same diversion:

"We have been on this road before. There could be many more possibilities in addition to god is or isn’t.. could be god as you know it isn’t but as is known to the African tribes is, or we could be experiments of a far more advanced alien race or we could be a giant toy land in Santa Claus’ backyard.. it could be anything… but looking at the observable universe and the evidence available the most probable truth is as is seen by the atheist."

Yes, we had been down that road before, but you either ignored or missed the most recent intersection where I clarified what I meant. You identify yourself as a staunch atheist, so I find it odd that you refuse to accept my simple dichotomy. “Either God exists or he doesn’t.” I don’t know why you reject it, but I want to come to a point of resolution before picking up another point of contention. So either accept that my simple statement as a reasonable statement of fact or clarify so we can have a reasoned understanding of one another.

(2) I put forward the suggestion that an objective moral law exists. You rejected that and said that the concepts of right and wrong are relative. "There is no right and wrong, only desirable and undesirable acts." Then you subsequently told me what was wrong with my article. I asked you which standard of right and wrong you were applying, an objective standard of right and wrong that actually exists in reality or the relative standard which says there is no right and wrong, only desirable and undesirable acts. You haven’t answered that question. I need to know which standard you’re applying when you tell me I’m wrong before picking up another line of discussion.

(3) This may be insignificant, but then again maybe it’s not. I mentioned in passing to the Pastor that I had pointed out Francis Collins commitment to evolution and that you apparently missed it. You shot back, “I haven’t missed anything.” I pulled out three sentences from the article to show where the point was made. Now either you actually did miss it or I’m a poor communicator. It’s not a big deal if you did miss it, except that you haven’t acknowledged my clarification at all. That causes me to think we’re simply not communicating well.

I’m not interested in pursuing another point of contention until we come to a resolution of the first two hanging threads, particularly the second one. To resolve the third would be nice, but it’s not necessary. The second one - that's necessary.

@TSC – Points that you want resolved:

[1] ‘Either god is or he isn’t’ - This was the simplest of all confusions and that is why I did not elaborate while poking holes.. I presumed you would understand with the implications alone.. obviously that hasn’t worked so let me attempt explaining with examples.

To begin with I do not see any evidence of a creator, but should I allow this bizarre argument from your end there would still be numerous assumptions to be made to arrive at your conclusion of a single god. The issue you raise is not a ‘dichotomy’ but should actually be a ‘polychotomy’ leading to utter confusion. For instance, imagine we come across a human corpse and the aim now is to deduce how the person died. Applying your form of reasoning would sound like this, ‘Either a murderer is or a murderer isnt’ .. here's the problem. Notice that you wouldn’t have given space for numerous other possibilities like the cause of death might be the involvement of more than one murderer or the cause of death could be an accident or the cause of death could be an illness or the cause of death could be suicide.. It is unwise to jump to the conclusion that since we see a human corpse there exists just one of two possibilities - murderer exists or no murderer does not exist.

Now re-read what you meant/clarified - "I'm talking about a self-existing, transcendent, omnipotent God,……………" *SINGULAR???*– a very impoverished assumption. Apply the understanding from the corpse example to your belief, a belief that what you observe requires the need for creation .. even if I do permit you to that delusion you would still have the multitudes of other possibilities as has been explained already. Your understanding is based ONLY on what you have been taught since childhood and that is the reason you can only present a ‘Dichotomy’.

[2] ‘I asked you which standard of right and wrong you were applying, an objective standard of right and wrong that actually exists in reality or the relative standard which says there is no right and wrong, only desirable and undesirable acts’ – You are attempting to portray that there exists different standards of right and wrong – ‘objective’ and ‘relative’. This is a very poor attempt at trying to fit in your belief that there is someone framing laws of right and wrong. Right and wrong is always relative. There are acts that one would like done onto themselves (desirable acts or as you might want to call it ‘right’) and acts that one would NOT like done onto themselves (undesirable acts or as you might want to call it ‘wrong’). Therefore there is no ‘Objective Moral Law’ only a sense of desirable or undesirable acts that evolved with societies through the ages.

[3] You cant imagine how I feel having to clarify this to you. It is ridiculous that I am having to waste my time typing a response to such nonsense. Firstly you did not need to come back with a clarification because I had responded to the Pastor’s unfounded claim that Collins is a creationist.. you should have left it at that. I had not in any of the earlier messages stated that you ‘TSC’ have claimed Collins is creationist. However I used your unnecessary input to highlight that the fact that your article conveniently misleads the reader. Now read the three sentences you pulled out of the article - “The most significant difference between the two scientists is not that one believes in biblical creation and the other in Darwinian evolution. Both affirm Darwinism. The salient distinction is that Collins allows for the possibility of God, whereas Dawkins does not." Hmmm.. If anyone who knows English can read the first two sentences and tell me that it does not conflict with each other I am prepared to chop my fingers off and never type a word again. You say Collins believes in biblical creation and affirms Evolution? On the one hand you say he believes in creationism and in the very next sentence you state the exact opposite! Either you are incompetent or you are willfully misleading your readers. You are not a poor communicator, you are very good communicator of lies. I think you should stop writing TSC .. all I have ever seen in any of your writing is conformation bias.

When in communication with you, I choose not to acknowledge your so called ‘clarification’ it is because I think what you have written is utter nonsense. You portray the image of being someone who is presenting a case but as has been shown you resort to confusing the reader with meaningless words.

TSC: Actually, Adi, it is you who are attempting to portray that there exist different standards of right and wrong. I asserted that there is one standard. You objected and said there is no one standard determining right and wrong. You seem not understand that in adhering to a relative standard of right and wrong you are completely undercutting the grounds upon which you presume to tell me I'm wrong.

I see no point in further dialogue with you until you do.

Pastor: Is premeditated, unprovoked murder wrong or undesirable? On what basis, Adi, can you claim either position? When I called you "Septic" and said you were full of crap I wasn't simply being insulting, that was just a bonus. I was being literal. Your atheistic fanaticism is crap. Your constant use of terms like "liar," "snake oil," and "bullshit" are crap. Your limited view of biological sciences, your lack of recognition of philosophy and theology in the discussion of origins, your erroneous assertions concerning Biblical texts and Christian denominations, all crap. You are a perfect example of an individual who is lost in their thinking, lost in their senses, lost in basic proprieties, and lost in hope. Your whole worldview is crap that gives birth to contempt and the rest of us have to simply endure the profound ignorance of it all.

Adithya: @TSC - "You seem not understand that in adhering to a relative standard of right and wrong you are completely undercutting the grounds upon which you presume to tell me I'm wrong" - This is another wonderful example of how you misrepresent a fact. I argue and accuse you of being wrong in areas that concern your reference to 'facts' and logical reasoning NOT in areas concerning morality. You offer analysis on scientific matters by misrepresenting facts and argue with fallacies. Unlike in the case of morality, science is absolute, it does not change.Therefore my dear TSC, I can point out when you are wrong and I continue to stand on solid ground.

However, the unresolved question is, how long do you propose to continue writing articles that blatantly mislead the readers by willfully withholding valid information (like in the case of Collins) or for instance the lie you propounded by defining 'Metaphysical naturalism' and claiming that it was science? (I can provide more examples from your articles if you wish). If you really want to speak on morality, you should first start by cleaning your act, for if I were you, I would be ashamed to lie to gullible readers who might not have had the time to verify your claims.

@The Pastor - Yes Pastor, murder in any form is undesirable. I can claim this position on the simple fact that it is not an act that anyone would want done onto themselves. Its that simple. There is or never has ever been a requirement for anyone (like your imaginary god) to state that as a law.

'Atheistic Fanaticism' is an oxymoron. What you are doing is confusing passion for truth with blind assertion of belief. I respect people who value inquiry that is not adverse to the risks and dangers of actually discovering something unexpected and sometimes realizing that the foundations you spent your whole life building is completely wrong. You my dear Pastor, dont do that. As a clergyman, you are like a used car salesman. Both try to sell something and neither can be trusted for that reason... I on the other hand have nothing to sell. You detest me because I cry out loud and disrupt your sales pitch AND I do that because your sales pitch is based on lies. Lies about scientific discoveries and blatant discounting of facts that prove your belief is nonsense.

There is no point in you whining. Go ahead and make as many claims as you want on origins from your perspective of philosophy and theology .. no one gives a crap, but should you make stupid claims to gain credibility for your fictitious story, like your young earth theory and the biblical creation story, which dabbles in the territory of science, then be prepared to watch me blow the cover on your 'snake oil'. As for 'erroneous assertions concerning Biblical texts', all you can really do is insist that I have interpreted the text wrong. In any case I invite you to debate the specific texts, that you so claim, I have 'erroneously asserted'.

To your last point. My worldview is one based on investigating truth as is observed and it also views everyone as equals .. yours is a world filled with christians, many varieties of christians, other religions and a belief based purely on a book that calls for obedience and absolute belief without questioning.. which worldview promotes contempt? which is crap?

Pastor: I do not detest you, Adi, nor am I selling anything. Once again, I do not feel the responsibility of convincing people of anything, that is the Holy Spirit's job. My job is simple; I am required to speak of only those things which are revealed by God as absolute truth. The things that I believe you too will believe one day, the only question is, will you believe them before it is too late?

You speak of blind faith a lot. A Christian worldview has little to do with blind faith and a lot to do with analysis, observation, examination, and fact. Here's a great example of the Scriptures having advanced insight into undiscovered scientific truth. 2650 years before the average man was capable of going much deeper in the water than 30 feet, Jonah, the prophet who was thrown into a raging sea was able to describe mountains, valleys and streams beneath the ocean surface, something that would have sounded ridiculous 2600 generations following. The census taken during the birth of Christ is another good example. Luke 2:2 used to be an embarrassment to well-studied Christians because there was no historical record of a census at the time of Christ's birth under Quirinius when he was governing Syria. Lo and behold, in a twentieth century archeological dig we found records that detailed 2 census' taken under Quirinius and the first was exactly when Christ was born.

I have dozens of these factoids I can share but you get the point. It is not that we Christians are blindly committed to "a book." It is that we have discovered the revealed truth of a living God, a order and plan written thousands of years ago that jives with contemporary science, and profoundly convincing prophecies (hundreds of them) that were known to be written 400, 600, 900, and even 4500 years before they were fulfilled to a "T". Not like Nostradamus's general statements that people bend into their ideas of fulfillment, but prophecy fulfilled to the finest detail.

To convince a true believer that there is no God would be like trying to convince a mother she has no child. It is the same matter of certainty based on living proof.

TSC: Adi, as I understand you, this summarizes your beliefs:

There is no such thing as a Supreme Being or a Creator/God. The universe is self-existing.
There is no such thing as an objective standard of right and wrong. There are only desirable and undesirable acts.
Science is absolute, it does not change, and it is the sole means of discovering truth.

For the sake of defining where we differ, here’s what I believe:

There is a Supreme Being Creator God. He is self-existing, and the universe is his creation.
There is an objective standard of right and wrong.
Truth is absolute. It does not change. Science is one way to discover truth.

This certainly doesn’t capture the totality of our different beliefs, but I believe it hones in on the basic points of disagreement. If I have incorrectly stated your beliefs, I’m open to correction.

Unless you have a correction to your beliefs as I’ve just articulated them, I am content to leave it at having identified the points of disagreement, and I’m going to excuse myself from this thread. If for some reason you want to pick up some point of discussion with me, you can always send me a facebook message. I also have a blog where you can hit me with anything you want to on an array of subjects, not just atheism. http://terrellclemmons.wordpress.com/

I've enjoyed to discussion,
TSC

Adithya: @The Pastor - Illogical nonsense all over again.. "To convince a true believer that there is no God would be like trying to convince a mother she has no child" .. No Pastor.. its like telling someone who had a wet dream that what they experienced was not real sex. My example here is better for in the case of god and the wet dream both are hallucinations of the mind.. the mother and child bond however is real so correct yourself. You and TSC brought forward your so called 'proofs' .. I have taken your pants off on them.. address those before raking up new claims..

Your factoids are the kind that are offered in defense by every religion and there is nothing exclusive to christianity. The Jonah story for instance predates semitic religions .. the same story existed among the Greeks, Romans and Sumerians .. So might the christians have copied knowledge from earlier unrelated civilizations claiming them to be your own? You might be itching to tell me that christianity is the final distillation of other cultures that were confused.. just as your types claim by waving the new testament and distancing yourselves from older texts. If that logic is correct then islam is further distillation of christianity. You are indulging in nothing but conformation bias.. so to your eyes every scientific discovery is like a peg which you need to fit into the gaps of your book's claims.. extinction of dinosaurs to you is proof of Noah's flood despite the fact that it happened millions of years before your estimated event which leads you to the next lie about dating methods being questionable... you just have to fit it in some how by conveniently disregarding the larger facts that decimate claims in your book.

@TSC - "This certainly doesn’t capture the totality of our different beliefs....." Mine is not a belief in your sense of the word. My present understanding will always have to stand the test of science and is open to change should evidence against it be provided. Your 'belief' on the other hand is based on a book and despite evidence that show claims therein to be wrong you continue to withhold them.

Clarifications on your understanding of an atheist stand:
[1]There is no such thing as a Supreme Being or a Creator/God. We dont have all the answers about the universe yet but we are working on it. In the meantime claims offered by religious groups have been tested and no evidence to support their claims have been found.

[2]There is no such thing as an objective standard of right and wrong. There is only a relative standard of right and wrong.

[3]Science is absolute, it does not change, and it is the sole means of discovering truth. 'Scientific discoveries' and claims on science are however scrutinized at all times and are therefore not absolute in the sense that it (discoveries/claims) will be discredited if proved wrong.

Some conflicting thoughts on your stand:
[1] "There is a Supreme Being Creator God. He is self-existing, and the universe is his creation" - If a creator is required to explain the existence of things then the creator too would have required a creator. Its cop-out when you say god is self-existing.. on what grounds can you be so sure?

[2]"There is an objective standard of right and wrong." - Is 'right' right because god said its right or did god say it is 'right' because it was anyway right? For instance, if god had said rape is 'right', would everyone is society be raping each other against the wishes of the victim?

[3]"Truth is absolute. It does not change. Science is one way to discover truth." - What about discoveries in science that prove 'truth' as told to you in the bible to be wrong? I could give you a huge list of 'bible claims debunked' if you so desire.

I am motivated by a desire to scrutinize every claim made by those who offer answers by referring to holy books.. The format in which we communicate here in public I think is far better than personal messages.. it is bound to expand the thinking of everyone reading it.

TSC: Adi, I accept your clarifications, and I’ll call it your stand if that’s what you prefer:

[1]There is no such thing as a Supreme Being or a Creator/God. We don’t have all the answers about the universe yet but we are working on it.
[2]There is no such thing as an objective standard of right and wrong. There is only a relative standard of right and wrong.
[3]Science is absolute, it does not change, and it is the sole means of discovering truth. 'Scientific discoveries' and claims on science are however scrutinized at all times and are therefore not absolute in the sense that it (discoveries/claims) will be discredited if proved wrong.

I’ll leave my beliefs as I put them before (if you want to call it a stand, that’s fine. I won’t quibble over that):
[1] There is a Supreme Being Creator God. He is self-existing, and the universe is his creation.
[2]There is an objective standard of right and wrong.
[3]Truth is absolute. It does not change. Science is one way to discover truth.

You’ve made a lot of charges, and I’ve overlooked most of them for the purpose of identifying exactly what your stand is and where we differ. Now that we’ve done that, I’m content to leave it at that, and I’m not interested in being an object for your invective any more. You say that you are motivated by a desire to scrutinize every claim made by those who offer answers by referring to holy books, but I haven’t referred to any holy books in my interactions with you.

I’m all for expanding the thinking of anyone who’s interested in expanding their thinking and understanding, so I’m game for any communication, public or personal, when that’s the objective. But at this point, I don’t see that that’s your objective. For one thing, you are presuming to know what I believe and why I believe it. For example, you told me that my belief is based on a book. I’m not aware of any place throughout any of our conversations where I said that or even referred to a book as the basis for my belief. If you can point me to where I’ve said that, I’ll reexamine what I said and perhaps stand corrected. If you’re really interested in expanding your thinking then you’ll at least listen to what someone else says and consider it without presuming to know what they’re going to say or where they’re coming from.

So I am, again, excusing myself from this discussion, hopefully for the last time. If at any point in the future you genuinely want to know what I believe and why I believe it on a particular question or subject, I’m open to having a discussion on it. The forum isn’t important to me, but your intent is.

The names of those who participated have been shortened to initials

Interactions with a creationist

2010-08-28T18:03:00.003+05:30

Here is another attempt at preserving the hours of exchange that was done on my facebook

Stephen Hall posted the following status message:

It is amazing to me that we live in an era that should produce the greatest intellectual advances in history but instead we embrace the fairy tale claims of evolution; the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth; and the only moral standards are those which we impose upon ourselves. This looks less like intellectual progress and more like a severe loss of reason and critical thinking skills.

Brian Phillips ACK Steve! I can't type a response fast enough! I'll leave you alone on that one.

Lori Flannery Chacon Ditto....

Monte Henson What? No rebuttal? You feeling well today?

Stephen Hall I wrote that, Brian, after seeing a video of Matt Damon during the last election deriding Sarah Palin for allegedly believing in a "young earth." He said that he would want to know whether she believed the earth was only a few thousand years old (young earth scientists date the age between 6500 and 12000 years typically) before he voted. His implication was that if someone believes in a young earth they are far too ignorant to be president.

I ardently believe in a young earth as there is no other reasonable conclusion when approached through philosophy, the queen of the sciences and the mediator of all other sciences. The best minds in the world have severe issues with evolution. I do not count myself equal to those minds or to the task of understanding biological engineering. I am, however cursed with just enough curiosity and acumen to be able to understand the conversation and to recognize that academia has been led down a biologic path that is not fostered with fact or supported by empirical science, but is very much a religious passion of the anti-religious.

Adithya So you are upset because Matt Damon disagrees with your 'ardent belief' in a young earth .. the age of the earth is not a matter where one can choose an arbitrary number of years to suits one's comfort .. you may believe it is between 6500 and 12000 years but there is ample evidence to suggest otherwise. BTW one does not approach the question of the earth's age through philosophy .. you would be asking the wrong people. Just as you would have to rely on a vintage car expert to know the age of a vintage car, you would have to ask an earth expert like a geologist.

You claim that 'the best minds in the world have severe issues with evolution' .. could you name a few please with reasons that qualify them to be the best minds. I am always looking out for people who can help me learn new things and show me new perspectives.. would love to know what these issues are that they have with evolution .. from the years of reading and research I have personally done I have never come across one qualified mind that disagrees .. except for people who have not taken the time to educate themselves about evolution and hence believe in a fairy tale story of a god who created everything all the others unanimously agree that life on earth could only have evolved from one life form into another..

Just to end my comment, I am curious about where you get your knowledge from.. you have made a series of claims in your comments, like 'the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth; and the only moral standards are those which we impose upon ourselves'..'..... philosophy, the queen of the sciences and the mediator of all other sciences' .. on what grounds are you stating them?

Brian Phillips Thank you, Adithya! I let someone else state the other side this time. Well said. I'm not the only one, Steve!

Brenda Snoddy Alexander yeah babee! I knew this was going to be interesting! (Steve and Adi)

Brenda Snoddy Alexander Alright philosophers. Here's a little tidbit of information I found:...

Oldest human skeleton offers new clues to evolution - CNN.com
www.cnn.com
The oldest-known hominid skeleton was a 4-foot-tall female who walked upright more than 4 million years ago and offers new clues to how humans may have evolved, scientists say.

Brenda Snoddy Alexander oh, sorry, the link, if you wanna click on it, is on my page...oopsie!

Stephen Hall Adi, I only have a moment to respond as I am faced with a series of meetings today. I do hope to respond more adequately later but let me address this much. There is no science that escapes bending the knee to philosophy because all observational sciences must process their observations through some sort of philosophic rubic in order to interpret its observations. A geologist is not necessarily the best source for earth age depending on the biases with which he/she enters the conversation. The dating tools (carbon, thermodynamic measurement, etc) are not empiricist but just as vulnerable to subjective interpretation depending on the worldview of the one measuring. Human reason is a filter through which all information must pass; and human reason lives under the duress of convoluting influences.

One of those convoluting influences is the theory of evolution. It is convoluting because it makes great leaps without substantial foundation (i.e. the origin of the living cell, vastly written about but never supported). Evolution backdates its experiences so as to suggest human life to be 6 million years old and earth's existence to be 14 billion years based on a highly interpretive view of thermodynamics and on an estimation of years necessary to accomplish certain evolutionary tasks, which is extremely cyclical and volatile reasoning. These estimations are made without asking the most basic questions concerning existence and experience. For example, consider the technological and academic advances in just the last 200 years. We have exponentially advanced in engineering, travel, flight, communication, industrialization, and technology. Recorded history as we know it only dates back about 4500 years to Sumer at the southern end of Mesopotamia. The rudimentary absurdity of evolutionary thinking is that the progress made in 4500 years or even the last 200 years has no reasonable narrative to suggest why such little development (i.e. written language, developed agriculture, etc.) never happened in human creativity over the space of 6 MILLION YEARS before Sumer. I need to leave but hopefully we can pick up later.

Brenda Snoddy Alexander hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...............

Brian Phillips Predictably, I couldn’t just let it go. Too much fun in store. Let's take your words and replace one of them. "Human reason is a filter through which all information must pass; and human reason lives under the duress of convoluting influences. One of those convoluting influences is the notion of creationism. It is convoluting because it makes great leaps without substantial foundation." Your logic works that way too.

Reason would tell a rational human that the formation of Earth by an unseen man in the sky is incredulous. If I told you that we were all placed on this planet last week by an alien race and that all of our memories of events prior to that point had been planted inside our brains, then that too is a pretty big leap wouldn’t you agree? But what if I told you I knew it to be true, and I wrote it all down because I saw it happening after I was placed here, and the aliens spoke to me telepathically to explain it? What if I was the only one they chose to divulge their secret? Would you ask me to prove it? Or would you think I was a complete whackjob? I would show you my transcription from the aliens, but you would most likely think that I was indeed a complete whackjob because the whole thing just simply defied reason. There is no substantial foundation.

You point out the recent (historically speaking) exponential advances in technology and how in the period of time prior to Sumer, there was little development over millions of years. So this substantiates your claim that evolutionary thinking is absurd? That’s sort of like saying “well, if we know that there’s light and we know about how fast it travels, then how come we can’t travel at the speed of light?” Thought, innovation, invention, trial & error, experimentation……it all takes time to develop, much the same as learning a musical instrument. When I started playing drums, it took a little while to be comfortable with the way the sticks are held. Then, awkwardly, rudiments were slowly mastered. Over the course of years, I learned how to execute more complex rhythms in 7/8, 9/8, three over four, hiding 1, etc. And relatively speaking, those last things all developed rapidly far later than the lengthy development and learning process.

Furthermore, what use is there really in claiming the age of the earth other than as another mechanism with which to declare one’s beliefs by falling on one side or the other?

Adithya @ Steve – Wow.. I am honestly speechless. I feel like a plumber looking at a tank with multiple leaks .. I’m thinking of which of the holes I should start plugging first .. will it even make a difference if I point out all the errors I wonder .. is it worth both our time? My approach to solving doubts of the nature you have pointed out involves studying the suggestions/theories/hypothesis available at hand made due to the presence of overwhelming evidence. These are further scrutinized by methods that are repeatable/reproducible and verifiable by independent parties. Emotions do not come in the way of making a judgment, therefore if there exists an opinion that say, my father likes but can be proved wrong with evidence, that opinion goes out the window .. this same process is applicable to claims made in religious books as well. By the same yard stick I keep my ears and eyes open to any evidence that can prove any of my present understandings wrong .. if a verifiable evidence is provided I will stop believing in it instantly for I do not wish to believe in what is false.. the question now is would you Steve, do the same? Do you even remotely think that you could be wrong?

At the onset you did not respond to the questions I posed in my last comment. I give it to you that you were probably hard pressed for time as you had mentioned and hence you might want to respond to them next. Please do respond however, for it would be difficult to make progress in trying to understand your point unless you clarify the sources of your claims. I am sure you will appreciate that we all posses the power to conjure ideas and concepts about truth and morals. It would be pointless if I too quote such sentences on philosophy to counter a scientific question. Therefore we must rule out that what you say was not just made up to support your argument.

I completely disagree with you that philosophy has anything to do with understanding science. Science is unemotional and interpretations are based on observations .. these observations do not go through any philosophical ‘rubic’ filter. Unless you care to clarify that statement with an example on how observations are philosophically processed, I will call it bullshitting in poetry for those string of words don’t make sense.

A geologist spends his/her whole life studying about the earth so it sounds absurd to me that they might not be a good source. The biases you refer to.. should I assume you mean believer in the theory of young earth or not? Who according to you is a good expert at commenting on the earth and what is it that qualifies him/her as an expert? The dating tools seem far more reliable as compared to a bunch of people guessing an age based on a book .. incidentally multiple scientists come up with the same age when each of them measure independently.. in fact that is a criterion in science that measurements be repeated before it is proclaimed so no one individual with his/her world view can make a claim. How sure are you that the ‘convoluting influence’ you refer to is not the religious close minded approach of looking for answers in a book? You have continued to make a series of guesstimates after that .. a simple google search would have helped you verify before you typed. Here are a few facts as can be verified with tests available to us today (I can provide you with details if you so please) –

1.Human life, as in Homo Sapiens originated about 200000 years ago on the grasslands of Africa not 6 million and we know this because all of us carry that proof in our DNAs .. these homo sapiens left the continent to populate the rest of the world as late as only 60000 years ago..

2.The oldest known earth samples are 4.54 billion years old pegging the age of the earth at the same and not 14 billion years .. the big bang itself happened less than 14 billion years ago. The first form of life appeared 3.8 billion years ago.

3. “………….based on a highly interpretive view of thermodynamics and on an estimation of years necessary to accomplish certain evolutionary tasks, which is extremely cyclical and volatile reasoning. These estimations are made without asking the most basic questions concerning existence and experience.” – and that is another example of you bullshitting in poetry. There are no estimations made here as you claim. The assertion of scientific claims are based on evidence.

4.Recorded history dates back to about 32000 years ago in the form of cave paintings

5.We continue to exponentially advance. Your average cellphone today has more data storage and processing power as compared to advanced computers just 10 years ago. It is what is called a parabolic growth curve. Like a stone rolling down a hill it picks up speed later.. another example is the airplane.. in less than 100 years from the wright brothers invention, aircrafts have become highly sophisticated.. Progress in anything happens exponentially, it is never a gradual rise.

Steve, your ignorance cannot be claimed as proof and since you hold an influential post in society as a pastor I suggest you educate yourself before misinforming your flock.

Brian Phillips Really enjoy your words, Adi. I was just taking a look at your page - brilliant.

Adithya @Brian - glad you like it and glad to know there are people like you out there :) I liked your reasoning with the 'alien race' example .. it is so valid. Theists dont realize that their god stories sound as absurd to people who can also see other perspectives. The world needs more rational thinkers.. the religious have been screwing up things for centuries now. I am fed up with their bullshit and their attempts at fitting a square peg into a round hole.

There are people who are convinced their holy books are the ultimate truth purely based on faith .. no one can touch this delusion. I am not even interested in them .. many of them make a living out of selling faith thats the only job they know.. so be it. Its the gullible who they can influence that I am interested in. Rationalists also have a duty toward society, we should not remain meek bystanders watching these religious salesmen sell crap to the undecided .. even though I dont benefit financially in anyway I make it a point to scream bullshit when I see it being served.

If your belief system is based on facts and evidence then you should take the time to educate yourself .. Theists too will benefit from researching just to validate their claims .. Just like how I, an atheist, spend hours reading religious scriptures to see if there is any truth in them for how else can I say it is nonsense unless I read them .. My fight is against mis-information. If you are a theist and you believe everything you experience has been created by this invisible god and all things happen for a purpose that has been decided by him or her, I dont give a rats ass but if you use this lie to bait others to join your cult, I will fight you.
Brenda Snoddy Alexander I am thoroughly enjoying this "thing" ya'll have going on here! Maybe learning a bit and making me think...that's the point, yeah?

Stephen Hall Brian, I enjoyed your analogy and understand your perspective. Your purposeful absurdity demonstrates your strong feelings about religion and God clearly. When I have a little more time I intend to work through your analogy under the magnifying glass of teleological and ontological presuppositions. I think you will see that you analogy, as creative as it is, bears no reflection on the reality of divine existence.

My dear Adi, I see you are a passionate and confident fellow. I am flattered that you find my comments to be poetic and not surprised that you find them to be bullshit. If you found them otherwise I would not consider you much of an atheist. You have, however, tried to make me a square peg in a round hole. You have made attempts to number me among the mindless religious zealots who would believe anything as long as it suited some religious ambition.

Here is what you need to know about me: Most of my life has been spent in search of truth, not to affirm what I believe but to discover what is believable. I actually began this pursuit in a season of my life when I wanted nothing to do with the church or God or religions. Since, I have studied philosophy, science, sociology, psychology,theology, and every major world religion. I am a fellow of Princeton Seminary's Center for Theological Inquiry, which is now under the auspice of a Pastor/Theolgian program nationwide. I absolutely feel the responsibility of my pastoral post, as you admonished, and I study to show myself approved so that I do not witlessly lead people astray.

Stephen Hall Scientific knowledge changes quickly (or as you say, exponentially). In discussing natural science, however, the reality that is being modeled and observed does not chane in its basic tenents at all. That is a first clue as to the weaknesses in evolutionary theory.

As I understand it, there are 4 essentials of scientific method:
1) Observing and describing a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2) Formulating hypothesis that explain the phenomena.
3) Using hypothesis to predict other phenomena or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4) Performing experimental tests of predictions by different, independent experimenters.

So, to some degree, per some of your statements we are in agreement to this point. We would also agree that experiments that bear out a hypothesis will cause that hypothesis to be regarded first as a theory and after many failed attempts to disprove said theory it can be considered a natural law. (As we both know, the goal of science is not to prove matters but to disprove them and when it is found incapable of being disproven it is acdcepted as proven.) With this in mind, there is good reason that Evolutionary Theory has never been able to progress from theory to Law. But that doesn't seem to stop you from speaking of it as law. It makes me wonder, between you and me, who the "religious zealot" is.

The "Facts" that you provided concerning dates are inconsistent with what I have learned in both secular and Christian institutions and your encouragement to visit the internet before I type (suggesting blatant ignorance on my part) is a bit telling. Our access to information today is convenient but it is destroying true academia. This is my bias. People are grabbing info off of the net and not doing the research and work to own the information. You and I have just met and I hope that our conversations continue, but I have debated your mind-set many times and have learned that progress is only made on both sides when our passionate rhetoric is kept to a minimum, our arrogant egos are kept in check, and our willingness to trust that truth can emerge for all of us are our first priorities.

Stephen Hall Here is a prime example of the untrustworthy foundations of Evolutionary Theory: In the 20th century great effort was made to purport evolution over and against our nation's historic commitment to creationism. One of the fundamentals that was championed was the foundational evolutionary principle that mutation and natural selection produce continuous genetic improvement in a population of higher plants and animals. Because you like specifics let me provide the scientists that led this paradigm shift in our culture; Fisher, Haldane, and Sewall Wright. They essentially birthed neo-Darwininian Synthesis also known as Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. When this was integrated with Mendelian Genetics we produced a Theory of Evolution that has become the standard for academic institutions worldwide and that is propagated by most professional biologists today.

Here is the problem: Our modern understanding of molecular systems totally debunks the supports and claims of this basic fundamental that led to the formation of Evolutionary theory as it is presented in classrooms today but that hasn't caused us to stop teaching the foolishness. This is mostly due to the fact that the only real difference between many scientists and religious zealots is the name on the cover of their sacred writings. Dr. Frank Wolf, professor of Physics at the University of Rochester said quite unashamedly, "Personal and Cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena." He is right.

Here is the proof I offer of my position: Find me one paper in professional Genetics Literature that explicitly demonstrates that mutation and natural selection produces genetic improvement and I will acquiesce to your implorement of me to being willing to see that I am wrong.

Brian Phillips Steve, you never answered my question whether you thought I was a whackjob for believing my alien story. You can textbook and analyze my crazy analogy all you want but if you remove emotion, it is no more absurd or unbelievable than any other faith-based doctrine. What do you think about the Book of Mormon, by the way?

Stephen Hall Brian, you are absolutely right in both of these positions: first, that you can use my same arguments to argue against me and, secondly, the age of the earth is irrelevant to the rest of our conversation. Using my arguments against me does not demonstrate a weakness in my argumentation. That will be decided by those who read this and which seems absurd compared to which seems plausible. You are simply demonstrating that my approach is valid by employing it yourself.

You seem to correlate faith with conjecture but Christian faith is based as much on the classic studies of history, science, world cultures, etc. It has nothing to do with conjecture. Nor is it really appropriate to classify Christian faith as a religion, even though most of the world does. Christian faith is a worldview rooted in philosophy and the philosophy that it purports is of such a transcendent wisdom and proven prophetic record that those of us who adhere to it do so because we see the inescapable divinity in it.

History of religions in the world is treacherous, and Christianity (in the hands of reprobates) has been sadly no exception. I would not stake my dog's life on the "truth" propagated by the Christian Church in its various forms through the centuries but I would stake my own life on the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and then consequently the existence of a Supreme Being commonly called God.

And, Christianity is not solely based on observations in the Word of God. Romans 1:18-20 (as well as several other passages) is essentially declaring that God has from the beginning been revealing himself through nature, the cosmos, and all creation. Read the rest of Romans 1 if you want a real sobering challenge.

If you are whackjob it's not becuz of you're alien illustration or your atheism. It's becuz you shave your legs and where tight shorts.

Stephen Hall BTW, Adi and Brian, my reference to evolution as a fairy tale is not original to me. I stole that assessment from Professor Louis Bounoure, the president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg, Director of the Stasbourg Zoological Museum, and Director of the French National Centre of Scientific Research. His exact quote, "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

Can I get a chorus of "Amen" going here or what?!!? Come on, at least a little Kum-Bah-Yah....

Adithya @Steve - Lol :)) . Firstly you continue to leave all the questions unanswered and now you want me to back up a position I never made .. You see my dear, you have built your whole argument on a false foundation. How can I find you a paper on a topic that no evolutionary scientist has ever claimed? You lack a basic understanding about evolution so let me tell you how to re-word that question to sound consistent with the claims made in the study of evolution .. you would want me to 'find a paper that claims that mutations create genetic variations in individual species and natural selection eliminates the genetic variation that is less suited to its environment and favors the genetic variation that can adapt better to its environment within the said species'... this paper I can get plenty of .. so please stop bullshitting by making up scientific claims. You said, ' I will acquiesce to your implorement of me to being willing to see that I am wrong' - what happens to this offer now that I have pointed out your lie?

Either you are deliberately lying or you are just plain ignorant about the topics you try to debate on. You try an appeal to credibility by informing me of a 'season in your life when you wanted nothing to do with the church or God or religions' .. equating yourself with me are you? Terrible attempt Steve.. a typical theist approach ... preparing the scene by saying, 'I used to be like you but I then got enlightened'... It does not matter, nonsense continues to be nonsense.

Listing out subjects you studied, in order to gain credibility for your argument wont work either .. am I supposed to view an illogical argument with awe just because you have a few degrees? I am an Engineer from a proper Engineering College does that make any difference if I concoct stories? Either ways, proclaiming that you studied science at a Center for Theological Inquiry is like saying you learnt how to make a pizza at a pottery class .. Science is not a subject that your school is qualified to teach.

You said, 'As we both know, the goal of science is not to prove matters but to disprove them and when it is found incapable of being disproven it is acdcepted as proven' -
1. Dont speak for me
2. ...when it is found incapable of being disproven it is accepted as the most probable.. not accepted as proven. Even at this I must highlight that there are theorems that scientists are aware are incomplete and research is on to find a complete answer.. for instance the theory of relativity ... the theory of evolution however comes under the category of the 'most probable' because no other possibilities suggested especially by theists come anywhere close to it. Go back and read what I typed.. I have used words that do not imply evolution as law... watch before you point a finger

Go check my 'facts' again.. show me where it is inconsistent in your secular source. I am sure it will not be taught at christian institutions for it debunks christian claims .. you say, ' I have debated your mind-set many times' .. and what mindset is that? You have a problem with a rational approach. I too have debated your mind-set many times .. and a holy book cannot be accepted as an answer to our observable surroundings

Yes Steve I am confident, passionate and arrogant. I am this way only with people who make outrageous claims. I have evidences to back me up and you have a book .. You still have not answered any of the questions I have been asking you throughout the thread. The reason I'm being so aggressive with you is that there might be people who read your posts believing that you are imparting knowledge .. I wish to let them know that you are just making up stories.

Adithya @Steve - You hold that quote like a trophy you shameless man.. you continue to make up lies to support your argument. You should read

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html

.. its a copy of a mail from The Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique = The National Center for Scientific Research.

Steve.. BULLSHIT again.. AMEN ;)

Stephen Hall Your response is sad. I was given to understand that you were an academic, but really you are nothing more than a bombastic blowhard apparently who is incapable of discussion around sound reason. I have been answering your questions and given you great minds to consider, but you are not considering them. You are dismissing the ideas without processing.

Then you go after my character calling me a liar or ignorant, which until this moment I have not suggested anything of the like about you. You act like I'm using evangelistic ploys on you by trying to make myself sound like you. I have never been an atheist and haven't suggested that I was. And quite frankly, if you want to face hell as an ultimate destination that is your business. I thought are discussions were around truth, not who could be the most bombastic.

Your response is a sorry and pathetic attempt to distract from sincere conversation and to try to appear knowledgeable when in fact, so far, it is obvious you don't have a clue about the subjects we have been discussing. Your "facts" have been wrong from the outset.

You have been trying to put me on the defensive from your first post, a remedial debate trick of the first order, but so far you have shown me nothing more than your own religious zealotry.

Stephen Hall I took that quote from a book, Adi, not the internet. I checked out the link and the site. It is obviously a site that is the work of evolutionists as it calls intelligent design and creationism "pseudo-sciences". Also, its discussions around Lemoine were conflicting from the top of the page to the bottom. The claims that he did not make the statement were not supported adequately.

What a frivolous attempt to discredit a quote.

Brenda Snoddy Alexander @Adi, up until now, I figured you for a nice and decent human being and have been trying to see things from your perspective, however, now, I too am seeing who the religious zealot is. Funny that a man who doesn't believe in God goes around talking about Him all of the time. You keep talking about people and their "Holy Books" and that they believe in it totally as written while pawning off their religion onto everyone else.That is ridiculous! There are so many parables and passages in the bible that are NOT meant to be taken literally and it seems like that's what YOU are doing AND shoving EVERY SINGLE RELIGION into a whole because it suits you. That is so wrong! It is correct that some religions have their zealots but now, you are coming across as some sort of religious zealot yourself just waiting for the chance to piss on everyone except those dinks who think exactly like you do. So now, I'm seeing you in a whole different light and what I see is an angry man who likes to flip everyone's words around just to suit yourself and to push YOUR belief system on everyone else! Who would've thought that you and your atheist buddies would come to my door with a pamphlet telling me to convert! I am seeing you as a pompous blowhard that thinks he needs to be in control of everyone on the stinking planet and won't stop until you think you've converted enough people to atheism. What a crock of donkey crap. And that's aside from the fact that you allow yourself to cut people with your words, which you like to make BIG to make yourself seem smarter. I am much more aware of your asinine and sometimes just plain MEAN comments...this is a public and open forum, but you don't have to be the biggest ASS on Facebook just because everyone doesn't believe like YOU do! You have honestly pissed me off with your bullshit rhetoric. No, that didn't come from a nobel prize winner or some dumbass theist. That opinion is my own.

Adithya @Steve - You have an issue with someone calling a spade a spade .. I do not indulge in pseudo diplomacy. Stop certifying your own argument as a ‘discussion around sound reason’ & ‘sincere conversation’ .. let the people reading this decide that. Your form of reasoning is to distort scientific discoveries and to selectively edit quotes to claim credibility, like how you so pompously tried to establish that a certain Professor Louis Bounoure, made a statement that supports your claim. Your point – he’s a scientist, and if a scientists can say that they how can you dispute that? Well guess what, none of what you said is true.. so which book did you take it out of? A creationist’s book? Now you can throw it out of the window. You wanted a ‘Kum-Bah-Yah..’ here’s a Kum-Bah-Yah to busting your bullshit on that one. Whence you should be repenting for distorting the truth, you accuse me of ‘a frivolous attempt to discredit a quote’ and come back with, ... Hello??!! Intelligent design and creationism ARE "pseudo-sciences" .. no matter how badly you want it to be true so you don’t look like a fool for believing in a god, it’s a lie concocted by the religious who try hard to claim credit for scientific discoveries AND people like you spread that lie .. to top all this you desire to be treated with respect. Steve you are feeding the uninformed with untruth from your position of influence as a pastor so don’t expect me to treat you with respect. I cannot respect a liar who is concocting fairy tales for a living.

My response appears sad to you because I refuse to pussyfoot around your bullshit without screaming it out loud. I want to present the side of the story you hide from the people who think you are credible, so I come along and attack each lie of yours with verifiable proof (unlike your, ‘its in the book’, response) to show that your claims are not true and hence you are not a credible source. I you were to discuss religion, a vague topic with no defined boundaries, I could only refute you on an ideological level but you are dabbling in science. Science has defined boundaries and you are attempting to smudge that by making outrageous assumptions such as ‘philosophy is required as a filter to interpret science’ .. that assumption is also bullshit. You are a man who is making a living out of selling religion, you are not qualified to comment on science let alone make claims on scientific understanding. If you do accuse scientific understanding, such as the theory of evolution, calling it a ‘fairy tale’ back it up with evidence else shut up.

I have been responding to each and every one of your claims but you have yet not answered many of my questions. You responded with unrelated (to the questions I asked) references and claim it is backing your stand. Let me list them out again:

Q1.You claim that 'the best minds in the world have severe issues with evolution' .. could you name a few please with reasons that qualify them to be the best minds.

Your references to Fisher, Haldane, and Sewall Wright is not an answer because Modern Evolutionary Synthesis not only concurs with Darwin’s claims but strengthens it further by explaining it at a micro level. You were indulging in misdirection not answering.

Q2. Where do you get your knowledge from.. you have made a series of claims in your comments, like 'the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth; and the only moral standards are those which we impose upon ourselves'..'..... philosophy, the queen of the sciences and the mediator of all other sciences' .. on what grounds are you stating them?

You responded to that with not an answer but another claim, ‘There is no science that escapes bending the knee to philosophy because all observational sciences must process their observations through some sort of philosophic rubic in order to interpret its observations’ .. this just adds one more to my question.. where did you come up with this bullshit from? You are shooting off claim after claim without substantiating it. I suspect you are making claims based on your theology books. Theology has no qualification to comment on science.

Q3. I will stop believing in a concept if it is proved wrong with evidence would you Steve, do the same? Do you even remotely think that you could be wrong? – you have not even attempted to answer this

Q4. Who according to you is a good expert at commenting on the earth and what is it that qualifies him/her as an expert? The biases you refer to.. should I assume you mean believer in the theory of young earth or not? – you have not attempted to answer this either

Q5. How sure are you that the ‘convoluting influence’ you refer to is not the religious close minded approach of looking for answers in a book? ¬– this too you have not attempted to answer

Q6. How can I find you a paper on a topic that no evolutionary scientist has ever claimed? You said, ' I will acquiesce to your implorement of me to being willing to see that I am wrong' - what happens to this offer now that I have pointed out your lie? – Waiting for this too.

I disagree with your concept of hell so don’t try to threaten me with that crap. You never suggested you were atheist but I am accusing you of trying to say that you were like me, a non believer, but your journey led you to believe otherwise .. because you made the following statement, “I actually began this pursuit (to discover what is believable) in a season of my life when I wanted nothing to do with the church or God or religions”.. there are others reading this too… let them decide whether this is or not an attempt at you trying to establish that you were beyond religion and your discovery of truth that is ‘believable’ made you feel otherwise … (truth that is believable?? Truth is truth where you believe it or not .. it is established with evidence not with the comfort of belief).

You cannot attack my character or call me ignorant because I am not making outrageous claims like you are, I am not concocting stories to claim credibility, I am not hijacking religious claims as being scientific.. the claims I make can be verified by anyone… but if you still wish to stick to your accusation that my ‘"facts" have been wrong from the outset’ .. prove it or accept you lied. Also please spare me this ‘poor me, I’m so innocent’ image.. I am not claiming to be knowledgeable, you are .. starting right from your status message you are asserting unverifiable claims as truth.. all I am doing is attacking your claims of being knowledgeable. You accusing me, an atheist of ‘religious zealotry’ is like condemning a bald man for bad hair style. Truth to you is bitter for it shatters your myths and I refuse to package it in a face saving format for you by toning it down. If you were really ignorant I would have been compassionate but you are blatantly lying and denying the evidence presented just to make a livelihood.

Adithya @Brenda – I can understand you emotional outburst. You were instrumental in introducing Steve and I to each other however I disagree that one must be nice to be right. My words are sharp when it is directed at people who willfully offer solutions without being knowledgeable about the topic they speak on. I have accused him of being a liar. I know it is a personal attack but it is the truth. If you are a witness to a crime and you confront the perpetrator, you too would scream out. I am backing my accusations with evidence. Steve is an influential man. People look upto him for guidance by letting their guards down. Steve imparts his so called ‘knowledge’ at this point to these people and misinforms them. I say he misinforms because his so called ‘knowledge’, like his ‘knowledge’ on evolution for instance is flawed. I am highlighting the flaw, his concocted story and his points for ridiculing it with evidence to support the opposite. You don’t have to take my word for it,… it is not merely my opinion, you may all independently verify the evidence.

Let me present to you another perspective to show you how dangerous Steve’s misinformation can be. Nuts from another branch of religion called isalm impress upon people that there is no god but allah. Anyone opposed to that is considered a non-believer and such a person should be looked down upon because he/she does not conform to the tenets of the belief. They strengthen their position by laying claims to all the observable events around them as being the work of allah. So far so good.. it is not harming anyone, but now comes the next brigade .. the fanatic brigade quote the understanding propagated by the so called ‘sane’ nut to justify the annihilation of all those who do not agree with them. Will Steve’s misinformation lead to such a tragic consequence? Hard to say, but it has been observed through history that his kinds are the ones who give legitimacy for crimes committed in the name of religion. If you now view my actions in this light you will see them as being noble and not a loose cannon firing away.. I am directing it at a man of influence who is spreading a lie.

My attack on Steve is not against issues that do not suit me but against all that is against humanity. I am passionate and spending my time to highlight the nonsense. I could very well sit at home being oblivious to what he preaches because it is just a waste of time for me to express the other side.. I benefit in no way. This however is not the case with Steve. He is a man who makes a living by selling religion. Do you see the difference? I am angry.. I am as angry as an irritated bull because he is lying, however read what I have accused him of again, I have not flipped any words.

Accepting a point of view without proof just for the heck of it or to pretend to be liberal is stupid. If someone claimed eating cow dung will protect your dying child you too would not give that someone a hearing just to accept a point of view.; Steve’s claims are as absurd. Do not be fooled by his calm demeanor, for underneath the calm, well mannered preacher is a man looking at increasing his flock of followers and nothing else. BTW no one is asking you to convert into atheism.. I am busting the bullshit of a theist.. whether you wish to be rational or not is your choice.

Brian James I deleted my previous comment about "agreeing to disagree" because I read more of these comments and realized that it was useless. I can't intellectually back up my faith or even define it for that matter... I feel passionately about this discussion but that's all I have - "feelings" and I know that's what atheists don't relate to. It's all logic to you people and I can't logically explain in scientific terms who God is. I can't talk you into believing you have a loving Creator and that is frustrating. I have a new found respect for Steve - I knew you were a man of faith but this is an arena in which I'm glad to have you on our side.

Kevin Dickens Adi, trust me, we don't need you to defend us from "all that is against humanity" as you stated above. Implying that Steve, his beliefs or religion in general is against humanity, even dangerous, is ludicrous, especially since most the worlds population believes in a God of one form or another. You implied that Steve or the members of the church he pastors are akin to terrorists plotting to annihalate all who oppose them. You owe Steve an apology for crossing the line. Not only are you the minority here, you are an arogant bitter man. You have the right to choose to not believe, and I can respect that. But know this. I have known 3 people (wow, 3!) that claimed to be athiest in their beliefs. These were people I knew very well and they too argued over and over again the points you bring here now. All three have since changed their direction because they learned to expand their minds beyond themselves.

So I ask this of you. Prove there is no God.
As far as I am concerned, the fact that I have the power to Love and be Loved proves, to me, that there is a God. Self awareness, for me, is further evidence of Gods influence. So as for being "rational" your claim to be "bust"ing Steves beliefs is as irrational as can possibly be.
I will give you this, you are a thorough debator. You appear to be intelligent. But to me, NOT believing in God is irrational and very small minded.
More questions. Do you know everything there is to know? If you do, how would you know? Is it possible for a "being" or a "God" to be so much more advanced than your comprehension can fathom? Obviously, yes, it is possible. To claim otherwise would put you in the status of "all knowing", so don't bother to argue that point.
Soooo.... By definition, God is beyond our intellectual grasp as a race. We can't possibly grasp all that is God, so to not believe in God is like a caveman saying "man will never fly", or "take a bite of this apple and you will be equal with God".
As for putting belief in a book, know that it's not the book itself, but rather the message within. A message that science itself has already started to confirm through archeology and other sources. So the bible represents real events and is at least in part based on factual evidence. To dismiss it as a simple "book" is, well, assenine. Imagination is the fuel of science, it is what propels us forward to ask the questions to be answered. Assuming you have an imagination, I ask that you sit for moment and "imagine" that there IS a God and that this "God" is so much more than you and well above your minds capabilities. Then tell God he doesn't exist. You will likely not get a response, but if you really truely use your intelect, you will have to concede that you do NOT know that God wont respond. I for one hope you get a response, but, hey who am I? To assume the absence of God, doesn't prove he (or she) isn't real. I pose this to you. Those who believe in God often all say "God is Love". I contend that if you have ever loved before, then God is part of you already.
There are points Adi that I do agree with you on. Sorry Steve, but I cannot accept the claim that the earth is a mere 16,000 years old by human standards. Too much science proves that incorrect. But I do believe that God made the earth and the heavens in 7 days. How long is Gods day anyway? Let's imagine Gods day is say a million "human" years, or even 10 million (assuming he didn't hit the snooze button of course). As for evolution versus creationism, I have to say I believe in both. Based on our VERY limited understanding of God, I believe that God created all that there is. I believe he created beings that did evolve into the species we are today and that it was Gods own hand that made us aware and this state of "awareness" is when we became known as "man" instead of just another animal. I believe that every aspect of the universe is by his design.
How arogant is man, that he can think he knows God?

Adithya @Kevin - I am defending humanity from the likes of Steve, a salesmen of religion ... there are also others who constitute humanity besides you. You are at liberty to assume that I am a fool and move on. Just because you have numbers on your side does not make people who oppose you ludicrous. It does not matter if most of the world believes in a god what matters is the observed effects of religion. By your logic, since most of Afghansitan believe in caging a woman behind a veil, the practice is legitimate. It takes an outside observer to identify and condemn the negativity.

You seem to have an issue comprehending text. Show me where I equate Steve to a terrorist. Even if I did, I don’t owe him any apology. If an apology is to be extended each time someone’s feeling is hurt because of another person’s statement, then you would have to start with the theists who hurt the feelings of rational minded folk each time they sell a fictitious fantasy story of a god. I am emotionally scared because people like Steve (implying religious advisors) give legitimacy to all those who commit an ill against humanity in the name of religion. So what shall we do now?

I know I am arrogant .. I see nothing wrong in it and I might be in the minority now, but I am in a growing minority and you are in a dwindling majority, so think about it before you harp. churches & other places of religion across the educated world are going empty (I’m not just making this up.. I can back it with evidence). About your ‘Wow 3!’ .. anecdotal evidence is quite a juvenile argument. Even if your personal experience is accepted it still makes no dent in falsifying my claim. If I were to play that card of harping about the people who quit, ever consider how many apostates of christianity I could point out to you?

You ask, “Prove there is no god” .. I am not the one who asserted the existence of a god. The burden of proof is not on me but on those who claim there is a god. Also be informed that it is not possible to prove the non existence of a make believe or invisible creature. For instance, you can never prove that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy does not exist..
Atheists too have self awareness and the power to love and be loved .. that is proof of your existence not a god.. Atheists like me also have the power to be compassionate toward people I don’t even know, by helping them see quacks and dream sellers.. and all this for no gain except the satisfaction that lies are not left unexposed. I further egg you to show me how I am being small minded. Is it the one who is searching for answers beyond a book or the one who tries to fit the holy book as the answer to everything who is small minded?

You ask, ‘Do you know everything there is to know? If you do, how would you know?’ .. my answer is No .. but I don’t claim the answers to everything is in a book either.

You responding to your own question with an ‘obviously yes’ is very premature.. I would answer that question with, we don’t know .. we don’t even know if the existence of such a being popularly referred to as god is possible let alone the possibility of it being advanced. BTW your caveman example, its actually the other way around. A caveman saying, “Man will never fly”, is asserting an absolute like asserting ‘there is a god’ .. if the caveman said, “I don’t know if man can fly.. lets experiment and find out if its possible or not” .. that’s more like the atheist approach … looking for evidence. I cannot say for sure if there is a god or not.. all I can say is that there is no evidence for a god … further more there is absolutely no evidence for the god mentioned in the bible, the god of jesus.. there is no evidence for anything that yahwe is claimed to have done.

Your appeal for the authenticity of the bible based on information fed by people like Steve is exactly my bone of contention. Don’t take my word for it.. if you were to spend sometime reading up books written by real scientists you will realize that science and archeology are proving the opposite of what the holy book claims. There are innumerable proofs discovered through scientific research that establish without an iota of doubt that claims made in holy books are nonsense. Come back to me with specific claims and I will tell you what science really says about it and not what creationists claim science says. You can then deciden whether its my stand or Steve’s that is assenine.

Another oft-sold bullshit that holy-men spread is that atheists are refusing to even imagine the possibility of a god. Consider this, atheists are imagining the possibilities of everything all the time so why would they not think of the possibility of a god?… True to scientific processes, atheists before they become one start by imagining the possibility of a god and then they look for proofs to confirm that what they believe in is true. Despite searching everywhere from religious preachers, so called experts on the holy books to personal investigations.. they find no proof.. in the absence of proof the person becomes an atheist .. an atheist is not someone who is denying god, an atheist knows there is no reason to believe such a thing exists because there is no proof. Kevin think for a moment… why should the capacity to experience an emotion qualify as proof for the existence of a supernatural? Theist then take it to the next step of equating all positive emotions to god and all negative emotions to satan (which also btw is imaginary nonsense like god)… and how would you define ‘truly using one’s intellect’? Shutting one’s mind to the presence of contradictory evidence all pointing to the non-existence of a god and submitting to a possibility can hardly be referred to as using intellect.

I’m presuming that you truly & genuinely wanted to engage me in an exchange of ideas and was not merely responding to disagree.. I am presuming this because your ending statement tells me that you are a man who will consider that there are errors in the bible. Since you did say what you did, I am going to point out the deficiency in your thinking. You are indulging in a practice called ‘cherry picking’ .. You very happily threw out the young earth claim because it didn’t suit you .. intelligence tells you otherwise.. that is what rational thinking is however what goes wrong is that you choose to keep bits that so far is beyond your comprehension and that is what you cherry pick.. you further try to justify that by changing the same laws that debunk ‘young earth’ and assume 1 god day = x number of years… how convenient :) From the tone of your mail I gather that you hate my ‘gutts’ .. I know I am rude but that is always directed only at people who willfully lie .. my intuition tells me that you are genuine .. peer pressure might force you to make a stand but that will change if you continue to search. Crosscheck all the claims that the preachers make and I assure you, that you will discover their bullshit yourself.

Stephen Hall Adi, I simply do not understand your need to attack my character and vocation in order to have a discussion about origins. I do not sell anything and my livelihood is acquired as much in the secular business world as it is in my pastoral role. The income I receive for ministry is for working with people; relationships, marriages, addicts, troubled children, the needy, the sick, and those who are simply lost in life. My pay is not commensurate with the number of converts I make to the Christian faith.

You have repeatedly try to portray me as a "snake-oil" salesman full of agenda to deceive the world with lies. You have made me a "scarecrow" adversary where you can present my ideas in your own ludicrous manner and then defeat the ideas with passionate heroism, and never realizing that people reading this are just watching you be contemptuous. Why am I your enemy? Because I believe in the God of the Bible? So what! So do millions of other people. Are we all to be your enemies?

I appeal to you once again, let's exchange ideas with a propriety and decorum befitting gentlemen. Let the ideas stand on their own.

Stephen Hall Oh and btw, Adi, I am not writing posts to impress "my following." There are some church members on my friend list but I got on facebook so that I could stay in touch with friends and family from my home town area from which I live a great distance now. I am not trying to cultivate a following of any kind, though I can see by your page and posts that this is not true about you.

Kevin Dickens Adi, I think you missed my point. I am not saying there are errors in the bible, I am saying there may be errors in our interpretation of it because we have such a limited understanding of God. Look closer at the "text" regarding the young earth comments I have responded to. The key to my statement is "in human terms". In fact the earth may be 16,000 years old, on someone elses comprehension of time, which is why I followed up with Gods day being a variable we cannot know. So, yes I can comprehend text, now it's your turn to go back and re-read what I wrote regarding time. The thing is that I can comprehend not only the text but beyond the text to the implications you make regarding the religious "nuts". I agree, that I would not be the first to be accused of "cherry-picking" in religious terms. I am from a faith other than Steves and my faith simply does not goin the direction of a young earth approach. It is common, very common for people to cherry-pick in religion (bad...fire bad) and this could ultimately be their demise when it comes time to face the God of their choice. Of course "cherry picking" is not a good practice and is, in my experience, the the most popular and last defense left for those who try to evangelize athieism. Yes you too are a saleaman of religion Adi. You are simply trying to sell a version that does not believe in a God. Who is to say that the world doesn't need Steve to defend us from the likes of you? No Adi, I don't hate your gutts. I passionately disagree, but the one lesson I took from my mothers last few days here on earth is that life is too short to hate. I don't hate anyone. As for the observed effects of religion and the application of religion in societies, again that is not religion that is the problem, but the interpretation (and application of the interpretation) that is the problem, so much for the veil. Again because small minds try fit a giant God into their friendly little box. It is nearly impossible to separate the effects of society from the effects of religion, especially since so many societies are driven ONLY by religion. I understand why you argue your point, I just disagree with your opinion. As for scientific facts supporting the religious books of the world, yes there is support to show the existance of places and events depicted in these books. The discovery of ancient cities destroyed by an act of God, evidence of a worlwide (as was known back then as the entire world, again our interpretation) of a massive flood is out there. It is not up to me to do your research and I am not here to convert you. I can only guess that your next argument will likely be a rebuttle to this to the tone of, proving that there IS a God in opposition to my request of you. To that end is my entire point. You cannot dis-prove the existance of God anymore than I can give you his email address. We must simply accept that people will believe what they want, and how they want. They are free to decide. All I know is there have been mutiple profound moments in my life that I have felt the presence of God and those moments are all I need to believe. They cannot be verified scientifically.....but I contend that as science evolves, it will. OK, I'm running out of time, one of Gods little miracles is asking to play cars right now....

Brenda Snoddy Alexander I'm getting the feeling that everyone has sunk their claws and teeth into this one.Criminently, it is getting OLD! Interesting at first, but now,....It is MOOT!! CAT'S GAME! GAME OVER!...( It's a dead parrot..gone to join the choir inivisible! )

We need to keep in mind that we really ARE PEOPLE behind these screens and keyboards! Let's treat each other with respect
and dignity...I'm guilty of forgetting that one.

I don't like arguing and it hurts me to see my friends fling shit at each other ( pardon the language if it offends).

Oh, I think it's time to move on to another topic;.......c'mon, humor me?

Brenda Snoddy Alexander yeah, I keep reading this stuff over and over and what is blatantly obvious is that not one of you is going to agree with what Adi has to say, because ya'll are Christian and he is an atheist.

@ Adi, you are really PUSHING IT, aren't you? Not that I would accept less from you, but it certainly seems that you are trying to convert us all and I think that is funny. 'Course, now, you're gonna say, "point out where and when I said that!" (thankful I don't know you in a domestic capacity!, you'd be an ass to live with! LMAO! You'd be the guy that remembers what happened exactly to the day hour and second....ACK!)

Ashamed that you told Steve he's a liar, "snake oil salesman", selling religion, blah blah...He is a good man and you're trying to make him look like Satan....oh, wait...no God, no Satan, right? But, no, I cannot believe you think he writes his posts to impress his, what? Followers??? hahahahahahaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!! C'mon! That is totally retarded...As he said, he has family and friends here in town and close by. No, we don't bow down to the mighty Steve....lmao!!!!!!

As I was reading and re-reading these posts, the picture came to me of the Reverend Jim Jones and his fabulous cult where grape koolaid got to be the drink of champions....do you know WHO I thought of when I got that mental picture??? YOU, Adi... Hey, it was just a thought. Anyway, If these loooong comment lines are going to end up with people going back and forth using personal affronts and such, maybe they aren't such a great idea? Men begin to behave poorly and obviously leave the "gentleman" in them outside....not a good thing, whether you're passionate about something or not. Like with me...I get emotional....you don't claim that, but you do it too.Then we all get the finger pointing and word riots.....YOU know how it all goes....No matter what our religion or lack of, we can still be ladies and gentlemen.

Also wanted to say that the majority of people in the US believe in a higher power, whereas you guys over there believe differently a lot of times....different types of religions for different regions and all....

I love all of you guys....I don't want to see a bunch of HATERS....I don't care WHO you are......Hate is NOT acceptable!

"All you need is love..." ~ John Lennon ~

Adithya @Everyone – We have spent a lot of time on this already and I am going to conclude on this post. I will just make a few remarks, answers to some of the question and no more questions from my end.

As you can all see for yourself Steve till this point have left questions unanswered despite my repeated reminders. This is an oft witnessed practice among all religious preachers. The reason for this as I have understood is that they do not have answers to these questions except the lame ‘god knows best’ or ‘god works in mysterious ways’, response. If that is indeed so and god is anyway not going to tell you or give you an explanation it is quite stupid for any person who claims to represent god and calls himself his preacher to speak on his behalf. What is the point? God is going to do what he wants anyways .. so even if you are going to be a good believer, fear him/love him, repent for your sins/ never commit a sin he might still mysteriously work and screw your life up by giving you herpes for he knows best. In which case it would seem better not to bother about him even if he does exist because he’s got plans and he’s not going to change them just because you pray to him. Mind you I asked specific questions to the claims Steve made .. yet no answer. Any ordinary believer I would never attack the way I did Steve .. he earns the privilege solely because he proclaims that he is a man who is capable of guiding people in matters of faith. I don’t see him backing up any of his claims on faith with material that can prove without doubt that his claims are genuine. If a person who takes up the responsibility of being a teacher, is unaware of his subject, he should keep his mouth shut.

Let me elaborate on how speaking on subjects without being aware of it is a problem. Society today has evolved over the eons, distilling itself in all aspects of life, refining itself to the present form which by any comparison is light years better than our forefathers lived. I’m not getting into examples because I can proclaim without blinking that it encompasses everything you experience today from your quality of life, material comforts to everything you can imagine… yet we still have not completed the metamorphosis. So there still are quacks around.. despite the advances in medicine, snake oil salesmen are still around .. their presence alone does not make them legitimate.. they are still frauds. It is in this arena that Steve so rightly points out that I am equating him to such a whackjob.. it is true, he is bang on. You see he further confirmed my fears by elaborating what his duties/responsibilities are as a pastor – ‘working with people; relationships, marriages, addicts, troubled children, the needy, the sick, and those who are simply lost in life’. The sad part is that he really thinks he is qualified for such a job.. he thinks his snake oil really works. These people who study theology are of the opinion that they have the authority to practice serious subjects like psychology and counseling.

@Steve - you are not my enemy.. I have issues with your profession not you as an individual. Your conduct is impeccable but good behavior does not negate what I accuse you of. You make claims without evidence and sell false hope to all those you offer advice to (I am of course referring solely to your credits for supernatural interference). If you are doing this willfully aware of compelling evidence disproving your claims then you most definitely are a liar or else you are ignorant.. either way you are not qualified to impart advice on matters of science. Go back to the top from where you started.. you made specific claims… twisting and denying evidence by ridiculing scientific processes to make what is observed fit to your frame is cunning and I cannot see such a man as being good. One cannot pass judgment on such matters out of emotion it has to be through testable verifiable methods. Therefore, just because you want god to be true and want to see everything as his work, it cannot be true .. you have to provide proof. Verifiable proof that anyone can test for themselves.

@Kevin - to you it all boils down to interpretation. And who is to know if you are interpreting it right? For all you know you might be doing the exact opposite of what your god (if he/she exists) would want of you. Inaction on a topic because it is beyond comprehension is not my approach. Fearing the unknown is neither. I could sit and disprove each point of yours be it claims of lost cities or timelines but only if we were to follow a systematic approach of you first defining your claim and then letting me respond. BTW I am not selling anything… I am preventing salesmen from selling and I am struggling to inform people that what they see advertised are false claims and hence they shouldn’t buy from the salesmen.

@Brenda - what could I possibly convert anyone into? I am just presenting the other side.. a side that preachers don’t want people they sell to, to see. Think of me as a public awareness program. Despite the warnings on the beach asking people not to swim, if they so choose to .. by all means. People have the right to do what they choose. BTW Reverend Jim Jones sold the same crap that Steve is selling, it was in a different package that’s all.. I know I am aggressive but I am not a hater. My friends (the little I have) know me for speaking my mind out .. I don’t believe in being pseudo nice just so as not to hurt someone else’s feelings. I’d rather be a hated truth speaker rather than a well mannered liar. I never started this.. the claim was first made by Steve and yes I will try everything I can to expose a false claim. Indians are not very different from Americans .. the majority here too believe in a higher power .. all religions are represented in India and yes the hindus are poly theists .. but if you consider the various branches of christianity and sects worshipping ‘mother mary’, various ‘saints’, ‘infant jesus’ etc.. americans are not any different from poly theist hindus :)

[COMMENTS STILL COMING IN AFTER MY CONCLUSION]

Brian James Frankly Adi, I thank the God you don't believe in that you are not a religious man. I have to agree with Brenda about who's really making the sales pitch here, only you're not selling anything but your own intellectual, self-importance. Of all the "truth" you have imparted to the faithful here, the only thing I found remotely offensive is the Jim Jones reference. To say that christian leaders are capable of being Jim Jones is as intellectually vacant as a typical american red-neck saying that every Muslim is probably a terrorist. Prejudice comes in many forms and as the old corny saying goes, denial isn't just a river in Egypt.