tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-118718792024-03-07T15:12:53.689-05:00PHREADOMCogito★PercipioJStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.comBlogger253125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-12480203569036397532012-01-03T16:32:00.000-05:002012-04-15T01:29:09.047-04:00On some common fallacious anti-atheism arguments.<p>
I was just googling for an old image about adults with imaginary friends being stupid, and I ran across a derivative image trying to make a counter argument against atheism.
</p>
<p>
<i>(And I want to clarify first and foremost that adults with imaginary friends aren't necessarily stupid inherently. They could have been tricked, brainwashed, led to believe false things by people they trusted, etc. The stupidity comes in when they refuse to look at the valid evidence and reasoning and rationally accept the overwhelming evidence and sound reasoning to the contrary of what they've been led to believe. Up until that point it's just an honest mistake... ignorance and falling prey to basic human cognitive biases and so forth. What angers me most about many "believers" is that they are in fact smart enough to know better, but choose irrational and dishonest self delusion and lying to others to preserve their beliefs... willful stupidity, and they even go so far as to glorify it... a kind of pervasive anti-intellectualism of the kind we see saturating the conservative and Republican political ideologies today. The celebration of ignorance, simple mindedness, and the vilification of science, education, reason, critical thinking, etc.)</i>
</p>
<p>
The original image I was looking for was the following;
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d12/phreadom/blog%20content/imaginary-friends.jpg"><img src="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d12/phreadom/blog%20content/imaginaryfriends-sm.jpg" width="400" height="300" alt="Adults with imaginary friends are stupid - thanks for not littering your mind" title="Adults with imaginary friends are stupid - thanks for not littering your mind" /></a>
</p>
<p>
The argument, and another I found on the same page as one of the copies, were so riddled with fallacious reasoning that I felt compelled to address them here. I'll try to keep it brief. [ <i>In retrospect on final editing, I failed as usual.</i> ;) ]
</p>
<p>
Here are the two images I ran across that just made me roll my eyes and sigh in exasperation;
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d12/phreadom/blog%20content/fallacious-atheism.jpg"><img src="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d12/phreadom/blog%20content/fallaciousatheism-sm.jpg" width="400" height="338" alt="Fallacious counter argument against atheism" title="Fallacious counter argument against atheism" /></a>
</p>
<p>
(Humorously this also serves as a strike against a number of atheists as I saw this on a lot of atheists sites, posted by atheists who clearly didn't read what it said and only looked at the top portion. They don't get a free pass just because they're "on our side". We should all be held to the same standard.)
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d12/phreadom/blog%20content/withoutgod.jpg"><img src="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d12/phreadom/blog%20content/withoutgod.jpg" width="267" height="400" alt="Another fallacious counter argument against atheism" title="Another fallacious counter argument against atheism" /></a>
</p>
<p>
We'll address the longer one first because it's the first one I ran across, is directly in rebuttal to the original I was looking for, and is longer and bit more nuanced than the laughably stupid second one.
</p>
<p>
In case you can't read the text on the image, it goes as follows;
</p>
<blockquote>
<i>The ironic and self-defeating orderly appeal to reason for the existence of a reasonless universe without order, whose purpose is to evidence that there is no purpose, and whose morality is to argue that we should teach that there are no morals except that which they have reasoned for their purpose, which, in turn, produces the ultimate emotional articulation of self-centeredness which is fearfully bent toward the cover up and suppression of belief in an ultimate personal cause who brings order, purpose, and judgement to all things. Oh yeah ... I'm in.</i>
</blockquote>
<p>
I'll try to overlook the jabs of the opening and move into the meat of their claims. The first that we're making an <i>"orderly appeal to reason for the existence of a reasonless universe without order"</i>. We never made the claim that the universe wasn't ordered. The universe in fact operates on a number of comprehensible laws that we have come to understand through empirical observation, testing, confirmation etc. In fact our argument is merely that this order is not itself evidence for their particular claim of a deity. This is a fallacious claim on their part. This brings us to the second and more subtle fallacy, the equivocation between "reason" as <i>"a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc."</i>, and "reason" as in <i>"the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences."</i>
</p>
<p>
It is fundamentally important to understand this kind of fallacious argumentation on the part of the faithful because their excuses are not only riddled with such poor thinking and failures of sound reasoning, but they in fact cannot stand without them. They are inherently unreasonable, irrational, etc. So let's have a look at that particular fallacy a bit more.
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation</a> states; <i>"Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)."</i> It goes on to say <i>"Equivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time."</i> and the example given under the "Fallacious Reasoning" section brilliantly illustrates exactly what we're seeing in our own case, with the apologist trying to ridicule us as too stupid to see the irony in contrary positions on reason, when in fact these are two entirely different words with fundamentally different meanings that merely sound the same, and which the apologists is trying to pull a fast one with in hopes that we don't notice.
</p>
<p>
It is simply put no different than the example given;
</p>
<blockquote>
<i>A feather is light.<br />
What is light cannot be dark.<br />
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.</i>
</blockquote>
<p>
It's clearly obvious here that in spite of using the word "light" both times, fundamentally different meanings are meant in these two cases, and thus the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.
</p>
<p>
Not only is this not self-defeating as they try to claim, but it also has nothing to do with the proposition of whether or not the universe actually does have any purpose. This is an entirely separate question which they do nothing to give any evidence for. Trying to ridicule us does nothing to address that lack of evidence on their part, and there is nothing to imply that the universe does have any "purpose" per se, and certainly not one expressly revolving around ourselves. The insistence on their part of some deeper "reason" or "purpose" always boils down to nothing more than wishful thinking and a basic appeal to emotion. They don't like the idea that there isn't some deeper meaning, so they think that they can invent one without giving any valid evidence to justify the claim. We'll see more on this as we go along.
</p>
<p>
More of the same with the line <i>"whose purpose is to evidence that there is no purpose"</i>. Another equivocation with "purpose", trying to contrast our motivation in making an argument with the fundamental cause and "reason" of the existence of the universe. The two are not related, and again no valid argument or evidence is given for the proposition that there <i>is</i> any purpose, their obvious position.
</p>
<p>
Next we have <i>"and whose morality is to argue that we should teach that there are no morals except that which they have reasoned for their purpose, which, in turn, produces the ultimate emotional articulation of self-centeredness which is fearfully bent toward the cover up and suppression of belief in an ultimate personal cause who brings order, purpose, and judgement to all things."</i>
</p>
<p>
This part is a bit long, but we really need to tackle it as a whole. First they try to argue that we're arguing that there are no morals, which is false, but they go on to say <i>"except for that which they have reasoned for their purpose"</i> which itself doesn't state what the purpose is per se... not the previously mentioned purpose apparently... but goes on to give us a hint of what they think it is... <i>"which, in turn, produces the ultimate emotional articulation of self-centeredness which is fearfully bent toward the cover up and suppression of belief in an ultimate personal cause who brings order, purpose, and judgement to all things."</i>
</p>
<p>
Now sadly this is the part that is perhaps the most uninformed, misguided, and quite possibly willfully dishonest. The morality of the non-believer is <i>generally</i> based on modern day human understanding of the world we live in. (An important factor to note here is that all that unites non-believers is really the non-belief in a deity. There is no other over-arching doctrine or beliefs, although there is a strong prevalence of general adherence to reason and evidence etc. But let's not digress too much.) The lessons we've learned as a species about things like slavery, equal rights, etc. And those things are in part based on basic human empathy, our understanding of human suffering and how it feels to suffer. The fact that it pains us to see other human beings being hurt, or emotionally abused, or struggling with a heavy burden. Studies have shown that when we see a person carrying a heavy unbalanced load, we quite literally try helping them in our minds... we feel the distress of it almost toppling... and our brain goes through the motions of trying to help them.
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://reason.com/archives/2007/11/21/the-theory-of-moral-neuroscien">http://reason.com/archives/2007/11/21/the-theory-of-moral-neuroscien</a><br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4632069/Morality-may-have-roots-in-our-primate-ancestors.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4632069/Morality-may-have-roots-in-our-primate-ancestors.html</a>
</p>
<p>
(Sam Harris actually makes a great case for this position in his TED talk <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html">"Science can answer moral questions"</a>.)
</p>
<p>
So first and foremost our actions are actually something inherent in us as a function of our biological evolution. Second, this inherent sense of empathy is what motivates us to alleviate suffering in others. We know how they feel and we know we wouldn't like it if it were us. It in a way hurts us to see them being hurt. So we take actions to make the world not only a better place for our friends and family and those we care for, but because we understand our place in history and want to do for future generations what those who came before us have done for us to help bring us things like modern medicine and other technologies that have extended our lives and made them safer, healthier, longer, and arguably happier as a result. This couldn't be further from the <i>"ultimate emotional articulation of self-centeredness"</i> the apologist tries to argue. This is further illustrated by their explanation for what they think our motivation actually is...
</p>
<p>
<i>"fearfully bent toward the cover up and suppression of belief in an ultimate personal cause who brings order, purpose, and judgement to all things."</i>
</p>
<p>
First off we're not trying to cover it up. And in fact even a cursory understanding of contemporary history will show that it is time and time again the religious that seek to censor, and not the free thinkers. The free thinkers in fact thrive on the concept of free inquiry; that one should be able to express their mind in open and honest discourse. The religious have consistently sought to censor through threats, blasphemy laws, even torture, imprisonment, and murder, those who expressed views which they felt threatened their own. Sadly this concerted effort at oppression and censorship still goes on even today... something we constantly have to fight against. So it strikes me as absurdly disingenuous that the apologist would make such a counterfactual claim.
</p>
<p>
Further, the apologist makes yet another unfounded assertion. Not only are we not trying to cover up or suppress the belief the apologist asserts, but neither are we making the assertion that the belief we're supposedly trying to suppress is what they assert it is, nor have they as usual done anything whatsoever to establish the validity of that stated belief as they express it.
</p>
<p>
We are saying that there is no evidence for their claim. We are saying that we want people to think rationally and honestly about the issues in question and not fall prey to appeals to emotion, wishful thinking, fallacious arguments like the equivocation seen here, etc. We expect a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof">burden of proof</a> to be fulfilled... the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and no valid evidence has been given to justify a belief in what they are claiming.
</p>
<p>
(For instance the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method">Scientific Method</a> states that <i>"a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."</i> And that's putting it simply. You can't just make things up and expect them to hold any merit not only without any valid evidence to support such claims, but contrary to everything else we <i>do</i> know that has been established through this rigorous system of evidence, sound reasoning, critical assessment, falsifiability, peer review, predictive powers, and on and on.)
</p>
<p>
Now I want to move on to the next image, because this one really takes the cake with the blatant appeal to emotion. This is what the entire argument behind their faith comes down to, and this image really lays it bare.
</p>
<blockquote>
<b>WITHOUT GOD</b><br />
<i>"How are you anything other than the coincidental, purposeless miscarriage of nature, spinning round and round on a lonely planet in the blackness of space for just a little while before you and all memory of your futile, pointless, meaningless life finally blinks out forever in the endless darkness?"</i>
</blockquote>
<p>
First off; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion</a>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Appeal to emotion is a potential <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy">fallacy</a> which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument's position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument. Also this kind of thinking may be evident in one who lets emotions and/or other subjective considerations influence one's reasoning process. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi">red herring</a> and encompasses several logical fallacies, including:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences">Appeal to consequences</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear">Appeal to fear</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_flattery">Appeal to flattery</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pity">Appeal to pity</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule">Appeal to ridicule</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_spite">Appeal to spite</a></li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking">Wishful thinking</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.</p>
<p>Conclusively, the appeal to emotion fallacy presents a perspective intended to be superior to reason. Appeals to emotion are intended to draw visceral feelings from the acquirer of the information. And in turn, the acquirer of the information is intended to be convinced that the statements that were presented in the fallacious argument are true; solely on the basis that the statements may induce emotional stimulation such as fear, pity and joy. Though these emotions may be provoked by an appeal to emotion fallacy, substantial proof of the argument is not offered, and the argument's premises remain invalid.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
I mean do we really even need to walk through the absurdity of these claims? <i>"coincidental"</i>, <i>"purposeless miscarriage of nature"</i>, <i>"spinning round and round on a lonely planet in the blackness of space for just"</i> and on and on... the entire thing from start to finish is nothing more than a blatantly obvious attempt to make you feel lonely and insignificant so that you'll believe their position. But of course they never give any evidence for their actual position whatsoever. They do nothing whatsoever to rationally invalidate the very claims they're attempting to mock and use to sway you. And while their wording is intentionally meant to sound as terrible as possible, they've done nothing to show that it isn't actually true.
</p>
<p>
It doesn't matter if that reality isn't emotionally satisfying to you. Objective reality is not dependent on whether or not you like it or find it emotionally satisfying.
</p>
<p>
<i>"Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality or reality."</i> (from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking</a>)
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/">http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/</a>
</p>
<p>
Now even with that said, the reality still isn't as bad as they try to make it sound to scare you into taking their position. We are not mere coincidences. We are the result of millions of years of evolution, the application of the laws of nature in action. These forces have led to the evolution of our ability to think and understand... to be conscious of our own existence and our own mortality. It is a misunderstanding of theirs at best to refer to evolution and human life as "mere coincidence" as though it was nothing more than random chance. As with most things they fight against using simplistic and wrong binary thinking, it's much more complex and wondrous than that.
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection</a>
</p>
<p>
Further, as my previous statements imply, you're not merely a purposeless miscarriage of nature. You're the expression of evolution creating, within its confines, the best fit that it can with what it has to work with, a persistent reproductive life form in a given ecological niche. Now while there may not be any "purpose" on the cosmic level, and while in a broader sense the purpose of life may merely be procreation and perpetuation of itself... that doesn't mean that we personally cannot define our own purpose in life, even if that purpose is shaped in some part by the evolutionary baggage that effects the ways in which we perceive the universe around us.
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases</a>
</p>
<p>
On a personal level, the purpose of our lives is what we, and we alone, make it. And because we realize that we are most likely only going to have this one short time of sentient existence, we want to make the best of it... but we by and large don't choose to spend it in self serving hedonism. Many of us live arguably more moral lives than those of the religious primarily because our morality is based on the real world... on a modern and enlightened understanding of human rights, and not on some ancient tribal mythology that also condoned slavery and genocide and bigotry and intolerance... we understand how our actions effect others and we believe that we alone are responsible for those actions. We don't believe that some invisible man will forgive us, or that invisible monsters made us do bad things... or that we'll get eternal rewards or punishments after we die... we realize that we are responsible for our actions in the here and now and we try to avoid those acts which negatively effect others, and we try to make amends when we do with the persons we may have aggrieved, not closing our eyes and wishing for magic to make it all better.
</p>
<p>
So no... it is not a <i>"futile, pointless, meaningless life"</i> if you don't want it to be. That's why many of us try to do what we can to improve the world as a whole, because of how much we appreciate the great works of the human minds before us who made our own world a better place by acting selflessly for future generations... for humanity as a whole. And we do realize that all life eventually <i>"finally blinks out forever in the endless darkness"</i>... but we also realize that it's nothing more than returning to that state from which we came before we were born. Nothingness. Our constituent parts returning back into the forms from which they came... and our conscious to that same state of nonexistence that it was before we were formed.
</p>
<p>
There are many variations on the unsourced quote to follow, but the general meaning is what underpins the idea I've been getting at... the very nature of selflessness and the appreciation of our place in the circle of life.
</p>
<p>
<i><b>"The people who benefit society the most, are those old men who plant trees whose shade they know they will never sit in."</b></i>
</p>JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-54081594913135087232010-11-06T09:40:00.001-04:002012-01-02T17:57:09.715-05:00The March of Tyranny<div style="text-align: center;">
<p>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNnU9qggE8AScHAOmh1ZuV1tDQiwGm2Ux0GINyBT5e5bBz7rOy1cbea7t6Tmw3vQidQlzZO0SEFmJGX7rAdtRQ0cYHium3MnZLjwsiZK8jkk25e9zWipyrpwt2m2_Kwmd_i3A-/s1600/march_of_tyranny.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 307px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNnU9qggE8AScHAOmh1ZuV1tDQiwGm2Ux0GINyBT5e5bBz7rOy1cbea7t6Tmw3vQidQlzZO0SEFmJGX7rAdtRQ0cYHium3MnZLjwsiZK8jkk25e9zWipyrpwt2m2_Kwmd_i3A-/s400/march_of_tyranny.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5536431431089807522" /></a>
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://garrisongraphics.blogspot.com/2010/08/march-of-tyranny.html">http://garrisongraphics.blogspot.com/2010/08/march-of-tyranny.html</a>
</p>
</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-87083492731093769162010-10-16T06:58:00.006-04:002010-10-16T21:49:48.103-04:00In response to FOX & Friends' Brian Kilmeade's comments on Muslims as terrorists.I hate to comment on anything FOX says, as they're so persistently dishonest (admittedly some parts much more so than others) that I could spend all day, every day, screaming into the void about it and be wasting my time. <span style="font-style:italic">But</span>... this particular news item struck a cord with me because it seemed illustrate a twist on a familiar maxim.<br /><br />(I'd made a comment about this on Facebook, but felt that it was worth not being overlooked, so I'm reposting it here.)<br /><br />What prompted all this was an article on ThinkProgress titled "<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/15/kilmeade-muslim-terrorists/">Fox Host Brian Kilmeade Says ‘All Terrorists Are Muslim’ In Defense Of O’Reilly’s ‘Muslims Killed Us’ Remark</a>".<br /><br />Commenters on the social media sites were quick to make plays on his wording with such quips as <span style="font-style:italic;">"Brian Kilmeade of Fox News stated this morning that "not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim." - proving once and for all that not all idiots are anchors on Fox News, but all anchors on Fox News are idiots."</span><br /><br />This brings to mind the familiar maxim of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor">Hanlon's razor</a>... <span style="font-style:italic;">"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">However</span>, while this might usually be the case, this is importantly <span style="font-style:italic;">not</span> the case with FOX News. These people <span style="font-style:italic;">know</span> what the facts actually are... and some of them are very well educated people who merely pretend to be complete airheads on air in order to allow their target audience to better identify with them... pretending to not know what common words mean, drawing painfully obvious false parallels in feigned ignorance of the facts etc... it's done by well informed, intelligent people to intentionally manipulate their target audience, and in this case we see a further example of it in that even after having the facts pointed out to Kilmeade, he goes on to reiterate his false statement because it is the "party line" of FOX/Republicans, a group that is largely becoming synonymous these days.<br /><br />To illustrate this point... let's look at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Carlson">Gretchen Carlson</a>, one of FOX's iconic blonde "pretty lady" hosts.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">"Carlson ... graduated from Anoka-Hennepin School District 11's Anoka High School, in 1984, as valedictorian."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">"Carlson is also a former pageant winner. She won the title "Miss Minnesota" in 1989 and became the third woman from Minnesota to win the "Miss America" title. For the talent competition, Carlson played <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zigeunerweisen">Zigeunerweisen</a>, the violin composition of Sarasate."</span><br /><br />She not only graduated <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valedictorian">valedictorian</a> from high school, and went on to win a couple pageants, including Miss America, including classical violin performances etc... but here comes the punch-line:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">"Carlson was graduated with Honors from Stanford University, in 1990, with a specialized degree in the field of Sociology (organizational behavior). While enrolled at Stanford University, she studied abroad as part of her Stanford program at Oxford University."</span><br /><br />Graduated with honors from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University">Standford</a> with a specialized degree in the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_studies">organizational behavior</a>" area of Sociology, including studying abroad at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford">Oxford University in England</a>.<br /><br />And yet she routinely plays up the image of the "dumb blonde bimbo" on FOX in order to promote misinformation, to take jabs at the opposition through pretending to ignorantly misrepresent things using the same methodology as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll">Push Polling</a>, in that it's not so much about the inherent validity of what's being said, as that can be disproven fairly easily... it's about the constant repetition of the misinformation to create an underlying narrative that the audience subscribes to, assisted by their perceived rapport with the the hosts facilitated by the faux "down to earth common man" charade.<br /><br />Saying that all terrorists are Muslim fits what Americans would like to believe, and promotes that idea in the face of clear evidence to the contrary because the audience does not want to think about the fact that there are many Christian terrorists today (as listed in <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/15/kilmeade-muslim-terrorists/">the ThinkProgress article</a>, and many others)... as well as other religions, and even non-religious terrorists, of which <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh">Timothy McVeigh</a> could be counted as one... people who are merely exceptionally ideologically driven by the ideas of patriotism, liberty, the Constitution, etc... all of which reflect in one way or another on the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement">Tea Party</a>" red blooded American self image of the core FOX demographic.<br /><br />So it doesn't really matter that it's not true, and that it's easily proven as not true... it's that the hosts pander to what the audience wants to hear, and repeats the lies often enough to maintain the narrative and keep the audience believing it enough to act on it... to vote for the people FOX wants them to vote for, to buy the books they're selling, the products they're advertising, and so forth.<br /><br />Which brings us back to the key point. While Hanlon'z Razor posits <span style="font-style:italic;">"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."</span>, in this case, when dealing with FOX, it should be more accurately stated <span style="font-weight:bold;font-style:italic;">"When dealing with FOX, Never attribute to stupidity that which is more accurately explained by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism">Machiavellianism</a>."</span><br /><br />(I could go on further to discuss the relationship of the word "malice" in Hanlon'z Razor to the actions of FOX and their ilk, and the actual effect their manipulation of the general public has on the well being and even the safety and very lives of many human beings... but I think that's enough for today.<br /><br />Some other related points I'd like to cover in relation to this story include some comments <a href="http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/video/bill-maher-mosque-opinion/1248619/">Bill Maher made on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno</a> about the Mosque at Ground Zero, as well as some further information about why Islam is in fact the most dangerous religion today and is far from the "religion of peace" its adherents largely try to make it out to be, and cover specifically why that is, and why they are in fact commanded by their religion to say that and to lie to non-believers and people of other religions about what their religion actually is and says in order to further the agendas of Islam... namely implementing Sharia etc.<br /><br />But that's for another article...)JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-83189124937255837922010-08-10T12:30:00.004-04:002010-08-10T12:40:35.226-04:00Response to Dave Stroebe's letter about C3ExhangeI was recently pointed in the direction of <a href="http://www.mlive.com/opinion/muskegon/index.ssf/2010/08/letters_church_has_lost_its_be.html">a letter on MLive.com ("Letters: Church has lost its core beliefs" by Dave Stroebe)</a> via <a href="http://www.mlive.com/chronicle/">The Muskegon Chronicle</a> regarding a <a href="http://www.c3exchange.org/">"church" that some friends of mine attend</a>. I'd written the following response to the author of that letter where it appeared on MLive.com, but I'm guessing that either due to the size of the comment, or the links therein, that it was held for moderation. So in the meantime I'm going to post it here and try to create a "non-link" to it in a comment there so that it can be read in the meantime.<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>Well let's address for a moment the issue underlying Dave's letter... the validity of Christianity in the first place.<br /><br />We know for a fact, based on a vast wealth of objective evidence that we can actually verify through empirical observation and testing etc, we know that essentially every single claim made in the Judeo-Christian Creation story is provably false.<br /><br />Since we know these things... that for instance the Earth is not flat, nor 5,700 years old, nor is the sky overhead a physical dome holding back a second ocean above just like the one here on the ground, in which the bible claims that God opened floodgates to allow it to pour in to flood the Earth for Noah's flood, etc... but most importantly that we know for a fact that human beings did not originate in Mesopotamia 5,700 years ago. Not by several orders of magnitude and not even on the same continent.<br /><br />Because we know that such claims as made in the bible are demonstrably, provably false, based on the wealth of real world objective evidence we actually have, we know that Adam and Eve were never in the mythical Garden of Eden as claimed. They weren't there to be tempted by a talking serpent to commit the Original Sin. And since they weren't there to commit it, it never happened. And since it never happened, the very act which Jesus claims to be dying to gain our salvation from never happened in the first place, thus rendering moot the argument that we should be worshiping him for that supposed deed. The best that can be argued is that he died for a noble, but misguided gesture. And remember, we actually have the vast wealth of evidence to back that position up, which is profoundly more valid than the mythological claims of middle eastern bronze age tribesmen from a culture that was one of the most scientifically illiterate and primitive in the region, essentially the known world, at that time.<br /><br />The burden of proof should one try to refute all that actual modern day objective evidence we have lies soundly on their shoulders. But we can prove that the very core claims of the Judeo-Christian bible that were meant to establish the power and authority of that God provably never happened and that what actually did happen involved different processes, different differentiation between the things created, vastly different spans of time, forms of life not even listed because the authors were ignorant of them, different orders of events, different locations, and on and on. Every single aspect of creation was profoundly different, and provably so, than the authors of the bible literally claim, and upon which literal claims the authority and power of God is derived, and from which the tale of Original Sin comes, which is later relied upon as a literal truth for the subsequent literal claims of truth of Jesus himself about being the son of God... and in Romans explicitly linking the requisite literal truth of the Original Sin of Adam and Eve to Salvation through Jesus Christ.<br /><br />Romans 5:12-21 (NIV):<br /><br /><b>Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ</b><br /><br /><i>12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.</i><br /><br /><i>15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.</i><br /><br /><i>18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.</i><br /><br /><i>20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.</i><br /><br />And of course we know these things thanks to the overwhelming extent and accuracy of the knowledge we have accrued and refined over the convening centuries through the greatest method of establishing objective truths and gaining knowledge based thereupon ever derived by man; The Scientific Method.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method</a><br /><br /><i>"Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."</i><br /><br />Which has led us to such things as, to only barely touch the tip of the vast iceberg of knowledge we now have...<br /><br /><p><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_%28science%29">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(science)</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact</a><br /></p><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroup">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroup</a> ... which leads into terms like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam</a>, which the Christian mindset of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance">cognitive dissonance</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias">confirmation bias</a> instantly tries to mold into their mythology of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden... but these figurative individuals share their name no more than naming the planets after the Roman gods made those gods literally real.<br /><br />I think you can understand why they chose the names. ;) Not to mention that both of these individuals lived far down in Africa, and many thousands of years separated from each other... and were not the first humans either, but merely the earliest common ancestor genetically we can find due to the way Y chromosomes and Mitochondrial DNA are passed down through generations etc.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MatrilinealAncestor.PNG">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MatrilinealAncestor.PNG</a><br /><br />That image shows simply how that early ancestor, while not the only person around, ends up passing her particular mitochondrial DNA on to everyone else...<br /><br />As a matter of fact, just read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Common_fallacies">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Common_fallacies</a> to clarify these points.<br /><br /><p><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating</a><br /></p><br /><br />And further...<br /><br /><a href="http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/">http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment</a><br /><br />"The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science."<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/why-intelligent-design-is-not.html">http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/why-intelligent-design-is-not.html</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District</a><br /><br />And I could go ON and ON....<br /><br />Evolution is an objective, empirically observed fact. The only thing really up for honest debate these days are the mechanisms involved... eg; sexual selection, epigenetics, punctuated equilibrium, horizontal gene transfer, and so forth.<br /><br /><p><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer</a><br /></p><br /><br />But that it happens is none the less a fact, and one that many Christians seem to have such a profound problem with <i>only</i> because it contradicts their provably false ancient mythological explanation for things that we do actually have a fundamentally vastly superior understanding of today.<br /><br />You could say it's much like the law of gravity versus the theory of gravity. That gravity exists is a fact, one that we can observe and study. <i>Why</i> gravity exists and <i>how</i> exactly it works is still an area of intense scientific study.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Evolution_compared_with_gravity">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Evolution_compared_with_gravity</a><br /><br />People inventing those Judeo-Christian creation myths in one of the most scientifically illiterate cultures even of <i>their</i> time, thousands of years ago, at least had a good excuse for their beliefs... they had no way of knowing any better. Christians today do not share that luxury.<br /><br />And we can only assume that those who would promote those claims as "truth" and "fact" etc, in spite of the wealth of evidence to the contrary, are so <i>profoundly</i> ignorant of the actual scientific facts because they must focus on sites like "The Institute for Creation Research", "Answers In Genesis", "Discovery Institute", and so forth if they even bother to consider the matter at all, which most intentionally don't... (most Christians never really consider the conflict between their modern scientific understanding of the world around them and the profoundly different standards by which they judge (or rather don't judge) the mythological claims of their religion. This is a form of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_%28psychology%29">psychological compartmentalization</a> as a means of avoiding the forementioned cognitive dissonance etc... but we'll leave that for later as this is getting much too long as it is.)<br /><br /><p><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Creation_Research</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute</a><br /></p><br /><br />These are sites that persist in peddling false information in spite of it being shown to be profoundly wrong over and over again because they are more concerned with how effectively they can fool the scientifically illiterate faithful into believing them, not in actually proving any of their points honestly based on real evidence etc.<br /><br />One might want to read the following: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy</a><br /><br />To understand the motivations of the people they seem to be so eagerly taking as honest and truthful promoters of "Truth" with a capital T etc.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Allegations_of_perjury">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Allegations_of_perjury</a><br /><br /><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-404729062613200911#">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-404729062613200911#</a><br /><br />And so forth.<br /><br />This is not a message of religious intolerance, it is a lesson in well supported facts and the sound reasoning based thereupon.<br /><br />When we have established all these facts, the nature of what C3Exhange is doing becomes rather moot, because in reality they are hardly any less valid than Christianity itself, both having been provably invented based on the wishful thinking of human beings, and neither offering any objective evidence to support themselves, and both relying solely on subjective emotional appeals and a willful denial of evidence and reasoning to the contrary of either.<br /><br />So don't get me wrong, I'm not a real fan of way C3Exchange promotes unsupported happy feelings as somehow establishing some sort of "truth" about the objective nature of the universe we live in, in spite of the actual real world facts and logic to the contrary... but it's a little beside the point in the context of this opinion piece since the author has no more of a sound footing to be standing on himself to be preaching such intolerance at Ian and his congregation.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking</a><br /><br /><i>"Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality or reality."</i><br /><br /><p>Now I can certainly expand upon this discussion vastly, go into greater detail if need be, and lay out more specifically the logical fallacies etc involved in arguments by those such as Dave Stroebe (the author of the opinion piece above) <i>as well as</i> Ian Lawton and many of his "faithful" etc. While I find both to be invalid, I at least have a little more forgiving attitude toward Ian for being more progressive about the whole thing.</p><br /><br />Some of the most common issues that arise in these discussions are the following;<br /><br /><p><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Asymmetry_in_the_burden_of_proof">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Asymmetry_in_the_burden_of_proof</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi#Red_herring">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi#Red_herring</a><br /><br /></p><br /><br />Slightly more subtle, but fundamentally important points...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/">http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/</a><br /><br /><i><b>Objective –</b> is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.</i><br /><br /><i><b>Subjective –</b> is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures.</i><br /><br />And even more sublte ones such as;<br /><br /><p><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy</a><br /><br /></p><br /><br />And so on...<br /><br />That should be more than enough for now to establish the foundation of sound reason and evidence behind my assertions. Sorry for the length, I figured I would just get a lot of the heavy lifting out of the way right off the bat to hopefully save myself the trouble of having to type it later.<br /><br />Color me foolishly optimistic. ;)<br /><br />If you've made it this far and actually read and thought about all of that, I sincerely thank you.</blockquote>JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-70911972118249020972010-06-18T10:37:00.005-04:002010-06-18T12:04:42.916-04:00The idiocy continues...This began as a discussion on Facebook with a younger man that ended up being handed off to his father (a pastor) part way through.<br /><br />It was after I had posted the original discussion here, in the post entitled <a href="http://phreadom.blogspot.com/2010/06/your-par-for-course-debate-with.html">"Your par for course debate with Christians on Facebook."</a>, which he commented upon that I noticed that he had <a href="http://dadderzvan.blogspot.com/">his own blog</a>, where he'd been blogging his take on what the debate had amounted to. I <a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=32946220&postID=7475039206299408336">wrote a few comments on there</a> (and <a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=32946220&postID=8920527293789923723">here</a> and <a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=32946220&postID=1072608418603266123">here</a> etc) to clarify a few things and to present a link to the original discussion so that people could read the debate for themselves and make an honest, informed opinion based on the actual argument, and not solely on the tail end of one of the final comments of a 46 page, almost 23,000 word debate... where after 3 days of debating with him only sliding further and further into absurdity I finally snapped and dealt him some well deserved insults. (As he had copy pasted just the last bit of one of my final comments, and not even the whole comment, to try to cast me in a bad light.)<br /><br />After a bit of commenting there, I decided to write him again on facebook and try to approach the issue from a more human standpoint, to give a little background as to who I was and what my personal experiences with religion were etc.<br /><br />Unfortunately this too only quickly devolved into the most frustratingly absurd back and forth with Don's impenetrable delusion... where not even the most simplified explanations seemed to have any effect. Where not even clearly pointing out the fallacies for the Nth time, the clear contradictions, contrary statements, invalid arguments, flat out dishonest ones, utter lack of evidence on his part in the face of absolutely overwhelming evidence to the contrary... <b><i>nothing</i></b> gets through to him. (which led me back to his blog to leave the angry third comment on the first "here" comment link above.)<br /><br />At this point I don't see how I can continue with it... it's gotten me so angry at this point that I just quickly stoop to angry insults peppering my rebuttal of his mindlessly repeated invalid excuse making... impervious to even the most basic standards of reason, logic, evidence, honesty, etc... he mindlessly chants his mantra of "it's all just made up opinion! the atheist agenda to rewrite history! only the bible is an accurate account of history and everything else is just a conspiracy to try to rewrite history! science is just an atheist agenda that has no facts whatsoever... and is wholly invalid... and is worthless in contrast with the truth of the bible, the ONLY REAL truth!" etc. (of course that's a paraphrase, but you get the idea.)<br /><br />Another method that he has increasingly relied on is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_Man">Straw Man</a> argument... where he repeatedly misstates what science is, what science's methods and intentions are, what my intentions are, specifically and intentionally misstates things I've already clearly stated to the contrary in the very same discussion etc...<br /><br /><i>A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.</i><br /><br />... and then tries to invalidate those misstatements using further arguments that are in themselves fallacious and invalid on top of the misstatement. They're not even really properly formed Straw Men... they're more like another fallacious method of argument he's been increasingly relying on... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28logical_fallacy%29#Red_herring">Red Herring</a> distractions from the main facts and argument where he brings up the BP oil spill, the date of Christmas, belief in Unicorns, Hillary Clinton's claims about a right wing conspiracy etc... all to try to distract us from the valid facts, sound reasoning etc... <br /><br /><i>Similar in category, but with darker implications than ignoratio elenchi, a "red herring" is an answer, given in reply to a questioner, that goes beyond an innocent logical irrelevance. A "red herring" is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject.</i><br /><br />... by using distracting statements that aren't even relevant to the matter at hand, are not even accurate statements in themselves most of the time, and completely ignore previously established facts about the differences between objective facts and subjective claims etc. Again, just layer upon layer of demonstrably invalid, erroneous, dishonest, and thoroughly fallacious arguments drowning in clearly evident cognitive biases (and that's putting it mildly).<br /><br /><i>A cognitive bias is the human tendency to draw incorrect conclusions in certain circumstances based on cognitive factors rather than evidence. Such biases are thought to be a form of "cognitive shortcut", often based upon rules of thumb, and include errors in statistical judgment, social attribution, and memory. Cognitive biases are a common outcome of human thought, and often drastically skew the reliability of anecdotal and legal evidence. It is a phenomenon studied in cognitive science and social psychology.</i><br /><br />And I suppose I should include it here for the sake of completeness, that insulting someone while providing evidence and reason to back up that insult.. is not a fallacious argument. Saying "you're an idiot because you refuse to admit that there is any possibility you could ever be wrong, while simultaneously admitting that you don't really understand the issue and don't have any proof that you're right... and yet still insist that all the actual real world evidence is wrong, and your belief is absolute and cannot be argued" etc. THAT makes one an idiot. Now on the other hand, saying "you're wrong because you're an atheist" or "science is wrong because it's just an atheist agenda of opinions trying to rewrite history"... well, those ARE fallacious ad hominem type arguments that fail to address the validity of the actual facts and instead solely seek to try discrediting the messenger so to speak.<br /><br /><i>"An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise."</i><br /><br />And from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Common_misconceptions_about_ad_hominem">Common misconceptions about ad hominem</a>;<br /><br /><i>Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy. The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker, not personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument or insults that stand alone. "X's argument is invalid because X's analogy is false, there are differences between a republic and a democracy. But then again, X is idiotically ignorant." is gratuitously abusive but is not a fallacy because X's argument is actually addressed directly in the opening statement. "X is idiotically ignorant" is not a fallacy of itself. It is an argument that X doesn't know the difference between a republic and a democracy.</i><br /><br />I've explained this to him numerous times now, even clearly defined a logical fallacy for him and so on... but yet his entire argument rests on these kinds of willfully repeated fallacious arguments and stubborn denial of the facts etc.<br /><br />Now I can't help but think that his behavior when dealing with the presentation of all these facts and valid reasoning etc... that the more overwhelming they get, the more blatantly he flat out denies their existence or validity and starts quoting atheist conspiracy theories etc... that Don (and many other Christians) descend into textbook <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_mechanism#Level_1_-_Pathological">pathological denial</a>, which is defined as follows:<br /><br /><blockquote><b>Level 1 - Pathological</b><br /><br />The mechanisms on this level, when predominating, almost always are severely <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathology">pathological</a>. These four defenses, in conjunction, permit one to effectively rearrange external experiences to eliminate the need to cope with reality. The pathological users of these mechanisms frequently appear crazy or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity">insane</a> to others. These are the "psychotic" defenses, common in overt psychosis. However, they are found in dreams and throughout childhood as well.<br /><br />They include:<br /><ul><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion">Delusional Projection</a>: Grossly frank delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature.</li><br /><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial">Denial</a>: Refusal to accept external reality because it is too threatening; arguing against an anxiety-provoking stimulus by stating it doesn't exist; resolution of emotional conflict and reduction of anxiety by refusing to perceive or consciously acknowledge the more unpleasant aspects of external reality.</li><br /><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion">Distortion</a>: A gross reshaping of external reality to meet internal needs.</li><br /><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)">Splitting</a>: A primitive defence. Negative and positive impulses are split off and unintegrated. Fundamental example: An individual views other people as either innately good or innately evil, rather than a whole continuous being.</li><br /><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection">Extreme projection</a>: The blatant denial of a moral or psychological deficiency, which is perceived as a deficiency in another individual or group.</li></ul></blockquote><br /><br />And while I certainly don't think that Don is pathologically neurotic, with some fundamental physical malformation in his brain or something... I do most certainly think that he is incredibly irrational and displays at least some extent of every one of these symptoms as a result of his brainwashing by his own religious beliefs... beliefs he is now so invested in that he is utterly unwilling to, and incapable of, considering to be in error... regardless of the overwhelming level of evidence and sound reasoning to the contrary.<br /><br />Anyway... read for yourselves and see what I mean.<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><b><i>On a somewhat friendly side note. :)</i></b><br /><b>Myself</b> June 17 at 3:51pm <br /><br />It seems a bit unfortunate that your son and I got off on the wrong foot on such a divisive issue, as we have other things in common.<br /><br />The reason I have so much time to spend on these discussions is because I am self employed as graphic design and web development guy who also does general IT work etc (and have been for over 15 years now, including working for GM and Ford world headquarters in Detroit, the tribal government up north as variously network admin, webmaster, and even interim IT manager for a bit...)<br /><br />The relevant point being that for the past 2 years my main job has been as the head admin running a Japanese language learning website. <a href="http://thejapanesepage.com/">http://thejapanesepage.com/</a><br /><br />Interestingly enough, my boss is actually #religion removed for privacy#. ;) He and I have debated religion a few times, but generally we avoid it because we really enjoy our friendship and working relationship outside of that.<br /><br />My interest in Japanese is actually what brought Jack and I together here on Facebook as friends, as he taught a number of my friends at ########## and is a friend of one of our longtime family friends Rod ######, and knows my father etc. When I found out that he lived in Japan now we started talking and became friends here on FB... and this was only a few months ago.<br /><br />I just happen to be very unapologetic when it comes to religion because of my many years as a Christian, involvement in DecoTEC etc... and the kind of irrational hate I faced when I eventually began questioning my beliefs and after many years of in depth research and critical assessment eventually became the atheist I am today (at 36 years old).<br /><br />As a result, my own father has unfriended me here on facebook, half of my relatives... my uncle called me a threat to his family as real as a murderer or rapist... my own mother said that because I was an atheist I'd be happy to put out a hit on her and my father and have them killed because they were Christians... something SO insane that my father actually defended me for the only time EVER... coming out of the bedroom to say to my mother, and I quote; "Melody, have you lost your fucking mind!?"<br /><br />(Or for instance when she said she didn't care if EVERY Nobel laureate scientist on Earth agreed on a particular fact and had all the evidence in the world to prove it... if it contradicted what the bible said, they were completely wrong and the BIBLE 100% right. In spite of, for instance, being an insulin dependent diabetic who relies on medical science instead of prayer to keep herself alive...)<br /><br />I've seen the harm first hand that religious irrationality can do to a family when a provably false religion, imaginary friends, and so forth are put ahead of your own children and your relationship with them... you know, like Jesus says to do in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2010:34-39&version=NIV">Matthew 10:34-39 (NIV)</a> that I referenced in our other discussion...<br /><br /><i>34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - 36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'<br />37 "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.</i><br /><br />I have had my own mother threaten to disown me for talking to my own sister about religion, and recently reiterate that she was perfectly right in that threat... I was accused of being possessed by demons, rather than simply well educated and making well informed and well reasoned statements based on that education. I was considered the black sheep of the family, a failure on my parents part to raise me right in spite of not only being the only child (out of my living brother and sister and I) to actually graduate high school, but to go on to college... to work out in silicon valley during the dot com boom, and some of the other aforementioned jobs etc... and in spite of being a generally good person with a very loving and kind girlfriend who while also being an atheist, works in adult foster care taking care of mentally handicapped older men, visits her family almost every day and talks to them every day etc.<br /><br />I have lived for years now with the kind of irrational hatred that Christians have for atheists purely because Christians are absolutely unwilling to even CONSIDER that they might be mistaken, or to acknowledge the illogical clash between admitting that you have no proof of something, and yet simultaneously claiming that you will not argue that issue, and state that nothing could ever change your mind about it... and atheists thus exist as a threat to that unfounded and irrational belief system because we present the facts, the sound reasoning etc... we pose a threat to a cherished belief that Christians have built lives around.<br /><br />For instance you have gone to school to learn your religion, made a life for yourself as a religious man...<br /><br />To admit at this point that you might be mistaken would be to admit that you might have wasted years of your life invested in something untrue. That could be embarrassing... and not only that, but it could threaten the relationships with the friends you've built relationships with... or even threaten your relationship with your family, as it did mine... it would remove the unfounded surety that you'll get to live in a magic castle in the sky when you die... that someone is always loving you and looking out for you.... and easy black and white answers to problems without having to think too hard or do too much research etc...<br /><br />These are all valid reasons to be resistant to admitting the possibility of a mistake, and I understand that. I have lived through them myself.<br /><br />So while I'm sure you're a very nice guy, and we probably do have things in common... and the same with your son etc... having been a Christian myself, having lived through both sides of the equation... and having seen the negative effects of religion on myself, my friends, and countless other people throughout the world who are deprived of rights, oppressed, and even hurt and killed by the irrationality inherent in religion, it is the one thing I can't abide. I simply expect more of people who claim to be rational, intelligent, mature adults... and to be clear, people who otherwise ARE good people, with the best intentions etc.<br /><br />My argument against 1 particular belief a person holds is not an attack on their character as a whole, or a statement that they are completely stupid (unless they actually are)... because even my father, who I consider a smart man... is an idiot when it comes to religion and I've told him so. But luckily he isn't as REMOTELY as insane as my mother. But I digress...<br /><br />The point was that I am a human being. I have had my own experiences and have a life outside of arguing religion. I am defined only as an atheist so much as religion exists to be a non-believer of, and so long as it persists as a cancer on human progress, to stand up and speak out against.<br /><br />I would be a much happier man if it simply didn't exist, and quite frankly even your life would really be no different if you stopped believing. You just might have to think a little more and re-evaluate some of your friendships and what they're based upon.<br /><br />It can take a strong person to admit that nobody knows what happens when you die and that you'll probably just turn back into dirt... or to admit that you don't have an imaginary friend always loving you and looking out for you and your best interests and to instead rely on your friends and family. But it really isn't so different from your every day life... the vast majority of which you do without ever thinking about Jesus or religion.<br /><br />If anything I see the world much more clearly since leaving the faith... as the cognitive dissonance melted away... it was like a breath of fresh air to not have to compartmentalize my beliefs... to feel that discomfort of knowing that the real world around me didn't match up with what religion claimed as fact...<br /><br />For instance, if a man walked up to you and said he saw a man walking across the water of the Pere Marquette Channel, you would say he was lying... you'd ask for evidence... you'd try to think of a rational explanation for how he managed it... a bridge just under the surface of the water or something... and this same type of critical thinking and rational assessment of fact applies to essentially every other aspect of your daily life.<br /><br />And yet when a book written thousands of years ago by primitive and ignorant bronze age tribesmen claims that a man walked out on the sea and told another man that if he believed hard enough he could do it too... you believe it without question. You don't apply the same rational assessment to those ancient mythological claims as you do everything else in your daily life.<br /><br />That is the compartmentalization... that is where the cognitive dissonance comes in when someone points out that disparity in your beliefs... the disparity in your application of critical assessment.<br /><br /><i>"Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing them. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology."</i><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance</a><br /><br />And since you have already decided that you ABSOLUTELY believe in your chosen faith, confirmation bias then comes in to subconsciously influence you to reject information contrary to your preconceptions and focus solely on that which might reaffirm your existing beliefs.<br /><br /><i>"Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether they are true. This results in people selectively collecting new evidence, interpreting evidence in a biased way, or selectively recalling information from memory."</i><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias</a><br /><br />This bias is inherent in ALL of us, and so powerful and subconscious that science has had to develop methods of working around it because human beings essentially cannot be unbiased even if they try.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment#Double-blind_trials">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment#Double-blind_trials</a><br /><br />etc...<br /><br />But as I'm digressing a bit far afield, and I only originally meant to write the first part about how I know Jack and what we have in common with your son etc, I'll just leave it at this.<br /><br />I hope you'll read an consider what I've written. :)<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Don Sr.</b> June 17 at 4:17pm<br />You didn't get off on the wrong foot with me or him either. My daughter #######(friend of your sister) explain to me how you were raised. Don and I call these people"Chrispy Christians". According to them, I will be sitting next to you in hell. LOL <br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Don Sr.</b> June 17 at 4:32pm<br />First to address your statement<br />And yet when a book written thousands of years ago by primitive and ignorant bronze age tribesmen claims that a man walked out on the sea and told another man that if he believed hard enough he could do it too... you believe it without question. You don't apply the same rational assessment to those ancient mythological claims as you do everything else in your daily life.<br />Yes, yes,yes yes.................... that is my point exactly. It's like putting a new car togather with a book about antique car assembly<br />It need to be relevent to today.<br />In the beginning God created the internet? I don't think so. That is why I want to get past the redeculous(sp)<br />My belief is not like the "Crispy Christians', and I think I'm a nice guy. MY BELIEF says that I can't judge you and I won't. I am way to sinfull for that. I am ordained by a non denominational branch and am not ti<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Don Sr.</b> June 17 at 4:37pm Report<br />I am not tied by my ordination to any denomination. There is no watch dog making sure that I don't offend the faith. You may call me a rogue preacher, but as I tried to explain before.....My faith is between God and Me. Yes, I am biased, but not stupid in the face of logic and common sense. I really hate conversing this way as it is very impersonal. Its just words typed on a screen.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b> June 17 at 5:08pm<br />The point you're not getting is that your concept of God, along with your assertion that Jesus Christ specifically died for your sins etc... those things CAN be addressed, as I did.<br /><br />Put simply, you have derived your faith from the bible and Judeo-Christian religion, presuming their validity and authority, and are now trying to remove that foundation while still expecting the house built upon it, upon which it necessarily relies, to remain standing... which it doesn't.<br /><br />This is why I referenced wishful thinking, negative proof, burden of proof, judicial impartiality, logical consistency, special pleading, etc... because all these things are fundamentally related to your assertions about your religious beliefs.<br /><br />You cannot just make up your own religion, without any evidence to support it, and then use that unsupported belief that you've invented (and in reality based soundly upon Christianity) to justify flat out denying the validity of beliefs which DO have a wealth of evidence to support them.<br /><br />That is where your overwhelming (logically fallacious) bias comes in where you allow your own unsupported beliefs to stand without evidence (any at all), while flat out denying in every way you can modern scientific knowledge that IS based on an absolute wealth of convergent and mutually conformational information from numerous disparate fields of science... fact based, tested, independently confirmed as OBJECTIVELY true... not subjectively opined etc...<br /><br />The reason I keep trying to get you to pay attention to the logical fallacies and cognitive biases you're falling victim to is because until you actually understand what constitutes sound reasoning, valid logic, etc... you're just going to keep making these mental blunders in your reasoning.<br /><br />And I don't mean that to try to insult you, it's just a statement of fact. If you read some of those links I provided you (a number of times now), maybe you'll see from their examples how and why those rules exist and why they are right.<br /><br />You know, like the difference between fact and opinion... that difference itself is a FACT. It's like saying a stone and a blue-jay are two different things. That is a statement of FACT. It is not an opinion. It is an objective observation about a physical object in the natural world. It is not just an opinion any more than saying blue is not red, or up is not down, or I am not you etc... those are just statements of fact.<br /><br />Opinions are things like "I don't like cheese", or "Mary is mean" etc... they are SUBJECTIVE opinions about things based on your own feelings, thoughts, emotions etc...<br /><br />Objective facts can be independently verified because they have nothing to do with the observer.<br /><br />Subjective opinions can and do differ between people because they deal with the observers feelings, emotions, etc... and those are different from person to person.<br /><br />When you claim that numerous objective facts are nothing more than opinions, you are making an error in your assertion, whether intentional or not.<br /><br />The reason I have been trying so hard to get you to actually read and think about what I'm saying is so that you'll stop making all these little fundamental errors in your reasoning... so that you can more accurately deal with the actual facts.<br /><br />And you might want to ask Kaylee about the fact that I have an IQ in the 98th percentile, skipped the sixth grade because I was too smart for my own good, etc... I'm not just making shit up... this is all WELL established fact and so forth, and I have done a great deal of studying over the years to educate myself.<br /><br />And before you YET AGAIN try dismissing the collective knowledge of science and academia as "opinion", go back and re-read what I just wrote to you... and don't let your confirmation bias trick you into just letting it all go in one ear and right out the other to preserve your preconceptions, or to ignore the point I clarified about standards of evidence that goes in tandem with that difference between objective facts and subjective opinions etc.<br /><br /><i>"Objective – is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.<br /><br />Subjective – is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures."</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/">http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/</a><br /><br />And science inherently is based upon objective facts. Things that you can independently verify, test, etc.<br /><br />Your belief in God is a purely subjective opinion, and one that even goes so far as to be contrary to the objective facts we do have... of which we have an absolutely overwhelming amount.<br /><br />And again, I have to stress that you just DENYING all that information because it doesn't agree with you is not valid nor honest.<br /><br />And again, that's not to offend you... it's just a statement of fact. :(<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b> June 17 at 5:11pm<br />And just to be clear, I would like you to read that entire message carefully and think about it before you respond. If you don't, there is no point in us discussing this any further because you're not learning anything and not addressing the information presented as I am doing with you. (And I am clearly investing a LOT of my time and emotional energy into this, to the detriment of my JOB as I should have been working for these past almost 4 days now... and when you consider that I make $## an hour, I think you can understand that my investment in this discussion with you is not only an emotional one.)<br /><br />Thank you for your consideration.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Don Sr.</b> June 17 at 5:29pm Report<br />First of all ....no offense taken. Again I most likely can't measure up to your IQ. To me, the world is not black and white. I can't prove or disprove that Jesus walked on the water. I've seen magicians and illutionist do that. I wasn't there when this happened. Maybe I need to symplify this for my sake as well as yours. If tonight I am beamed aboard the Star Ship Enterprise and am shown that Jesus was actually Mr. Spock being held up by a tractor beam, I might have a change of heart. I don't see that happening. If you think this is rediculus, remember that space travel to the moon was laughable back in the biblical times. My faith is nothing new or inventive, I just choose not to be identified by my denomination or anything else. I am smart enough to know that the bible is old, and we can argue if the flood covered the whole earth or the whole Known world. Our faith grows because it is<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Don Sr.</b> June 17 at 5:38pm Report<br />Living. Yes faith is believing without seeing. i believe a person can think for themselves and my faith is not formed by DR. James Dobson.<br />The fact that I can, makes it reality. If I'm wrong and end up worm bait for enternity, you are more then welcome to laugh. That I believe that life is alot more then the few years we have on this planet gives me hope in living and sharing my life with others. Is that the difference between optamism and pesamism(sp) ? Science, I love it, embrase it and know that it is falable. After all it is not perfect and it continues to grow, just like relegion.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b> June 17 at 5:56pm<br />So why aren't you a Muslim? A religion with just as many people claiming that miracles happened in the name of their God, in a religion that denies the divinity of Christ, and a more recent revelation of the Abrahamic faith, as Christianity was to Judaism? Why are those 1.2 to 1.5 BILLION people wrong, and their eye witness accounts in their scriptures?<br /><br />Or why aren't you a Jew, who were there before Christianity, with Jesus actually being one... and upon the authority of which Christianity was founded and Jesus himself staked his claims?<br /><br />What makes those religions false, but yours true?<br /><br />How about Hinduism? It predates Christianity by well over a thousand years, and has almost a billion followers? And also has eye witness accounts.<br /><br />Again, you're failing to see that you're not following the logic through... you're not applying the same standard of critical assessment to your own religious beliefs as you're applying to others. You're not acknowledging that by the same standards that you assert the validity of your own beliefs, the others must be true as well... and they cannot all be true, as there are numerous mutually exclusive claims between them, contrary goals, etc.<br /><br />We do know that magicians and illusionists make it look like they walk on water... but today people know that magic isn't real, and we can see how they did the tricks etc. That really doesn't relate to the claims of a book from thousands of years ago... which is better address by what I just wrote a moment ago.<br /><br />This is the reason why, given the problem I laid out, why we base our decisions on sound reason, actual evidence, etc... because that is the best way we as human beings have to establish the nature of the reality in which we live... what is true and false... what is objective fact verses opinion or fallacious claim etc.<br /><br />Also, like I said, atheists don't claim that there isn't anything in the universe beyond our understanding. We only claim to know what is true or false based on what we DO know... and based on that, we DO know that Christianity itself is nothing more than one of many absurd ancient mythologies, and wasn't even the most popular in its day... and really only took off because of the ideas about redemption, salvation, eternal life, etc.<br /><br />The problem is that while you're trying to imply that you only believe in some vague concept of an impersonal deistic God, a concept less difficult to defend than that Abrahamic God and Jesus specifically... the God you specifically cite, both in the manner you describe your belief, and even explicitly in your words, is the Christian God and your faith in Jesus Christ as your savior etc.<br /><br />The point is that you're claiming your absolutely objectively unsupported claims of FACT are MORE valid and somehow deserve more merit than the actual wealth of ACTUAL OBJECTIVE FACT that we have that proves your beliefs WRONG.<br /><br />That's not an opinion Don. It's a fact that we know based on all that objective evidence and verified and validated understanding of it. All things which your beliefs are utterly lacking.<br /><br />You cannot claim to be RIGHT about something you yourself admit you cannot possibly know. You can't claim it as true, and you can't deny actual REAL FACTS because they contradict that claim for which you cannot possibly know.<br /><br />And as for science, as I explained to you already, science inherently acknowledges its fallibility. The entire scientific method is built on the understanding that human knowledge is limited, and seeks to expand itself through studying the objective facts, testing its hypotheses, trying to intentionally disprove them so that it can correct its own errors.<br /><br />It is nothing like religion, again as I already explained... so please don't start irritating me by repeating things that you've already misstated and I've already corrected more than once.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b> June 17 at 6:02pm<br />Now answer me honestly, are you actually reading what I'm writing? You seem to not have read or understand at all the information about the difference between and objective fact and subjective opinions or beliefs, in spite of me having repeated it at least 3 different times now and even gave a link to an article further explaining it...<br /><br />It just seems like you skim a little of what I say, having already decided you're not going to really think about what I'm saying... and you just go on and continue denying what I'm saying and asserting the validity of your own position.<br /><br />For instance we CAN prove that by EVERY SINGLE THING we know as OBJECTIVE FACT about the world we live in.... there is NO WAY Jesus could have walked on water in the miraculous sense clearly meant in the bible (considering that Peter sunk when he began to doubt, so we know he wasn't just standing on a sandbar, aside from the fact that that would completely negate the intended miracle of it).<br /><br />So because we know that there is no way, based on all the objective, factual evidence that he walked on water as written, that leaves us to consider how accurate and authoritative the biblical account itself is, and how its claims stack up against other religious claims both contemporary to and preceding and proceeding it.<br /><br />And that is where you have to face the fact that if you believe these things as true solely because the book itself claims them to be true... then the very same kind of claims, by the very same standard of evidence, of other religions, must also be true... and because we know they can't all be true... then we MUST rely on what we DO know to be true... the objective facts rather than the unsupported ancient mythological claims that contradict those established objective facts.<br /><br />So you need to answer the question about why it is that you claim the validity of your particular religion and deny the validity of the others?<br /><br />The answer seems fairly clear to me... but I want you to try to answer that question for me, based on everything I've just explained to you.<br /><br />And please don't just tell me I'm wrong and insist why you think you're right. I want you to answer my questions and work through that problem in your head and deal with it rather than trying to skirt around it.<br /><br />Tackle that cognitive dissonance head on and TRY to answer me rationally.<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Don Sr.</b> June 17 at 6:44pm Report<br />Ok let me explain this another way. The bible is the only historical book of that age. Am I missing another book written at the beginning of time. I don't think so. Athiest now want to invent there own history. Everyone wishes they could write their own history but they can't Facts are facts. I hope I havn't waste this time in trying to explain something so simple. lack of evidence is what bothers athiest. History, eyewitness of people who lived during the time vs. guesses from athiest with an agenda. Sorry to get rought with you but that is history.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b> June 17 at 7:08pm<br />Yes, in fact you are missing things from earlier religions... like Hinduism etc... and Egyptian etc... who also have their own distinctly different gods, origins, miraculous claims etc...<br /><br />And for instance at the very time Judaism claims the world was being created, civilizations such as the Egyptians and Sumerians etc were already well in swing and didn't seem to notice or mention this creation, nor especially a giant flood was wiping out all life on Earth at the time claimed, etc.<br /><br />I think you're missing the concept of Historical Fiction, something I thought I'd mentioned already.<br /><br />Just because your favorite book says it, doesn't mean it's true... AGAIN, the reason we contrast with contemporaneous religions, earlier religions, later religions, and especially objective facts as we know them today, archaeological evidence, geological evidence, and everything we know scientifically about the actual age and formation of the Earth, solar system, and on and on and on.<br /><br />We know for a fact that the Old Testament cannot be considered as an infallible source of accurate information about early events. And you know it too. So when we are trying to establish what is factually true, again we use the methods as listed.<br /><br />We're not INVENTING HISTORY Don. We're actually establishing what is OBJECTIVELY REAL AND TRUE based on the ACTUAL EVIDENCE.<br /><br />Hinduism claims that the world rests on the back of a giant turtle, held up by 4 elephants standing on its back.<br /><br />Now why don't we believe this? Because we've obviously traveled all around the world now and even out into space USING F'ING SCIENCE for that latter bit no less... and we've looked at the entire planet, as a sphere floating in the void of space... bound by the principles of physics as we know them, validating science that had clarified this contrary to the ancient biblical claims of a flat Earth... and we traveled to the moon, that the ancients believed was a lesser sun, with the sun and moon being two of the same kind of bodies, and the stars being entirely different... more things we have learned better than since then.<br /><br />So you trying to claim that we're just INVENTING these things is the polar opposite of what is actually happening.<br /><br />YOU RELIGIOUS PEOPLE invented all this crap based on feelings and imagination etc... and science is now ACTUALLY REALLY ANSWERING those original questions.... undoing the long standing mythologies that religion put in place and told us not to question.<br /><br />You know... to have FAITH in.<br /><br />Also, get it through your head that we actually have evidence that proves Christianity wrong. So it's not a lack of evidence Don, it's the fact that you stubbornly insist that your "NO evidence" is better than our "LOTS OF evidence".<br /><br />Got that yet?<br /><br />And I'm sorry, but for as many times as I've explained that point and you still don't get it... *sigh*<br /><br />WE'RE NOT FUCKING GUESSING DON. THESE ARE PROVEN, VERIFIED, OBJECTIVE FUCKING FACTS. FACTS THAT YOU CAN EVEN VERIFY FOR YOURSELF BECAUSE THEY FUCKING EXIST FOR REAL.<br /><br />There is no "atheist agenda". Science isn't pro-atheist... it's simply about finding the objective truth about how things work based on the actual real world evidence etc.<br /><br />You're not getting rough with me... you're just getting stubbornly stupid and it's starting to tick me off again because I tire of fucking repeating myself like I'm hand holding a child because you just can't wrap your head around these very simple explanations.<br /><br />So when treating you like an intelligent adult doesn't work, what the hell else am I supposed to do?<br /><br /><i>"History, eyewitness of people who lived during the time"</i><br /><br />That particularly is a stupid statement considering that I just pointed out that other religions are based on their own eye witness accounts of creation etc... by the claims of their scriptures, both before and after your religion... and they claim DIFFERENT things.<br /><br />Thus the whole damn explanation I already gave you that, just as I feared, went in one ear and out the other.<br /><br />Allow me to leave you with a quote that illustrates the fundamental simple point here that you just can't seem comprehend because it isn't what you want it to be.<br /><br /><i>"You don't use science to show you're right, you use science to become right." --xkcd</i><br /><br />Got that?<br /><br />Science isn't about serving any agenda. It's entire methodology is created to avoid that specifically, using things like the double blind testing methods etc that I already linked you to earlier. It's a method of acquiring knowledge about objective facts and truths, correctly previous information, and using that to make accurate predictions of further information etc.<br /><br />You use that methodology to understand objective facts that exist irrespective of us and our wishes.<br /><br />So you use that methodology to BECOME right by learning what the facts ACTUALLY ARE.<br /><br />NOT by deciding what they are before hand, as you have done, and then trying to find ways to confirm your preconceptions.<br /><br />Can I possibly make that any more clear? I don't think so. And if you can't grasp that Don, I'm sorry but you're an idiot beyond my help because I've run out of patience.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Don Sr.</b> June 17 at 9:07pm Report<br />I read and I just don't understand . Just because you don't like history you cant write your own. One question, what other history book is there. Fact Fact Fact Thae fact that science and athiesm can't disapprove . Please wake up or move on. You are avoiding the truth, there is nothing else matter how you try to change history, you can't. Don't insult people with saying that you know more then the people who were there and wrote about it. Please, it is insulting to everyone.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b> June 17 at 9:34pm<br />No Don, YOU don't understand. There is nothing that makes your bible inherently any more accurate than all the other histories written by other cultures before and after the bible was written that contradict what it says and make their own same claims of eye witness accounts etc.<br /><br />So we're not INVENTING a history, as YOUR religion did (and the others as well), we're establishing what we DO know of history based on ALL of the ACTUAL EVIDENCE that we have. Corroborating contemporary evidence between cultures that lines up with the archaeological evidence, geological evidence, etc.<br /><br />You have a fucking book. That's it.<br /><br />The Hebrew Calender and Judeo-Christian religions etc state the Universe as having been created in 3760 BC.<br /><br />But we know FOR A FACT that that is wrong by literally a factor of almost a MILLION TIMES. And that fact has been verified through numerous different independent methods by independent researchers around the world for years now.<br /><br />We have all the evidence that proves your book wrong.<br /><br />You are a deluded idiot who cannot accept that you have NOTHING to stack up against all the real world evidence that WE ACTUALLY DO have. Just your obviously deep seated need to cling to a provably false ancient myth because you've invested your life in a demonstrable lie.<br /><br />We have TONS and TONS and TONS of actual REAL EVIDENCE Don. YOU HAVE A BOOK. A PROVABLY WRONG BOOK. That's it.<br /><br />You're clinging to a fucking ancient middle eastern tribal myth because it makes you feel better.<br /><br />A small child could understand this... I honestly cannot fathom how you can be so willfully self deluded and dishonest. It's this kind of abject fucking stupidity that makes me hate religion so much... because it takes a grown man like you makes him too fucking stupid to realize that the FACT BASED, EVIDENCE BASED, SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE we have that built the fucking computer sitting in front of him... technology beyond his comprehension (but not mine), was discovered, refined, and built into the machine in front of him using that scientific method... the same damn method that shows, based on all we know now, after 2,000 years of continued advancement, new discoveries, enlightenment etc... THAT WE DON'T LIVE ON THE BACK OF A GIANT FUCKING TURTLE JUST BECAUSE A BOOK WRITTEN BY FUCKING IGNORANT DESERT SHEEP HERDERS THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO SAYS SO.<br /><br />YOU IDIOT.<br /><br />(And that last part was meant as sarcasm, which you'd probably also miss if I didn't point it out... YOUR book says we live on a flat disk with a mechanical dome overhead that holds up a second water ocean, within which are suspended 2 giant twin lights for lighting the day and night, and other tiny lights to navigate by, with the earth as the immovable center of of this system. Only slightly less retarded than the turtle, but just as WRONG.)<br /><br />I'm sorry Don... I give up. You're beyond help. I'm just pissed at this point that I wasted so much time on this... I seriously just don't get how people can be so fucking stubbornly self deluded that they LIE about shit like this.<br /><br />YOU HAVE A FUCKING BOOK AND YOUR WISHFUL THINKING.<br /><br />THAT'S IT.<br /><br />You haven't done a fucking thing aside from deny even that book, that is the ONLY "evidence" you even have... while claiming that it alone somehow invalidates 2,000 years of human progress, enlightenment, discovery, knowledge, understanding, and immeasurable amounts of actual REAL WORLD OBJECTIVE FACTS... convergence and mutually confirmation evidence from countless fields of study.<br /><br />Fuck it... I don't know why I'm wasting my time. Enjoy wallowing in your deluded willfully self imposed ignorance... I have work and study to do.<br /><br />DON'T write me back or I'll block you. You've wasted enough of my time. Try rereading all the information presented and maybe eventually you'll get it. If you want to talk then remotely on my level, then you may contact me. Anything short of that and I'll block you permanently.<br /><br />I hope I've made myself clear.<br /><br />Good luck.<br /></blockquote>JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-86327891617969217622010-06-17T12:17:00.005-04:002010-06-17T13:09:03.289-04:00Your par for course debate with Christians on Facebook.The following is a debate I got into on a friend's profile on Facebook earlier this week. It started out with a man arguing with me, and eventually shifted to his father taking over.<br /><br />My initial point was about the inherent irrationality of religion, and Christianity in particular, and made the point that the more fundamentalist a religious person was, the more irrational they were because irrationality itself is a fundamental requisite for religious belief.<br /><br />These 2 tried every fallacious, dishonest, irrational method of excuse making, distraction, emotional pleas and so forth that they could think of to try to avoid having to accept that reality. They attacked me, they attacked the validity of science itself...<br /><br />So I just wanted to share this as a reference for others who might want to see what happens when you try getting Christians to acknowledge the known facts of modern science that cut the foundation out from under the house of cards that is their religion.<br /><br />(Please pardon the all-caps "shouting" in some parts... facebook comments don't allow bold, italic, etc... so capitalization is the easiest available way to stress particular points. I'd rather leave the discussion as originally made than go back through and reformat it now to change that.)<br /><br /><blockquote><br /><b>Jack</b><br />A thought provoking piece for reasonable people who are unhappy with the direction our country is heading. Hopefully, they'll look past the title and read the whole article. Many Americans fear extreme Islam and well they should. Unfortunately, they don't see that extreme Christianity is just as much a threat to our way of life.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.alternet.org/news/147128/hedges%3A_the_christian_fascists_are_growing_stronger?page=entire">Hedges: The Christian Fascists Are Growing Stronger | News & Politics</a><br />Tens of millions of Americans, lumped into a diffuse and fractious movement known as the Christian right, are aiming for a theocracy.<br />Monday at 6:33am<br />You and 3 others like this.<br /><br /><br /><b>Camille Woods</b><br />So true Jack...."extremes" in any religion have historically proven to be bad for society.( i.e Salem witch trials) We are already driven to be a "better" religion (Christian America) than any other,certainly thats bad enough...but I do see an internal ( within the states) trend of hating or rejecting people of different religions. I am formerlly a Jehovah Witness and dealt with huge amounts of hatred and rejection! Where is our "land of the free"? I have left the religious world at this point mainly due to the many one sided extremes I have found in every church/hall I went<br />to. I havent turned my back on Godm,who I believe exists (and am fine with those who don't) but I have turned my back on religion. I don't want to be associated with the hypocrisy. Sorry for my soap box...simply the title of your article got my mind spinnin..<br />Monday at 7:17am<br /><br /><br /><b>Donald Jr.</b><br />As both a long-standing Christian, as well as an active foreign missionary, I can't say that I disagree with some of the concerns raised in that article. Persecuting, or waging war, in the name of Jesus is akin to digging a hole in the ground in the name of N.A.S.A.; you're going the wrong way! I worry though, much as many Muslims do these days, that people might see the actions of these fanatics, and see them as descriptive of all of our faith, when they are in truth the actions of an admittedly vocal minority. The mindset of extremism, be it Christian, Islamic, Scientific or Atheist, is what I feel is the great enemy of man in the modern world...<br />Monday at 12:04pm<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />Donald, I seem to have to point out from time to time that there is a fundamental (pardon the pun) difference between religious and atheist fundamentalism.<br /><br />Allow me to quote something I wrote 8 months ago in response to a comment on another website where I was in fact chastising an atheist...<br /><br />Hopefully my point is clear enough by the end to illustrate the error in your logic.<br /><br /><blockquote>I think there is an underlying issue here that isn't being addressed.<br /><br />The problem even most religious people have with "religious fundamentalists" is that they take what the bible (or other holy book) says too seriously. They have too much faith. They're too religious. They actually believe in their scriptures etc.<br /><br />What seems to make people good Christians these days is to actually be more secular and take the religion less seriously, and it seems that the closer to secular and humanist, the better.<br /><br />The problem that you, and seemingly many atheists here seem to have with the general atheist "fundamentalists" is that you have people who, as others have pointed out, haven't really done their homework, and don't really understand the scientific reasoning behind the belief etc.. and essentially proudly proclaim their atheism as some angsty badge of "look how edgy and different I am!".<br /><br />What seems to be a common thread in both is that both sides are considered to be better when they actually act more like well educated, reasonable, rational, secular humanists. The more you take religion seriously, the worse you are. The more you tout your atheism without actually understanding the underlying reasoning behind it, the worse you are.<br /><br />In short, the problem with Christian fundamentalists is the religion itself. The more they believe it, the worse they are.<br /><br />This doesn't actually parallel "atheist fundamentalists" because it implies that the more you believe in atheist philosophy, the worse you are, which isn't at all true. The actual problem is with people being ignorant and stubborn to defend a philosophy they either don't fully understand... let me put this another way;<br /><br />You can be a through and through, full blooded, 100% atheist and still be entirely in the right, well educated, can back up your beliefs rationally and calmly etc because atheism itself is not the problem. Human irrationality is... and atheism itself doesn't promote that, quite the opposite. However, Christianity and other religions actually promote as a core tenet irrationality and belief in things not only without evidence, but in spite of evidence to the contrary. Thus the more strongly you follow such tenets, the worse off you are.<br /><br />I see an awful lot of this claim of some kind of equality between Christian and atheist "fundamentalists", but none seem to address that fundamentally important (pardon the pun) distinction. :)</blockquote><br />Monday at 12:33pm ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Donald Jr.</b><br />Unfortunately, I still find your point fundamentally flawed. Firstly, as I may have mentioned before, faith is not the issue with Christian extremists. They are not practicing an excess of faith, since the practices they are employing are in direct contravention to the Bible itself. They are, in fact, taking action that is diametrically opposed to the teachings and beliefs of both the Christian faith, and the established doctrines of all Christian churches. Rather, the problem is what I called the "mindset of extremism" which can be, for the purposes of discussion, defined as self-justification of the pursuit and persecution of those who are different.<br /><br />The same mindset is often utilized by what I would define as "Atheist extremists" as well. As with other religious extremists, these people argue the case for no God, often without any regard to notable facts of any kind. These are people who pursue and attack people of faith simply for having faith. The issue here is not argument, it is action. It is, to my mind, just as wrong to attack a person, verbally or physically, for not being Christian, as it is to do the same to someone for being Christian, and there are examples of both in the world today. Again, the problem is not Atheism nor Faith, but that "mindset of extremism".<br /><br />Lastly, I take a certain issue with your claim that Christianity and other religions promote irrationality and belief without evidence as core values. To my knowledge, the core of Christianity, as well as that of other religions, is the providence of evidence and the support of it's rational assessment. Faith, what you might define as belief without evidence, is quite different. Faith is meant to act as the bridge between what we as a people don't know yet, and what we feel to be true. When we learn something new about the universe, the gap which faith must bridge gets smaller. Whether that gap will ever fully be gone however, is the province of far more complicated (and likely unnecessary) theological and philosophical discussion than would be necessary at this time. However, I truly and fully believe that both science and the Bible are two different ways of telling the exact same story.<br /><br />Lastly, I find it the height of folly to decry something of which one has no knowledge. To attack a belief system, any belief system, without first learning what it is truly about is akin to trying to fight a tank with a catfish; both impossible and ridiculous.<br />Monday at 6:53pm<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />I was more referring to fundamentalist Christians more than the nutjob fascists mentioned in the article, although the departure from reason inherent in both is the same. Both require a denial of the facts and a promotion of irrationality, faith in spite of evidence to the contrary, compartmentalized thinking to avoid coping with cognitive dissonance, etc.<br /><br />So while Christians claim that they know 100% that God is absolutely real, Atheists on the other hand say that honestly we don't know if there is something greater than us beyond our comprehension that might be responsible for the creation of the universe... but that all the evidence we DO have shows us that there is no personal God, no divine intervention... that the stories in the bible upon which the entire Christian faith's authority is founded... that of creation itself, original sin, etc... are easily proven as entirely false. That Noah's Ark is also not remotely true as written in the bible etc (again, something we have proof of).<br /><br />And to be clear, "feeling" something to be true without evidence doesn't make it true. We only establish things to be true or not based on reason and evidence through methods such as the scientific method.<br /><br />So for instance because we know FOR A FACT that the Earth is not a mere 6,000 or so years old... and that the order of creation is not what happened, nor were the first animals created the animals listed in the bible, nor did man originate 6,000 years ago in Mesopotamia, but hundreds of thousands of years earlier in Africa, etc... and based on all of these FACTS we know that the story of creation is nothing more than absurdly and entirely wrong myth... and because of that we know that Adam and Eve were never in the Garden of Eden as claimed, and thus could not have been tempted by a talking serpent to eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thus never committing original sin... and thus not setting up the entire house of cards upon which your claim of our obligation to worship Jesus for buying our pardon from a sin that provably never happened rests etc.<br /><br />Whether or not Jesus BELIEVED that Original Sin actually happened, and that he was buying our pardon from it... is irrelevant. Because neither his belief, nor yours, alters the REALITY that the entire foundation upon which the Christian faith rests... both that of the establishment of Gods authority in the old testament, and Jesus' claims to divinity that rest upon that, all fall apart like a house of cards when we address the WEALTH of modern scientific understanding based on the actual real world facts etc.<br /><br />Now see the thing here is that the only way you can persist in your faith at this point is by DENYING all of that actual real world evidence and sound reason etc... by trying to claim that the bible didn't mean what we know it actually meant (such as the stuff about the Earth being flat, the heavens being an actual mechanical dome overhead holding back a second ocean... a dome in which God supposedly opened actual mechanical floodgates to flood the Earth during the Noah's Ark tale... something I hopefully don't need to address for the provably false absurdity it also is... and we know from a wealth of contemporary evidence that the authors of those books of the bible ACTUALLY BELIEVED those things to be literally true... and it wasn't until many centuries later that the ideas of a spherical Earth first appeared, and a few more centuries before they became standard knowledge... and so on...)...<br /><br />So your claim that the science and the bible are just telling the same story is not only totally false and wrong... but belies a strong lack of understanding of just what science does... as the bible clearly lists Gods explicit commands, the literally intended story of his creation to establish his might and authority etc... and as we've just covered, denying the literal story of the bible, as it was written as Gods word... goes right on down the line and invalidates Jesus' claims to fame as well (aside from some of his moral teachings... but those hardly deserve for him to be worshiped as our savior, the son of God, etc).<br /><br />Also, you mention not to decry a belief system we don't understand... but for instance I decry Christianity as a man who was a Christian for around 25 years and even served as a youth minister for a bit in my late teens to early twenties... and then went through several years of questioning and researching and introspection to get to where I am today... but it would be a lie to try and claim that I do not know Christianity intimately from first hand experience as a Christian and from continued years of study.<br />Monday at 7:48pm ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />To back up my points...<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_%28science%29">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_%28science%29</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroup">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroup</a><br /><br />(which leads into terms like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam</a> , which the Christian mindset of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias instantly tries to mold into their mythology of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden... but these figurative individuals share their name no more than naming the planets after the Roman gods made those gods literally real.<br /><br />I think you can understand why they chose the names. ;) Not to mention that both of these individuals lived far down in Africa, and many thousands of years separated from each other... and were not the first humans either, but merely the earliest common ancestor genetically we can find due to the way Y chromosomes and Mitochondrial DNA are passed down through generations etc.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MatrilinealAncestor.PNG">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MatrilinealAncestor.PNG</a><br /><br />That image shows simply how that early ancestor, while not the only person around, ends up passing her particular mitochondrial DNA on to everyone else...<br /><br />As a matter of fact, just read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Common_fallacies">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Common_fallacies</a> to clarify these points.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating</a><br /><br />And on... and on... and on.<br /><br />Now people can go ahead and make shit up to try to explain things they don't understand... but they cannot claim them as absolute fact and deny reality and all the actual real world evidence that we do have. One also can't just stick their head in the sand so to speak and refuse to look at that evidence as though not acknowledging it, or the ignorance of it (whether willful or not), somehow will make their ignorant beliefs valid merely by not knowing the actual answers, or by denying or trying to avoid other people learning those actual answers.<br /><br />This is just the tip of the iceberg as well, and each of those links has many citations and references to further information... scientific studies, journals, contextual articles, etc etc etc.<br /><br />And to back up why that denial... why those invalid excuses etc are in fact invalid.. and why they don't change the facts...<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_blind_spot</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich_effect">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich_effect</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_instinct">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_instinct</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_escalation">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_escalation</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof</a><br />Monday at 7:49pm ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />I think another example of this is the claim that science... with things like Evolution, are not in conflict with matters of "faith", such as Creation... another point I also addressed with someone else recently...<br /><br /><blockquote>Evolution is a product of the Scientific Method.<br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method</a><br /><br />Intelligent Design is a product of Wishful Thinking.<br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking</a><br /><br /><i>"Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."</i><br /><br /><i>"Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality or reality."</i><br /><br />One is NECESSARILY derived FROM the evidence and must accurately account for the evidence and allow one to make accurate predictions of further evidence yet to be discovered etc.<br /><br />The other NECESSARILY AVOIDS dealing with the evidence and instead relies on existing INDEPENDENT OF the evidence, constantly changing to squeeze into new gaps OUTSIDE of the evidence as old claims are disproven by new evidence and greater understanding provided by the Scientific Method.<br /><br />Hopefully that clarifies the issue a little more.<br /><br />Intelligent Design is wishful thinking.<br /><br />Evolution is a scientific fact. (And read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact</a> before you complain about the usages of fact and theory, if that crossed your mind.)</blockquote><br /><br />So really the fact is that Atheists aren't just saying "we know 100% that there is no god". What we're saying is that Christianity is well and provably false. That the Judeo-Christian God is a childish absurdity created by ignorant ancient tribesmen thousands of years ago.<br /><br />Trying to claim that admitting that we don't know certain things yet supports a belief in your particular God is a logical fallacy ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion</a> etc ). A dishonest and invalid argument.<br /><br />To try to claim that vague deism (a belief in a non-personal creator of some sort) supports your particular faith in Judeo-Christianity and the divinity of Christ as our savior etc is again a logical fallacy... a dishonest and invalid argument. ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation</a> in taking a reference to clearly different concepts of "god" and trying to pretend that they're the same, in spite of clearly being fundamentally different and even mutually exclusive etc )<br /><br />So when you try to reference the "god in the gaps" as some sort of justification for belief in God, you're missing the point that you're not only ignoring and trying to dismiss the importance of your belief continually being proven wrong... such as on essentially every single claim made about the nature of the natural world in the bible... but you're also ignoring that continually trying to avoid acknowledging those countless examples of being proven WRONG and continually reassigning your God to smaller and smaller areas of human understanding... the gaps for which we don't YET know the actual REAL answers, and claiming "THAT is what God did!" doesn't actually tell us anything. It's just a claim of fact without any evidence to support it... wishful thinking...<br /><br />But remember, the important point here is that Christians claim to be 100% correct... that they KNOW that their God is 100% real, no doubt about it. And thus as an extension, that they know that any claims to the contrary are 100% false.<br /><br />Atheists are saying that we know for a fact that Christianity is wrong on countless claims, including the claims that establish the authority of the entire religion. But atheists don't claim to know things they don't yet, or can't possibly know. We only point out the FACTS as they are.<br /><br />So yes... to promote your religion in spite of all the evidence we have to the contrary... in spite of committing countless logical fallacies because you cannot support your faith without them... to claim AS FACT things for which you have no evidence, and in spite of the evidence to the contrary, because you FEEL like they are true... all those things that form your faith are indeed just as I said they were.<br /><br />And think carefully about how you address those facts... because I do know the bible well and I also know what excuses ignore what the bible actually says, what modern biblical scholars, archaeologists, textual critics etc know of history, biblical history, cultures etc and perhaps most importantly what constitutes invalid and fallacious arguments based thereupon.<br /><br />And to bring us back full circle to the main point... it is religion's promotion of that denial of evidence, reason, etc... the compartmentalization, confirmation bias, fallacy riddled view of the world in black and white that fosters and perpetuates the kind of extremism we see... the kind of belief systems that are antithetical to the fact based, evidence supported, fundamentally rational system of belief inherent in atheism.<br /><br />Thanks for reading.<br />Monday at 8:18pm ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Donald Jr.</b><br />Again, I take offense to your claim that religion promotes the denial of evidence. Further, I severely question your lack of knowledge of the Christian faith, if it is your claim that we fly in the face of science. In point of fact, relegating faith to the province of wishful thinking is little more than crass insult guised in scientific dress. You show me evidence, and I will show you God in that evidence. In the meantime, either play nice, or quit the discussion.<br /><br />Can you define faith as wishful thinking? Can you, with science, prove that there is no God? Can you tell me, using that touted scientific method, that God does not exist? There is, in my observance, absolutely no evidence that faith is wrong. Don't get me wrong, I find well-reasoned science to be a wonderful thing. I truly believe that science is a way of explaining in literal terms what faith tries to explain in figurative or philosophical terms.<br /><br />It is the claim, which you have herein advanced, that not only are humans possessed of all possible knowledge, but that that knowledge prohibits the existence of God, which I find both ludicrously and grossly uninformed.<br /><br />For the sake of space, I think I'll stay away from arguing your specific points, only to state that in all of your mentioned categories (Planetary age and Evolution being key examples) there is absolutely no biblical contradiction and, in many cases, the Bible tends to support the given scientific realities.<br /><br />The simple, scientific truth of reality is thus: we don't know. We know absolutely nothing about the existence of God, aside from what religion has to say on the matter. Science has no proof to the contrary, nor has it proof positive either. As such, I would prefer to take the stance advocated by many a wiser man than myself over the years;<br /><br />"I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and find none after death, than to live my life in denial of God, and have to explain to him after the fact."<br />Monday at 8:48pm<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />I addressed the excuses you're making already Donald.<br /><br />Try reading what I wrote. I find your avoidance of almost everything I wrote a bit offensive as well.. as long as we're playing the "I'm offended" game.<br /><br />But back to the facts. It looks like I'm going to have to walk you through this point by point...<br /><br /><blockquote>"Again, I take offense to your claim that religion promotes the denial of evidence."</blockquote> It doesn't matter if it offends you or not, it's a statement of fact, and one you're only reaffirming by avoiding almost everything I just wrote to you.<br /><br /><blockquote>"Further, I severely question your lack of knowledge of the Christian faith, if it is your claim that we fly in the face of science. In point of fact, relegating faith to the province of wishful thinking is little more than crass insult guised in scientific dress."</blockquote><br /><br />I proved my point by providing the evidence that shows that you're wrong, and explained how you MUST deny and avoid that evidence, commit a number of the fallacies I listed, and instead promote your own unsupported wishful thinking as fact without evidence and in spite of the evidence. And you're just continuing to do exactly what I said you're doing and are now acting as those your indignance is going to somehow change the facts that you're trying very hard to ignore.<br /><br /><blockquote>"Don't get me wrong, I find well-reasoned science to be a wonderful thing. I truly believe that science is a way of explaining in literal terms what faith tries to explain in figurative or philosophical terms."</blockquote><br /><br />And yet you just clearly ignored all the actual well reasoned science I just presented that proves the foundation of your Christian religion false. You then go on to assert an absurd claim that science is just explaining "in literal terms what faith tries to explain in figurative or philosophical terms" in spite of the fact that Christianity explicitly states that God specifically sets out his laws and LITERALLY makes claims about the nature of the world we live in, how society should be run, what commands we MUST obey, etc... and you just avoid or deny these things if they become inconvenient for your personal opinion of what you think your religion should be.<br /><br /><blockquote>"It is the claim, which you have herein advanced, that not only are humans possessed of all possible knowledge, but that that knowledge prohibits the existence of God, which I find both ludicrously and grossly uninformed."</blockquote><br /><br />Don't LIE about what I said. I very clearly stated that we do NOT have all knowledge and that atheists actually admit that. I said that the fact that we don't know things yet doesn't make your baseless assertions true and listed the several fallacies you commit when you imply that they do etc. I covered it quite verbosely in fact to the very contrary of what you just claimed. Again, try actually reading what I wrote.<br /><br />And please spare me your ignorant and erroneous attempts at ad hominems while you're at it Donald, I don't take kindly to them. I don't care if you're offended... it doesn't make me wrong, or justify you ignoring what I wrote and baselessly slinging insults at me.<br /><br /><blockquote>"For the sake of space, I think I'll stay away from arguing your specific points, only to state that in all of your mentioned categories (Planetary age and Evolution being key examples) there is absolutely no biblical contradiction and, in many cases, the Bible tends to support the given scientific realities."</blockquote><br /><br />That is a flat out absurd lie. The bible EXPLICITLY lists as the very first man and woman, Adam and Eve, created as part of the God's creation of the heavens and Earth and all the life on it etc, and goes on to list in detail the lineage and ages of all the people between Adam and Jesus. It not only lists the amount of time creation took, and what it meant by the days of creation, but then goes on to list the number of years between that creation and the time of Jesus etc by listing the lineages between them and how long those people lived.<br /><br />The bible further states multiple times the things I listed... a flat Earth... a sun that could stop in the sky... a mechanical dome overhead supporting a second ocean... and these things were meant to be literally true and were believed as such for many centuries until MUCH LATER science PROVED them WRONG.<br /><br />I am appalled at how unashamedly you just LIED about what the bible itself actually says.<br /><br /><blockquote>"The simple, scientific truth of reality is thus: we don't know. We know absolutely nothing about the existence of God, aside from what religion has to say on the matter. Science has no proof to the contrary, nor has it proof positive either."</blockquote><br /><br />And there you actually get a little closer to the truth. But again, I already addressed the fallacy of your excuse... WHICH YOU RUDELY (or out of cowardice, I'm not sure) flat out COMPLETELY IGNORED...<br /><br /><i>"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"), or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true."</i><br /><br /><i>"The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking."</i><br /><br /><i>"Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality or reality."</i><br /><br /><i>"Appeal to emotion is a potential fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. Also this kind of thinking may be evident in one who lets emotions and/or other subjective considerations influence one's reasoning process." (you know, by asserting how offended you are... how indignant... and how stupid and clueless and grossly misinformed I must be... while doing nothing to actually prove that point, and ignoring everything I actually said and all the evidence I presented... as though people should shut up because you're offended, and not listen to me purely because you claim that I'm stupid, in direct opposition to everything I just said and the evidence and reason I gave to back it up.)</i><br /><br />Maybe by typing some of them out for you you might actually pay attention this time and not force me to repeat myself a THIRD time.<br /><br />And in closing... to address the cliche and fallacy riddled tired old Pascal's Wager you unsurprisingly try to foist on us...<br /><br /><blockquote>"As such, I would prefer to take the stance advocated by many a wiser man than myself over the years;<br /><br />"I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and find none after death, than to live my life in denial of God, and have to explain to him after the fact.""</blockquote><br /><br />We can for starters look at this: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#Criticisms">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#Criticisms</a><br /><br />And note that, as I've already stated, you make a number of fundamental errors in your thinking...<br /><br />You assume that the only possible God is YOUR God... a false dilemma on numerous counts... and you assume that you know what that God, if there is one, will reward... and it goes on from there.<br /><br />Pascal's Wager is really not that great or wise... it's a rather ignorant and biased, fallacy riddled excuse for believing in fairy tales that really only sounds wide and profound to people who don't yet know better... of which you are clearly one... but I'm trying to correct that.<br /><br />So again, I'm sorry if you're offended... but try actually reading what I wrote and addressing the facts presented and specifically how that invalidates the specific faith YOU claim to espouse, namely that of Christianity in particular, and the faith that you subsequently go try to preach and spread to others as the truth.<br />Monday at 9:21pm ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />(And if you lie through your teeth again and try claiming that the bible doesn't say the things it does, I will be more than happy to start providing quotations direct from the bible as references to prove my points and illustrate how shamelessly dishonest you're being in denying the very things that I think you know full well the bible actually says, and claiming that science in no way contradicts those biblical claims and in fact supports them... if anything, I find THAT level of breathtaking dishonesty (or delusion) to be offensive. There's nothing I hate more than liars... because without honesty we have no foundation from which to move forward in an honest rational discussion of the facts. Sorry if that sounds a little vitriolic... I think I am justifiably upset with your response, for much more substantial reasons than the demonstrably false claims of feigned indignation and assaults on my character and intellect you made in a vain attempt to preserve your own irrational beliefs.)<br /><br />Attacking my character, my intelligence, my motivations etc... aren't going to make the facts go away.<br /><br /><i>"Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."</i><br /><br />You may also want to read the following: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dishonesty</a><br /><br /><blockquote>"Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:<br /><ul><br /><li>the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading</li><br /><li>the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.</li><br /></ul><br /><br />Rhetoric may be used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty."</blockquote><br /><br />And honestly at this point I think I'm so disgusted and pissed off about how dishonest you're being that I think I will go ahead and start quoting the bible verses that prove that you're lying about what the bible actually says, and the real relationship between those claims and those of modern science etc.<br /><br />I want to make it perfectly clear how deceptive you're being in your statements in an attempt to discredit myself and the sound evidence and reason I presented.<br />Monday at 9:34pm ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Vicki</b><br />Jack, Why do you get these things going?<br />Monday at 9:54pm<br /><br /><br /><b>Don Sr.</b><br />I guess if you can quote bible texts, it makes you an expert. I can read a science book but it doesn't make me a scientist. Showing ones ingorance on line shows a lack of ones conviction in their own mental abilities. If you can't fathom what faith is, go ahead and rely on your scientific notions. I'll defend your right to an opinion, even if everyone else thinks it is wrong.<br />Monday at 10:11pm<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />Vicki: Because they need to be addressed. Because the kind of irrationality I've been pointing out is precisely what leads to the kind of problems listed in the article that Jack linked. Those are very real problems the world not only faces today, but has for centuries... and people are still being executed TODAY in a number of countries based on those irrational beliefs, and human rights in general are suppressed and violated in many more countries as a result of them as well. (such as the Catholic Church claiming that preserving its authority is more important than defending children from being raped, and thus stating, from the Pope on down, that children and their families are to be threatened with excommunication, which for Catholics means an eternity in Hell, if they speak about the crimes committed against them to anyone, especially law enforcement etc... claiming that the importance of preserving the Church and what it stands for is more important etc. Not to mention countless other examples I can list.)<br /><br />When rational people see crimes being committed in the name of, by the supposed authority of, and by the direction of these irrational mythologies... we feel compelled as human beings to stand up against these delusions for the sake of all humanity that we might leave these dark ages behind us. We have enough problems to deal with as a result of basic human faults like greed etc that we don't need to greatly exacerbate the problem by promoting irrationality, delusion, and hostility toward fact, reason, logic, evidence, etc.<br /><br />Don: Again, you avoid everything I said. I didn't claim to be an expert... merely to have studied these issues for years and to be presenting FACTS as such that you need to address as such instead of continuously trying to use ad hominems and other excuses as red herrings to try to distract everyone from them.<br /><br />One doesn't have to be an expert to be well informed and present factual information to be addressed as such. Again, your argument is fallacious. You haven't in any way shown me to be ignorant, and even if I were, you still need to actually show where I was wrong instead of just insisting that I am without actually showing how those facts and reasoning are in error.<br /><br />These statements aren't merely my OPINION as you disingenuously assert... they are statements of facts as the collective best of human minds have independently verified around the world... mutually reaffirming real world evidence and understanding upon which modern technology, medicine, space travel, etc are based upon because it is actually REAL and accurate and thusly able to be built upon to further expand our understanding and accurately predict future discoveries etc... such is the scientific method.<br /><br /><i>"Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."</i><br /><br />And just as I said originally, you are repeatedly denying what that evidence presents and the repercussions it has on the claims of your particular religion's claims of fact about the world we live in, and by extension the claims your religion holds about why we should worship your God/Jesus, etc.<br /><br />So again... and to try to put it a little more clearly:<br /><br />Science proves that the claims of the bible about the nature of creation, and of the origin of sin, are provably false. And as such, the ritual human sacrifice of Jesus to buy our pardon from that sin, which provably never happened in the first place, was a moot act as there was no "original sin" to buy our pardon from, aside from the primitive notion that ritual human (or animal) sacrifice absolves anyone of guilt for their crimes in the first place etc.<br /><br />(See <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12-21&version=NIV">Romans 5:12-21</a> for a helpful clear explanation of the relation between the literal claim of Adam's original sin and the subsequent greatness of Jesus' death that is requisite on the literal act of Adam introducing sin to humanity as described in Genesis as the very foundation of its claim of our obligation to worship Jesus as our Lord and Savior etc.)<br /><br />So you keep on avoiding dealing with that key premise of my argument and only repeatedly illustrating my point about the employment of numerous fallacious and invalid arguments, dishonesty with yourself and others, irrationality etc... in the pursuit of preserving your religious faith in a provably false doctrine.<br /><br />Address the facts... and quit hollowly insisting that I'm wrong, or perhaps more importantly, avoiding addressing how the facts themselves and the logical consequences of those facts are in any way invalid, without giving any evidence to support your assertions.<br /><br />How many times do I need to point out that you insisting that I'm wrong, or stupid, or whatever.. DOESN'T ADDRESS THE VALIDITY OF THE FACTS THEMSELVES OR HAVE ANY BEARING ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY THEMSELVES ARE TRUE OR FALSE.<br /><br />And for someone that says that the bible is actually supported by the bible, and there is no disagreement at all between them etc... you don't seem to be taking me pointing out the contrary, WITH EVIDENCE TO BACK MY CLAIMS UP (unlike yours) very well.<br /><br />Try again Don... because thus far you're only serving as a perfect example of my original point... and while I thank you for the validation.. my intent is to get you to admit to the facts, not to merely serve as another example of the kind of faults I outlined in faith and the harm it does to human reason, human rights, and human progress for ALL of us.<br />Monday at 10:31pm ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />Maybe I need to put this another way...<br /><br />Don... are you asserting the factual, literal truth of the creation story, including Adam and Eve and the origin of sin?<br /><br />Are you also asserting the validity of the claim that Jesus dying on the cross bought our pardon from that sin, as stated in the bible itself?<br /><br />Are you claiming that the stories in Genesis of the nature of the creation, the order and nature of the creation and what was created are factually true and accurate? Noah's Ark, etc?<br /><br />Are you asserting that all the modern day scientific evidence we have is wrong, given that it clearly proves that none of these events happened in any way as written? Denying all the other contemporary evidence we have from numerous other fields of study that reaffirms that these things were written as literally true beliefs when written, and maintained as such for centuries thereafter, the denial of which was punished by death for heresy?<br /><br />Or are you going to admit that the bible is demonstrably and provably wrong in its claims. Claims that are contrary to what we know to be factually true and supported by a wealth of evidence from numerous disparate fields of study.<br /><br />Or are you going to do exactly what I originally said Christians MUST do to maintain their faith, and deny what the bible says, what the biblical authors believed and meant when they wrote it (again, supported by a wealth of real world evidence), and what the modern day real world evidence, logic, reason etc says to the contrary of those ancient mythological claims?<br /><br />Is that simple enough? I believe I've made my argument clearly enough and provided more than enough evidence and sound reasoning to support my position.<br /><br />I expect you to address the facts as such and quit with your empty assertions that I'm ignorant, stupid, or whatever other baseless and invalid ad hominems you might be tempted to attempt to distract everyone (seemingly including yourself) from those uncomfortable facts.<br /><br />(And on a side note, also quit with the equivocation... trying to slide back and forth from the specific Christian dogma to vague deistic "faith" as it suits you to try to avoid having to address the facts and their direct repercussions to Christian doctrine. In spite of my points still illustrating how and why you're in the wrong... I dislike you continuing to do something I've already explicitly addressed as a logically fallacious method of addressing the facts.)<br /><br />Thanks.<br />Monday at 10:46pm ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />(Typo correction: "And for someone that says that the bible is actually supported by the bible, and there is no disagreement at all between them etc..." should be "And for someone that says that the bible is actually supported by science, and there is no disagreement at all between them etc...")<br />Monday at 10:50pm ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Donald Jr.</b><br />I think I'm going to have to agree with my father on this point; you've a right to an opinion, even if it is based solely on anger and hostility. I can't imagine what must have happened to drive you to a position of such outright hatred, but you do have my sympathy.<br /><br />The problem here is that you've taken an argument, which can be expressed in a myriad of shades of grey, and boiled it down to "Us vs. Them" bilateral perspectivism. You hold this thought that "If you don't believe "A" than you must believe "B". Furthermore, you're putting a number of words in my mouth, holding me to assertions that not only did I not make, but that are not even biblically supported. (for example, " the only possible God is YOUR God..", which is flatly contradicted numerous times in the Bible itself, and receives mention even in the 10 Commandments). Often, many of the claims you make can be directly disputed by simply reading the Bible. I would recommend reading the original Hebrew text of Genesis; the understanding of the Hebrew word we translate as "Day" may shed some light on this issue.<br /><br />There is a technique for a civilized discussion my friend, and you are not even in the correct hemisphere. You claim facts not in evidence, and draw justifications for your own anger from literalist interpretations of the English translation of the Bible and excerpts from Wikipedia. This is not the behavior of someone seeking truth; this is more the province of a petulant, troubled soul.<br /><br />When, or if, you are prepared to hold a legitimate, calm discussion on the issue without resorting to hostility and rage, I'll be glad to indulge. However, in the meantime, I'll wish you the best of luck, and withdraw from an obvious impasse. There will be no further replies from me.<br /><br />*My apologies to Mr. Adams; it was not my intent to incite such strife on your facebook. I was merely looking for a good discussion. I am very sorry for my part in causing your facebook to be so crowded of late!*<br />Monday at 11:16pm<br /><br /><br /><b>Don Sr.</b><br />Calm down Justin. The fact that you believe so strongly is admirable. The fact that you want to incorperate science, relegion, and everything else into one neat little package suggest a lack or creativity (in My humble opinion) To claim that science is perfect is wrong as the earliest scientist saying the earth is flat, or people who claimed aids could only be transmitted by homosexual contact. My faith is exactly that, between God and Me. If you wish to rely on the everchanging face of science, go ahead. By the way, you are discussing with two different Dons and you didn't even realize it.<br />Monday at 11:26pm<br /><br /><br /><b>Don Sr.</b><br />by the way, what do we get for winning this argument?<br />Monday at 11:28pm<br /><br /><br /><b>Don Sr.</b><br />Please say Hi to Kaylee for me. Glad to hear you are doing well.<br />Monday at 11:31pm<br /><br /><br /><b>Jack</b><br />No problem Donald. I enjoy these debates. However, this wasn't really a debate. It was a one-sided, old fashioned butt whooping and you lost. Had I been online when this got started, I would have advised you not to get into it with Justin because he has done his homework on this topic and you, along with most other "believers" obviously have not. The only advice I would give you is to not expect everyone to respect your religion just because you believe in it. If you do, you should not engage in this kind of discussion.<br />Monday at 11:56pm<br /><br /><br /><b>Donald Jr.</b><br />I'd grant that description fair enough; I planned for a discussion and wandered into a small war! What I would say though, is the same thing that I said at first, before the argument got so far afield.. The problem in the original article is not Christianity. The behaviors it argues against would be equally intolerable were they done by Muslims or Buddhists. My point was simply that the attitude of hateful, angry extremism; the aim to persecute and attack those who hold a differing belief, is the greater problem, whether that attitude comes from a Christian or, as we have seen, from an Atheist. Intolerance, regardless of it's motivation, is itself intolerable. That's all I was trying to say. As for the more advanced theology, I'll consult my reference library at home when I'm done teaching for the day, and perhaps I'll chime back in with something a little better researched!<br />Yesterday at 12:10am<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />Sorry for accidentally confusing you (Don) with Donald. ;) I noticed the difference in the email notifications just now and wondered why there was a "Don" and "Donald".<br /><br />That said...<br /><br />I never claimed science was perfect either. The fact that science isn't perfect is specifically acknowledged as part of the scientific method... the acknowledgment that we should always seek to improve it, to question it, to seek to disprove it if possible etc. No actual scientists, nor even anyone who actually understands it, would ever claim it was perfect... instead, that is generally the claim of religion; "The infallible and inspired word of God" etc. ;)<br /><br />You also make a fallacious argument in claiming that because science was once wrong about a flat Earth... which is erroneous on several levels, as "scientists" weren't really the ones who thought the Earth was flat, and were (academics of the time) actually the ones responsible for correcting this error... that somehow a claim that has been known to be false for around 2,000 years now somehow draws into question the validity of scientific facts today. Something that should be clearly refuted by the explanation of what the scientific method actually is and how it works.<br /><br />Also, while science moved on to correct the information about how AIDS is transmitted, along with having in the past accurately described the transmission of diseases in the first place... contrary to the religious claims of possession by demons etc... religious people are STILL today claiming that AIDS is a curse from God on gays etc. Just another odd example of you trying to disparage science by ignoring the implicit methodology of science and trying to credit religion with science's methods, discoveries, etc while mistakenly (seemingly intentionally) claiming that because science has, through the error checking fundamentally inherent in its process, corrected past errors that were exposed THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD ITSELF, that somehow we should instead trust ignorance, superstitions, made up answers (that have since been proven false) etc...<br /><br />I mean... your statement falls flat on its face in so many different ways that it's hard to really quantify just how wrong it is. (But obviously I try none the less.)<br /><br />Also, your faith isn't just between you and your God, as I'm guessing you live your life according to the believe that your faith is real, your religion correct, and the teachings of it and commandments by God etc are valid and authoritative etc. Your decisions in life are thus based upon that flawed foundation, which subsequently taints every other decision or reasoning based thereupon etc.<br /><br />A simple example is the very oft quoted justification for voting against equal rights for gays, citing God's feelings about it being an abomination that should be punished with execution. The list goes on and on, including things like voting for candidates for public office, including the Presidency etc, based on whether or not a person believes in God, or as is more specifically the case in the US, in Christianity and not just any generic God.<br /><br />When the basis for such important decisions, which affect all of us in a country, state, city etc... is on provably false mythology contrary to reason, facts, evidence, logic etc... and goes further in many cases to fight against medical advances, equal rights, sound education in schools (such as trying to tear down evolution in favor of creationism)... those things affect all of us.<br /><br />So it's not accurate or honest to act like your faith is purely a matter between you and your God. Nor would that negate the fact that the facts I presented which prove Christianity to be founded on provably false claims, fallacies etc. It doesn't matter if you believe it... it's still false and we're still right in saying so (and providing the actual evidence to prove it).<br /><br />ALSO... You try to act as though science should be disregarded because it is "ever changing", in spite of that being the very source of its strength, and the reason for which you are able to sit at your computer and type your messages to me etc... also ignoring the fact that by any reasonable standard of verifiable fact, evidence, etc... your "faith" is religion LONG since refuted by any standard of evidence and accuracy etc before we reach any level at which science becomes questionable. So quite an absurd disparity of standards of evidence and so forth.<br /><br />(Logical inconsistency, special pleading, impartiality, begging the question, etc etc... countless logical fallacies are evident in your line of reasoning... and I could go on explaining how they apply, but hopefully this is enough of a start to get my point across.)<br /><br />And what we get for "winning this argument" is to actually better understand the world we live in, to be honest about what the facts are and how they relate to the real world... to free ourselves as best we can from irrationality, superstition, ancient mythology, etc... and to continue refining that knowledge and correcting our errors by the very same methods that have gotten us to where we are today (no longer fearing lightning as spears from God in retribution for our misdeeds etc, able to treat and cure most illnesses that in the past would have been deadly or life threatening, and for which the bible tells us that prayer and anointing with oils will cure us of.. ETC...)<br /><br />I suppose I will close this comment with some words from one of the great scientific minds of modern history...<br /><br /><i>"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."</i><br /><br /><i>"Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries."</i><br /><br />--Carl Sagan ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan</a> )<br /><br />With that said, I look forward to Donald, or even you Don, answering the questions I'd laid out previously in light of the facts as we know them today, in the clear context of the nature of fallacious arguments, invalid reasoning, erroneous claims, etc in which I presented them.<br /><br />Thanks. (And thanks for the good word Jack.)<br />Yesterday at 12:21am ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />Donald: First off, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "I'd grant that description fair enough". Could you clarify a bit?<br /><br />As you seem to also admit, the problem is with religion in general (Islam, Mormonism, Judaism, Buddhism, etc... all suffer from the same kinds of fallacies, irrationality, claims of fact without evidence and despite evidence to the contrary etc. The list of flaws in reasoning apply just as readily to them as well... such as Mormons claiming that the Native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel in spite modern DNA evidence proving that they're not... something they simply deny and try oddly enough using pseudo-science to try to refute... <a href="http://www.irr.org/mit/southerton-response.html">http://www.irr.org/mit/southerton-response.html</a> ), and more specifically, with the mentality behind religion in general that I discussed at length, of believing in ancient mythologies, superstitions, etc... in spite of evidence to the contrary, rationality, logic, etc. And the "extremism" in religion is merely that fundamentally inherent irrationality taken to extremes.<br /><br />I contrasted that with the fact that there really is no such flaw inherent in too much rationality, acknowledgment of the facts, evidence, etc. (In spite of Don's claim that somehow looking for evidence and being able to admit when we've been mistaken, and correcting those mistakes to increase the accuracy and validity of our knowledge is a BAD thing, and thus we should prefer baseless "revelations" and "feelings" etc... trying to dismiss evidence supported, testable, and verified FACTS as mere opinions of less merit that religious claims of infallible fact... man, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse having to clarify all these fundamental points so much, but it seems they just fall on deaf ears/blind eyes otherwise...)<br /><br />And the examples we've seen in history of crimes that were committed by incidentally atheist people have been done by exploiting the very same kinds of subservience to authority without question, lack of critical assessment of claimed facts, etc. (Totalitarian regimes etc replace God with themselves as the object of the same kind of worship... and people like Hitler strongly espoused Christianity as vital to a healthy populace, held "God is with us" as a motto, banned any literature promoting science such as Darwin's theory of evolution and also banned any literature critical of Christianity, created strong ties with the Vatican to ensure the support of the people and promote the idea that their cause was just and performed by God's authority as righteous etc.)<br /><br />As I laid out at length, the very same irrationality that is illustrated in those "extremists" is fundamentally and inherently a REQUIREMENT of religious belief. Religion is the breeding ground for the minds that think in such black and white terms, who cannot see the contradictions, who ignore the evidence, etc. And as I also pointed out, if an atheist incidentally falls to the same kind of irrationality, they are also wrong... but science itself is the antithesis of that kind of "faith without evidence", irrationality, belief based on feelings rather than facts etc... and atheism is just an extension of that rational, fact based, critical assessment, and evidence supported view of the world we live in.<br /><br />The quest to dispel those flawed methods of thinking... to get people to see when they are holding conflicting beliefs etc... that is the quest to cut the roots out from under such irrational and dangerous extremism... and religion is necessarily a part of that quest because it is both a cause and a symptom of that irrationality. It is not even merely collateral damage... but a valid direct target for being the foremost proponent of that kind of thinking, because it cannot exist without it.<br />Yesterday at 1:00am ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Donald Jr.</b><br />Check your own anger, and see again if extremist irrationality is limited to the religious. You cite the actions of extremists as representative of the faith in its entirety, much as many do with those of the Muslim faith these days. It seems to me that you are driven far more strongly to attack my faith, than I am to move against your lack thereof. I admit that, amidst your anger, you raise a number of good points which I would much enjoy discussing, given time and cooler heads. For now though, I'll simply say good day.<br />Yesterday at 1:18am<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />Irritated and frustrated yes.. not so angry with this particular discussion. But that said, even if I were, there is nothing wrong with justified anger at certain things... like defending child rapists in the name of God etc. :)<br /><br />Regardless, as I've said several times, MY (supposed) ANGER DOESN'T AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF THE FACTS. So please quit with the ad hominem attempts at avoiding the main point. Your religion is provably false.<br /><br />Not to mention that contrary to your ridiculous claim, it would not even be "extremist irrationality", but rather extremist rationality. Something I've been clarifying to you repeatedly... something that is obviously necessary seeing as it's clearly not getting through to you.<br /><br />I'm not irrational just because you don't like what I have to say. You can't just make things up to try to insult me and somehow think that your baseless claims counter to the evidence presented are somehow magically valid just because you say so (a habit you probably picked up as a part of your religion... but I digress...).<br /><br /><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational</a><br /><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrational">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrational</a><br /><br />Now you could actually justify calling me a rational extremist... but that wouldn't be much of an insult now would it. ;)<br /><br />You're welcome to try to attack the validity of the facts I presented... in fact that is what I have been requesting that you do, and what you keep avoiding doing.<br /><br />I, unlike you, welcome you to try to critically assess the information presented. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE WHOLE POINT.<br /><br />(Also, as I touched on earlier (a recurring theme it seems), the only thing making religious people NOT as crazy or dangerous is in taking their own religions less seriously. Ignoring God's clear commands etc... thus it is perfectly valid to address the failures and invalidity of the religion itself as the root of the problem. Just because a Christian is ignorant of his own religion and essentially makes it up as they go and for the most part is a good person doesn't magically make them RIGHT in their religious beliefs, nor magically validate the provably false claims of that religion etc. Such as the fact that Islam mandates the punishment of DEATH for apostasy. And countless times calls for the death or subjugation of people of different faiths etc. Just because people don't actually follow their holy books as often any more doesn't magically change what those books say God himself, or his prophets, command etc. And it is only thanks to enlightenment and the advancement of society, often in spite of the best efforts of the religious to the contrary, that we have moved past things like slavery, oppression of women, laws against inter-racial marriages, segregation, laws against teaching sound science in schools (a fight we're still sadly fighting tooth and nail today) and on and on.<br /><br />It is only because those people follow the modern day societal norms of morality, modern day understanding of the world we live in, etc that they RIGHTFULLY reject huge chunks of the bible that they RIGHTFULLY find as morally objectionable, barbaric, or even outright appallingly evil by today's standards. That is thanks to HUMAN REASON AND PROGRESS... IN SPITE OF RELIGION.)<br /><br />Also, please don't even IMPLY that me pointing out, with the evidence and sound reasoning to back it up, that your religious beliefs are in error is in ANY WAY remotely in the same category as religious extremism.<br /><br />I'm not threatening you with hell, or execution, or bodily harm, or any of the other things that are core tenets of the Abrahamic faiths.<br /><br />(And I could go off on a long digression about how your God demands that you kill me, and to be the one to strike the first blow in doing so... and that Jesus himself subsequently goes on to clarify that he did NOT come to do away with those old laws of God, but to ensure they persist and are fulfilled until the end of time.. and goes on to clarify that while loving your neighbor may be one of the greatest commandments, the GREATEST is to OBEY and love God above all else... including his laws... and further goes on to restate the validity of punishment BY DEATH for violating those laws... referencing the punishment for failing to obey the law for honoring your father and mother... and goes on at length to promote the idea of trying to avoid committing a crime in the first place, or to make amends before you go before the court... as if you are convicted of your crime, you deserve the just punishments.. including death... for things such as being gay, not being a virgin on your wedding night, being an atheist, worshiping a different god, etc etc etc. And remember... that's just quoting your own bible. I'm not saying it's necessarily right or true... but it's the book YOU CLAIM IS. But enough of that for now...)<br /><br />I'm just telling you you're wrong and trying to get you to act like a rational, intelligent, mature adult and address the facts as presented without resorting to attacking my personal character, motivations, etc in an attempt to distract everyone, seemingly including yourself, from what those facts have to say about your religion and associated beliefs.<br /><br />I think I have every right to get angry when I get paralleled with such religious extremists. It's incredibly absurd and highly insulting (and yes, I've had Christians flat out say that I am more evil and more dangerous than any suicide bomber terrorist. And we have the absurd irrationality inherent in, and promoted by, religion... including your own provably false brand of it... to thank for that. Again, just another reason to try to promote rational thought, addressing the actual facts, evidence, etc.)<br /><br />Hurting your feelings by proving that you are mistaken is a FAR cry from saying you deserve to die and be tortured for eternity, wouldn't you say?<br /><br />(And on that note, it's bedtime for us as well... errands to run in the morning. Goodnight everyone.)<br />Yesterday at 1:53am ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Don Sr.</b><br />I am impressed by your knowledge . Your arguments would be valid if all relegion were meshed together. The same thing happens if I were to mesh all the scientist together.Your "relegious" argument is all over the board as is mine about science. Both you and My son,Donald" have strayed from the center into what we call extremes. When you have two extremist in a room, you then have a true debate that will never be solved. As far as my faith being between God and It cannot be argued. If you believe in God, you know in that time when you come before God, what you did with your life is between God and you. You can't blame someone else. That is what I meant by your faith being between God and you. The most important part of the Bible is when they asked Jesus what was the most important comandment. In short he answers, Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandmnet all else hangs towards.<br />Yesterday at 11:12am<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />Don: I directly addressed the fallacies and errors in Christianity specifically verbatim. Please don't pretend I didn't. Address them as such.<br /><br />You also erroneously presume that your God is the "one true God" etc just because your bible says so... thus leading you to believe that you know what God thinks, wants etc... a false dilemma on top of begging the question etc.<br /><br />You may want to go back and read my response to your son's reference to what is better known as Pascal's Wager.<br /><br />In short, you presuppose the validity of your bible based faith, without evidence, and in spite of the evidence to the contrary, and then use that unsupported and invalid "faith" to flat out ABSOLUTELY deny all the actual real world evidence, logic, reason etc to the contrary. (and in doing so expect a level of evidence from science and reason which can not only never be reached, as you flat out state that nothing can ever change your religious beliefs, but a level which would have long since been enough to dismiss your own groundless and fallacy ridden faith long LONG before ever even nearing the kind of level of evidence and fact that you'd demand of actual real world reason, science, fact, etc... if you weren't, by your own admission, an entirely closed minded religious zealot.)<br /><br />I also, LAUGHABLY at this point, ADDRESS YOUR VERY COMMENT and stated it correctly before you just now tried pulling it out on me... which only goes to illustrate the point that you're not even reading what I actually wrote.<br /><br />And I QUOTE: <i>"and goes on to clarify that while loving your neighbor may be one of the greatest commandments, the GREATEST is to OBEY and love God above all else..."</i><br /><br />And to prove that point...<br /><br /><b>Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV):</b><br /><i>"36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."</i><br /><br /><b>Mark 12:28-31 (NIV):</b><br /><i>"28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"<br /><br />29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31 The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."</i><br /><br /><b>Deuteronomy 6:13-17 (NIV):</b><br /><i>"13 Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. 14 Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; 15 for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land. 16 Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah. 17 Be sure to keep the commands of the LORD your God and the stipulations and decrees he has given you."</i><br /><br />and of course Jesus himself...<br /><br /><b>Matthew 5:17-20 (NIV):</b><br /><i>"17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."</i><br /><br />Don't try quoting the bible to me like I have no idea what it actually says, ESPECIALLY after you make it clear that you're not even bothering to read and pay attention to what I've said before you go ignorantly trying to assert how wrong I am.<br /><br />I don't mind someone disagreeing with me.. but I have a real problem with people telling me I'm wrong when they clearly haven't bothered to actually read what I wrote, or THINK about it, or honestly address what I actually wrote etc. We can't have a valid discussion here if you won't address the actual facts presented or be honest about what I've said, what those facts and reasoning entail etc.<br /><br />I also very clearly pointed out why it was both stupid and insulting to say the least to call me an extremist, as though my positions were identically extreme and equally wrong and irrational, and yet you went right ahead and did that as well.<br /><br />Did you honestly read ANYTHING AT ALL that I wrote before you ignorantly and fallaciously tried attacking me in defense of your own ignorant and willful delusion?<br />Yesterday at 11:38am ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Don Sr.</b><br />Ok, I,m just a simple country preacher and would not ever have a sermon that long to try to get to a point. Your bible text, though taken out of order, are impressive and shows that God is trying to work in your life. I made the point that everything improves on itself and the Bible is no different. To counter something said in the new testement with something said in the old testament is like me saying that science is wrong because of something said years ago. Justin, If I said you were wrong, I apologize. In my belief, there is only one judge, and It's not me. The reason I won't argue the Bible is because my faith has grown past it. Remember, FAITH is believing in something not seen, ergo I can't see gravity, but I have faith that it is there. I believe, in my humble opinion, that tearing apart the bible to win an argument is unproductive and I won't do it. It's not that I'm stubborn or unwilling to open my mind, but it's quite the contrary. I love when people question my faith and that gives me the chance to discuss, and maybe even learn something new. You want me to show you scientific proof that there is a God. I can't. Do you want me to give you proof that my relegion is the only right one? I can't. Can I say that your thinking is wrong? Nope, can't do that either. I can only share what I believe in thru faith. I have faith that Jesus died for my sins, and I have faith that God will come again to judge the nations. I would much enjoy talking person to person instead of this forum. Your sister knows where I live, and you are welcome to come and discuss these great revelations anytime. I don't have all the answers, hell, I don't know half the questions.<br />Yesterday at 12:44pm<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />I didn't counter something said in the New Testament with something said in the old testament. I corrected your WRONG statement about the "greatest commandment", something I had ALREADY correct earlier in this very discussion, but which you clearly hadn't read.<br /><br />I then gave a verse from the Old Testament as a sort of context for what God himself said as a partner statement to Jesus himself in the New Testament specifically saying that he didn't come to change those old laws, including God's commandments such as the one I listed from the Old Testament etc.<br /><br />Please don't so absurdly and incorrectly twist and misrepresent what I actually wrote.<br /><br />That said, some things in life are simple and can't be chalked up in simplistic black and white little packages. That's the nature of reality and this is a complex issue. And as you are an adult, and we're discussing your own religion, I feel I shouldn't need to speak as though I'm talking to a child and make my explanations short and simple. I'm here to educate and expect people to actually THINK about what I've explained at length with links and references to further explain and support my claims and reasoning.<br /><br /><i>"Remember, FAITH is believing in something not seen, ergo I can't see gravity, but I have faith that it is there."</i><br /><br />And here we have another fallacious argument. We can actually test for gravity. We can clearly see, understand, and accurately predict the nature of gravity... hence the law of gravity. We can thus use this clear understanding to accurately send probes into space to navigate our solar system, orbit distant planets and even travel millions of miles into interstellar space etc.<br /><br />You CANNOT do these things for your utterly fabricated God. To try to pretend that your God is remotely the same as things like "air" or "gravity" etc is to intentionally avoid acknowledging the fact that we CAN prove that these other things exist through the scientific method etc. We can study the effect of air density, its composition through chemical interactions, etc.<br /><br />You can do NONE of those things with your God because HE DOESN'T EXIST. Every test to try to find any influence of your deity whatsoever have failed to give any evidence of that existence and every excuse made consistently tries to relegate him to outside of our reality to the gaps in our knowledge thus far etc.<br /><br />Perhaps you simply don't understand these very clear distinctions and the clear reasoning behind them... but that most certainly doesn't make you right or make your God magically real... or invalidate the actual sound science and understanding behind facts such as gravity, air composition, etc.<br /><br />You then go on to say that you can't provide any evidence to support your position... nor can you provide any evidence or reasoning to prove that I am wrong, or that the evidence I DID present, unlike you, is in any way invalid.<br /><br />And yet you go on to deny my evidence and reasoning and assert that you are POSITIVE of your "faith" and will never change that belief... and you specifically go on to state: "I have faith that Jesus died for my sins, and I have faith that God will come again to judge the nations." In spite of me DIRECTLY addressing the fact that Jesus DID NOT die for your sins in the manner in which the bible itself specifically states. And even if he believed he was, it doesn't make it true for the reasons I also already stated.<br /><br />Your refusal to acknowledge and address those facts doesn't just magically make them go away... and your insistence on believing things that are demonstrably and provably false doesn't magically make them real.<br /><br />There is no "personal reality" where you can make up your own FACTS. Facts are either true or not independent of you. (this is something I had to address with another religious idiot earlier this morning about his particular religion... and I might copy that comment here to illustrate the point about subjective and objective reality)<br /><br />But to really clarify something... let's contrast two of your statements.<br /><br /><i>"I don't have all the answers, hell, I don't know half the questions."</i><br /><br /><i>"As far as my faith being between God and It cannot be argued."</i><br /><br />So you admit that you have very little understanding of these issues, and in spite of it being rather clear that I have a much greater understanding of these issues in a much wider context than you do... you repeatedly clarify that your faith is unequivocally set and cannot be argued, changed, etc.<br /><br />Doesn't it strike you as a little silly to first seemingly ignore most of what I wrote in this discussion... to then acknowledge that it seems that I have a greater understanding of these issues than you do... but to then insist that your position cannot be argued. Cannot be debated.<br /><br />You say you won't debate the bible, in spite of the FACT that your religious beliefs inherently rely on the bible from which they spring. Sort of like insisting on the reality of chickens while denying the reality of eggs.<br /><br />The only way to have such absurd beliefs is to be willfully ignorant, irrational, etc.<br /><br />You cannot claim that you unequivocally believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior while willfully denying the evidence I presented to prove that Jesus didn't die to absolve us of the sin as explicitly stated in the bible because we can PROVE that that sin never existed AS THE BIBLE STATED.<br /><br />You also cannot honestly claim that the bible didn't mean what it says, things that were meant literally when written and taken literally for centuries thereafter, and upon which belief many people lost there lives for heresy for daring to question.<br /><br />Now if you want to just admit that you're an irrational and deluded ignorant country man who isn't interested in honestly facing the facts and figuring out what the actual truth is... who is, as you yourself stated, not willing to even entertain the possibility that he might be mistaken because he will never EVER change his belief in a provably false and absurd ancient mythology... well then we can't have a rational, intelligent, honest discussion now can we?<br /><br />For that to happen you have to at least be willing to look at the evidence honestly. To admit that there is the capability of your mind to be changed by the overwhelming weight of fact, evidence, reason, etc.<br /><br />It really is that simple. I can continue illustrating the established errors in your reasoning, the fallacious nature of your claims both about the bible, and my own claims etc... but until you start actually reading what I wrote and acknowledging those facts, we're not going to get anywhere.<br /><br />It might behoove you to stop and consider for a moment the stubborn arrogance in admitting that you lack as deep an understanding of the issue as I do, but yet still refuse to even consider that maybe, just maybe, I actually know what I'm talking about... and that maybe, just maybe, while you BELIEVE that you're right... that greater understanding and honest assessment of the facts might enlighten you to the error of your beliefs.<br /><br />A child may weep and cry at the notion of finding out that Santa isn't real... but that doesn't make him real, nor dispel the reality that he isn't and the evidence and reasoning we can provide to prove that point. And you would rightfully consider any grown person steadfastly claiming the contrary, no matter how much they believed it, and refusing to look at your evidence or honestly consider your reasoning, as irrational and even insane...<br /><br />And you'd be right.<br /><br />Maybe you might want to learn a little of the lessons of humility also taught by your faith and consider for a moment the possibility that you might be mistaken, as any honest adult interested in the TRUTH would do, and actually READ AND CONSIDER THE FACTS that I presented at length... and stop just ignoring anything I say that threatens your beliefs.<br />Yesterday at 1:18pm ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />And for the record, I'm getting a little tired of repeating myself because you're too inconsiderate to actually READ this discussion before commenting on it and asserting the inflexibility of your beliefs and by logical extension the invalidity of my arguments... you know, because you don't have to literally say "you're wrong" to tell me I'm wrong.<br /><br />I read very carefully every comment you and your son and others give, and I respond to them almost point by point to make it perfectly clear what the problems are with each part of what you're saying.<br /><br />Try having the courtesy of returning even a little of that respect.<br /><br />"I'm right because I BELIEVE I'm right and nothing you can say can ever change that." isn't a valid, honest, or rational position in an argument.<br /><br />*rolls eyes*<br /><br />Again, something I've covered ad nauseum here... wishful thinking, appeal to emotion, burden of proof, appeal to tradition, logical inconsistency, and ON AND ON AND ON.<br /><br /><i>"Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality or reality."</i><br /><br />You have simply decided that what you believe (based on the Judeo-Christian bible) is correct because you WANT it to be correct. You subsequently refuse to address the failures of the validity of that bible, from which your faith necessarily stems, and you refuse to address the actual evidence, rationality, and reality of the facts to the contrary because you insist that your faith CANNOT BE ARGUED.<br /><br />How many different ways can I state those facts before they start to sink in?<br />Yesterday at 1:26pm ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Don Sr.</b><br />I'm sorry I only read about half your diatrible and found it lacking in facts. Let me make this simple. I believe that God created the world. You believe in the big bang theory. Can't prove either. You can assume from scientic data, but that is all.Most athiest are so afraid of the gospel truth that they will go on and on supstatuting(sp) assumptions with facts. By the way , Ican't see gravity and know that there is gravity by it's result. Can you honestly state that gravity will last forever? According to scientific assumption it is fair to say that gravity will be around for a while. Because I read the bible, doesnt make me a christian. You fail (in my opinion) to stay on track so I try to make it simple. God is the explanation for things science can only theorize. No one knows how time started, not you or I. If you wish to not believe in God that is your right.<br />One of the faiths, Jahovahs Witness, tries to tear the bible apart by their own enterpretation. My first question is to which translation they are refering to and what makes that enterpretaion correct. Many "Christians" pick an enterpretation that best suits their argument. Do we use the Greek, Roman, Hebrew, King James, Niv etc....... I have seen enterpretation that are miles apart, translated incorrectly from Hebrew to Greek etc....... As in politics, I can make anything come out the way I want it.<br />As a christian, I don't scour the bible to find a text to win an argument,maybe some do. Again we would have to find out what version and translation we are talking about. Then you would have to believe that man truely translated the exact word of God. I can't argue what I don't know. There are things in the bible that make me laugh and sometimes has my head shaking. Science does the same thing. Read some of the scientific America articles following the oil disaster of the Exxon Valdez. "A spill of this magnatude could never happen again." Look at the Gulf, and no, I don't believe it is God's curse for a sinfull world. Science and relegion are handling it. Prayers and science are about even if you are keeping score (LOL). Just remember the famous words of the singer John Lenon. "God is dead". How about "Lenon is dead", or "disco is dead" or athiesm is dead? Disco is the only one that derserved to die, the rest continue to grow. There always has to be a pro and a con. If we all thought the same........... boaring. I still offer a free cup of coffee or cola to exchange ideas. These have gotton way to long and confusing.<br />Yesterday at 2:03pm<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />You found my "diatribe" lacking facts?<br /><br />Oh the height of irony. ;)<br /><br />As I've repeated at length, the bible makes very specific and literal claims about the time span of creation, the nature of creation, what was created, when it was created, etc... up through the claims about the origin of sin, Noah's Ark, and so forth. Meant literally, BELIEVED literally by both the authors and centuries of "true believers" like yourself thereafter.<br /><br />We CAN prove that THAT story of creation is FALSE.<br /><br />It really has nothing to do with what came before the Big Bang, because as I've also already explained at length, it is a fallacious argument on your part to even imply that because we don't yet know what came before the Big Bang (which we DO know happened on the order of AT LEAST a MILLION times earlier in history than your bible claims), that YOUR PARTICULAR GOD is the actual answer. (go back and read my earlier explanations, I tire of repeating myself)<br /><br />So in short, we CAN prove that YOUR RELIGION is wrong on this subject. You on the other hand, cannot in any way prove that your religion is right and ACTUAL FACTS (you know, the things you lack) are somehow in error simply because they contradict your baseless and irrational belief. (and again, I've covered equivocation as well and the intentional shifting between an ambiguous creator and the specific Judeo-Christian God, so please stop that dead in its tracks as well.)<br /><br /><i>"You can assume from scientic data, but that is all."</i><br /><br />We don't simply ASSUME. We create testable and disprovable hypotheses based on the actual real world evidence, and we TEST them repeatedly to create accurate real world explanations that accurately predict other discoveries and properties of the natural world etc. Again, you dishonestly try to diminish the actual validity and methodology of science and the facts discovered by it.<br /><br /><i>"Most athiest are so afraid of the gospel truth that they will go on and on supstatuting(sp) assumptions with facts."</i><br /><br />I'm not afraid of the "gospel truth" as you laughably call it. I am quite confident in the evidence I presented that you are now desperately trying to draw into question, in spite me clearly pointing out that the very standards of evidence you're trying to hold science and facts to FAR SOONER refute your own religious beliefs that utterly lack such supporting evidence etc. AGAIN, INVALID ARGUMENT ON YOUR PART.<br /><br />Regarding "Can you honestly state that gravity will last forever?" and related comments... um, first off, yes, you can see it and test for it etc. That you either either not smart enough, or willfully choose not to do so is your problem. But the ABILITY TO SEE AND TEST IT EXISTS IN REALITY (and had subsequently been used to accomplish many of the types of things I referenced). I never claimed it would persist forever, so I fail to see why on Earth you would raise that point. Science doesn't claim to predict the future forever. It only makes accurate predictions based on the verifiable evidence we do have. *sigh* But I digress trying to address your absurdity yet again...<br /><br />Reading the bible doesn't make you a Christian any more than it makes me a Christian. But believing that Jesus Christ died for your sins and believing in the God of the bible etc... well, that quite arguably does my friend.<br /><br /><i>"God is the explanation for things science can only theorize. No one knows how time started, not you or I."</i><br /><br />I've also already covered the God of the Gaps, and why not knowing doesn't make YOUR unsupported claims true just because we don't know the answer yet. That is both a fallacious argument from ignorance, and a false dilemma, among other fallacies AS I ALREADY STATED!!! (how many times will I have to make THAT statement in this discussion?)<br /><br />You also completely ignore the fact that your religion comes from your bible. And I have read several different translations of it, including the NIV, which is for instance one of the best and most accurate translations available, building on the oldest available manuscripts and the best modern paleo-linguistic knowledge etc. ( <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/">http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/</a> ) It is FOR A FACT more accurate than other translations such as the King James etc. (And I have looked at some of those oldest available codexes such as the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, etc... and could go on at length about the things NOT present in those oldest manuscripts that were introduced later... such as the last several chapters of Mark upon which several of the claims to fame of Pentecostal dogma are based such as snake handling, speaking in tongues, etc.. the story of the women taken in sin... and even things like the virgin birth, resurrection, etc.)<br /><br />This is part of the reason I accurately cite WHICH version of the bible I am referring to when I quote scripture. Because I care about honesty and accuracy in my discussions.<br /><br /><i>"As a christian, I don't scour the bible to find a text to win an argument,maybe some do. Again we would have to find out what version and translation we are talking about. Then you would have to believe that man truely translated the exact word of God. I can't argue what I don't know."</i><br /><br />And yet you clearly ARE arguing what you don't know... and telling someone who knows better than you do that they're wrong because they don't agree with what you just DECIDED was true IN IGNORANCE OF THE FACTS... and are now subsequently refusing to acknowledge the validity of the facts... (bringing us back to the fallacy of begging the question... AS I ALREADY COVERED.)<br /><br />Then you go on to confuse OPINION with FACT... <i>"A spill of this magnatude could never happen again."</i>, which I addressed in another conversation this morning, referenced and explained here, but didn't copy that other comment here... which clearly I need to do as you still can't tell the difference, much less understand how such a random statement of opinion has essentially nothing to do with the validity of tested, verified, proven facts, based on evidence, upon which accurate predictions have been made and also verified etc.<br /><br />And no... prayers and science are NOT even. Children die when stupid religious parents BELIEVE what the bible tells them in <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%205:13-16&version=NIV">James 5:13-16</a> etc... and pray for their sick child instead of seeking medical attention. Believing that prayer is more effective than modern medicine makes you a dangerous idiot.<br /><br />Not to mention all the testing that has been done showing that prayer is NOT any more effective than random chance.<br /><br />And again at the end confusing laymen's opinion making with scientific facts... I shouldn't even need to address that.<br />Yesterday at 2:45pm ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />And here are the other comments I was referring to from this morning, in an argument with a believer of the Bahá'í Faith:<br /><br /><blockquote>Afshin: Sorry, but when it comes to religion, yes, you are still a complete idiot just like the rest.<br /><br />You have no evidence that there is any God, and yet you insist that you are right and we are wrong. You insist that NOTHING can change your mind about it.<br /><br />That makes you an idiot.<br /><br />You then quote your MADE UP religion, and attempt to make an appeal from authority, as though we should listen to your religion just because it says so.<br /><br />Then you go on to say that you would follow your religion even if you knew it wasn't true... which begs the question of why you're so agitated and insisting that it is (and that nothing can change your mind about that)...<br /><br />Then you make appeals to emotion... claiming that your religion has a good reputation... and using that to try to convince us that your religion is good...<br /><br />BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. Buddhists generally have a great reputation as well... but there religion isn't true either. Just because you're peaceful and your religion promotes peace doesn't make it TRUE... it still claims a bunch of absolute BULLSHIT about the nature of God, God manifested in divine messengers, etc... and all the rest of its bullshit is just piled on to those utterly unfounded and MADE UP core tenets in the same way that Christianity for instance MAKES UP a bunch of provably false crap (through its Judaic heritage) which it uses to try to establish some authority by claiming to define the nature of God and creation etc.. and then necessarily has to base every other fabricated claim's authority on that original unsupported and made up bullshit (the fallacy of begging the question).<br /><br />There is no evidence that any of those people were manifestations of God... there is in fact no evidence of God himself... and even simple logic breaks down the childish idea that there must be a God... a primitive and self important invented idea of man, based on his own lack of understanding and drive to understand... anthropomorphic and interested in human affairs. An invented idea that both violates logic and creates a more complex problem than the one it claims to solve.<br /><br />Put simply, if the universe requires a creator because it is complex, then that more complex creator would necessarily, by the same logic, also require a creator. (and that creator another, more complex creator, and so on... ad infinitum.)<br /><br />Now if you claim that the creator doesn't need a creator, then the universe itself would be MORE likely to just exist without needing a creator in the first place, being less complex and thus more likely to "just exist" by the very same special exception you're trying to make for your UTTERLY MADE UP idea of the creator.<br /><br />Trying to violate that simple logic forces you to use several INVALID logically fallacious arguments.<br /><br />Special Pleading, logical inconsistency, lack of impartiality, appeal to emotion, appeal to tradition, argument from ignorance, etc.<br /><br />And perhaps I should clarify a bit what some of those are...<br /><br /><blockquote>"Appeal to emotion is a potential fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. Also this kind of thinking may be evident in one who lets emotions and/or other subjective considerations influence one's reasoning process. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including:<br /><ul><br /><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences">Appeal to consequences</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear">Appeal to fear</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_flattery">Appeal to flattery</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pity">Appeal to pity</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule">Appeal to ridicule</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_spite">Appeal to spite</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking">Wishful thinking</a></li><br /><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ignorance">Appeal to ignorance</a></li><br /></ul><br />Fallacies introduce a failure to support a claim, and thus limit the possibility of an ideology to be recognized as credible. The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument's position. Therefore, factual evidence does not support the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument."</blockquote><br /><br /><blockquote>"Appeal to tradition, also known as proof from tradition, appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem, false induction, or the "is/ought" fallacy, is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."<br /><br />An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions:<br /><ul><br /><li>The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced. In actuality this may be false — the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.</li><br /><li>The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present. In cases where circumstances have changed, this assumption may be false."</li><br /></ul><br /></blockquote><br /><br /><blockquote>"Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption."</blockquote><br /><br /><blockquote>"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"), or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true."</blockquote><br /><br />Now see, I can rightfully call you an idiot not simply because you're wrong... but because you strongly insist that you couldn't possibly be wrong and that NOTHING can change your mind. THAT kind of closed minded IDIOCY, which is fundamentally inherent in the minds of the religious, is what justifies us calling you stupid and an idiot etc. Because you're wrong and you REFUSE to even entertain the possibility that you might be mistaken... and thus close your mind to rationality, facts, evidence, reason, logic, etc in order to maintain your ill founded and fallacy riddled belief.<br /><br />It is THAT promotion of and requisite need of irrationality, illogic, unreason, etc.. that is the core foundation of dangerous religious extremism. And just because you think your religion is nice and people doesn't make it TRUE, nor does it excuse how irrational and fallacious it is, and that it promotes such broken thinking as a virtue... thus perpetuating the cognitive failures that have plagued humanity throughout history.</blockquote><br />Yesterday at 2:47pm ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />And the second part... that is more directly relevant to the confused error you keep making between opinions and facts (to understate the depth of the error in your reasoning).<br /><br /><blockquote>And perhaps I should clarify that you seem to be confusing "opinions" with "provably false statements of fact". Yes, people are entitled to their opinions... but they are NOT entitled to go around claiming as 100% accurate absolute fact things for which they either cannot possibly know, or that are PROVABLY FALSE.<br /><br /><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact</a><br /><br /><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion</a><br /><br />And maybe you should take some quizzes to help you learn the difference between facts and opinions...<br /><br /><a href="http://cuip.uchicago.edu/www4teach/97/jlyman/default/quiz/factopquiz.html">http://cuip.uchicago.edu/www4teach/97/jlyman/default/quiz/factopquiz.html</a><br /><br />etc.<br /><br />This is just one of countless fallacious methods of excuse making that religious people make... trying to diminish the veracity of FACTUAL REALITY by trying to trick people into thinking that facts are no different than opinions, when in FACT (pardon the pun) they are fundamentally different and inherently and necessarily valid.<br /><br />It is the fundamental difference between SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE.<br /><br />Opinions are subjective... based on the emotions and beliefs of the person.<br /><br />Facts are objective... based on the actual physical evidence, empirical observation of that evidence, etc... independent of our emotions or desires etc.<br /><br />To continue to act like there is no distinction between the two on the part of the religious is openly disingenuous and just one more reason to hate how religion intentionally trains people to think incorrectly and dishonestly in order to promote itself.<br /><br />Again, people are welcome to, and entitled to, their OPINIONS... they are NOT welcome to, nor entitled to, lie about the FACTS.</blockquote><br />Yesterday at 2:48pm ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Don Sr.</b><br />Let me dumb this down so you can understand. How long were each day of creation? You don't know?That is a fact. You are all over the board from christians scientist to who know what. Narrow down your subject matter. Here is another question.<br />Did God create Science to disprove his existence, or does science theorize to prove there is a God? I thank you for taking my side as how confused some athiest are.<br />You seem very smart, try narrowing down your subject matter.<br />You mention testing, which are made to prove or disprove theories of science, not relelgion. You are mixing up fact base science and theory based science. The two don't mix.<br />In short you are trying but everything into one little package be that relegious o r scientific . If I tried you way of argument, let try this one on.<br />"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Since the mind of the first man could not comprehend the word heaven, and man felt that there was nothing outside of his line of sight, that God could not have created man in his own image since the knowledge of a "God and A Man would be so different.<br />thank you for bringing us James 5:13-16. Calling upon the Elders prayer. If you look up in the Jewish translations elders perform spiritual as well as medical issues given that knowledge by God. I does not say, Don't get medical help."<br />Once again you are reading in what you want it to say. Vs. 16 says to confess your sins in the NIV but it says to confess. or in the Greek, to share your faults.(King James ). Sins and faults are different. A version is the babalonian and Persian takes this verse out completely.<br />Is the 7th day Saturday or Sunday. Is Christmas tuely on December25. Science, astrology, biblical and other reference all very by many months<br />The bible never mentions dinasours, but it also doesn;'t mention unicorns. I agree that there may have been a creature with one horn on it head, but is it magical? Science has dug up dinasour which seems to prove that they existed even though they are not mentioned in the bible so logic dictates that there were dinasour roaming the earth.<br />The earths rotation has been scientificlly proven that the rotation of the earth has sped up over the millions of year thus proving that we don't know how long one day of creation was. Science want to prove itself using the "Theory" that a day back then was 24 hours which they have proved false. I can go on and on to prove descrepansies(sp) but whats the use. You can't prove there is not a God as well as I cannot prove there is a God.<br />One more thing. Science and the bible both agree that there was a great flood. The flood was said to have covered the earth. Since man's vision of the whole earth is now different does that mean the flood covered the whole earth or just the part where Noah was. Noahs earth is a lot different then Columbus. The next question would be, "Does it matter?.<br />Yesterday at 3:40pm<br /><br /><br /><b>Don Sr.</b><br />If you want to continue, come on over to my wall.<br />Yesterday at 3:42pm<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />Actually the bible very clearly states how long each day of creation was. This is an absurd excuse. The whole point of the miracle of creation was that God spoke things into existence because he willed them so. Not that he was the impotent excuse of a God science has rightfully whittled him down to today... a god crouching in the gaps of the as yet unexplained.<br /><br /><blockquote>"3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.<br /><br />6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."</blockquote><br /><br />I mean they literally spell out that God created the lightness and called it day, the darkness and called it night, and then there were as a result the first evening (and the first night), and the first morning. The first day had passed. It continues on in this vein, going on to clarify the days and laughably having an omnipotent God that needs to rest from his labors on the 7th day, thus leading to the Sabbath (which even more absurdly you are to be killed for if you work on it, by God's command, a command defended later by Jesus etc).<br /><br />(And this is also without going into the actual Hebrew word used for day, and the clear meaning of it etc... all of which show how laughably absurd your excuse is... something which essentially no biblical scholars seriously assert. And even those who don't actually believe that account to be accurate, are still honest about what it actually says and meant. There's that pesky HONESTY again... along with actually knowing what you're talking about.)<br /><br />And don't try to patronize me by attempting to dumb things down Don. It is very clear here that you are the one lacking understanding and education in all of these subjects. If anyone here needs speaking down to, it is clearly you.<br /><br /><i>"Here is another question.<br />Did God create Science to disprove his existence, or does science theorize to prove there is a God?"</i><br /><br />Neither. False dichotomy YET AGAIN.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma</a><br /><br />Shall I repeat my request that you actually go read what I wrote and try comprehending at least a little of the facts presented, and rules of logic, etc?<br /><br />I'm also not mixing up fact based science and theory based science. In fact there is no such distinction as they are part of a whole. Facts exist independently and are verified by testing etc... for instance gravity existing is a fact. A proven, demonstrable fact. WHY and HOW gravity works are theories, with even the word theory carrying a meaning fundamentally different from that used in laymen's circles.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory</a><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact</a><br /><br />etc.<br /><br />Show me where the bible, or actual contemporary Hebrew scripture states to not just pray and be healed, as the bible clearly says, but to also be sure to seek actual medical help.<br /><br />Then you go off into a bunch of unrelated bullshit... The Sabbath is on Saturday, not Sunday (in the Judeo-Christian religion at least), December 25 is NOT the birth of Jesus... and was actually intentionally stolen from the pre-existing Pagan festivals of Yule, Winter Solstice, Saturnalia, etc. The early church did not even celebrate Christmas until centuries later as they thought it absurd to celebrate the birthday of a God etc.<br /><br />Honestly you're just throwing out red herrings now that have nothing to do with the fact that science DOES prove the bible WRONG in Genesis. Stop childishly avoiding that fact and trying any wholly fallacious desperate attempt you can think of to try to discredit science in order to preserve your provably false delusion.<br /><br /><i>"Science want to prove itself using the "Theory" that a day back then was 24 hours which they have proved false."</i><br /><br />A day was, and has been since early in the life cycle of the planet, close to what a day is today. With NOTHING like the kind of discrepancy that would turn 24 hours into a thousand years.. and the implication that it did illustrates your failure to grasp the ramifications of the laughable excuses you're trying to make... not only because you don't seem capable of grasping the complexity and time spans in question, nor the supporting scientific evidence... but because you're trying to use science in the first place to supposedly try to support your absurd excuses, while ignoring the FACT that the very same science you're trying to invoke in a primitive cargo cult mindset appeal to authority ("if I say the word science, it means I'll be taken more seriously!"), also happens to OVERWHELMINGLY PROVE YOU WRONG.<br /><br />Because the evidence does clarify the age of the Earth by multiple independent sources, and it is several orders of magnitude older than the bible claims. We're talking almost A MILLION TIMES older. So not only is a day meant to be the roughly 24 hour day we know today (given that it was the only span of a day that human beings knew at the time of the bible's authorship.. the same reason they listed the first animals of God's creation as those they saw around them and failed to list the dinosaurs and earlier life forms etc), but by your childish "logic" *chuckle* a day *hahaha* would have had to have been well over SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND YEARS long... and not just that... but here's the REAL kicker to show just how completely CLUELESS you are with this crap you're pulling out of your ass...<br /><br />The days were actually SHORTER then.<br /><br />Got it? The tidal forces exerted on the planet by the moon, as well as internal movement of convection in the planet's mantle etc... these all exert drag etc on the planet and actually SLOW its rotation by a millisecond every century or so... sometimes even a few milliseconds in a few years depending on the factors involved. These forces actually LENGTHEN the days... not shorten them.<br /><br /><i>"You can't prove there is not a God as well as I cannot prove there is a God."</i><br /><br />Again you rudely (or dishonestly) ignore what I've already written multiple times. Burden of proof and the argument from ignorance... along with the fact that we CAN argue logically against the existence of the Christian God (or even a general creator). The lack of definitive proof DISproving God doesn't mean YOUR God actually exists. But we DO have a wealth of actual evidence, facts, logic, etc all saying that he doesn't... and you really have no valid evidence or facts to counter that (as the nature of your God is laid out in the bible, so that we can assess the validity of those claims.)<br /><br />And I'll get to the retarded lie you just made about Noah's Ark and science agreeing with it in my next comment because it deserves a sound rebuttal for being so offensively dishonest (and stupid, as seems to be your new par for course given many of the claims you're trying to make without obviously having any idea what you're talking about) on your part.<br /><br />So on to the Noah's Ark bashing! Weee!!<br /><br />\(^_^)/<br />10 hours ago ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />(I'm simply going to copy/paste a part of an article I wrote 3 years ago to save myself the trouble of retyping it.)<br /><br /><blockquote>Let's start by reading Genesis chapters 6 through 8 to get the whole story.<br /><a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6-8%3B&version=31;">http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6-8%3B&version=31;</a><br /><br />Now that we've done that, we notice as a side note the story of the "Nephilim" breeding with the daughters of man... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim</a>... but we'll move past that for now. ;)<br /><br />We see in chapter 6, verse 7: 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."<br /><br />Here he states that he will kill every living creature on Earth, including all the birds, many species of which can survive just fine for months, even years, without landfall. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabird">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seabird</a><br /><br />But I guess special "God Rain" can kill them too, right? ;)<br /><br />Then we come to another important point where it explicitly lists Noah's sons: "10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.", this will come in handy in a bit.<br /><br />Then we have the dimensions of the boat: "14 So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. 16 Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks."<br /><br />Essentially Noah would have to have built an Ark using technology more advanced than that of the end of the main era of wooden ships, thousands of years later, would have had to fit literally millions of animals on it, provided food and water for every single one of them, enough to last almost a year, and make sure that not a single animal died of any of the "unclean" animals or that species would be wiped out, as all the non-livestock and non-avian animals only had 1 male and 1 female to represent them. As for the birds, as there are over 10,000 species of birds, this would equate to 70,000 birds alone being on the ark, as Noah was required to bring 7 of every kind of bird, over 100 different livestock animals, and so on...<br /><br />But what have we here? In verse 20 it states: "20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.", but then in Chapter 7, verse 3, it states: "3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."<br /><br />Where is he going to get the other 5 of every kind of bird if only 2 of each will actually come to him? Is he going to have to travel the world and capture the other 5 of every different kind? ;)<br /><br />Moving along... we see the following: "6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. 7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood.", and as I was sure to point out earlier, we know there to be 3 sons. So we have 8 people in total entering the ark to repopulate the entire earth so that all the genetic diversity and geographical dispersal we see in the global human population happened within the past few thousand years. And by that I'm talking specifically around 4 or 5,000 years. Now we know through the fossil record etc, that this is simply not true. :) Much less the fact that even the genetic diversity as measured by the spread of Mitochondrial DNA and it's rate of mutation far exceeds this window.<br /><br />Again, moving along...<br /><br />I suppose I should touch on another interesting side note... in chapter 7, verse 11, it states: "11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." With that said, it bears noting the the direct lineage from Adam up through David etc, were listed along with the ages of every person. Now given that these ages were generally all several hundred years, and that gives us the proverbial 6,000 span from creation to modern day... it would bear noting that even that span of time relies on improbably long lifespans for the individuals listed. If we were to say that perhaps they used a different measurement of time, that would actually lead to an even younger earth. Even more improbable. ;)<br /><br />Again... moving on.<br /><br />We come to the next interesting verses: "17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet."<br /><br />Allow me to reference a partial explanation of this. From <a href="http://en.allexperts.com/q/Physics-1358/Water-Volume-during-Great.htm">http://en.allexperts.com/q/Physics-1358/Water-Volume-during-Great.htm</a> we get:<br /><br /><blockquote>The earth has a radius of approx. R=6374 km.<br /><br />Its surface area is thus A= 4*Pi*R² = 5.1 *10^14 m².<br /><br />Mr. Arafat (the late President of Palestine) was not very tall, but Mt. Ararat (the volcano mountain in Northeastern Turkey) is 5165 m high.<br /><br />This makes the water volume necessary to flood it to its peak V= 2.6 * 10^18 m³. (Or 2.5 million million million cubic meters of water)<br /><br />This water weighs 2.6 * 10^18 tons.<br /><br />Spread out to 40 days the average rainfall would be 5165m / 40 d = 129 000 mm per day or 5375 mm per hour. Imagine standing under a waterfall.<br /><br />Evaporated it would saturate the whole atmosphere plus the stratosphere with 105% humidity. In other words: Clouds would fill the atmosphere from the ground on upwards plus the stratosphere (where there are usually no clouds - "above the weather"). This would lead to the earth freezing under the clouds since no sunlight reaches the ground. The consequences would be harsher than the imagined "nuclear winter" after a global thermonuclear war.</blockquote><br /><br />Now mind you, that only relates to Mt. Ararat, which is only 5,165M. But the bible states that the water covered the highest point on Earth by 20 feet. That would increase that height to over 8,850M, which would only dramatically compound the effects listed above.<br /><br />Are we seeing a theme yet? Not to mention that there simply isn't, and never has been, that much water on the entire planet. Not by an incredibly huge margin.<br /><br />A few other things to note, as far as space on the boat etc... we would also have to account for at least 46 weeks worth of food for the 8 people and all the millions of animals on the boat. Or how about the fact that that much rainfall etc would effectively desalinate the Oceans, killing off further hundreds of thousands of species at the very least who rely on specific salinity levels and temperature ranges etc.<br /><br />I think that's at least a satisfactory debunking of that fable... enough to illustrate that bickering over when the waters dried is a rather moot point given that the whole story is nothing more than an impossible myth to begin with. And even if you try to play apologist and reference the supposed flood of the Black Sea by the Mediterranean Sea after the receding glaciers raised the water tables, that would unfortunately not only still not lend any credence to almost any of the fantastical claims of the Noah Ark story, but it would also just happen to predate the date of the biblical creation story by well over a thousand years.</blockquote><br />10 hours ago ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />I think that serves to illustrate just how breathtakingly far removed from reality your delusion actually is... and just how soundly those of us who actually have decent educations on these wide varieties of issues and are capable of actual sound logic, reasoning, critical assessment etc... can rightfully dismiss your delusions as exactly that... uninformed, irrational, illogical, and willfully so it seems, delusions for which you insist that you cannot be reasoned out of. That you will not argue them... they are not up for debate... they are just absolute.<br /><br />Seriously Don... have the maturity to realize when you've gotten your ass handed to you and have the dignity to realize you're in over your head and could actually LEARN something from this discussion if you'd stop MAKING SHIT UP in a desperate attempt to excuse your provably false and irrational religious beliefs.<br /><br /><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusion</a><br /><br />Now odds are that what I will do is take this entire discussion, which I've been saving copies of, when it seems to have petered out here, or reached an impasse... and I will post the entire thing as a note on my own profile as an illustration of Christian reasoning (or lack thereof).<br /><br />And I'd be delighted to add you as a friend so that you could continue the discussion there if you'd like... or I'd even format it and send you a copy so that you could do the same and we could CONTINUE this discussion honestly with the entire existing thread there for the proper honest context so that any new reader could see the morass we've already navigated thus far.<br /><br />And now it's been a very long day and I had had no intention of typing anything before walking in my door and going straight to bed, and have now spent an hour and a half responding to your ... well, inanity. So I'm going to step outside and have a cold beer and be done with facebook for the night.<br /><br />お休みなさい皆さん☆ミ<br />10 hours ago ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />(Well, let me say this in closing... I'm sure you're good people. I'm sure you don't intend to cause any harm, and I honestly doubt you even realize a fraction of the errors you make in your reasoning etc. And I doubt that me plowing through them like a tank through a field of sheep (pardon the expression, but that is what Christians refer to themselves as...) is really the most effective means of getting people to consider the facts as presented or be open to reassessing their own beliefs etc... but none the less, no matter how nice, or how innocently naive and uninformed one might be... with the best intentions.... those things don't change the facts. I'm not trying to say you're a bad person... you or Donald etc... I'm just saying you're provably wrong and have subsequently illustrated countless failures in your reasoning, your grasp of the facts, etc.<br /><br />That said I honestly can't think enough to type anymore... I just want to point out that these aren't personal attacks on you. They're statements of fact about a particular belief system you have and the demonstrable failures in the related reasoning and the utter failure of the claims of fact in relation to the actual real world facts we actually have etc.)<br />10 hours ago ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Don Sr.</b><br />Once again ,theory and unfounded fact. I guess I forgot the part in the bible when it said the days were 24 hours long. How can we discuss when you can't even read the bible. Your thinking is static, it doesn't grow. This is not an insult but something everyone has heard from athiesm since... forever This is why science seperates itself from athiesm. God is great and that bothers you, but that ok. I'm glad that you are reading the bible. If you need help, I will be glad to help you as I can see God tuely trying to work in your life. Let him in, you may lose a lot of anger.<br />52 minutes ago<br /><br /><br /><b>Jack</b><br />I'm going to end this so called debate right here. I'm doing so because Don is obviously taking himself seriously here when in fact, in a war of words and ideas, he is totally defenseless against an intellect like Justin's.<br /><br />You're out of your league Don. You should have had the sense to back out of this long ago just as your son did when he realized he was dealing with someone he couldn't bullshit. I see now that he comes by his gift for BS naturally.<br /><br />Justin, your time would be better spent debating religion with someone who at least knows how to spell relegion. Any future posts on this thread will be deleted.<br /><br />P.S. - Don, that squiggly red line under the word means you spelled it wrong.<br />20 minutes ago<br /><br /><br /><b>Don Sr.</b><br />Jack, the word day in Hebrew read' An indeterminant amount of tiime." Your right, I am out of my league, that being fantasy. End of Story. I would love to hear something new instead of this old retoric. God Bless<br />11 minutes ago<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />Don: First off, no... it meant a specific day, and only meant indeterminate amount of time as a secondary meaning, and only in specific contexts. Again, you lie... but I'll address that in my other comment I was still writing. I just wanted to shoot this most recent flat out intentional lie on your part out of the water IMMEDIATELY. And laughably I know damn well that even fundamental Christian sources and scholars will have told you the exact same thing.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.creationists.org/how-long-is-a-day-in-the-bible.html">http://www.creationists.org/how-long-is-a-day-in-the-bible.html</a><br /><br />Even a CREATIONIST website tells you that... and it's like the very first response on Google.<br /><br />There is no way you didn't know that and didn't just intentionally avoid the truth to try to DECEIVE us into thinking you were right.<br />6 minutes ago ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />Don: You're sitting typing on a computer built by science. Your words are transmitted to me by that very real understanding of the natural world, electricity, transistors, etc... on an internet built by computer scientists using those same scientific principles...<br /><br />Why don't you try praying as hard as you can and see if THAT sends your ignorant comments to me instead of these things built by science that you can't seem to wrap your head around how they got to be in front of you... maybe you believe that God just blinked them all into existence one day because someone prayed for it.<br /><br />Or maybe you'll make the laughable (and as usual utterly unfounded) excuse that God INSPIRED these scientists to discover all these things... while ignoring the fact that you're still childishly trying as hard as you can to DISCREDIT science because the NUMEROUS FACTS show how incredibly clueless, irrational, deluded, and UTTERLY WRONG you are.<br /><br />Am I getting close to the mark?<br /><br />Don... you want to be a dishonest little man and LIE about things in order to try to insult me because lies and ad hominems and every other invalid and immature method of avoiding the truth is all you have left to cling to... you go right ahead. I've already stated IN THIS VERY DISCUSSION that you seem to have such a hard time wrapping your head around THAT I HAVE READ AT LEAST FOUR DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE (KJV, NIV, NRS, NLT) AND STUDIED SEVERAL OTHERS (the aforementioned codices, etc). I have also studied theology, textual criticism ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism</a> ), biblical archaeology, anthropology, world religions including early religions specifically contemporary to, preceding and proceeding Christianity by thousands of years, as well as numerous fields of science since I was a small boy... archaeology, paleontology, entomology, cosmology, biology, chemistry, physics, geology, and on and on...<br /><br />For you to simply deny all that and say that I can't even read the bible, as though I am illiterate or too stupid to understand what the authors meant, when I have PROVEN you WRONG about what the bible says, more than once in this discussion... a book that YOU YOURSELF admitted that you don't even really read or pay attention to because you've moved past it and are now just MAKING UP your own religion, that while obviously and necessarily built upon the Judeo-Christian faith as laid out in the bible, is somehow miraculous now TRUE INDEPENDENT of it's requisite foundation... for you deny all that and make the statements you do, that makes you a willful liar Don.<br /><br /><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie</a><br /><br />You have utterly failed to address the facts I presented at the beginning of this argument and so has your deluded moron of a son. All both of you small little people have done is sit and lie through your teeth, try to attack my character, motivation, intellect etc... and when that didn't work, you particularly took it upon yourself to try to act like you had a CLUE about science, or even the bible for that matter, and to try to use that feigned knowledge of science (which you clearly profoundly lack, as I illustrated) to try to discredit science because you are so desperate to preserve your delusion.<br /><br />You have committed every logical fallacy I've listed... outright ignored it when pointed out to you... you have flat out lied and denied things that I had already stated in this very discussion, claimed that I said things in this discussion that I clearly did not, and at essentially every step have tried to draw into question mankind's arguably most valuable discovery ever... the use of the scientific method to understand the REAL world around them.<br /><br />God is IMAGINARY you dolt. And you yourself admitted that you have NO evidence to the contrary, and I've explained to your thick skulled self numerous times now that the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate otherwise, and that arguing that your God is real because we CAN'T disprove it is an invalid argument... the argument from ignorance (or negative proof), and is no more valid than me claiming that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the REAL God of the universe and your God is his bitch. Of course you can't prove that isn't true... and you don't have to because fantastic claims WITHOUT EVIDENCE can be DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE.<br /><br />And more importantly my provincial friend, WE DO HAVE A TON OF EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THAT YOUR BIBLE IS BULLSHIT. THAT YOUR RELIGION IS A FALLACIOUS HOUSE OF CARDS AND THAT YOUR FAITH IS FUNDAMENTALLY INHERENTLY ILLOGICAL, IRRATIONAL, UNREASONABLE AND OUTRIGHT HOSTILE TO FACTS, EVIDENCE, AND THE VERY THING THAT SETS HUMANITY APART FROM THE REST OF THE ANIMALS... REASON.<br /><br />You are an embarrassment to the human race.<br /><br />(There's a limit to my patience when dealing with deluded fools. I have presented more than enough evidence in this discussion to prove how WRONG you and your son are. That you cannot wrap your bumpkin head around that is your loss. I have invested enough energy in this discussion and am more than comfortable with leaving the evidence as it stands for those less lost to reality.)<br /><br />I bid you good day.<br />6 minutes ago ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br />And with that, I think I'm just going to suspend my account because I grow weary of dealing with this childish idiocy and stubborn refusal to admit even the possibility of error on your part.<br /><br />You are a prime example of why I hate Christianity and would never.. COULD never EVER be a part of that shameful tradition and what it does to the human mind.<br /><br />Thanks for entertaining this discussion Jack.<br />5 minutes ago ·<br /><br /><br /><b>Don Sr.</b><br />Jack, you are a great musician and out of your league when it come to religon and academia. Facts are in your world is<br />you call B.S. It the same defense as Madlyln Murry O'hare said before her followers silenced her. If we were keeping tracl, you and Justin got smoked...<br />3 minutes ago<br /><br /><br /><b>Myself</b><br /><i>"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."</i> --Scott D. Weitzenhoffer<br />2 seconds ago ·<br /></blockquote>JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-2369756194858728142009-07-29T13:04:00.005-04:002009-07-29T13:08:06.703-04:00Moving Beyond IgnoranceI ran across a quote today that I felt compelled to share... it so powerfully sums up the issue of promoting credulity above reason.<blockquote><span style="font-style:italic;">"Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck."</span> --Thomas Jefferson to James Smith, 1822.</blockquote>JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-79507195763347045142008-11-03T17:33:00.003-05:002008-11-03T18:00:18.447-05:00Debunking the slander about Obama's Citizenship.<p>Now I wasn't an Obama supporter obviously, being a rather devout Ron Paul fan etc.</p><p>But after the past few weeks of arguing with the dishonest insanity I see rampant on Republican and Libertarian discussion groups and mailing lists, I've learned a lot about the <span style="font-weight:bold;font-style:italic;">facts</span> involved around many of the lies being told about Obama and I have to say that it's given me a lot more respect for the moral high ground his campaign has stuck to.</p><p>I wanted to include below a message I sent to one of the groups I'm a part of in response to their several times a day repetition at this point of the lies about Obama's Citizenship. I wanted to illustrate how desperately they keep telling these lies and how little effect it has to show them the facts and the evidence to the contrary.</p><p>Excuse my obviously aggravated insults therein, I think if you start reading back through the past few weeks of exchanges, you'll start to understand why I started resorting to using such accurate, if juvenile, monikers to address them.</p><blockquote><p><span style="font-style:italic;">(In response to Scott saying he was glad he'd signed a petition against Barack Obama challenging his Natural Born Citizen status.)</span></p><p>Because you're an idiot who can't read? Grow up you pathetic child.</p><p>I'll illustrate here for everyone how thoroughly I've debunked your childish insistent and desperate lies here.</p><p><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kirstenandersenfanclub/message/29653">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kirstenandersenfanclub/message/29653</a><br /><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kirstenandersenfanclub/message/29659">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kirstenandersenfanclub/message/29659</a></p><p>And for the sake of thoroughness:<br /><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kirstenandersenfanclub/message/29658">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kirstenandersenfanclub/message/29658</a></p><p>Every time you tell this lie again, dishonorable as you are, I'm going to paste this message again from now on showing that you've been told the truth repeatedly but have no interest in the truth or the facts. Only in intentionally trying to spread misinformation and lies to try to win an argument through dishonorable and dishonest means, through scare tactics and slander.</p><p>You should be ashamed of yourselves.</p><hr /><p>I tried to stop you from saying these stupid lies again.</p><p><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kirstenandersenfanclub/message/29653">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kirstenandersenfanclub/message/29653</a></p><p>If you read those you'd know that you're lying (not that you don't already know, which you do. You just don't care because you can't help it but be a stupid liar).</p><p>Obama's step-father couldn't have renounced his citizenship and I linked the US Code section a few weeks ago that explicitly stated that fact. MORON.</p><p><a href="http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html">http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html</a></p><blockquote><h2>*F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN*</h2><p>Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.</p></blockquote><p>I've covered this before.<br /><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kirstenandersenfanclub/message/29271">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kirstenandersenfanclub/message/29271</a></p><p>See that? I pointed this out to you THREE WEEKS AGO.</p><p>It's pathetically obvious at this point that you have no interest in the truth. You deny all evidence and FACTS presented to you that debunk your lies and desperate conspiracy theories. If you were interested in truth, you would acknowledge things like what I pointed out above and STOP REPEATING THE LIES.</p><p>GROW UP.</p><hr /><p>Of course you won't acknowledge that the state government, local government, health department and everyone else there has explained what the difference is between them, why the certificate looks the way it does, even had some of the people their show their certs as well that DID look identical etc.</p><p>HONESTY. TRY IT SOMETIME.</p><p>I've explained all this before and linked you to numerous articles clearly explaining it. You stink of desperation and a pathetic need to flatly ignore the truth when it's right in front of you.</p><p>First link is more for Scott to explain the matter of jurisdiction in the case and why Berg's case was so amateur and unfounded. It's pretty embarrassing to read actually (and unlike some people here, I actually read the entire thing.)</p><p><a href="http://www.flds.ws/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/obama-surricks-10242008-ruling-2.pdf">http://www.flds.ws/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/obama-surricks-10242008-ruling-2.pdf</a></p><p>Then this one for Aaron about citizenship and travel etc.</p><p><a href="http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html">http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html</a></p><p>Then we move on to the pages that explain the situation:</p><ul><li><a href="http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04">http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081031/BREAKING01/81031064/0/BREAKING04</a></li><li><a href="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html">http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html</a></li><li><a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/">http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/</a></li><li><a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-birth-certificate-30-oct30,0,1742172.story">http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-birth-certificate-30-oct30,0,1742172.story</a></li><li><a href="http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news">http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news</a></li><li><a href="http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20081031/NEWS0106/810310417/1104/election3">http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20081031/NEWS0106/810310417/1104/election3</a></li><li><a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/12/obama-is-an-american-no-really/">http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/12/obama-is-an-american-no-really/</a></li></ul><p>Having read those, is it starting to sink in yet?</p><p>Maybe you need to go back and read them again... and pay close attention.</p><p>Let me know how it goes. :)</p></blockquote><p>At this point Aaron has basically resorted to even more pathetic attempts at slander and has challenged me to come fight him in person to force him to be honest. Something that for any mature, rational, intelligent adult would have long since been accomplished by the repeated presentation of the facts, with evidence, with references, and with repeated explanations of the subject matter. As they say, you can lead a horse to water... *sigh*</p>JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-49780967598632406592008-04-27T05:24:00.001-04:002008-04-27T05:32:54.647-04:00Update on UK "extreme porn" legislationI <a href="http://phreadom.blogspot.com/2007/07/ridiculous-new-uk-legislation-in-works.html">reported on this</a> back in July of last year and now it's <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/25/justice_bill_extreme_pron/">back in the news again</a> as it rolls forward.<br /><br />As <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/25/justice_bill_extreme_pron/">this new article</a> in <span style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/">The Register</a></span> points out, this legislation would make it illegal to have pictures of acts which themselves are perfectly legal under the government's justification that so called "extreme pornography" leads to violence. A very weak claim at best on their part.<br /><br />Aside from the obvious comments on the trouble with the government becoming the "thought police", I found this quote from Lord McIntosh of Haringey rather poignant; <span style="font-style:italic;">"What does it matter to the Government whether what we have in our homes for our own purposes is for sexual arousal or not? What is wrong with sexual arousal anyway? That is not a matter for Parliament or government to be concerned about."</span>JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-67728492183419295292007-12-24T12:51:00.000-05:002007-12-25T15:30:15.769-05:00The fuzzy issue of Ron Paul on abortion.<p>After a somewhat heated debate on the local Ron Paul meet-up group mailing list, I decided it was time to tackle this topic.</p><p>This has been one of those grey areas of the <a href="http://ronpaul2008.com/">Ron Paul campaign</a> for awhile now and I've seen it put in a variety of ways by members of both the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life">Pro-Life</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice">Pro-Choice</a> camps in order to claim support for Ron Paul from both sides of the proverbial fence.</p><p>One of the first things I wanted to show was the difference between the way he presents his views in two recent media appearances.</p><p>First is his interview on the television talk show <span style="font-style:italic;">The View</span>: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbljWBdSW30">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbljWBdSW30</a></p><p>And then we have his speech to the <span style="font-style:italic;">Family Research Council</span>: <a href="http://www.frcaction.org/get.cfm?i=WX07L05">http://www.frcaction.org/get.cfm?i=WX07L05</a></p><p>You'll notice how in the first video he carefully approaches the issue by making it an argument about late term abortions, which are already illegal under <span style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade">Roe v. Wade</a></span> unless a physician deems it necessary to protect the woman's health. He makes almost no mention of the right of choice for early term abortions, opting to make an obvious emotional plea that doesn't line up with the facts.</p><blockquote>The central holding of <span style="font-style:italic;">Roe v. Wade</span> was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of <span style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton">Doe v. Bolton</a></span>.</blockquote><p>He opens his argument with the following exchange with Joy Behar:</p><blockquote><p><span style="font-weight:bold;color:#aa7777;">Joy Behar:</span> What about Roe v. Wade? I don't want the government telling me what to do with my body. How do you justify that?</p><p><span style="font-weight:bold;color:#7777aa;">Ron Paul:</span> Well, I think the question is whether a baby that is unborn that weighs eight pounds, in the seventh, eighth month of gestation has any rights. Is it a person.</p><p><span style="font-weight:bold;color:#aa7777;">Joy Behar:</span> Oh That's... but what about the first month, you know, when you usually get an abortion?</p><p><span style="font-weight:bold;color:#7777aa;">Ron Paul:</span> Ok, so you're not for all abortion?</p><p><span style="font-weight:bold;color:#aa7777;">Joy Behar:</span> I don't know, it would have to come up in a specific case.</p><p><span style="font-weight:bold;color:#7777aa;">Ron Paul:</span> So you thin the line... so you don't want me to do an abortion on somebody that has an 8 pound normal baby.</p><p><span style="font-weight:bold;color:#aa7777;">Joy Behar:</span> No of course not, but the... but if the...</p><p><span style="font-weight:bold;color:#7777aa;">Ron Paul:</span> Ok, So you're not for abortion really.</p></blockquote><p>He tries to establish here a false dichotomy, in almost clear contradiction with what <span style="font-style:italic;">Roe v. Wade</span> actually covers, a point which will become rather relevant in a moment.</p><p>In the second video he openly rails against what he calls "one of the most despicable of all court rulings" and calls for the overturning of the <span style="font-style:italic;">Roe v. Wade</span> decision and the removal of the abortion issue from Federal jurisdiction.</p><p>Dr. Paul states in this speech:</p><blockquote><p>And for my time that I've spent in politics as well as medicine, I've thought this issue through rather seriously and have written even a booklet on the right-to-life issue and the importance of the unborn. And I frequently tell the story about when I was a resident, that this issue came up. It was in the 1960s, when abortions were still illegal, but my professor was doing abortions and permitting abortions to defy the law. And I accidentally walked into a room where they were doing an abortion, and they delivered a two-pound fetus, an infant that was breathing and crying. And they took this baby and put it over in a basket in the corner, and they waited, pretended they didn't hear it and let it die.</p><p>That is an outrage.</p><p>And unfortunately, since that time, our Supreme Court has institutionalized that, and that is why I think one of the most despicable of all court rulings has been the Roe versus Wade, and that should be our goal, is to repeal Roe versus Wade.</p></blockquote><p>This latter stance raises a few issues of its own which I'll attempt to address.</p><p>First off is the fundamental matter of the Constitutionality of Justice Harry Blackmun's decision.</p><blockquote>The opinion of the <span style="font-style:italic;">Roe</span> Court, written by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Blackmun">Justice Harry Blackmun</a>, declined to adopt the district court's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Ninth Amendment</a> rationale, and instead asserted that the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy">right of privacy</a>, whether it be founded in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Fourteenth Amendment</a>'s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Douglas, in his concurring opinion from the companion case Doe v. Bolton, stated more emphatically that, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights." Thus, the Roe majority rested its opinion squarely on the Constitution's due process clause.</blockquote><p>What this means is that there are certain rights that are fundamental to man and cannot be abridged. Consider the comments of Justice Arthur Goldberg (joined by Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan) in their concurring opinion in the case of <span style="font-style:italic;">Griswold v. Connecticut</span> (1965):</p><blockquote>[T]he Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... I do not mean to imply that the .... Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government....While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, <span style="font-weight:bold;">the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement.</span></blockquote><p>The emphasis at the end is mine.</p><p>In this vein the <span style="font-style:italic;">Roe v. Wade</span> decision defends those fundamental personal rights, that of a woman's right to privacy and the right to control her own body.</p><p>This also relates to the rights covered in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution:</p><blockquote>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."</blockquote><p>What these together illustrate is the principle that a woman has the fundamental <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_right">natural right</a> to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy">privacy</a> and the right to control her own body, that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States">founding fathers</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution">Constitution</a> recognize the principle of these rights and that they defend those rights through several of the Amendments in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights">Bill of Rights</a> in a manner which precludes infringement upon them by either the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_government#United_States">state</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States">federal</a> governments.</p><p>So in his speech, Paul first makes a case about what he describes as a viable (his implication) fetus that was discarded in a trash can and left to die, before <span style="font-style:italic;">Roe v. Wade</span> ever happened. <span style="font-style:italic;">Roe v. Wade</span> actually moves to prevent such an act by forbidding late term abortions except to protect the mother's health, only allowing the mother the choice of control over her own body and not specifically over that of the fetus. This makes the issue not one of whether or not the mother has the right to kill her own child, but of whether or not she has control of her own body and whether or not to continue a pregnancy. If the child can survive outside of the mother, it is thus protected under <span style="font-style:italic;">Roe v. Wade</span>.</p><p>If Paul's intention was truly to prevent late term abortions, he would be attacking <span style="font-style:italic;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton">Doe v. Bolton</a></span>, the case that actually allows late term abortions in cases of a physician's decision to protect the health of the mother, not <span style="font-style:italic;">Roe v. Wade</span> which prevents them after viability.</p><p>Given these issues, it becomes clear that his intention is not to benevolently remove the federal government from meddling with our right to choose, thus allowing the states to decide for themselves, or even to prevent late term abortions. His intention is specifically to remove the Constitutionally protected status from the issue as recognized by <span style="font-style:italic;">Roe v. Wade</span> in order to facilitate the criminalization of abortions on the state level, something that cannot be done currently because of the Supreme Court's recognition of the natural rights of the woman that are reflected in and protected by the Bill of Rights.</p><p>With those points hopefully addressed, I'll move on to a more specific facet of this debate raised on the local meet-up mailing list.</p><p>There was a statement made about supporting Ron Paul because he supported a woman's right to choose not to fund abortions with tax dollars. The specific statement was as follows:</p><blockquote>Ron Paul supports my pro-choice decision not to be <span style="font-weight:bold;">COMPELLED</span> to fund Abortions through <span style="font-weight:bold;">TAXATION</span> for women who make their own choice to have one.</blockquote><p>This was followed by several other similar statements about sex education, public education, freedom of religion, medical history, border protection, welfare and charity.</p><p>The whole statement was meant to be a play on the "Pro-Choice" stance by actually turning it around to mean that Ron Paul gives the woman the choice <span style="font-weight:bold;font-style:italic;">not</span> to support abortions with her tax dollars etc.</p><p>At first glance this may seem like a sound statement and a clever way of showing why she supports Ron Paul. However, this is another case where the issue is not as simple as it may seem at first glance. The actual reality of the issue more likely has the opposite effect of what she and the Pro-Life camp seem to think it would.</p><p>Under Paul's plan, he asserts that control of the issue would move out from under Federal control and become a state issue.</p><p>Currently federal tax dollars cannot be used to fund abortions since the passage of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment">Hyde Amendment</a> over 30 years ago (Passed in 1976 with additional wording to allow for exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother in 1977).</p><p>However, on the state level 17 of the 50 states currently support the use of state tax dollars to fund abortions. Thus Paul's removal of federal government involvement would not change the issue of tax dollars being spent on abortions because the issue simply does not really exist to begin with. This is a case of smoke and mirrors.</p><p>Based on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">10th Amendment</a> of the Constitution, the states would have the right, independent of the federal government, to continue to fund abortions with tax dollars and to keep abortions legal. Based on Paul's own Constitutional platform, the federal government would have no right to intervene in the state choices on the matter.</p><blockquote>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.</blockquote><p>The only possible recourse Paul would have to fulfill his desire to ban abortion through the abolishment of <span style="font-style:italic;">Roe v. Wade</span> would be to violate the very fundamental tenets of his Constitutional claims of wanting the federal government out of the issue, and thus attempting to pass wholly hypocritical legislation at the federal level to prevent the states from exercising their own Constitutionally protected right to govern themselves and create their own legislation on the matter. This would be acting precisely in the same vein as the <span style="font-style:italic;">Roe v. Wade</span> legislation he decries as the federal government interfering in our person lives.</p><p>Thus we're left with quite a conundrum.</p><p>Now we could probably take this a few different ways, and from what I've seen that is precisely what people are doing.</p><p>On one hand you could argue that Paul is downplaying the issue to most media outlets and actually intends to have <span style="font-style:italic;">Roe v. Wade</span> overturned and thus implement legislation that would abolish the right to have legal abortions by cutting the head off of the proverbial snake at the federal level.</p><p>On the other hand you could argue that while he personally might be strongly against abortion, he is simply playing to the desires of his different constituents in an attempt to achieve the larger goal of removing federal involvement in our personal lives and that he really does believe in the Constitutionally protected right of states to govern themselves, whatever ends that may lead to.</p><p>Fortunately we have Dr. Paul's own words to give us a clearer idea what his intentions really are.</p><blockquote><p>Now, there's a couple of ways that that can be done. Of course, we could wait until we have our Supreme Court justices appointed for them to, when the time comes, to rehear a case like that and rule differently; that's taking a long time. We've been living with <span style="font-style:italic;">Roe versus Wade</span> since 1973, and it hasn't happened.</p><p>My approach -- I certainly support that, but my approach is a little bit more direct, and it could happen much quicker, and that is accepting the principle that we can, as a legislative body and as a president -- we can remove the jurisdiction of this issue from the federal courts.</p><p>I have a bill called the <span style="font-style:italic;">We the People Act</span>, and this addresses several subjects -- prayer in school, the marriage issue as well as the abortion issue -- which literally just takes it away from the federal courts, which means any state could pass a law passing a prohibition that could not be heard in the federal courts.</p><p>Now, the question I have and something I don't have the answer for is I wonder why we haven't done better with this approach in Washington. I don't get the support that I think we should have. We haven't had the support in the Congress. We had the majority for a good many years, we've had a pro-life president, but we have not moved in that direction, and we say, "Oh, yeah, I'm going to appoint judges, and we'll take care of that." This would go into effect immediately, and it occurs only with majority vote of the Congress.</p><p>So don't give up on that method. Make sure that when you're promoting your issues and promoting the cause of life, that you remember that principle. It can be found in my bill called <span style="font-style:italic;">We The People's Act</span>.</p></blockquote><p>He wants to pass legislation that would remove the possibility of these issues being Constitutionally protected at the federal level as the natural rights that they are. This would not only allow the states to pass legislation that would in effect be in violation of the Constitution's protection of natural rights, but would prevent anyone from having any recourse to have their grievances heard at the federal level and thus Constitutionally protected.</p><p>This seems to me to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the Constitution in protecting the natural rights, freedoms and liberties of all of us.</p><p>This is the second troubling issue I've had with Ron Paul and his comments about roles of state and federal government, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The first issue was with a series of comments Ron Paul made about Christmas and I wrote an article on it entitled "<a href="http://phreadom.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-paul-makes-some-serious-fallacious.html">Ron Paul makes some serious fallacious claims.</a>"</p><p>I want to be clear that I still definitely support Ron Paul for the 2008 Presidency, but I don't believe any decision to elect a candidate for such an important position should have such fundamental issues overlooked without due diligence and critical assessment.</p><p>It reminds me of the words of our 26th President and fellow Republican to Ron Paul, Theodore Roosevelt:</p><blockquote>"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." -President Theodore Roosevelt - Kansas City Star, May 7th 1918</blockquote><p>Should we do any less for a candidate for that position? Given the opportunity to address issues before a candidate might gain that office?</p><p>Perhaps in closing we should ponder a few words by the great <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson">Thomas Jefferson</a>, who Ron Paul has often been compared to.</p><blockquote>Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights. (January 8, 1789)</blockquote><blockquote>If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. (January 6, 1816)</blockquote><blockquote>Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day. (April 24, 1816)</blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.</span> (December 27, 1820)</blockquote>JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-70008038047758252102007-12-18T15:21:00.000-05:002007-12-18T15:31:41.764-05:00Thank Senator Dodd for filibustering the FISA update!<p>Check out <a href="http://thankyoudodd.com/">http://thankyoudodd.com/</a> for all the information on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster">filibuster</a> by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dodd">Senator Chris Dodd</a> (D-Conn) of the Unconstitutional update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (which I mentioned in my previous post "<a href="http://phreadom.blogspot.com/2007/12/hello-congress-this-is-constitution.html">Hello, Congress? This is the Constitution calling.</a>").</p><p>The major media coverage of this event was slim at best, generally just stating that Reid had delayed the legislation, with no mention whatsoever of Dodd and his filibuster.</p><p>Thank you Senator Dodd!</p>JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-53201409072657280142007-12-18T13:03:00.000-05:002007-12-18T13:26:38.068-05:00Hello, Congress? This is the Constitution calling.<p>I am seeing in the news lately a lot of talk about legislation being passed that will retroactively exempt from criminal prosecution actions done by persons or companies acting illegally in the interests of the current administration.</p><p>Some of the legislation I'm referring to includes the cases of the new Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) update which will grant retroactive immunity to the telecoms that illegally assisted the NSA under Bush's direction in illegally wiretapping US citizens, or the government in 2006 passing the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act">Military Commissions Act</a> which provided retroactive legal protection to those who carried out waterboarding and other coercive interrogation techniques along with a slew of other criminal acts.</p><p>I am astounded that it seems that there isn't more attention being brought to the fact that the United States Constitution clearly states in Article I Section 9:<blockquote><strong>No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.</strong></blockquote></p><p>No two ways about it, no Law can be passed after the fact to grant retroactive immunity for illegal activities. Article I Section 10 goes on to set this same limit against the State Governments as well.</p><p>Not to mention that Article I Section 9 also clearly states:<blockquote> The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.</blockquote></p><p>And yet, having no rebellion here at home and no invasion, Habeas Corpus is being suspended for anyone the government arbitrarily deems an "enemy combatant" or "person of interest" etc.</p>JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-3204511873961099742007-12-18T10:30:00.000-05:002007-12-18T10:38:55.967-05:00On what it means to be an American.In responding to an article on the <a href="http://imby.wordpress.com/">Backyard Beacon</a> entitled "<a href="http://imby.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/no-ron-paul-relief-for-new-orleans/">No Ron Paul relief for New Orleans</a>", I went on a bit too long and decided to post my comment as an article on here and simply link to it.</p><p>I could probably have continued on, touching on things such as the government and media denial of the North American Union, despite a variety of news coverage, already passed legislation, government meetings and even government websites detailing parts of the plan etc. But I'll leave that for another post.</p><p>For now, here is my comment:<blockquote><p>I think what binds us is that we share a common privilege of being part of what was founded as the greatest nation on Earth, primarily for the reasons of its diversity and freedoms. We were a nation that ensured equal status for people of any nationality or religious belief. People could come here from foreign countries for a new start and know that they would have the equal grounding to begin from. This was the great American dream of coming here to rise through the ranks through hard work and provide for your family and descendants etc.</p><p>We are united in the patriotism we feel that we were a nation that threw off the shackles of a foreign imperial power to fend for ourselves on the world stage and through American ingenuity and hard work became the dominant world power, based on the principles of freedom and equality for all engendering a spirit of progress and competitiveness.</p><p>Americans take pride in being a part of the "land of the free and the home of the brave". They like to feel that the government is here to protect that institution and preserve the sense of liberty and freedom espoused by the founding fathers.</p><p>Many of these points could probably be argued when contrasted with the historical facts or motivations of particular people, but the point stands that most Americans feel and believe in these ideas. Just as the soldiers who sign up to fight and die in foreign lands believe so strongly in their hearts that they are fighting and dying to protect those most precious principles.</p><p>What Paul proposes is not to completely cut off the current system, but to return to the rightful system of states' rights and states' responsibilities. A state has a right and an obligation to govern its own people as it sees fit, to make laws on the state level and to provide for its people on the state level.</p><p>The Federal Government's role is that of arbiter of international conflicts, interstate commerce, interstate disputes etc. It is not to govern the people of every state individually, that is the role of the state government.</p><p>If a city floods, that is the role of the state government. If a drought hits or a depression occurs that affects the nation as a whole, that is a national disaster.</p><p>First off there should not have been a city built on the gulf coast in the line of hurricanes that was below sea level and relying only on a levee wall to keep it from being submerged. Secondly the state should have been responsible for ensuring the safety of a city built in such a foolish location. It is not the responsibility of other states to have their tax dollars used to fund the fools errand of protecting a city below sea level hundreds or thousands of miles away.</p><p>I think it almost goes without saying that if a city is built in such a foolish location, they should have planned ahead and created emergency procedures, evacuation routes etc.</p><p>To rely on the Federal government to use billions of tax dollars from across the nation to take care of them, and then bail them out when everything goes wrong is to demand and rely on a welfare state. A socialist government that takes from one man to give to another. Not a free society of individual responsibility and opportunity.</p><p>I hear over and over again that the government failed in their responsibility to the people of New Orleans, but the reality is that the Federal Government had no such responsibility to the people to begin with and was in the wrong in creating such bureaucratic monstrosities such as FEMA and the DHS to begin with. They should have never been responsible for building the levee. They should have never been responsible for bailing the people out or taking care of them after the fact.</p><p>There is a problem here with confusing State Government with Federal Government. People cannot seem to differentiate the two. They just ignorantly see "government" and expect to be taken care of it.</p><p>I should point out that I am in Michigan and thus did not see the disaster first hand. My cousin is in the National Guard and spent several weeks in New Orleans helping with the rebuilding etc. In the interest of full disclosure.</p><p>I worked for a Tribal Government here in Michigan for several years and we had implemented a variety of disaster related procedures. Evacuation routes, rescue procedures, locations for different bases of operation, methods for cooperation between law enforcement, medical, government, media, etc.</p><p>There was nothing preventing New Orleans from planning for this possibility and having a system in place to facilitate a disaster prevention and recovery operation, moving the people out of danger zones, providing safe refuge through the storm, channeling relief supplies and coordinating volunteers to assist in the recovery etc.</p><p>There is nothing preventing the nation from an outpouring of assistance and volunteering, from one end of the country to the other. But it should have been the responsibility of the state to coordinate these things and channel the proper funds, goods and personnel to the proper places.</p><p>Instead what we got was a bunch of Federal Government bureaucracies and mercenaries creating a perfect storm of red tape, government largesse, unConstitutional actions, incompetence at essentially every level and a waste of tax dollars at a staggering level. Interference, if not outright prevention, of independent relief efforts at every turn etc.</p><p>I'm sure that many of you who were there could vouch for these things better than I.</p><p>The point is that many many mistakes were made here in almost every possible aspect of the situation, starting from years in advance up until the present day situation of refugees still languishing in squalor, still waiting for the hollow promises of the Federal Government to bail them out.</p><p>The solution is not to hope in vain for the Federal Government to solve the problems while pointing the finger at them for their failure to prevent it, but to look more closely at the factors that led to this. To understand the responsibility of the different parties involved on both the State and Federal level and the important differences between them. The failures in state and local preventative planning. And possibly most importantly, looking to the future and in how to avoid a repeat of this disaster, which may very well include the obvious option of leaving the area.</p><p>There are lessons to be learned from this, but they are certainly not that we should sit idly by relying on an authoritarian government to police and provide a welfare state for the entire nation, but that we are a nation of proud patriots that celebrate our freedom and liberty and can take care of ourselves on the state and local level when left to do so. That we don't need a Statist big brother to direct our lives and provide for all of us by taking from one neighbor to give to another just because one neighbor might have a better job or been luckier. That we can rely on ourselves to govern ourselves and to support our communities and our neighbors. To have faith in the human spirit of accomplishment, of compassion... the great American spirit of Adventure, of Discovery, of Invention... the great "American Ingenuity" that was spoken of in years gone by.</p><p>We need to return to the great nation our founding fathers built for us and turn away from this horrible descent into a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism">Statist</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist">Socialist</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian">Authoritarian</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism">Totalitarian</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy">Theocratic</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship">Dictatorship</a>.</p><p>The direction we are heading is in every way, and at every step, the very antithesis of what our founding fathers intended and created for us. Suspension of Habeus Corpus, suspension of Posse Comitatus, suspension of due process, of right to privacy, of right to bear arms, of separation of Church and State, of freedom of speech, of right to protest, right to property, of protection from search and seizure, of representation and on and on.</p><p>Our Constitution and our Republic are being openly and systematically dismantled before our eyes under the ageless guise of trading our most fundamental freedoms and liberties for an utterly false sense of security.</p><p>We need to take responsibility for our actions. Take pride in our communities and in our country. Respect the rights of our fellow man to his life, liberty, beliefs, property and pursuit of happiness (all of which are mentioned in the documents which founded our nation). Respect the rights of foreign sovereign nations to govern themselves by their own laws and customs. To aid only those foreign countries in need and only by consensus of the people as laid out in our Constitution and not to wage preemptive wars or enter entangling alliances with foreign powers. To return to a sound currency for our nation instead of relying on an unbacked paper currency implemented by a private bank to control every aspect of our society and government from the very top to the very bottom. To abolishing the income tax and returning our country to the Constitutional government system we had before 1913 where a man was free to enjoy the fruits of his own labor, thus enabling a great amount of income to go back into the hands of the people to be used directly in the economy and not instead go into the government coffers to be used at the whim of a bloated government acting largely in the interest of corporations and lobbyists, where companies take the profits but the American people pay the price of failure, thus perpetuating a one way flow of wealth away from the people.</p><p>When I look around me and see all the hallmarks of the fascist states we so soundly denounced over the past half century, I am appalled. When I hear what so many of my international friends, and the friends in foreign lands of all of us American people, think of our current government... it deeply saddens and disheartens me. When I see our media lying to the people and covering up the most important events of our time, because a handful of powerful companies own essentially <b><i>all</i></b> the sources of mainstream information and are in bed together with the government that enables them... it angers me. When I see our government openly being converted into a theocracy in violation of the Constitution, Creationism and biblical fundamentalism displacing the teaching of scientific fact and critical thinking skills in our schools, of a nation increasingly devolving into divisions of race, gender, sexuality and beliefs... echoing the unconstitutional change of our national motto from "E Pluribus Unum (out of many [come] one)", which celebrated the strength of our nation through its diversity, to the divisive "In God We Trust", which states that to be an American is to be a Christian and espouse Christian beliefs, which in turn shuts out millions of Americans who hold different beliefs or whose lifestyles don't match the arbitrary biblical morals of the Christian majority... I am pressed to rise up, to speak out, to rage against the criminal injustice being done to our nation as a whole.</p><p>We are showing almost all of the symptoms of the most heinous regimes in modern history and it is frightening to the extent to which the American people seem apathetic to and unaware of the dire warnings history holds for us.</p><p>There are countless direct parallels today between the United States and Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Communist China, etc. The American heart and soul recoils at such claims, but the reality is there for those brave enough to look, see the evidence and act as <i>true</i> patriots to protect our country, our people and our Constitution which is at the very heart of it all.</p><blockquote><p><i>God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.<br />-- Thomas Jefferson, November 13, 1787</i></p></blockquote><p>So stated by the author of our own <i>Declaration of Independence</i>. A true patriot seeks always to guard against the consolidation of power by the government, to be ever vigilant in protecting our liberties. To maintain a spirit of resistance. To call the government into account for its actions.</p><p>I feel the desire to go on about how we cannot be set right as to the facts, as Jefferson proposes above, because our government has invented scores of illegal "top secret" classifications that violate the rule of law, because they have invented ways to prevent people from speaking out about what is being done to them, because they have destroyed vast amounts of incriminating evidence, in direct violation of the law, because they openly state that they are not beholden to the law and have the absolute authority to grant themselves any powers they so choose, at their own discretion and without the need to reveal their actions to anyone.... and on and on.</p><p>I can only hope people can start to open their eyes to what is happening. To what history tells us. Look at the facts and the evidence. Don't be afraid to ask questions, to research, to try to understand. Use your common sense, reason, critical thinking skills, rational and logical thought gain a greater understanding of the world you live in... of the great country you are a part of that is in imminent danger of fundamentally losing it's very foundation.</p><p>(There is so much more to these issues, but I must stop at some point and submit this... I fear that I've gone on too long as it is... I lack the gift of brevity it seems.)</p></blockquote>JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-72570632069314355232007-12-17T08:31:00.000-05:002007-12-17T08:51:28.918-05:00Ron Paul is the Thomas Jefferson of our time and the only viable 2008 Republican option.<p>As Allen Holm states in his <em>The Conservative Voice</em> article <em><a href="http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/29788.html">Reasons for Republicans to Vote Paul</a></em>, "Ron Paul is going to win the nomination of the Republican Party or the party is going to lose in the general election. Take that as a guarantee. One I would bet money on."</p><p>He closes out his excellent article with a number of quotes that I literally thought were from Ron Paul when I started reading. They so poignantly illustrate how Congressman Paul's stance echoes that of the author of our Declaration of Independence and one of the most influential founding fathers of our country.</p><p>We should also take a moment to note that yesterday Ron Paul set another campaign record by raising over <strong>six million dollars</strong> in 24 hours, beating his previous record of $4.2M in 24 hours, which was itself a record in the GOP.</p><p><a href="http://ronpaulgraphs.com/dec_16_vs_nov_5_total.html">http://ronpaulgraphs.com/dec_16_vs_nov_5_total.html</a></p><p>We should also take note again of the blatant, if not criminal, bias being shown by the mainstream media in openly trying to keep Ron Paul out of the limelight.</p><p><em><a href="http://rafb.net/p/mGd5hC12.nln.html">"You say Ron Paul doesn't have a chance? But who is giving you that idea? The major media outlets."</a></em></p><p><blockquote>“I am for preserving to the states the powers not yielded by them to the union; and for preventing the further encroachment of the executive branch on the rightful powers of congress. I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, and for retiring the national debt, eliminating the standing army, and relying on the militia to safeguard internal security, and keeping the navy small, lest it drag the nation into eternal wars. I am for free commerce with all nations, political connections with none…. I am for freedom of religion, and for freedom of the press. And against all violations to the Constitution to silence our citizens” - Thomas Jefferson on his positions for the 1800 election.</blockquote><blockquote>“Paper is poverty…it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself” –Thomas Jefferson</blockquote><blockquote>“I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be” –Thomas Jefferson</blockquote><blockquote>“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them” –Thomas Jefferson</blockquote><blockquote>“I sincerely believe that banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies” –Thomas Jefferson</blockquote><blockquote>“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God; it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” -Thomas Jefferson</blockquote><blockquote>“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution.” —Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Paine, 1798</blockquote></p><p>Restore the Republic. Restore the Constitution. Restore Freedom and Liberty to our nation.</p><p><a href="http://ronpaul2008.com/">Please vote for Ron Paul for President of the United States of America in 2008.</a></p>JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-8749690641672722502007-12-16T12:14:00.000-05:002007-12-16T12:19:55.303-05:00Tea Party '07!It's time for another record breaking day for Ron Paul!<br /><br />The Nov 5th donation drive netted the Paul campaign over $4M in one day! Let's see if we can't soundly surpass that record today!<br /><br />Let's return our nation to one based on the principles of our founding fathers and under the rule of the Constitution and the people, not a power hungry dictator.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.teaparty07.com/">http://www.teaparty07.com/</a><br /><br />Compare the live graph of today's fundraising with that of the Nov 5th drive: <a href="http://ronpaulgraphs.com/dec_16_vs_nov_5_total.html">http://ronpaulgraphs.com/dec_16_vs_nov_5_total.html</a>JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-11389879110162567272007-12-04T22:41:00.000-05:002007-12-04T23:23:54.419-05:00Preposterous wishful thinking.<p>I noticed a link to a blog in a Google ad earlier while reading my e-mail and decided to have a look. What I found both saddened and angered me while simultaneously causing me to laugh out loud at its claims.</p><p><a href="http://www.answertheskeptic.com/">Answer The Skeptic</a></p><p>I felt compelled to write a lengthy comment denouncing what I read, which led me to notice something else; almost every overtly religious blog I've run across moderates their comments and tends to only allow comments that they agree with. This shouldn't really be a surprise, considering that it is precisely the mentality of such religious people; to only acknowledge points of view and information which seem to support their belief while willfully avoiding at all costs acknowledging any information or facts to the contrary. Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance at their most pronounced.</p><p>With that said, I'm including my comment below as I'm not sure it will show up on the other site. Here is the original post that prompted my initial response (which grew to encompass other points on that site etc.): <a href="http://www.answertheskeptic.com/index.php/how-humans-are-different-from-other-animals/2007/12/04">Humans are different from other animals</a></p><blockquote><p>I think the important thing to note here is the obvious statement that "I don't care if the evidence proves that we are related to monkeys and just another animal, I don't want to believe it because I don't like it, so I'm going to argue that my feelings are more important than factual reality."</p><p>Science proves that we are related to the great apes etc, and are just another animal in the animal kingdom, evolved in the same way as the rest. Religion on the other hand is still trying to cling to the ancient mythology that we are some magical, divine being created wholly separately from the rest of the animal kingdom.</p><p>They only grudgingly, and wholly hypocritically, admit pieces and parts of the truth while still trying to hopelessly cling to the ancient myths.</p><p>My frustration with this behavior is such things as teaching Evolution still being outlawed in more socially behind the times areas such as the southern states etc... Creationist mythology being dressed up to pretend that it's not just religious wishful thinking and pawned off on our children under the false pretense of it being scientific... a claim which has been soundly disproven in courts of law.</p><p>This kind of primitive and dishonest thinking is slowly turning our country into an intellectual backwater where scientific research and education is taking a backseat to primitive mythology and superstition. Modern technological and medical advancements are now being made overseas and the United States is losing its place at the forefront of human scientific progress. Our children are left a mockery to more educated industrialized countries, left unable to fully comprehend global scientific, political, social and cultural issues... being blinded by the cognitive dissonance and fog of internally conflicting facts and myths, reality in front of their eyes and heads full of ancient fairytale stories about the world they perceive. When these things inevitably conflict, they are left in a sort of cognitive daze.</p><p>It's not hard to look and see what this religious wishful thinking and desperate denial of reality is doing to our country.</p><p>As final food for thought in response to some of the desperate and off-base claims made by the article referred to in the post... consider that dolphins have been shown to understand time, the concept of future rewards in relation to investment etc... and other animals such as elephants and gorillas have been shown to understand the concept of mortality. The dolphins were trained to pick up litter in the pool and return it to the trainers for a reward. The dolphins on their own came up with the idea of hiding a piece of litter at the bottom of the pool and tearing off pieces of it to get more fish at later times. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/jul/03/research.science">http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/jul/03/research.science</a></p><p>Here is another good article that covers this general theme: <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/23/10551/6579">http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/23/10551/6579</a></p><p>In short, your wishful thinking, despite the reality around you, is a problem. If you simply started accepting the facts of reality around you, you could open your eyes to the vast and mind boggling wonders of the universe that REALLY EXISTS around you. This is vastly more wondrous and awe inspiring than the small minded myths invented by ignorant and primitive sheep herders thousands and thousands of years ago when people still thought the earth was flat, the sky was a mechanical dome, the sun was a light that orbited the earth, that the world was only a few thousand years old, that knew nothing of other continents, dinosaurs, atomic structures, physics, sickness and health, flight and on and on and on.</p><p>Putting that mythology behind us and pursuing real knowledge of the world around us has enabled mankind to fly, to leave the bonds of mother earth and step foot upon other worlds, gazing back at our planet through the vastness of space... to understand the world we cannot see in provable ways which enable us to harness atomic energy, to create the very computer you're reading and typing on at this very moment, that allowed us to send out probes which have flown far beyond the reaches of our solar system into the vast expanse of interstellar space...</p><p>Clinging to primitive myths despite facts and evidence proving otherwise is blasphemous to the very nature of the human mind. Reprehensible to human progress. Such religiously based willful ignorance and defiance of reality would have all of us still living in mud huts, fearful of a vengeful sky god who would smote us with spears from heaven if we were bad, or strike us down with plagues for our sins... sicknesses which we would be ignorantly praying for salvation from rather than harnessing our scientific knowledge to cure them ourselves.</p><p>Religion is the ceaseless denial of the greatest accomplishments of mankind, of mankind's greatest potential. It would have us all remain servile and ignorant sheep and that, to me, is an abomination.</p><p>Reading some of the other articles on this blog saddens, frustrates and even angers me with the insult it does to humanity and our own common sense at the very least. Arguing about evil when the bible itself states that God CREATED evil... a vengeful, jealous god that creates good and evil, creates sin, lives in darkness, lies to his creations, creates a flawed angel whom he allows to rebel and take one third of all the angels with him to earth to further torment his less loved creations, angels being held closer to him in both favor and locale, allowing humanity to sin and then punishing them for it when he created that sin to begin with... refusing to forgive the sin or simply remove the sin, but preferring to subject humanity to an eternity of suffering for what HE CREATED... then creating a son to be sent to earth to suffer and die horribly for nothing more than a show... STILL not removing that punishment for sin... leaving humanity no better off than the moments after Eve ate from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil... the list goes on and on... and what's worse is that it's ALL A STORY! A provably ridiculous myth written by primitive people thousands of years ago! And you people still cling to it as FACTUAL REALITY!?</p><p>Articles about science not being able to YET fully explain the origin of the universe, or FULLY understand the physical functioning of the human brain... SERIOUSLY!? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!? Science has taken mankind from believing the ignorance of the bible to being able to travel between planets! To fly through space! Science has allowed us to map the functions of the brain, enabling advanced brain surgery and greater understanding of mental impairments and diseases etc...</p><p>Your desperate claims to point to Science not FULLY explaining some of the most profoundly complex problems of our time when you have NO PROOF WHATSOEVER for your beliefs, and not to mention that they are even more ridiculous in light of the MOUNTAINS of scientific PROOF to the contrary... you have the audacity to point to modern astrophysics and call it a fundamental failure that they haven't PROVEN the creation of the universe when the best your ignorant shepherds millennia ago have come up with is that a man in the sky created everything one day!? LISTEN TO YOURSELF!</p><p>If the Universe requires a creator because of its complexity, then how can the creator, being necessarily more complex than the universe, not also require a creator? And if the creator does not require a creator, then the universe, being less complex, would certainly not either and would be more likely to have simply sprung into existence.</p><p>The logic behind that simple statement is enough to explain the foolishness of your beliefs to even a child. And fortunately we have mountains and mountains of scientific evidence and proof from centuries of research and understanding and human achievement to bring us, through a preponderance of convergent evidence, to the enlightened understandings we have today of the REAL WORLD AROUND US, an understanding that compels us to leave the ignorant and primitive myths of our ancient ancestors where they belong... by the wayside along with all the other gods and myths man has worshipped, believed and inevitably left behind on the road of human progress.</p></blockquote>JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-49350468827383764792007-11-05T22:44:00.000-05:002007-11-05T22:52:24.512-05:00Ron Paul's November 5th Fundraising - Are there server limitations holding it back?<a href="http://ronpaulgraphs.com/nov_5_extended_total.html">http://ronpaulgraphs.com/nov_5_extended_total.html</a><br /><br />From the look of the graph, the line appears too even for too many hours straight.<br /><br />It appears to me that it's possible that they are running up against some limit in the donation system. It doesn't appear to be bandwidth, possibly something in the back-end system that actually handles the donation processing?<br /><br />I guess maybe we'll find out later, but it would be highly disappointing if there could have been even more donations, but they were held back by limitations in the donation system, thus preventing the campaign from setting a historical record in Presidential campaign donations for a 24 hour period.JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-43999312492188146202007-08-12T06:31:00.000-04:002007-08-12T08:35:41.738-04:00Washington Post explicitly lists 1st through 4th, and 6th place winners. No mention of Ron Paul.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_Straw_Poll"><img src="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d12/phreadom/blog%20content/Straw_poll_logo.png" width="151" height="153" alt="Ames Iowa Republican Straw Poll" style="float:left;margin-right:16px;margin-bottom:15px;position:relative;top:5px;"></a>Several of the Mainstream Media outlets today reported on the Iowa Straw Poll results and conspicuously failed to make any mention of the fact that the "long shot" candidate Ron Paul had beaten both Giuliani and McCain by a sizable margin, with <span style="font-style:italic;">over four and a half times</span> as many votes as Giuliani and McCain <span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-style:italic;">combined</span></span>. Not only did they not report on that important fact, many of them simply neglected to mention him at all, completely skipping his place in the top 5 candidates as they listed the results. Probably the most egregious of these omissions was that of <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/11/AR2007081101382.html">the Washington Post article on the Straw Poll results</a>.<br /><br />The Washington Post article explicitly lists the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and then 6th place candidates, conspicuously skipping over Ron Paul at 5th place. They even go on to discuss the 7th, 8th and 10th place candidates.<br /><br />No mention of Ron Paul whatsoever in the entire 1,361 word article.<br /><br />They discuss Giuliani and McCain, both of whom Ron Paul beat in the poll and they even discuss Fred Thompson, who is not even a Presidential Candidate.<br /><br />The only people not discussed besides Ron Paul were the 9th and last place (11th) candidates, Duncan Hunter and John Cox.<br /><br />It's odd that the candidate that finished in the top five, and had the unanimous recognition elsewhere of having easily the most visible, enthusiastic, and large crowd of supporters, only rivaled in size by Romney's group but not in enthusiasm, would not be mentioned. That the candidate widely called a long shot would garner almost 10% of the votes and place in the top 5, ahead of both McCain and Giuliani who are considered big name front-runners.<blockquote>Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee finished second with 18 percent of the 14,302 votes cast, and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas ran third with 15 percent. Huckabee and Brownback had waged a fierce battle for the allegiance of Iowa's social and religious conservatives. An ebullient Huckabee said Saturday night that the outcome will give his campaign a significant boost and vowed to coalesce those conservatives in Iowa and other early-voting states.<br /><br />Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, the most outspoken opponent of current U.S. immigration policy, finished fourth with 14 percent. Former Wisconsin governor Tommy G. Thompson was sixth at 7 percent. He had said he would quit the presidential race if he failed to finish in the top two, and his campaign said late Saturday that he would make an announcement within 48 hours about his candidacy.</blockquote>Fox News also conspicuously fails to mention Ron Paul at all in<br /><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293003,00.html">their article</a>, along with MSNBC following suit in <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20228687/">their article</a>. CNN lists the poll results in a sidebar, but makes no mention of Dr. Paul in <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/11/iowa.straw.poll/index.html">their article</a> either.<br /><br />On the other hand, the LA Times mentions Dr. Paul a few times in <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-strawpoll12aug12,1,7550836,full.story?ctrack=2&cset=true">its article on the Straw Poll</a>, and Reuters also included Dr. Paul in <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1026027920070812">their coverage</a>. The New York Times has an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us/politics/12straw.html?hp">excellent article</a> with a few paragraphs about Ron Paul's great genuine support where supporters came from all over the country of their own volition, unlike the Romney and Brownback supporters who were bussed in and had their tickets paid for.<blockquote><table width="100%" border="0"> <tr> <td colspan="3"><span style="font-weight:bold;">Iowa Straw Poll Results for the 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates</span></td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border-bottom:1px solid #777777;">Candidate</td> <td style="border-bottom:1px solid #777777;">Number of votes</td> <td style="border-bottom:1px solid #777777;">Percentage of total votes</td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-weight:bold;">Mitt Romney</span></td><td>4,516 Votes</td><td>31.6%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-weight:bold;">Mike Huckabee</span></td><td>2,587 Votes</td><td>18.1%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-weight:bold;">Sam Brownback</span></td><td>2,192 Votes</td><td>15.3%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-weight:bold;">Tom Tancredo</span></td><td>1,961 Votes</td><td>13.7%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-weight:bold;">Ron Paul</span></td><td>1,305 Votes</td><td>9.1%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-weight:bold;">Tommy Thompson</span></td><td>1,039 Votes</td><td>7.3%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-weight:bold;">Fred Thompson</span></td><td>203 Votes</td><td>1.4%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-weight:bold;">Rudy Giuliani</span></td><td>183 Votes</td><td>1.3%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-weight:bold;">Duncan Hunter</span></td><td>174 Votes</td><td>1.2%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-weight:bold;">John McCain</span></td><td>101 Votes</td><td>.7%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><span style="font-weight:bold;">John Cox</span></td><td>41 Votes</td><td>.3%</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="3">14,302 Total Ballots Cast</td> </tr></table></blockquote>JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-42866707588672137142007-08-08T09:00:00.000-04:002007-08-08T09:05:07.951-04:00Iowa GOP won't allow a privately funded manual validation of Diebold computers and Ron Paul quoted $184,000 for any count validationAs a follow-up to <a href="http://phreadom.blogspot.com/2007/08/important-letter-about-ron-paul-and.html">yesterday's article</a> about the Iowa Straw Poll and its questionable aims and choice of hardware, procedure etc, we have these disturbing updates.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=022139&From=News">http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=022139&From=News</a><br /><a href="http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/231.html">http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/231.html</a>JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-88067258243799830592007-08-07T09:55:00.001-04:002007-08-08T02:27:41.894-04:00Important letter about Ron Paul and the Iowa Straw Poll.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul"><img src="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d12/phreadom/blog%20content/RP.jpg" width="200" height="259" alt="Ron Paul" style="float:left;margin-right:16px;margin-bottom:15px;position:relative;top:5px;"></a>I received an email in my In-Box this morning and wanted to be sure to spread the word.<br /><br />We can already see the spin in action with the results of the debates Monday morning, where in spite of overwhelming support for Ron Paul and his absolute dominance of the ABC on-line poll afterward, Mitt Romney was hailed as being the strong winner and so on. Having read the <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1042a2IARepCaucus.pdf">actual poll data (PDF)</a> from the ABC poll (not the on-line poll) that <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3444367&page=1">the article</a> was based on, I noticed some interesting statistics. While 62 percent had previously been contacted by telephone by the candidates' campaigns, 72 percent said they'd never visited any of the candidates' websites. This further reinforces the idea that the polls are out of touch with the more "wired" or "connected" younger generation who are generally only available by mobile phone and are much more likely to have done on-line research of the candidates.<br /><br />(On a related note, an obstacle for Ron Paul's campaign also comes from the fact that many other party voters, including a good portion of Democrats, are also supporting Ron Paul and are thus, because of their party affiliations, unable to participate in the early polls and primaries etc. This prohibits them from being able to support Ron Paul fully until after it may be too late unless they switch their party affiliation for this election to allow them to participate in these early stages.)<br /><br />Below is an explanation of what happened and the attempts being made to prevent it from taking place at the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames on August 11th, <span style="font-weight:bold;">in only 4 days</span>. If you can, please do your part to make sure a fair and honest poll is taken in Ames! This is a poll that can make or break campaigns!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2007-08-05.htm">http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2007-08-05.htm</a><br /><br />That link is a <span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">must read</span></span> to understand what is going on in Ames, only 4 days from now!<blockquote>Dear Friends of Liberty:<br /><br />Please read the following two articles and then watch the two videos.<blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">Iowa Republicans See Romney As Straw Poll Winner</span><br /><br />an informal survey of Iowa Republican Party leaders, conducted by Real Clear Politics, shows high expectations for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.<br /><br />Of the 30 Republican officials - representing county parties around the state and the party's Central Committee - who responded to the survey via email, 93% picked Romney to win in Ames.</blockquote>Complete article here:<br /><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/iowa_republicans_see_romney_as_1.html">http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/iowa_republicans_see_romney_as_1.html</a><blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">Protecting Ron Paul, the Rest of the “2nd Tier” and America</span><br /><br />(Thanks Bob for this valuable information.)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Now picture this:</span><br /><br />On Tuesday, August 7, 2007, a letter is delivered to the Iowa Republican Party and the State and County Boards of Elections. The letter is signed by various good-government and election reform organizations and holders of $35 tickets that entitle them to vote in the Ames Straw Poll. The letter says that unless the following 10-point program is agreed to, a court order will be sought to enjoin and prohibit the Ames Straw Poll until the reforms are agreed to: <br /><a href="http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2007-08-05.htm">http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2007-08-05.htm</a><br /></blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">Ron Paul Delivers the Best Moment in the GOP Debates</span><br /><br />Please watch the video here, and then scroll down the page to Ron Paul on Fox News “Big Story”:<br /><a href="http://laist.com/2007/08/06/ron_paul_delive.php">http://laist.com/2007/08/06/ron_paul_delive.php</a><br /><br />This week in Ames, Iowa is critical. Any and all help will be much appreciated. <br /><br />We Need Your Help!<br /><a href="http://www.ronpaul2008.com/events/iowa-straw-poll/">http://www.ronpaul2008.com/events/iowa-straw-poll/</a><br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Joe Thornton</blockquote>It's shocking to note that in the article on Real Clear Politics, Ron Paul did not register in <span style="font-style:italic;">any</span> of the 4 different polls they did.<br /><br />Not only did they make the following statement about him:<blockquote>Perhaps unsurprisingly, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, a libertarian in the truest sense of the word, did not receive a single vote in the poll. The lone anti-war voice on the GOP stage, Paul would be unlikely to earn support, or even notice, of people involved in Republican circles enough to be an elected board member.</blockquote>But he was not even listed as a result in the 3 other polls:<ul><li>Candidate with the most to lose in the straw poll</li><li>Candidate with the most to win in the straw poll</li><li>Candidate most likely to win in 2008</li></ul>So according to the 30 "Iowa Republican Party leaders" that Real Clear Politics selected to poll, <span style="font-style:italic;">none of them</span> felt that Ron Paul was even significant enough to mention.<br /><br />To put that into perspective, even John Cox, who ranks the lowest out of all 2008 Republican candidates, who has not attended any of major debates and has the least donations of any 2008 Presidential candidate, was ahead of Ron Paul and was picked as more likely to win the 2008 Presidential election than John McCain, Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback.<br /><br />But Ron Paul, who has attended all of the major debates, dominated the on-line polls, has good funding and a higher ranking in the overall polls, doesn't even register a blip on the radar or even a mention in 3 out of their 4 polls.<br /><br />Real Clear Politics contacted almost 300 officials from the Iowa Republican Party and these statistics were based on the responses of the 30 officials who responded.<br /><br />I also noted the stances of some of the other Real Clear Politics editors, here are some of their other comments about Ron Paul:<blockquote>"He has no chance of winning the 2008 Republican nomination." --Mark Davis</blockquote><blockquote>"We know one element of the comparison is already apt [Between Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater]: Paul will not be President of the United States." --Gregory Scoblete</blockquote>I think it goes without saying that these mysterious 30 "Iowa Republican Party leaders" are not representative of the American people or even necessarily the Iowa Republican party constituency, representing less than %0.001 of them.<br /><br />Back on the straw poll itself, just to add insult to injury, let's have a look at the system they're using for the polls. Pay special attention to the equipment they're using.<blockquote> Next Saturday, from 10 am to 6 pm, more than 25,000 residents of the State of Iowa will arrive on the campus of Iowa State University in Ames. They will be 18 years of age or older. They will be there to choose one man from a list of eleven men as their choice to be the next President of the United States of America.<br /><br />At one of 60 vote stations they will receive a paper ballot. They will pencil in an oval next to the candidate of their choice. They will enter the paper ballot into a machine that will scan the entire ballot and record the vote. After voting, each voter will place a thumb into a container of purple ink.<br /><br />After scanning each ballot the machine will deposit the ballot into a “black box” within the Diebold machine. At 6 pm each machine and black box are transported to a centralized “tabulation” room. The door to the room will be closed to the public.<br /><br />The ballots are not removed from their black boxes or counted. Instead, a button on the machine is pressed. In response, the machine ejects a slip of paper showing the number of votes recorded by that machine for each candidate. The results are tabulated. Someone then leaves the room and announces the results of the vote to the assembled media representatives. Each person casting a vote will have paid $35 to do so. The ten men on the list are all Republicans. The Iowa Republican Party is sponsoring the event, which is known as the Ames Straw Poll, also the Iowa Straw Poll.</blockquote>For a little background on Diebold:<br /><a href="http://reddit.com/search?q=diebold">http://reddit.com/search?q=diebold</a><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold</a><br /><br />Diebold has a notoriously bad reputation, and the use of their systems here only increases my apprehension.JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-84003487696969455552007-08-04T02:03:00.001-04:002007-08-05T13:41:41.487-04:00Where did God tell the truth and where did the serpent lie?Let's do a little analysis of Genesis chapters 2 and 3 and see if we can't ascertain where God told the truth and where the serpent lied.<br /><br />We start with Genesis 2:8-9:<blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">8</span> Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. <span style="font-weight:bold;">9</span> And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. <span style="text-decoration:underline;">In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.</span></blockquote>and Genesis 2:15-17:<blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">15</span> The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. <span style="font-weight:bold;">16</span> <span style="text-decoration:underline;">And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; <span style="font-weight:bold;">17</span> but <span style="font-weight:bold;">you must not eat from <span style="font-style:italic;">the tree of the knowledge of good and evil</span></span>, for <span style="font-weight:bold;">when you eat of it you will surely die</span>."</span></blockquote>With that, the stage is set. God creates Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden. In the Garden of Eden he has 2 trees, the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Of these two trees, he forbids them to eat from the second tree (the tree of knowledge of good and evil), but makes no mention of the first (the tree of life). He tells them that if they eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they will die.<br /><br />With this God has created the first temptation, the first command and the first deception.<br /><br />This brings us to Genesis 3.<br /><br />First let's look at Genesis 3:1-5:<blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">1</span> Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight:bold;">2</span> The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, <span style="font-weight:bold;">3</span> but <span style="text-decoration:underline;">God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'</span> "<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight:bold;">4</span> <span style="text-decoration:underline;">"You will not surely die,</span>" the serpent said to the woman. <span style="font-weight:bold;">5</span> <span style="text-decoration:underline;">"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."</span></blockquote>Pay close attention to what the serpent says here. He says that while God has told them they will die if they eat from the tree, and Eve affirms that if she touches the tree she will die, the serpent clarifies that she will actually not die, but instead gain the Knowledge of Good and Evil like God.<br /><br />Which brings us to Genesis 3:6-7:<blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">6</span> When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also <span style="text-decoration:underline;">desirable for gaining wisdom</span>, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. <span style="font-weight:bold;">7</span> Then <span style="text-decoration:underline;">the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked</span>; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.</blockquote>Here Eve, prompted by the desire of knowledge and wisdom planted in her by God, listens to the advice of the serpent who tells her that she will not die if she eats from the tree, but will instead gain God's knowledge. She eats from the tree, shares with Adam and they both gain the knowledge of their own nakedness and clothe themselves.<br /><br />Which brings us to Genesis 3:8-10:<blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">8</span> Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. <span style="font-weight:bold;">9</span> But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight:bold;">10</span> He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." </blockquote>Here we have God actually walking, as a physical being, through the Garden, where Adam and Eve hear him coming and hide themselves. God cannot find them and calls out to them, upon which they emerge and explain why they had hid themselves.<br /><br />This brings up a few interesting points. First the question of why an omnipotent God would not be able to find them. Second, why was he physically strolling through the garden? We'll get to the latter point, and another related point, in a bit.<br /><br />Next we have Genesis 3:11-13:<blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">11</span> And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight:bold;">12</span> The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight:bold;">13</span> Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"<br /> The woman said, <span style="text-decoration:underline;">"The serpent deceived me, and I ate."</span> </blockquote>Here God questions how they gained the knowledge of their nakedness and Eve places the blame on the serpent for <span style="font-style:italic;">deceiving her</span>. (A bit humorous, given the context, as we'll see shortly.)<br /><br />Upon hearing this, God proceeds to damn both them and the serpent for disobeying him, and in the process catching him in a lie.<br /><br />Genesis 3:14-15:<blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">14</span> So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,<br /> "Cursed are you above all the livestock<br /> and all the wild animals!<br /> You will crawl on your belly<br /> and you will eat dust<br /> all the days of your life.<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight:bold;">15</span> And I will put enmity<br /> between you and the woman,<br /> and between your offspring and hers;<br /> he will crush your head,<br /> and you will strike his heel." </blockquote>We see that God curses the snake to be reviled for eternity and be the enemy of man to be crushed under foot etc.<br /><br />Then God proceeds to curse Adam and Eve for their part in the discovery...<br /><br />Genesis 3:16-19:<blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">16</span> To the woman he said,<br /> "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;<br /> with pain you will give birth to children.<br /> Your desire will be for your husband,<br /> and <span style="font-style:italic;">he will rule over you</span>."<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight:bold;">17</span> To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'<br /> "Cursed is the ground because of you;<br /> through painful toil you will eat of it<br /> all the days of your life.<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight:bold;">18</span> It will produce thorns and thistles for you,<br /> and you will eat the plants of the field.<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight:bold;">19</span> By the sweat of your brow<br /> you will eat your food<br /> until you return to the ground,<br /> since from it you were taken;<br /> for dust you are<br /> and to dust you will return." </blockquote>Here he not only curses Adam and Eve and all their descendants for eternity to suffer in every aspect of lives through pain and toil, as an added bonus he makes sure to point out that Eve (and all women thereafter) will be subservient to her husband as the master who will rule over her.<br /><br />And this brings us to the key verses that tie it all together...<br /><br />Genesis 3:21-24:<blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">21</span> The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. <span style="font-weight:bold;">22</span> And <span style="text-decoration:underline;">the LORD God said, <span style="font-weight:bold;">"The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."</span></span> <span style="font-weight:bold;">23</span> So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. <span style="font-weight:bold;">24</span> After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.</blockquote>And there we have the clincher... God admits that instead of dieing, they did indeed gain his knowledge of good and evil just as the serpent said would happen, and that lest they eat from the other tree which he neglected to mention and become gods themselves, he makes sure to banish them from the garden and plant an angel with a flaming sword at the gate to make sure they can never get at that tree and gain the other half of what he has and become gods themselves.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">So the question stands in its simplicity... Where did God tell the truth, and where did the serpent lie?</span><br /><br /><br />In case you missed it, notice that God specifically speaks of "one of us". Early Hebrew religion was polytheistic and anthropomorphized. The Gods were physical beings who strolled about the garden with Adam and Eve. They had human emotions and acted as humans, albeit with great knowledge, power and eternal life.<br /><br />The particular God referred to in these chapters first creates Adam, then Eve, then tries to keep them from gaining his knowledge by threatening them with certain death if they eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He avoids mentioning the tree of life, as if they ate from that they would gain eternal life. The serpent then comes along and points out that God had lied, and that they would not die like he said, but gain his knowledge if they ate from it. When they ate from it, instead of dying like God had said, they did in fact gain his knowledge. God was enraged when the game was up and cursed the lot of them and all their progeny for eternity to lives of suffering, torment, enmity and death and then quickly cast them out before, by his own words, they could gain eternal life on top of the knowledge of the gods and become one of them (the gods).<br /><br /><br />A few points in closing. The Hebrew religion did not become a unified, monotheistic religion with a God that transcended this world until the time of Moses, when the Hebrews fled from Egypt. There are also a number of other glaring contradictions in the first two chapters of Genesis such as two conflicting stories of the creation and the more modernly understood errors of considering the sun and moon to be two of the same objects, and the stars something different from the sun. Or the fact that the light appeared before the objects, which were thought to be two different things, the sun and the stars, were created to give that light.<br /><br />Let's address these points as well, just for thoroughness' sake.<br /><br />In Genesis 1:6-10 we have God separating the waters into the ocean of the sky and the ocean of the Earth, which were believed to be as two oceans. He then further separates the ocean of the Earth from the land beneath it and creates the oceans and continents.<blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">6</span> And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." <span style="font-weight:bold;">7</span> So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. <span style="font-weight:bold;">8</span> God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight:bold;">9</span> And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. <span style="font-weight:bold;">10</span> God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. </blockquote>See Psalm 148:4 for another verse that backs up this stance:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">4</span> Praise him, you highest heavens<br /> and you waters above the skies.</blockquote>The heavens were considered a type of physical dome that separated the oceans on earth from the oceans of the heavens. Upon this dome were the stars that moved fixed in their rotations.<br /><br />Then we have Genesis 1:11-13:<blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">11</span> Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. <span style="font-weight:bold;">12</span> The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. <span style="font-weight:bold;">13</span> And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.</blockquote>Here God first creates plant life, which relies on photosynthesis to survive, before he gets around to actually creating the Sun which they depend on for their nourishment. He also states that days are passing when there is not yet a Sun created to facilitate the passage of days. This belies the obvious lack of knowledge of photosynthesis, and a puzzling disregard for what had been known for millennia at this point as the cause of the passage of days, beyond the other glaring errors I'll address momentarily.<br /><br />Which brings us to Genesis 1:14-19:<blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">14</span> And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, <span style="font-weight:bold;">15</span> and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. <span style="font-weight:bold;">16</span> God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. <span style="font-weight:bold;">17</span> God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, <span style="font-weight:bold;">18</span> to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. <span style="font-weight:bold;">19</span> And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.</blockquote>Here we have God creating the Sun and the Moon as two like bodies that create the day and the night, after already pronouncing day and night previous to their creation, and then creating the stars as separate entities. He then specifically notes that due to the creation of these, there was evening and morning, the fourth day. Which specifically clarifies that the days spoken of in creation were the literal days as we know them. The rising and the setting of the sun and the traversal of the moon during the night.<br /><br />First let's have a look at Genesis 1:11-13:<blockquote>11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.</blockquote>Here all plant life is created on the third day, with Man not created until the sixth day.<br /><br />Then, let us contrast that with Genesis 2:4-9:<blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">4</span> This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.<br /> When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- <span style="font-weight:bold;">5</span> and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, <span style="font-weight:bold;">6</span> but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- <span style="font-weight:bold;">7</span> the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight:bold;">8</span> Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. <span style="font-weight:bold;">9</span> And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. </blockquote>This further clarifies that the biblical authors had no concept of photosynthesis, but instead believed in their primitive ignorance that plant life relied solely upon water for its nourishment. So by their reckoning, there was no problem with creating the plants before there was ever a Sun to provide light for photosynthesis.<br /><br />Beyond that, if we look specifically at verses 4-7 above, we see that in this tale of the creation man is created before the plants. Whereas in the previous tale of creation, only one chapter prior, the plants were created a full 3 days prior to the creation of man.<br /><br />Now as we move beyond these first contradictions and fallacies, we come to the first instances of things in which man, in his original state, should have had no interest, being devoid of knowledge and of worldly things...<br /><br />Genesis 2:10-17:<blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">10</span> A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. <span style="font-weight:bold;">11</span> The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, <span style-"text-decoration:underline;">where there is gold.</span> <span style="font-weight:bold;">12</span> (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin <span style-"text-decoration:underline;">and onyx are also there.</span>) <span style="font-weight:bold;">13</span> The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. <span style="font-weight:bold;">14</span> The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight:bold;">15</span> The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. <span style="font-weight:bold;">16</span> And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; <span style="font-weight:bold;">17</span> but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." </blockquote>Here God extols the inherent values of the lands being replete with Gold and Onyx, although Man at this point is supposedly bereft of the knowledge of such material things. Then God explicitly claims the aforementioned curse of death upon eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.<br /><br />This basically brings us full circle, without delving into even more issues such as the animals of creation being specifically the livestock (cattle, sheep, goats etc) of the contemporary biblical authors, as well as numerous other aspects that have been proven to be absolutely impossible as written in the bible.<br /><br />Apologists will try to claim a variety of things to reconcile these biblical narrations with the reality we live in, but it takes very little effort indeed to relegate them to the inconsequential realm of primitive mythology where they belong.<br /><br />A simple example is thus: "If all the supernatural claims of Christianity, and the requisite Hebrew religion, are nothing more than metaphors, then why should we ascribe any inherent supernatural power or godlike authority to a teacher who came along and contradicted the teachings of his own religion and created his own sect, and whose only authority comes from its explicit link to that prior Abrahamic God?"<br /><br />We can go on at length, book by book, chapter by chapter, verse by verse and debunk this belief system as the conglomeration of shams that it is.<br /><br />(I've been doing some further research into various aspects of early Christianity, its links to astrology, formation under Constantine, lack of any resurrection story for the first several centuries, lack of any virgin birth story for the first several centuries, lack of any contemporary mention of Jesus whatsoever for the first several centuries. It's rather easy to state at this point that the New Testament as we know it is a wholly fabricated and plagiarized collection of stories that retroactively created the Jesus Christ we know today. A person who never existed in reality, but was instead a creation of a vast array of authors over the centuries, pulling often times verbatim excerpts from other previous historical and religious texts.)<br /><br />Never be afraid to question.JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-83460574004268680712007-08-03T15:20:00.000-04:002007-08-04T06:52:02.826-04:00A meta-post on Atheism, Agnosticism and Faith.I've been having another discussion/debate on another forum and felt like sharing some of the exchanges. All quotes are written by myself unless otherwise specified. <br /><br />This was written as part of an ongoing debate on a forum and is simply copied from there verbatim, so the language used may reflect that.<blockquote>Justifying the existence of God by saying that the Universe requires a creator is nothing more than creating a problem in order to find something for your "solution" to solve. And your solution is to create something necessarily even more complex than the universe to create it. Which would then require an even more complex creator, ad infinitum of increasing complexity.<br /><br />It's simple to say that the Christian God simply does not and cannot exist. And even the God of the "The universe requires a creator" cannot logically exist. And if the universe could just spring into being, or have always been in some form or another, then there is no requirement for a God, and no reason to create an infinitely more improbable and complex "God" to fit a problem that doesn't necessarily exist in the first place.<br /><br />"That which can be claimed without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." and as I've said before, we have a hell of a lot of evidence that says that God doesn't exist. And frankly your excuse is rather simple minded and childish.<br /><br />Calling something like that "God" implies that you have a need to have some "god" figure, so you're willing to call anything "god" just to fill some gap in your brain so you can feel comfortable. You're absolutely inventing something out of thin air without even the "benefit" of a bunch of other people's shared wishful thinking. Just your own over active (and sadly off kilter) imagination.<br /><br />Just because something is here doesn't mean it required a creator. A rock lying in the street didn't need a creator. Natural forces create all kinds of things around us. Sand dunes, mountain ranges, forests, entire planets formed from the naturally occurring physical forces of the universe. Gravity, atomic attraction, atomic reactions etc.<br /><br />As it's said "we are all made of stars". Everything you see around you today was once a part of a star. All the complex elements etc.<br /><br />Just because you might not yet know the answer to something, doesn't mean that you can come up with some utterly improbable or downright impossible reason off the top of your head and think that makes your idea somehow valid or even plausible.<br /><br />That's the funny thing about this universe and this world we live in. There are certain physical laws and natural rules that govern everything around us. You can't physically be both where you're sitting right now and sitting here at the table with me. 5 is not equal to 0. If you walk outside and toss an apple into the air, it is going to fall back to the ground, unless you physically tie a balloon full of hot air or helium or hydrogen or something to it to counteract that very real force of gravity.<br /><br />In reality those forces have to be taken into account and they are on a daily basis. You don't drive your car into a tree at 70 miles per hour because it's going to smash it horribly and those very real physical forces have a good chance of killing you. Wishful thinking doesn't make them go away.<br /><br />In a nutshell, if the universe requires a creator, so does God, which creates an infinitely more complex recursion (which is even more improbable than the universe just springing into being, for the record). If God doesn't require a creator, then neither does the universe, negating the need for God in the first place. So God is impossible and irrelevant either way.<br /><br />Atheism. From it's Greek roots simply means "without theism". A lack of religious belief, or even active disbelief. It doesn't denote the "evil" tones that Christians would like it to. It simply means you know enough to make a rational, logical and informed decision not to believe in absolutely unprovable and impossible fairytales that cannot ever, by their very nature, be proven or disproven because they simply do not exist. They are figments of the human mind, created by simple minded and ignorant people to assuage their fears of the unknown.</blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">M.I.N.A.S. said:</span><br />and the fact still remains that stars wouldn't exist without some sort form of creation. A world of -completely nothing- is unimaginable by the human mind. You can just picture a huge white space...but the problem there is that a world of completely nothing wouldn't even have black or white colors. Colors wouldn't exist either. It's something beyond human comprehension.</blockquote>And that justifies your impossible and childish "god" "answer" how? :)<br /><br />Just because you can't understand the real reason for something yet, doesn't make your made up fairytale answer correct by any stretch of the imagination.<br /><br />The problem here is with the definition of "creation". Stars were produced as a result of physical forces after the Big Bang. And right now scientists are working on what preceded the Big Bang.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Speculative_physics_beyond_the_Big_Bang">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Speculative_physics_beyond_the_Big_Bang</a><br /><br />Just as our knowledge has moved from the primitive and ignorant explanation of a father figure that created the universe, and life <span style="font-style:italic;">specifically as we know it</span>, meaning cows, pigs, sheep, birds and us, in 7 days, around 6,000 years ago... to the modern understanding of actual cosmology, astrophysical forces etc that enables us to ascertain the actual age of the universe and the bodies within it etc... which led to our understanding of the Big Bang... so does science continue to progress and broaden our knowledge to the point where in the future we should have an even greater understanding.<br /><br />We now understand the actual age of our planet and the vast array of life that has evolved here over the course of millions of years... long before cows and sheep of the bible's creator. The life that the primitive and ignorant authors of the bible did not, and likely could not have, known about. They wrote their fairytale explanation based on what they saw around them and their incredibly limited understanding of the world around them, much less the workings of the "heavens" above them.<br /><br />The solution is not found in clinging to utterly unprovable and impossible ancient fairytale explanations, but instead on actual scientific and empirical studies. Ignorance of science is in no way proof of primitive superstitions.<br /><br />If you contrast what we know today with what we knew then, you get an idea of how far we've come, and how far we can still go in our understanding. That should be our noble goal. Not wallowing in the ignorant superstitions of the past.</blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">M.I.N.A.S. said:</span> <br />It's a metaphor. I even stated I was just using that as an example so I could get the point across. I hardly consider the big bang a legitimate answer to the existence of either life nor matter.</blockquote>It's the best answer we have right now. :) A hell of a lot better than using primitive metaphors for men in the clouds.<br /><br />And what point do you think you were getting across? You haven't made a valid point yet.<br /><br />What you've tried to describe so far could only by stretching even be called deism at best and certainly not theism. Aside from the fact that I've already shown how incorrect your assertions are even on that front.<br /><br />Even Einstein who made figures of speech about God was expressly non-religious and resented having his words taken out of context.<blockquote>The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be <span style="font-style:italic;">refuted</span>, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.<br /><br /> But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task... --Albert Einstein</blockquote><blockquote>It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. --Albert Einstein</blockquote><blockquote>I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. --Albert Einstein</blockquote>As I believe I said in the beginning... Agnosticism is nothing more than the juvenile form of Atheism. As you grow to understand the reality you live in, and the facts involved... your primitive supernatural idea of God becomes a veritable impossibility.<br /><br />If you understand medicine, how it works etc... you don't continue to call it magic. You have grown beyond the primitive wonder at something which you did not understand and hence ascribed to it a supernatural power.<br /><br />The same goes for the world we live in and the universe we live in. When you grow to understand these things, you no longer need to use ignorant and primitive language to describe it.... you simply call it what it is and address the unknown as the unknown, but only in the context of all that you do know to be factual. You take a holistic view of the body of human and scientific knowledge and see that such primitive notions have no place in an educated, rational mind.<br /><br />Childish metaphors are for children who cannot understand or speak of the reality of things. The Stork for child birth for instance... when you grow up you forget that childish explanation for the wonder of pregnancy and birth. You speak of it in educated terms. So it should be for your childish metaphor of the birth of life and everything as we know it.</blockquote>JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-21974290777923781932007-08-02T23:38:00.000-04:002007-08-03T00:00:27.154-04:00In response to Conspiracy Theorists' concept of a literal and personal God granting them authority over government.In an <a href="http://houston911truth.org/2007/07/29/gun-shots-fired-behind-the-ed-and-elaines-house/">ongoing discussion/debate on another website</a>, I felt compelled to leave the following comment. (This was partially in response to <a href="http://houston911truth.org/2007/07/29/gun-shots-fired-behind-the-ed-and-elaines-house/#comment-2385">a comment by <span style="font-style:italic;">James Madison</span></a>, and primarily in response to <a href="http://houston911truth.org/2007/07/29/gun-shots-fired-behind-the-ed-and-elaines-house/#comment-2431">a comment by <span style="font-style:italic;">Uber Highwayman</span></a>)<blockquote>Oh man... this is getting out of hand.<br /><br />For the record, I'm a devout atheist. And I find it a bit sad when people cannot differentiate from the natural laws, such as laid down by the Roman empire, and which our legal system is based on... and the so called "God's law", which in all actuality has very little to do with morality, even less to do with civil issues and is even in reality contradictory to true freedom in the natural sense.<br /><br />Christianity teaches absolute obedience to authority, without question and without skepticism of contradictory evidence and falsehoods etc. This very same mindset lends itself to abuses by governments who use it to rally the people behind God's cause... "One nation, Under God", "In God We Trust" etc... if you don't believe in God, you're not a patriot. And that is used to group people into one mindset... one of obedience and "patriotism" under a moniker which in itself is divisive within its own people. Those very statements and mottoes serve to divide the people between believers and non-believers instead of acknowledging us as we were meant to be, individuals with inherent natural rights. Rights not granted by any particular God... but natural rights that transcend any particular religion's God's word on which rights you do and don't have.<br /><br />The idea of "Divine Law" is the very same belief that allows the theocracies in the middle east to publicly execute people found "guilty" of homosexuality, sex before marriage, and any number of other things that might offend the particular deity of <i>some</i> of its people... when no rational "crime" has been committed. In the natural world, an adult has the right to sleep with another adult, in or out of wedlock, should they so choose. You don't have to personally approve of it, but they have the right as human beings to do so... and unless that robs you of your property or does you personal injury, you have no right to deprive them of their life, liberty or property for merely offending your <i>personal</i> moral beliefs.<br /><br />E Pluribus Unum. Out of Many, (come) One. A celebration of the diversity of our culture, the diversity of our beliefs, the diversity of our ethnic roots... and through that a celebration of our unity as Americans. Stronger as a result of that diversity, not in spite of it.<br /><br />The fact that our founding fathers were wise enough to understand that strength and celebrate it... and take measures to ensure the freedom of the people to believe as they wished, as human beings with inherent natural rights... that is something that we should take heed of.<br /><br />God isn't going to grant you any benefit in a battle. You have to do that for yourself. The mere fact that you imply that your idea of a God somehow grants you some authority greater than that of another man who might believe in a different God, inherently impedes upon that man's freedom.<br /><br />And to believe in a God that forbids you to believe in anything he does not approve of, regardless of rational merit... a God who commands you to kill people of different beliefs or sexual orientations, in spite of no rational crime being committed... a God who names himself a Jealous God that commands you to obey and never to question, in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary... that God is the epitome of our modern government. A Genocidal egomaniac responsible for mass genocide of people who committed no crime other than believing in a different God, or no God, or in believing they had the very same natural rights that you do... to live, govern themselves and choose their own paths as individuals or as a society.<br /><br />I dislike entertaining ridiculous conspiracy theories, so I'm loathe to start debunking the ridiculous nature of many of Madison's claims... much less the fact that he presumes to use the name of one of the founding fathers as though he in any way resembles such a great man.<br /><br />But I feel it is important to remove the idea of "natural law" from that of some divinely derived authority. Am I to have no inherent liberties as an atheist? Am I somehow not a patriot or exempt from the same freedoms afforded to the faithful?<br /><br />No. The founding fathers understood this and wisely exempted religion from any official place in government. A man or woman are free to hold their own beliefs and free to have them serve as a moral compass... but those beliefs fall short when they infringe upon the natural liberties of all men, regardless of their beliefs in much the same way that even if the government believes it has a legal right to deprive you of your property, you have a natural right not to be extorted, threatened at gunpoint and made a slave of a relatively small group of people who claim that authority over you, regardless of their justifications. And no God is going to come down and change that for you. You must stand upon the same principles our founding fathers did in their various backgrounds and beliefs and come together in an understanding of the fundamental principles of liberty and freedom that predated your Abrahamic God by millennia and strive to return man to his natural state.<br /><br />As Einstein said:<blockquote><span style="font-style:italic;">The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.<br /><br />But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task...</span> --Albert Einstein</blockquote>In losing focus on the fundamental reality of the matter at hand, you place power back in the hands of the authority figures who in the same manner as religion, demand obedience without question. Authority over you and subservience by you in the face of violations of your natural right to true freedom in the face of contradictory or fallacious evidence to the contrary of their claims.<br /><br />Cogito, percipio.</blockquote>I've been having other related religious discussions on another forum as well in the past few days and seem to be reaching another point of frustration at which I feel compelled to speak out.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law</a>JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-75458849146305269292007-07-31T19:31:00.000-04:002007-07-31T20:05:08.477-04:00Congratulations and Thanks to Borders Book Stores.<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/the_bookstores_have_noticed_us.php"><img src="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d12/phreadom/blog%20content/borders_atheism2.jpg" width="200" height="320" alt="Atheism End Cap at Borders" style="float:left;margin-right:16px;margin-bottom:12px;"></a><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/cpurrin1/682772890/"><img src="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d12/phreadom/blog%20content/borders-atheism4.jpg" width="260" height="195" alt="An Atheism End Cap at another Borders book store" style="margin-bottom:12px;" /></a><br /><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/the_bookstores_have_noticed_us.php">http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/the_bookstores_have_noticed_us.php</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.bordersstores.com/">Borders book stores</a> have finally added an "Atheism" section to many of their stores. Let's just hope that <a href="http://www.barnesandnoble.com/">Barnes&Noble</a> will follow suit and start acknowledging the rest of us.<br /><br />One thing I've noticed is that it seems to be only an "End Cap" so far, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11871879.post-55750264383252759292007-07-31T15:14:00.000-04:002007-07-31T16:30:51.304-04:00National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directives NSPD-51 and HSPD-20<img src="http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d12/phreadom/blog%20content/us-seal-sm.png" width="128" height="125" alt="The Great Seal of the United States" style="float:left;margin-right:16px;margin-bottom:15px;position:relative;top:5px;">There's been some buzz about a recent President Directive that people are claiming would allow George W. Bush to suspend elections and essentially make himself dictator of America. I'd like to try to address some of those concerns here.<br /><br />You can read the body of the directive here: <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html</a><br /><br />I'll go through the directive and address the important points as I see them.<blockquote>(2) In this directive: (e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency; </blockquote>This rather clearly states that proper <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cnb.html">Checks and Balances</a> will remain in effect and that the law of the Constitution will remain, ensuring elections will still take place as laid out in <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1">Article II, section 1 of the US Constitution</a>.<blockquote>(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following: (b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law; </blockquote><blockquote>(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000019----000-.html">the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19)</a>, with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions. </blockquote>This also seems to clearly that state that powers shall be accorded in compliance with the directives listed in <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1">Article II, section 1 of the US Constitution</a>, and in <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000019----000-.html">US Code Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 19</a> regarding the processes of election and succession.<blockquote>(21) This directive: (c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.</blockquote>This seems to clarify that no special powers or rights are granted by this directive and that it serves only as an organizational document to serve in expediting effective governance in compliance with the US Constitution and other applicable laws in a time of catastrophic crisis.<br /><br />In summary, this is nothing to worry about.JStressmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11093511297065444266noreply@blogger.com0