The “Atheists 10 Commandments” recently made news with the release of “Atheist Heart, Humanist Mind,” by John Figdor and Lex Bayer. Yours truly pointed out how ridiculous it is to have nine “commandments” that are all superseded by “There is no one right way to live.” As a result, a slew of atheists deemed me a “fundie.” Two of my quotes generated rounds of ego-massaging among the congregants of “Fundies say the Darndest Things.”
Sadly, the majority of people over FSTDT seem to mistake sarcasm and personal attacks for intellect:
“While there is no one right way to live, there are certainly many wrong ways, such as being an adult with imaginary friends.”
“The self-loathing of the religious zealot is the same self-loathing that drives the heroin addict to the needle and the alcoholic to the bottle. It blunts the pain, but does nothing to resolve the underlying issues that cause that pain, the feelngs [sic] of worthlessness and despair, as revealed here.”
“Yet another person who’s good only because he’s scared of God. People like that scare me.”
It’s easier to laugh and joke about “being an adult with imaginary friends” than it is to have a mature conversation on the body, mind and spirit. It is also easier to mock science-loving Catholics from afar than it is to venture from the safe confines of the digital hive. The modern atheist seems to think that science strengthens the case against God, and avoiding discussions with guys like me allows them to continue such a delusion.
Author Eric Metaxas wrote for The Wall Street Journal Dec. 25:
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing. …
There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.
Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?
Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Men of faith look at the mind-bending odds against the possibility of life — any kind of life — in the universe, we conclude that our existence is a miracle attributable to God, and the response by online atheists is to liken us to a “self-loathing … heroin addict.” Which group is acting like an adult and which group is acting like a petulant child who is lashing out at his father?
Men of faith readily admit they fear eternal separation from God, and online atheists make the strange leap in logic that we view Him as some sort of cosmic Communist police state overseer. Which group is acting like an adult and which group is acting like a recalcitrant child who is upset that he will one day be held accountable for his actions?
The online atheists’ inclination to view anyone who believes in God as a backwoods hick with a sixth-grade home-school education is bizarre — but I welcome it. Their decision to cloister themselves in little online echo chambers is to the man of faith’s advantage. Keep likening law-abiding, well-adjusted, and productive members of society to heroin addicts, my atheist friends — each outlandish caricature you create only makes open-minded individuals more likely to ignore your future overtures.
Just a little detail, which may or may not be worth considering:
“Men of faith look at the mind-bending odds against the possibility of life — any kind of life — in the universe”
The truth is simple: We don’t know the odds. We don’t know how likely life is to start. We don’t know how many chances there were for it to start. We don’t how many possible values for the basic physical constants exist at all. We don’t know how many universes exist(ed).
So we call that an argument from ignorance. We don’t know. We haven’t seen life starting on it’s own and we don’t know yet how it could have happened. But we also don’t know the chances for it. It’s like hearing that someone won the lottery and then basing the argument that this guy must have cheated on a vague feeling that it’s too unlikely to win.
So, personally I advise against using the odds as an argument if all the numbers you have to back it up are pretty much made up from thin air without any solid foundation at all.
I also advise against calling people who think differently as kids and also suggest not trying to imply that atheists do secretly fear god, because then atheists will imply that secretly you already know that god doesn’t exist and then you can both start comparing whose sad try to know better than the other person what said other person knows or feels is more pathetic and disrespectful. Accept that people think differently and don’t try to claim that you know better then them what they feel. If you aren’t able to show some basic respect for the opinions, beliefs and thoughts of other people, how can you expect anything else than a shouting match?
Translation: When guys like Neil deGrasse Tyson use scientific data to mock the belief in God I chuckle in agreement, but when a Catholic man uses the same data to buttress his position then it’s suddenly not worthy of consideration.
So atheists can dedicate two threads to framing me as a would-be psychopath who only adheres to the rule of law because of my “imaginary friend,” but if I tactfully respond to their immature personal attacks, then I’m somehow part of the problem? Interesting take, Twisted Inspiration.
That’s typically how it works. You’re guilty no matter what. They don’t want a discussion; they want to attack you.
By the way, I wasn’t saying you were actually guilty; I meant to say that they would consider you guilty and not worth listening to no matter what you said.
Ha. I gotcha, man. 🙂
I do appreciate Twisted Inspiration’s comments, though. I find it amusing that his only response to what I’ve written is to essentially say that science is off limits to Christians (Darn it, why can’t you just say the earth is 6,000 years old so this would be easy!) and wag his finger like a disappointed mother because I accurately described the immature personal attacks found at FSTDT.
I am sorry, but I fail to see the connection between “scientific data” and simply claiming that the odds are “mind-bending” slim or whatever. At this very moment, as far as I am informed, the only true statement we can make about the odds of life is, that we don’t know them. So while it’s an interesting question how likely life is, how much life is out there, etc. – we simply lack the data to answer it at the moment. As the speed of light seems to be a quite hard barrier to overcome, we might never know for sure.
Also, as far as I am informed, the only thing science has to say about god is “We have not found any scientific evidence for any gods yet, which is hardly surprising, as god, as defined by various religions, is pretty much not falsifiable.”
I would also advise calling people with a different opinion “psychopath”. Generally, I don’t believe name calling will solve much, no matter how hard people on the internet keep trying. And if you allow me that remark, “But he started it” always sounds like “I failed my chance to be a better person than him” to me. But yes, I know it is hard to stay calm when under attack. Perhaps it’s worth a though what is really important: To shout back as hard as you can – or to stay the decent person you (hopefully) want to be.
The following bit of data, gleaned from the article in question, is certainly “bind-bending” and relevant to questions involving the odds of life occurring in the universe:
If it wasn’t, then Mr. Hoyle would not have said this:
Sorry, but atheists don’t get to use science as a cudgel against Christians when it suits them, but then say things like “we might never know for sure” as soon as scientific truths augment a Christian man’s assertions.
Here is the remark that seems to bother you so much: “Men of faith look at the mind-bending odds against the possibility of life — any kind of life — in the universe, we conclude that our existence is a miracle attributable to God, and the response by online atheists is to liken us to a “self-loathing … heroin addict.” Which group is acting like an adult and which group is acting like a petulant child who is lashing out at their father?”
If that’s the comment you’re going to use to claim I’ve somehow failed at my chance to be a better person, then you’ll have to excuse me while I laugh.
Translation: I really wish intelligent Catholic men would just sit back, shut up, and say nothing as their worldview is mocked an ridiculed with [insert red herring or straw man argument here].
Oh, and @rawlenyanzi … Guilty of what? Using a weak (or to be more precise, unsound) argument? In my book, that’s not a really bad crime, but your mileage may vary.
Or guilty of not staying completely calm in a discussion about a very emotional topic? I doubt that any human being is completely innocent of that “crime”.
So, somehow I must admit, I get the impression that we may have different definitions of the word “attack”. While I did intend to disagree with a certain point of the posting and also with some parts of the presentation, it was not my intention to attack anyone personally. If any attack was felt, then I must apologize, none was intended.
I wasn’t talking about you specifically, but about the atheists personally attacking Ernst. Your own comment was fairly calm, so don’t worry about it.
LOL…I love this. “The truth is simple: We don’t know the odds. We don’t know how likely life is to start. We don’t know how many chances there were for it to start. We don’t how many possible values for the basic physical constants exist at all. We don’t know how many universes exist(ed).”
An atheist that doesn’t know anything! Finally! The truth is simple people. “We don’t know anything!” I’m assuming Twisted is an atheist. Sorry if I am wrong Twist.
“We don’t know how many universes exist(ed).” There it is…the grab for more time. Scientists used to believe the universe had no beginning, that it was infinite. Then some meddling Catholic Priest had to go and figure out (scientifically) that the universe did in fact have a beginning and we could calculate how long ago it came into existence. (What’s a Christian doing science for anyway? Right?) And there went the materialist’s trump card, “infinite time”…poof! I guess the idea was that if the universe has always existed and would continue to exist, then anything that was possible, no matter how improbable, must happen, and has happened, and will happen, an infinite number of times. So since they lost the infinite time card, they are hoping to draw another trump card…the infinite universes card, quite a long shot. Anything but God right.
“So we call that an argument from ignorance.” (Indeed) “We don’t know. We haven’t seen life starting on it’s own and we don’t know yet how it could have happened.” (I have a pretty good idea!) “But we also don’t know the chances for it. It’s like hearing that someone won the lottery and then basing the argument that this guy must have cheated on a vague feeling that it’s too unlikely to win.”
It’s not at all like the lottery Twist. It’s more like this. Suppose there was nothing…no Universe, no Time, Nobody. Now, what’s the probability someone will win a lottery. That’s what its like. We know someone will win the lottery Twist because someone designed the lottery to be won.
Thanks Doug for the complements. I enjoy these discussions. It is amazing to discover the incredible lengths atheists will go to in order to not believe in anything supernatural. Even simple logic must be thrown over board to keep their life boat afloat. Happy New Year!
Well, if you don’t know anything, I hope you are good at guessing where you put your pants, otherwise you might be in for a bit of surprise when people claim to know that you really shouldn’t leave home without them.
And while it may help you to believe that somehow the fact that science actually gets better, learns where it was wrong and finds better explanations is somehow a bad thing, I don’t share that opinion. But let’s for a second assume that science was completely wrong about EVERYTHING. Really, completely wrong. That would still not make any religion more likely. So, yes, we need more time, simply because we don’t know everything yet (and probably never will), but not because somehow religion makes such a pressing case. We don’t know is simply a true statement and it does not make an argument for any other idea. You cannot point to the fact that nobody knows who killed Mr. Boddy to claim that Professor Plum did it with the wrench in the kitchen.
I don’t want to attack your religion, but if you want to know how it sounds to me… So, there was nothing. Except… god. How… convenient. The universe could not come from nothing, but an even complexer being with the ability to create the universe of course works around that by existing forever for no reason at all. Unfortunately, that seems to be something that sounds completely reasonable when you grew up with that idea but not when looking at it from the outside. To me, it sounds like mythology, like trying to explain thunder with some crafting tool swung by a bearded guy. If you are happy with that explanation, feel free, but personally, I never found it convincing.
Oh, and somehow your link is broken. But don’t worry, I know who Lemaitre was.
Twisted: I’m assuming this post is a reply to my post? So I thought I would reply.
You wrote: “Well, if you don’t know anything, I hope you are good at guessing where you put your pants, otherwise you might be in for a bit of surprise when people claim to know that you really shouldn’t leave home without them.”
Answer: I have no idea what this means.
You wrote: “And while it may help you to believe that somehow the fact that science actually gets better, learns where it was wrong and finds better explanations is somehow a bad thing, I don’t share that opinion.”
Answer: I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Why do you think I or anyone else here thinks that’s a bad thing?
You wrote: “But let’s for a second assume that science was completely wrong about EVERYTHING. Really, completely wrong. That would still not make any religion more likely.”
Answer: Do you mean make the existence of God more likely? I’m going to assume that’s what you mean since there is no doubt about the existence of Religion. Or perhaps you meant that it wouldn’t help you to decide whether or not any particular religious beliefs are true. For me, if science were wrong about everything, I guess I would be less inclined to believe in God. I believe in God because science is so often correct.
You wrote: “We don’t know is simply a true statement and it does not make an argument for any other idea. You cannot point to the fact that nobody knows who killed Mr. Boddy to claim that Professor Plum did it with the wrench in the kitchen.”
That is true! But, the fact that Mr. Boddy is laying dead with a wrench sticking out of his skull is certainly evidence that some intelligent being put it there.
You wrote: “So, yes, we need more time, simply because we don’t know everything yet (and probably never will), but not because somehow religion makes such a pressing case.”
Answer: When I wrote, “There it is…the grab for more time.”, I didn’t mean that scientists want more time to understand the secrets of the universe. I meant, scientists want to find something that was in existence before the Big Bang. They know that no one is going to buy into the theory that everything came from nothing at all. Even a child knows this to be nonsense. So, they are now saying, “well, maybe there are other universes out there and our universe was formed by the collision of two other universes…or something.” Something must have been before our beginning. It is simply common sense to believe that this something is also a someone. An intelligent someone. But, I know I can’t convey that intuition to you.
You wrote: “I don’t want to attack your religion, but if you want to know how it sounds to me… So, there was nothing. Except… god. How… convenient.”
Convenient? How is it convenient? Coming to grips with an all powerful God isn’t actually convenient at all. Especially if he requires anything of you. Its quite inconvenient actually.
You wrote: “The universe could not come from nothing, but an even complexer being with the ability to create the universe of course works around that by existing forever for no reason at all. Unfortunately, that seems to be something that sounds completely reasonable when you grew up with that idea but not when looking at it from the outside. To me, it sounds like mythology, like trying to explain thunder with some crafting tool swung by a bearded guy.
Again. You have to start somewhere Twist. What started everything? Why is there something rather than nothing? God exists because he exists. He just is. It’s not mythology, its philosophy. Read Plato.
Boom. Eduardo, I may have to write a few more religious posts in the future just because it might draw you out into the comments section more often. 🙂 Good stuff, man.
This was discussed in the other post, but it’s always interesting to watch an atheist try to wrap his mind around God’s purpose in eternity. The human mind can’t come close to comprehending the purpose in eternity of a being responsible for creating space and time; the atheist’s response to this limitation is to convince himself that God simply can not exist.
First of all, yes, I do belief that god is just mythology. Even if we would buy into the first cause stuff, the whole personality, religion, etc. around it were exactly that.
But, to make that short an simple: Please, prove to me that nothing can can come from nothing. I know that sounds strange, but unfortunately you are confusing your every day experience with proof, but it simply doesn’t work that way. I do not claim, for example, to understand quantum theory, but for example, as far as I heard, there is a possibility from stuff from nothing (the quantum vacuum, afaik) there. Technically you have NEVER experienced something coming into existence, just stuff being modeled into other stuff because that’s what happens inside our universe. But believing that our personal every-day experiences are the limits of the universe is not the best way to do, if you ask me.
But to be quite honest here, I don’t intend to discuss this much further, if you are interested, you will find myriads of pages about the various arguments for and against the whole first cause thing online, many of them much more eloquently put than what I wrote or “That is simple common sense” (which is actually a horrible argument).
Who knew that “nothing” is composed of something akin to the quantum field. Once you have a quantum field, that would sort of make nothing…something, which dovetails nicely with a broader point: atheists seem to think that they, through their five senses, can actually get an accurate reading of reality on a long enough time line, when in fact those measly five senses may not be equipped to actually receive true reality. And that is where faith comes in. Given the gap in knowledge between what is known and what can most likely never be known (in these human bodies), the Christian man turns to his faith in God; the atheist does not. One will be correct and one will not.
But hey, you don’t want to talk about all that because what more is there left to say when you’ve just said that something — the entire universe and everything that makes life possible — can come from nothing in a big explosion of blinding light reminiscent of something out of Genesis…absent a Creator, right?
So, someone who believs that a very complex being with a very specific personality can exist without cause, but a low energy state cannot, because… Well… Why?
And sorry, if you do believe that we cannot perceive reality at all, then you will probably enjoy reading Lovecraft (I do). But of course, if this idea is true, then your god might be green banana and Jesus was a little flower pot. Who knows? We cannot know true reality and the nonsense I made up just now has the same right to be true than anything else.
And yes, why not. Would be cool, wouldn’t it? And much more elegant than some complex god figure that exists forever just because someone wanted to get 10% of your wage.
A low energy state is something. It’s strange that you want to define nothing as having “a low energy state.”
I didn’t say that we couldn’t couldn’t perceive reality — I said true reality. Just because a radio is only created to “receive” sound waves, it does not mean that light waves do not exist. The human “machine” may not have been invented to receive and make sense of all aspects of reality.
But keep making those jokes about bananas and flower pots and games of Clue, Twisted Inspiration. I’m sure you’ll come across rather well to future readers…
Stop. I don’t want to define anything. For all I know, something can come from nothing or something needs something to come from, in which case a state of low energy would be an easier explanation than some personal being (Occam’s razor at work, not perfect, but normally good enough). Both things are quite unintuitive, of course, but nobody claimed that it was easy. For someone to explain you quantum theory, you should probably ask someone else.
Fortunately, humans are quite creative and have found various ways to detect stuff that cannot be perceived with our normal senses. That’s what machines are for. As long as something has a measurable influence on reality, it can be detected, even if we cannot “see” it directly.
Anyway. we are simply talking here and not trying to score points with an invisible audience. You might not like my jokes, but I can promise you that I am making them because i want to and not to impress anyone.
If your brain is essentially an AM radio only, then you can not pick up FM waves. Think about the implications of string theory; if you and everything in this universe vibrates at one frequency, then you can not detect “reality” that vibrates at a higher level.
As this frequency would have, per definition, absolutely no influence on our world, because we cannot detect it and neither is has any indirekt influence on it, speculation about it makes not much sense. But if you believe that god exists on a higher frequency that has no influence on our world, then, well, ok, why not? Of course, that makes religion completely pointless.
I never said that*. I said to think about the implications of string theory. You just choose to think about the implications which back your current worldview. It is entirely possible that beings exist that can change their frequency at will — subtlety or drastically — in ways that would put them in charge of when, how, and if they are revealed to humanity.
See, there are two possibilities:
a) Something has any influence on our reality.
b) Something hasn’t.
If a), then there is the possibility to detect it via this influence, if not directly. If it hasn’t… Well, then it’s as if that thing doesn’t exist.
Yes, but like I said, the being(s) with the ability to change frequency at will is in charge of when, how, and if its influence is revealed. Humanity has little to no say in the matter. But that is a discussion for another time. There are plenty of other blogs you can go to that cover that sort of thing.
Unfortunately, most blogs using words like frequency in that context are less useful than a collection of Star Trek Technobabble.
The key word is ‘most.’
Seek and you shall find. If you’re not open to certain possibilities because you’ve already determined that anyone who talks about string theory in ways that are too “New Age” for you is not worth listening to, then that’s on you. You “seek” to have your own worldview validated, and you “find” evidence to support the reality you’ve chosen for yourself. As I said in my other post: You were given free will. God wants you to be who you want to be so much that He even allows you to deny Him. But, again, at the end of the day that is a choice you have made and there will always be consequences for our actions.
Twist: Thanks for the reply. I’m enjoying our conversation.
You wrote: “First of all, yes, I do belief that god is just mythology. Even if we would buy into the first cause stuff, the whole personality, religion, etc. around it were exactly that.”
Answer: Well, then why not just believe that there is something, someone that caused everything to come into existence. It doesn’t require you to believe in any particular religion.
You wrote: “But, to make that short an simple: Please, prove to me that nothing can can come from nothing. I know that sounds strange, but unfortunately you are confusing your every day experience with proof, but it simply doesn’t work that way.”
Answer: You would make an excellent Christian Twist! You should have no trouble believing that Jesus turned water into wine. At least he started with something (water). If I were to defend the possibility of miracles I could use your argument. I could say something like, “Miracles can most certainly happen. You must be confusing your every day experience with proof Twist, but it simply doesn’t work that way. Prove to me no one can work miracles.” As far as proving to you that something can’t come from nothing, I of course can’t prove it. But most folk don’t need it proved to them. You sure don’t want to believe in God do you?
You wrote: “I do not claim, for example, to understand quantum theory, but for example, as far as I heard, there is a possibility from stuff from nothing (the quantum vacuum, afaik) there.”
Answer: The “quantum vacuum” is something Twist. Where did the quantum vacuum come from? Are you saying the quantum vacuum can arise from nothing?
You wrote: “Technically you have NEVER experienced something coming into existence, just stuff being modeled into other stuff because that’s what happens inside our universe. But believing that our personal every-day experiences are the limits of the universe is not the best way to do, if you ask me.”
Answer: Wow…you are quite the Mystic! Amen Twist. Preach it! I too believe in miracles. But I don’t quite have the faith that you do. Mine is a much more reasonable faith than yours. I believe in an all powerful God and can therefore believe in miracles. You believe in…well…Nothing. And you believe that Nothing can do everything! Talk about a head scratcher. So you too should believe in miracles. The all powerful Nothing could do them! Right? The Almighty Nothing could create “giant thinking clouds of gas” as you said in another post. Therefore, Nothing could bring a flying spaghetti monster into existence! Of course, if they did exist, its more likely that God made them in my opinion.
You wrote: “But to be quite honest here, I don’t intend to discuss this much further, if you are interested, you will find myriads of pages about the various arguments for and against the whole first cause thing online, many of them much more eloquently put than what I wrote or “That is simple common sense” (which is actually a horrible argument).”
Answer: Yeah…with faith like yours, who needs common sense right? But since I am not a scientist, I do rely on my common sense quite a bit to decide what to believe. It seems like some scientists don’t need it and you certainly don’t seem to need it. I still believe that the most likely scenario is that God brought everything into existence from Nothing. It just seems much more likely than Nothing brought everything into existence from nothing. I find it amusing to see the extreme lengths atheists will go to in order to not believe in God. You will even sacrifice your common sense on Nothing’s altar in order keep your Faith. Just keep in mind Twist, it is you who believes the most unbelievable story ever told. Therefore, if anyone should be mocked, it is you.
“Well, then why not just believe that there is something, someone that caused everything to come into existence. It doesn’t require you to believe in any particular religion. ”
Simple: Because I don’t know that. It could be that something existed or that there is some way for something to come out of nothing. I don’t know. Why should I chose a random point and decide to believe in it? Could be wrong and has no advantage (as I cannot prove it or conclude anything from it), so I choose not to choose and stay with “I don’t know”.
“Miracles can most certainly happen. You must be confusing your every day experience with proof Twist, but it simply doesn’t work that way.”
Not quite, no, because I would conclude from everyday experience (water doesn’t become wine without grapes, time, hard work, etc.) from everyday experience, thus staying in the same system. But our everyday experience does not include things happening outside of the universe before the universe began – and before time actually existed (which makes the concept of “before” quite strange). So, concluding from our everyday experience (things start to exist by being transformed from other things) to the beginning of the universe is somehow quite a big leap and probably not very useful. That’s why physics are not based on “everyday experience” but actual experiments, etc.
“The “quantum vacuum” is something Twist. Where did the quantum vacuum come from? Are you saying the quantum vacuum can arise from nothing?”
Simple answers, perhaps I should write a makro: I don’t know. Perhaps. But if we assume that something can either exist eternally without beginning or end – or come from nothing – then I would personally bet my money on a state of minimal information and energy and not a complex almighty person who somehow has a problem with shellfish and mixed fibres. But your mileage may vary, as I know that my bet is on the boring thing.
“And you believe that Nothing can do everything! ”
I know that I don’t know. And that means keeping an open mind for many possibilities, which sometimes gets confused with “belief in my religion, dammit!”, which is actually not quite the same thing. Anyway, my personal, faulty logic tells me, that either something comes from nothing or something exists eternally. Don’t know which one – and don’t know if there is a possibility 3 (or 4, 5…)
“It seems like some scientists don’t need it and you certainly don’t seem to need it.”
Common sense is a nice thing. I wish you much luck trying to get the nobel prize in physics that way. Somehow the human mind does not seem to be adequate to get this things via the “common sense”. Strange, but true, so we might actually think hard, especially if you consider the little problem that people have really big problems agreeing what common sense actually says. And no matter how often you try to mask your belief as “common sense”, it simply doesn’t become truth. Yes, I understand that you believe it and that this belief makes it totally natural for you to think this way… It just still doesn’t become a mystical common sense that everyone shares.
“Just keep in mind Twist, it is you who believes the most unbelievable story ever told.”
Yep, I know, it’s totally unbelievable that I actually don’t think that the universe was created by some guy who created billions of galaxies but still cares if you eat shellfish. That’s against all common sense. Or something like that.
“Therefore, if anyone should be mocked, it is you.”
Please, if it would make you feel better, just go on doing that. I’m always glad to help and really hope that it helps you compensate whatever you feel needs compensating.
(And boy, the wordpress commenting system is really awful for discussions like this, isn’t it? Like a pre-2000 forum somehow.)
Twist wrote: “Please, if it would make you feel better, just go on doing that. I’m always glad to help and really hope that it helps you compensate whatever you feel needs compensating.”
LOL…thanks Twist. You’re all right. But I won’t mock you since I understand what its like to be mocked.
I know common sense will not, in and of itself, get me the Nobel Prize, but I do think it is a necessary ingredient. It is good common sense to believe that Something cannot arise from Nothing. And from what little I’ve read, no scientists out there are trying to claim that our universe came from absolutely nothing. Hawking said something like, “because there is a law of gravity, the universe can arise from nothing.” But the law of gravity is something. The law of gravity, as far as I understand it, is just a description of how matter interacts with other matter. So what is the law of gravity in the absence of matter and energy and space and time? Nothing right? Its like me saying, because of the law of zigba, everything can arise from nothing. What is this law of zigba? It is a description of how zigbies interact. What are zigbies? Well, they are things that don’t exist yet! Get it? How about this quantum vacuum that you mentioned? What is a vacuum? Its the absence of matter in a confined space. But space is something. In order to have a vacuum you must have space. So, it seems to me that scientist are not thinking that our universe arose from absolute Nothing. Let me know if I’m wrong. I know these guys are extremely intelligent and I don’t have a firm grasp on what they are arguing about, but, there are very intelligent men on both sides of this debate.
It’s interesting however that the Bible says somewhere that God created everything out of Nothing. The only ancient religion to say such a thing as far as I know. But I understand you are looking for the minimum thing, because it seems wrong to assume something complex always existed when you could assume something very simple existed and everything just grew out of that. Like you said:
“But if we assume that something can either exist eternally without beginning or end – or come from nothing – then I would personally bet my money on a state of minimal information and energy and not a complex almighty person who somehow has a problem with shellfish and mixed fibres.”
But to me it makes much more sense to assume that something very complex has always existed and everything is a result of that complexity because not only is that is what I see around me, but it seems to me the most reasonable explanation. An oak tree grows from an acorn. But that acorn is full of information which came from a tree. The acorn is not more complex than the tree which produced it is it? So our universe could have been like a seed. But that seed must have been full of information from something at least as complex as this universe…including, at least as complex as me. Perhaps we are the fruit of this universe, from which come more seeds. Who knows right? It seems to me you live your life in doubt of everything because you fear to be wrong maybe?
You said, “Why should I chose a random point and decide to believe in it? Could be wrong and has no advantage (as I cannot prove it or conclude anything from it), so I choose not to choose and stay with “I don’t know”.
I guess you should choose because in order to make progress you have to choose something to believe and then act as if it were true, otherwise you stagnate. For instance, if I were in a burning building, and I heard calls coming from the street below telling me to jump out of the 3rd story window so that they could catch me and save my life, I would have to make a choice as to what to believe even though I don’t know if what they are saying is true. If I don’t choose something to believe in, I’ll burn. I could refuse to believe the voices coming through the window and try to find another way out, or, I can take a leap of faith. The leap of faith is not without evidence since I can hear the voices telling me to jump and they sound sincere. I also know that they could have a net spread below to catch me. I also know that it is possible that they could safely catch me from a jump from such a height. That is faith. The leap is the result of faith and evidence combined. Faith closes the gap between between what we know and what we don’t know. As the bible puts it, “Faith is the evidence of things not seen.” It takes the place of incomplete data so we can function in this world. So it is with God. I can’t prove it but I’m going to try to live as if He is true. Not because I fear burning, but because the voices shouting to me from the past tell me that he is the source of all goodness, love, truth and joy. And I believe those voices are sincere and true. I guess in my case, a better analogy would be: There is a starving man, and the voices are saying, “walk this path and you will find eternal food that never runs out.”
We are back at: We don’t know. You claim that nothing can arise from nothing. Ok, that’s your belief. You call it “common sense”, I call it “belief”. Personally, I don’t know. Physics is, as interesting as it sounds, not my personal area of expertise, so I don’t assume to understand quantum physics or have anything meaningful to say about the beginning of the universe just because of “common sense”. Perhaps some day most physicist will agree on a likely theory and then I will say “Well done guys.” and accept it, because I still could not contribute anything meaningful to it.
And actually the acorn is a nice example, because it evolved from much simpler life forms, so actually yes, chances are that an acorn might have more information than the tree it came from by mutation. (Now would be a great time for me to find faith, as praying that you don’t turn out to be a creationist sounds awfully tempting right now…)
And no, being wrong is human, that’s ok. Being wrong does not make you a bad person – it’s how you handle it that shows what a person you are. So, I try to keep an open mind (which does not include accepting everything that might or might not be possible) and admit when I don’t have a clue instead of trying to sound clever by pretending that I have.
And again no, my person progress does not depend on me knowing how the universe started. That’s a nice tidbit of information, but in all other regards as useful to know for me as the the main export product of Papua New Guinea. Ok, now I felt compelled to google it (and will forget it sooner), but if you feel the same pang of “ok, what is it?”: “oil, gold, copper ore, logs, palm oil, coffee, cocoa, crayfish, prawns” (from Wikipedia:Economy of Papua New Guinea). And to come back to topic: This is why I can be totally ok with not knowing something. Of course it would be nice to know everything – but simply choosing random answers does not replace actual knowing and it’s harder to go back after having committed to something than from something you didn’t chose (which is why getting rid of religious feelings can be so hard and people feel the need to defend it – they are too involved without realizing that problem at all). So I only choose if there are good reasons for it.
Twisted wrote: “We are back at: We don’t know. You claim that nothing can arise from nothing. Ok, that’s your belief. You call it “common sense”, I call it “belief”.
LOL! Wow. Well, there’s no more grounds for argument I guess. If I can’t even get you to agree that in order for something to exist, it must have come from something, there is nothing more to say. You have thrown logic out the window. Nice talking with you.
Logic dictates that you have to accept every premise, no matter how unproven? Sorry, you are confusion “logic” with your “common sense” or “intuition” or whatever. The only thing you can claim is that things inside our universe seem to need something to come from. You are trying to tell me, that this experience has to be true for all instances, even for things outside the universe (or the universe itself). Well, sorry, no, it’s not that easy. We simply don’t know. But honestly, trying to call that logic while trying to belief that something can exist forever without cause and does not like shellfish… Well… Yeah, sure.
Happy new year in any case.
You’re really obsessed with the Old Testament, aren’t you? If you were an open-minded guy instead of someone who twists (no pun intended) himself into intellectual pretzels to believe that something can come from nothing, then you’d probably know by now why your shellfish cracks are just more … red herrings.
Yes, yes, I know that you cherry pick your personal god from all the things you like, so that in the end, your god is exactly like you want him to be. Couldn’t care less, but thanks for admitting that finally anyway.
Haha! This statement is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. Please, keep showing your ignorance as it pertains to the Catholic church. It’s rather amusing.
Been catholic long enough. Served in church. Had it in school for years. Sorry, but you are barking at the wrong tree here.
That only makes your last couple of statements even more bizarre.
Just because I was taught some quite bad mythology in the past doesn’t mean I have to accept it as truth today.
…says the guy who has essentially cast himself as the tragic hero in his own mythology. You’re such a good guy, Twisted Inspiration, but alas — it will all be for naught.
Honestly, I have given up trying to understand in which world you are living because it seems that it has not much overlap with mine, for example. My life is quite fun and not tragic, even my departure from Catholicism was uneventful, like realizing that Santa Claus doesn’t exist.
No conversation with an atheist would be complete until he refers to Santa Claus. Thanks!
Twisted wrote: “Logic dictates that you have to accept every premise, no matter how unproven? Sorry, you are confusion “logic” with your “common sense” or “intuition” or whatever.”
If I say x created y, it is a necessary logical presupposition that x existed before y. If I say x created x, it is a necessary presupposition that x existed before x which is nonsense.
If I say God has always existed and God created the universe, I have not said anything illogical. I can say that there was a time when the universe did not exist because there was something before there was the universe. If I say, the universe created itself from nothing, I have broken the rules of logic since you would have to assume that the universe existed before the universe existed which as anyone in their right mind can see is nonsense. Now if you say the universe has always existed in some form, for instance, if you believed that the universe is like a heart beat and it expands and contracts forever, that would not be illogical. But to believe that something can come from nothing? That’s illogical Twisted. An idea like that truly comes from some Twisted Inspiration.
Well, as time is a component OF the universe, in other words, “before” the universe there was no time, asking was came “before” might indeed be quite tricky. Anyway, your logic is faulty:
What you are claiming is…
“If X created Y, then X must exist before Y.”
Ok, let’s assume that for moment and fill in what we have…
“If nothing created the Universe, then nothing must exist before the Universe”.
Well, that’s actually true, if we assume nothing created the universe. So, no broken rules of logic here, sorry.
But honestly, I even doubt the premise, as it is true for things inside our time-structured universe, but we know nothing else. And of course, your premise is actually terribly vague, which allows us into putting “nothing” in a place where you actually meant the rule to apply for “something”.
And as much as you want to codify your personal common sense into a natural law, I simply continue not to know. “From nothing” and “eternally” is, if you ask me, both intellectually unsatisfying.
Twist wrote: “If nothing created the Universe, then nothing must exist before the Universe”. Well, that’s actually true, if we assume nothing created the universe. So, no broken rules of logic here, sorry.
The broken logic is in saying “Nothing created the universe.” When you state, “Nothing created”, your assuming that “Nothing” is an agent of change, a first cause. In order for x to create y, x must exist. This is sound logic. You are saying “x does not exist” AND “x created y”, which is illogical and therefore nonsensical. And I think you know this. So what you are really saying if you are at all in earnest, which I hope you are, is that when it comes to the origin of the universe, logic breaks down. Which means, we cannot ever figure it out scientifically since science depends on logic. Which is why you are fine with “I don’t know”.
So okay, that makes you a sort of non-spiritual Mystic I suppose; or an Absurdist? But as such, why do you scoff at the possibility of a God who takes an interest in his creation?
You wrote, “But honestly, trying to call that logic while trying to belief that something can exist forever without cause and does not like shellfish… Well… Yeah, sure.”
Believing in a God who is self existent and who doesn’t like shellfish isn’t illogical at all. In other words, it doesn’t break any rules of logic. So why is it so implausible to you to consider that there is a God who created the universe and mankind? Why is it so preposterous that this creator is interested in his creation’s diet and what clothes they wear? People who have children, if they love their children, are all up in their kid’s business. They are always looking at what they eat to make sure it is healthy for them, and what they wear, and what they watch on television, even what their poop looks like for crying out loud. A good parent is an intrusive parent. If God is our maker, and he cares about us, wouldn’t he be the same way? The arguments against God are always so contradictory. You scoff because God told the Jews that he didn’t want them eating shellfish. You scoff I guess because you find it silly that a god would care about such things. But then another common argument against God is that he isn’t involved enough. Where is he? If he is such a good God, why isn’t he here making things better?
You wrote to Douglas, “Yes, yes, I know that you cherry pick your personal god from all the things you like, so that in the end, your god is exactly like you want him to be.”
But it is you that cherry picks in order to avoid God. You want so badly to believe that there isn’t a God that you are willing to believe complete nonsense in order to deny him. You are completely closed minded when it comes to belief in God, but are incredibly open minded if it means you don’t have to believe in him.
I’m pretty sure you are commenting here just to mess with peoples heads. But I’m hoping that just maybe, you are also seeking truth. And if you are seeking truth, you should consider God.
My favorite Twisted assertion is that guys like us tailor God to our liking.
God actually expects things of us. We’re held accountable for our actions. We are essentially told that we will bear burdens because of our faith and we are expected to handle them with dignity.
In a world where I designed my own personal God, it is much more logical to assume that I would have plenty of “Doug loopholes” that apply only to my moral failings. How does the atheist not see that he is the one who is who taken God out of the equation so that he can essentially play god?
As I said earlier, most of his comments are of the “too clever by half” variety. He seems to get a weird enjoyment out of throwing in little digs about “shellfish” and “Santa Claus” that are totally unnecessary and run counter to having a productive conversation. A witty troll is still a troll at the end of the day.
No, you are wrong here, sorry. What I am saying is, that the sentence…
“There is no X for which the sentence ‘X created the universe’ is true.”
…is completely logical. It doesn’t have to be true, but there is absolute nothing illogical about it.
Anyway, while I personally simply don’t know if there was such an X or not, believing X to be a person based on mythology created by people who has no idea how the world works, has simply nothing to do with logic anymore.
Yes, the idea that there could be a first cause is quote ok and totally possible, no problem with that. But trying to tell me, that this is somehow evidence for a very specific, Semitic god… Nope, sorry, that has nothing to do with logic. That’s like telling me “Well, logic dictates that SOMEONE stole the cake, so it must have been aliens who now use it in their plot for world domination!”.
Have considered various gods. None better than the other. All equally mythology. Honestly, if there was a first cause, then I think it likely would be quite boring physics and not really worth praying to. Trying to assume a person there is just mythology, nothing more.
“In a world where I designed my own personal God, it is much more logical to assume that I would have plenty of “Doug loopholes” that apply only to my moral failings. How does the atheist not see that he is the one who is who taken God out of the equation so that he can essentially play god?”
Yup. There are a lot of religions out there that are much more accommodating than Christianity. I think many atheists do know what they are doing. The ones that supposedly used to be Christians I think are more likely to know what they are doing. I notice Twisted never tries to improve my arguments. He only tries to find clever ways to circumvent them in order to maintain his belief system…which is, any system that keeps God out, even if its unbelievable and illogical.
It seems like many atheists are trying make scientists the new priests of our age. Like Steven Hawking who said philosophy is dead. He wrote;
“Did the universe need a creator? Most of us do not spend most of our time worrying about these questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time. Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”
He then goes on to do some bad philosophy in the rest of his book. He’s the one giving guys like Twisted the courage to spout his nonsense about the universe created itself from nothing. Insanity.
“If the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all.”
Unfortunately, this is a nice thing to say, but as an argument pretty weak, because of the hidden premises:
i) These forces CAN be different. This is not proven. We don’t know how and when these forces were fixed, so it’s totally possible that there actually is only one possible value for these, for example.
ii) These constants exist only once. But we also don’t know that. There could be an infinite number of universes – or just one. We simply don’t know. If there was an infinite amount of universes, the fact that some are suitable for life would not be surprising.
iii) The configuration we know is the ONLY one that supports life. But, again, we don’t know that. With different constants, perhaps the universe would be full of huge thinking gas clouds. Who knows? Not me, that’s for sure.
In the end, it’s like the lottery: Even if the chances are slim, arresting the guy who won because he MUST have cheated might be a bit unwise.
“Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. ”
This may sound uncouth, but I don’t quote people whose belief in god was “greatly shaken” by something as an argument against god, because it isn’t. And of course, because I wouldn’t be able to do anything else, there are so many of these guys out there. The personal feeling of some astronomer are also not an argument for god, especially as this same astronomer also believed that the flu was connected to solar activity and some other cute but in the end wrong stuff. This is why science tries to remove the “opinion” from the facts and shows that you can be greatly respected for your work in one are while being totally wrong in others.
“Sorry, but atheists don’t get to use science as a cudgel against Christians when it suits them, but then say things like “we might never know for sure” as soon as scientific truths augment a Christian man’s assertions.”
As I have tried to tell you, you have not provided any “scientific truths”, you just pointed at a number and quoted a claim, that, if it was different, no starts could exist, which might be nice premise for a science fiction story, but in the end nothing more as an argument from ignorance combined with a personal vague feeling that something is impossible.
But I am curious. Why do you feel the need to claim that I try to shut you up, when all I did was disagreeing with your argument and advising you of showing some basic respect? I do understand that you probably encountered some/many people who actually told you to shut up (who hasn’t? This is the internet, after all), but that was not what I did and I can assure you, that while I don’t share your opinion, I will fight for your right to say it.
As a side note, I really enjoy the irony in showing even more disrespect by trying to claim that my words somehow mean something totally different from what I said, which was the advice to show a little bit more respect. While I doubt that it was intentional, it was almost artistically done.
Look at you: forced to argue against this very specific number provided by the author of the WSJ piece, when the point — that science provides plenty of mind-bending facts that can rationally lead a man to conclude that God exists — is clear to objective readers.
Did you clear the red herring store out of its entire stock? Hopefully you didn’t spend too much money. The point would have been the same had the WSJ author talked about the sheer number of chemical reactions that have to take place perfectly in your body every second of every day just for you to continue breathing…
What you’re trying to do rhetorically has already been stated.
I’m “disrespecting” you? If you think that, then you have incredibly thin skin.
We are still at an argument from ignorance and if you somehow belief that this will lead rationally to anything, then I am afraid that we have different definitions of “rationality”.
And while evolution might produce some really great and very complex systems, it provides no basis to assume an even complexer system designing these less complex systems. I must admit, I am tempted to call “It’s so complicated, thus god” “not even wrong”.
And you do seem to confuse something. Yes, you do disrespect me. You are lying about what I said, you are trying to claim that you know better than myself what I want to tell you (or you are calling my a liar, take your pick), etc. But what I don’t get what this has to do with my skin? If you are afraid of having hurt my feelings (something I have slight problems to believe, if you allow me that comment), let me assure you that this wasn’t the case at all.
Perhaps put like that, you might understand it: I really couldn’t care less about what you think of me. But no, that isn’t meant to be an insult, as I am quite confident that you also couldn’t care less about my opinion of you. We are random people on the internet, why should we care? That’s like taking one random phone book, picking one random name and deciding to suddenly care what THIS person thinks about oneself. I tend to suggest some basic curtsey and respect, as this tends to make communication so much easier and help your message, but of course, that’s not written down in stone (not like this “Thou shall not bear false witness” thing… If I could just remember where that was from… Well, it will come back to me some day).
Let’s start a drinking game, where every time you steer the conversation to respecting you and other atheists (even though you’ve been treated just fine) a reader has to take a shot. I’m not a big drinker, but if I were then it wouldn’t be long before I was sauced.
Well, we could make it a drinking game, if you agreed to drinking water, as I don’t drink alcohol at all.
And yes, I understand you believe that you treated me just fine, but sorry, we will have to agree to disagree on that.
“I find it amusing that his only response to what I’ve written is to essentially say that science is off limits to Christians”
It is? Wow, someone should tell that all these Christian scientists (the actual ones, not like in “Christian Science”). They could save much work if someone told them that. Ok, perhaps that someone should include an argument why that should be the case. Can’t think of any, but if I write something about a cat here, you might be able to lie about that too and create some argument about it?
Honestly, I really wished I would understand your need to lie about what I said.
I didn’t lie about what you were trying to do rhetorically at all. Individuals are free to compare everything you said with everything I said. It’s all right there. I’m confident that the majority of people who read through this conversation will see that you were attempting re-frame the discussion and weirdly equating me with the guys who likened me to a heroin addict/alcoholic/self-loathing wannabe criminal.
Weren’t it politically incorrect, I would probably much more compare you to some guy with the surprisingly strong need to feel persecuted. Anyway, to make that clear, no, nothing you wrote was even remotely as bad as the comments you quoted. If I thought you were that bad, then I wouldn’t have written here, because that’s not something that leads to anything – at least, in my experience. If you want, you could surprise me by telling me that that thread you quoted lead to great results and everyone grew from it? But probably not. Internet and all that.
So now responding to an atheist website that got its Two Minutes of Hate out of way for the day by quoting me is somehow evidence that I seek to feel persecuted? Heh. Nice try. It would be rather strange for me to do that while Christians are getting their heads chopped off in Iraq and Syria…
Ahh… The Internet Atheist. The prime example of a keyboard warrior and hypocrite. They feel strong and all powerful when on the internet and have a bunch of their buddies from other Atheist sites, or in YouTube case from other parts of the world like the disgusting cesspool that is Europe which amazes me that it still exist given whats going on over there, to come to their aid and spam the comment sections but when confronted in person they come off as a angry, hateful and joyless loon who no one takes seriously.
I have also seen internet Atheist come to the defense of other “religious” groups like those Satanist *coughPaganscough* who wanted to put up that statue in that Oklahoma courthouse next to the Ten Commandments just because they think it would piss Christians off when real normal Atheist would have said that having a statue of Satan is just as stupid as having a statue of the Ten Commandments. But Internet Atheist don’t care. All they care about is pissing Christians off and picking fights with them and will willingly side with anyone even if it means betraying the core fundamentalist belief of Atheism. For some reason they think that being a bully and acting like a arrogant ass will win all of their arguments when it doesn’t. It makes them look like petulant and obnoxious children. And Atheist wonder why so many people are so hostile to them. They have their Internet Atheist brothers to thank for that.
I got to travel around Europe quite a bit in the late 90s. I lived in Germany. It’s a decent place to go for a vacation, but I wouldn’t want to live there. It’s interesting that you would mention Europe — Twisted Inspiration was posting from there. Heh.
Twisted Inspiration’s modus operandi seems to be to make comments that are too clever by half, and then when called out on it to say that I’m “lying.”
So a post that brought up how science can actually strengthen a man’s faith in God suddenly becomes all about the specific numbers this particular author writing for WSJ used, how they’re irrelevant to the conversation, etc. My response to the immature and child-like Two Minutes of Hate enacted by an atheist website suddenly becomes an indictment of my character. Classic.
It’s telling to see the WordPress stats for the numbers of atheists who come here from FSTDT and then compare it to the number who actually comment. Given how cocksure they act on FSTDT and how ridiculous I supposedly am for believing in an “imaginary friend,” one would think they would jump at the opportunity to expose the errors in my logic on this very blog. I guess not.
I love how Europeans gets all holier then thou and smug believing that they whats right for their poor dumb American brothers and sisters and start telling us what to do. Yet when Americans start telling them what to do and they get their panties in a bunch and tell us to F off. Double standard much? Hey Europeans, how about you leave us alone and mind your own business and will leave you alone and mind our own business?
Also, I don’t understand why Atheist believe that religious people can’t believe in science. Many of the worlds greatest scientist and doctors believed in God or were religious. To them its one or the other and its extremely obnoxious and close minded.
Side note, rangerboo: Your comments stirred up the hornet’s nest over at FSTDT.
Well speaking as someone who lives in the “European cesspool” I would just like to say
What nation does not have universal healthcare? Oh that would be America.
What nation has the most expensive healthcare in the western world? Oh that would be America,
What nation has the highest murder rate in the western world? Oh that would be America.
What nation has the biggest gap between rich and poor? Oh that would be America.
What nation has the highest rate of child poverty in the western world? Oh that would be America.
What nation has the highest rate of child mortality in the western world? Oh that would be America
What nation has the most militarised police in the western world? Oh that would be America.
What nation has the least employment rights in the western world? Oh that would be America.
What nation still has capital punishment? Oh that would be America.
What nation has the most prisoners on the planet? Oh that would be America.
What nation has the biggest porn industry on the planet? Oh that would be America.
I could go on but I think you get the idea. Europe has its problems but compared to America it’s a paradise of civilisation. So as an atheist I’ll take my “European cesspool” over your god bothering American loony bin any day of the week.
One more question.
What nation gives more money to TV evangelists than any other? Oh that would be AMERICA!!
There’s a message there but I’ll let you figure it out.
If God does not exist and the entire universe is all one big accident, then I’m not sure why rangerboo’s opinion would rile you up enough to go on such an extended rant in defense of Europe.
Doug if someone is going to call the place I live a cesspool then i feel entitled to make comparisons and by most comparisons America does not come out well. So if I’m living in a cesspool what are Americans living in?
I never said you were living in a cesspool. I said I wouldn’t want to live there. Regardless, there was a time where someone from the United Kingdom would never say they were part of “Europe.” The U.K. was something distinct and separate from Europe. That says something…
I’d respond to your list point by point, but there’s really no need. Guys like you like to bash America while millions of people risk life and limb to reach its shores every year…
Doug millions of poor people risk life and limb to get to European shores also. Illegal immagration is a big issue in many European countries. It isn’t something that is exclusive to America.
Also the UK is as much a part of Europe as any of the other countries in it. you need to get over this “special relationship” nonsense. The only reason you need the UK is because we’ll always tag along on these pointless mini wars you are constantly engaged in because the other European countries are not so compliant.
Yes. That should tell you something about Western Civilization. It should also clue you in on why I wasn’t the one who referred to Europe as a cesspool — although, like I said, I wouldn’t want to live there. I could have weirdly rattled off a list of statistics in response to your “Look how awesome Europe is!” comment, but I didn’t. You’re a liberal atheist guy who obviously isn’t interested in having a real discussion, so getting into a tit-for-tat with you isn’t high on my priority list.
I never referred to any “special relationship.” I was referring to how Brits once thought of their own country. Although, historically and philosophically, there is much that binds our two countries together. To deny that seems bizarre. Regardless, I have no desire to get into a debate about whether the U.S. “needs” the U.K. as it pertains to military engagements around the world. The word ‘need’ is laughable…and I’ll leave it at that.
If you want to use my blog to make yourself feel better about your own country, then go ahead. Spout a few more boiler plate liberal talking points. Have a ball.
I found the article and the conversation a very good read so I guess Twisted Inspiration was wrong about that as well.
Notice the odd view…we don’t have the facts but we do not believe in God? How convenient is that.
Notice how the kind atheist respond..not so kindly. Notice the mention of free healthcare..that is not really free. Notice who came here to complain about a post, an atheist…who is pushing what on who. They can claim they want to be left alone but their actions do not say the same.
It is rather interesting how attractive liberalism is to atheists. I suppose the idea of a Creator who knows exactly what goes on inside Orwellian police states is bothersome to wannabe Big Brother bureaucrats. 😉
For a change after 20 years a change agent would be needed to say otherwise is clearly not accurate. The agent could be “evidence” that altered your view or an event but something had to lead to change. For a person that uses science as an argument that should be evident.
Sorry that comment was intended to go in another discussion.
How are you a “fundie”? Nothing of what you said is “hilarious, bizarre, ignorant, bigoted, and[/or] terrifying”.
At no time did I deny that dinosaurs walked the earth or make weird pronouncements about the spiritual fate of gay people…but I guess I’m still a “fundie” anyway to these guys. Interesting…
I think “fundie” has become one of those words like “neocon” and “privilege;” it means whatever its users want it to mean. To the internet atheist, “fundie” means all religious people.
It’s ridiculous. I checked out the conspiracy archive on the site and it’s damn near hilarious. But the people making those posts are more than a little loopy, where you’re laid-back and chill.
I agree with Truth. The smug matter in which these RationalWiki types respond is irritatingly abrasive.
You know I had a reply just about ready in my mind…
^then that guy had to go and say it better than I was going. 😦 😉
Another great share, as always, Nate. Thanks!