A Society Run By Atheist Scientists Would Be Horrible

Reason Tells Us So

By William M Briggs Published on April 18, 2018

Skeptic Michael Shermer is pleased the number of folks with no religious affiliation is growing, and will likely continue to grow.

One estimate is that “there are more than 64 million American atheists, a staggering number that no politician can afford to ignore.” There are about 325 million people in the USA, which means that almost 20% of the population is effectively atheist. That’s on the low end. The same estimate suggests the number may be as high as 28.6%, or 93 million.

He says, “This shift away from the dominance of any one religion is good for a secular society whose government is structured to discourage catch basins of power from building up and spilling over into people’s private lives.”

This is not only not true, it is willfully blind. The catch basin of power known as the state has not only spilled over into people’s lives, but is overtaking them. Each day the state discovers a new area where it can control, regulate, manipulate, “nudge,” or direct. Religion and the family were able to hold the state at bay, at least to some extent. Which is why it is not surprising these institutions are under attack by the state.

An Unreasonable Suggestion

Shermer continues:

Moreover, if these trends continue, we should be thinking about the deeper implications for how people will find meaning as the traditional source of it wanes in influence. And we should continue working on grounding our morals and values on viable secular sources such as reason and science.

This is wrong. And also frightening. Reason may assist but science is as silent as Hell is not on which morals and values a society should favor. Science is in the measurement and not the judgement business. It can tell us, say, how many heads are lopped off the world over, including those in would-be mothers’ wombs, but it cannot say whether lopping itself is good or bad. Reason should have told Shermer that.

Maybe it did but he wasn’t listening. Maybe he’s got a bad definition of reason. In any case, the message isn’t one he’d like to hear. But it’s oh so simple dropping a piece of toast buttered side down.

The Silence of Science

Natural science cannot say if murder is right or wrong. Science can describe where and when murders take place, and under what circumstances, and it might even be able to predict with varying accuracy where murders are going to take place, or possibly even who might commit them.

A scientist can say, “This man has been murdered.” But he cannot in his capacity as scientist say “Murder is bad.” No measurement is morally good or bad. He can as a man say murder is bad. And most would agree. But not all would or do agree. That not all agree that murder is bad is why murders take place. Some people kill in anger, others because they think they can get away with it, some because they are paid, and a few because they enjoy it.

What are we to make of the people that enjoy killing? Science can tell us certain things about them. Their age, sex, blood type, scores on questionnaires, that sort of thing. Science can compile these results for groups of killers and groups of non-killers, and perhaps draw distinctions.

Knowing the distinctions cannot say why murder is wrong. The best science can do is say things like this: “We estimate 12.78% of all murderers enjoy killing. Therefore, for these people murder is not wrong.” That is absurd. But it shows there is no way to jump from the measurement to the judgement.

None So Blind

The problem is this. Scientists can surely suggest a system of morals for non-scientists to live by. Yet this system must necessarily derive from the moral views and prejudices of the scientists themselves. The danger is that scientists will not recognize these prejudices as prejudices. They must be prejudices because there is no way to move, inside science, from measurement to judgement.

Scientists will like Shermer think that it was “science” that told them their list of prejudices is “scientifically correct.” And there will be no arguing with them. Or else you are a science denier.

Since scientists almost nowhere receive any moral training, are not required to read history or study philosophy, and cannot look on religion as anything but an abstract thing, they will be less equipped than non-scientists at forming moral judgments. A society in which science ruled would therefore almost certainly be a very scary place.

Send this article to a scientist you know and see what he or she thinks.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Fyodor D

    “Without God, all is permissible.”–from The Brothers Karamazov

    The history of atheistic Communism in the 20th century proves to us that Dostoevsky was a very prescient man.

    Scientism is our new religion in the West, and scientists are the new priestly caste. Many are eager to grab this position of authority and ensconce their private views as the “only reasonable conclusion.” All others holding contrary views will be severely punished for their heterodoxy, and have to be eliminated in order for utopia to come into being. Count on this happening with increased ferocity in the next few decades.

    • Ken Abbott

      I was about to say that Karl Marx considered his dialectical materialism to be science, and atheism was part and parcel of the revolution he preached. If one wants good examples of where atheist “scientists” lead people, look to Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

      • Stalin and Mao were dictators–that’s the relevant cause to the effect of their regimes. Dictators do bad things to people (including shutting down churches).

        Maybe Stalin was a knitter as well as being an atheist. Do you suppose the knitting was behind any of his bad actions?

        • Ken Abbott

          A lover of sharp steely objects? Perhaps it inspired his instructions to Ramon Mercader.

        • Ye Olde Statistician

          Cincinnatus was also a dictator, but by all accounts, he did good things.

          • Interesting data point, thanks. I should have said something more like, “When dictators do bad things, it’s because they have great power, not because they’re atheists or knitters or cat fanciers.”

    • Communism is a jealous god, and will permit no others.

  • Char B

    Science is wonderful, but I’ll think for myself about the big issues

  • topknot

    So…

    Let’s see if this is correct.

    …God exists and he is the Christian god…

    But what if god exists and he is allah? Or maybe Zeus?

    Please explain why the Christian must be the true god.

    Morals do not stem from religion. Morals rise from intelligence. Religion and belief in a god provides humans the basis of horrible atrocities committed in the name of one’s god.

    “With god all evils against non-adherents are permissive.”

    It’s a good thing god does not exit, because a universe with god is so much worse and uninteresting than a universe without god.

    • GLT

      “Morals do not stem from religion. Morals rise from intelligence.”

      Could you perhaps demonstrate a moral code which arose from intelligence wholly independent of religion?

      “Religion and belief in a god provides humans the basis of horrible atrocities committed in the name of one’s god.”

      Unfortunately true in some instances. But what of the horrible atrocities committed By Stalin Mao and Pol Pot, committed atheists all. What motivated them? It was certainly not a belief in God. That would lead any logical thinker to conclude some other factor must be in play.

      “It’s a good thing god does not exit, because a universe with god is so much worse and uninteresting than a universe without god.”

      If God does not exist and this is the universe we have how can you say a universe with God would be worse? You have no experience with a universe in which God exists.

      Atheist logic, you just have to love it.

      • topknot

        All religions inspire violence. Not all atheists are moral people…

        Amorality arising from religion:

        1. Murder of non-adherents.
        2. Murder of apostates.
        3. Irrational and unnecessary isolation of those who violate the religion’s tenants.
        4. Irrational and unnecessary hatred of outsiders.
        5. Approved theft of property from non-adherents.
        6. Maltreatment of women.

        Would you like more?

        • GLT

          “Amorality arising from religion:”

          First, I think you mean immorality.

          “1. Murder of non-adherents.
          2. Murder of apostates.
          3. Irrational and unnecessary isolation of those who violate the religion’s tenants.
          4. Irrational and unnecessary hatred of outsiders.
          5. Approved theft of property from non-adherents.
          6. Maltreatment of women.”

          None of the things listed apply strictly to religion, such events are to be found prominently in the atheist regimes of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and others. As none of these men believed in the existence of God and were without adherence to religion, religion cannot be held responsible for their actions. Therefore, one is left to assume it is not religion from which such atrocities arise but from the heart of man himself. That being the obvious case I would suggest your time and energies would be better spent addressing the basic immorality of man and not attacking what you believe to be a fictional God. That is simply the logical course of action.

          Speaking of Christianity in particular, none of the things you list are taught, condoned or endorsed by Christ or the church in general. In fact Christ and Christianity teaches just the opposite of each part of your list. Have adherents of Christianity at times been guilty of such things? Certainly but the responsibility for that lies solely with the perpetrators and not the teachings of Christ or the church.

          • topknot

            >None of the things listed apply strictly to religion, such events are to be found prominently in the atheist regimes of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and others.

            I think you’ve “forgotten” a little bit about all those videos of Muslims tossing gay people off bridges.

            I think you’ve “forgotten” a little bit about Pope Pius XII and Hitler.

            I think you’ve “forgotten” a little bit about holidays in the Jewish tradition which celebrate the mass slaughter of “enemies” … the rape, pillage, and execution of men, women, and children celebrated at Purim.

            I think you’ve “forgotten” a little bit about much of written history.

            In general, religion of any kind begets violence and hatred. You must have studied about it in school at some point. Perhaps, you’ve just “forgotten”.

            Sure, corrupt world leaders have murdered millions of people. Some of those leaders were atheists. Some of those leaders were Muslim. Some of those leaders were Christian. Some of those leaders were Buddhist.

            The common thread of all mass murderers is that they were mass murderers. Other than that, there is no common thread. The Great Communist Murderers meme is a red herring. You’ve got to include the rest of the mass murderers as well.

          • GLT

            “I think you’ve “forgotten” a little bit about all those videos of Muslims tossing gay people off bridges.”

            Read my response again, I said none of them apply ‘strictly’ to religion, not that religion was innocent of such atrocities. Each of the things you listed have been perpetrated by religious people as well as atheists.

            “I think you’ve “forgotten” a little bit about Pope Pius XII and Hitler.”

            I think you have a reading comprehension problem. Again, I said clearly some adherents of Christianity, in this case Pius XII, were guilty of deeds which were contrary to Christ’s teaching and that the responsibility lay with them and not the teachings of Christ or the church. At least try to be honest in your comments, please.

            “In general, religion of any kind begets violence and hatred.”

            You’re simply repeating the same set of arguments which I just refuted in my last post. Do you know what they call it when one tries the same thing over an over again expecting different results?

            “Sure, corrupt world leaders have murdered millions of people. Some of those leaders were atheists. Some of those leaders were Muslim. Some of those leaders were Christian. Some of those leaders were Buddhist.”

            Exactly, and what does your little list clearly demonstrate? Religion, while a denominator is NOT a common denominator, while mankind is. What does that tell a logically minded individual? Religion is not the source of such actions, mankind is the source as it is the only common denominator.

            “The Great Communist Murderers meme is a red herring.”

            On the contrary, it is a vital factor in the equation in that it demonstrates religion is not the source, the heart of mankind is the source as it is the only common element.

            “You’ve got to include the rest of the mass murderers as well.”

            I left out no one, it is you who is trying to leave out the atheist component by claiming the inclusion of the atheistic communist murderers is a red herring and should therefore not be part of the equation. You are simply incorrect.

          • topknot

            >Each of the things you listed have been perpetrated by religious people as well as atheists.

            And your point is??

            Wait?! That is my point. And thus you’ve nullified your own initial point.

            Since non-religious and religious have committed mass murder and other atrocities, your “Mao is atheist means atheist is bad” argument is logically incorrect. And you’ve admitted such in your very own post.

          • GLT

            “And your point is??”

            I would have thought that was obvious. Apparently not. My point is that neither religion or atheism is directly responsible, it is mankind that is responsible. Mankind will twist and pervert both religion, atheism and any other philosophy to justify the evil of its heart.

            “And thus you’ve nullified your own initial point.”

            Hardly, my initial point was what I have just stated above. You are so confused by your own desire to blame everything evil on religion that you apply the some motive to me regards atheism.

            “Mao is atheist means atheist is bad” argument is logically incorrect.”

            If you had better reading comprehension you would be aware that is not my argument, that is your argument. You are saying all religion is bad and atheism is good as it would do away with religion and thus do away with evil. My argument is that evil is inherent in the mind of man and therefore man is the source of evil, not religion and not atheism.

            “And you’ve admitted such in your very own post.”

            I have admitted nothing of the sort, you simply cannot comprehend the nature of my argument. You are so blinded by your irrational hatred of religion you fail to see the obvious truth of the situation.

          • topknot

            I’m sorry that I offended you…

            These sorts of arguments are a wonderful distraction from real life…

            And so… I suppose you agree with me then…

            Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with the “goodness” or “badness” of humans.

          • GLT

            “I’m sorry that I offended you…”

            You didn’t, I don’t get offended by comments on the internet. I always try to give the other person the benefit of the doubt due to the fact intonation is so much a part of how we communicate and it is not possible in this format. I always assume what may be seen as an insult is done tongue in cheek. That is how I intend my comments to be taken. 🙂

            “Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with the “goodness” or “badness” of humans.”

            Not all atheists are like Stalin and Mao, in fact the vast majority are very decent people. But you must also remember not all religious people are like the stereotype so often presented. Christians have been guilty of many horrible things throughout history but as I said, they are not practising the faith taught by Christ. It is not right or fair to judge God by his disobedient followers.

          • Andrew Mason

            I disagree partially about your point regarding Atheism having nothing to do with goodness or badness of people. The inherent nature of a person may be nicer or nastier, however the views and value they are taught, and embrace, will have a significant impact on the person they become. In the case of Atheism there is nothing to encourage people to be better, no grounds for them to condemn anything as immoral, in fact there’s debates about whether immorality exists. If for instance we’re all simply following our biological programming then ‘bad people’ aren’t making bad choices but simply following their programming. Christianity by contrast posits that people make choices and are responsible for those choices. Sure someone can claim to be Christian and advocate something immoral as being Christian but you can compare their claim to the Bible and see if their position holds up to scrutiny. This isn’t so for Atheism which lacks any ultimate authority.

          • GLT

            “however the views and value they are taught, and embrace, will have a significant impact on the person they become.”

            That is true and I can agree with that position. However, if a person is, for the most part, a decent moral individual it is not likely atheism will turn him into a Joseph Stalin. That was the gist of my argument.

            “In the case of Atheism there is nothing to encourage people to be better, no grounds for them to condemn anything as immoral, in fact there’s debates about whether immorality exists.”

            I can’t agree totally with this statement. Many atheists are moral people, in fact some of them put Christians I know to shame. What the atheist in most cases does not recognise or even realise is the source of his moral code. Many tend to think it came about through reason; it is better to do A than to do B. They do not attribute it to a moral code established by God. They do not believe that we are responsible to a source beyond ourselves for our actions.

            “If for instance we’re all simply following our biological programming then ‘bad people’ aren’t making bad choices but simply following their programming.”

            I agree 100% with you at this juncture. The idea we do not have free will and that all our beliefs and actions are determined by the laws of physics as some atheists argue is palpable nonsense.

            “Sure someone can claim to be Christian and advocate something immoral as being Christian but you can compare their claim to the Bible and see if their position holds up to scrutiny. This isn’t so for Atheism which lacks any ultimate authority.”

            Again I agree 100%.

          • topknot

            >It is not right or fair to judge God by his disobedient followers.

            Which god?

            What if I was an ancient Greek? And fully believed in the polytheistic gods of the day…

            What if I was a Mayan? And fully believed that human sacrifice was necessary…

            The only “religion” that doesn’t include mass slaughter in some direct fashion is the modern version of Western Christianity… and that religion is only about 100 years old.

            Christians were still burning “witches” in Salem, Ma not too long ago.

            So, which god? And why not the other ones?

            True Believers in ancient Greece and Rome… and Egypt… and Sumeria… and Babylon… and all throughout the non-Christian world would all agree with your statement, but disagree with your god.

          • GLT

            “Christians were still burning “witches” in Salem, Ma not too long ago.”

            They were hung, not burned, just to keep the record straight.

            You insist on bringing up the aberrant behaviour of a few as if it was the norm. Why do you never acknowledge the fact that what you take for granted in this world such as an education, excellent health care and even your precious modern scientific method all originated within and grew from the Christian church?

            “So, which god?”

            I’m curious why you think appealing to the possible existence of other gods is somehow an argument against the existence of any gods whatsoever? Sure, there are other gods claimed to have existed throughout history such as Zeus, Baal, etc. However, have any of them managed to endure? Were any of them able to change the course of human history to the extant the Christian faith has changed the world? The Bible tells us there will be many things called and worshipped as god but that all of them will fall by the wayside. That is exactly what happened with Zeus, et al.

            Therefore your appeals to other gods really carries no weight or effect as an argument.

            “True Believers in ancient Greece and Rome… and Egypt… and Sumeria… and Babylon… and all throughout the non-Christian world would all agree with your statement, but disagree with your god.”

            The fact they would disagree is irrelevant if the Christian God actually exists. This is just a variation on the appeal to majority argument which is a basic fallacy in logic. It matters not how many agree or disagree with a claim. If that claim is in fact true it does not matter if 100% of people believe it to be untrue.

          • topknot

            >You insist on bringing up the aberrant behaviour of a few as if it was the norm.

            I’m going to ignore the rest of your post, because this is the important component.

            Why is it that the “most religious” persons are generally the ones responsible for the most reprehensible behavior when there is a religiously intoned “aberrant behavior” event?

            Why is it that modern Christians ignore 99% of what is contained within their holy texts?

            The evidence seems to point to the following statement:

            “In general, as humans move further away from rigorous belief systems they become more moral and more gentle creatures.”

          • GLT

            “Why is it that the “most religious” persons are generally the ones responsible for the most reprehensible behavior when there is a religiously intoned “aberrant behavior” event?”

            “Why is it that modern Christians ignore 99% of what is contained within their holy texts?”

            Both of these claims are simply your subjective opinion which you cannot support with any kind of objective evidence. As such, they are worthless as any kind of argument against the existence of God.

            “In general, as humans move further away from rigorous belief systems they become more moral and more gentle creatures.”

            First of all I would like to know the source of that statement.

            Second, whoever made that statement obviously has never read anything remotely resembling a history book. Not only is this statement not true, the truth is 180 degrees opposed to this statement. Man began his move away from God in earnest at the end of the 18th century with the rise of humanist philosophy. Since that time we have seen more crime, more wars, more mass murder, more dictatorial regimes murdering masses of their own people purely on ideological grounds, etc.,, etc. In short, things have never been worse for large portions of the world since man started walking away from God.

          • Tim H

            Dude, the point is not about societies with bad religious leaders. It’s that EVERY SINGLE TIME avowedly atheist leaders run a society, the death rate of the citizens skyrockets. I’m not sure what causes it. But there it is.

          • topknot

            >I’m not sure what causes it.

            Power corrupts. This is not a trait of Atheism, but of persons in positions of power.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Which god?

            Category error.

          • topknot

            You are too clever here.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Surely not, if you understood the reference.

          • Alice Cheshire

            If only they were a distraction and not a major goal of many atheists. Yes, Islam does the same thing. However, Islam is not the only religion and does not represent all religions. It’s used as government, not a church.

          • Alice Cheshire

            He will not give it up. He cannot. His hatred for religion is the top reason for everything he does. More than likely, even killing people who believe in God would be acceptable to him at some point, if not now. His hatred oozes.

          • GLT

            “His hatred oozes.”

            I’m sorry but I cannot agree. I do not sense hatred at all from topknot. All I see is someone who rejects the existence of God and does not understand why anyone would have reason to believe God exists. He also thinks we would be better off if everyone held an atheistic position. However, none of that would qualify as hatred in the literal sense.

          • Ken Abbott

            Not so sure about the absence of hate. In the spiral moral descent described in Romans 1:18-32, we see the process begin with men who suppress the truth about God by their wickedness, neither glorifying or giving thanks to him, ending in a litany of moral ills, including what Paul termed hatred of God (v. 31). Atheism is not a morally neutral position vis-a vis-God.

          • GLT

            “Not so sure about the absence of hate.”

            I’m only commenting in reference to topknot, I do not sense hatred in his comments. I certainly do in some other atheists who comment here.

            “Atheism is not a morally neutral position vis-a vis-God.”

            It is not possible to have a morally neutral position vis-a-vis God.

          • Ken Abbott

            On the second point, no argument from me.

          • GLT

            I told you, I’m not allowed to argue until you have paid. 🙂

            That’s it, no more.

          • Ken Abbott

            Heh. Under the circumstances, I’m very glad I didn’t pick Room 12 first.

          • Alice Cheshire

            I think you’ve forgotten anything you don’t like that might topple your “religion” of science. Atheism is about HATRED of religion. Nothing more.

          • topknot

            Atheism is not about belief in anything. It is a statement that proof is required for acceptance of reality.

            “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

            If tomorrow proof of the existence of the Christian god is shown… then I will be first in line to accept the existence of the supernatural sky god. However, there are exactly zero known events in the natural world for which the existence of any “god” is required.

          • GLT

            “Atheism is not about belief in anything. It is a statement that proof is required for acceptance of reality.”

            Atheism is the belief no god or gods exist. Atheism is a belief that the non-existence of a god or gods is a reality. Therefore, by your own admission, proof is required before this can be accepted as reality. Have you got any proof?

            “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

            Why?

            “However, there are exactly zero known events in the natural world for which the existence of any “god” is required.”

            What about the origin of the natural world, how do you explain that naturally?

          • topknot

            Atheism is not a belief.

            Atheism is a statistical statement that says, “The likelihood of the existence of any given god is very small… much smaller than the likelihood of the non-existence of any god.”

            Atheism is a statement about mathematical probabilities and expanding scientific knowledge of the known universe. It has nothing whatsoever to do with belief of any kind.

            Which cosmological event requires ‘god’ as the explanation?

            If you find one, let me know.

          • GLT

            “Atheism is not a belief.”

            Don’t be ridiculous, of course atheism is a belief. It is the belief no god or gods exist. You say you do not believe God exists. Not believing God exists is no different than believing God does not exist. It is simply a semantic game.

            “Atheism is a statistical statement that says,…”

            No, it is not, it is a direct rejection of the existence of a god or gods.

            “Atheism is a statement about mathematical probabilities and expanding scientific knowledge of the known universe. It has nothing whatsoever to do with belief of any kind.”

            Do you believe the statement you made above?

            “Which cosmological event requires ‘god’ as the explanation?”

            How about the origin of the cosmos itself?

          • topknot

            >How about the origin of the cosmos itself?

            There are several possible and mathematically viable natural explanations for the existence of the known universe. The fact that the precise mechanism has not been identified yet does not mean that “god did it”. god is the least likely explanation.

            > You say you do not believe God exists.

            I did not write that. I wrote and mean precisely what I wrote… that the probability of the existence of any god of any kind is much smaller than the probability of the non-existence of god.

            god_DNE >> god

          • GLT

            “god is the least likely explanation.”

            Based on what? What are the several possible and mathematically viable natural explanations? Remember, you have to explain how nature came into existence through natural forces before nature itself existed. I hope you understand that may be somewhat of a logical quandary.

            GLT: “You say you do not believe God exists.”

            topknot: “I did not write that.”

            Fine, do you then believe God could exist, and you simply do not know?

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            Atheism is a statistical statement that says, “The likelihood of the
            existence of any given god is very small… much smaller than the
            likelihood of the non-existence of any god.”

            That is a nonsense statement. There is no such thing as a probability absent a model — that is, a set of beliefs about the world and a set of evidences. That is: there is never a P(X), there is only a P(X|M.E).

            GLT was careless in his phrasing, but his point stands. (“origin of…” should be “existence of…”) You cannot explain the existence of the natural world in natural terms because that would require begging the question. Any “natural” explanation presupposes the existence of the natural world; that is, that which is to be demonstrated. You cannot even demonstrate the present existence of an objective reality without presupposing that very reality a priori.

          • topknot

            >a set of beliefs about the world and a set of evidences.

            And what is contained in the set of evidence for god vs. not god?

            The evidence clearly indicates that “not god” is likely while “god” is unlikely.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            You misunderstand. The evidences you would need would be evidences supporting, for example, the normal model versus the multinomial or the extreme value models, et al. without which probabilities cannot be stated. But metaphysical proofs are not like physical determinations, or even like mathematical demonstrations; although like mathematical demonstrations they are not probable statements reached by induction, but certain statements reached by deduction. But I have noticed that even the nature of these demonstrations is completely misunderstood by Late Moderns.

          • Tim H

            I love watching YOS work. Visit his blog and buy his books.

          • davidrev17

            Since then you assert that the “clear evidence for not god is likely” (accurate paraphrase), would you please share with us what some of those hard “evidences” actually are, of which affirm “god is unlikely”? Isn’t that a little like saying, “heads I win, tails you lose”??

          • Atheism is the belief no god or gods exist.

            My preferred definition: an atheist lacks a god belief.

            Nice try, but no proof is necessary. In fact, it’s the default assumption (like: we default to no Bigfoot and no unicorns).

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            But Anthony Flew gave up on that before he died, and other philosophers never accepted his cop-out anyway. It is historically and etymologically incorrect.

          • Flew gave up on atheism? Yes, but not for any good reason. He “said” in his ghost-written book that Creationist ideas made the conversion in his mind.

            I have no interest in a non-biologist’s evaluation of the consensus view within biology.

          • GLT

            “Flew gave up on atheism? Yes, but not for any good reason.”

            You’re rather arrogant to presume Anthony Flew gave up atheism for not good reason. Are the only good reasons the one Bob decides are good?

          • No, not arrogant. I read Flew’s book, where he made clear why he changed his mind.

            Does that imply you would have an interest in a biologist’s evaluation of the consensus view within biology?

            Nope. I have an interest in the consensus view within biology. Why are you trying to make this hard?

          • GLT

            “No, not arrogant. I read Flew’s book, where he made clear why he changed his mind.”

            That is the height of arrogance, Bob. Who are you to make that judgement for Anthony Flew? He was consider one of the top intellectuals of his time and he had the intellectual honesty to view the evidence and conclude he was wrong. But arrogant Bob, says this intellectual man did not have good reasons for his change of heart. You really do think a lot of yourself. However, I think I will side with Flew, he has a track record of intellectual pursuits and integrity, you do not.

            “Nope. I have an interest in the consensus view within biology.”

            So you really don’t have an open mind as you like to claim. You really don’t care about facts and evidence, you only care about consensus. Spoken like a true rhetoric spouting atheist. Not only are you not at all open minded, you are not even wiling to look at alternatives let alone consider them. You simply wish to follow the rest of the crowd in a mindless stupor. How very intellectual of you.

            “Why are you trying to make this hard?”

            I am not trying to make anything hard, you’re just finding it hard.

          • That is the height of arrogance, Bob. Who are you to make that judgement for Anthony Flew?

            Let’s see if this is arrogant. Flew is not a biologist (he’s fame is as a philosopher). He decides that a deity exists through biological arguments.

            So then what should we as outsiders conclude? A not-biologist has decided that the consensus view within biology is false, or maybe even was unaware of the consensus. He’s welcome to make silly conclusions, but his fame does nothing to make his conclusion relevant to anyone else.

            I think I will side with Flew, he has a track record of intellectual pursuits and integrity, you do not.

            When he becomes a biologist, let me know. Until then, I will either ignore or laugh at his conclusions within biology.

            You really don’t care about facts and evidence, you only care about consensus.

            The consensus is the best guess that we outsiders to science have of the truth in that field. That doesn’t mean it must be accurate, just that it’s our best guess.

            “I am not an expert in scientific field X, but I will reject the consensus of the experts within that field for reason Y.” What is Y?

            Spoken like a true rhetoric spouting atheist. Not only are you not at all open minded, you are not even wiling to look at alternatives let alone consider them. You simply wish to follow the rest of the crowd in a mindless stupor. How very intellectual of you.

            Spoken like a brainless Christian. You have no argument so you resort to name calling.

            (Hey, this insult thing is fun! Let’s do some more.)

          • GLT

            “He decides that a deity exists through biological arguments.”

            So only a biologist can look at the information and make a determination? Following that line of reasoning you cannot make a determination either, Bob. By appealing to the consensus opinion you simply make the statement I am ignorant and can’t figure things out for myself. If you want to go there, fine, I don’t and neither did Flew, that is why he made up his own mind after looking at the evidence.

            “A not-biologist has decided that the consensus view within biology is false, or maybe even was unaware of the consensus.”

            Is it not possible the consensus view of biologists is false? It was the consensus view that the vast majority of our DNA was useless junk. That was false. It was the consensus view that our appendix was a useless left over from our evolutionary past. That was false. So, I ask you again, Bob, is it possible for the consensus view of biologists to be wrong?

            “Until then, I will either ignore or laugh at his conclusions within biology.”

            No, Bob, you’re not at all arrogant, I apologise.

            “The consensus is the best guess that we outsiders to science have of the truth in that field.”

            And the consensus view is completely objective in nature? No one has presuppositions colouring their opinions?

            “I am not an expert in scientific field X, but I will reject the consensus of the experts within that field for reason Y.”What is Y?”

            It could be logic, Bob. For instance, every cattle breeder will tell you there is a definite limit to what one can do when breeding cattle. You can change their colour, you can make them larger or smaller, you can make them with heavy coats, you can make them with light coats. You can make them to withstand cold weather or you can make them dependent on warm weather. You can make them produce more milk or you can make them produce more meat. You can do a myriad of things but the one thing you cannot do is make them not cattle. The same rules apply to any animal man may breed, canines, felines, equines, etc.

            That tiny fact is kind of a problem for a theory that says all life originated from a single common ancestor. A theory which at its very basis demands A must be able to turn into non-A. Something which is observably known to be false. That Bob, is a logical and soundly scientific reason to doubt the consensus view in biology. That is what Anthony Flew did. He did not need to be a biologist to see the illogical nature of the biologist’s argument’s, he just needed to be an intelligent, logical man who was capable of looking at the evidence being presented by biologists and determining if what they were claiming to be true fit the observable facts. He was and it did not. Thus he reached a logical conclusion, the consensus view was wrong in light of the observable facts.

            The real irony with your argument, Bob, is its contradictory nature. You say you reject Flew’s conclusions because Flew was not a biologist, he was a philosopher. That is true. However, you accept the conclusions of biologists you are often making philosophical arguments when they are not qualified philosophers. Do you not see a problem there? You’re an intelligent guy, why sell yourself short and accept without question what you are told simply because the one saying it has a Phd?

            “Spoken like a brainless Christian. You have no argument so you resort to name calling.”

            That was not name calling, that was stating a simple fact. You are simply spouting rhetoric. By your own admission you are adhering to the party line and repeating what biologists tell you is the truth. You are not thinking for yourself, that is rhetoric. If you think that is an insult perhaps you need to study the meaning of the word rhetoric a little more.

            “Hey, this insult thing is fun! Let’s do some more.”

            Let’s not. 🙂

          • GLT

            “He decides that a deity exists through biological arguments.”

            No, he did not. Flew concluded a deity exists by looking at the biological evidence and concluding it did not line up with the observable scientific facts. His conclusion was philosophically based as the observable evidence did not square with the philosophical conclusions reached by the consensus of biologists. You see, Bob, the conclusions presented as a consensus by biologists are philosophically based in that they are only an opinion of what the evidence means. There are always other ways to interpret evidence, Bob.

            “A not-biologist has decided that the consensus view within biology is false, or maybe even was unaware of the consensus.”

            Not-philosopher biologists make philosophical conclusions on a regular basis and you accept them without question because you presume them to be biological arguments because the guys making them are biologists when in fact they are philosophical arguments.

            “Until then, I will either ignore or laugh at his conclusions within biology.”

            You’re right, Bob, that is not an arrogant attitude at all.

            “I am not an expert in scientific field X, but I will reject the consensus of the experts within that field for reason Y.” What is Y?”

            Y could be logic, Bob. Logic does play a role in interpreting science. Science is merely a tool, not a font of endless, inerrant knowledge. Ask any cattle breeder and he will not hesitate to tell you there is a definite limit to what can be achieved in the breeding process. No matter what breeders do cattle always remain cattle. This is also true for all other animals, equines always remain equines, canines remain canines, on and on ad infintum, ad nauseum.

            This fact turns out to be very problematic for biologists who insist all life extant today originates from a single common ancestor which demands that millions upon millions of times throughout history A had to become non-A. Observable science tells us this does not happen. Logic thus tells us the view held by the consensus of biologists is wrong.

            Conclusion? One does not need to be a biologist to realize the consensus opinion of biologists is wrong. It’s really quite simple, Bob.

            “You have no argument so you resort to name calling.”

            My comment was not name calling. You are spouting rhetoric. By your own admission you are not a biologist so you are accepting the consensus opinion of biologists. You are accepting their rhetoric and repeating it. My conclusion is therefore 100% correct.

            Perhaps you need to study the meaning of rhetoric a little more in depth.

            “Hey, this insult thing is fun! Let’s do some more.”

            Let’s not.

          • As I was saying…

            “I know you are but what am I” is not how adults talk.

          • GLT

            “A not-biologist has decided that the consensus view within biology is false,…”

            What about qualified biologists who descent from the consensus, is their opinion also worthless? Also, does one need to be a biologist to see flaws in the reasoning of biologists? Further to the point, the consensus view in biology is not a scientific conclusion, it is in fact a philosophical conclusion, which would logically mean Flew is fully qualified to comment. You really must learn to discern where science ends and philosophy begins, Bob.

            “I am not an expert in scientific field X, but I will reject the consensus of the experts within that field for reason Y.” What is Y?”

            What is why? It could be logic, Bob. Did that possibility ever cross your mind?

            “You have no argument so you resort to name calling.”

            Calling you a rhetoric spouting atheist may seem to you to be an ad hominem but it is simply stating the truth. You admit you blindly accept consensus opinions and you blindly repeat them, that is the definition of rhetoric.

            “Hey, this insult thing is fun! Let’s do some more.”

            Not interested.

          • What about qualified biologists who descent from the consensus, is their opinion also worthless?

            When they have a religious agenda (Jonathan Wells comes to mind) then yes. If it’s an honestly arrived-at conclusion then that’s not worthless. However, it’s trumped by the scientific consensus, and we laymen must accept that as our best guess.

            Also, does one need to be a biologist to see flaws in the reasoning of biologists?

            One must be a biologist to properly evaluate the evidence. The entire community of biologists means a heckuva lot of evidence.

            Further to the point, the consensus view in biology is not a scientific conclusion, it is in fact a philosophical conclusion, which would logically mean Flew is fully qualified to comment.

            Wow. What isn’t Flew empowered to evaluate? Must be cool.

          • (?? I can’t find your comment, so I’m posting my reply here.)

            So only a biologist can look at the information and make a determination? Following that line of reasoning you cannot make a determination either, Bob.

            Aren’t you adorable! I’m accepting the consensus view. You’re right—I’m not qualified to reach a conclusion that contradicts the overwhelming consensus of the people who actually understand the evidence.

            Is it not possible the consensus view of biologists is false?

            Yes, it could be. How would you know?

            It could be logic, Bob.

            And me, an outsider to the field, will find the logical flaw that the experts missed? My humility meter would explode if I did that. Apparently, yours works differently.

            You can do a myriad of things but the one thing you cannot do is make them not cattle.

            Have you seen the news about PETase? Evolution in action.

            Look up nylonase as well, while you’re at it.

            That tiny fact is kind of a problem for a theory that says all life originated from a single common ancestor.

            Michael Behe is cool with common descent, FYI.

            A theory which at its very basis demands A must be able to turn into non-A. Something which is observably known to be false.

            You have great fame waiting for you. I marvel that you haven’t shown the evidence of your new theory.

            you accept the conclusions of biologists you are often making philosophical arguments when they are not qualified philosophers. Do you not see a problem there? You’re an intelligent guy, why sell yourself short and accept without question what you are told simply because the one saying it has a Phd?

            The Argument from Ego! An oldie but a goodie. “C’mon—don’t sell yourself short! Those eggheads aren’t the last word on things. Be a man and figure this out for yourself!”

            Not interesting, thanks.

          • As I was saying…

            evolution is the belief in self-creation as a way of fulfilling your capital sin of pride.

          • Ah, I see. Scientists do society a great service when they teach us about cosmology, quantum physics, and more, but when they try to explain why life is the way that it is, then those scientists are stupid. Or biased. Or in league with the Dark Lord. Or something.

            Do I have that right?

          • As I was saying…

            Science no longer exists. It is merely gnosticism or paganism using a name of a dead field to self-justify itself.

            And absolutely they are. They are stepping out of their field because they cannot hide their pagan religion for long.

          • GLT

            “And me, an outsider to the field, will find the logical flaw that the experts missed?”

            You have a problem with that, obviously. I don’t.

            “Have you seen the news about PETase? Evolution in action.”

            Nothing more than a re-run of nylonase which turned out to be nothing more than a modification of an already existing gene. Yawn. Maybe it’s time to actually read something rather than grasping at headlines.

            “Michael Behe is cool with common descent, FYI.”

            Unlike you, Bob, I think for myself, so I really don’t care what Behe thinks about common descent.

            “You have great fame waiting for you. I marvel that you haven’t shown the evidence of your new theory.”

            It’s not my theory, Bob, it’s the theory you adhere too. Funny you should have such an arrogant attitude when you don’t even understand in what you have put your faith. Hilarious actually.

            “Those eggheads aren’t the last word on things. Be a man and figure this out for yourself!”

            That’s true, they are not. However, for followers like yourself who tend to fall for whatever line they hear that falls in step with their preconceived narrative they must seem to be the be all and end all. However, for those who can think for themselves, not so much. Pity to be you.

          • Nothing more than a re-run of nylonase which turned out to be nothing more than a modification of an already existing gene. Yawn.

            I hear you. Yet more evolution. Pretty commonplace, really.

            Unlike you, Bob, I think for myself, so I really don’t care what Behe thinks about common descent.

            Where does this attitude become hubris? Do you feel comfortable telling the airline pilot how to do his job? Do you lecture your doctor and correct his diagnosis?

            I think I have a more realistic opinion of my own abilities. I’m content with that.

            It’s not my theory, Bob, it’s the theory you adhere too.

            If we agree on something, I must’ve missed that.

          • GLT

            “I hear you. Yet more evolution. Pretty commonplace, really.”

            Arrogance and sarcasm do not score points with me, Bob. If you can provide a cogent argument please do so, otherwise don’t bother saying anything. Adaptation of an existing gene is not evolution, Bob. Bacteria are capable of adaptation as a means of survival, it does not logically lead one to conclude the bacteria will one day be a Basset Hound.

            “Where does this attitude become hubris? Do you feel comfortable telling the airline pilot how to do his job? Do you lecture your doctor and correct his diagnosis?”

            If an airline pilot could not explain the difference between an aileron and rudder, I would presume to question his competence. The same would go for a doctor who would prescribe blood thinners to a haemophiliac. You see, Bob, the point is not what one’s qualifications are but whether one appears to be competent in what they are doing or saying. Therefore, just because one has a degree in biology does not mean that person can never be wrong in what he says in relation to biology.

            “I’m content with that.”

            Good for you.

            “If we agree on something, I must’ve missed that.”

            Your arrogant attitude causes you to miss a great many things.

          • If you can provide a cogent argument please do so, otherwise don’t bother saying anything.

            For evolution? Nope. It’s a waste of time. If you want to learn about evolution, that’s great. I recommend a popular textbook.

            Why talk to me? I’m not a biologist. Suppose you asked me a dozen questions that I couldn’t answer. What would that prove? (I’m not a biologist, remember?)

            Adaptation of an existing gene is not evolution

            Was there change? That sounds like evolution. Was there a bacterium that could metabolize nylon 200 years ago? If not, then we have mutation + natural selection. Yet more evolution.

            it does not logically lead one to conclude the bacteria will one day be a Basset Hound.

            Is that what biologists say will happen? If not, then why bring it up?

            If an airline pilot could not explain the difference between an aileron and rudder, I would presume to question his competence.

            How is this analogous? Are you saying that you’ve quizzed a good cross section of the biology community, and they’re all idiots? I’d be curious to read your paper. Give me the URL.

            Anyway, we’re talking about a consensus. Even if you could give individual anecdotes about this or that biologist being stupid, the consensus is a more powerful and relevant statement.

            “If we agree on something, I must’ve missed that.”
            Your arrogant attitude causes you to miss a great many things.

            Ah, I see much more clearly now. That’s helpful, thanks.

          • GLT

            “For evolution? Nope. It’s a waste of time.”

            As is usual with those who simply recite rhetoric, when it comes to where the rubber hits the road, they themselves hit the road. No surprises here.

            “Suppose you asked me a dozen questions that I couldn’t answer.”

            Suppose I did, would that not logically move you to question the beliefs you hold which you say you know to be true?

            “Was there change? That sounds like evolution.”

            Only the truly uninformed equate any and every change with evolution via common descent. However, those who approach the subject in a sensible and logical manner realise change can and does occur but it does not logically lead one to conclude that because change occurs they are therefore related to a pine cone. One who approaches the subject sensibly and logically would appear not to describe you, judging from your arguments.

            “Is that what biologists say will happen?”

            That is the logical and inevitable consequence inherent in the claim of all life existing due to descent from a single common ancestor. That which was the common ancestor has to have turned into bacteria as well as Basset Hounds. The number of steps and detours required in the process are irrelevant in relation to the content of the basic claim.

            “Are you saying that you’ve quizzed a good cross section of the biology community, and they’re all idiots?”

            I never said they were idiots, I only said I did not agree with their interpretation of the data. Just as you disagree with those biologists who interpret the data counter to your beliefs.

            You consider an appeal to majority to be a sound argument? Pity. I have read enough on the subject to understand both sides of the question and form my own conclusions, a concept you obviously do not understand as you simply put your faith in whatever the majority has to say. I understand that, it is much easier to follow the crowd than to think for yourself. It is somewhat like the chicken instinct.

            “the consensus is a more powerful and relevant statement.”

            So, the sun orbits the Earth and the vast majority of our DNA is useless, leftover junk acquired via our evolutionary journey from a scummy pond? It seems like you are incapable of catching onto the fact your continuous appeals to consensus opinion are irrelevant in the light of truth. If A is fundamentally wrong it will not be true if 100% of the people believe it to be true. Most of the advances in science come about when a few question the majority.

            “Ah, I see much more clearly now.”

            That’s the unfortunate nature of the truly arrogant, they are completely unaware of their affliction. Arrogance is possibly the single biggest barrier to learning, Bob.

          • Arrogance is possibly the single biggest barrier to learning

            It is indeed quite a problem.

          • GLT

            “It is indeed quite a problem.”

            If you recognise it to be a problem perhaps you should work on it. 🙂

          • Paul B. Lot

            Only you can prevent forest fires.

          • Paul B. Lot

            How ironic.

          • GLT

            Your point?

          • Paul B. Lot

            Can’t you read? I found your post ironic: saying so was my point.

          • GLT

            Obviously I can read or I would not have replied, that is pretty basic logic. I was simply wondering what you found ironic as you did not specify anything in particular. Do you wish to clarify?

          • Paul B. Lot

            Obviously I can read or I would not have replied, that is pretty basic logic.

            Dear, the verb “to read” doesn’t just mean noticing that text exists, which is the limit of what you seem to have done, but also understanding it.

            read
            rēd/Submit
            verb
            1.
            look at and comprehend the meaning of (written or printed matter) by mentally interpreting the characters or symbols of which it is composed.


            Do you wish to clarify?

            For you? No.


            I was simply wondering what you found ironic as you did not specify anything in particular.

            You’re a bright guy with an incisive, problem-solving, mind….else you wouldn’t have the chutzpah to swim upstream against such a strong river.

            I have absolute confidence that, if you were to go back and re-read your own post with an eye to sussing out what could possibly be ironic about it, you’ll figure it out.

          • GLT

            “Dear, the verb “to read” doesn’t just mean noticing that text exists, which is the limit of what you seem to have done, but also understanding it.”

            You’re kidding! Maybe you should have asked me if I can comprehend what I read, that would have been the correct course of action. Also, recognising that text exists is not the equivalent of reading. As such, maybe it is not me but you who is confused.

            “For you? No.”

            I am not surprised.

            “else you wouldn’t have the chutzpah to swim upstream against such a strong river.

            It’s really not that hard, in fact it simply requires the application of common sense and some objective studying of the relevant subjects.

            If you feel I unjustly accused Bob of arrogance that is wholly your prerogative, just as it is your prerogative to accuse me of arrogance. However, I did so due to his condescending attitude and refusal to address the issues while implying he was necessarily right simply because he adhered to the consensus opinion. It would seem from your comment that you follow the same logic.

          • Paul B. Lot

            You’re kidding! Maybe you should have asked me if I can comprehend what I read, that would have been the correct course of action.

            No…no I don’t think so. I’m fairly confident that the course of action I chose was appropriate, in no small part because, as I just explained to you moments ago, the verb “to read” already carries the connotation of comprehension.

            You’re really not very good at reading/comprehension, are you? I imagine that might well be one of the big issues at the root of your misunderstanding.


            Also, recognising [sic] that text exists is not the equivalent of reading.

            Are you…do you….I mean….

            I’m the one who pointed this out to you….have you forgotten so quickly? Or do you just get turned around easily? I don’t really want to have an argument with someone who has a legitimate disability. :-/


            As such, maybe it is not me but you who is confused.

            No, I don’t think so.


            Do you wish to clarify?

            For you? No.

            I am not surprised.

            Why? Do you so often act the rude, ignorant, loud-mouth that people regularly respond this way?


            It’s really not that hard, in fact it simply requires the application of common sense and some objective studying of the relevant subjects.

            WRT the underlined: have you ever heard of the research of Dunning & Kruger?


            it is your prerogative to accuse me of arrogance

            Winner winner, chicken dinner.


            It would seem from your comment that you follow the same logic.

            Take care not to venture out into waters uncomfortably deep for you; assessing what “logic” people are or are not employing is clearly outside your wheelhouse.

          • GLT

            “Can’t you read?”

            “Dear, the verb “to read” doesn’t just mean noticing that text exists, which is the limit of what you seem to have done,…”

            Your accusation was that I was not capable of reading as you clearly implied I did not comprehend what was written. Again, you demonstrate it is you who does not understand.

            “No, I don’t think so.”

            Well I do, and that is my prerogative. 🙂

            “Do you so often act the rude, ignorant, loud-mouth that people regularly respond this way?”

            In what way can you say I was rude and loud mouthed? Such characteristics are most often found in the tone one uses when speaking. As that is not a factor here, you are simply expressing an unfounded opinion.

            “recognising [sic]”

            It is an accepted spelling of the word. However, I usually spell it with a z but some pages, including this one, highlight it as a misspelling, so I sometimes give in and change it.

            Because I reiterated your statement you assume I did not understand?

            “Dunning & Kruger?”

            Perhaps you should read the research yourself. Trying to apply their theories to someone when the extent of your knowledge of that person consists of nothing more than a few lines of type on the internet displays a woeful lack of understanding of their work.

            “Take care not to venture out into waters uncomfortably deep for you; assessing what “logic” people are or are not employing is clearly outside your wheelhouse.”

            Well, I must say that strikes fear in my heart. You do think highly of yourself.

          • Paul B. Lot

            Your accusation was that I was not capable of reading

            Yes. An accusation which turns out to be truer and truer the more you speak.


            as you clearly implied I did not comprehend what was written

            “Implied”!?

            I thought my explanation of your incompetence had been fairly explicit. :-/


            Well I do, and that is my prerogative.

            Of course! You’re free to feel and assert whatever you wish, with however little evidence/reason to back it up you choose, building whatever reputation for incoherence that your heart desires.


            In what way can you say I was rude and loud mouthed? Such characteristics are most often found in the tone one uses when speaking. As that is not a factor here, you are simply expressing an unfounded opinion.

            You see pay-dirt in taking the position that [writing cannot convey a “tone”]…..?

            Wow.


            It is an accepted spelling of the word.

            I was unaware – although wikitionary categorizes that spelling as a UK phenomenon.


            Because I reiterated your statement you assume I did not understand?

            Your writing in-general is of poor quality and badly conveys ideas. But if you need me to hold your hand again here, I will: yes, your act of reiterating [something I said to you] as if it were evidence that “maybe…[I was] confused” was evidence of your faltering grasp on both the original topic and our conversation.

            Again: my apologies if you have an actual condition. May I ask how old you are?


            Perhaps you should read the research yourself. Trying to apply their theories to someone when the extent of your knowledge of that person consists of nothing more than a few lines of type on the internet displays a woeful lack of understanding of their work.

            Point out to me which part of their research, or even just explain in your own words which is the relevant bit, supports your assertion that I have a “woeful lack of understanding of their work” because I know “nothing more than a few lines of type” from you.


            Well, I must say that strikes fear in my heart.

            It wasn’t meant to be intimidating. Just an honest warning. Remember the bit earlier about “know yourself”, eh? You’re drowning, champ.


            You do think highly of yourself.

            Do I? I suppose it’s possible. I doubt it, though. I’m usually pretty quick to acknowledge when someone else has more expertise and/or talent. (Or at least, so I tell myself/hope. :-/ )

            I’m certainly a better thinker and writer than you, if that’s what you (imprecisely) meant. But you seem to me of far-below-average intelligence/ability, so I wouldn’t really say that feeling like I’ve cleared your bar === “thinking highly of myself”. *shrug*

          • GLT

            “although wikitionary,…”

            Well, that explains volumes.

            “Your writing in-general is of poor quality and badly conveys ideas.”

            Strange that I was allowed to opt out of a compulsory first year university writing course because my writing skills ‘far exceeded their requirements’. However, feel free to continue your pathetic attempts at ad hominems, they bother me not one iota. It is also rather humorous that you criticize my writing skills while using unnecessary hyphenation in the process. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up as a typographical error. 🙂

            “It wasn’t meant to be intimidating. Just an honest warning.”

            You’re funny. Now I am even more afraid. I bet you used to get beat up a lot when you were a kid and this is just your pitiful attempt to compensate.

            “You’re drowning, champ.”

            I’m no where near the water.

            “Point out to me which part of their research, or even just explain in your own words which is the relevant bit, supports your assertion that I have a “woeful lack of understanding of their work” because I know “nothing more than a few lines of type” from you.”

            Simply the fact you cannot even begin to apply their theory without a sound basic knowledge of an individual and the level of knowledge and education that individual possesses. I usually make a practice of not mentioning my education but in this instance I will make an exception. I happen to hold an earned degree in the field of sociology and as such understand very well the nature of theories such as those put forth by Dunning and Kruger. To believe you can apply their theory and judge my situation based on what I have typed on this web site is a definitive illustration you lack an understanding of their theory.

            Perhaps you would like to explain to me why their theory would apply to me but not to you? Perhaps it is you who is functioning under the delusion of intellectual superiority. Perhaps your cognitive ability is not at the level you believe it to be. How would you propose to prove me wrong?

            “I’m certainly a better thinker and writer than you,…”

            Oh, I agree, there is no doubt about it. You’re also very humble and an intellectual legend, at least in your own mind. Although your sentence construction and punctuation leave a bit to be desired.

          • GLT

            “My preferred definition: an atheist lacks a god belief.”

            it may be your preferred definition but it is not the historic definition nor is there any basis for saying it is the default definition. If you wish to declare no god or gods exist you are responsible fro defending your position. I know atheist like to shift the burden of proof as they know they cannot defend their position they can only assert it, so they do their best to avoid the situation.

          • If you wish to declare no god or gods exist you are responsible fro defending your position.

            Which, as everyone but you understood, is not what I’m saying.

            If you’re curious about my position, here it is (again): I have no god belief.

            I know atheist like to shift the burden of proof as they know they cannot defend their position they can only assert it

            You’re adorable! Last time I checked, you were the one making the claims of the supernatural with scant evidence of it. My role is to be the open-minded listener.

            Go.

          • GLT

            “I have no god belief.”

            You have no god belief? Just to be clear, are you saying you have no opinion as to whether God exist or not?

            “You’re adorable!”

            Thank you, my wife and kids agree with you.

            “My role is to be the open-minded listener.”

            That would be a switch.

          • Just to be clear, are you saying you have no opinion as to whether God exist or not?

            Nope.

            What’s the deal with Christians shirking their burden of proof? Is sharing the Good News a burden?

            You’re the one making the extraordinary claim. You have the burden of proof. If you can’t make an argument, that’s fine, but don’t try to pretend that the burden is mine.

            “My role is to be the open-minded listener.”
            That would be a switch.

            You’ve got evidence that I’m not open minded? Present it.

          • GLT

            “What’s the deal with Christians shirking their burden of proof? Is sharing the Good News a burden?”

            First, nobody is shirking, Bob, you have been presented with evidence for the existence of God on many occasions by many people and not just on this site. You have simply chosen to claim it is not evidence, or that it is insufficient and that is completely your prerogative. However, it is not your prerogative to claim no evidence has been presented or that there is no evidence. To do so is simply intellectually dishonest. So, please, do not take such a condescending attitude, especially when you know your comment is false in all respects.

            “You’re the one making the extraordinary claim. You have the burden of proof.”

            From the Christian’s perspective the one who is claiming life arose spontaneously on its own without a supernatural component is the one making the extraordinary claim. Therefore, using your own reasoning, you bear a burden of proof.

            “You’ve got evidence that I’m not open minded? Present it.”

            Sure, that’s easy. When I asked you if you would consider a qualified biologists criticism of the consensus view in Biology, you replied you would not. As proof I present this short exchange between us a day or two ago.

            You stated you rejected Anthony Flew’s criticism of the consensus view of biology because Flew as not a biologist. I then asked you the following question:

            GLT: “Does that imply you would have an interest in a biologist’s evaluation of the consensus view within biology?”

            Bob Seidensticker: “Nope. I have an interest in the consensus view within biology. Why are you trying to make this hard?”

            That is hardly the indication of an open mind, Bob. It is in fact a compelling indication of just the opposite. So my comment was 100% correct, if you were to have an open mind it would be a switch.

          • you have been presented with evidence for the existence of God on many occasions by many people and not just on this site. You have simply chosen to claim it is not evidence, or that it is insufficient and that is completely your prerogative.

            Ah, I think I see the problem now. The evidence is great—it just is—and the problem is in my court. I just reject it out of peevishness. Or maybe I’m too proud to bend the knee? Or something.

            it is not your prerogative to claim no evidence has been presented or that there is no evidence.

            You’ve presented no evidence in this series of comments, have you? If your point is that I’ve always maintained that no evidence has been presented, I don’t think I’ve said that.

            especially when you know your comment is false in all respects.

            First you need to explain my crime.

            From the Christian’s perspective the one who is claiming life arose spontaneously on its own without a supernatural component

            I thought we were talking about God’s existence. Now it’s abiogenesis? I’m a little confused—what are we talking about?

            using your own reasoning, you bear a burden of proof.

            Did I say that abiogenesis was the origin of life? Then I would need to provide evidence.

            When I asked you if you would consider a qualified biologists criticism of the consensus view in Biology, you replied you would not.

            This will be a refresher for those who’ve been paying attention, but I’ll repeat it for you: that’s because I can trump your critical qualified biologists with the consensus of the entire field of biology. Why is this hard?

            Kidding! I know why: because you’re deliberately making it so.

            That is hardly the indication of an open mind, Bob.

            Accepting the scientific consensus as our best approximation for the truth is not open minded? Fascinating.

          • As I was saying…

            In regards to your first fishing paragraph. Yes, exactly.

            I don’t know what your crime is. You do though. You think denying God will make your shame go away.

          • It’s odd that you just assume God exists in our conversation. You feel no need to provide evidence?

            Can I play, too? I think I’ll just assume the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

          • As I was saying…

            All needs an uncontingent, uncreated Prime Mover.

          • GLT

            “h, I think I see the problem now. The evidence is great—it just is—and the problem is in my court. I just reject it out of peevishness. Or maybe I’m too proud to bend the knee? Or something.”

            Yeah, or something.

            “You’ve presented no evidence in this series of comments, have you?”

            Yes, I have, you simply do not wish to acknowledge it as such, just as you do not acknowledge the evidence which surrounds you day in and day out as Paul stated in Romans chapter 1.

            “I’m a little confused—what are we talking about?”

            That has been the case since the get-go.

            “that’s because I can trump your critical qualified biologists with the consensus of the entire field of biology.”

            Just like the consensus geo-centrists trumped Copernicus and Gaileo. How did that one work out, consensus lover?

            “Accepting the scientific consensus as our best approximation for the truth is not open minded?”

            Do you understand the meaning of the term open minded? It would seem not.

          • As I was saying…

            All needs an uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover. That is the proof of existence itself.

            You deny this to maintain your grip on sin, specifically the capital sin of pride.

          • Who is the Prime Mover, and how do you know?

            My vote: the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

          • As I was saying…

            God is the name we use for the uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover.

            He who lovingly created you in His Image, and you who has spent your life destroying that image out of shame.

          • As I was saying…

            Yes you clearly do. You think you will magically usurp God if you deny Him hard enough.

            This is the incantation your religion’s creator instilled in you.

          • As I was saying…

            “atheism” is the belief that if you deny God hard enough, God will go away and therefore you can usurp Him unimpeded.

            It is a form of gnosticism invented by the mentor to marx and neitzche in the early 1800’s.

          • Sure, we can just imagine that God exists. I’d rather follow the evidence. Is there any?

          • As I was saying…

            The base requirement for existence is the uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover.

          • John Connor

            Atheism is simple disbelief in any gods. No hatred necessary. Now, there are outliers in every group.

          • Richard A

            What you think we have “forgotten” about Pope Pius XII is a straight-up lie and known to be so those who read unbiased histories of the period.

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            I think you’ve “forgotten” a little bit about Pope Pius XII and Hitler.

            You mean the part where he agreed to act as the go-between between the Oster conspirators and the British in the plot to kill Hitler?

          • GLT

            “I think you’ve “forgotten” a little bit about much of written history.”

            Did I not specifically address the issue of religious people carrying out acts which are contrary to the teachings of their religion? As I did, I think you just chose to ignore that fact in order to assert once again argument which was addressed.

            “The Great Communist Murderers meme is a red herring.”

            No, it’s a fact of history.

      • Could you perhaps demonstrate a moral code which arose from intelligence wholly independent of religion?

        Moral codes and religion both come from human society. Religion pretends to make a gift of morality to us, but it doesn’t work that way.

        • GLT

          “Moral codes and religion both come from human society.”

          As usual, Bob, the question goes right over your head. I asked topknot to provide an example of a moral code that arose wholly from intelligence wholly without a religious component. What is your answer, religions come from man and morals come from man. How does that answer the question, Bob? I want an example of a moral code which has no religious component whatsoever, not one that came via man via a religion. Can you do that?

          “Religion pretends to make a gift of morality to us, but it doesn’t work that way.”

          That’s exactly how it works, Bob. Even if you claim religion comes only from man, it is the religious component of man from which morals arise as it is the religious component which appeals to a power outside of man as a source. Atheism has no outside source to which it can appeal, it has only man.

          • I asked topknot to provide an example of a moral code that arose wholly from intelligence wholly without a religious component. What is your answer, religions come from man and morals come from man. How does that answer the question, Bob?

            It answers the question, GLT, by showing that “morality comes from religion” is the same thing as “morality comes from humanity.”

            I want an example of a moral code which has no religious component whatsoever, not one that came via man via a religion. Can you do that?

            You know commandments 5-10, the ones dealing with each other? (I’m talking about the Ex. 20 list, not the Ex. 34 list that wound up in the Ark of the Covenant.) Those came to man not through religion.

            As I’m sure you’ll point out, they then came to man as part of the Ten Commandments, through the Bible. But that was after humanity figured out that murder, stealing, lying, etc. weren’t cool.

            Or perhaps you’re saying that the original hearers of the Ten Commandments said to themselves, “Don’t what?? Don’t murder? Don’t steal? Wow—that is some truly nutty stuff but, OK, rules are rules, I guess. I’ll follow these rules, not because they make a lick of sense but just to go along.”

            That sounds unlikely.

            Atheism has no outside source to which it can appeal, it has only man.

            Is there an outside source besides man? I’ve seen none.

          • As I was saying…

            So your newest delusion is to assume that your ego has created yourself and everything.

            How do you parse this with contingency as well as your own broken existence.

          • GLT

            I somehow missed this post, sorry.

            “It answers the question, GLT, by showing that “morality comes from religion” is the same thing as “morality comes from humanity.”

            No, Bob, it does not. Moral codes originate out of the belief there is something beyond man and the rules that man may set up. Moral codes assume some power exists above and beyond humanity as a matter of course. A power to which man is answerable for his actions. Moral codes are constructed under that premise, whether that premise is correct or not is irrelevant. Atheism cannot construct an objective moral code as it does not believe there is any power above and beyond man. Therefore, it has nothing beyond man to which it can appeal. As such, all moral codes created by man alone would be wholly subjective. Under an atheistic moral code Nazi Germany could not have been held accountable for the holocaust. However, the Nuremberg Trials were based on the premise there was a set of laws beyond those set up by mere men, in this case the laws of Nazi Germany allowing the persecution of Jews, blacks, gypsies, homosexuals and others.

            “Those came to man not through religion.”

            Have you got anything to back up this claim?

            “But that was after humanity figured out that murder, stealing, lying, etc. weren’t cool.”

            But why aren’t these activities cool? On what basis do you make that determination? If I am more powerful than anyone else and I wish to declare those things as cool and the vast majority agree with me, to what or whom are you going to appeal? The only thing you can actually do is set up your own subjective moral code and campaign to have it replace mine. That would raise the obvious question, on what basis could you claim your moral code is better than mine?

            “Is there an outside source besides man? I’ve seen none.”

            It depends on what you are looking for, doesn’t it? Are you going to claim you possess all knowledge? That is what you must do if you’re going to definitively say no outside source exists. Saying you do not know of one is not sufficient to declare one does not exist nor is it sufficient reason to act as if one does not exist. Also, as you do not know if one exists it is entirely possible such a source does exist and if you do not know if one exists, on what basis do you declare I am wrong when I say I believe one does exist?

            If you wish to declare religious belief unnecessary to the formation of moral codes you will need to demonstrate how moral codes would arise without religious beliefs and how they would and should compel universal adherence.

          • I somehow missed this post, sorry.

            No problem at all. Since your comments have become so hateful, I won’t bother reading it.

          • GLT

            “Since your comments have become so hateful, I won’t bother reading it.”

            I am sorry if you found my comments hateful, they most certainly were not intended to be and I don’t believe any objective person would see them that way. It is simply stating the truth when I say you act in an arrogant manner while refusing to address comments put to you. You do not engage in debate, you simply assert you are right because you side with the consensus opinion. How do you suppose one should take such an attitude? It certainly does not imply an open mind.

          • We could get into a long conversation about evolution. After having done that many times and getting nowhere, I realize that’s simply a foolish way to spend my time. Far quicker and far more effective is to simply point out that those people who can evaluate the evidence (which doesn’t include us) have reached a conclusion. I suggest we accept that as our tentative approximation of the truth.

            You do not engage in debate, you simply assert you are right because you side with the consensus opinion.

            Nope. If you don’t yet understand what my position is (and why this statement is wrong), there’s no point in my trying to explain it to you.

          • GLT

            “Far quicker and far more effective is to simply point out that those people who can evaluate the evidence (which doesn’t include us) have reached a conclusion.”

            That might be how you wish to approach the situation and that is completely your prerogative. However, when it comes to science and especially evolutionary theory the consensus is very often overturned. The consensus used to be a geocentric universe. Geneticists formed a consensus that the vast majority of our DNA was leftover evolutionary junk. The consensus in geology used to be based on catastrophic processes having shaped the world. It is now the consensus that geology is based on uniformity and slow processes with the catastrophic model making a gradual comeback. The point is, Bob, consensus is fleeting and more often than not determined by presupposition more so than actual data based evidence. Personally, I am more interested in looking for answers that make logical sense rather than settling for a tentative approximation of the truth.

            “If you don’t yet understand what my position,…”

            I do understand what your position is, you made it abundantly clear in your first paragraph, you’re willing to settle for a ‘tentative approximation of the truth’. Borrowing from an analogy you made earlier, would you be willing to undergo open heart surgery with someone tentatively approximating a doctor? The truth is important and one should not settle for a tentative approximation.

          • Maybe you could clarify your position with an example. Give me an example (in the last 100 years) of a non-scientist rejecting the scientific consensus and later being proved right.

            when it comes to science and especially evolutionary theory the consensus is very often overturned.

            1. Like when? Give me examples from the last 100 years. I question your “very often.” With respect to evolution, I agree that it changes. One thing that hasn’t changed is the fact that it’s a 100% natural process—no supernatural required. It sounds like your argument is “evolution has changed; therefore, it might change so that the supernatural becomes a required part of the explanation,” but that’s far fetched.

            2. This doesn’t change my point. What is a better option than the scientific consensus as the best provisional approximation to the truth for we laymen?

            I am more interested in looking for answers that make logical sense rather than settling for a tentative approximation of the truth.

            1. It’s hard to imagine the hubris of you, a layman, lecture those danged scientists about what their evidence means.

            2. “tentative approximation”? Yes, that’s what the scientific consensus is. But you have something better? Prove it.

            I do understand what your position is, you made it abundantly clear in your first paragraph

            And yet you got it hilariously wrong.

            you’re willing to settle for a ‘tentative approximation of the truth’.

            But you have something better? Prove it.

            Borrowing from an analogy you made earlier, would you be willing to undergo open heart surgery with someone tentatively approximating a doctor?

            Yet again, you pretend that you have something better. Doctors aren’t perfect, but they’re the best we have. The scientific consensus isn’t perfect, but it’s the best we have.

        • As I was saying…

          So you are now a marxist who claims that truth is dependant on popular opinion.

          No.

      • Could you perhaps demonstrate a moral code which arose from intelligence wholly independent of religion?

        What about utilitarianism?

        • GLT

          Utilitarianism is like any other attempt at constructing a code of conduct, it functions using borrowed capital. It assumes the existence of a moral code and simply tries to define it within its own set of parameters.

          • By that logic almost everything operates on borrowed capital. Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory, it is not metaethical. So of course it assumes a metaethical framework and starts from there. But can you prove it borrows an explicitly religious capital?

          • GLT

            “it is not metaethical.”

            It appeals to metaethical sources even if it does not adhere to metaethical beliefs. All codes of conduct including utilitarianism views certain acts as fundamentally wrong, such as murder and theft. They view these prohibitions as accepted. That can only be achieved by appealing to a belief that something or set of beliefs exist which is beyond man himself.

          • My whole point is that it appeals to metaethical sources because it is normative, not meta. But those sources are not theistic. “Beyond man” is too vague. If you mean that to include god, the answer is no. Utilitarianism doesn’t need to appeal to any gods.

          • GLT

            “If you mean that to include god,…”

            No, the appeal to an authority beyond man does not necessarily require a god or gods. I personally believe that to be the case but it is not necessary logically. It is only necessary for that to which the appeal is made be consistent and beyond the whim of power to alter.

          • What authority beyond man is not a god?

          • GLT

            In this particular scenario that’s your problem, not mine. You’re the one claiming utilitarianism is putting forth a moral code which does not appeal to a higher standard than man. I simply pointed out it did by affirming certain acts as objectively wrong. To do so requires an appeal to an objective authority.

          • Not at all. “Authority” here is the wrong term to use. It implies an authority figure, or being. Utilitarianism simply appeals to the effects or consequences of moral actions and intentions, and designates what’s good as what positively benefits the most. There is no appeal to anything beyond human capacity and reason.

          • As I was saying…

            Which is why utilitarianism is little more than unthinking slavery to the devil via eugenics and tyranny.

            Good is anything as God created it to be.

          • Like the Ebola virus.

          • GLT

            The world which contains the Ebola virus is not as God created it to be.

          • False:

            (1) God (an omnipotent, omniscience, omni-benevolent being) exists.
            (2) Natural evil exists.
            (3) God is the creator and designer of the physical universe, including the laws that govern it, then
            (4) Natural disasters, and the evil they cause, are a direct byproduct of the laws that govern our universe.

            In other words you can’t claim that god is the creator and designer of the physical universe, including the laws that govern it — which is what basically every theist insists — and not also accept that natural evil is a direct byproduct of those laws. Natural evil cannot therefore be due to angles or demons tinkering with god’s plan. Angles and demons would be the ones who actually created and designed the universe if that were the case.

          • GLT

            “(1) God (an omnipotent, omniscience, omni-benevolent being) exists.
            (2) Natural evil exists.
            (3) God is the creator and designer of the physical universe, including the laws that govern it, then
            (4) Natural disasters, and the evil they cause, are a direct byproduct of the laws that govern our universe.”

            Your argument depends on how you define evil as well as how you construct your syllogism. We can construct a syllogism the following way. Of course many other constructs are possible.

            God exists and is the creator of all things good.
            Evil exists but is not a good thing.
            Therefore God could not have created evil. Another explanation for the existence of evil is required.

            Both constructs are based on the assumption evil is actually a thing. Augustine argued that was not necessarily the case.

            ” which is what basically every theist insists,…”

            Every Christian theist I am aware of also concedes the universe is not presently in the state in which it was originally created by God which draws into question the validity of your conclusion.

          • Both constructs are based on the assumption evil is actually a thing.

            Not at all. Evil need not be a substance or thing. It can be the result of other things that do unnecessary harm.

            Natural evil is an evil for which “no non-divine agent can be held morally responsible for its occurrence.” Floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, forest fires, droughts, meteor impacts, and diseases that cause sentient beings to suffer or die and for which no human being is responsible are examples of natural evil.

            All those things are a direct result of the laws that govern our universe, which is created and design by god. Hence god is directly responsible for natural evil. There’s no way around it.

            Every Christian theist I am aware of also concedes the universe is not presently in the state in which it was originally created by God which draws into question the validity of your conclusion.

            This is nonsense of course, since every smart Christian accepts biological evolution, and intrinsic to the process of evolution is death, extinction, predation, and suffering, all of which predate human existence. So there is zero evidence the universe was once in a state of perfection. It is a claim that simply cannot be justified.

          • GLT

            “Evil need not be a substance or thing.”

            I agree but nonetheless your premise was based on evil being an existent thing.

            “Hence god is directly responsible for natural evil. There’s no way around it.”

            Only if one assumes the world as it now exists is the way God originally created it. I think you must be aware the denial of that assumption is basic to Christian theology, thus your argument is completely moot.

            “since every smart Christian accepts biological evolution,…”

            Nice example of the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy. A completely nonsensical statement as plenty of intelligent Christians and Christian scientists reject evolution. Just because you do not agree with them does not equate with them being ignorant.

            “So there is zero evidence the universe was once in a state of perfection. It is a claim that simply cannot be justified.”

            I hope you do not regard this as a scientific claim as it most certainly is not. It is nothing more than an assertion and as such, worthless in terms of evidence for your position.

          • I agree but nonetheless your premise was based on evil being an existent thing.

            No it isn’t. I defined all the terms and showed how that’s not the case.

            Only if one assumes the world as it now exists is the way God originally created it. I think you must be aware the denial of that assumption is basic to Christian theology, thus your argument is completely moot.

            This makes no sense as a rebuttal for several reasons. (1) The “Fall” is seen by almost all modern Christians as metaphoric, not literal, and that humans did not exist at the same time as dinosaurs. There is no way to reconcile a literal view with evidence. (2) Since the laws that exist now lead to our evolution, those laws are instrumental to our existence, hence if god created different laws, those laws would not lead to our existence, and that means the laws that exist now are the ones god created. (3) There’s no reason why the laws of physics would change due to a “Fall” anyway.

            Nice example of the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy. A completely nonsensical statement as plenty of intelligent Christians and Christian scientists reject evolution. Just because you do not agree with them does not equate with them being ignorant.

            Nope. You can’t be smart and reject evolution. It’s like being a flat earther.

            I hope you do not regard this as a scientific claim as it most certainly is not. It is nothing more than an assertion and as such, worthless in terms of evidence for your position.

            It is a fully scientific claim. If it is your view is that the universe was once in a state of perfection, the burden is on you to show good evidence the universe was once in a state of perfection. This simply cannot be done as everyone knows and thus your claim that my claim isn’t scientific is completely baseless.

          • GLT

            “I defined all the terms and showed how that’s not the case.”

            You actually did not but it’s irrelevant anyway.

            “The “Fall” is seen by almost all modern Christians as metaphoric, not literal,…”

            And your point is…? The truthfulness of an event is not determined simply by majority opinion, a fact which is true regardless of the event in question. You call yourself The Thinker and you come up with such a basic juvenile fallacy as an argument? That’s funny.

            “Since the laws that exist now lead to our evolution, those laws are instrumental to our existence,…

            Wow, you’re just full of fallacious arguments today. This is nothing more than an assertion based on a groundless presupposition, it is most certainly not evidence.

            “Since the laws that exist now lead to our evolution, those laws are instrumental to our existence, hence if god created different laws, those laws would not lead to our existence, and that means the laws that exist now are the ones god created. There’s no reason why the laws of physics would change due to a “Fall” anyway.”

            I would be willing to bet you are totally unaware of the number of assumptions contained in that short statement. For example, when you claim the laws which exist now are the ones God created, on what do you base that claim? Are you aware of how things were prior to the fall, or are you just asserting your opinion? Assuming an omnipotent God exists, is he incapable of changing the nature of his creation? That would have to be the case for your statement to be anything other than an unfounded assertion.

            “Nope. You can’t be smart and reject evolution.”

            So, Isaac Newton wasn’t smart? I suppose the same would be true of Keplar, Copernicus, Faraday, Galileo, etc., etc.? And nobody alive today who rejects evolution can be smart? I would love to watch you prove that claim. It would be incredibly hilarious to see you match wits with some of the minds alive today who don’t accept evolution. I would actually pay to watch that encounter. Basically your claim could be summarised as follows; If you do not agree with me, you’re stupid. Do you not comprehend how incredibly childish it is to make a statement to that effect? It certainly does not befit an individual who likes to call himself a thinker.

            “It is a fully scientific claim.”

            For your statement to qualify as a scientific claim you would be required to possess all knowledge vis a vis the existence of evidence regards the nature of the universe, including everything in its history. Do you possess that knowledge? Of course you don’t as no one does. There could be evidence which is yet to come to light or there could be evidence you simply do not understand, etc. So, no, your statement is not scientific, it is just your opinion.

            “If it is your view is that the universe was once in a state of perfection, the burden is on you to show good evidence the universe was once in a state of perfection.”

            The standard atheist cop-out ploy, try to shift the burden of proof. Sorry to have to break the news to you but anyone making a claim to knowledge has the responsibility to support that claim with evidence. As such, that includes atheists who claim their is no God and you as you claim to know the universe is as it has always been.

          • You actually did not but it’s irrelevant anyway.

            I did and it is relevant.

            And your point is…? The truthfulness of an event is not determined simply by majority opinion, a fact which is true regardless of the event in question. You call yourself The Thinker and you come up with such a basic juvenile fallacy as an argument? That’s funny.

            Then your claim that “Every Christian theist I am aware of ” makes no sense. I agree, truth is not set by majority opinion. I’m saying the facts show there was no perfect state and the burden is on you to prove it since that’s the basis of your rejection of my argument.

            Wow, you’re just full of fallacious arguments today. This is nothing more than an assertion based on a groundless presupposition, it is most certainly not evidence.

            This is not a fallacious argument. Not at all. This is though: “Every Christian theist I am aware of also concedes the universe is not presently in the state in which it was originally created by God which draws into question the validity of your conclusion.”

            I would be willing to bet you are totally unaware of the number of assumptions contained in that short statement. For example, when you claim the laws which exist now are the ones God created, on what do you base that claim? Are you aware of how things were prior to the fall, or are you just asserting your opinion? Assuming an omnipotent God exists, is he incapable of changing the nature of his creation? That would have to be the case for your statement to be anything other than an unfounded assertion.

            Those are the laws which we’ve discovered all of cosmic evolution, which are the same laws today. And this timescale goes way back before humans existed. I’m beginning to see you’re highly ignorant on science. Regarding prior to the fall, you have yet to prove a fall existed, hence your point on it is moot until you do so.

            So, Isaac Newton wasn’t smart? I suppose the same would be true of Keplar, Copernicus, Faraday, Galileo, etc., etc.? And nobody alive today who rejects evolution can be smart? I would love to watch you prove that claim.

            I’m only referring to people alive since evolution was discovered, which obviously doesn’t apply to Newton.

            For your statement to qualify as a scientific claim you would be required to possess all knowledge vis a vis the existence of evidence regards the nature of the universe, including everything in its history. Do you possess that knowledge? Of course you don’t as no one does. There could be evidence which is yet to come to light or there could be evidence you simply do not understand, etc. So, no, your statement is not scientific, it is just your opinion.

            This is the “If you don’t know everything, you can’t know anything” fallacy. By this logic we can’t say anything about anything. Totally absurd. Science has shown there was no perfect state. Hence it is scientific to say there was no perfect state. Again, if you claim there was a perfect state, the burden is on you to prove it.

            The standard atheist cop-out ploy, try to shift the burden of proof. Sorry to have to break the news to you but anyone making a claim to knowledge has the responsibility to support that claim with evidence. As such, that includes atheists who claim their is no God and you as you claim to know the universe is as it has always been.

            That’s easy. Evolution proves you wrong. Cosmology proves you wrong. Physics proves you wrong. You’d literally have to deny almost everything in science to claim there was a state of perfection, hence the burden is on you, not me. There’s no cop-out here. There is just you asserting the Bible as fact. If you claim it is fact, you have to prove it.

          • GLT

            “I did and it is relevant.”

            You’re entitled to your opinion. Moving on.

            “Then your claim that “Every Christian theist I am aware of ” makes no sense.”

            Not as a truth claim but that was not my purpose in making the statement, it was made in response to your statement regarding the opinion of theists. Try to keep up.

            “This is not a fallacious argument. Not at all.”

            Then demonstrate it is not fallacious, don’t try to hide behind accusing me of being fallacious. While you’re at it you will need to demonstrate how my comment was fallacious.

            “Those are the laws which we’ve discovered all of cosmic evolution, which are the same laws today.”

            How do those laws support cosmic evolution and only cosmic evolution?

            “I’m beginning to see you’re highly ignorant on science.”

            Now we move into the realm of ad hominem argument. You’re following the atheist guidelines to a ‘T’. You guys are always so predictable.

            “This is the “If you don’t know everything, you can’t know anything” fallacy.”

            Ah, no, it is simply an accurate statement that you cannot claim to know everything. That is in no way a fallacious argument as it is fundamentally true. I would not worry about my science knowledge if I were you. You need to be working on your logic.

            “I’m only referring to people alive since evolution was discovered, which obviously doesn’t apply to Newton.”

            The idea of evolution pre-dates Newton. Darwin was hardly original regards the idea of life having evolved, his main thrust was his presentation of a possible mechanism in natural selection. Also, you’re argument is fallacious in that Newton, et al were firm believers in creation. Therefore, the basis of your argument would have to be they would now be evolutionists if they were alive today. Obviously that is a completely groundless assertion based solely on your opinion.

            “Science has shown there was no perfect state.”

            Really, how did it do that?

            “Again, if you claim there was a perfect state, the burden is on you to prove it.”

            Again, anyone making a claim to knowledge has the burden to support their claim with evidence. Atheists cannot support their claims so they made up this nonsense about the burden of proof being everyone else’s problem. Doesn’t work here.

            “You’d literally have to deny almost everything in science to claim there was a state of perfection,…”

            As science cannot observe the past how would it know there was not a state of perfection?

            “If you claim it is fact, you have to prove it.”

            The Bible does not need me to prove anything, it is taking care of that itself.

          • As I was saying…

            No, utilitarianism causes far more suffering an evil than any disease caused by evil.

            evil is decay caused by sin

          • Prove “evil is decay caused by sin”.

          • As I was saying…

            You mean prove an axiomatic definition?

            sin is division from God, and therefore death. evil is the decay that forms as a result of death, spiritual death (true death).

            There is no elemental evil, evil is just a lack of the good caused by destruction of a thing through sin.

          • That’s not an axiom. An axiom is something self evidently true. And your claim isn’t. If you claim so, I can just say the real axiom is “evil isn’t decay caused by sin.” There.

            sin is division from God, and therefore death. evil is the decay that forms as a result of death, spiritual death (true death).

            There is no elemental evil, evil is just a lack of the good caused by destruction of a thing through sin.

            Prove or demonstrate this is true. Or admit you have no evidence and believe in faith.

          • As I was saying…

            evil is concretely defined as decay caused by sin. An axiom is a fundamental (and therefore unprovable) statement used as the foundation for thought itself. So that is two terms you are ignorant about.

            As for your tactics, inversion and sticking your head in the sand is not regulation.

            As for a proof: evil is a lack of the good because of decay; cold is just absence of heat, there is no elemental cold.

            We are contingent upon God so being divided from God (sin is division from God) causes death and therefore decay.

          • evil is concretely defined as decay caused by sin. An axiom is a fundamental (and therefore unprovable) statement used as the foundation for thought itself. So that is two terms you are ignorant about.

            Please, don’t even try to claim I’m ignorant here. An axiom is a “statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.”

            The claim that “evil is concretely defined as decay caused by sin” is not in any way self evidently true. It is just a baseless claim by you.

            As for your tactics, inversion and sticking your head in the sand is not regulation.

            I do nothing of the sort. As for your tactics, asserting on faith that your concept of a word is an axiom is a tactic of the ignorant.

            As for a proof: evil is a lack of the good because of decay; cold is just absence of heat, there is no elemental cold.

            That says absolutely nothing about sin or god.

            We are contingent upon God so being divided from God (sin is division from God) causes death and therefore decay.

            Prove it. Or just admit this is another zero-evidence claim you have.

          • As I was saying…

            An axiom is a foundational statement or first principle. Because all must be based on the uncontingent&uncreated, therefore axioms must be unprovable.

            I am defining to you what evil is. You have no other possible definition.

            Good is things as God created them to be. sin is division from God.

            I already explained how they all relate.

          • An axiom is a foundational statement or first principle. Because all must be based on the uncontingent&uncreated, therefore axioms must be unprovable.

            Axioms have to be self evidently true, and your claim isn’t. Hence it cannot be an axiom. It’s just a baseless faith claim you are asserting as fact. Just admit that already.

            I am defining to you what evil is. You have no other possible definition.

            I defined evil as lacking empathy and compassion. That’s a much better definition, and it relies on no silly faith based gods or devils.

            Good is things as God created them to be. sin is division from God.

            I already explained how they all relate.

            Another faith based claim. I can just assert as an axiom that good is whatever Dennis Rodman wants and evil is whatever he disagrees with. It has the same logical basis as your claim.

          • As I was saying…

            It is self evident as contingency and causality require certain things o exist. Contingency and causality clearly exist.

            evil has nothing to do with empathy or compassion, and your definition claims things are evil merely because they do not support your actual devilry and evil with submission.

            Secondly, you have no possible definition for either of those things, so you have no definition at all.

            Faith is founding yourself in God, and that is the foundation of all intellect. You being unfounded leads to your definition of evil shown above as well as your equating of a contingent, created being with the uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover.

            You do this because your capital sin of pride deludes you into think you personally can usurp God.

          • It is self evident as contingency and causality require certain things o exist. Contingency and causality clearly exist.

            Sure, but that doesn’t entail you need a god.

            evil has nothing to do with empathy or compassion, and your definition claims things are evil merely because they do not support your actual devilry and evil with submission.

            Prove this by describing something evil that doesn’t fit my definition. And my definition claims no such thing. This is your imagination again.

            Secondly, you have no possible definition for either of those things, so you have no definition at all.

            What things?

            Faith is founding yourself in God, and that is the foundation of all intellect. You being unfounded leads to your definition of evil shown above as well as your equating of a contingent, created being with the uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover.

            No, faith is believing in things you have no good evidence for, like all of the claims you’ve made so far, including the nonsense claim that god is the foundation of intellect. You can never demonstrate such a claim, but only assert it. Which is why no rational person could take you serious.

            You do this because your capital sin of pride deludes you into think you personally can usurp God.

            Rather, your selfish ego is founded on thinking you can tell others what to do because your god allows this.

          • As I was saying…

            All contingency requires the uncontingent.

            All causality required the uncreated.

            As for evil that is empathetic and compassionate (considering your ego-dramatic definition of those words), cowardice. You would call anything that challenges your devilry as evil.

            I said that Faith is the foundation of intellect, as Faith is founding yourself in God. God created everything.

            PS. despair is a mortal sin

          • All contingency requires the uncontingent.

            False. The principle of sufficient reason is self refuting. Even if I believed in your god it would still be self refuting.

            All causality required the uncreated.

            You don’t even know what causality is.

            As for evil that is empathetic and compassionate (considering your ego-dramatic definition of those words), cowardice. You would call anything that challenges your devilry as evil.

            That’s not an answer to my challenge. Try again.

            I said that Faith is the foundation of intellect, as Faith is founding yourself in God. God created everything.

            Prove all of these claims.

            PS. despair is a mortal sin

            Prove it.

          • As I was saying…

            Contingency means that something needs another thing to exist. A chicken needs and egg which needs a chicken which needs an egg, so on.

            All contingency points to the uncontingent.

            And once more, prove what?

          • Contingency means that something needs another thing to exist. A chicken needs and egg which needs a chicken which needs an egg, so on.

            I know what contingency means. If something needs another thing to exist, so does god. God needs man to exist, since humans invented all gods, including yours. Your god is not uncontingent.

            Contingency can mean 2 things: depending on something else to exist, and not necessary. The universe doesn’t depend on anything else to exist, since it’s eternal and never came into existence. Hence no need for god.

            All contingency points to the uncontingent.

            False of course, since even your god cannot be proven to be uncontingent. You just define it as uncontingent.

            And once more, prove what?

            That despair is a mortal sin. These are just empty words. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

          • As I was saying…

            God is the uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover. To put that in the ancient language of the Church: “Ipsum esse subsistens.”

            Your fallacy is wanting to be God a contingent being like you are in the hopes that will allow you to usurp God. Not only that but a material, contingent being like you are.

            You then personify creation as uncreated, uncontingent because you hilariously think your pagan co-opting of the sciences will allow you to usurp all of creation. You are so desperate to try to usurp God you are thinking that making the universe a strawman of God will serve the same end.

            As for your hitchens quote, all thought is based upon axioms which are uncontingent and therefore unprovable. Evidence is a byproduct of observation, and thinking is separate to observation. That level of nonsense will end you up in the same place that hitchens is now.

            As for despair being a mortal sin. despair is hoping you will absolve yourself by projection, this is based in the capital sin of pride which is the belief that you can claim divine will for yourself. sin is division from God mortal sin is sin strong enough to kill your soul.

          • God is the uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover.

            I know that’s what you claim, but you have no evidence that’s true. I know. I’ve debated religion for over a decade.

            God is the made up creation of ignorant people, like you.

            Your fallacy is wanting to be God a contingent being like you are in the hopes that will allow you to usurp God. Not only that but a material, contingent being like you are.

            It has nothing to do with wanting. It has to do with knowing. God is the made up creation of ignorant people, like you.

            You then personify creation as uncreated, uncontingent because you hilariously think your pagan co-opting of the sciences will allow you to usurp all of creation. You are so desperate to try to usurp God you are thinking that making the universe a strawman of God will serve the same end.

            No, you personify god as uncreated, uncontingent because you hilariously think it gives you the right to tell other people how to live their lives.

            all thought is based upon axioms which are uncontingent and therefore unprovable.

            Including this one: “God is the uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover.”

            So that means – according to your own view – you have no more veracity over mine, since “all thought is based upon axioms which are uncontingent and therefore unprovable.”

            Second of all, the claim that all thoughts are uncontingent is hilarious.

            despair is hoping you will absolve yourself by projection, this is based in the capital sin of pride which is the belief that you can claim divine will for yourself. sin is division from God mortal sin is sin strong enough to kill your soul.

            You have zero evidence any of this is true. You’re just a nonsense generating machine.

          • As I was saying…

            You are attacking a fundamental basis of all thought and reality, so it make sense you would think reality is relative to your ego enough to reject basic definitions.

            Axioms are uncontingent, therefore unprovable. That all needs an uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover is basic reason.

            One wonders how many mortal sins and instances of blasphemy you are guilty of over that decade.

          • You are attacking a fundamental basis of all thought and reality, so it make sense you would think reality is relative to your ego enough to reject basic definitions.

            God is not the basis or all thought and reality, you just assert this as so. You’ve offered no proof or argument to demonstrate this.

            Axioms are uncontingent, therefore unprovable. That all needs an uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover is basic reason.

            Axioms do not have to be uncontingent. They just have to be unprovable. Your god is contingent because it is not logically necessary. Your claim is basic dogma, not reason. There is no logical argument that demonstrations your god exists.

            One wonders how many mortal sins and instances of blasphemy you are guilty of over that decade.

            Same as you.

          • As I was saying…

            Axioms (first principles) are the basis of all thought, so they must be uncontingent.

            God is the creator of all. God is uncontingent, and all is contingent upon Him.

            Once more, despair is the mortal sin where you think you absolve yourself by projection.

          • Axioms (first principles) are the basis of all thought, so they must be uncontingent.

            Contingent can mean 2 things. (1) not dependent on anything else, and (2) logically necessary. I agree that an axiom would meet (1) but they do not have to meet (2).

            God is the creator of all. God is uncontingent, and all is contingent upon Him.

            God is a made up being created by the imaginations of evolved primates called people. So god is contingent. No people, no god of the Bible.

            Once more, despair is the mortal sin where you think you absolve yourself by projection.

            There are no such things as sins. So you’re just making up more nonsense.

          • As I was saying…

            evolution is based on the idea of self-creation and self-divinity.

          • No, it’s based on scientific facts.

          • As I was saying…

            Obervation is limited to the senses

          • So?

          • As I was saying…

            God is the uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover.

            You are a pagan, which means you worship demons. pagan “gods” are just common demons.

            Specifically, with your religion of gnosticism, you think enslaving and killing off mankind will allow you to absurdly usurp God. How you think that will happen is anyone’s guess, I just assume you try not to think about it to protect your delusion.

          • God is imaginary. You know this deep down inside. You only believe as a cover to control other’s lives.

          • As I was saying…

            The idea that the only possible foundation for all things, and the base requirement for existence, is “imaginary” is an absurdity borne of holding your ego above truth.

          • There is no argument for god being a foundation of anything. You know this deep down inside. You only believe as a cover to control other’s lives.

          • As I was saying…

            All needs an uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover. If you understand contingency and creation, you would know that.

            Your projection here is called the mortal sin of despair. Your ultimate goal is to unhinge the universe into an “infinite regress,” from which you will claim divinity for yourself. This is something you actually plan to use to control others with.

            You also think that projecting this evil of yours onto me will absolve you. It will not.

          • All needs an uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover. If you understand contingency and creation, you would know that.

            I understand contingency and creation very well, and I know for a fact that the principle of sufficient reason cannot be justified. And the universe was not created because it never technically came into existence. If you understood cosmology and special relativity, you would know that.

            Your projection here is called the mortal sin of despair. Your ultimate goal is to unhinge the universe into an “infinite regress,” from which you will claim divinity for yourself. This is something you actually plan to use to control others with.

            Rather, you use your faith-based religious beliefs to claim control over others. That is one of the main motivates religion gives fundamentalists: the feeling that they can control other’s lives on behalf of the god they believe in.

            You also think that projecting this evil of yours onto me will absolve you. It will not.

            There is no evil I’m projecting. Hence nothing to be absolved from.

          • As I was saying…

            So your argument is therefore that everything is its own uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover. This is refuted totally by observing contingency.

            Your other argument of an infinite regress is also absurd because it is totally refuted by causality.

            You have managed to not only refute your fallacies but your very existence with your nonsense here. Clearly since you exist, you are wrong. We have words for this kind of self-refutation and they would get me banned for repeating them here.

            I do not doubt that you know of contingency and causality, but it is clear you understand nothing at all (your relativist delusion prevents understanding anything). You do know that all needs an uncontingent, uncreated Prime Mover, so therefore you have to dip into absurdity in order to perpetuate the nonsense that denying God will make your sin go away.

            Your entire belief is that if you pretend everything is unfounded and absurd, that you can therefore become deified using that as an excuse. This is the capital sin of pride.

            Your projection of this is the mortal sin of despair.

          • So your argument is therefore that everything is its own uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover. This is refuted totally by observing contingency.

            It isn’t actually.

            Your other argument of an infinite regress is also absurd because it is totally refuted by causality.

            You don’t know anything about causality, and also my view does not require an infinite regress.

            You have managed to not only refute your fallacies but your very existence with your nonsense here. Clearly since you exist, you are wrong. We have words for this kind of self-refutation and they would get me banned for repeating them here.

            You are wrong on every point, because you have no idea what I’m talking about – because you have no idea of causality or physics.

            I do not doubt that you know of contingency and causality, but it is clear you understand nothing at all (your relativist delusion prevents understanding anything). You do know that all needs an uncontingent, uncreated Prime Mover, so therefore you have to dip into absurdity in order to perpetuate the nonsense that denying God will make your sin go away.

            I know all about both, and I know that the principle of sufficient reason is self refuting, since the universe is contingent, you will never be able to get a logically necessary reason why it exists. Even if you posit a god’s existence. Hence theism has no logical basis.

            Your entire belief is that if you pretend everything is unfounded and absurd, that you can therefore become deified using that as an excuse. This is the capital sin of pride.

            Rather, your entire belief is based on ignorance of philosophy and science and your ego is the main driver in you believing in god so that you can tell others how to live their lives. It’s obvious.

            Your projection of this is the mortal sin of despair.

            More made up noises. When you get some actual evidence for your beliefs, let us know. Until then you’re just spouting religious nonsense masquerading around as an argument.

          • As I was saying…

            That everything must have an uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover is a basic requirement for existence. By denying God, and then directly asserting that everything just “is,” you are therefore claiming that everything created itself and is continent upon itself.

            This is also the foundational statement for physics and metaphysics. Both Newtonian and Aristotelian.

            Everything exists by Love. God creates for the good of creation. You are loved, but your hatred of Love Himself makes you unable to be forgiven in your current state.

          • As I was saying…

            Yes, that of gnosticism, which is devil worship.

            It seeks to enslave and extinct mankind as the devil wants

          • Where is your proof of this?

          • As I was saying…

            It shares the devil’s prejudices.

            The name “gnosticism” comes from the Greek term “knowing.” The ancient gnostics did not know that the devil promised Eve that if she consumed the first sin that she would gain “knowing” that would make her “like a god.”

          • All made up claims. Prove Eve existed in the garden of eden.

          • As I was saying…

            Prove the mother of all mankind existed in the home of all mankind?

            How? Empirically? How do you empirically prove history?

            You can prove history only by historical documentation. Genesis was given to Moses during their meetings during the exodus, so therefore it is right from God’s lips.

          • Prove the mother of all mankind existed in the home of all mankind?

            How? Empirically? How do you empirically prove history?

            Prove using archaeology, genetics, you know, science. If we all descended from 2 people less than 10,000 years ago, genetics would demonstrate that. But genetics already shows that didn’t happen.

            You can prove history only by historical documentation. Genesis was given to Moses during their meetings during the exodus, so therefore it is right from God’s lips.

            And the Islamic prophet Mohammad flew on a winged horse to Jerusalem and spoke to the creator, who said Jesus never died on the cross. Says so in the Koran so it must be 100% factual history. Right?

          • As I was saying…

            Genetics shows we belong to Noah, same as with the half-remembered deluge shown in all pagan cultures.

            GK Chesterton’s chapter on “Science and Religion” from “All Things Considered” specifically skewers your old hat rhetoric here.

            The koran was written and changed to fit the political desires of the age, and was not around until recently. mohammed was decieved by your dark master, a “morningstar” with one horn longer than the other like a crescent.

            You are sympathetic to the mohammedans because you have the same goals/master and your leaders realized that marxism failed because it has no religious component (which adopted mohammedanism is hoped to fill).

          • Genetics shows we belong to Noah, same as with the half-remembered deluge shown in all pagan cultures.

            Prove that by citing a scientific paper demonstrating this is true.

            GK Chesterton’s chapter on “Science and Religion” from “All Things Considered” specifically skewers your old hat rhetoric here.

            Chesterton was not a scientist. Show me scientific proof we all descended from a single family 4000 years ago. And also prove all animals alive today had a genetic bottleneck around that same time. How did Noah get the dinosaurs on the boat.

            The koran was written and changed to fit the political desires of the age, and was not around until recently. mohammed was decieved by your dark master, a “morningstar” with one horn longer than the other like a crescent.

            Muslims say the same thing about your Bible and religion. Prove them wrong.

            You are sympathetic to the mohammedans because you have the same goals/master and your leaders realized that marxism failed because it has no religious component (which adopted mohammedanism is hoped to fill).

            Wow, so much arm chair psychology from you. None of this is true’ I am neither a communist nor an Islamic sympathizer.

          • As I was saying…

            Your argument that scientific papers are the only valid form of thought is a philosophical arguement. More of that self-refutation I spoke of elsewhere.

            As for dinosaurs, that term is a creation of the 1800’s. Before then they were refered to as beasts, behemoths, and dragons. Secondly the carbon you use to date things did not exist on earth until 5000 years ago.

            The mohammedans have no foundation, and this is well documented by the Saints who had to live though the rise of mohammed. You have 600 years of Church history before that totalitarian political ideology pretended to be a pagan religion.

            As far as you claiming that mohammedans claim that Christians worship a “morningstar with crescent horn,” that must be a side-effect of your haphazard sneering. The islamic symbol is a star and crescent moon because they worship a spirit calling himself “morningstar” who has one horn bigger than the other. The symbol was taken from the ancient pagans of mecca who worshipped th devil openly. mohammedanism is a political mixture of that paganism, talmudic judaismc, and arian heresy.

            You therefore have a lot in common because you share a goal (total human extinction in service to the devil).

          • Your argument that scientific papers are the only valid form of thought is a philosophical arguement. More of that self-refutation I spoke of elsewhere.

            Nope. Never said that. You made a scientific claim by saying all humans descended from Noah because you’re making a claim about the physical world. And when you make scientific claims, you need scientific evidence. I in no way said only science is the valid form of truth.

            As for dinosaurs, that term is a creation of the 1800’s. Before then they were refered to as beasts, behemoths, and dragons. Secondly the carbon you use to date things did not exist on earth until 5000 years ago.

            The term is irrelevant. How did millions of species of dinosaurs fot on a 500 foot long boat? And how did polar bears where there, and the millions of species of insects, including ones in the deep jungle, far away from the middle east? And carbon is not all we use to date stuff. That’s a typically ignorant move.

            The mohammedans have no foundation, and this is well documented by the Saints who had to live though the rise of mohammed. You have 600 years of Church history before that totalitarian political ideology pretended to be a pagan religion.

            And Hinduism is 1000 years older than Christianity, so what’s your point? The older a religion is the more true it is? Only an idiot would make such a claim. Christians have no foundation. The new testament wasn’t even written by eyewitnesses. Many books are fake, like Hebrews, Titus, etc.

            As far as you claiming that mohammedans claim that Christians worship a “morningstar with crescent horn,” that must be a side-effect of your haphazard sneering. The islamic symbol is a star and crescent moon because they worship a spirit calling himself “morningstar” who has one horn bigger than the other. The symbol was taken from the ancient pagans of mecca who worshipped th devil openly. mohammedanism is a political mixture of that paganism, talmudic judaismc, and arian heresy.

            And Jews and Muslims say that your worship of a man as god is devil worship. And since you can’t prove them wrong and yourself right, it’s all faith based.

            You therefore have a lot in common because you share a goal (total human extinction in service to the devil).

            You must have me confused with a fundamentalist Christian – it’s them who want the end times to happen. Go look in the mirror.

            (and get some evidence to back up your claims otherwise no one needs to take them seriously)

          • As I was saying…

            science is mere observation, and only one kind of observation that involves completely turning your mind off.

            The deluge re-made the entire world. What purpose would giant lizards serve man? They would clearly be left to die as dragons are explicitly mentioned in scripture as being bad.

            The New Testament was written by the first bishops of the Church, who were the apostles. That is why the Church is based in Apostolic Succession.

            I also mention that the Church is 600+ years older than the mohammedans because your fallacy was that they have the same lineage and validity as the Church.

            As for hinduism, it has no lineage as it is common devil worship. No need to differentiate between it and other completely identical devilry like atheism or greek/norse paganism

          • science is mere observation, and only one kind of observation that involves completely turning your mind off.

            Science is not mere observation. Mere observation is what we call ‘looking’. Science is more than that, it is a complex series of methodologies that include observation. The only thing that requires turning off one’s mind is your religion.

            The deluge re-made the entire world. What purpose would giant lizards serve man? They would clearly be left to die as dragons are explicitly mentioned in scripture as being bad.

            Wow, there is no difference from believing this or jack and the beanstalk. What purpose does malaria or the komodo dragon serve man?

            The New Testament was written by the first bishops of the Church, who were the apostles. That is why the Church is based in Apostolic Succession.

            No one knows who wrote Ephesians, First Timothy, Second Timothy, and Titus.

            I also mention that the Church is 600+ years older than the mohammedans because your fallacy was that they have the same lineage and validity as the Church

            I never made that claim, also if older age means truth then Zoroastrianism and Hinduism got you beat.

            As for hinduism, it has no lineage as it is common devil worship. No need to differentiate between it and other completely identical devilry like atheism or greek/norse paganism

            Prove your “lineage” is true and means it is true. Your fallacy is to assume on faith that your lineage is somehow true. This is assumes, not demonstrated. Christianity is worshiping a man as god, that is devil worship.

          • As I was saying…

            observation is not thinking, so therefore science requires no thought. In fact, science explicitly must reject reason so that the data speaks.

            malaria, like all evils, are due to sin. As far as beasts, they exist as a part of the ecosystem of the planet.

            The letters are easily attributed, and it is know by the Church as the Church wrote them.

            Ephesians is written by Paul, one of the Apostles and therefore one of the first bishops to the Church.

            Hebrews, Titus, Ephesians, and first/second Timothy are all St Paul too. Are we denying St Paul exists now?

            Again, as for hinduism and the other, there is no reason to differentiate between different types of open and blatant devil worship. I do recall saying that the mohammedans cannot be considered to be equal to the Church because the Church existed just fine before mohammed became oppressed by the devil.

            Christ is God. As I keep saying, you keep trying to claim that man is capable of usurping God or taking the place of God because YOU want to take that place.

            Ps. despair is a mortal sin. applying that despair to the Church is the sin that cries to Heaven of blasphemy.

          • observation is not thinking, so therefore science requires no thought. In fact, science explicitly must reject reason so that the data speaks.

            That’s the dumbest thing you’ve said so far..

            malaria, like all evils, are due to sin.

            First, this is another empty claim, second it is not what I asked. You said dinosaurs had no purpose but malaria does? Justify that.

            The letters are easily attributed, and it is know by the Church as the Church wrote them.

            Ephesians is written by Paul, one of the Apostles and therefore one of the first bishops to the Church.

            Hebrews, Titus, Ephesians, and first/second Timothy are all St Paul too. Are we denying St Paul exists now?

            Nope, I’m denying Paul wrote them. The dominant view in NT scholarship is Paul didn’t write them. So prove he did.

            Again, as for hinduism and the other, there is no reason to differentiate between different types of open and blatant devil worship. I do recall saying that the mohammedans cannot be considered to be equal to the Church because the Church existed just fine before mohammed became oppressed by the devil.

            Just fine? There was 300+ years of debating the basis of what Christianity even is. That’s not just fine. And prove your religion isn’t the product of the devil.

            Christ is God. As I keep saying, you keep trying to claim that man is capable of usurping God or taking the place of God because YOU want to take that place.

            Prove Christ is god. I can just assert that you worship Satan and that you want to tell others how to live.

            Ps. despair is a mortal sin. applying that despair to the Church is the sin that cries to Heaven of blasphemy.

            There are no such thing as sins.

          • As I was saying…

            You have yet to give a single argument.

            I never spoke anything of purpose. I said that beasts have no souls and that beasts exist as part of an ecosystem. You may try reading my posts instead of desperately cherry picking half sentences to take out of context.

            You are denying that Paul wrote anything because you are desperate to deny the Church, because you ridiculously think that will make your shame over sin go away. Your specific brand of generic rhetoric shown here originates from random heretics the 1800’s. Official dogma is that they are written by Paul, and they are signed Paul.

            As for what debating about what the Church is, are you referring to some protestant nonsense that the Church existed in no official capacity before the year 400? If so, that is rhetoric from the 1500’s. As I would say to you devil worshipping ex-prot heretic’s: how do you then explain the first 400 years of the Church if there was no Church for 400 years?

            The Church predates the excuses you heretic’s use by millennia.

            As for you claiming the Church is of the devil, please know that you have (again) committed the sin that cries to Heaven of blasphemy. Secondly all miracles and Saints disprove you, along with the devil having no power.

            Know that I know your entire schtick is that you are committing evil after evil to hide the shame of whatever sin made you go reprobate. Just know that sins like blasphemy (and you have included it in every single message to me so far) are worse than all other mortal sins combined.

          • You have yet to give a single argument.

            You haven’t given a single argument for any claims you’ve made. Just assertion. As for me, what specifically have I not made an argument for?

            I never spoke anything of purpose. I said that beasts have no souls and that beasts exist as part of an ecosystem. You may try reading my posts instead of desperately cherry picking half sentences to take out of context.

            You did. You asked: “What purpose would giant lizards serve man?”

            I asked: “What purpose does malaria or the komodo dragon serve man?”

            You said: “malaria, like all evils, are due to sin.”

            I said: “You said dinosaurs had no purpose but malaria does? Justify that.”

            So you did speak of purpose. You implied dinosaurs have no purpose for man. Why? And why does malaria have a purpose for man?

            You are denying that Paul wrote anything because you are desperate to deny the Church, because you ridiculously think that will make your shame over sin go away.

            LOL. I never said Paul wrote nothing. This is you making up things again out of thin air, like your god. I said Paul didn’t write all the letters attributed to him, like the pastoral epistles.

            Your specific brand of generic rhetoric shown here originates from random heretics the 1800’s. Official dogma is that they are written by Paul, and they are signed Paul.

            Yeah, dogma is nonsense. And the majority of NT scholars think Paul only authentically wrote 7 of the letters attributed to him. This has to do with scholarship and facts, not your silly made up notion of “sin.”

            As for what debating about what the Church is, are you referring to some protestant nonsense that the Church existed in no official capacity before the year 400? If so, that is rhetoric from the 1500’s. As I would say to you devil worshipping ex-prot heretic’s: how do you then explain the first 400 years of the Church if there was no Church for 400 years?

            I’ve made no such claim. Seems you have a habit of believing made up things.

            As for you claiming the Church is of the devil, please know that you have (again) committed the sin that cries to Heaven of blasphemy. Secondly all miracles and Saints disprove you, along with the devil having no power.

            There is no proven miracle ever. So you have no evidence.

            Know that I know your entire schtick is that you are committing evil after evil to hide the shame of whatever sin made you go reprobate. Just know that sins like blasphemy (and you have included it in every single message to me so far) are worse than all other mortal sins combined.

            You know absolutely nothing about me or my arguments and you are completely ignorant. You make up nonsense and use religion to justify your desire to control other people’s lives. Typical fundie.

          • As I was saying…

            I said all beasts serve a part of an ecosystem. That includes lizards.

            viruses are just parasitic vegetative life that twisted into becoming harmful.

            As Fulton Sheen said, you believe the lies of 3rd rate historians and dishonest heretics.

            Miracles are confirmed independently.

          • I said all beasts serve a part of an ecosystem. That includes lizards.

            Why not dinosaurs? Why aren’t they alive now? Did Noah put 2 of every dinosaur on a 500 ft long boat?

            viruses are just parasitic vegetative life that twisted into becoming harmful.

            Twisted? How? Show proof of this.

            As Fulton Sheen said, you believe the lies of 3rd rate historians and dishonest heretics.

            3rd rate historians? The dominant view in NT scholarship is that many books in the NT are forged. These aren’t 3rd rate historians, these are NT scholars. You believe on faith fundamentalists who believe on faith the bible is fact.

            Miracles are confirmed independently.

            Ok, confirm the miracles in the bible with proof independently of the bible.

          • As I was saying…

            What is your fixation on dragons? Is it because your master, the devil, has been called a “dragon?”

            Twisted by sin. All death and disease is caused by sin.

            Yes, third rate lies from dishonest historians and heretics. They aren’t Catholic and they certainly reject the Magesterium of the Church to fit their “new world order” rhetoric from the 1800’s. You latch onto it because you think it will make our shame over sin go away.

            As for independent of the Bible, the Church. You cannot empirically prove history, another one of those “self-refutations” I spoke of a week ago. The Church did empirically prove it as we were there and grew from it.

            One wonders just how lonely you are and therefore desperate to waste my time further.

          • What is your fixation on dragons? Is it because your master, the devil, has been called a “dragon?”

            I have no master. I speak of dinosaurs, not dragons. Dragons are made up, like your god.

            Twisted by sin. All death and disease is caused by sin.

            Prove this is true and not a faith based claim of yours.

            Yes, third rate lies from dishonest historians and heretics. They aren’t Catholic and they certainly reject the Magesterium of the Church to fit their “new world order” rhetoric from the 1800’s. You latch onto it because you think it will make our shame over sin go away.

            I have no shame. And sin is made up. You latch onto the Catholic church to hide your perversions. It’s no wonder your best friend is a haven for child molesters.

            One wonders just how lonely you are and therefore desperate to waste my time further.

            LOL. You’re the one wasting my time. You have given zero evidence for anything you claim.

            Zero.

          • As I was saying…

            dragons are the name for large lizards prior to 1850. Your dark master is the devil.

            As for your comments about the Church, that is blasphemy. It is also incorrect, as he scandal was sodomites dating young men. No children were involved nor was it any different than what sodomites do daily (and you would most likely support).

          • dragons are the name for large lizards prior to 1850. Your dark master is the devil.

            Dragons are fake, like your god. Your dark master is your god whom you use to justify your desire to control other’s lives.

            As for your comments about the Church, that is blasphemy. It is also incorrect, as he scandal was sodomites dating young men. No children were involved nor was it any different than what sodomites do daily (and you would most likely support).

            No, it has been proven that your church is a haven for homosexual pedophiles. Deny all you want. It is reality.

          • As I was saying…

            blasphemy cries to Heaven for vengeance

          • You blaspheme everyday when you affirm your god is real and others are false. Hence you commit just as much blasphemy as me.

          • As I was saying…

            Again, despair is a mortal sin. Do you remember what that is.

          • No ignorance is a mortal sin. And you’re the in the lead.

          • As I was saying…

            You have done things to damn yourself hundreds of times over here. Why do you persist? Do you think you will get a prize?

          • That is better applied to you.

        • As I was saying…

          You mean eugenics and totalitarianism?

          • He said “arose from intelligence”.

          • As I was saying…

            Those arise from your “intelligence” or lack thereof.

          • Not me.

          • As I was saying…

            You desire eugenics and totalitarianism because you think they will help you achieve divinity to fulfil your capital sin of pride.

            Tell me, how well did that work for stalin or hitler or any other marxist “god” you seek to model your life after?

          • Hitler was a theist, who claims he was fulfilling god’s desire when he killed the Jews. So according to your logic, believing in god will lead to another Holocaust.

          • As I was saying…

            hitler was an atheist devil worshipper (I repeat myself) doing what your kind always does: believes human extinction will deify you.

          • No, he was actually a Catholic. Also, here’s a few facts about the Nazis:

            -Nearly every German soldier during World War II wore a belt buckle that had inscribed on it, “GOTT MIT UNS” (God with us)

            -Every member of the German armed forces took an oath that started with: “I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath.”

            -Hitler’s birthday (April 20th) was celebrated from the Catholic Church every year from 1939 to the very end of the Nazi regime in 1945

            -The first diplomatic accord by Hitler once he rose to power in 1933 was with the Vatican

            -The Catholic Church opened its genealogical records to the Nazis so that they could trace a person’s Jewish ancestry, aiding in the holocaust
            Antisemitism existed in Europe for hundreds of years before Darwin, and one of the primary influences on Hitler was the German Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, who wrote the treatise, On the Jews and Their Lies (1543), in which he argued among other things, that European Jews should be forbidden to practice their religion, that they should have their synagogues burned and razed, and that they should be forced into servitude

            -Nearly half of the Nazis were members of the Catholic Church, as was Hitler

            -The only Nazi ever to be formally excommunicated by the Catholic Church was Joseph Goebbels – not for war crimes, but for marrying a divorced Protestant

            Yeah, sounds nothing like atheism.

          • As I was saying…

            hitler’s mother was Catholic and hitler hated her mother for being “weak” because she forgave hitler’s abusive and neglectful Jewish father. hitler himself was a devil worshipper and had a fascination with norse paganism when he wasn’t partaking in the occult.

            German soldiers belong to the German army, not to the political party in power. Belt buckles and oaths of service were not a nazi invention. Germany existed a long time before your kind took over. Also, God was with them as he is with anyone enslaved to devil worshippers against their will like you and hitler.

            I have no idea why you would think a devil worshipper would be celebrated by the Mystical Body of Christ, but any stick is good enough to beat the Church with (as Chesterton said). Moreover, why would a living man be celebrated by the Church? Especially a politician. In order to make this numb-minded claim you have to pretend the Church is a political organization, which does not parse with what the Church actually is.

            Your words also do not parse with the reality that without the actions of the Church, no Jews would have survived Europe of the 1930’s and 1940’s. Hundreds of thousands were hidden away and saved under direct orders from Pope Pius XII, leading to millions of Catholics being killed to protect the Jews. The allies did nothing and the Church saved more Jews than the entire allied forces combined.

            As far as nazis being excommunicated, I will leave that for you to look up. The list of things that self-excommunicates one from the Church is vast, and being a part of the powers and principalities of the devil (just like you are and the nazis were) is one of them.

            Now, here is a question you will never ask yourself “What feast or Saint day is Aprith 20th?”

            Same as this question “Why would the Church celebrate a mere man and a political leader?”

            Here’s a good one “Why was the first statue erected in the newly founded state of Isreal that of Pope Pius XII?”

            To add onto that last one “Why was the first act of the new state of Isreal to declare Pope Pius XII a mensch and bestow upon him the countries highest honor to a non-Jew?”

            Also this question “Why does ‘Mit Brenender Sorge’ exist?”

            Especially this question “Why did Pope Pius XII fund all assassination attempts against hitler and fund all resistance movements against hitler?”

            And for the final blow “Why did hitler regularly try to have Pope Pius XII assassinated and why did hitler kill more Catholics than any other group he killed?”

            You do not qualify as intellectually honest, and you barely qualify as human, so asking these questions is far outside of your ability. To paraphrase scripture, none are so blind as those who refuse to see.

            Your pre-memorized rhetoric here originates from a play written by an ex nazi officer turned kgb stooge (the resemblance to you is uncanny), and has no historical basis. As stated above, in order to assume any of the above is true, you have to 1) know nothing about the Church (you don’t) and 2) be willing to disregard all history for political gain (your only pastime).

            Therefore the only people who can fall for what you just stated here are dupes and marxists. This is also why you fell for it.

          • As I was saying…

            My previous reply was marked as spam for being too long.

            hitler’s mother was Catholic and hitler hated his mother for being “weak” because she forgave hitler’s abusive and neglectful Jewish father. hitler himself was a devil worshipper and had a fascination with norse paganism when he wasn’t partaking in the occult.

            hitler repeatedly lamented that the inborn Catholic sensibilities of the German people he enslaved made them too kind to be his soldiers. hitler then said that if he had mohammedans under his command, then he would take over the world. This is why hitler’s successor merkel loves importing from the Middle East. It is also why you so vociferously support Islam.

            German soldiers belong to the German army, not to the political party in power. Belt buckles and oaths of service were not a nazi invention. Germany existed a long time before your kind took over. Also, God was with them as He is with anyone enslaved to devil worshippers against their will like you and hitler.

            I have no idea why you would think a devil worshipper would be celebrated by the Mystical Body of Christ, but any stick is good enough to beat the Church with (as Chesterton said). Moreover, why would a living man be celebrated by the Church? Especially a politician. In order to make this numb-minded claim you have to pretend the Church is a political organization, which does not parse with what the Church actually is.

            Your words also do not parse with the reality that without the actions of the Church, no Jews would have survived Europe of the 1930’s and 1940’s. Hundreds of thousands were hidden away and saved under direct orders from Pope Pius XII, leading to millions of Catholics being killed to protect the Jews. The allies did nothing and the Church saved more Jews than the entire allied forces combined.

            As far as nazis being excommunicated, I will leave that for you to look up. The list of things that self-excommunicates one from the Church is vast, and being a part of the powers and principalities of the devil (just like you are and the nazis were) is one of them.

            Your pre-memorized rhetoric here originates from a play written by an ex nazi officer turned kgb stooge (the resemblance to you is uncanny), and has no historical basis. As stated above, in order to assume any of the above is true, you have to 1) know nothing about the Church (you don’t) and 2) be willing to disregard all history for political gain (your only pastime).

      • As I was saying…

        You miss his intention there. The reprobate is saying that he has “gnosis” and therefore that he has usurped God.

    • Alice Cheshire

      Morals rise from religion. Denying facts does not change them. Atheists eliminate religion so THEY can be the gods.

      • topknot

        Morals do not arise from religion. In fact, most decisions that are made today by most modern Christians show an enormous amount of distrust that their god exists.

        For example:

        Most people visit a doctor rather than a priest when they are sick. Some people may visit both… But expect healing to come from the medicine administered by the doctor.

        • GLT

          “Morals do not arise from religion.”

          If that is true from where do they rise? Can you give us an example of a moral code which has not arisen via religion?

          “Most people visit a doctor rather than a priest when they are sick.”

          Does this mean they do not trust God or does it mean they trust God will give the physician the wisdom to treat them? Simply because Christians go to a doctor when they are sick does not mean they do not trust God.

          • topknot

            >Simply because Christians go to a doctor when they are sick does not mean they do not trust God.

            Yes it does…. unless, by some miracle, miracles no longer happen… why is that, by the way?

          • Ken Abbott

            The answer to that question requires that you understand the purpose of miracles when they occurred as recorded in the Bible.

          • GLT

            GLT: “Simply because Christians go to a doctor when they are sick does not mean they do not trust God.”

            topknot: “Yes it does…. unless, by some miracle, miracles no longer happen… why is that, by the way?”

            How does it do that, exactly? I know from personal experience that I have never wavered in my faith in God even when I was diagnosed with leukemia. I trusted the doctors would do all they could for me but I still firmly placed my faith in God. So how can you state categorically Christians who go to doctors when they are ill do not trust God?

            “why is that, by the way?”

            Why is what?

        • Ye Olde Statistician

          Why would you expect otherwise? Christianity is not witch-doctoring.

          • topknot

            >Christianity is not witch-doctoring.

            How is that?

            Christians of the 21st century living in very wealthy countries with plenty of actual scientific research giving rise to medicines and technology don’t believe in the magical sky fairy healing them…

            But there are plenty of Christians in other areas of the world that still very much believe in magic.

            Christianity before that nasty scientific method was developed was very much “witch-doctoring”

          • Ye Olde Statistician

            The first schools established for teaching medicine were founded in early medieval Europe. Elsewhere and earlier, it was done only by the master-and-apprentice method; but at Salerno and elsewhere lectures and demonstrations were presented at the new-fangled “universities” to teach medical knowledge systematically. Medical societies were established in order to license doctors. Dissections of human corpses were performed for instruction. “Soporific sponges” were used to put surgical patients to sleep to ease their suffering during surgery. Both medicine and surgery were primitive by our modern standards, but it was widely believed that maladies had natural causes, even if they were not clear about what those natural causes were.

            Magic falls on the same axis as science. It is the use of unknown properties of matter (hidden, or “occult”) to secure an effect, such as chewing willow bark to relieve a headache. Science (or more properly, technology) is the use of known properties (“manifest”) to secure the effect, such as swallowing acetylsalicylic acid to relieve a headache. [Science is the process of figuring out that it is the salic in the willow bark that soothes the headache.]

            Hard as it is for a Late Modern to comprehend, Christianity was never about medicine.

    • JTLiuzza

      Show me an atheist and I’ll show you someone who has a death grip (literally) on a particular sin.

      You’re whistling past the graveyard. Do you really believe your last sentence? A universe that happened accidentally is not only dumb on it’s face but its existence is pointless, thereby making your existence pointless. A pointless existence is interesting? How? I’ll tell you how: license that’s what. Embracing a pointless universe and a pointless existence is the price the atheist has to pay for his slavery to license which is his only source of making the universe “interesting.” I take you back to my first sentence.

      The Church has more teaching on faith and reason than can be recounted. You obviously have not made even an attempt to learn about what you condemn. Why not? Try some of it if you dare. Spoiler alert: you may be forced to change your life.

      • topknot

        I was a very devout Christian for 30 years. I have studied the Bible inside and out. The Bible is garbage, some of it is well written… but for the most part too dramatic with too many disparate plot lines to make for a good story.

        Try science for a change. Discard the old, tired, worn, and lazy “god did it” belief system.

        Life is much more dazzling knowing there was no creator… knowing that I have only one chance to do the things I wish to do with my life. And I have a wonderful life too… filled with my wife and three children.

        god did not create anything, and that is a good thing.

        • davidrev17

          Wow! If that last statement is factually unassailable, then has “everything” just somehow created itself (a logical impossibility too, BTW); including this terribly elusive, mercurial Creator God of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures?

          So “choose this day whom you will serve” – an unintelligent (or mindless), impersonal, thus inanimate “nature red in tooth and claw,” or its Creator??

        • As I was saying…

          All needs an uncreated, uncontingent Prime Mover.

          You think denying God will make your shame go away. That is absurd as you would be ashamed no matter what because what you did is unnatural.

          • topknot

            What are you talking about?

          • As I was saying…

            Try reading.

          • topknot

            While this rather old thread is quite entertaining… I’m not quite sure you are omnipotent as you believe… please expand your thoughts so that my small mind may understand your greatness.

          • As I was saying…

            Truth owes nothing to error.

  • Stephen D

    They had a go at Shermer’s project of “grounding our morals…in reason and science” many times in the past. He should read some history! One famous attempt is confusingly named the “Enlightenment”. If you read the philosophers of that period you soon see that what they wrote was trivial and failed to achieve their stated objective. Then you consider the outcome: the French Revolution, where thousands of innocent people were slaughtered using the guillotine in the name of “Reason”! You can move on to study the rise of communism, and the results of atheist dictators like Stalin and Mao. The problem with Shermer’s project is that atheism has no credentials when it comes to “our morals”. None at all.

  • Andrew Mason

    Societies run by Atheists already exist and have existed – Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, North Korea etc. Since morals and values cannot be found in reason or science, it will be left to the elite and the state to dictate permitted morals and values. Presumably Shermer will claim there’s a difference between other Atheistic regimes and the future he hopes will come to pass but other than a different label I can’t see what. Those pushing a ‘secular’ agenda have already made clear they believe in a hierarchical society where they have the right to dictate conduct, public expression, and which lives merit protection. Is it such a leap to conclude that enemies of an Atheistic American regime be slated for euthanasia?

    • Alice Cheshire

      Excellent. We have many examples of atheists running societies. You can go even further back and it was the norm at times in history. Murder was acceptable throughout much of human existence in the secular world. Rulers used it to maintain order and it was not considered wrong. Rulers were replaced the same way—by killing the current occupant. Very Darwinian.

      Whether or or not enemies of the Atheistic American regime would be executed or just made slaves really doesn’t matter. Science hates as much as any religion and so do atheists. They are the loudest, most bullying, nasty commenters on any thread. Hatred is a way of life—they hate religion. If religion is gone, they will hate something else. It’s called reality and science/atheists hate reality as much as they claim those who believe in magical creatures (a bullying term, I might add) love the creature.

  • Alice Cheshire

    “In any case, the message isn’t one he’d like to hear.” A claim the “reasonable, realistic” scientist throw at everyone else but magically, they are immune to the behavior. They believe in “magic” as much as any religion out there. They just worship themselves.

  • Barry Obama

    Recipe for the Holocaust times a million

    • You must be confusing this with religion.

      • Barry Obama

        Nah, just the proven history of actual atheists like Stalin and Mao and the millions they condemned to death for the sake of the State.

        • Atheism ≠ communism. Many ignorant people confuse this.

          Also the holocaust was done by theists.

  • davidrev17

    Hmmm…then Mr. Shermer so authoritatively declares:

    “…And we should continue working on grounding our morals and values on viable secular sources such as reason and science”

    Only one question though: has he brought-forth ANY empirical, thus credible “scientific evidence,” in order to demonstrate the rational/logical validity of the foundation upon which his own worldview of materialist philosophy rests; since science “doesn’t DO” religion, morality, politics, values etc??

  • davidrev17

    “Evolutionary naturalism takes the inherent limitations of science and turns them into a devastating philosophical weapon: because science is our only real way of knowing anything, what science cannot know cannot be real.”

    — Phillip E. Johnson, “Christian” Emeritus Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley.

Inspiration
‘Your Heavenly Father’
Charles Spurgeon
More from The Stream
Connect with Us