Quantcast

«

»

Jul 24 2013

“God Is Real” author writes back

Last week I posted a response to an email titled ”God Is Real” by an apologetics book author. Mr. Chacon has written back, and I include my reply below.

Hi Samuel, thanks for writing back.

A lack of knowledge and understanding of spirit energy and mind control has been the cause of problems in the world. Atheists like you are doing more good to save the world than all the Popes, Bishops and Archbishops that have ever lived. Atheists are forcing people to be scientific, like God, and, eventually, prove there is a god. If people cannot convince atheists that god is real, they cannot prove it to themselves. Many young Christians are leaving their church after finishing high school because the Bible is confusing and they do not understand God. History tells us that more people have died because of what the Bible says than for any other reason.

I acknowledge and appreciate the implied flattery. However, I feel your conclusion is off the mark. Yes, I am in favor of encouraging scientific inquiry and critical thinking. My observation, though, is that as the amount of scientific knowledge has increased worldwide, belief in God has fallen, and there is (from my point of view) a direct correlation there. The more scientific training a person has, the less likely they are to accept the existence of God as an explanation for natural processes.  A 2009 Pew survey revealed that while 83% of the general public believes in God, only 33% of professional scientists do. Furthermore, in this 1998 study, it was revealed that only 7% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences — i.e., top tier scientists — have a belief in any God.

This doesn’t seem to bear out your claim that science is somehow proving that there is a God. I would also dispute your claim that young Christians are leaving the church because they don’t understand the message in the Bible. On the contrary, religious belief was far more widespread before the Protestant reformation, when people were encouraged to listen unquestioningly to priests and not read the Bible at all. Religious belief throughout the world has continued to contract as our understanding has grown. If science is supportive of your claims, why do you think this might be?

Lucifer (Satan or Devil) and his angels are doing more good than religions in that they force people to fight evil spirits on an individual basis. Because of it, people become spiritually stronger. If Lucifer did not exist to make people fight him, people would not learn about life or ask for God’s help. Atheists and bad angels are forcing the world to unite scientifically. Harald Fritzsch states, “The knowledge gained through science is the tie binding all of us.”

I hope you understand that these are nothing more than empty words to me. Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, all angels good or bad, and “evil spirits” are other things besides God that I simply don’t believe in. They cannot do either good or harm in the world if they don’t exist. The belief in those things, of course, is real and common, and does have an impact on society. In my opinions, this impact is mostly negative.

From my viewpoint, no product can exist unless someone thinks of making it; that applies to the universe.

“No product can exist unless someone thinks of making it” is not a complex theological argument; this is the same old cosmological argument that’s been dealt with ad nauseam for hundreds of years. Bertrand Russell answered it. David Hume answered it. You say that all things require thought to create it, but you have “God” in an unspoken category that is exempt from this rule. So your rule is not really a rule at all; some things exist without anyone thinking of making them. Therefore, you can’t use this as an argument for God; you need real evidence to demonstrate that such a thing exists.

Many people believe that a God created the universe. The way to prove it is to ask God how he did it as I did. For example, first I asked God to reveal himself to me if he were real. After he had revealed himself to me, I asked him how he designed the universe. He used three laws of activity to control energy–the law of unity; law of opposites, and law of references—and to design it. Everything is energy.

There are two problems with what you’re saying here. One is that in order to be a proper “experiment,” the test has to work both ways. That means a test which will confirm your hypothesis if it works, and disconfirm your hypothesis if it fails. So let me ask you a question: Suppose I agreed to perform this “experiment” of “asking God how he created the universe,” on film, and absolutely nothing at all happened. The key question here is, would you admit that this is evidence against God? Would you state publicly that I’ve given you a data point against God existing? Because if you’ll agree to that, then by all means, I will perform this test right away.

The other problem I have here is that the things you say “God” revealed to you, just aren’t all that insightful. I’d seriously expect the all-powerful creator of the universe to be able to give you more insight than you could get from an undergraduate physics freshman who’s spent an hour flipping through a Deepak Chopra book.

Look, I spent a couple of years as a physics student myself before switching majors. “E=mc^2″ is the kind of pop culture equation that everybody is vaguely aware of even when they don’t thoroughly understand it. “Everything is energy” also does not qualify as new, novel, and groundbreaking information. Physics involves a lot more complicated calculations to figure out the mechanisms behind natural events. There are a lot of unsolved scientific questions that God could have helped you with, if he had really been God and not just a voice in your head. Off the top of my head, there’s:

  • String theory: Are there more than four dimensions? Is there a way to measure them?
  • Energy production: As you probably know, fossil fuels are a limited resource, and many scientists have been working for decades on the question of how to get a more durable energy source such as nuclear fusion. Can God suggest a process by which this could be achieved?
  • How about the exact genetic recipe for a cure to a major disease we are dealing with, like cancer or AIDS?

I suspect you’ll give me some sort of platitude about how God doesn’t interfere with free will, or helps those who help themselves. I say this is trying to have your cake and eat it too. Solving a major scientific problem that has stumped the human race, seems like that would be a worthy demonstration of vast amounts of knowledge and power. Uttering platitudes that any college freshman could reach on his own, is not a worthy demonstration. So if “God” is going to the trouble of telling you things in order to convince you that he is real, why doesn’t God tell you something really unique and non-trivial instead?

According to YouTube in “The Atheist Experience #609 with Martin Wagner and Matt Dillahunty posted June 19, 2009” God revealed himself to atheist Richard Dawkins. Matt Dillahunty said it was Dawkins’s experience, not his, so it meant nothing to him. Mr. Glasser, you would probably feel the same way. A person has to experience it himself or herself for it to mean something to him or her. Now, here is something you can do to have that experience. Be sincere and ask god to prove to you that he is real. Make sure you ask “god the designer” as I did. It will take a while to get a response, but God will answer you.I will ask you a big favor: please let me know when you get a response.

I have heard of no such incident in what Dawkins stated that he’d seen God. I am not going to watch the entire episode to make that point — maybe you could provide a direct link to the video and a timestamp so I could assess what Matt actually said. I suspect you misunderstood him. I have heard Matt speculate on what the proper reaction would be IF Dawkins claimed to have seen God, and it’s the same standard I’m applying to your email — that we should remain skeptical of personal anecdotes, and ask for proper support and evidence, no matter who is making the claim.

And I will repeat my offer. I will do your “experiment” of “asking god the designer”, on camera, and accurately show the results… IF AND ONLY IF you will give me a timeframe by which you will accept the experiment as a failure, and publicly admit that it failed. That’s my offer. What do you say?

I do not expect anyone to believe what I say. The main reason for writing the document is to get people to ask god to reveal himself to them as he did to me, and get the proof they need that god is real. God wants to be involved in people’s lives, but he wants people to invite him as I did.

I’m sorry, but I don’t really believe you here. In your first email you addressed me and Matt directly, and your request for me to perform these actions is based on your word that you have had these undocumented, unverifiable experiences. Clearly you DO expect me to believe what you say. Please give me the respect and courtesy of not waffling about your reason for writing.

Your feelings are justifiable and understandable. In a way, I feel that way about the bible mainly because, to me, about 90% is not scientific.

Oh, I’d put it much higher than 90%. The entire Bible is unsupported storytelling, and a lot of the claims are clearly not true based on historical records. The order in which things were “created” is demonstrably wrong; the occurrence of a global flood has no archaeological support whatsoever, and there is no noteworthy record that the entire Jewish population were enslaved in Egypt, or spent 40 years in a desert. To name a few.

For example, Genesis 3:1 says that a serpent talked to Eve. Serpents cannot talk today, and common sense dictates they could not have talked in the beginning. The 10% of the bible that is scientific consists of obscure science. For example, Genesis 1:1 says that god created heaven and earth, but does not explain how. Genesis 2:7 says that god formed man of the dust of the ground; it is true, but the bible does not explain how carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and other atoms in the dust come together and form molecules, cells and organs to make the body. Einstein was right, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

Einstein may have romanticized a general notion of “religion” — a point on which I strongly disagree with him. Even so, Einstein, like many great scientists, did not hold religious views that are close to agreement with yours. Another interesting Einstein quote:

“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.” -Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954

You are correct on all counts. Some really solid demonstration that there is a god is lacking. One way to get a solid demonstration that there is a god is to ask him to prove to you that he is real. Better yet, make it an experiment and invite Matt Dillahunty, Frank Paschal, Shelly Roberts, Steven Elliott, and John Lacoletti to join you and do the same—ask God the designer that if he is real to prove it. Please let me know the results. Note: I would be great if you conduct the experiment and put it on YouTube.

Do you agree to my conditions or not? Let me know. Thanks for writing.

 

Update 8/5/13: Comment #29 is my final email to Samuel.

354 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Martin Wagner

    I just replied to Samuel’s email as follows:

    I just asked “God the Designer” to prove that he is real.

    No answer. Now what?

    Martin

    1. 1.1
      Russell Glasser

      I was gonna get there eventually, I just wanted to drag out a concession preemptively first. ;)

      Of course, the most likely eventual answer is, “Well, maybe He’ll answer you five years from now. Who am I to dictate God’s schedule?”

      1. Steve Walker

        For a supposedly omnipotent being, that would be pretty poor time management. How can I be “I am that I am” if I’m stuck in meetings all week?

      2. Robin Halligan

        Or more likely
        God is answering but your not listening.

        1. Jasper of Maine

          *claps*

          You even got “your” wrong. Nice touch

        2. Jasper of Maine

          “Your wrong! There actually IS a giant pink polka-dotted floating elephant standing next to me… your just refusing to see him!”

          1. mitchmckenzie

            Pretty certain you misconstrued Robins answer as her thought that Martin was just not listening. Instead she, like Russell, was speculating what the Xtian author would likely use as excuse for the failure of god to materialize and prove his existence. But your nit picking her grammar is always a great tactic when we atheists start the superiority thing. Nothing like telling people how stupid they are to get them to debate and try REASON.

          2. spock

            That’s not some casual hallucination; Harvey.

          3. Jasper of Maine

            But your nit picking her grammar is always a great tactic when we atheists start the superiority thing. Nothing like telling people how stupid they are to get them to debate and try REASON.

            Actually, my thought was the person was trolling, hence my “Nice touch” comment.

          4. Charles Coffey

            Jasper, I was going to say that carrying an elephant around is pretty inconvenient. Since I also live in Maine, my little guy looks a lot like a chipmunk with rabies… Oh shit!…

        3. John Kruger

          More likely? That does not seem likely to me at all. One would think that an all powerful creator of the universe would be difficult to ignore once it chose to speak to you, particularly if it was at all invested in being heard.

          If he wants me to think he is real he needs to quit making trees and sunsets in ways that seem totally governed by the uncaring laws of physics and get a cell phone or something instead.

          1. Drew

            I don’t think the intent of Robin was to say that it’s more likely that God had answered them but they had not heard. I feel fairly certain the “more likely” was as in, “a more likely response from the author is ‘God is answering but your not listening.’” than the response from the author that Russel was creating.

            But maybe I’m wrong.

        4. allansavolainen

          Every time you make a your/you’re or then/than mistake, a god dies.

          1. Alicia

            ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      3. Amber Campbell

        Here is another interesting Einstein quote:

        “I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.” –Albert Einstein

      4. Lord Narf

        Of course, the most likely eventual answer is, “Well, maybe He’ll answer you five years from now. Who am I to dictate God’s schedule?”

        I sincerely asked him, repeatedly, about 30 years ago. Nothing yet. How much freaking longer am I supposed to wait?

        1. Sir Real

          That reminds me of a joke about a man who asked God how much a million years is and God answered all but a second. The man then asked how much is a million dollars and God answered all but just a penny. Then the man asked God for a penny and God said “Sure just wait a second.”

          Sorry to tell you Lord Narf, but your in for a much longer wait then that. It looks like the dinosaurs are ahead of all of us and they weren’t even invited to go on board Noah’s Ark. All though it does seem strange how the plants seemed to survive the flood, it’s just that unless my memory is flawed I don’t recall the bible mentioning them going on board Noah’s Ark.

          1. Lord Narf

            That is a bit of a puzzle, yeah. The land-growing plants survived underwater for … how long did the flood last, again?

            I want to say that there was some brief mention of seed storage, somewhere in the ark narrative, but damned if I can remember where.
            After all, Noah wouldn’t have had to put forth that much effort. He just needed one tree seed … that’s one kind. One bush seed … there’s another kind. One flower seed … another kind taken care of. One fern seed … sorry, no, that doesn’t work; ferns reproduce via spores, not seeds. :D

          2. Sir Real

            Something else I would like to mention is what about plants that are indigenous to certain regions of the world like pineapple in the Hawaiian islands? It looks like another piece of that puzzle is missing as well.

          3. Lord Narf

            An even better example is the animals. Those make an even more obvious separation by landmass. Why were the marsupials only on Australia, until we started moving them around in the past couple hundred years? Why were there almost no other mammals on the continent?

        2. Milton Platt

          Enjoyed reading the string of comments, but wanted to point out that Opossums are marsupials and their natural range is North and South America, not Australia.

          1. Lord Narf

            Well yeah, you always get a few species here and there that made a long journey somehow and ended up way the hell away from their nearest relatives, before settling in and adapting to that new environment. I should have perhaps used slightly fuzzier language. Marsupials are mostly in Australia, and there are almost no non-marsupial mammals in Australia.

            Of course all of that was before humans starting screwing around, moving animals thousands of miles and breeding them in small groups, all over the planet. Humans brought a crapload of non-marsupial mammals to that part of the world.

            There are a bunch of other marsupials that also somehow made it to the Americas and mostly live in Central and South America. I can’t remember if they’re from a common species that speciated in the Americas or what.

    2. 1.2
      sigurd jorsalfar

      Did you leave a message on his voice mail or just hang up when he didn’t answer?

      1. Lord Narf

        By the way, do NOT play ding-dong-ditch at the Pearly Gates. Makes Saint Peter grumpy.

        1. Alicia

          Not to mention the angels, who I am sure are plum tuckered out from singing O’ holy hosannah all day and night.

    3. 1.3
      Mike D

      No no no. You have to wait until you are delusional in some manner, and then attribute any digressions from reality to “god”. That’s the complete and utter proof that you’re looking for.

  2. 2
    unfogged

    A lack of knowledge and understanding of spirit energy and mind control has been the cause of problems in the world.

    With that as the starting sentence it was quite apparent that there would be nothing of value in the rest.

    Atheists are forcing people to be scientific, like God,

    Glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read that or it’d be all over the keyboard.

  3. 3
    michaelbuchheim

    So god will only answer if you call him by his full title? Who does he think he is, king of the universe?
    Seriously, saying it out loud just makes it sounds like a World of Darkness line. And frankly I think I rather play Promethean the Created.

    1. 3.1
      Jeremy Jones

      “Lord God the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, heir to the holy rings of Betazed, holder of the sacred chalice of Rixx, watcher of the seals, the flame of Tar Valon, etc., etc.”

      1. Raymond

        had to laugh because I am listening to the WOT audio books as I read that.

    2. 3.2
      Sir Real

      Maybe you just have to have more ignorance, or is it faith. I don’t know, I just get the two of them confused. I’m still trying to move this stupid mountain out of the way so I won’t have to go around it any more.

  4. 4
    extian

    Why is it that apologists never consider that an atheist might be an ex-theist? When i first started doubting my faith, i performed this experiment almost every day. No response. Maybe God will give me an answer in another 10 years, but i suspect i’ve already received one: “Dude, i don’t exist.”

    1. 4.1
      Rick Weber

      I suspect you performed the experiment incorrectly and asked “God” to reveal himself when you should have addressed “God The Designer.” Rookie mistake.

    2. 4.2
      Yellow Thursday

      I did the same thing when I was beginning to doubt my faith. I practically begged God to talk to me, explain why things happened the way they did, or even just give me a sign. I never got an answer.

      But if God knows what’s in our “heart of hearts,” why does it matter how we address him? Or even if it’s out loud or mentally?

      1. Sir Real

        Maybe God is Honey Badger and doesn’t give a F*CK.

    3. 4.3
      changerofbits

      Bible thumper: “Do you walk with God?”
      Redneck atheist: “Ne’er met ‘at summ’itch”

    4. 4.4
      Andrew Ryan

      “Why is it that apologists never consider that an atheist might be an ex-theist?”

      I’m sure callers on the show have told Matt that he never was a proper theist in the first place. It’s inconceivable to them that a genuine theist could ever lose the faith, so they claim that no atheist was ever originally a genuine believer.

      1. Martin Wagner

        Right, they usually fall back on No True Christian in those cases.

        1. Jasper of Maine

          If I have a million dollars, I’d put up a $1,000,000 challenge for 3 or 4 different heads of major denominations to come up with a definition of “True Christian”.

          1. badgersdaughter

            If I had five dollars, I’d send you my copy of “Mere Christianity”. I’m not using it; I’m an atheist.

          2. Jasper of Maine

            I have a copy, but I haven’t read it. So I take it the answer’s in there?

          3. Lord Narf

            An answer, anyway.
            If you’re going to read C.S. Lewis, I recommend The Screwtape Letters. Those are at least somewhat entertaining. C.S. Lewis is a much better writer than most apologists, but I find him to be a very poor apologist. He didn’t really seem to be aware of the existence of skeptics and doesn’t address them in a real way. I don’t doubt his previous atheism, but I doubt his atheism was based upon any rational reasoning.

          4. Jasper of Maine

            I don’t doubt his previous atheism, but I doubt his atheism was based upon any rational reasoning.

            Yep – if you become an atheist for bad reasons, you’re bound to stop being an atheist for bad reasons.

            My mother went through that. As I understand it, when she was a kid, her dog died, and she bought into the fallacious idea that the Problem of Evil means there is no god… then she later realized that was bogus, and became significantly religious… and now I occasionally get the “I used to be an atheist” line.

          5. Lord Narf

            … but not the kind of atheist that I am.

          6. Alicia

            or better yet, millions to prove that someone wasn’t a true theist using their little test … that way they can test their current congregation for would be defectors…lol

        2. Andrew Ryan

          I figure that they take the existence of God as a fact, and this informs their definition of a True Christian is “someone who knows God”. Anyone who is an atheist, by their reasoning, cannot have actually ‘known God’ in the first place. So the reason they’ll see claims of being a ‘Former Christian’ as being different from ‘Former Hindu’ or ‘Former Muslim’ is that they are taking for granted the existence of the Christian God when making these definitions.

  5. 5
    Chris Mailey

    Doesn’t the Bible say not to test the Lord? Mr. Chacon, you are a dirty sinner :p

    1. 5.1
      sigurd jorsalfar

      The Bible would say that, wouldn’t it?

    2. 5.2
      changerofbits

      It’s hard to peg someone’s theology, who, in the same breath, thinks atheists are on the right track for science and thinks the bible is 10% scientific truth. He didn’t say much about sins/redemption, so its entirely possible that he rejects that, but thinks being good in general will align your energy toroid with the creator, or something else equally ridiculous, probably based on some verse in Genesis taken more than a bit out of context.

    3. 5.3
      Sir Real

      Here’s some enlightenment for you Chris Mailey to think about what the bible says in Exodus 22:18 “Thou shall suffer not a witch to live.” , so unless you don’t know of any witches for their sake, your God commands that you kill witches. So the choice is yours, Do you want to obey what God commands you to do, or do you just want to be a hypocrite? One side note I think it says not to tempt the Lord, not test.

  6. 6
    Jasper of Maine

    My question is – let’s say I follow his instructions, and i do think God spoke to me. How can I confirm that it wasn’t just a hallucination/delusion? How would I distinguish the even from a number of other psychological factors?

    1. 6.1
      Lord Narf

      Apparently God will answer in such a way that you’ll know it’s him … just like he did to those other five people, to whom he gave completely contradictory answers.

    2. 6.2
      Raymond

      This is a very valid point. I had an NDE a few years back. I went to a place that seemed like heaven. But I know enough to realize that the lack of oxygen in my brain caused hallucinations. Also, I talk to myself in my head every minute of every day. If god “talked” to me, he would have to do it in some way that would ensure I didn’t mistake it for me just talking to myself. But then again, if I really wanted to communicate with someone, I would be able to find a way to make my point. Why can’t an “all powerful” being do something that all of his imperfect creations can do?

      1. jacobfromlost

        Once when I was a kid, after sitting about 5 hours watching tv, I jumped up and RAN down the hall to turn the heat up…started to see stars and so waited for my vision to clear…and fainted.

        I remember feeling very happy, relaxed, and safe, and there was a football game going on in this place filled with light.

        Then I became aware of the taste of carpeting and realized the football game was on the tv, my glasses had apparently come off, and that happy, relaxed feeling vanished.

        My thoughts went, “Heaven has a football game? This is kinda nice. Wait a minute! Why am I tasting carpeting? Oh, I fainted. Where are my glasses?”

        The human brain is funky, and whenever it isn’t working quite right, you could end up believing anything…unless you are skeptical of everything.

  7. 7
    Houndentenor

    I think the Dawkins comment was a hypothetical. Let’s use a completely different example instead. What if tomorrow one of the megachurch pastors announced he was converting to Islam. Would that make Islam true? Obviously not. So why would someone suddenly believing something mean that they had discovered any truth unless they can demonstrate that truth in a way that is meaningful for someone else?

  8. 8
    CGM3

    Lucifer (Satan or Devil) and his angels are doing more good than religions in that they force people to fight evil spirits on an individual basis. Because of it, people become spiritually stronger. If Lucifer did not exist to make people fight him, people would not learn about life or ask for God’s help.

    You’d think Lucifer/Satan/Devil would realize he’d be more effective by declaring a moratorium on “direct confrontation” so people wouldn’t “learn about life or ask for God’s help”. But then, I guess logic is somehow out of place in this screed…

    1. 8.1
      Lord Narf

      Well, demons totally attacked those guys who were rededicating themselves to the Lord … and they weren’t hallucinating the whole thing at all, while going through the DT’s of alcohol withdrawal.

  9. 9
    grumpyoldfart

    @ Samuel Chacon: If your God existed I’d smack his little bottom for being such a scallywag.

  10. 10
    Casey Danielson

    Thanks Russell for your measured, patient way of addressing Mr. Chacon’s sort of intelligent claims. His points are juuuust persuasive enough that folks unaware of scientific progress might be compelled to believe. But experiencing God yourself? I love Jeff Dee’s bit about this:

    [paraphrasing]

    What were people a thousand years ago relying on for proof of God? Faith and claims of divine revelation.
    Now it’s 2013, and what are people relying on for proof of God? Faith and claims of divine revelation.

    ’nuff said.

    1. 10.1
      John Kruger

      I always thought it was pretty unfair that the ancient people supposedly got to witness miracles to help them believe while I had to take people’s word that such things happened, ever.

      1. ApostateltsopA

        You know there is a passage in one of Plato’s books that is a direct paraphrase of this complaint. I think it is one of the five dialogs when Socrates encounters a priest.

  11. 11
    Casey Danielson

    Also when reading comments like those of Mr. Chacon, I always think of that Bill Hicks line:

    “[Believer:] Dinosaur fossils? God put them here to test our faith.

    [Me:] I think God put you here to test MY faith, dude.”

  12. 12
    jacobfromlost

    Am I the only one who thinks this particular letter screams TROLL! ?

    1. 12.1
      Lord Narf

      It really doesn’t feel like one, man.

      1. jacobfromlost

        Really?

        * He starts off by invoking “spirit energy” and “mind control”, says that atheists are forcing people to be “scientific like god”, and then says, “History tells us that more people have died because of what the Bible says than for any other reason.” Do you REALLY think that sentence was ACCIDENTAL irony?

        * “Atheists and bad angels are forcing the world to unite scientifically.” Really? REALLY?

        * He begins a sentence with, “According to YouTube”. lol (Come on.)

        * He says, “Your feelings are justifiable and understandable. In a way, I feel that way about the bible mainly because, to me, about 90% is not scientific.” (Come on! lol)

        * Then he says talking snakes are ridiculous.

        * And ends by saying, “You are correct on all counts. Some really solid demonstration that there is a god is lacking,” and suggesting several atheists do an experiment to ask god for evidence and post it on youtube.

        Really? REALLY? It can’t feel any LESS genuine to me. (I can hear the atheist troll giggling uncontrollably after each one of these.)

        And it is also largely spelled correctly, with correct grammar and coherent language.

        1. Lord Narf

          Sounds like one of the new-agey, transcendental meditation nuts, only with a focus on Christianity instead of yogic Onanism.

          It feels a little too consistent to me. The YouTube comment that you pulled out is specifically the sort of thing that makes me think this guy is for real. It indicates an intense gullibility and an inability to source information, like a theist who thinks he’s being scientific would manifest. It doesn’t feel like what an atheist troll would throw together. I think we would get more stereotypical creationist jargon out of one of those guys.

          1. jacobfromlost

            “It feels a little too consistent to me.”

            The pattern in the tone and the language play up common atheist frustrations in ways that are WAY too convenient all the way through.

            This reminds me of what “Mark” used to do. It wasn’t that any single response he gave indicated he was a troll, but the pattern of responses that clearly set up a pattern of rebuttals that a true believer wouldn’t even be aware of.

            One obvious one was when Mark suggested to Tracie that maybe we should have a “new new testament” without all the supernatural stuff–a clear set up for the Jefferson Bible rebuttal. Tracie missed that one and went on to something else, but Mark did that all the time. He was like the “straight guy” in a comedy routine, setting up the jokes and letting the other guy pull the trigger. When you are in the heat of the moment of arguing, it isn’t as noticeable since your mind is occupied with the responses and not the pattern of responses that has been set up.

            Maybe this dude is real, but if my life depended on it, I would vote “not real”.

          2. Lord Narf

            I dunno, man. He sounds a lot like some of my previous coworkers, like the guy who introduced me to godandscience.org. Anyway, it doesn’t scream troll.

          3. jacobfromlost

            I agree that the CONTENT sounds the same. The red flags I’m seeing are in tone, language, and organization.

            I would contrast someone like Samuel or Mark with someone like Jonathan from Arlington (who called in to say he believed in an unfalsifiable god that makes him happy).

            There was NO pattern in Jonathan’s responses that suggested he understood the skeptic/atheist stance, and his confusion about what “unfalsifiable” means kept making him spin in one tight, tiny, mostly uninteresting circle. (watch?v=TfeSt-aTC7U , watch?v=AKtOj8Tup20 )

            The atheist troll wants to make the conversation as interesting as possible to himself…who happens to be an atheist. So unless he’s a complete moron like Matt from Oslo, they know the kind of answers they want the OTHER (atheist) person to give, the kind of emotional responses they want the OTHER (atheist) person to give…and when they make statements or ask questions that set up an obvious line and variety of rebuttals in one straight line (that consistently wink at us in tone), I’m skeptical of the sincerity of the “believer”.

            (And when the believer flatly gives in and says that talking snakes are ridiculous, the bible is 90% unscientific, and there is no evidence of a god, the red flags are hitting me over the head and drawing blood. Remember when Mark finally gave in and said we should “throw out” the bible, lol? It’s just too convenient for me to believe as I’ve never seen an example of a believer who believed because the bible was mostly not true, ridiculous, and/or unscientific.)

            But as always, I could be wrong.

          4. Lord Narf

            Also possible. This guy just sounds a lot like the Catholics I grew up with (and the guy from work that I mentioned, who is also a “Catholic”), who were borderline deists and just clung to the Catholic label, because Catholic mass doesn’t make them think much, leaving them free to form their worldview and politics on their own, away from the church.

            So, mark this guy off as a true example of Poe’s Law?

          5. jacobfromlost

            “who were borderline deists and just clung to the Catholic label, because Catholic mass doesn’t make them think much, leaving them free to form their worldview and politics on their own, away from the church.”

            But would a “borderline” person start arguing with semi-celebrity atheists in ostensible hopes of convincing them that a god is real? The “borderline” people don’t end up in arguments like this (and they certainly don’t seek them out).

            It doesn’t make sense to me. And as Judge Judy taught me, if it doesn’t make sense, it’s not true. lol

          6. Lord Narf

            The guy in my last office sought out the argument with me, yes.

          7. jacobfromlost

            The guy in your last office sought you out to convert you to borderline deist Catholicism? lol How does that conversation go? “I’m a Catholic who doesn’t really believe in the Pope, Transubstantiation, the resurrection, or 99% of the bible, but I really think there might be a hands-off creator god, AND SO SHOULD YOU!”

            I’m not doubting you. People have made more ridiculous arguments, but I’m not getting that vibe from this letter.

          8. Lord Narf

            No, he was trying to convert me to Christianity. It seemed to be the sort situation in which he had a dubious, half-assed concept of Christianity, and my open mockery of all things supernatural cast his weak beliefs into doubt and made him uncomfortable. I think he might have been coming almost from the perspective that “someone who doesn’t believe in anything” made him very uncomfortable, since he rejected so much of Christian doctrine. My step beyond his position threatened his vague, fuzzy god-concept.

            Strangely, some of his arguments involved the transubstantiation miracle and the miracle at Fatima.

            Yet, he doesn’t believe that God does any miracles nowadays … now that we have the ability to scientifically study that sort of thing and record it. He has a mixed-up grab-bag of conflicting positions on what God does and does not do. Apparently Jesus was real, and all of the miracles in the Bible actually happened, but God doesn’t interfere with people’s lives and perform miracles.

            He’s the sort who proclaims, loudly, how much he loves science, then demonstrates a complete incomprehension of the scientific method and a profound gullibility.

    2. 12.2
      Russell Glasser

      Jacob, this guy has written and published a book that is being sold on Amazon.
      http://www.amazon.com/How-Deal-With-Life-Simplified/dp/146916583X

      The book is 100 pages, which doesn’t exactly make “War And Peace” but it is still a hell of a lot more effort, commitment and expense than any troll I’ve ever met would be willing to put in. A cursory read through the pages says to me that the book is similar in content and tone to the email author, so he’s not likely to be one guy masquerading as another.

      I understand skepticism, but believing that this guy is an atheist would be wandering way off in the direction of “vast conspiracy theory” territory. Sometimes dumb Christian apologetic arguments are voiced by actual Christians. Occasionally. You know?

      1. jacobfromlost

        “commitment and expense than any troll I’ve ever met would be willing to put in.”

        I know of several off the top of my head that have put in more effort.

        “Sometimes dumb Christian apologetic arguments are voiced by actual Christians. Occasionally. You know?”

        Yeah, sometimes. But I remember being kicked out of the chatroom when I pointed out Mark was Mark, lol. (I never did get an apology for that–the only time I was ever kicked anywhere for anything.)

        Samuel may be genuine, but if so, it’s a flavor of delusion that I’m just not that interested in engaging, and I can’t fathom WHY Samuel is interested in arguing with atheists if he believes any of what is in his current letter. Perhaps he is just saying talking snakes are ridiculous, the bible is 90% unscientific, and there is no evidence of a god to soften us up for discussion?

        Whatever it is, I don’t get it, and the evidence is such that I can’t conclude he is genuine. That’s all.

        1. Lord Narf

          I know of several off the top of my head that have put in more effort.

          People like Edward Current don’t count, man. :P

          Perhaps he is just saying talking snakes are ridiculous, the bible is 90% unscientific, and there is no evidence of a god to soften us up for discussion?

          There could be other explanations for the 90% comment. I’ve heard Christians who say nearly the same thing, to mean that science is unreliable, because 90% of the Bible doesn’t conform to it. I dunno.

          As for the talking snake bit … well, most Catholics and other liberal Christians blow the metaphor and parable smoke screen all over Old Testament, prior to Abraham and Isaac. Creation, the Tower of Babel, the flood … all stories told for a moral purpose. That doesn’t necessarily stop them from being evangelistic about the message of that made up crap.

          And actually, I took the admission of there being no evidence as a refreshing change from the usual. I think he means it as some sort of statement about how blind faith in his Truth is that much more powerful and important, because there’s no evidence.

      2. jacobfromlost

        I looked at the original letter, which I hadn’t really read before, and it is strange that he recounts passages in the book by replacing “I” with “he”. The style and tone are similar, sure, but that may be because the stories are virtually copied from the book (save for changing “I” to “he” for some reason; was he not writing to you AS the author of that book?).

        I also find it bizarre that he starts with “Messrs.”, and then says he watches you on youtube and loves your thinking about the bible (???).

        Reminds me a little of George who called in and called Don and Matt “Donald and Matthew”. (George also called in as “Miles” and changed his voice…or tried to.)

        1. Lord Narf

          I agree that his style of writing about what “the writer” thinks and does, in the third person, is pretty distracting and unsettling. Perhaps he thinks that gives his writing an air of authority, somehow. It’s not as annoying as people who write fiction in the second person (aside from Choose-your-own-Adventure books), but it’s pretty bad.

          1. jacobfromlost

            Whatever he is, the guy is an odd duck.

            http://howtodealwithlife.net/book.htm

            I scoured the net for any information on him or his book. I just found that the book was available in about 10 different places, and no one has reviewed it, liked it on Facebook, “followed” it, or commented on it. (I did see one comment that was from Chacon himself. He gave himself 5 stars and a single recommending sentence I can’t remember.) Amazon didn’t have any ranking on it at all (I’m assuming that’s bad), and his bio on Amazon was exactly the same as his bio on his book’s website.

            I found his blog spot also. No entries. Mostly blank.

            And if page 34 is so important, why isn’t it on page 1? (Why do I suspect it says, “Ask god to reveal himself and he will”, or something as mundane?)

            Sadly, I looked up “Samuel M. Chacon”, and on the second page of results got the AE blog, lol.

            The link above does read like both letters and what I read of the book. *shrugs* Maybe he is a real odd duck.

          2. Lord Narf

            Yeah, no shortage of those, around and about.

  13. 13
    Joel Shircliff

    “Better yet, make it an experiment and invite Matt Dillahunty”

    Does he not know Matt is an ex Christian and probably conducted this “experiment” many times?

  14. 14
    Max Entropy

    In semi-related news featuring faulty logic, Kirk Cameron has made a new “documentary” about the “problem of evil” and the trailer looks like a confusing music video. First, there is a funeral. Then, Kirk travels around for a bit. Then another funeral. More traveling. Is Kirk pursuing a serial killer? Is Kirk the serial killer? Who is the “mud man”? What does the lens flare symbolize?

    1. 14.1
      jacobfromlost

      Where is Chris Pine, Denzel Washington, and that train with no breaks?

      This trailer is very misleading.

    2. 14.2
      Lord Narf

      A lens flare generally symbolizes a computer-generated special-effect that they couldn’t pull off within the allotted time-frame/budget.

    3. 14.3
      jacobfromlost

      If anyone cares, there is a fairly active debate between atheists and theists on this version of the “Unstoppable” trailer:

      watch?v=nzKijw7v6AM

      (This is a different link than the one above.)

  15. 15
    Gregory in Seattle

    I really wish someone would ask him, on the record and preferably on camera, “Which god, out of the dozens in current use, and why that one and not one of the others?”

    “I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Stephen F. Roberts

  16. 16
    sigurd jorsalfar

    To me the phrase “God helps those who help themselves” has always meant “God doesn’t exist, so you better help yourself”. I really don’t see how believers think it endorses their God.

  17. 17
    chris lowe

    3 laws of activity to control energy? Seriously dude, you had an opportunity with God on the line to once and for all explain everything, and that is all either of you could come up with? Seems to me you not only waste your readers’ time but EVERYBODY’S time.

  18. 18
    Matt Gerrans

    If God’s not going to help us generate power from nothing, we’ll have to find out what high mountain valley John Galt is hiding in!

  19. 19
    Matt Gerrans

    I had this kind of duel with a Christian before and “sincerely asked God (the Christian one of course) to reveal Himself to me,” as the Christian asked. When I reported the null results back, I was told it was because I did it “cynically” and “not with an open heart” etc. There is no winning this kind of argument, because it just comes down to the “you aren’t TRULY open to God” which is essentially “you are not trying to believe hard enough.”

    I think Richard Carrier covers this general topic pretty nicely in his book: Why I Am Not a Christian: Four Conclusive Reasons to Reject the Faith

    Maybe you can ask Mr. Chacon to read this book (we’ll all pitch in to buy it for him!). If he reads it with an open mind, maybe it’ll help him understand a little better. Maybe.

    PS: It is really hard to get the formatting to work nicely here on FTB! I think they need to add some paragraph and/or line break tags (and fix up handling of others, like the anchor, which seems to whack out).

    1. 19.1
      Raymond

      No need to buy it. He can have my copy.

    2. 19.2
      badgersdaughter

      The last time someone challenged me to pray with an open heart, it was a well-meaning co-worker. I told him that I could do it, even would do it, in fact had done it when I was a Christian, but that I knew from other discussions that if I got no result he would inevitably tell me I did it improperly. I suggested that he, as the Christian with the existing connection to God, model the appropriate mindset and behavior by praying that prayer on my behalf and even in my presence so he could see that I was a serious participant. He was going to do it on the spot, but I said no, it was a serious enough issue that he should take all reasonable time to prepare himself and make certain that no hesitation or error on his part could cause the experiment to fail. Then he should call me and let me know when he was ready to proceed.

      It’s been about ten months now and he hasn’t set up the time for us to meet. He’s actually been avoiding me, which in a corporation our size isn’t a hardship, to be honest. Another co-worker, a closet atheist to everyone at work but me, told me that our colleague was tying himself up in knots trying to figure out how to avoid “thought sins” of doubt and “judging” during the prayer, and essentially trying to decide whether he could make himself “pure” enough to intercede for me with God. I fully expect the poor man to give up and just claim that the Devil tricked him or something.

  20. 20
    jaytheostrich

    In case anyone is wondering, here’s the cut-down YouTube part of that talk about Dawkins and a revelation (which hasn’t happened by the way): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDFBAxP9S5Q
    “When God Reveals Himself To Richard Dawkins (Xian Caller, Part 2).

    1. 20.1
      Lord Narf

      Yeah, that’s about what I figured … all hypotheticals.

  21. 21
    L.Long

    Many know that there is no heaven, only hell. And when you die gawd examines your academic record to see how brilliant you are. And if you are smart enough, you are let into hell. If you are a slow simpleton, you no longer exist in any form, you failed. Once in hell gawd requires only one thing, try to find a way to end gawd, ‘I phucking Bored, get me out of my misery!!!!’ (Asimov)

    I know this is true because I have faith, and I read it in a book.

  22. 22
    markr1957

    One of the obvious problems with trying to credit YHWH with the reality we measure and confirm using scientific methods is that it quickly becomes obvious that YHWH’s grasp of scientific reality is sorely lacking and often flat wrong. If I had spent all last week creating a universe you’d better believe I would remember how it did it.

  23. 23
    Anders

    When I pray, I generally pray to my cat. The response rate is about the same, but at least I know he exists. Also, he is orange and fluffy.

  24. 24
    connect2reality

    The response I hate the most is “you didn’t ask him genuinely enough.”
    So until you agree with what they say, they’ll just dismiss what they said.

    1. 24.1
      connect2reality

      they’ll just dismiss what you’ve* said.

    2. 24.2
      Grainger

      I concur. It defeats the point of the exercise. They’re supposed to be providing evidence as why you should believe, but they’re starting the exercise by asking you to believe.

  25. 25
    pianoman, Heathen & Torontophile

    I asked god just the other day to give me a sign of his existence, in the form of every media outlet crashing as they were about to report on Kate crapping out her child in the UK.

    Instead, I have little idea of what ELSE is going on in the world because this kid is all the media are incessantly talking about.

    now what?

    1. 25.1
      Lord Narf

      now what?

      Get rid of your television service? I haven’t had cable or satellite for at least 5 or 6 years, now. I don’t miss it. I can get all of the information online, and if I want to watch a TV show (which I almost never do), I can get that online, too.

      1. Lord Narf

        I have a 56″ LED screen, but it has video game systems and a computer hooked up to it. We haven’t even bothered to get a broadcast tuner for the thing.

  26. 26
    No One

    My question is this, how do we know that god isn’t really satan lying his ass off?

    1. 26.1
      Lord Narf

      There were some early church fathers who had views similar to that, in many ways. Marcion of Sinope had a lot of teachings that made a lot more sense than the current Christian view. Plus, his theology does a rather good job of demonizing the Jews even further … which you’d think would have endeared him to the early church mission, which involved a great deal of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism goes into a bit more detail.

      1. No One

        The entire bible, new and old testaments could be written by stan himself in order to fuck humanity over. How would we know?

        1. Lord Narf

          More likely Cartman.

          1. No One

            Never followed SP that close, was Kenny ever crucified?

          2. Lord Narf

            He got impaled on a flagpole, once. I think that’s the closest they ever got to a crucifixion. They stopped killing him after 5 or 6 seasons.

  27. 27
    samuelclemens

    Has this fellow considered the effects of brain chemistry on experience? I think those of us who have experimented with drugs have a healthy respect for personal experience changing as a result of chemical changes.

  28. 28
    Sam Chacon

    Mr. Steve Walker:
    The phrase, “I am that I am” requires a comma after the word “that”. It should be “I am that, I am”. If you say “I am that” when you see anything it means that you are that (whatever it is), then when you say “I am” you are putting yourself in “that” (whatever it is).
    To put it another way, God is energy; everything is energy, so God is everything. If one says “I am that, I am.” one is being like God.

    1. 28.1
      Lord Narf

      If one says “I am that, I am.” one is being like God.

      So, that’s the favorite phrase of those who commit mass genocide, everywhere?

      1. Steve Walker

        At this point I’m assuming the dude’s either trolling or just ignorant of the way the phrase is used:

        I Am that I Am – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        1. Lord Narf

          Yeah, I’ve read that passage in multiple translations. Never have I seen a comma as he proposes.

        2. unfogged

          Actually, it isn’t a comma that is missing, it is a full stop. It belongs after the first “am”. The problem is that god misheard Moses asking “what’s your name?” and thought he asked “are you insane?”. “I am. That I am.”

  29. 29
    Russell Glasser

    I’m just going to tack on a brief response I sent to a long email by Sam, because I don’t think it’s worth starting a new post.

    Sam,

    > Therefore, if you say there is no god then to you there is no god. If I say there is a god, then to me there is a god.

    Reality does not work like that. I’m sorry, but I am rapidly losing interest in this conversation. You might just as well say that if YOU believe that Harry Potter exists, then Harry Potter exists for you. That’s fine for people who want to retreat into a mentally constructed private fantasy world. Those of us who care about understanding the real world as it actually is, have higher standards.

    > Your key question is, “would you admit that this is evidence against God? Would you state publicly that I’ve given you a data point against God’s existing?”
    >I will not publicly state that you have given me a data point against God’s existence. If nothing positive happens to prove that god is real within 40 days, I will ask why he revealed himself to me and will not reveal himself to you.

    Of course you won’t, because what you are proposing is not an experiment. An experiment has clearly defined outcomes, and your understanding of reality should change based on those outcomes. Experiments should allow for the possibility that you could be wrong, and a re-evaluation of your own beliefs if you are. But you aren’t interested in that, because you only want to do things that will pander to your assumptions. What you are seeking is a “heads I win, tails you lose” scenario: If I imagine I hear the voice of God talking to me, then you will claim that as a win for God; and if I don’t hear such a voice, you will continue to claim that you’re right indefinitely regardless of the facts.

    I’m sorry, but I have no interest whatsoever in playing this game with you.

    > When I asked god how he designed the universe his response came in a dream. Because I did not understand what he said, I asked him to tell me in black and white, and then he started guiding me to science books. It took me twenty years to understand what he said. You spent a couple of years as a physics student. I spent one semester. Therefore, if God was to tell you, also via a dream, how he designed the universe, maybe you will understand what he says.

    Then, pardon me for saying so, but your interaction with God has been useless. It didn’t tell you anything that you couldn’t have made up on your own. That is why I am sticking with the most sensible conclusion, which is that that you did make it up on your own. If you had some evidence to the contrary then I was willing to listen to it, but your “proof” is not distinguishable from fantasy.

    > Question: Was my last response [on the blog] acceptable?

    No. I hate to be this blunt, Sam, but while these kinds of responses obviously sound really deep and profound to you yourself, they sound to other people like uninspired wordplay.

    I think we’re done.

    1. 29.1
      Lord Narf

      *groan*

      Ugh, so painful … yet so amusing, deep in my cold, dark, little heart. Thanks for sharing with us, man. You should do more of these e-mail posts, although I admit I’m just saying that in pursuit of my own twisted pleasure.

      1. Alicia

        Yes, the emails are very enlightening and help us understand just what we are battling here…

    2. 29.2
      jacobfromlost

      “I’m just going to tack on a brief response I sent to a long email by Sam, because I don’t think it’s worth starting a new post.”

      Why does this make me bust out laughing? Uncontrollably.

      1. Lord Narf

        Yeah, I think Russel realized, a while back, that we weren’t going to get anything else useful out of Sam … or even all that entertaining, really. I’ve come to that conclusion, since then, myself.

  30. 30
    Sam Chacon

    jacobfromlost July 25, 2013 at 6:28 pm:
    In page 34 of the book, I explain the formula on the cover of the book. It has nothing to do with asking god to reveal himself. I explain Einstein’s formulas for special theory of relativity. According to formulas proposed by Einstein, at the speed of light mass and the light become infinite, but length disappear. If mass has length, height, and depth, how could length disappear if mass and time increase to infinity? Einstein does not explain how, but I do. The book is about explaining things scientists have discovered but do not explain them so they make sense to everyone. Just thought I would say something about it.

    1. 30.1
      Lord Narf

      We also have new-agers explaining all sorts of implications of quantum mechanics. They’re completely full of shit.

      Which level of degree do you have in physics? Which specific field? What do the other physicists who have expertise on this subject think about your additions to Einstein’s work? What additional insight have you provided into the concepts, and what kind of applications and benefits have you developed from your research?

  31. 31
    Sam Chacon

    (6.2, July 24, 2013 at 4:55pm) Raymond, you are a brilliant thinker not only because you understand how the brain functions to produce hallucinations but in knowing how to ask questions. Your question is, “Why can’t an “all powerful” being do something that all of his imperfect creations can do?”
    What an “all powerful” being can do that all of his “imperfect creations” can do is think. However, what anyone thinks depends on the level of knowledge possessed. If you had the same level of knowledge that the “all powerful being” has, you could also create the world and man. Our level of knowledge increases as we learn about life as I explain in my book chapter 2, Blueprint of life. As our level of knowledge increases we will be able to do what the “all powerful being” can do, which would include creating miracles, also explained in my book chapter 8, Miracles.
    Thanks for your question.

  32. 32
    Sam Chacon

    (July 24, 2013 at 3:15 pm) Lord Narf, your statement is, “Apparently God will answer in such a way that you’ll know it’s him … just like he did to those other five people, to whom he gave completely contradictory answers.”
    You have introduced an interesting side of God. First let me explain that God is like a baseball. We can only see one half at a time. One half of God is metaphysical, and the other half is physical; that physical part is called “nature”; that is the only side we may see with the eyes. We use the mind mike a mirror, to see the metaphysical side. In nature there are many laws of creation; one of them is the law of references. It applies to all situations. The answers God gave to those other five people were very likely contradictory because of reference points or points of view. I should like to know what the question was and what the contradictory answers were.
    The law of references is one of the three laws of activity I explain in my book, chapter 2, Blueprint of life. I also explain metaphysics in chapter 3.

    1. 32.1
      Lord Narf

      And at what point do you actually provide evidence for any of what you’re saying, rather than making up deep-sounding platitudes that are actually meaningless?

      God tells one person that gay people should be put to death or at least locked up in prison until they stop being gay. God tells another person that gay people are just fine, because that’s the way they were made.

      Is that what you call different perspectives of God, viewed from different reference points? I call that a bunch of people either making stuff up or talking to the other piece of the dissociative disorder that they’ve got going on in their brain.

  33. 33
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf (August 6, 2013 at 5:11 pm) about, “We also have new-agers explaining all sorts of implications of quantum mechanics. They’re completely full of shit.”
    To say that you must be a physicist!
    Physicist do a lot of guessing and use statistics and the laws of probability to imply that their ideas are true. Scientists, like Peter Higgs, have been looking for a particle that would produce the effect of mass. In E=mc2, Einstein tells us that mass multiplied by the speed of light squared will produce kinetic energy (work), but he does not explain how nature creates mass. Several scientists have been looking for the particle. One scientist got impatient and asked, “What is this god damn particle we are looking for?” Another scientist said, “That is not nice talk. Why don’t we just say we are looking for God’s particle? That is what we are looking for.” This God particle is named “Higgs boson” in honor of Peter Higgs. A boson is one of many subatomic particles named after S. N. Bose. It could be said that physicists are full of BS if they are looking for something that does not exist; however, scientists have used statistics to claim they have found the God particle. Now we will wait to see what they will do with it. Will they be able to produce another world or only sh..?
    In reference to your questions, “Which level of degree do you have in physics? Which specific field? What do the other physicists who have expertise on this subject think about your additions to Einstein’s work? What additional insight have you provided into the concepts, and what kind of applications and benefits have you developed from your research?”
    About physics: I do not have any level of degree in physics. I have an AA Degree and accreditation in California as a Quality Engineer, which qualified me to teach Quality Control courses at Los Angeles Pierce Community College, where I taught QC for about five years. As a quality engineer, I analyze what cosmologists or other scientists have written. I study science books written by at least three scientists on a specific event, such as the Big Bang. Joseph Silk says there was one. Eric J. Lerner says it never happened. Philip M. Dauber and Richard A. Miller say there were three. (For details, please read my book chapter 5). To me they are playing guessing games; you would say they are full of …..
    About, “What do the other physicists who have expertise on this subject think about your additions to Einstein’s work?”
    I tried to get at least one physicist to listen to my theories, but because I do not have a degree in physicist and he was too busy teaching he would not spend any time listening to what I had to say. When Robert O. Becker discovered that the body is an electrical system he reported his finding to other scientists. They ostracized him for reporting something different. If that is what prominent scientists do to other scientists, what could I expect? Becker wrote The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life. Since then, scientists have discovered ways to design electronic instruments to measure body functions, such as the heart.
    About “What additional insight have you provided into the concepts, and what kind of applications and benefits have you developed from your research?”
    One insight is comparing Einstein’s special theory of relativity to what I call the law of references. They both work the same way; however, the special theory of relativity is about mass and motion whereas the law of reference is about everything in life.
    In mass and motion, according to Einstein, when a man is on earth he will age in the normal manner. However, if a man were to travel at close to the speed of light he would age slower. Why? It is because what affects man is relative to how he moves or does and how fast, such as work and travel.
    About the reference point in life: Next time you are talking to another person, and there seems to be a disagreement, stop and ask “what are you referring to” or “what are you talking about.” One of the benefits of my research is teaching people how to zero in on reference points to prevent arguments or settle disagreements; the reference points to be cognizant of are: why, which, where, when, who, and how.
    The reference point is one of three laws of activity: the law of unity; law of opposites, and law of references, which I explain in chapter 2 of my book.

    1. 33.1
      Russell Glasser

      Sam, kindly quit plugging your book. We are all aware that you have written one by now, but we are not here to aid your marketing efforts. Don’t make me ban you.

      Also, as you’ve made it quite clear that you have no advanced formal training in physics, I’m calling complete bullshit on your statement “To say that you must be a physicist!” Physicists are far more on Lord Narf’s side here than they are on yours.

    2. 33.2
      Lord Narf

      Sam, you’re grotesquely ignorant about the basics of science. Scientists create mathematical models to try to explain how reality works, and then as you said yourself, they go out and try to find the particles and gather evidence to support the hypothetical models that they construct. They are not making things up, as you mean it.

      I’m not a physicist, myself, no. I work with computers. I have a few Masters-degree physicists in my sceptic group and one Ph.D. I bow to their expert opinion, in the field, which is that pretty much anyone who invokes quantum mechanics outside of a raw-science context is completely full of shit. It’s amazing what some people will try to justify with a global incantation of quantum mechanics.

      I seriously doubt that anyone here is going to buy your book. I sure as hell wouldn’t spend money on it, myself. If you loaned me a free copy, I might read it until the bullshit got too thick, which I’m guessing would be maybe a chapter or two, tops, based upon what you’ve said here.

  34. 34
    Sam Chacon

    To Gregory in Seattle/Stephen F. Roberts (July 24th, 2013 at 2:08 pm)
    You say: I really wish someone would ask him, on the record and preferably on camera, “Which god, out of the dozens in current use, and why that one and not one of the others?”
    About why God the designer; here is my story: I worked at Norton Air Force Base, San Bernardino, California as an electronics technician. I was testing and calibrating a microwave receiver/transmitter. It checked fine; however, after about 15 minute from the time I turned it on, the microwave oscillator became intermittent, and after about 30 minutes it stopped operating. A theoretical analysis indicated no normal causes that would result in that kind problem. When something like that happens, the first thing to do is check the circuits for a proper ground. I did that, and all the circuits were properly grounded. Because of the time difference between failures I figured it had to do with temperature, somehow. I asked my supervisor for help. He said he could not help and to go to the engineering support group. They were there to assist us. I explained the problem to one of the electronics engineers and asked if he could help. He checked the instrument for about 15 minutes and gave up. He said, sorry I can’t help you. I figured that if anyone could help me it would be the engineer who designed the instrument.
    I called the manufacturer and asked to speak to the engineer who designed that particular instrument. After I had explained the problem, he said he had an idea what it might be, but because of his position he could not visit me. He said he would send one of his best technicians to see me. When the technician arrived he checked the instrument the same way I did. He said it had to be in the oscillator housing, and he began to take it apart piece by piece. When he opened the cover, he saw metal filings between some components. He started to clean the housing. The manufacturer did not do a very good job cleaning all the components. He noticed that several pieces of metal filing were close to some circuits. He concluded that as the temperature of the instrument increased the pieces of filing would expand and create a short between the oscillator circuit and ground. That would cause the instrument to fail. He was correct. The instrument did not stop operating after warming up.
    That night I was thinking. God is like the design engineer who designs things, and Jesus is like a technician who goes out to help people.
    So to me, “God the designer” is the one.
    (Mr. Glasser, is this is okay?)

    1. 34.1
      Lord Narf

      You know, without using the reply link, we don’t have any idea what you’re responding to. I have no context for this random comment, so it’s meaningless to me. So, you think Jesus is the technician and God is the designer. Why should we care about a silly metaphor? It doesn’t go any distance towards demonstrating or providing evidence for your god-concept.

      I could only find one other instance of “2:08 pm” on this page, with a CTRL-F. If you were trying to respond to comment 15 in some way, you missed by a lot. How does anything that you said address anything from Gregory in Seattle‘s comment? I can only assume that you were somehow responding to Stephen’s comment, despite giving the timestamp for Gregory’s comment.

  35. 35
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf (August 7th, 2013 at 12:30 pm), about “God tells one person that gay people should be put to death or at least locked up in prison until they stop being gay. God tells another person that gay people are just fine, because that’s the way they were made. Is that what you call different perspectives of God, viewed from different reference points?”
    I should like to know the source and detail circumstances of those statements. So I will guess the reference point for “should be put to death or at least locked up in prison.” It could be that some men are have a problem with women and are embarrassed, or they do something wrong and they try to hide it by pretending to be gay. The reference point for “gay people are just fine because that’s the way they were made” could be that they were born that way. A spirit and soul are assigned to a body between the time of conception and birth. In the spirit world, those who are assigned to select a spirit for a human will sometimes make a mistake and assign a female spirit to a male body or a male spirit to a female body. That is what makes guys and lesbians.
    You also ask, “At what point do you actually provide evidence for any of what you’re saying, rather than making up deep-sounding platitudes that are actually meaningless?”
    We are dealing with metaphysical energy, not physical energy. If you expect physical evidence, there will be none. Every response is based on an analysis of what I received through meditation and from books that somehow come to me, books that support what I received through meditation.
    If I were to provide the name of a person, who has died, went to the spirit world and saw Jesus, and told a live person about it, would you believe it?

    1. 35.1
      Lord Narf

      So, what you’re saying is that you’re completely full of crap and have no physical evidence. If it isn’t objective, physical evidence that can be demonstrated to other people, then it isn’t evidence. That’s definitional.

      Gay men are trying to hide embarrassment over women by pretending to be gay? Seriously?

      Your last question isn’t even clear. So, what you want to do is give me the name of someone who has died, who you will claim has seen Jesus, and I’m supposed to accept that at face value? You’re going to do something that can’t be corroborated in the real world, except that “This person is dead?” How is that evidence of anything?

  36. 36
    Sam Chacon

    To chris lowe (July 24th, 2013 at 2:54 pm):
    You say, “3 laws of activity to control energy? Seriously dude, you had an opportunity with God on the line to once and for all explain everything, and that is all either of you could come up with? Seems to me you not only waste your readers’ time but EVERYBODY’S time.”
    The word “energy” says it all. In science, energy means work, it is a force, and it exists in different forms. The three laws of activity control energy; that is, they control everything. But, let me start from before the beginning of creation.
    All cosmologists say that nothing existed before the big bang. They do not accept the fact someone has to think about making a product first. The universe is a product. To make it, required a plan, and some thinking entity had to think and make plans. Logical thinking dictates that a plan was prepared before creation; the plan included laws to control energy, i.e. to control everything. The law of opposites requires opposites in all units of activity; for energy, as a unit of activity, the opposites are static and potential energy, and for the universe, as a unit of activity, the opposites are physical energy and metaphysical energy. Static energy is, for example, water in a river. It also has potential energy. That means that water has the potential to do something. When water begins to move to do something, static energy converts into kinetic energy. Here is the secret: motion converts potential energy to kinetic. This is what Einstein discovered, and he formulated the action as E=mc2. Einstein knew that everything was energy because it cannot be created or destroyed. He also knew that nothing can happen without motion; energy is work, and work cannot happen if a worker does not move. The formula is used to calculate how much work is done if a worker moves something, a certain distance, in a specific amount of time.
    The water in a river is static and has the potential to do work. When a dam is built, and water runs over it, the water converts its potential energy into kinetic energy.
    In the beginning, someone had to do some kind of work to create the universe. The work that had to be done was to move the energy in space; space and energy always existed. To move energy in space required a force—that force was thought energy; that is metaphysical energy. There are people, like Uri Geller, who have the correct level of knowledge to use thought energy. The thought to start creation was, “Let there be light.” That phrase is in the bible in the wrong place. Genesis 1:1 should say, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth when he said let there be light.” What happened after that is a long story, so I will stop here.
    Chris, if you want me to continue let me know. I will also explain how to use mind energy to make life more pleasurable.

  37. 37
    Sam Chacon

    To Stephen F. Roberts (July 24th, 2013 at 2:08 pm)
    You say: I really wish someone would ask him, on the record and preferably on camera, “Which god, out of the dozens in current use, and why that one and not one of the others?” I already explained about “God the designer” on August 9, 2013
    I received a message at 4:00 a.m. today about designers in the spirit world. The microwave receiver/transmitter I mentioned in my last post was designed by an electronics engineer. I repaired and calibrated a variety of instruments, such as oscillators, microwave and audio generators, power supplies, oscilloscopes, micrometers, and other types. Each instrument was manufactured by a different company which had its own design engineers. They start by preparing design drawings (a plan). Technicians make the first product, called first article. If the first article passes inspections and tests, more like items are produced.
    Matthew 6:10 says, “Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.” That means that, in heaven, the same thing happens. There are different kinds of design engineers and there is testing before proceeding. According to Genesis 1:4, after god said, “Let there be light.”, God saw the light and said it was good. That means he performed an inspection.
    Flowers are designed by spirit engineers who made different kinds of flowers. There are flowers that look like monkeys and other animals, or like bells or fire—pictures may be seen in the internet if one searches for “flowers that look like monkeys (or whatever)”. Darwin’s theory of evolution presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) descent with modification.
    Based on the message I received, there were design engineers behind each different kind of specie identified by Darwin. Design engineers prepared an engineering drawing beginning with DNA and RNA. The DNA molecules serve as an engineering drawing for the animals.
    Spiritual technicians must have used mind energy (Telekinesis) to bring Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen and other atoms together to form DNA. Some men in earth can move objects. For proof, go to Google and search for “Telekinesis: Man in China Caught on Camera Moving Objects with His Mind.” Therefore, if a man in earth can move objects, why cannot spiritual technicians move atoms?
    Conclusion: Based on the message I received, I am hereby modifying Darwin’s theory of evolution by stating that spirit design engineers were behind each step in the evolution process. Stephen, you are the first to know of a change to Darwin’s theory of evolution.

    1. 37.1
      jacobfromlost

      Sam, if you really believe any of what you are saying, you need to get some professional counseling. The elaborate nature of your delusions really means you need serious help to unravel them. I don’t know if you will take this comment seriously, but it comes from a genuine place of concern and I hope you will take it seriously. Many people who are otherwise geniuses have had these kind of problems before.

      We are just a bunch of skeptics/atheists. We don’t have training in psychology or psychiatry, and even if we did we likely wouldn’t be able to help you in this forum.

      Again, please seek out a professional. There is nothing shameful about it.

      1. Lord Narf

        I have some training in psychology, but just enough to be dangerous.

  38. 38
    Sam Chacon

    To Jasper of Maine (July 24, 2013 at 12:24 pm)
    Your question is “let’s say I follow his instructions, and i do think God spoke to me. How can I confirm that it wasn’t just a hallucination/delusion? How would I distinguish the even from a number of other psychological factors?”
    I can only tell you what I did. After being convinced that it was God who revealed himself to me, I asked him to tell me how he designed the universe. It is something cosmologists have being trying to figure out. The answer came in a dream, but I did not understand it. I then told him to give me an answer in black and white. I was then guided to science books and the bible. To make it short, he used three laws of activity to design it. From science books, I learned that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. From there I put two and two together and everything in my life fell into place. The three laws of activity, especially the law of references has helped me solve a problem that was impossible for other electronics engineers to solve. If you really want to know what it was, I will tell you. Another thing I did. I was so excited about what happened that I told my wife about it. She looked at my very strange and told me that I was nuts. After that, I decided to keep it to myself until god told me I had to tell others even if no one believed me; someday someone would listen.
    You can do the same if you feel sure that it was god who spoke to you. Ask for evidence that is meaningful to you. Keep asking until you know for sure. Also, keep everything to yourself. Remember this: Do not reveal anything that you experience because people will think you are nuts. It is your life; your reality. The funny thing about life is that everything an illusion.

    1. 38.1
      jacobfromlost

      Who else has god told this to?

    2. 38.2
      Jasper of Maine

      Test – is this thing going to actually reply to the right spot?

    3. 38.3
      Jasper of Maine

      Woohoo – anyway…

      I can only tell you what I did. After being convinced that it was God who revealed himself to me, I asked him to tell me how he designed the universe. It is something cosmologists have being trying to figure out. The answer came in a dream, but I did not understand it. I then told him to give me an answer in black and white. I was then guided to science books and the bible. To make it short, he used three laws of activity to design it. From science books, I learned that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. From there I put two and two together and everything in my life fell into place. The three laws of activity, especially the law of references has helped me solve a problem that was impossible for other electronics engineers to solve. If you really want to know what it was, I will tell you.

      Oh wow… that’s a bunch of word salad.

      You do realize that people figure things out all the time? Maybe your perception of how you came to those ideas was wrapped in hallucination – I don’t know.

      It’d be one thing if you gained insight into something actually new, and confirmable by science… like warp drive, artificial gravity.. something innovative… but finding out that you learned some somewhat obvious things that permeate the culture you’re in, already, that has the high potential of priming your knowledge…? Not impressive.

      It makes zero progress towards distinguishing between whether it’s delusion or not.

      Even if you did have inspiration on warp drive, that wouldn’t indicate anything supernatural inherently. Like many investigations, insights are accidental, and the vast majority are wrong. We just don’t hear about all the whackjobs.

      We remember Sir Isaac Newton because he invented calculus, etc. We don’t remember him for his belief in alchemy, historically way beyond the point where it was unreasonable to buy into it.

      The three laws of activity, especially the law of references has helped me solve a problem that was impossible for other electronics engineers to solve. If you really want to know what it was, I will tell you.

      Assuming that what you say is accurate… All problems were previously unsolved. Are you saying they all required a god for the people to figure it out? Clearly, it wasn’t impossible, since all it took was a particular naturalistic insight to break it down. You happened to be the first person, at least that you’re aware of, who figured it out… whether you think you got the knowledge from ghosts or not.

      Another thing I did. I was so excited about what happened that I told my wife about it. She looked at my very strange and told me that I was nuts. After that, I decided to keep it to myself until god told me I had to tell others even if no one believed me; someday someone would listen.

      This doesn’t really add anything to the discussion. You seem to be self aware enough to realize that what you’re saying has problems. Acknowledging that those, who weren’t provided sufficient evidence, would reject your claims, doesn’t mitigate the original credibility issues.

      You can do the same if you feel sure that it was god who spoke to you. Ask for evidence that is meaningful to you. Keep asking until you know for sure.

      Again, this does nothing to determine whether it’s a delusion or not. Even if I were to do this, and think I’ve come to some kind of knowledge supernaturally, how would I confirm that it’s right, and I actually did have it downloaded into my brain by an invisible person in the sky?

      Remember this: Do not reveal anything that you experience because people will think you are nuts. It is your life; your reality. The funny thing about life is that everything an illusion.

      If I had an “experience”, my first efforts would be to find a way to confirm that they were actually true, and not a combination of psychological factors. The results of those efforts would then determine whether I spread the word.

      And no, everything is not an illusion. There’s an actual objective world that we have a pretty good procedure (science) to investigate. It works well. Stop using your computer if you think it’s just an illusion.

    4. 38.4
      Jasper of Maine

      You have to understand that different claims can require different levels of evidence. Simply put, the more unprecedented or extraordinary the claim, the more evidence is required to demonstrate it beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Many people own dogs. It’s so common that I’ll probably just take your word for it.
      Many people own cars – I’ll probably take your word for that too.
      Not many people own Corvettes… I may want to observe it in your driveway before I’ll believe you… or even a photo with it in your driveway.

      … but no one owns intergalactic spaceships. A photo will not suffice to demonstrate that claim. Even if you were to show it to me, as it sits in your driveway, would not be sufficient, because for all I know, it’s just a mock-up, and isn’t functional.

      The reason for the heightened skepticism is because it contradicts the preponderance of evidence – namely, that humans don’t’ have this technology yet. It’s an extraordinary claim. It’s entirely unprecedented.

      .. though if our civilization advanced to the point where everyone actually had their own intergalactic spaceships, then it’d be mundane and commonplace and heavily precedented that I’d probably just take your word for it.

      When it comes to god claims, not only are you saying that some guy created the Earth (which is unprecedented, and violates known reality about how planets are formed, or sentient beings’ ability to create planets), but you’re also saying that this entity created the solar system… and the galaxy… and the Universe.. which is also 100% unprecedented, and violates 100% of known reality.

      … but you go even further. You claim that this entity created reality itself.. not just the stuff, but the very laws of physics and logical absolutes itself, which, as far as we can tell, is a near impossibility.

      Your god isn’t just unprecedented.. it’s not just absurd.. it’s not just extraordinary… its the single most absurdly extraordinary claim that it’s possible for us to even conceive!

      … and you want us to believe this because a personal experience you had that sounds rather mundane, that as far as we can figure, is no more credible that someone claiming he or she was abducted by aliens, and received an anal probe?

      Really?

      If I had a “personal experience”, it’s almost literally infinitely more plausible and probable that I suffered from a combination of well-studied and well-known psychological factors – such as priming, confirmation bias, memory errors, placebo effects, etc – than the likelihood that an invisible universe-and-physics-creating super-being decided to communicate something essentially mundane to me, that just happens to be indistinguishable from non-supernatural events.

      1. Alicia

        Well said, and not only that, this supernatural being would communicate in such a way, giving the reciever no evidence, so that he would look like just another loon. What a wonderful position to put someone in and I must say, a fahh-bulous way to spread a deeply profound and important message *sarcasm*.

  39. 39
    unfogged

    It is your life; your reality. The funny thing about life is that everything an illusion.

    If you are right (hint: you aren’t) then everything you say applies only to you and is totally irrelevant to everybody else. If you are wrong then you need to be able to provide something of substance that can be shown to be objectively true. Everything you have posted for far boils down to nothing but hand waving and navel gazing.

    I received a message at 4:00 a.m. today about designers in the spirit world.

    Funny, I got a message at 3:30AM telling me to avoid believing self-delusional scammers trying to push a book loaded with nothing but unsubstantiated woo. You sound like Marshall Applewhite and Sun Myung Moon and dozens of others who commune with gods and yet are unable to provide any new factual information. I second Jacob’s call: if you really believe this then you need to talk to somebody about it. If you are intentionally scamming then this forum is not likely to be very profitable for you.

    Meditation has value for relaxation and intrsopection and for promoting creativity. It isn’t a path to universal truths or a way to tap into any kind of cosmic knowledge or understanding. The sooner you realize that you are talking to yourself the better off you will be.

    1. 39.1
      Alicia

      I knew a guy once who claimed he went to hell after dying temporarily. This guys ALSO believed that gub’ ment agents were followign smokers aroudn and injectign them with cancer to derail the Tabacco industry cause it was run by conservatives. *sigh*

  40. 40
    Sam Chacon

    To my good friends:
    Alicia, Jasper of Mainex, Jacobfromlost, Lord Narf, Steve Walker, samuelclemens, Grainger, connect2reality, Anders, markr1957, Raymond, Matt Gerrans, chris lowe, Joel Shircliff, sigurd jursalfar, ApostateltsopA, John Kruger, Casey Danielson, grumpyoldfart, CGM3, Chris Mailey, badgersdaughter, and michaelbuchheim.
    I have learned something from each one of you. I find each of you to be very intelligent and knowledgeable of life. To me, what you say are positive and humble comments to help me improve. I appreciate it.
    In college, I studied electronics, psychology and other subjects. I then became a quality engineer. QEs analyze what design engineers do and evaluate the degree of excellence of products. I analyzed electronics and psychology and found they possess similar concepts. For example, in electronics, electrons and protons attract each other. In psychology, males and females attract each other. In electronics, bias circuits control the behavior of electrons to make them do what the designer wants, such as to make pictures in televisions and computers. In psychology, cognitive biases control the thinking and behavior of people, such as a reply to my comments. The flow of electrons creates an electromagnetic field. Radio and television stations use electromagnetic energy to transmit information. Radio and television antennae’s are designed to receive information from radio and television stations. Telepathy is the use of mind energy to transmit information from the mind of one person to the Id of another as hypnotists do.
    I combined psychology and electronics and called it Psychoelectrology. The idea is to evaluate human behavior as one would evaluate electron behavior. I developed a course in Psychoelectrology and taught it at California State University Northridge: Experimental College. I will continue to try to find ways to improve the quality of life.
    I have a question for each of you. What are you doing to improve the quality of life?

    1. 40.1
      Lord Narf

      I’m going to oppose religion and other irrational, superstitious nonsense that is having a damaging effect upon our society. I’m going to oppose people who attempt to spread that sort of religious mindset … like you’re doing.

      1. Alicia

        and I heartily second that motion!

        1. Corwyn

          Yup, me too.

          Oh, and I invented an energy saving device, which has saved over 300,000 gallons of oil. so far.

          1. Alicia

            Do tell!

          2. Corwyn

            See http://www.greenfret.com/storms.html

          3. Alicia

            whoa–VERY kewl…what brilliant minds we have here…:-)

  41. 41
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf and Alicia:
    Lord Narf, you say, “I’m going to oppose religion and other irrational, superstitious nonsense that is having a damaging effect upon our society. I’m going to oppose people who attempt to spread that sort of religious mindset … like you’re doing.”
    For information: I told Russell Glasser that to me about 90% of the bible was not scientific and about 10% was obscure science. I do not agree with the bad parts of the bible and religion. I agree with Russell that there should be a separation of Church and State. To me, god, religion and the church are not the same. God is science. Religion is interpreting the bible. Church is a house, a place where people meet, no more than that. My view is strictly about some kind of intelligent something called god. Because god is about being scientific, there should not be a separation of God and State. The motto of this country is IN GOD WE TRUST.
    My question was, “What are you doing to improve the quality of life?”
    I fail to see how opposing religion and people like me will improve the quality of life. Please explain it to me.
    Alicia, you say, “and I heartily second that motion!”
    I fail to see how “I heartily second that motion!” will improve the quality of life. Please explain it to me.
    Please think about this: There are flowers that look like monkey faces. There are flowers that look like a bunch of bells perfectly formed. There are many designs of flowers everywhere. To me, that suggests some kind of thinker and designer behind the scene. When I see that, it makes me think of about life and try to understand it.
    Thinking about ways to improve oneself will improve the quality of one’s life. If you were to share what helped you to improve, it will help others. If all of you listed in my previous post were to share your ideas to improve life, we could learn from each other and truly improve the quality of life.

    1. 41.1
      Lord Narf

      God is not science. When you begin with a presupposition as big as that, you’re not doing science.

      There very much should be a separation between religion and state. Any god is a religious concept, and those sorts of fairy-tales should be kept out of government.

      The motto of our country only became “In God We Trust” in the 1950′s, during McCarthyism. Prior to that, our national motto was E Pluribus Unum, which was a greatly superior motto. The one instituted during the crazy years of McCarthyism is divisive, rather than inclusive, as the original one was. Do you want to go back to McCarthyism? If not, we should scrub all of the other crap that was inserted during that period.

      And as I said, teaching people to be more rational will improve their quality of life, indirectly. Getting religious bullshit out of public life will help greatly.

    2. 41.2
      unfogged

      When I see that, it makes me think of about life and try to understand it. Thinking about ways to improve oneself will improve the quality of one’s life.

      No, just thinking about life is not a path to knowledge or understanding. You are a purveyor of semi-mystical nonsense and that’s a roadblock to actual advancement. You keep talking about science but you have yet to demonstrate that you have any understanding of the difference between testing a hypothesis and just making up whatever you think feels right and calling it truth.

      You are not improving anybody’s quality of life. You are leading the way to a new dark age filled with nothing but ignorance and superstition.

    3. 41.3
      Lord Narf

      Please think about this: There are flowers that look like monkey faces. There are flowers that look like a bunch of bells perfectly formed. There are many designs of flowers everywhere. To me, that suggests some kind of thinker and designer behind the scene.

      To add to my previous comment, you’re demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of biology. Homologous structures are well understood in evolution, if that’s what you’re referring to.

      Deception is a tool bred into many organisms. Some flowers look like insects. Then, male insects of that type will try to mate with the flowers, and the flowers use them to pollinate each other. The establishment of those sorts of systems are well explained by evolutionary theory.

      We also understand how our brains are pattern-seeking machines. We impose comparisons onto the world around us, from the most tenuous of similarities. Your statement about flowers that look like bells is also ass-backwards. There were flowers that looked like that long before our society formed. Then, we built bells to look like that, potentially inspired by the flowers themselves.

      You have the most muddled, wrongheaded thinking that I’ve had to deal with in quite a while. Teaching people not to think like you do will do a great deal towards improving our society.

    4. 41.4
      Martin Wagner

      There are flowers that look like monkey faces. There are flowers that look like a bunch of bells perfectly formed. There are many designs of flowers everywhere. To me, that suggests some kind of thinker and designer behind the scene.

      There are clouds that look like castles and dragons.

  42. 42
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf (August 19, 2013 at 8:46 am):
    God is science based on my reference point. You have to use your imagination to see things my way. Science is both a body of knowledge and a process. God is a body of knowledge because that is what it took to create heaven and earth. God is a process because he followed specific steps to accomplish his creations, beginning by commanding, “Let there be light.” The bible has that phrase in Genesis 1:3, but it should be in Genesis 1:1. As atheists have proven, the bible is wrong in many places. This is one of them. It takes light to make something from nothing. If scientists can do it, so can god.
    “On September 18, 1997, a team of 20 physicists from four institutions has literally made something from nothing by creating particles of matter from ordinary light. The experiment was carried out at the Standard Linear Accelerator Center by scientists and students from the University of Rochester, Princeton University, the University of Tennessee, and Stanford. The team reported the work in the Sept. 1 issue of Physical Review Letters.” This is a quote from Science Daily.
    From light came subatomic particles like electrons, up quarks, down quarks, neutrinos, and other particles. Up quarks and down quarks combined to form protons and neutrons. Protons, neutrons, and electrons combined to form atoms. Atoms combined to form molecules. According to the law of opposites, there had to be an anti-particle for every particle formed. For example, the anti-particle for an electron is the positron. Creating matter and antimatter was the first step, and it occurred extremely rapidly. When matter and antimatter combine they explode. When the time was right, matter and antimatter combined and caused an explosion, which cosmologists all the Big Bang. Matter and gases must exist to have a real bang. All this is based on my analysis of what I have read.
    It took a thinker to plan and do all this. The thinker is called god.
    About In God We Trust: This country was destined to be the leader of the world, and “In God We Trust” was destined to be its motto.
    You say, “. . . teaching people to be more rational will improve their quality of life, indirectly.” How are you going to teach people to be more rational? Is that what you will do to improve the quality of life?

    1. 42.1
      Milton Platt

      You stated that you have to begin with light to make something from nothing. Are you contending that light is nothing? If you start with light, you are starting with something……light.

      1. Lord Narf

        That’s not even the least of his issues. God is a body of knowledge and God is a process? Seriously?

        I think I’m done addressing him. It’s just not worth the effort. He’s a fallacy vending machine, and I’m out of quarters.

        1. Milton Platt

          You are so right. Was just reading the string of comments. Don’t know how someone can write that stuff with a straight face.

          1. Lord Narf

            Yeah, I could go through and explain to him how symbiotic and deceptive relationships form, within the animal and plant kingdoms, like with my example of the insect-shaped flower, but what’s the freaking point? He’s not going to learn from my explanations.

            When he’s trying to write authoritatively on a subject about which he understands so little, I don’t think we can teach him. He needs to go back to basics and actually learn more than I’m willing to teach him. A few simple Google searches can turn up plenty of things, like http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/262009/1/watson_hsge_ecal_1999.pdf, when I did a search for “formation of symbiotic relationships through evolution.” Hell, simply reading The Greatest Show on Earth, by Dawkins will make him aware of how wrongheaded so many of his questions are.

          2. Milton Platt

            Well, making the initial effort is always the right thing to do, even though it usually ends badly. Although I have been and atheist most of my life, I only recently put a label on it and started checking out the blogs. So I guess although my critical thinking skills are working okay, but don’t always have the slickest counter-arguments because I am only just getting into the atheist writings.

            On the other hand, it is very easy to see through the kind of irrational mumbo jumbo this guy was putting out.

            By the way, nice to meet you…….even though we haven’t met…..LOL

          3. Lord Narf

            Yup, you’ll see me around and about, on here. I’m fairly active in a few of the comment sections on FTB.

    2. 42.2
      Lord Narf

      When the time was right, matter and antimatter combined and caused an explosion, which cosmologists all the Big Bang. Matter and gases must exist to have a real bang. All this is based on my analysis of what I have read.

      Then you’re ignorant as hell, and you must have been reading stuff by someone ignorant, like a Christian apologist.

      Matter and anti-matter did not combine to cause the big bang. Matter and anti-matter didn’t even form until after the expansion event that was nicknamed the “Big Bang.” You know that it wasn’t an explosion like what you get when you light a stick of dynamite, here on Earth, right? It was an expansion of all of the material in the universe, from a single point.

  43. 43
    Sam Chacon

    To unfogged (August 19, 2013 at 9:19 am):
    You say “No, just thinking about life is not a path to knowledge or understanding. You are a purveyor of semi-mystical nonsense and that’s a roadblock to actual advancement.”
    Actually, all paths to knowledge and understanding begin with thinking. So if you were to open your mind to what others say then you will learn something. (How is that for a hypothetical statement?) Everything in life is about using mind energy. Mind energy is metaphysical energy; it is used to manipulate physical energy to create products. That is the way the universe began, according to my analysis and theory of creation.

    1. 43.1
      unfogged

      You were amusing for a while but it’s just more of the same nonsense. It’s sad that people would rather wallow in the drivel that you spout rather than actually trying to understand reality.

  44. 44
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf (August 19, 2013 at 10:34 am):
    If I could give a trophy to the most brilliant and knowledgeable person I have dealt with recently, I would award it to you.
    You say, “Deception is a tool bred into many organisms. Some flowers look like insects. Then, male insects of that type will try to mate with the flowers, and the flowers use them to pollinate each other. The establishment of those sorts of systems are well explained by evolutionary theory.”
    Who bred deception into many organisms? Nature, I guess. To design flowers that look like insects and design male insects of that type to mate with flowers, so that flowers use them to pollinate each other—that is incredible; it is unbelievable?
    You say, “The establishment of those sorts of systems are well explained by evolutionary theory.” That means that scientific thinking is behind the scene. The bible says that it will be done in the earth as it is done in heaven. That means that the thinking done in the earth will be like that done in heaven.
    You also say, “There were flowers that looked like that long before our society formed. Then, we built bells to look like that, potentially inspired by the flowers themselves.”
    I would not say that the flowers inspired us because they are merely objects. I would say that the designer who designed the flowers designed them to inspire us to make bells.
    Lastly, you say, “Teaching people not to think like you do will do a great deal towards improving our society.”
    You are very bright and knowledgeable. How do you plan to teach that? I honestly believe there should be more thinkers like you. I like and appreciate your challenges. You are doing a good job.
    By the way, what came first, the chicken or the egg?
    The life cycle of a plant goes something like this: seed – germination – vegetative growth – sexual maturity – flowering – pollination – new seed develops.
    So, which came first, the flower or the male insects of a particular type to mate with a specific flower?

    1. 44.1
      Lord Narf

      Dude, you’re not even worth talking to anymore. This is simple stuff, covered in the most basic primer on biological evolution. Go get yourself an education on the subject, and you can try again.

  45. 45
    Sam Chacon

    To Martin Wagner (August 19, 2013 at 3:52 pm):
    In reference to flowers that look like monkey faces and bells, you say, “There are clouds that look like castles and dragons.”
    That is an excellent comparison. Now let us apply the three laws of activity. You and the clouds form a unity, the first law: you and the clouds are real. According to the law of opposites, you are a real person but the castles and dragons you see are not. According to the law of references, your reference point is your geographical location. If you were to move your reference point around the cloud in a large circle and position yourself at the 90 degree, 180 degree and 270 degree location from your original position, the formation of the clouds will no longer look like a castle or dragon. Why? Because of another reference point—they are not real.
    On the other hand, if you did the same, moved around in a circle, while looking at a flower that looked like a monkey face, you would see the same flower. At a 180 degree position you would see the back side of the flower, but you could turn the monkey face towards you, something you could not do with a cloud.
    Another thing, flowers come from a seed, clouds do not. A seed is a plan for nature to produce a specific kind of flower. When the flowers die, others will grow. Clouds that look like castles and dragons have no seed so a similar cloud would not form again.

  46. 46
    Sam Chacon

    To Milton Platt (August 21, 2013 at 2:47 pm):
    About light being something. That is a brilliant observation. Actually, what I said came from what I quoted. Here is the applicable part: “On September 18, 1997, a team of 20 physicists from four institutions has literally made something from nothing by creating particles of matter from ordinary light.”
    Your idea is brilliant because light is something, and someone had to create it, like Thomas Elva Edison who found a way to make light. Of course, the sun also produces light. That could be the ordinary light that the physicists used.
    According to Scientists, the Sun was formed about 4-5 billion years ago. The Sun contains 74% of hydrogen and 24% of helium. Small portions of iron, nickel, oxygen, silicon and sulfur are also found in the Sun. Supposedly, the Sun and the rest of the solar system were formed from a large, rotating, cloud of hot dust and gas called a nebula. Due to gravitational forces, the cloud flattened and condensed in the center, forming the sun and the planets. Who created the chemical elements that make the sun?
    For those physicists to be able to create particles from ordinary light, they had to think and have the necessary level of expertise to do it. Common sense dictates that, that was also required in the beginning. An entity had to think and have the knowledge to produce the essential elements to, eventually, make the sun. That entity, which created the necessary elements and manipulated energy to produce light, is called God. It all happened when he said, “Let there be light.” It is the spoken word that started the process to produce light in the beginning, as it is the spoken word that gets people in and/or out of trouble.
    Atheists do not accept the existence of a god, so maybe nature did all that.

    1. 46.1
      Milton Platt

      Too many assumptions.You assume the universe had to be made, then assume a sentient being made it . It may have always been. I don’t know, and you sure as hell don’t know. Likewise, you assume someone had to “make” light.

      You are correct in thinking that something can come from nothing, Lawrence Krauss explains this in a relatively easy way to understand based on physics. No god is necessary.

      I have no idea who you are quoting….where can I find the article? It was obviously written by someone with out critical thinking skills, because if you are creating something from nothing, you can’t start with light which is something.

      In fact, you can’t use a god to support something from nothing, either, because a god would be something. The god would have to come into being after the creation, or obviously you are starting with a god, rather than nothing.

      On the other hand, if it took a god to create simple matter, because it required thought and skills, then the god who had these thoughts and skills would have to have been created by an even more complex being, who in turn would be preceded by an even MORE complex being, into infinity.

      You don’t understand physics or cosmology in the least. I don’t claim expertise in these fields, but a little knowledge and common sense is all it takes to see through your crap.

  47. 47
    unfogged

    I was wrong; you can still be amusing.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fractally%20wrong

    1. 47.1
      Milton Platt

      I bothered to make another comment to him. I guess I’m easily entertained. LOL

      Can this guy be for real???

      1. Lord Narf

        Absolutely, this guy could be for real. Sure, there are fakers out there, but there are plenty of people who genuinely can’t see the many ridiculous, obvious logical-flaws in every word they utter. There are people out there who think that the ontological argument is solid proof of the Christian god and can’t comprehend what an argument from ignorance is … or why it makes something a bad argument.

      2. Lord Narf

        And hey, as long as you continue to be amused by the interaction, go for it. I’ve just hit my mental-exhaustion point.

  48. 48
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf (August 21, 2013):
    Thank you for the sources: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/262009/1/watson_hsge_ecal_1999.pdf, and The Greatest Show on Earth, by Richard Dawkins. I will read and analyze How Symbiosis Can Guide Evolution by Richard A. Watson & Jordan B. Pollack and The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.
    You say, “Go get yourself an education on the subject, and you can try again.”
    To me, discussing the origin, whether there was a big bang or not, and the evolutionary process is not relevant. What matters to me is what each one of us can do to improve the quality of life?
    To help improve life I taught Psychoelectrology at CSUN: EC. I taught the concepts of physics and metaphysics. Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being. In simple terms, metaphysics is anything that is beyond physics, which includes thinking.
    The application of Psychoelectrology goes something like this. In electronics, electrons and protons attract each other. Electrons repel electrons; protons repel protons. Metaphysics is a mirror image of physics. When we look at ourselves in a mirror, the left hand looks like the right hand, and the right hand looks like the left hand, and so on.
    In physics, electrons and protons are the dominating energy forces. In metaphysics, love and hate are the dominating mind/brain forces. Their functions are the opposites to that of electrons and protons. That is, love and hate repel each other, whereas electrons and protons attract each other. Love attracts love, whereas electrons repel electrons. Hate attracts hate, whereas protons repel protons.
    In electronics, electromagnetic energy is transmitted through space and can be picked up by a receiver. In metaphysics, mind power is transmitted instantly and can be picked up by a receiver. We learn to control electrons and protons to create products like televisions and computers. When we learn to control love and hate, we learn to control our quality of life. Here is how to do it. Keep in mind that we are what we think; how we thinking will control our lives. Let us say a male person is angry, or something is bothering him and confronts you in a negative manner. He is expressing his feelings and emotions.
    The first thing to do is to think of “love”. When you do that, your love energy will attract his love energy that is in him somewhere. Then, you think. He must be nuts, not well educated and does not know how to control his emotions. When you think of something like this, it will help you keep your cool.
    Do not interrupt and listen to what he is saying. Let him talk until he runs out of things to say. If he starts to repeat himself,(1) interrupt him and say, “I am trying to understand what you are telling me. Let me tell you what I heard.” If necessary, keep repeating it until he stops talking. If he does not repeat themselves, you start asking questions using the reference points—why, who, when, how, where, and which—as applicable. Use the reference points in the order given. Of the six, “why” is the most significant. The first thing anyone wants to know is why something happened or why someone says what he says. You have to keep love in the back of your mind from the start until he leaves.
    If a situation is very difficult and the other person does not seem to calm down, you must increase your love emotion and stay calmly. Very difficult situations require developing a stronger love emotion.
    I know I am learning a lot from you and others who make comments. I do not take anything the wrong way.

    (1) In Psychoelectrology, when a person repeats himself he is like an electronics oscillator. In electronics, to change or stop an oscillator one has to change or modify the bias circuit. In psychology that would have to do with adjusting the cognitive biases. Cognitive biases are tendencies to think in particular ways that can lead to systematic deviations from a standard of rationality or sound judgment.

  49. 49
    Lord Narf

    To me, discussing the origin, whether there was a big bang or not, and the evolutionary process is not relevant. What matters to me is what each one of us can do to improve the quality of life?

    If that’s your big concern, then you should abandon your religion right this second. We have overwhelming statistical indicators that religion has a hugely negative impact upon cultures. There is a highly-significant negative correlation between the religiosity of a country and its societal health.

    The US, for example, is one of the most broken of all of the industrialized nations, and we’re also one of the most religious, despite our secular constitution. Other nations follow this pattern, as well.

  50. 50
    Lord Narf

    The application of Psychoelectrology goes something like this. In electronics, electrons and protons attract each other. Electrons repel electrons; protons repel protons. Metaphysics is a mirror image of physics. When we look at ourselves in a mirror, the left hand looks like the right hand, and the right hand looks like the left hand, and so on.
    In physics, electrons and protons are the dominating energy forces. In metaphysics, love and hate are the dominating mind/brain forces. Their functions are the opposites to that of electrons and protons. That is, love and hate repel each other, whereas electrons and protons attract each other. Love attracts love, whereas electrons repel electrons. Hate attracts hate, whereas protons repel protons.

    Dude, your metaphor isn’t even consistent, never mind applicable. Electrons and protons repelling their like kind has freaking nothing to do with the reversing effect (the name of which escapes me, at the moment) of mirrors and lenses. Even if you weren’t spinning pure nonsense, the way you’re putting it all together is incoherent.

    You’re not making life better by feeding bullshit to impressionable, gullible students!

  51. 51
    Sam Chacon

    To Milton Platt:
    I have a true story and a question for you.
    My parents were devoted Catholics. They believed in the Virgin Mary of Guadalupe because she appeared to Juan Diego in Mexico, and they believed in the Sacred Heart of Jesus. My dad had an image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in a metal frame covered with a glass. He put a piece of cable on the frame to make sure it was strong enough to hold the frame, and he put a large nail on the wall, large enough so it would hold the frame securely and permanently. There was no way that frame could fall under any circumstances. He hung the frame on the wall at the head of the bed. My mom placed a candle on a dresser at the foot of the bed. She lit the candle every night to show devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The dresser was in front of a window with light curtains. We had no air conditioner so, before going to bed, my dad would open the window to cool the bedroom.
    One day, about 3:00 a. m. there was a sound, an extremely loud crash was heard between the head board and the wall. It awoke my dad. The first thing he saw was the curtains on fire. The window was open, and the wind had moved the curtains over the candle, and the curtains begin to burn. My dad got the curtains and stomped out the fire.
    He looked for the cause of the loud noise, and he found that the frame of the Sacred Heart of Jesus was on the floor, and the glass was broken. The noise and commotion woke me up. I saw the broken frame off the wall and the curtains that were burning.
    The frame with the Sacred Heart of Jesus had been on the wall for at least five years. We could not understand why the frame would come off the wall when the curtains were on fire. We all figured it had to be a miracle.
    Milton, the frame was held by a strong wire hanging on a large nail. Why would the frame fall when there was a fire? I would say that was a miracle. What do you say?

    1. 51.1
      Milton Platt

      Since I was not there, I cannot say why the frame fell. But that does not introduce the supernatural. Why introduce the supernatural just because you can’t figure things out for yourself. A miricale to me would be the obvious suspension of the laws of physics, and even then, it does not admit the supernatural in your sense.

      It is a cute little story that has no value. It starts with built in bias towards the supernatural.

    2. 51.2
      Lord Narf

      What you have is an anecdotal story that we can’t even examine. Given your bad standards of evidence and your bias towards mystical thinking, I can’t accept that anything you said at face value. We know how poor human memory is and that you’re probably leaving out details or inserting details … perhaps quite honestly, because you’re remembering it incorrectly, or perhaps dishonestly, because you’re making things up to try to convince us.

      We can’t examine the events to see what likely happened. There could be some sort of effect from the fire that caused the frame to break, or whatever happened to make the picture fall. It might not have been attached the wall as well as you think. You didn’t describe what happened to the picture well enough for us to even venture a guess. Who the hell knows what happened, because we only have your anecdotal story to go on, rather than any real evidence.

      Stories like this are worthless as evidence of anything actually happening. Yet, it’s the only sort of evidence that religious believers can point to. That’s how you know that what they believe isn’t true.

  52. 52
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf:
    Do you accept the fact that love attracts love and hate attracts hate?

    1. 52.1
      Milton Platt

      Nope. Not proven in the real world. People show love and are given hate in return all the time, and visa verse.

      Your hypothesis is not a fact, it’s just nothing but a hypothesis that holds no water at all.

    2. 52.2
      Milton Platt

      The forces of attraction in the physical world are things like positive and negative charges on particles, or magnetism. You are using the wrong terminology. Love may elicit love in return, but may also elicit hate, or just indifference. Get your terms right and stop with the bullshit.

      Why are you posting on this board??? If you are not interested in the subject of atheism, go someplace else and waste your time there.

    3. 52.3
      Lord Narf

      Do you accept the fact that love attracts love and hate attracts hate?

      Not exclusively, no. Not by any stretch. I know plenty of people who return love with hatred. I know plenty of people who are loving, giving people who get taken advantage of scumbags who will exploit giving people.

      Where are your double-blind, scientific studies that demonstrate that love attracts love and hate attracts hate? I bet you haven’t got them.

      1. Milton Platt

        I see neither of us can resist beating a dead horse…..we must both have little to do right now. LOL

        1. Lord Narf

          I need something to do while eating breakfast, yeah.

      2. Milton Platt

        Off topic, but can you tell me how to include quotes on this board?

        1. Lord Narf

          The blockquote tag.

  53. 53
    Sam Chacon

    To Milton Platt:
    Thank you for your quick response. Let us analyze what you said.
    “Since I was not there, I cannot say why the frame fell. But that does not introduce the supernatural. Why introduce the supernatural just because you can’t figure things out for yourself. A miricale to me would be the obvious suspension of the laws of physics, and even then, it does not admit the supernatural in your sense.
    It is a cute little story that has no value. It starts with built in bias towards the supernatural.”
    1. “Since I was not there, I cannot say why the frame fell.”
    You are correct. You would not be able to say why the frame fell because you were not there. My dad was there, and he could not figure out why the frame fell. I would say that if you had been there you would not be able to figure it out either.
    2. “But that does not introduce the supernatural. Why introduce the supernatural just because you can’t figure things out for yourself.”
    You totally ignored the fact that it happened when there was a fire. If it had happened any other time when there was no fire, my dad would have been able to figure things out for himself.
    3. “A miricale to me would be the obvious suspension of the laws of physics, and even then, it does not admit the supernatural in your sense.”
    This statement is interesting. There was suspension of the laws of physics—specifically the laws of gravity. Somehow the frame was lifted and removed from the nail on the wall. This had to happen for the frame to fall. That is counteractive to gravitational phenomena. You will very likely not agree, but there are things called ghosts. In the Bible, they are called spirit guides; some are good and some are bad. In the internet—Google—you can find articles of actual cases of ghosts attached to people and move physical things or lift people.
    4. “It is a cute little story that has no value. It starts with built in bias towards the supernatural.”
    You are correct that it has no value. It has no value to those who do not believe in the Sacred Heart of Jesus. You are correct that it starts with a built in bias towards the supernatural. It is because there is no other way to explain it.

    1. 53.1
      Milton Platt

      None of this bantering back and forth will achieve anything. You have the burden of proof. Until you demonstrably prove the existence of god, there is no need to talk further. Provide proof of your claim, or go play someplace else.

      Until you provide the proof or admit you have none, we are pretty much through.

    2. 53.2
      Lord Narf

      1. “Since I was not there, I cannot say why the frame fell.”
      You are correct. You would not be able to say why the frame fell because you were not there. My dad was there, and he could not figure out why the frame fell. I would say that if you had been there you would not be able to figure it out either.

      Dude, that is so freaking stupid. You really expect us to accept your assertions that if we were there, we wouldn’t be able to figure it out, either? I have a better idea. Bring in actual forensic scientists who specialize in this sort of thing, and ask them to examine it.

      2. “But that does not introduce the supernatural. Why introduce the supernatural just because you can’t figure things out for yourself.”
      You totally ignored the fact that it happened when there was a fire. If it had happened any other time when there was no fire, my dad would have been able to figure things out for himself.

      That’s also stupid. You know that we have a science called forensics, which people use to figure out what likely happened, from clues left behind, despite the damage of a fire.

      3. “A miricale to me would be the obvious suspension of the laws of physics, and even then, it does not admit the supernatural in your sense.”
      This statement is interesting. There was suspension of the laws of physics—specifically the laws of gravity. Somehow the frame was lifted and removed from the nail on the wall. This had to happen for the frame to fall. That is counteractive to gravitational phenomena. You will very likely not agree, but there are things called ghosts. In the Bible, they are called spirit guides; some are good and some are bad. In the internet—Google—you can find articles of actual cases of ghosts attached to people and move physical things or lift people.

      You have no evidence for anything you just said. What the hell? You start off by claiming that no one can explain what happened, and now you’re asserting that the frame was lifted off the nail, in complete violation of the laws of gravity? You have no credibility at all, when you make shit up on a whim.

      4. “It is a cute little story that has no value. It starts with built in bias towards the supernatural.”
      You are correct that it has no value. It has no value to those who do not believe in the Sacred Heart of Jesus. You are correct that it starts with a built in bias towards the supernatural. It is because there is no other way to explain it.

      So, what you’re saying is that you’re aware that the story is incapable of convincing anyone who isn’t already credulous enough to accept a stupid bit of mythology. Then why did you even bother telling the story? You know we’re not gullible fools who will accept baseless assertions at face value, and yet you keep giving us the same sort of crap.

    3. 53.3
      athyco

      You are correct that it has no value. It has no value to those who do not believe in the Sacred Heart of Jesus. You are correct that it starts with a built in bias towards the supernatural. It is because there is no other way to explain it.

      No other way to explain it? Your dad couldn’t have been jolted upright by the smell of smoke so abruptly that the headboard hit the wall and dislodged the picture? Then, having the crash bring him further up from the grogginess of sleep to recognize that the curtains were on fire? Further, the crash stimulus being greater than the smell stimulus, he couldn’t have–in his half-asleep state–not realized that his reaction to the lesser had caused the greater?

      You’ve never seen popped nail heads on a deck or porch over time? You don’t wonder why he used a smooth nail rather than a screw? Is it at all possible that your mom wanted the picture centered over the bed which caused the nail to miss a stud? Did your father or mother check that picture regularly over the course of five years to make sure the nail wasn’t leaning down or pulling out, the wire wasn’t unraveling from one side? My grandmother put palm fronds behind her pictures–they hung at an angle to the wall. The cord holding them was therefore at a less stable angle to the nail head. If your mom lit a candle, it would be likely she’d also have five years of palm fronds behind that picture.

      The problem with your story is that “miracle” would be your conclusion for any positive outcome of the candle setting the curtains on fire. If they’d gone out on their own with your parents waking in the morning to the evidence? A miracle–the Sacred Heart of Jesus put out the fire before it did more than scorch the walls and ceiling. If your dad had jolted awake without the crash? Still a miracle, just that the Sacred Heart of Jesus was responsible for bringing him out of sleep just because the picture was there. You woke up to go the bathroom and smelled the smoke as you passed their bedroom door? The Sacred Heart of Jesus filled your bladder to the level of discomfort just in time.

      1. Milton Platt

        Good luck my friend. This guy has zero critical thinking skills.

  54. 54
    Dan T. Heman

    This is all I’m reading from his email…

  55. 55
    Sam Chacon

    To Milton Platt (August 25, 2013 at 1:08 pm):
    You say, “None of this bantering back and forth will achieve anything. You have the burden of proof. Until you demonstrably prove the existence of god, there is no need to talk further. Provide proof of your claim, or go play someplace else. Until you provide the proof or admit you have none, we are pretty much through.”
    The demonstration of proof of the existence of god will come when an individual asks god to prove to him or her that he is real as I did. God works on a one to one basis. There is also a set of requirements to get God to respond such as being sincere, have a reason for asking, and truly wanting it. Therefore, the burden of proof to prove it is on you. The kind of proof god gives depends on what you ask for. I asked him how he designed the universe.
    As for me to go play someplace until I provide the proof or admit I have none, sorry, only Mr. Glasser can ask me to do that. I have found proof that god exists. I will not go into details, but the main proof for me is that I asked him how he designed the universe, and the answer is that he used three laws of activity: the law of unity, law of opposites, and law of references.
    By the way, the law of opposites exposed god as having two personalities, one is good, and the other is bad. Christians concentrate on the good side of god in the Bible. Atheists are doing an excellent job not only of exposing the bad side of god but helping Christians understand the bible.
    Another thing I will let you know is that most of the information I have come from the Universal Bank of Knowledge (UBK), otherwise known as the Akashi Records. I call it UBK because everything we do in life is recorded in the soul. The soul is like a black box in airplanes. It keeps a record of everything we learn. If we learn to play the piano and become proficient at it the soul records it. Then, if that person dies, the same soul can be assigned to a newly born person. Have you heard of savants, sages, and gurus? They are called old souls because they come with an old soul already trained in something.
    I know atheists do not believe in god and souls, but just because they do not believe in them does not mean they do not exist.
    (Lord Narf, you grossly misunderstood what I said about love. You will hear from me in a day or so.)

    1. 55.1
      Milton Platt

      I won’t even bother to make comments on most of the ridiculous post you just made. But let me remind you that since you are the one making the assertion that there is a supernatural world, the burden of proof lies with you, not me. You have wasted a lot of time over several days and provided absolutely no proof of any kind. I am not interested in your personal opinions or experiences. They are worthless. It is clear that you have absolutely no proof of any kind to offer, or you would have offered it long ago. Your “Akashi Record” is a bunch of metaphysical drivel that carries no weight with anyone capable of critical thinking.

      Until you can provide proof, you are wasting time even writing on this blog.

      1. Lord Narf

        Let me add that most atheists in the US were believers, at one point. We DID sincerely ask for God to give us a sign or evidence of his existence, after we examined the faith or the holy book and realized that it doesn’t favorably compare to the reality that we see around us.

        We did ask, and God didn’t answer, because he isn’t there.

    2. 55.2
      Lord Narf

      (Lord Narf, you grossly misunderstood what I said about love. You will hear from me in a day or so.)

      Considering that you have yet to say anything that wasn’t either incoherent or full of things that are simply untrue, I’m not particularly confident of your ability to clarify it. You deliberately use vague, obfuscatory language, which is why scientists laugh at you and reject your ideas.

      Science is precise and provides clarity and understanding. You do the opposite.

  56. 56
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf (August 26, 2013 at 9:31 am):
    You said, “Let me add that most atheists in the US were believers, at one point. We DID sincerely ask for God to give us a sign or evidence of his existence, . . . We did ask, and God didn’t answer, because he isn’t there.”
    Talking to god is like talking to a real person, but there is one big difference—God is precise. By that I mean, you have to be clearly aware of what you say or ask and give him time to answer. For example, you asked (this are your words) “give us a sign or evidence of his existence . . . God didn’t answer, because he isn’t there”.
    You say he did not give you a sign or evidence of his existence and accused him of not being there. He was there. Signs and evidence are all over the place—the design of flowers that look like monkey faces and bells, the formation of the Solar System, the arrangement of the elements in the Periodic Table, and the design of DNA and RNA to name a few. Just because you do not accept that as evidence does not mean it is not evidence of his existence.
    I have learned from atheists in the Atheist Experience on YouTube that they do not accept proof of god’s existence if it is not done their way. From that stand point, atheists have a problem and do not know it.
    There is a significant difference between asking for a sign and asking him to reveal himself.
    I suggest we do something unusual, with your cooperation. If you talked to God once, you can do it again. Here is what I suggest.
    Select a quiet setting to sit and relax when you feel comfortable doing it. Take three deep breathes slowly to make contact with nature. Meditate (keep your mind blank) for three minutes to clear and settle your mind. Then, be sincere as you read the statement below:
    “God, (he knows we are talking to the designer) Sam Chacon said to ask you to please reveal yourself to me (Lord Narf) to help him prove that you are real. Please do it in a way, so there is no doubt to me that you are real.”
    This is like making an appointment with a doctor. In this case let’s wait up to 40 days.
    Please let me know when you do it. Thanks

    1. 56.1
      Milton Platt

      We do not accept YOUR supposed proof of his existence. You have not given any clear proof of any god, only pointed to objects in nature and asserted somehow a god was involved. That isn’t evidence. There is a process called evolution which clearly accounts for natural phenomena. Everything works just fine without any need for your god.

      Why is your god-being a male??? Why does he need balls, anyway? Is there a woman god and they have god sex???

      Try reading these sites before you spend more energy on your fairytale stories.

      http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

      http://www.talkorigins.org/

      When you have read and UNDERSTAND this material then we can talk.

      1. Milton Platt

        Did I say a naughty word?LOL

    2. 56.2
      Lord Narf

      Thank you for justifying my lack of confidence in your ability to say anything meaningful. You are so freaking vapid. Same teleological nonsense. The approximation of monkey faces and bells in the local flora does not equal design. The nature of reality did not have to be dictated to reality; it’s just the way reality works.

      So, when I perform the steps of your demonstration, and it fails … after 40 days, you’re going to accept that as evidence that your god does not exist, and you’ll give up your religious beliefs, right? It’s not a real test, if the failure of the test does not disprove the claim.

      I’ll wait for your acceptance of the proposition.

      1. Milton Platt

        Wow….40 days…..good thing it wasn’t an emergency……guess god’s omnipotence must be stretched these days.

        1. Lord Narf

          Well, you have to give it time for the confirmation bias to accumulate.

          Not that 40 days would be anything close to long enough. I have much better standards of evidence than Sam does. A perfectly placed field of flowers on the median of a highway exit ramp is a sign of intelligent design. Humans put it there, and we’re intelligent. Likewise, the banana is fantastic evidence of design … cultivation to be specific.

  57. 57
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf (August 26, 2013 at 9:07 pm)
    You said, “So, when I perform the steps of your demonstration, and it fails … after 40 days, you’re going to accept that as evidence that your god does not exist, and you’ll give up your religious beliefs, right? It’s not a real test, if the failure of the test does not disprove the claim. I’ll wait for your acceptance of the proposition.”
    Read your statement that says, “So, when I perform the steps of your demonstration, and it fails …” The way you wrote your statement you have made up your mind that it will fail to prove that there is no god.
    Please change that statement to “I will be sincere, have an open mind, and perform the steps of your demonstration, and if it fails”.
    I am as interested as you to see what God does. This is a first in the history of religion.

    1. 57.1
      Milton Platt

      Is the god you are postulating a god that grants wishes only based on precise language and if so, where do we find the exact grammar rules of your god? They cannot be vague conceptual rules, because that would introduce room for error.

      Your current experiment is interesting, but I would be much more impressed if a prayer would be sufficient to restore a limb to an amputee.

    2. 57.2
      Milton Platt

      Sincerity is subjective and you cannot introduce subjectivity into the experiment in this manner. Will you accept Lord Narf’s declaration of sincerity as fact?

    3. 57.3
      Russell Glasser

      I am as interested as you to see what God does.

      Sam,

      Lord Narf is an atheist. He is not “interested to see what God does.” He doubts your claim that there is a God involved in this process at all. SURELY you must have realized this by now. Do you legitimately not understand Narf’s position, or are you being intentionally obtuse in order to aggravate him? If it’s the former, I would like to ask you to please make an effort to understand what he is saying to you. If the latter, your welcome on this blog is rapidly wearing out.

    4. 57.4
      Lord Narf

      I’m always sincere, and I’ll ask the Christian god for a sign and be open to anything I see. What I won’t be is supremely gullible and awestruck, when I see a flower that looks a little bit like a bell, in a couple of weeks.

      My previous statement of certainty is there because I’ve talked to Christians who have done this sort of thing. They tell me of the signs that convinced them of God’s existence, and without exception, those signs are very, very bad and shouldn’t convince anyone who has anything approaching a firm grasp on reality. I have no confidence in receiving a sign of any sort.

      But yes, I’ll follow whatever steps you’d like, with an open mind and a sincere request. What I want to know is what your response will be, in either eventuality, when I come back to you with the results.

  58. 58
    Sam Chacon

    To Russell Glasser (August 27, 2013 at 10:56 am) and Milton Platt:
    Russell, I genuinely thought that because Lord Narf said, “We DID sincerely ask for God to give us a sign . . .” that he would be willing to try it one more time. I apologize if I seemed aggressive and made him uncomfortable. Thanks for speaking in his defense and standing up for him.
    Too bad we could not go ahead with the plan. Lord Narf, I wish you the best. Come to think of it Russell, I would prefer that atheist not find that god is real because you and your colleagues at The Atheist Experience are doing a tremendous job teaching Christians the bad side of what is in the bible. Based on the law of opposites there has to be good and bad everywhere, including the bible. This is something Christians have to learn. I will say one last thing. I know God is real.
    Milton, to be sincere is being free from pretense or deceit; to have genuine feelings. I would have expected for Lord Narf to be sincere with the plan. I also wish you the best.

    1. 58.1
      Lord Narf

      What part of setting up an honest test do you not understand? You’re making a claim that if I do what you suggest, God will provide evidence to me, within 40 days, in a way that’s unambiguous and will convince me that he’s real. If God fails to do so, then your claim is false, and you have to accept that you’re wrong.

      Are you not capable of understanding what a bullshit test you’re proposing? If I do the meditation and beseeching of God, as you suggest, and after the time you propose that I await my sign … and no unambiguous, convincing sign is forthcoming, then you’re just going to do a bunch of hand-waving and make excuses like crazy.

      I want a clear indication of what you will do. I’m perfectly sincere. You’re the one already backing out, readying your excuses for when I almost certainly will come back in 40 days, with no sign that convinced me of anything.

      1. Alicia

        How many times has this kind of test been proposed? Man, if I had a dollar….how many times, when the test fails to yield results, has it been “Oh your heart was too hard…you didn’t have enough faith…he provided the answer, you just weren’t listening”, yada, yada, yada. And see, if we were credulous , then in forty dyas I am sure something is bound to happen that would at least be perceived as a sign. I was watching some bullshit on History *cough, cough* 2 about biblical prophecies and talk about confirmation biases. Revelations was laid out and they were going on and on about the horsemen and what they represented and how THE END TIMES WERE NEEEEAR… I recall telling my hubby that only a shitty parent would hide such important info about the end of times in riddles. So,what if Satan knew about his plans–He’s god, Satan can’t do shit about it anyway. Almost all stories of conversion using the “ask god” premise end up being something a person wrapped around an event that could be easily explaiined via secular means. When a person entreats an atheist to seek god’s face, I suspect they don’t want you to truly believe, what they want is to win, and with this endvaor it is ALWAYS a win for the Chrstian. When we “fail” gods tests, they can continue to be pious and we end up looking like Pharoah prior to Moses asking god to unleash his can of whip ass.

        1. Milton Platt

          Loved the visual of Moses and his can of whip-ass. I hate to sound biblically illiterate, but did they have pull tabs back then??? LOL

          1. Alicia

            Oh no, no–the M man was palin’ around with ye olde Angel of Death and I am sure he opened it for him, can’t allow the messenger of god to break a nail, and don’t quote me on this, but apparently some kind of corking mechanism was involved–lol!!!!–

        2. Lord Narf

          “Oh your heart was too hard…you didn’t have enough faith…he provided the answer, you just weren’t listening”

          At least this one is very slightly better, in that we’re going into it accepting that I have no faith in his god. If he pulled that out as an excuse, after the fact, it would be such a supreme act of dishonesty that even he would see it.

          And see, if we were credulous , then in forty dyas I am sure something is bound to happen that would at least be perceived as a sign.

          That’s why it’s all about the conditionals. It has to be something unambiguous and convincing, which I will recognize as solid evidence that his god exists. That’s what Sam has claimed his god will do, and that’s what his god has to do.

          I’m not credulous, so I wouldn’t accept the stupid, vague crap that Christians always claim as their sign. “I was thinking about God, and I was upset with him and demanded a sign … and then a month later, I found my childhood Bible in a box out in the garage. That was an undeniable sign that God was watching over me!”

          What the f … how could you … who would be so …
          That caller was so damned pathetic. One of her other signs was that she walked through a park and got a warm, fuzzy feeling that she interpreted as the holy spirit doing something or other. She never explained why anyone would interpret that sort of feeling as that.

          1. Alicia

            Of course–they want something (even when they say they don’t believe) and then they hunt despertately for anything that would apply. Then they want others to take basically on faith that this sign was gawd communicating in some lame ass fashion. Sorry–gonna take more than the everyday–Part the sea–Move a mountain–walk on some water and then we’d be in the ball park, and EVEN THEN, show me god did it and not an alien or magician…

    2. 58.2
      Milton Platt

      Well this was an interesting trip to nowhere

      1. Alicia

        Indeed

  59. 59
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf,
    I have high respect for Russell Glasser. He says, “Lord Narf is an atheist.” “Do you legitimately not understand Narf’s position, or are you being intentionally obtuse in order to aggravate him?”
    I do understand your position as an atheist. It never entered my mind to aggravate you. As I see it, we are two individuals having a dialog to exchange views. So, if you think I am aggravating you, please say so, and I will stop all communication.
    Before I proceed, please answer me this question with a simple yes or no. Do you think I am being obtuse to aggravate you?

    1. 59.1
      Lord Narf

      There’s being obtuse, and then there’s being willfully obtuse. The former isn’t necessarily dishonest, if it’s just the result of a difference in worldviews. I think that’s probably the case here. You’re sure persistent in your misunderstandings, though.

      You’ve got to understand that I’m going to phrase things in more certain terms, because I’ve examined the world around me, and I see no evidence for a god … and I’ve heard the signs and “evidence” given to others, as revelations from God, and without exception, the signs and evidence are amazingly poor and are only capable of convincing scientifically-illiterate, gullible people. I can’t imagine any sort of convincing sign that will actually occur, based upon what I’m told by religious sorts.

      But of course I’m not going to reject unambiguous, convincing evidence, if there happened to be some sort of god out there who wanted to demonstrate itself to me. It would be the first time a being has done so, though, judging from the testimonials I’ve heard and read.

      As Matt says, an omniscient god would know what sort of evidence I would require to accept its existence. I’m not going to deny that evidence, once I have it. That would be stupid.

      So, my question still remains. What is the failure condition for this demonstration of yours? What would you accept, in the range of possible results, that would demonstrate that you’re wrong? What would you do about it, if presented with these results?

      I have my conditions that would demonstrate the falsity of my position: your god giving me an unambiguous, convincing sign or bit of evidence. What are your conditions for failure? How would you falsify your position?

  60. 60
    Milton Platt

    Sam, you have proposed a test that has been tentatively agreed to and you have an interested audience following the comments here. This is your chance to claim the Nobel Prize, dude!!!

  61. 61
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf (August 28, 2013 at 12:15 pm):
    So was that a yes or a no?

    1. 61.1
      Lord Narf

      Yes or no to which question? I made several points, in my last comment.

    2. 61.2
      Lord Narf

      If you meant whether or not I thought you were being willfully obtuse, then no. Given the option between you being obtuse through misunderstanding or being obtuse through dishonesty, I’m assuming the former, based upon your misunderstanding of so many other things. Although, I can see how other people, like Russel could take it as the latter.

    3. 61.3
      Milton Platt

      Bottom line is that you must clearly state to everyone what you would accept as failure of your premise concerning answered prayer (god revealing himself). No wiggle room allowed. Be clear and be concise. Lord Narf has clearly defined his position. ambiguity on your part will render the experiment of no value.

      1. Lord Narf

        At least I’ve defined it as well as I could, given his vague claim. I’m not particularly happy with the terms involved, but I suspect that it’s the best that we’re likely to get out of him. At least the terms are defined within my standards of evidence.

        1. Milton Platt

          Since whether in the positive or the negative, the experience would be your personal experience and not open to interpretatation by others including Sam, is that not correct? Your own interpretation must be accepted as the correct one, because he expects others to accept his enterpretation of his supposed experiences. Seems only fair and even handed.

          1. Lord Narf

            That depends upon the sort of evidence that his god decided to give me, I guess. It could be something more objective and verifiable, although his god doesn’t have a particularly good track record of providing that sort of evidence.

            If it was an entirely experiential sign or whatever, I don’t see how it could be anything that would meet my standards of evidence, anyway. My mind could have just been glitching during the event, for all I would know; maybe someone slipped me some acid or something. But it wouldn’t necessarily be open to my interpretation, if I was able to properly convey all of the details more or less objectively.

            I dunno. His god is omnipotent. Let him figure it out.

  62. 62
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf,
    My question was, “Do you think I am being obtuse to aggravate you?”
    After searching for your answer, I found a “no”. Thank you. Now we can continue. Please make the following change:
    Change from: So, when I perform the steps of your demonstration, and it fails . . . after 40 days, you’re going to accept that as evidence that your god does not exist, and you’ll give up your religious beliefs, right? It’s not a real test, if the failure of the test does not disprove the claim. I’ll wait for your acceptance of the proposition.
    Change to: So, when I perform the steps of your demonstration, and if it fails . . . after 40 days, you’re going to accept that as evidence that your god does not exist, and you’ll give up your religious beliefs, right? It’s not a real test, if the failure of the test does not disprove the claim. I’ll wait for your acceptance of the proposition.
    Question: Will you accept the change? If you do, I will accept your proposition.
    I simplified the change because I like what you say:
    (1) “I can’t imagine any sort of convincing sign that will actually occur, . . . . But of course I’m not going to reject unambiguous, convincing evidence, if there happened to be some sort of god out there who wanted to demonstrate itself to me.”
    (2) “As Matt says, an omniscient god would know what sort of evidence I would require to accept its existence. I’m not going to deny that evidence, once I have it.”
    AS FOR YOU, MILTON PLATT, you keep sticking your nose between Lord Narf and me. Because of that, I am making you chairman of the Nobel Prize committee. Make sure you award the prize to Lord Narf for being the only person I know who writes an encyclopedia with a bunch of questions and forgets to answer a question. Then, when asked, “So was that a yes or a no?” he tries to make you feel stupid by asking, “Yes or no to which question?”
    When he finally figures out which question one is talking about, to find out how he answered the question, you have to go through a sea of words to find the answer.
    I hope both of you have a sense of humor like God. I was watching Dean Martin’s Celebrity Roasts when Mohammad Ali was one of the speakers. Ali told Dean Martin, who portrays himself as a drunk, “When God made you he showed that he has a sense of humor.” That is how I know God has one.
    Back to you Lord Narf! Give me a simple yes or no to: Will you accept the change?
    Milton, you should not give Lord Narf a second award if he again does not give me a simple answer.
    By the way Lord Narf, what will you give up if there is a response?

    1. 62.1
      Lord Narf

      Change from: So, when I perform the steps of your demonstration, and it fails . . . after 40 days, you’re going to accept that as evidence that your god does not exist, and you’ll give up your religious beliefs, right? It’s not a real test, if the failure of the test does not disprove the claim. I’ll wait for your acceptance of the proposition.
      Change to: So, when I perform the steps of your demonstration, and if it fails . . . after 40 days, you’re going to accept that as evidence that your god does not exist, and you’ll give up your religious beliefs, right? It’s not a real test, if the failure of the test does not disprove the claim. I’ll wait for your acceptance of the proposition.
      Question: Will you accept the change? If you do, I will accept your proposition.

      So, check me on this. The only change you made was to insert the word ‘if’, correct? I scanned both passages, and I don’t see anything else. Hell, for that matter, I might have written ‘and in the event of its failure’ if I had written it at a different time. Inserting the word ‘if’ has the same general effect as that. No complaints here. So, what we have is:

      I will select a quiet setting to sit and relax, when I feel comfortable doing it.
      Take three deep breathes slowly to make contact with nature. Meditate (keep my mind blank) for three minutes to clear and settle your mind. Then, be sincere as you read the statement below:

      “God, Sam Chacon said to ask you to please reveal yourself to me to help him prove that you are real. Please do it in an unambiguous way, so there is no doubt to me that you are real. You know what it will take to convince me, since you know all.”
      This is like making an appointment with a doctor. In this case let’s wait up to 40 days.

      When I perform the steps of your demonstration, if it fails . . . after 40 days, you’re going to accept that as evidence that your god does not exist, and you’ll give up your religious beliefs, right? It’s not a real test, if the failure of the test does not disprove the claim.

      We don’t really need to lay out the conditions for a positive result. If I receive my unambiguous, convincing sign, I’m obviously going to share it and see what everyone else makes of it. Within the bounds of the test, I’m not required to become a Christian, merely accept the existence of the Christian god. Whether or not I would worship that god would depend upon how well he was able to excuse all of the horrors and immoral teachings of his holy book and his worshipers.

      How does that sound to you? I clipped a few unnecessary sentences and tightened up the wording in places (and added a few unnecessary verbosities, I’m sure). Any additions?
      Russel? You have any suggestions on the wording?

      AS FOR YOU, MILTON PLATT, you keep sticking your nose between Lord Narf and me.

      Dude, it’s the comment section of a blog, not a private conversation. For that, we would require e-mail or something. He has every right to add in his two cents at any time he wishes. I’m surprised we don’t have others more involved. I guess most of them have gotten bored and aren’t paying attention to this thread anymore.

      Make sure you award the prize to Lord Narf for being the only person I know who writes an encyclopedia with a bunch of questions and forgets to answer a question. Then, when asked, “So was that a yes or a no?” he tries to make you feel stupid by asking, “Yes or no to which question?”
      When he finally figures out which question one is talking about, to find out how he answered the question, you have to go through a sea of words to find the answer.

      I didn’t figure out anything. I was guessing blindly. Actually, I didn’t think that that was the most likely question you were asking. I thought it more likely that you were asking if I accepted your proposition, as you had previously stated it. That was a much longer answer, though, so I went with the simpler question.

      Besides, I had already answered that question, in my previous post: “There’s being obtuse, and then there’s being willfully obtuse. The former isn’t necessarily dishonest, if it’s just the result of a difference in worldviews. I think that’s probably the case here. You’re sure persistent in your misunderstandings, though.”
      I didn’t think you would be asking a question that I had already answered. Which part did you not understand? Do you not grasp the difference between former and latter, or what? I don’t see which part you could have been confused about.

      It’s not my fault that you can’t ask a clear question. If you had been following up a brief comment that only dealt with one subject, you could have gotten by with a simple yes-no question. Otherwise, you need to include at least a piece of the referent. When I asked my questions, as you mocked me for doing, they were clear.

      I hope both of you have a sense of humor like God.

      Even given the ontological definition of God, as being the greatest of all things, I think I can give him a run for his money, in having a perverse sense of humor.

      1. Milton Platt

        I’m just easily entertained, I guess. And I am anything but thin skinned. I can watch quietliy from the shadows if my comments are going to get his nose out of joint. Just post the end date of the experiment so we can put it on the calendar.

        1. Alicia

          Well, I am thin skinned as hell, but by gum I find this equal parts entertaining and aggravating…lol

        2. Lord Narf

          Yup, I’ll do that. I wonder if Sam will still be around, at that point.

      2. Alicia

        Sam is just annoying me more than not at this point–sincere or no, he’s an idiot.

        1. Lord Narf

          *shrug*

          He thinks his god will do something to reveal himself to me. I don’t see what could possibly qualify, short of a few of the miracles in the Bible. For that matter, even most of the miracles in the Bible wouldn’t qualify, even if they had happened close to the way they were written. There are a lot of catastrophic natural events which were passed off as miracles, because people back then thought that those sorts of things were caused by gods.

          I anticipate a long, boring series of updates:

          Nothing of note happened this week.

          Still nothing.

          I have a weird feeling inside, but I think it’s gas.

          I had an interesting dream last night, but I think that might have been Satan. I don’t believe Yahweh would have included quite so many half-naked women doing all of those things with each other.

          1. Milton Platt

            What are you doing having my dreams?

  63. 63
    Milton Platt

    Chairman of the Nobel Prize Committee….I’m comming up in the world!!.

    I noticed in your last comment that you attributed your knowledge of god’s sense of humor to a punch line written by an anonymous joke writer and delivered by a muslim boxer on a TV show. Your concept of an all-powerful god is quite different from what most folks would conceive of. But I guess that has roughly the same veracity as the Bible.

  64. 64
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf,
    In general, I agree with what you say. We are getting very close to kick-off time. However, let me cover a few items.
    1. “Within the bounds of the test, I’m not required to become a Christian, merely accept the existence of the Christian god. Whether or not I would worship that god would depend upon how well he was able to excuse all of the horrors and immoral teachings of his holy book and his worshipers.”
    About, “Within the bounds of the test, I’m not required to become a Christian, merely accept the existence of the Christian god.” Not exactly.
    You are correct that you are not required to become a Christian.
    That you are to “merely accept the existence of a Christian god” is not correct. Change that to merely accept the existence of a god. There are different deities; Christians have their own. I will not get into it.
    Please let me explain. As it was explained to me, believe it or not! There is a God, Son, and Holy Spirit. The God part is called the Father. He is the designer. That is the one we are talking about, the one that guides me. The Son part is the one behind the writing of the Bible. He has a good and a bad personality. He has a terrible temper that comes out when he does not like something people do. He threw Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden because they disobeyed him. Lucifer had told them the truth; they would not die if they ate fruit from the tree of good and evil. Death had to happen because of the law of opposites—where there is life there has to be death. After the Son threw them out of the garden, Lucifer took them. Of course, it meant that Lucifer could do with them what he wished. The son realized he had made a mistake and wants Adam and Eve’s children, but to get them he had to allow himself to be crucified. If Christians want to go back to the Son, they have to be born again. In Christianity, to be born again is to undergo a “spiritual rebirth” (regeneration) of the human soul or spirit from the “Holy Spirit”. That is what Christians believe. That is not what we are doing.
    2. “I clipped a few unnecessary sentences and tightened up the wording in places (and added a few unnecessary verbosities, I’m sure). Any additions? “How does that sound to you?”
    No additions and that sounds great.
    3. You ask, “Russel? You have any suggestions on the wording?”
    Let’s wait to see if Russell has any suggestions on the wording. Please, let me know what he says.

    1. 64.1
      Lord Narf

      That you are to “merely accept the existence of a Christian god” is not correct. Change that to merely accept the existence of a god. There are different deities; Christians have their own. I will not get into it.
      Please let me explain. As it was explained to me, believe it or not! There is a God, Son, and Holy Spirit. The God part is called the Father. He is the designer. That is the one we are talking about, the one that guides me. The Son part is the one behind the writing of the Bible. He has a good and a bad personality. He has a terrible temper that comes out when he does not like something people do. He threw Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden because they disobeyed him. Lucifer had told them the truth; they would not die if they ate fruit from the tree of good and evil. Death had to happen because of the law of opposites—where there is life there has to be death. After the Son threw them out of the garden, Lucifer took them. Of course, it meant that Lucifer could do with them what he wished. The son realized he had made a mistake and wants Adam and Eve’s children, but to get them he had to allow himself to be crucified. If Christians want to go back to the Son, they have to be born again. In Christianity, to be born again is to undergo a “spiritual rebirth” (regeneration) of the human soul or spirit from the “Holy Spirit”. That is what Christians believe. That is not what we are doing.

      Sounds almost like you’re a Gnostic or one of those other dualist sects of early Christianity, back in the doctrine wars of the first couple of centuries, CE. So, tell me what I should be expecting from this being you’re trying to put me in contact with? What sort of … flavor should I expect, within its communications? How will I know the right one is doing this, if there are multiple gods out there?

      The … prayer? … that you’ve constructed for me to will out into the void, or whatever, is a little on the vague side. You have me addressing “God” specifically, which is pretty much exclusively used by the various Christians out there … but then you tell me there are multiple gods. Can you tighten that up a bit and give me a little direction in my beseeching?

      Let’s wait to see if Russell has any suggestions on the wording. Please, let me know what he says.

      Although I also e-mailed him directly, I imagine he’ll respond in this comment thread, if he’s going to. We’ll see.

  65. 65
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf:
    I will address your concerns.
    (Note: I will use caps because underlines and bold type do not print when I submit a comment.)
    1. “So, tell me what I should be expecting from this being you’re trying to put me in contact with?”
    You should be expecting a response.
    It is like me making an appointment for you to see a doctor, and you expecting me to tell you what the doctor is going to say. However, like a doctor he will examine you. In this case, he will examine your motives, your attitude, and your fears. Fear is an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat. If you have any fear, even a slight one, you will set an emotional shield around you, a bubble so to speak, to keep any harmful situation from hurting you. In psychoelectrology, an EMOTION is E+MOTION. E is aEther energy that puts the electrochemical processes in the brain into motion, that is, it puts mind energy in MOTION. In physics, MOTION is a mass movement caused by a force. God respects everyone. If you have any kind of fear, he will not attempt to penetrate your protective bubble. There will be no response to the proposed request.
    2. “What sort of … flavor should I expect, within its communications?”
    If it happens, you should expect a good flavor, whatever it is. That means you should expect to feel good about the results. How good? You will see.
    3. “How will I know the right one is doing this, if there are multiple gods out there? . . . You have me addressing “God” specifically, which is pretty much exclusively used by the various Christians out there … but then you tell me there are multiple gods. Can you tighten that up a bit and give me a little direction in my beseeching?”
    I explained it before, but I obviously did not do a good job. So let me try again. In this latest message, you included what I said, which is, “The God part is called the Father. He is the designer. That is the one we are talking about, the one that guides me.”
    Also, in my message, in response to yours dated August 26, 2013 at 9:31 a.m., I pointed out as follows: “God, (HE KNOWS WE AR TALKING TO THE DESIGNER) Sam Chacon said to ask you to please reveal yourself to me (Lord Narf) to help him prove that you are real. Please do it in a way, so there is no doubt to me that you are real.”
    So you see, when you mention my name the request will go to the right god, the designer.
    Let me take this opportunity to explain something I know you will not accept, and you will start to call me all sorts of your names. It is this. God the designer has subordinate designers working for him. They designed the flowers, the solar system, RNA and DNA, and THEY WERE BEHIND EVERY STEP IN THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS FROM MAKING THE FISH TO MODERN MAN. Scientists say changes were caused by “natural selection”. It is like when I worked for the Department of Defense. The government awarded contracts to three contractors to make missiles or helicopters or special weapons. I inspected some of them. The government then selected the best models manufactured and gave production contracts that the contractor that made them. That was the government’s type of “natural selection”. In the Bible, it says that it will be done on earth as it is done in heaven. This is one of the 10% of the scientific parts of the Bible I mentioned to Russell Glasser once before. Sorry for my rambling.
    4. About Russell you say, “Although I also e-mailed him directly, I imagine he’ll respond in this comment thread, if he’s going to. We’ll see.”
    Russell will probably wait until I address your concerns, and he will want to know if you have other questions. So we will wait until you hear from him.

    1. 65.1
      Lord Narf

      I guess your name, as a beacon (or whatever you want to call it), will suffice, yeah. I clipped out the parenthetical bits from the part in quotes, because I assumed you didn’t mean me to actually say/think them.

      God respects everyone. If you have any kind of fear, he will not attempt to penetrate your protective bubble. There will be no response to the proposed request.

      This makes it seem like you’re already readying your excuses, in case your god fails to reveal himself to me.

      I have no fear about having reality revealed to me. You’d think your god would understand that my desire to know the truth trumps any supposed fear of that truth. I’m a huge fan of fantasy and mythology. I would love for there to be something more out there than mundane reality. I would love for there to be something after we die, instead of what all of the good evidence points towards … which is to say nothing. I’m just not gullible enough to accept fairy tales which contradict a great deal of the scientific knowledge we’ve discovered and which demonstrate the same sort of mythical elements that humans have been making up for as long as we’ve been human.

      Let me take this opportunity to explain something I know you will not accept, and you will start to call me all sorts of your names.

      It would almost be better if you just spun out the myths without trying to connect them to scientific concepts. You’re just demonstrating that you don’t understand the science, when you do that. I saw a lot of stuff like your E+MOTION silliness, when I read lots of new-age nonsense, in my late teens, before I chucked those religious concepts as well. The world would be a wild place if it actually worked that way, but it doesn’t.

    2. 65.2
      Russell Glasser

      Why do you keep asking me to participate? I already told you I don’t think you know what you’re talking about and I was done with this conversation weeks ago.

  66. 66
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf:
    Of everything you said, there are two words that I was very pleased to read, the words are “in case”. Here is what you said, “This makes it seem like you’re already readying your excuses, in case your god fails to reveal himself to me.” You did not use the word “when”.
    That puts both of us in a WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS mode. So, I guess we are both ready for whatever happens. Right!
    Russell says, “Why do you keep asking me to participate? I already told you I don’t think you know what you’re talking about and I was done with this conversation weeks ago.”
    So, are you ready? Tell me when you will do it.

    1. 66.1
      Russell Glasser

      So, are you ready? Tell me when you will do it.

      Earlier, I did not accept your “challenge” and wrote you multiple extremely detailed emails explaining why your request was dishonest. Then I told you I would not accept your request unless you agreed to some terms of mine.

      I haven’t been following this conversation very closely. Why don’t you repeat to me what my terms were, and tell me if you’ve now accepted them, and EXACTLY what you plan to say if the “experiment” is a failure.

      1. Lord Narf

        I haven’t been following this conversation very closely. Why don’t you repeat to me what my terms were, and tell me if you’ve now accepted them, and EXACTLY what you plan to say if the “experiment” is a failure.

        That’s what I’m mostly wondering. He’s already shown his hand a bit, stating that if his god detects any fear, it won’t attempt to penetrate my bubble. I have a few more questions for him, about that.

        1. Lord Narf

          … attempt to penetrate my bubble.

          … which sounds a lot kinkier than you probably intended it to sound, now that I read it again.

      2. Lord Narf

        Oh, and any chance I can see what those additional terms are? That’s the sort of input I was hoping to receive.

        1. Lord Narf

          … errr, assuming you are still easily able to find them. I missed the implication that you can’t easily find them, when I scanned this message the last time.

  67. 67
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf,
    I wrote a comment and in the reply comment section says, “Your comment is awaiting moderation?” I do not know what that means.

    1. 67.1
      Milton Platt

      I’ve had that happen as well. Seems the system looks for certain words or phrases perhaps and it sometimes kicks a comment into moderation. Usually posts within a day. No worries. Probably automated to catch spam or abusive language and it doesn’t always do a perfect job.

      1. Lord Narf

        Adding more than two links to a comment triggers moderation, as well. I have that happen all of the time. It’s puzzling, since most spammers probably just add one link to their comments.

        I dunno. I haven’t seen things from the administrative side, so I could be mistaken about that.

        1. Martin Wagner

          Many spammers don’t link in the body of the comment at all, which is why FTB is set up so that the very first comment from a given IP address goes into moderation. If you’re cleared for being legit, you’re home free from then on. You can usually tell the obvious spambots, because the text of the comment is very generic praise, like “I really love the writing here on your blog, I had never considered these points before and I look forward to reading more,” and then their username links to knockoff designer handbags and herbal Viagra and such.

          1. Lord Narf

            Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of the super-generic stuff, with the link in the user name, posted by spammers. Cool, so my perception of the situation wasn’t completely off-base.

            I’ve never had anything get caught up in moderation, after my first post, unless I create a bunch of links. Anything with more than two always gets held up.

          2. Russell Glasser

            Lord Narf’s right — you’re not entirely home free once you’re signed up. Creating a post with more than two links also triggers automatic moderation.

  68. 68
    Sam Chacon

    To Milton Platt:
    Thanks for your input. What I discovered is that I had made a mistake when I entered my email address. You are correct. Just wait. No problem. Again, thanks.

  69. 69
    Sam Chacon

    To Russell Glasser and Lord Narf:
    Mr. Glasser, I apologize for not making it clear. The phrase, “So, are you ready? Tell me when you will do it.” is meant for Lord Narf because he is the one to whom I was writing; I am asking him if he is ready. Narf was waiting for you to reply to his message. Your reply to Narf was, “Why do you keep asking me to participate? I already told you I don’t think you know what you’re talking about and I was done with this conversation weeks ago.”
    So, I will rewrite what I said to Narf to make it clear.
    To Lord Narf:
    This is a rewrite of what I said before.
    Of everything you said, there are two words that I was very pleased to read, the words are “in case”. Here is what you said, “This makes it seem like you’re already readying your excuses, in case your god fails to reveal himself to me.” You did not use the word “when”.
    That puts both of us in a WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS mode. So, I guess we are both ready for whatever happens. Right!
    You were waiting to hear from Russell. His response is, “Why do you keep asking me to participate? I already told you I don’t think you know what you’re talking about and I was done with this conversation weeks ago.” To me, that means he has nothing to say about our plan.
    Lord Narf, THIS QUESTION IS FOR YOU, AND ONLY YOU, “So, are you ready?”
    If your answer is yes, tell me when you will do it.

    1. 69.1
      Lord Narf

      I still want a clarification of the bit you added in your last message.

      So, what happens if I come back with a negative result? What will that mean to you? Will you accept that as a demonstration that your claims are not real, or will you immediately start spinning like mad? Your statements about my supposed fear indicate that you’re already readying your excuses. How am I supposed to accept any honesty from you, in the event of your god’s failure to reveal himself to me, when you already seem to be setting up excuses, before I even do my part?

    2. 69.2
      Lord Narf

      You see, Sam, here’s the problem. Theists tend to lack accountability in the claims they make about their religion. They make a claim, then make people jump through hoops that they promise will result in a certain thing happening. When that claim fails, they don’t admit it; they just start making excuses.

      I’ve already done this sort of beseeching of a god to reveal himself to me, several times, with many different parameters. That’s why I have no confidence in it working this time, either. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I’m not expecting anything more interesting than what has happened the previous times … which is nothing.

      Despite your agreement to the statement that a lack of results will mean that your understanding of your god is incorrect and that that god doesn’t exist, I don’t really expect you to make good on that part of the agreement, in the event of your demonstration’s failure. I expect you to either start spinning like crazy or disappear entirely to find a new group of people to preach at, despite your previous agreement.

      … but Christ, man. You’re already spinning, and we haven’t even kicked things off. You don’t see a problem with this?

      That’s why I want to know what other conditions Russel had proposed, in an attempt to nail you down. If you’re really so confident that your god will reveal himself to me, as you say, why wouldn’t you agree to a little accountability? You should still have the e-mails you exchanged with Russel. What were the other conditions that he proposed?

  70. 70
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf:
    You say, “I still want a clarification of the bit you added in your last message. So, what happens if I come back with a negative result? What will that mean to you? Will you accept that as a demonstration that your claims are not real, or will you immediately start spinning like mad?”
    I will accept that as a demonstration that my claims are not real.
    You say, “Your statements about my supposed fear indicate that you’re already readying your excuses. How am I supposed to accept any honesty from you, in the event of your god’s failure to reveal himself to me, when you already seem to be setting up excuses, before I even do my part?”
    When I said something about “if you had any fear” your reply was,
    “I have no fear about having reality revealed to me. You’d think your god would understand that my desire to know the truth trumps any supposed fear of that truth. I’m a huge fan of fantasy and mythology. I would love for there to be something more out there than mundane reality. I would love for there to be something after we die, instead of what all of the good evidence points towards … which is to say nothing. I’m just not gullible enough to accept fairy tales which contradict a great deal of the scientific knowledge we’ve discovered and which demonstrate the same sort of mythical elements that humans have been making up for as long as we’ve been human.”
    I like your statement, and am glad that you do not have any kind of fear. You took it to mean that I was already setting up excuses before you even did your part. Sorry it sounded that way.
    In reference to Russell, you say, in part,
    “That’s why I want to know what other conditions Russel had proposed, in an attempt to nail you down. If you’re really so confident that your god will reveal himself to me, as you say, why wouldn’t you agree to a little accountability?”
    I tried to set up an experiment with Russell. He wanted for me to agree that if god did not reveal himself to him it would mean that there was no god. My response was that I could not accept that because I had asked God to tell me how he designed the universe and he did: the answer was that the design is based on three laws of activity. I have researched science books and the Internet for “the three laws of activity”. The Internet takes me to Newton’s three laws of motion, which are not the same. So to me, receiving the three laws of activity was proof that there is a god.
    Here is something else. If you do not believe me or think I am nuts, I do not care. What I am about to explain is behind my motives. I am trying to figure out what god wants. It seems that god wants people to know he is real. He talks to Vassula Ryan. He wants her to guide religions to unite and form one religion. He appeared to an atheist Jordan Lejuwaan to let him know about life. Jordan asked god, “Why pick on an atheist of all people? Why are you telling me all this? And why now?”
    God replies, “Why you? Because you can accept my existence without your ego caving in and groveling like a naughty child. Can you seriously imagine how the Pope would react to the reality of my existence? If he really understood how badly wrong he and his church have been, how much of the pain and suffering you mentioned earlier has been caused by his religion, I suspect he’d have an instant coronary!” (Reference: http://www.highexistence.com/mind-blowing-story-talking-to-god/.)
    You say, “If you’re really so confident that your god will reveal himself to me, as you say, why wouldn’t you agree to a little accountability?”
    The fact is that I do not know if god will reveal himself to you. That is what I want to find out. If he does not reveal himself to you, I will wonder why, if not God the designer then who or what is telling me to do all this.
    I could not ask Russell to try again because he said he was done with the experiment.
    So, when you came along I saw it as an opportunity to try again.
    If we do this and god reveals himself to you, an atheist, I will know that the guidance I am receiving does come from God the Creator.
    I hope there are no more misunderstandings or questions so that we can proceed.
    What do you say, shall we begin?
    I HOPE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY HAVE A PEACEFUL LABOR DAY.

    1. 70.1
      Lord Narf

      I tried to set up an experiment with Russell. He wanted for me to agree that if god did not reveal himself to him it would mean that there was no god. My response was that I could not accept that because I had asked God to tell me how he designed the universe and he did: the answer was that the design is based on three laws of activity. I have researched science books and the Internet for “the three laws of activity”. The Internet takes me to Newton’s three laws of motion, which are not the same. So to me, receiving the three laws of activity was proof that there is a god.

      I wouldn’t go so far as to say that it’s a demonstration that no god of any sort exists, and I doubt that you’re paraphrasing Russel correctly, since that doesn’t sound like something Russel would say, unless he was already so frustrated that he was being very sloppy with his language.

      What I would say is that it would be a demonstration that your god does not exist, as you claim him to be, and that there’s no reason to believe that he exists in any way, without overwhelming, further proof, since your revelations about him are obviously incorrect. What would a negative result do to impact your belief in your god?

      What would a negative result do to impact your acceptance of your unscientific nonsense about the ‘laws of activity’. How did you even verify the three laws of activity? How did you test them? Revelation by an un-evidenced god does not qualify as evidence.

      You’re right that Newton’s Laws of Motion are not the same. Why would you think the two sets of claims had anything to do with each other? Further, Newtons Laws of Motion are scientifically demonstrated. Yours are not.

      He appeared to an atheist Jordan Lejuwaan …

      Your statements about Jordan Lejuwaan are pretty much worthless. You don’t understand anything about science or atheists, if you thought that it would have any effect.

      Leah Libresco’s stated reason for converting to Catholicism is one of the weakest reasons I’ve ever heard. One atheist doing something for a bad reason should do nothing to affect any other atheists. At least, in Leah’s case, we have a written history of her activities as an atheist, prior to her conversion. Do we have anything similar of Jordan’s? How do we know he isn’t some fraud, like Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel, who speak of their pre-Christian skepticism, then proceed to demonstrate that they know nothing of skepticism.

      The fact is that I do not know if god will reveal himself to you. That is what I want to find out. If he does not reveal himself to you, I will wonder why, if not God the designer then who or what is telling me to do all this.

      That’s not what you stated, previously. How can you criticize me for using absolute terms, when you did the same, claiming what your god would do … and now you’re walking it back.

      So, this “test” will do nothing to alter your belief in your god. Why would I bother doing it, then? As I’ve already said, I’ve done this sort of thing several times. There’s no reason for me to think that anything of the sort exists. What’s in it for me?

      1. Jasper of Maine

        You’re still talking to the brick wall. That’s dedication!

        1. Lord Narf

          … or commitment.

          … or maybe I should just be committed.

          1. Alicia

            hummm–decisions, decisions ….

          2. Milton Platt

            Lord Narf……..

            Sorry to jump in the middle with this, but is there a way to send you an email? I have something which I would like to share. It’s been on my mind for a few days and needs to be brought up, but not in a public forum.

            If the system allows, here is my email: [email protected]

            Thanks!

          3. Alicia

            aww man I wanna know, I wanna know! LOL j/k you guys ;-)

          4. Lord Narf

            Well, I can just add you into the group e-mail, if Milton doesn’t mind sharing.

          5. Milton Platt

            Please feel free to share, not trying to be mysterious, sorry for the bad manners, but there was a good reason

          6. Alicia

            Ah I am just being silly–but seriously I may drop a line

          7. Lord Narf

            Heh, no worries. I understand.

          8. Lord Narf

            It’s nothing all that secretive or anything, just a bit of speculation about Sam.

        2. Alicia

          I know–Jeez Narf you are a SAINT!!!!!

          1. Lord Narf

            ~.^

          2. Lord Narf

            That’s not at all obvious that that’s supposed to be a Spock eyebrow, is it?

          3. Alicia

            ROFLMAO

          4. Lord Narf

            Anyway, how does bloody-minded persistence make me a saint? I’m confused.

          5. Alicia

            I dunno dude–I would have thrown up my hands and walked alway long ago but then, as I get older, I find myself sufferign fools lightly–speaking f which, I realyt, really REALLY want you to check out a podcast I did under the sistah atheist umbrella: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bykTfAKLWH8 I am trying to get all
            hard cord and stuff….lol

    2. 70.2
      Milton Platt

      Just curious, Sam, you state that god wants to reveal himself to people. And yet for all the thousands of years that humans have existed, there is not one shred of credible evidence for his existence. An incredibly powerful being that literally created he universe and everything in it would have no problem making his presence known universally and without any doubts. Why would he choose to reveal himself to a handful of unknows and give them nothing of value as evidence to share as proof for others?

      How does the fact that you discovered on the Internet that there wre no three laws of activity prove the opposite and make you think they exist? Are you suggesting that whatever I can dream up, if I cannot find it in the Internet, that means it exists? That is too bizarre for words.

      1. Alicia

        well said!

  71. 71
    Lambros Geo

    Funny thing, when I was a kid, I used to think really, REALLY hard to become Spiderman. Sure now I know why it didn’t work, I did it in the toilet, really not a spiritually-tuned location. Perhaps, in the same sense, God doesn’t show up ‘coz we call him from the wrong location. I mean, really, for every experiment, there have to be established environmental parameters, right? Altitude, temperature, air density, psychoelectrical flow, ectoplasmic efficiency, e+motional capacity, you know, standard rules.

    1. 71.1
      Milton Platt

      Dude, all you have to do is go to Walmart and buy the underware!!!

    2. 71.2
      Milton Platt

      And I just misspelled “underwear”…..there goes all my credibility.

      1. Alicia

        Not to mention they came out with that attachment that spits out a web like goo…lol

        1. Milton Platt

          You’re makin’ me glad I don’t have any small children…..LOL

          1. Alicia

            ROFLMAO!!! Yeah–not fun.

  72. 72
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf: You say, “How did you even verify the three laws of activity? How did you test them? Revelation by an un-evidenced god does not qualify as evidence.”
    The three laws of activity are axioms. That means they are self-evident; an established rule, principle or law. You will obviously decide, you will not accept what I say because you will not recognize or accept them as truth, but they are.
    You say, “So, this “test” will do nothing to alter your belief in your god. Why would I bother doing it, then? As I’ve already said, I’ve done this sort of thing several times. There’s no reason for me to think that anything of the sort exists. What’s in it for me?”
    About, “So, this “test” will do nothing to alter your belief in your god.”
    You are missing the point I have been trying to make. To me, it is not about believing in god. I never said I believed in god. I am beyond believing. What I say is that I know God is real. It is a matter of finding out if god will do as I asked him to do, which is to reveal he to you because I requested it. To do it this way is more scientific. Whatever happens will be more meaningful to both of us.
    About, “What’s in it for me?”
    I do not know what’s in it for you. You tell me. All you want to prove is what you said, “As I’ve already said, I’ve done this sort of thing several times. There’s no reason for me to think that anything of the sort exists.”
    So, if you want to cancel the plan, just say so.

    1. 72.1
      Lord Narf

      The three laws of activity are axioms. That means they are self-evident; an established rule, principle or law. You will obviously decide, you will not accept what I say because you will not recognize or accept them as truth, but they are.

      Even axioms are at least demonstrable in some way. Your Three Laws of Activity are not.

      You are missing the point I have been trying to make. To me, it is not about believing in god. I never said I believed in god. I am beyond believing. What I say is that I know God is real. It is a matter of finding out if god will do as I asked him to do, which is to reveal he to you because I requested it. To do it this way is more scientific. Whatever happens will be more meaningful to both of us.

      This is nothing approaching scientific, man.

      I do not know what’s in it for you. You tell me. All you want to prove is what you said, “As I’ve already said, I’ve done this sort of thing several times. There’s no reason for me to think that anything of the sort exists.”
      So, if you want to cancel the plan, just say so.

      I think it’s utterly pointless. The only likely result would be a demonstration that you’re wrong. I’ve already heard the sort of weak evidence you accept as meaningful. If that’s the kind of revelation of himself that your god does, I’m not impressed.

      If you’re just going to spin a negative result into anything you want it to mean, I don’t see what benefit can come of the experiment.

  73. 73
    Sam Chacon

    To Milton Platt:
    You say, “Just curious, Sam, you state that god wants to reveal himself to people. And yet for all the thousands of years that humans have existed, there is not one shred of credible evidence for his existence. An incredibly powerful being that literally created he universe and everything in it would have no problem making his presence known universally and without any doubts. Why would he choose to reveal himself to a handful of unknows and give them nothing of value as evidence to share as proof for others?”
    You have made very sensible points.
    This is the way I see it. For thousands of year, there has been evidence of god’s existence but no one seems to have the mentality to notice it. Maybe God wants to reveal himself to people now, so they know he is real. For example, besides telling me how the universe began, he might want me to point out some evidence, which I call clues. I offer three clues.
    1. The formation of the atoms is unique as displayed in the Periodic Table of the Elements. According to Le Cordon Bleu College, all the elements on Earth were formed in the heart of exploding stars. The early Universe was made of just two elements, hydrogen and helium, which formed into stars. At the fiery core of these stars, the hydrogen and helium were forced together to form new, heavier elements. Even heavier elements were created in the explosions of massive stars, called supernovas.
    I will not fall for this theory that all the elements on Earth were formed in the heart of exploding stars, even if every scientist agrees with it. How could supernovas send all the elements in the Periodic Table to earth in the order they are listed? I can play a guessing game as well any scientist. What I say is that the first 98 elements, except 43, 61, 85, and 87 in the table were formed as the earth cooled after an explosion. Elements with atomic numbers 43, 61, 85, 87, 99–118 were artificially synthesized by chemists. That some elements came from supernovas? Perhaps, but not all of them!
    2. All the flowers and vegetation have a design that also could not happen by chance. According to Lord Narf there is symbiosis behind the creation and interacting between two different organisms living in close physical association, typically to the advantage of both. However, if you read between the lines, there is a need for some form of guidance from something to arrange atoms to make flowers with beautiful designs, even to look like monkey faces and bells.
    3. The design of the solar system is the most obvious clue. According to scientists,
    A. “The design of the solar system is attributed to a nebular hypothesis, which states that our Solar System began around 4.6 billion years ago when part of a molecular cloud of interstellar gas, which was filled with particles of ice, dust, rock, and other particles, collapsed. These clouds collapsed from some kind of turbulence that caused it to heat up and eventually turn into a star.”
    Comment: That “clouds collapsed from some kind of turbulence that caused it to heat up and eventually turn into a star”? That is the way scientists play their guessing games; if all scientists agree, they accept it as a fact.
    B. “Every planet in our solar system, except for Venus and Uranus, rotates counter-clockwise as seen from above the North Pole; that is to say, from west to east. This is the same direction in which all the planets orbit the sun. Uranus was likely hit by a very large planetoid early in its history, causing it to rotate “on its side,” 90 degrees away from its orbital motion. Venus rotates backwards compared to the other planets, also likely due to an early asteroid hit which disturbed its original rotation. “
    Comment: Here is more guessing games. It says, “Uranus WAS LIKELY HIT by a very large planetoid early in its history.” And it says, “Venus rotates backwards compared to the other planets, ALSO LIKELY DUE to an early asteroid hit which disturbed its original rotation.”
    The design of the solar system with its planets is a work of art, formed by something that used Newton’s laws of motion to guided gravity to do it.
    C. “Our understanding of the origin and evolution of the solar system is still very limited. Ideas about how the solar system formed are still not thoroughly tested – there is no single theory that explains it all. Progress is made by cycling through the scientific process of hypothesis, prediction, measurement, theory, and hypothesis.”
    Comment: I have a single theory that explains the beginning. Also, before the beginning, there was planning. This is an obvious conclusion if you accept that someone made something, like a god or something or someone creating the universe.
    This is my analysis of the formation of the solar system. For the sun and planets to have a sphere shape, there had to have been an explosion of a huge piece of matter that got extremely hot. Pieces scattered about. When matter reaches a certain temperature, it changes from solid to liquid. Anything in space that is in a liquid state will automatically form a sphere as soap bubbles do. That could not have happened with a molecular cloud of interstellar gas.
    Furthermore, the position and rotation of the planets, sun and moon are related to the zodiac. Although Astrology is not recognized as a science, Evangeline Adams proved it is in a legal case in 1914. According to Karen Christino, author of Star Success, Adams was tried for fortune telling in New York but was acquitted of all wrong-doing. Many papers quoted the judge’s decision that she “had raised astrology to the dignity of an exact science”. Astrologers can predict events if they are as knowledgeable as Adams. For details go to: (www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXnXlpplojg)
    About, “An incredibly powerful being that literally created he universe and everything in it would have no problem making his presence known universally and without any doubts.”
    You are correct. I have wondered that myself, and for that same reason is why I am trying to get Lord Narf to continue with the plan.
    About, “Why would he choose to reveal himself to a handful of unknows and give them nothing of value as evidence to share as proof for others?”
    I am one of those unknowns, and he did give me something of value as evidence to share as proof for others. What he gave me is the laws used to create the universe.
    It is known, “Scientists, astronomers, philosophers, and almost everyone else – have been searching for the answer to how the universe was formed.” I have the answer. The three laws are complicated to understand so I will prepare a paper to tell you how they worked, behind the scene, to start the creation. I will send it as soon as I finish it, at least by noon tomorrow.

  74. 74
    Sam Chacon

    To Alicia (September 1, 2013 at 2:13 pm)
    I saw and heard your presentation on YouTube. Thanks for sharing part of your life. You are an eloquent speaker, bright, and well educated. You added another dimension to my understanding of life. Our main goal in life is to acquire knowledge. One of the best ways to share knowledge is to do what you did. We are to learn from each other. That is one of the reasons I keep interfacing with Lord Narf and Milton Platt. I am learning a lot from them.
    I would like to hear from anyone who knows an atheist who has died. What were his or her last gestures and words? Did they have any last minute comments about life?
    As a Christian, I have only heard from people I know who were close to death. From several who were about to die, they named close relatives waiting for them. I knew of a husband and wife who knew death to them was near. The husband, who was the most ill, told his wife that when he died he wanted to be cremated and for her to spread his ashes up in a mountain where he loved to go when they went on vacations. Well, he died. The wife did not spread his ashes as he wanted.
    About a month after his death, the wife told me that her husband was grabbing her feet at night and pulling them. Somehow, she knew it was her husband and she kept telling him to leave her alone, but he would not. She then told me about his wishes when he died. I asked her if she had spread his ashes as he wanted. She said she could not because she was too ill to go anywhere. I told her, that is probably why he is pulling your feet. He wants you to do it. She said, but I can’t. I do not have anyone who can take me. It is too far, and I don’t remember where we used to go.
    I then suggested that the next time she felt him grabbing her feet to explain to him what she told me. She said she would so it.
    A couple of weeks passed, and I called her to see what happened. She said her husband had stopped pulling her feet. This woman died a couple of month ago.
    I have a true story about a ghost that opened doors and turned light on and off. It happened in a house of a friend of one of my friends. I told them how to get rid of it. I will tell you about it if you want me to.

  75. 75
    Sam Chacon

    To Milton Platt
    The design of the universe
    Introduction
    Based on an analysis, three axiomatic laws control all activities beginning with the design of the universe. The laws are the law of unity, law of opposites, and law of references.
    The law of unity is that an action is a unit of activity.
    The law of opposites is that, in unity, opposites maintain energy balance.
    The law of references is that opposites in unity are distinguishable by a reference point.
    The universe as a whole is unity. It consists of two main opposites: the physical energy and metaphysical energy. Physical energy is detected by the body. Metaphysical energy is detected by the mind. (The brain unites physical and metaphysical energy.)
    Metaphysics addresses questions about the ultimate composites of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, and fact and value. Whatever is not physical is considered metaphysical.
    An action consists of matter and motion. The moment of movement of the matter is called time. Time begins when the motion of matter begins. Time is normally measured in seconds of time.
    With the advent of atomic clocks, it became feasible to define the second based on fundamental properties of nature. Since 1967, the second has been defined to be: the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
    Time is the nonspacial continuum in which events occur from the past through the present to the future.
    The Beginning
    To depict the beginning, imagine a small point in space, anywhere. This will be a theoretical point in time when the universe and human technology began.
    A force is required to move the point. The force could not be physical because energy without form in space is the only thing that existed. It could not cause an action on itself. Therefore, the movement had to be caused by a metaphysical force such as a ghost.
    One instant of proof that ghosts exist is the use of a ghost to move objects as demonstrated by Stanislawa Tomczyk. She was born in Poland. Tomczyk came to the attention of investigators when it was reported that startling poltergeist-like activity occurred spontaneously around her. She could control some telekinetic feats, but only under hypnosis. In this hypnotic state, Tomczyk took on a personality that called itself “Little Stasia” who could levitate small objects when Tomczyk placed her hands on them. The point is that ghosts do exist.
    According to the laws of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy has to exist somewhere; that somewhere is space. Therefore, space also had no beginning; it always existed. God has three personalities, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or Spirit. They consist of metaphysical energy; as energy, they were not created and cannot be destroyed. The point is that the Father got the ghost to move the point in space. All this is a theory.
    So, I will theorize that a ghost moved the point. This theory is as valid as the theory that Uranus was likely hit by a very large planetoid, or that the backwards of Venus, compared to the other planets, was likely due to an early asteroid hit which disturbed its original rotation.
    The three laws came into play when the point in space was moved to begin the creation of the universe. For the sake of argument, let us say that a ghost moved the point in space one inch, to keep it simple. Imagine the point one inch away from its original position. According to the law of opposites, when the point was moved, it created an anti-movement in the opposite direction. This action and reaction come from Newton’s second law of motion. This anti-movement was to maintain an energy balance between physical energy and metaphysical energy. The movement from start to finish is unity.
    This idea of movement and anti-movement comes from what is known of particle physics. Scientists discovered that particles have antiparticles. The point is that everything has an opposite because of the law of opposites.
    Now imagine the point in space moving, regularly, back and forth, up and down, side to side, and in every direction between those three axes.
    Each movement from the beginning took time for it to happen. To keep it short and simple, the movements of energy in space, in all directions, at the speed of light created particles of matter. The first particles created were electrons, up quarks, down quarks, neutrinos, and others. Up quarks and down quarks formed protons and neutrons. Protons, neutrons, and electrons combined to form atoms of hydrogen and helium. All the other elements were formed from these first two elements.
    Also, when particles are created they separate space. The separation of space creates a graviton around each particle. The earth and moon separate space and create gravity around them. That is what keeps them together.
    In summary, all movement of energy in different forms of the matter is unity. The movement of all forms of matter produces an opposite. The ultimate result of what took place, whether we understand how or not, is the creation of life! Life is the reference point that distinguishes the difference between physical energy and metaphysical energy. It exists in the brain. The brain unites physical and metaphysical energy. Without at least one brain to detect what goes on in life there would be no universe.
    All this might be as difficult to accept as it is difficult to accept that atheists find it difficult to accept that the three laws of creation that god gave me is proof that he is real.

  76. 76
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf (September 5, 2013 at 12:22 pm):
    I asked you, “If you want to cancel the plan, just say so.” You said,
    1. “This is nothing approaching scientific, man.”
    2. “I think it’s utterly pointless.”
    3. “If you’re just going to spin a negative result into anything you want it to mean, I don’t see what benefit can come of the experiment.”
    So far, everything I have said has been taken the wrong way, and you did not give me a straight answer.
    I am taking what you said as a cancellation of the plan. Thank you for your time. I respect your wisdom as an experimental scientist.
    Mr. Glasser, I think Lord Narf is one of the smartest and greatest members in your group.

    1. 76.1
      Russell Glasser

      I think pretty highly of Lord Narf too, and that being the case, I hope you will take the opportunity to reevaluate your understanding of how scientific tests actually work. Narf has basically echoed the concerns I already gave you before, and rejects your challenge on the grounds that it does not prove anything and is deliberately stacked in your favor. Rather than wasting anyone else’s time with this “challenge,” how about reassessing and changing it completely?

      1. Alicia

        Hey, I want to give Sam the benefit of the doubt, however, I get this sinking feeling that at the end of all this, he is going to sell his book, then create another where he details this exchange, claiming atheists are too scared to take God on. Not like apologists haven’t done this in the past.

        1. Milton Platt

          In a post to me he used Stanisława Tomczyk as a proof of one of his three laws. This was a medium from the first decade of the last century who was tested and shown to be a fraud. She used fine thread between her hands to make objects seem to move by themselves. The rest of the post is a rambling word salad that says nothing, really and nowhere does he provide any scientific validation for,them.

          1. Alicia

            Then why are we even still engaging? Honest question.

          2. Milton Platt

            ROFLMAO!!!
            For me I guess it just gives me a way to fill up the little empty spaces between the meaningful parts of my life.

          3. unfogged

            Everything he has posted is either word salad, delusional, or just plain wrong. He has quite clearly demonstrated that he has no understanding of what science is or how it works and can not differentiate between reality and his own little fantasy world. He apparently has no critical thinking skills at all. I don’t see that there is any common ground for discussion between him and anybody with the least inkling of what constitutes evidence.

          4. Lord Narf

            Then why are we even still engaging? Honest question.

            In my case, mostly perversity.

      2. Lord Narf

        I think pretty highly of Lord Narf too, and that being the case …

        Uhhhhhhhhh, why?

        Heh, and no, I’m not good at taking compliments. I always start looking for someone’s angle. Also, it starts making me uneasy, when people start taking me too seriously. :D

        I hope you will take the opportunity to reevaluate your understanding of how scientific tests actually work. Narf has basically echoed the concerns I already gave you before, and rejects your challenge on the grounds that it does not prove anything and is deliberately stacked in your favor. Rather than wasting anyone else’s time with this “challenge,” how about reassessing and changing it completely?

        I wouldn’t even go so far as to say that it’s stacked in his favor. The “experiment” itself is almost certainly doomed to failure, if done by a skeptical atheist.

        Sam has just insulated himself so heavily that he can shrug off any number of negative results with a readied excuse. This is exactly the sort of bias that the scientific method is intended to prevent. The fact that Sam can’t see that and calls this stuff scientific … hurts, when I try to wrap my head around it and figure out the way he thinks.

        I don’t know how to explain to him why none of the scientists he’s talked to will ever take him seriously, if he doesn’t understand something as basic as this. It’s kind of scary that he’s taught at the college level.

    2. 76.2
      Lord Narf

      Unless you can come up with a good reason that I can’t think of, yeah, I’m out. I can’t come up with a good reason for me to bother with it. When you’re admitting up front that it will have no impact upon your beliefs, and I’m pretty much positive about there being a negative result, why would we go through the motions?

      With all of the plaintive begging for some sort of evidence … any evidence that there’s a god out there, in my tweens and early teen years … if there was anything out there from which to expect a reply, I would have gotten one by now.

      And given the compounding evidence unwittingly provided by people who have received a reply from a god, including yourself, my certainty is even greater. I’ve never heard of a verified sign that is any kind of real evidence … and even almost all of the unverified evidence is so weak that the person who received the sign shouldn’t be in any way convinced by it, never mind anyone they’re trying to convince by telling of the experience.

  77. 77
    Sam Chacon

    To Milton Platt (August 25, 2113 at 9:14 a.am.) and Lord Narf (August 25, 2013 at 1:41 p. m.):
    Milton Platt, I told you about a miracle with the image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The idea was that the frame holding the image fell when the curtains started to burn.
    Lord Narf, you said that forensics could have been called to figure out what happened.
    I imagine that forensics would have found that the nail and the wire holding the frame were strong enough to prevent the frame from falling. However, they might have found that, possibly, one of the eye bolts used to attach the wire to the frame might have come off. The point is that it makes no difference how the frame fell. Forensics would not be able to tell why the frame fell when the fire started, which awoke my mom and dad. My dad had time to put out the fire before it burned anything else.
    Lord Narf, you also say, “That’s also stupid. You know that we have a science called forensics, which people use to figure out what likely happened, from clues left behind, despite the damage of a fire.”
    You would be correct the fire caused damage. I explained that the picture frame was hanging above the headboard of the bed, and the fire was at the foot area of the bed. The picture frame and the fire were at least 15 feet apart, and the fire had just started to burn when the picture frame came off the wall. In no way could the fire cause the frame to fall.
    Lord Narf, you also say, “It is a cute little story that has no value. It starts with built in bias towards the supernatural.”
    I say that to Christians like my dad who truly believe and have faith in the Sacred Heart of Jesus, it would be a miracle; whereas to you, “A miracle to me would be the obvious suspension of the laws of physics, and even then, it does not admit the supernatural in your sense.” Daniel Dunglas Home, the famous Scots-born medium of the nineteenth century, was able to levitate. Would you call levitation a miracle?
    Thanks for helping me understand, how Atheists view the world of Christians who believe in the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

    1. 77.1
      Lord Narf

      Sam, man … seriously … come on. How freaking gullible do you think we are?

      What are you trying to accomplish, continuing to post comments on this blog? You spray complements all over everyone, like a dog trying to mark his territory. You gush about how much you’ve learned from us, then turn around and spit out more vapid claims that demonstrate that you haven’t learned a damned thing.

      At this point, if you suddenly began giving us real, scientific facts, I would probably initially doubt them, simply because they came from you.

      You know that the 19th century had a rash of spiritualists, mediums, medicine men, and faith-healing con-artists, right? It got so bad that there were a lot of magicians who made it their task to expose the frauds for what they were … work that a few men like James Randi and Penn and Teller continue, today. Do you really believe that Sylvia Browne is a psychic? Do you believe that Benny Hinn is preforming miracles with the stupid “slaying in the spirit” that he does with his pre-programmed flock of religiously ecstatic idiots? Do you think Peter Popoff is a real faith healer?

      Do you really expect us to take your further insane claims seriously, just because you’ve buttered us up? And I mean literally, clinically insane. Some of us are guessing something like schizophrenia or some other form of psychosis that will make you hear voices or see visions. Do you have something like that going on, or what?

    2. 77.2
      Milton Platt

      It never ceases to amaze my how you can write so much and never say anything..

      It does no good to bring up the burning drapes/falling frame bullshit. Nobody has any interest in any of that.

      The whole point was for you to demonstrate your god actually exists. After all this time and thousands of words, he is nowhere to be found.

      1. Alicia

        I tell believers that nothing short of the old guy in a skirt showing up and creating a planet before me would convince that a supernatural entity we would call a god exists….

        1. Milton Platt

          Well, under those conditions, the skirt might not be necessary……….

          1. Alicia

            ahahaha! true dat.

  78. 78
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf (September 9, 2013 at 9:38 am ):
    You made a couple of statements that put the nails on the coffin with the experiment. One statement you made, about your experience, is, “With all of the plaintive begging for some sort of evidence … any evidence that there’s a god out there, in my tweens and early teen years … if there was anything out there from which to expect a reply, I would have gotten one by now.”
    What I think, honestly, is that god did give you some kind of evidence. However, the evidence was not what you expected it to be, so you dismissed it. It flew right over your head. Being blinded by not receiving an answer that one expects is very common. It happens between parents and children. A mother will ask her child a question, and when the child does not give the answer the mother want to hear the kid gets in trouble.
    The other statement is, “Unless you can come up with a good reason that I can’t think of, yeah, I’m out. I can’t come up with a good reason for me to bother with it. When you’re admitting up front that it will have no impact upon your beliefs, and I’m pretty much positive about there being a negative result, why would we go through the motions?”
    The point is that if god did give evidence, you would not understand it; also, my not being able to come up with a good reason that you cannot think of, then yes, why would we go through the motions?

    1. 78.1
      unfogged

      if god did give evidence, you would not understand it

      Seems like a pretty piss-poor excuse for a god. If it created people who are asking for evidence and it really wants people to know it exists then the onus is on the god to present evidence that will be understood. Of course, the alternate explanation is that there is nothing to understand because there is no god and those that think there is are just deluding themselves.

      1. Alicia

        Was having just such a debate with a couple of creationists. One ended up invoking Hell, at which point I ceased talking to him (really, where do you go from there?). The other I gave the analogy of fairies in a suitcase and asked if he would simply take my word for my claim or seek evidence. He essentially told me that the idea would be so preposterous that he wouldn’t even ask for evidence nor would he be interested in talking about it further. I was like whoa, your statement kinda makes my case for me.

      2. Jasper of Maine

        Also keep in mind that the very point of evidence is to be accessible… that’s one of the standards out of the many. The whole purpose is to be able to build a coherent, intelligible case. If God can’t do that, he sucks at science.

        The Standards of Evidence and Scientific Method has been specifically honed to maximize actual productive results. If the thing cannot be demonstrated using these principles… well, I’m sorry you decided to believe something that’s not demonstrably true.

        As usual, I’ll extend the caveat that if Sam has an alternative epistemology framework to science (not that he seems to even get how it works), he’s free to propose it, define it, and most importantly, demonstrate that it consistently works, and isn’t just another rendition of science, or a bag of tricks.

        I’ll freely admit that the nature of science may not be compatible at demonstrating that some actual real things are actually real. That’s fine. I’ll start using alternative epistemological frameworks when they’ve been sufficiently demonstrated to be effectual and productive.

    2. 78.2
      Lord Narf

      You made a couple of statements that put the nails on the coffin with the experiment. One statement you made, about your experience, is, “With all of the plaintive begging for some sort of evidence … any evidence that there’s a god out there, in my tweens and early teen years … if there was anything out there from which to expect a reply, I would have gotten one by now.”
      What I think, honestly, is that god did give you some kind of evidence. However, the evidence was not what you expected it to be, so you dismissed it. It flew right over your head. Being blinded by not receiving an answer that one expects is very common. It happens between parents and children. A mother will ask her child a question, and when the child does not give the answer the mother want to hear the kid gets in trouble.

      Dude, are you seriously trying to retroactively declare that you’re deciding that the experiment won’t work, because of some bullshit reasons, after I already declared the experiment worthless, for more scientifically-grounded reasons? That’s weaselly and dishonest, even for you. What the hell, dude?

      The other statement is, “Unless you can come up with a good reason that I can’t think of, yeah, I’m out. I can’t come up with a good reason for me to bother with it. When you’re admitting up front that it will have no impact upon your beliefs, and I’m pretty much positive about there being a negative result, why would we go through the motions?”
      The point is that if god did give evidence, you would not understand it; also, my not being able to come up with a good reason that you cannot think of, then yes, why would we go through the motions?

      Bullshit. Your god wants his creations to know him, yet he’s incapable of communicating to them in a convincing, verifiable way that they can understand. Your god is incompetent.

      This is what I was talking about. Your god fails to fit the model made by the claims of your religious beliefs, on a regular basis. When he fails, you make up an arbitrary reason to explain away the problem.

      Science works completely differently. For example, when carbon dating fails on dating sea creatures, we have a known phenomenon that causes that failure, and that failure of the primary model can be explained by the secondary model that corrupts the data of the first, under certain conditions. When your model fails, you throw random shit at the wall, hoping that something sticks. You have no scientific credibility at all, and I can understand why all of the real scientists laugh you off. Their treatment of your suggestions should tell you something.

  79. 79
    Sam Chacon

    To Lord Narf:
    Here is something for you to ponder.
    According to some Near Death Experience accounts of atheists in the NDE website, God cares very little about a person’s religion if they belong to one. What matters is the spiritual condition of the heart. Many scientific atheists devote their entire life studying the laws of nature. This may be their form of divine devotion whether they see it that way or not, such scientists are closer to spirituality than many religionists. All this supports what I say: God is a scientist. He made us in his image; we are like him, but possess different levels of empirical knowledge. Our purpose in life is to acquire total knowledge. We do that by sharing what each of us know. I told Mr. Glasser that atheists have done more to understand the bible than all the Catholic Popes that ever lived.

    1. 79.1
      Lord Narf

      Go on; lay on more unjustified, unverifiable bullshit. It gets you nowhere. How do you have the nerve to try to affiliate yourself with science, in any way?

      1. Milton Platt

        I looked on Amazon and couldn’t find his book. Did they already pull it? I thought it was a Kindle book?

        1. Narf (the abdicator)

          The direct link to it is listed in the first post about the e-mail he first sent to the AXP list. Let me go look for it.

          1. Milton Platt

            I tried the link, it shows a book called “How to Deal With Life: Genesis Simplified”. I had searched for his name and didn’t find it. So that is the book this blog thread is about?

          2. Narf (the abdicator)

            That’s the book that he was trying to get them to promote, in his initial e-mail, yes … to which they replied, “Why would we do that? And why do you think any of the atheists who read our blog would be interested in reading a crappy new-age book full of crazy assertions with nothing to back them up, passed off as science?”

  80. 80
    Sam Chacon

    To unfogged (September 9, 2013 at 2:59 pm):
    You say, “Seems like a pretty piss-poor excuse for a god. If it created people who are asking for evidence and it really wants people to know it exists then the onus is on the god to present evidence that will be understood. Of course, the alternate explanation is that there is nothing to understand because there is no god and those that think there is are just deluding themselves.”
    You have made a good statement. The sentence most enlightening is, “If it created people who are asking for evidence and it really wants people to know it exists then the onus is on the god to present evidence that will be understood.”
    When I asked god how he created the universe, he gave me an answer. It took me twenty years to figure it out. Perhaps we should see god as we see doctors. Doctors expect patients to be educated enough, so patients understand what to ask, what they say. Maybe that is the way with god. We gradually understand how god works as we gradually understand how nature works. In real life, the problem is that we sometimes do not know how to ask a question. Then, when we do not understand the answer we blame the one who gave the response.
    So, be cool, relax and think of how to ask the question, what is it you really want to know. I wanted to know something no scientist or cosmologist knew.

  81. 81
    unfogged

    I wanted to know something no scientist or cosmologist knew.

    You have yet to demonstrate that you succeeded in that. All you’ve provided so far is a bunch of semi-mystical bullshit that you apparently made up yourself without any real understanding of the material. You haven’t shown that any of it actually explains anything better than the accepted models and in many cases what you’ve said just makes no sense. (e.g. “the movements of energy in space, in all directions, at the speed of light created particles of matter” — please don’t try to explain it again, your explanations are sometimes amusing but ultimately pointless)

    You need to step back and seriously consider that you just might be wrong about what you think you “know”. Making a claim does not make it true. Having what you think is a consistent framework does not make it true. Until you can actually demonstrate that your theories have both explanatory and predictive powers you are just another charlatan making money off the gullible.

  82. 82
    Corwyn

    ” I wanted to know something no scientist or cosmologist knew.”

    Perhaps you should have been more specific, and asked to know something *true* that no scientist or cosmologist knew. Then you could be publishing in scientific journals rather than religious texts.

  83. 83
    Sam Chacon

    To Corwyn (September 9, 2013 at 6:44 pm):
    You are so right! Such details make a difference. Thanks

  84. 84
    Sam Chacon

    To unfogged (September 9, 2013 at 4:42 pm):
    You say, “All you’ve provided so far is a bunch of semi-mystical bullshit that you apparently made up yourself without any real understanding of the material.”
    I will be honest with you. All that you call “semi-mystical bullshit that you apparently made up yourself” is actually information that comes to me from somewhere. I did not apparently make it up, and yes, a lot of it I do not understand. Whatever I say comes from the Universal Bank of Knowledge, or the Akashic Records. No one has the capacity to come up with the kind of information that comes to me from there. I actually feel like a tool being used to analyze the Atheists movement for whatever reason. OH! OH! Now you know what is behind all this. You tricked me, and I fell for it.
    You also say, “Until you can actually demonstrate that your theories have both explanatory and predictive powers you are just another charlatan making money off the gullible.” If I were to explain everything and show predictive powers, I don’t think you would not understand.

    1. 84.1
      Milton Platt

      Sounds to me like an admission that you cannot prove the existence of your god. That’s what we all expected, Sam. Thank you for the confirmation.

    2. 84.2
      Milton Platt

      I have no idea what the “universal bank of knowledge” is supposed to be….another meaningless term you have made up out of thin air?

      Can’t be very “universal” if you are apparently the only one who knows about it, right? My guess is it resides Inside your head and consists of your own deluded thoughts.

      As to demonstrating explanatory and predictive powers, both would be very easily understood. It is clear that you do not possess the ability to do so, however.

    3. 84.3
      unfogged

      .. actually information that comes to me from somewhere

      The most likely source, in my opinion, is your subconscious. There’s nothing profound or even barely meaningful in anything you have posted. Unless and until you can provide any actual evidence of some other source or unequivocally demonstrate the truth of even a single assertion then I see no reason to believe anything you say.

      I actually feel like a tool being used to analyze the Atheists movement for whatever reason.

      Well, you are partly right there.

      If I were to explain everything and show predictive powers, I don’t think you would not understand.

      You evidently did not understand what I meant by the predicative powers of a theory. That doesn’t surprise me at all since you’ve consistently shown that you do not have even a basic understanding of the scientific method. I take it as a compliment that I would not understand your explanation since gibberish is not understandable by definition.

      I feel sorry for anybody that you manage to dupe with your nonsense.

      1. Jasper of Maine

        This guy is the epitome of Cargo Cult science

        1. Narf (the abdicator)

          I’m not sure he qualifies for even that much. I don’t see a lab coat.

          1. Milton Platt

            I’ll have to google cargo cult…..new term to me……I was thinking space cadet……..

          2. Milton Platt

            Thanks for the link. Enjoyed it. Wikipedia does a fair job on cargo cults as well. Understanding you always need to proceed with some caution on that site…………

          3. Alicia

            Ah–okay–thanks

          4. Alicia

            Yeah, what the foo is a Cargo cult….?

          5. Jasper of Maine

            The relevant blurb from the essay, but you’d be missing a lot of context/ideas if you don’t read the rest:

            In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head to headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas–he’s the controller–and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.

          6. Jasper of Maine

            It’s kind of like Halloween, where I can dress up to be a Supreme Court Judge, and run around pretending to be an authority on law. I don’t have the faintest clue about lawyer stuff… but I can observe them and mimic them.

            The Discovery Institute does this a lot.. where if they want to appear to be all Scientific-y, they’ll put someone in a lab coat, and interview them in some room that looks like a laboratory…. even if they do zero research ever.

          7. Alicia

            They know people are that gulliable and that this tactic does indeed work

          8. Jasper of Maine

            Although, the Halloween analogy doesn’t really work, because it’d be more like I’m tricking myself into thinking I’m an actual Judge, even though I haven’t the faintest clue.

          9. Narf (the abdicator)

            Go to the link that Russel provided. The bit that Jasper copied explains the basics, but the whole thing is a very interesting read.

        2. unfogged

          I don’t think that’s fair to the cargo-culters; they at least had evidence of airplanes bringing physical goods in response to people talking into boxes. This guy has a broken picture frame and a debunked medium.

          1. Milton Platt

            Good grief!!! The evidence is OVERWHELMING!!!!!

          2. Alicia

            LOL @ Milton

  85. 85
    Dave, ex-Kwisatz Haderach

    Well this has been an entertaining read. Enthusiastic cheers for Narf and Milton and the others that have slogged through this from the beginning.

    Just one sort of tangential question, related to post #40: I can’t find any record of an Experimental College at California State University Northridge, no records of a Psychoelectrology course being taught at CSUN (or anywhere else for that matter), or any hint that a Sam or Samuel Chacon every taught anything there. Is my google-fu weak, or is that just more of his bullshit? Should they be alerted that someone is dragging the name of their school through the mud?

  86. 86
    Sam Chacon

    To Dave, ex-KwisatzHaderach (September 11, 2013 at 4:03 pm):
    You say, “Just one sort of tangential question, related to post #40: I can’t find any record of an Experimental College at California State University Northridge, no records of a Psychoelectrology course being taught at CSUN (or anywhere else for that matter), or any hint that a Sam or Samuel Chacon every taught anything there.”
    I called CSUN Admissions and Records and asked if they still had the Experimental College to teach evening courses. They said that if there was an Experimental College it did not exist anymore. I told them that I taught at the Experimental College in the 1980’s. I told them there must be historical records showing what was taught there at that time. I talked to Saul at 818 677-3700 (5). He took my name and said it would take some time to research records. I will call again tomorrow to see if he found them. In the meantime, go to Google and search “Samuel Chacon CSUN Experimental College” then go to “Samuel Chacon About Me Page at Helium”.

    1. 86.1
      Milton Platt

      Googling the phrase you suggested brings up nothing but several references to your book an one web page put up by yourself. None of these are of any use to verify the credentials you claim. Furthermore, googling the term psychoelectrology produces absolutely no pages with that term on the Internet. Your credentials seem to be as invisible as your god.

      Invisibility and non existence look a great deal alike to me.

  87. 87
    Sam Chacon

    To Dave, ex-KwisatzHaderach:
    I called Saul about the Experimental College again. He said it probably changed to Extended Learning and for me to call Loren Jarvis to see if she could help. I plan to go see her today.

  88. 88
    Sam Chacon

    To Dave, ex-KwisatzHaderach:
    I went to CSUN and was directed to the Daily Sundial Newspaper archives. I searched the microfilm files with the help of a clerk named Sam (818 677-3282). I found an article about the Experimental College. This only proves that there was an Experimental College in the 1980’s. I taught there. Whether you believe me or not is another matter. Sam said that you were welcome to call him if you wanted to.
    CSUN:EC existed in the 1980’s. You probably could not find CSUN Experimental College on Google because it started as a research project in March 1996. Google did not become a company until September 4, 1998.

  89. 89
    Sam Chacon

    To Russell Glasser,
    Reference: Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feynman
    Everything good in life is about understanding life energy and knowing how to use it. I learned this in 1975 when I took a class in Parapsychology taught by Thelma Moss at UCLA. By the way, Carol Burnett the famous actress was in the class. You might want to call her to ask her if there was such a class.
    After analyzing the reference, I found that Feynman was not aware of a few facts of life. You have to see things my way so that what I say makes sense and has meaning.
    1. Everything is energy.
    2. The law of unity, law of opposites, and law of references control energy. These laws will become self-evident as you learn how they affect energy and life in general.
    3. Based on the law of opposites, energy consists of physical and metaphysical energies. Metaphysical energy in Aristotle’s time meant that anything that is not physical is metaphysical. That means thinking is metaphysical energy. Metaphysical energy exists in mind as thoughts, whereas physical energy exists in space as different forms of energy. In physics, a force is increased to increase energy output as power. In metaphysics, emotions are increased to increase mind power.
    4. Physical energy is useless if it is not moved (used). When it moves it vibrates at different frequencies depending on the circumstances. Metaphysical energy is useless if thoughts are not expressed in words. Metaphysical energy can be converted to physical energy by using a physical object as a medium, such as a drinking glass. Try this next time you have a headache. Get a glass about half full of purified water. Use both hands to hold a glass. Stand in front of mirror so that your physical being is seen as a metaphysical being. Raise the glass a little above eye level. Tell the water to get rid of the headache and drink it. It will take a little while for the headache to subside.
    Here is how it works: As you hold the glass, mind energy goes out of your right hand through the glass and water and into your left hand. Energy comes out of the right hand; the left hand pulls energy. When you speak, metaphysical energy goes to your head when you drink the water as you directed it to do. That is what I did when I had headaches back in 1975. Now I just tell a headache to go away. If it does not work for you, it means you do not know how to believe the metaphysical way. Read element 5 below to know what I am talking about.
    5. About the word “believe”. The meaning of believe is found in dictionaries. For me, to believe has a physical meaning and a metaphysical meaning.
    The physical meaning of belief is when we hear someone say, for example, “I believe such and such.” When people say that, we must conduct an investigation to find out if the “such and such” is true or false. Listen to statements that include the phrase “I believe”. They might go something like this: At 3:30 p.m. in a meeting a manager asks a worker, “Did the shipment go out on time?” The worker answers, “I believe so!” The response should be challenged to change it to give a physical meaning. So ask, if it did, when. The response might then be, “Yes it did. Here is the shipping document that shows it went out at 10:10 a.m. this morning.”
    This also applies to statements that include an “I think” phrase. To me, the phrase “I believe” is the same as “I think”.
    The metaphysical meaning of “believing” is when we continually put heart and soul and emotional energy into a feeling towards something and repeat the feeling daily. Adding time is the essential part of believing metaphysically. For example, consider the personal history of famous actors. They all believed they could be actors. They believed in themselves and practiced their profession every day. What they did is add time to their vision and goal.
    That is what my dad practiced; it is called devotion. He believed deeply in the Sacred Heart of Jesus. One day the frame of the Sacred Heart of Jesus fell from the wall at the moment that a fire started in the bedroom. My dad was able to put out the fire before it spread. Why did the frame fall when there was a fire and not before. He called that a miracle. It happened because of what I call a metaphysical believe system.
    Now let us apply the elements to some statements made by Feynman.
    Here are statements he made.
    “During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency.” . . . “It is such a scientific age, in fact that we have difficulty in understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when nothing that they proposed ever really worked–or very little of it did.”
    Comment: Feynman concentrated on the “nothing that they proposed ever really worked” and ignored “or very little of it did.” Why did he say that very little of it did? Was there a chance that it did happen?
    Why did he not try to figure out what worked, even if “very little of it” worked?
    What little of it that worked, very likely worked because mind energy was properly applied! The patient and witch doctor must have had the same metaphysical beliefs and the frequencies of their mind energy were in tune.
    (Read elements 1 and 5 again) The witch doctor could have used something other than a rhinoceros horn. The horn was used as a mediumistic element as is the glass of water. Witch doctors had an intuitive knowledge, and they were no different from doctors today who have learned that mind energy can cure illnesses including cancer. It is done by using imagery as David Seidler did. He visualized a “lovely, clean healthy bladder” for two weeks. The best knowledge available to explain how to cure illness by replacing metaphysical energy (Chakra energy) with electrical energy may be found in the book Vibrational Medicine by Richard Gerber.
    Here is another case about using mind energy. Back in the 1990’s my wife had a problem with hemorrhoids. I told her to apply a strong emotion and tell her hemorrhoids to go away. The next day she got mad and yelled, telling the hemorrhoids to stop bleeding. The bleeding stopped, and they have not bled since. The important thing to understand is that she did not question what I told her. She just did it.
    I also told friends how to use telepathy to tell members of their families to call, member whom they had not heard of for a long time. Also, it worked because they did not question what I told them. When you start questioning what I say it will reduce the possibility of it happening. In a way, this is what happened when Feynman visited Uri Geller. He went after making up his mind that he would find Geller to be wrong. Feynman’s negative energy cancelled Uri’s energy.
    In China, there is a school designed to teach children how to bend spoons. You can see it on YouTube if you search for “children learning to bend spoons in china”. Now imagine, China preparing an army of soldiers who can use mind power to bend the barrels of our weapons. This might be seen as farfetched, but who knows? Our military does not know how far behind they are, compared to the Chinese.
    The best way to do research is the way Mr. Young did it with the rats. That is the way I try to do it, by not following traditional thinking.

    1. 89.1
      Milton Platt

      Nobody is following this thread anymore. You have babbled for weeks and said nothing of value. You were told science-based evidence was the only accepted evidence. If you can’t provide any after all this time, you probably have none to provide.

      Sorry, Sam, that’s just how it is. Good luck with your delusions.

      1. Narf (the abdicator)

        Ditto. I’m done with your nonsense, Sam.

  90. 90
    Sam Chacon

    To Milton Platt and Narf:
    Thanks for your feedback. Good luck in the future. You stick to the physical universe. I will continue to investigate the metaphysical universe. I am reading “Journeys Out of the Body” by Robert A. Monroe to see how it is done and maybe try to do it myself.

    1. 90.1
      Narf (the abdicator)

      Let us know when you find anyone who’s able to actually see anything demonstrable and report back, while they’re out of body. No one has been able to do it, yet.

  91. 91
    Sam Chacon

    To Narf (the abdicator):
    Thanks for responding. It is interesting that you are an abdicator! How long have you been one and for what or who?
    I had an out of body experience when I was 16. I found myself floating in my bedroom looking down at my body. It happened only once. Only recently, I remembered that and decided to do research. I have started to use the round table method used by Napoleon Hill to communicating with experts on OBE. That is my first step. I will take a long time for me to do it, but if I find someone who can do it, I will let you know. I don’t think it will any time soon.

    1. 91.1
      Narf (the abdicator)

      You’ve never heard of abdicating a throne? Notice anything missing from the beginning of my name? Soon, I’ll scrub off the parenthetical ending.

      How are you sure you were out of body and not experiencing some sort of lucid dream? Skeptics have devised tests to check and see if people are actually leaving their body and can see things in the places they supposedly travel to.

      The spiritualist/astral traveler types always fail. They’re not actually doing what they think they’re doing. At best, it’s some sort of trance or dream state. I have flying dreams, too, but I’m not stupid enough to think that I’m astrally projecting.

      1. Milton Platt

        I dreamed I was eating a giant marshmallow and when I woke up, my pillow was missing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>