Open thread for episode 21.39: Tracie and Phil


Tracie talks about Foreclosed identity using video examples. She and Phil take viewer calls.

 

Links of interest in this week’s program:

 

Comments

  1. Doug Hayden says

    To the Bernie supporter: If you DIDN’T vote for Hillary Clinton, your vote was EFFECTIVELY a vote for tRump.

    So be ashamed of your inability to maturely accept the better of two possible choices, demanding the impossible ideal.

  2. Kennita Watson says

    Someone called near the end of the 10/8 show who seemed to believe that all the Jews in israel were original Hebrews, or at least from that bloodline. But as Tracie pointed out, people convert. For example, Eddie Cantor convinced Sammy Davis, Jr. to convert to Judaism.

  3. Peta Milton says

    8.30am to 10.30am 09/October here in Australia, I only ever get to watch this if I have a flex day on Monday unfortunately, this was the first time I was able to see it live, was a bit disappointed so much time spent on Atheist Callers that didn’t really get to their point very quickly but hey the rest was good, would have liked to hear Phil more too. Thanks though mostly enjoyed it.

  4. Tim Presley says

    I particularly enjoyed the last exchange between Tracie and the Christian caller. I think it was frustrating for her but listening to the way the caller’s argument shaped itself was satisfying in its predictability. Anyone who might call in thinking they’d have an easier time of it with Tracie than with Matt are in for a serious surprise. I have enjoyed the program for a couple of years and have listened to many recorded broadcasts. I continue to learn. Thanks.

  5. Fred West says

    Hey Tracie, thanks for not letting that fool Haymish on the show today. He was fun to laugh at when he first started calling but it has gotten a bit old over the years.

  6. Mobius says

    Bless you, Tracie, for not going on to Hamish’s call.

    As for Keith, the last caller, just .

  7. Patrick Harris says

    This is the first live broadcast I’ve been able to see. Watching you all from Afghanistan. It is great that you guys are doing community service! Keep up the great work!

  8. says

    Keith in NY- If you can’t explain something then you don’t understand it. Your experience explains nothing and neither did you. If you want to discuss Cosmological Physics or your new understandings/misunderstandings of the Universe, I am willing to believe that (while I am only an Engineer who studies Cosmological Physics as a hobby) I can help you to validate or invalidate your “divine” experience/s. If you read this, please feel free to engage…let’s see what your “God” has to say. At some point in your conversation with Tracie, you asserted that there is something beyond our universe. You also stated that our universe is “under pressure”. I would like to probe these statements. I hope you read this and reply.

  9. Experienced Atheist says

    I believe Keith said “you know” 17 times during the first minute of his call. I had plans to count all “you know”, but, you know, lost count after 33…(after three minutes or so)..

  10. StonedRanger says

    No Hamish this week? Thank you , thank you, thank you. I am loving having Tracy as a host. You will talk to a theist until you are done and you hang up. I love that. If I had more hair, Keith would have had me tearing some out. The delusion was strong with that one.

  11. tjd0515 says

    The argument Keith gave at the end is nearly the exact argument my dad gave to me… and my dad is Mormon.

    What my dad would say about Keith’s personal experience is that it was from god, but that he’s misinterpreted the experience. He would say that Keith has felt the “love of god” but it doesn’t mean that mainstream Christianity is true or that the Bible is the only scripture god has revealed to man. He also needs to have a specific experience where god confirms to him that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of god.

    And because of the specificity of the personal experience from god, which no one could dispute since it wasn’t anyone else’s experience, it could not be seen as a misinterpretation of the experience.

  12. lenny says

    Could someone make a Hamish canon compilation? I would love to see more Hamish. It was great finally attending one of these live!

  13. Monocle Smile says

    Keith was an atheist for bad reasons and then converted for more bad reasons. Not surprising from a guy who thinks with the wrong head. Your boner is not god, and neither are the hallucinogens that you apparently dropped. Keith, you don’t know shit about shit, and you need to stop pretending otherwise.

    Meh, after spinning off into the “origin of the universe” bullshit and making shit up basically on the spot about “god is everything,” I’m not sure Keith was a real caller. If he was, I would not want to spend time with this guy; people who actually behave like him are extremely obnoxious and a threat to both temperament and brain cells.

    HOLY SHIT I wanted to punch through the phone and clock Keith in the jaw when it came to the prophecy bullshit. This is a dangerous, jilted person who probably needs an adult monitoring him.

    THANKS TRACIE

  14. Ron Phipps says

    I think it might be helpful to share the first part of the video where Tracie discussed and shared about the being open and closed minded. This videos and their comments were very valuable to me to share with others. It will cause some to reflect.

  15. RationalismRules says

    I was a little surprised that Tracie hadn’t encountered John Lennox – he’s a well known Catholic apologist in the UK, highly credentialed in academia, and has built his profile as an opponent of Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins. Xtians like to cite him as he’s associated with both science and philosophy. What I’ve seen of him has left me thoroughly unimpressed.

  16. Bestrides says

    Listening to Keith brought to mind a thought that often occurs to me when I listen to theists, which is that they’re so concerned about the fact that people don’t see things their way because they have doubts themselves. For instance, if a group of people went around simply asserting that the phenomenon we call gravity doesn’t exist, I’d blow them off and wouldn’t give them a second thought. If the existence of God was so obvious, why give the time of day to non-believers who can’t or won’t see it?

  17. elwood says

    I’m a long-time listener to the show, but it’s usually on too late in my time zone so I tend to listen to the mp3 audio on the following day. I just wanted to mention that for the last few weeks the audio on the mp3 has been “glitchy” and is hard to follow because there seems to be some kind of fault that effectively removes about 1/2 a second every minute or so. (I’m not talking about the last caller on this particular show who had his own audio problems, but of course this just added to the difficulty for me to follow the conversation.) I’m not always able to see the Youtube videos but when I can they seem to be fine. It’s just the mp3 format which seems to suffer from this. Has anybody else come across this problem? (It’s not my system either, I can play mp3 files from other sources perfectly.)

  18. jaihare says

    I have to admit that I had never heard of John Lennox, either. I looked him up on YouTube, and I do recall seeing him speak in some videos before – but I didn’t know who he was. Like RationalismRules, I wasn’t impressed by his arguments.

  19. jaihare says

    elwood… I have never used the mp3 version. The show is simultaneously broadcast to YouTube, so why don’t you just catch it on YouTube the next day? If there’s a problem with the mp3s, though, why not send a report to the web admin?

  20. Wiggle Puppy says

    Keith has gotten into apologetics hardcore… it was fairly obvious at the point when Tracie challenged him and he came back with the incredibly predictable “well, you don’t know that reality is real so we’re all equally justified in our beliefs” nonsense. One has to wonder why an all-knowing, all-powerful deity has to rely on such sloppy and stupid non-arguments.

  21. thebookofdave says

    Tracie, you may not be a prophet, but today you were a stern but righteous ruler. Thanks for dropping Hamish, and enjoy your Indian food, as was foretold.

  22. Monocle Smile says

    I always have the same thought pop in my head when John Lennox speaks: “your academic accomplishments should prevent you from saying such inane nonsense, you shameless shill.”

  23. Murat says

    John Lennox sounds like a fake name. As if someone wanted to hijack the lyrics of “Imagine” in an attempt to make religion look good.

  24. says

    @24/Dave:

    >Tracie, you may not be a prophet, but today you were a stern but righteous ruler. Thanks for dropping Hamish, and enjoy your Indian food, as was foretold.

    When I arrived at the table for the after show dinner, one of our regulars bellowed, “Behold! The prophetess!” since I was, indeed, arrived to eat Indian food, as was foretold. 😉

  25. Ryan Boone says

    Kei, from Lonaconing, MD,

    My girlfriend lives in your town, and I’m visiting on October 13-14. I think she reached out to you previously. We would love to meet up and grab coffee or something and talk. We are both open atheists and understand you’re questioning. It’s a very tough area to be quietening your faith. It seems like the bookstore in historic La Vale is atheist/agnostic friendly, considering their selection. If you want to get in touch, I’m on Facebook or you can email me swvatheist@gmail.com.

  26. Murat says

    Hence was born Tracism, which was going to take a whole new direction in the centuries to come, and lead humanity to new levels of well-being… Who could have known it was not even a legend, but just a joke back in the day!

  27. RationalismRules says

    @MS #25
    I entirely agree. Followed immediately by “Oxford University must have much lower standards than I thought”.

  28. RationalismRules says

    Keith… sheesh!

    Apparently God personally explained to Keith the origins of the universe. Which means God is either incredibly bad at explaining things, or incredibly bad at selecting which people to explain things to.

  29. Monocle Smile says

    @Jeff LeBert
    Anthony Magnabosco has been on AXP before, just FYI.

    @Murat
    Looks like Glenn Beck was a silent partner in the funding. It’s far from the first of its kind (blatant christian propaganda with zero basis in reality), but I guess when campy “tear jerkers” don’t do it, go for the thriller, it seems. Read the reviews to learn more.

  30. john4antitheism says

    It’s hard to comprehend an atheist becoming a theist. Why discard logic, reason and free thought for total and utter non sensical thoughts and beliefs. I think someone like Keith should discard his phone for a carrier pigeon, give away his car for a donkey and cart, and go live in a cave. His beliefs originated in writings from nomadic goat herders who slaughtered a goat (or maybe a child) to offer to their god to ward of famine and pestilence, the times when the earth was flat. All topped off with some extremely young female impregnated by something that doesn’t exist, to give birth to some dude who was crucified, died and came back to life then conveniently disappeared never to be seen again. Makes perfect sense to me.

  31. Errational says

    Yes, Elwood and Conversation Tube, me too. I wasn’t sure if the audio dropping out was some kind of Devine experience and just some god f-ing with me. Good to verify that it’s not just me, it’s screwing with all three of us.

  32. Mavvy says

    Brilliant show. Always very informative and entertaining from start to finish when Tracie is presenting 😄 I happened to see both those videos on Cordial Curiosity’s channel this week also, it’s interesting seeing the different types of belief and personalities between the 2 examples. Loving his channel, and the street epistemology videos.
    Bad luck Hamish, better luck next week!

  33. Safudas says

    Though there are no pre-requisites for being an atheist, the Keith guy in the end just sounded too gullible to ever have been one….or so he claims to have been.

    John Lennox is a distinguished professor of mathematics, and a Russian linguist. They are two disciplines which require massive amounts of mental powers, logic, and an ability to understand complex structures and patterns.

    Sadly, the few remaining free kilobytes left in his brain could only accommodate lazy concepts such as the god-of-the-gaps, or the fallacy-from-incredulity for which he is most famous for.

  34. Robin says

    Keith is basically has a mixture of confirmation basic ,circular reasoning and god of the gaps

    I had an personal experience, thus it is god.
    God is the only one that gave me an experience.

    And the dumbest thing is that his experience is his own ignorance in reasoning where the universe comes from. Which is answers by god of the gaps.

    I think Keith has a fear of the words “i don’t know” to this topic of the origins

    But I don’t think that is the reason why he believes. I think this just a topic to try and convince an Atheist

  35. says

    >It’s hard to comprehend an atheist becoming a theist. Why discard logic, reason and free thought for total and utter non sensical thoughts and beliefs.

    I’m replying to this one, but there are several folks above who expressed a similar question. I know it’s not news to anyone here that an atheist is just about not believing a god exists. For many folks, and I think in Keith’s situation as well, it’s not about being an atheist because you have considered the question and decided it’s not credible. It’s more about never having really considered the question. Keith started out by saying something about having had a “perfect” worldview as an atheist–or so he thought. When I heard that, a red flag rose immediately. Science exists as a method of discovery about the world around us. If we had a perfect worldview, there would be no need for science, as there would be no gaps in our knowledge. Gaps in my knowledge are gaps in my worldview. There are simply things “I don’t know.” And as someone said above, once Keith realized this, he seems to have considered this a flaw in the worldview–that it wasn’t omniscient. The god worldview provides an answer to everything (seemingly). As we joked during another call: How was the universe created? God! How did life form? God! How will the world end? God! Where do we get our morality? God!

    If a person is looking for a worldview that helps them *feel* as though they have no outstanding questions, then religion is it. Ironically even things they don’t know–“God knows, and that’s all I need to know.” Keith expressed a variant of this when he tried to describe god as knowing things no one else knows. In other words–it gives Keith comfort to feel as though somewhere, someone has this all figured out–and it’s all “known.”

    I don’t think he was ever a critical thinker. And I say that without malice. Before I converted to Christianity, I was maybe 17 or so? I was not well equipped to analyze or assess information sufficiently to come to any sort of informed/coherent decision on the topic of god’s existence. I had no critical thinking skills to speak of–and yet, before becoming a theist, I was an atheist. And now I’m an atheist again, but as we discussed on the show, I understand *why* now. I have looked at it, and this is a conclusion I have come to based on a far better understanding of the issue than I had previously as an atheist or as a theist.

  36. paxoll says

    @DanDare, The big problem with that video is that it is the equivalent to a god of the gaps argument. Just because you can show that certain nucleotides can in certain circumstances self assemble means absolutely nothing. First you have to show that these nucleotides were likely present in prebiotic earth, that they can interact with likely prebiotic vesicles, that they can self assemble in a prebiotic environment. One huge problem is that in a “primordial soup” you have EVERYTHING in there, and thus everything that can happen from chemical thermodynamics, does happen. In lab experiments you often have to make the conditions perfect to get what you want to happen. This is like trying to prove that it is possible. Well its possible god exists. It takes WAY more evidence to rationally go from it’s possible, to I believe it is likely true.

  37. nrjfalcon1 says

    Wonderful show. I have two little boys and I always have concerns over indoctrination. I am an atheist, but my wife is more an obligatory Christian (raised by Christian family members, but doesn’t practice), she and I have differing viewpoints on the vocabulary to use when our children come up with questions about the world around them. I don’t want to give them information that anywhere closely resembles Christian beliefs, yet my wife wants to use all the Christian vocabulary. I’m torn and don’t know how to handle this situation. Love the show.

  38. RationalismRules says

    @paxoll
    It doesn’t mean “absolutely nothing”, it’s just not the whole answer.

    I don’t think the vid is claiming “this is what happened”. What I got from it was “here is a mechanism that can achieve the result we’re looking for”. It’s a rebuttal to the claim “abiogenesis cannot have happened by natural processes”.
     

    This is like trying to prove that it is possible. Well its possible god exists.

    The substantive difference between this mechanism and “it’s possible god exists” is that no-one has ever demonstrated that a god could exist, even under the most unlikely of laboratory conditions…

  39. paxoll says

    @RR The problem is scientific evidence that it COULD have happened is to actually make it happen. This is exactly the same as the god of the gaps argument, where big gaps are waved around and say science. Right now the answer to how life came to exist is we don’t know. Right now abiogenesis is a partially formed hypothesis.

  40. Monocle Smile says

    @paxoll
    That’s a bit of a misunderstanding and it’s disingenuous to compare the current state of abiogenesis research to fuckin’ magic.

    The question is no longer “did abiogenesis happen?” The question is “which abiogenesis hypothesis is most likely?” There are a number with varying strengths. You’re underselling like crazy. Personally, I don’t give a fuck if some creationist gets butthurt about my confidence in this.

  41. Simon & Mrs Wendy Hosking says

    I just want to thank Tracie and anyone else responsible for the links. What a great resource.

    I’d also like to remind people that not all Atheists get there by examining the evidence. Ideally they shouldn’t have to.

    I work with someone that has almost no knowledge of religion. They’re not sure what the difference between Christian and Muslim is and doesn’t know the difference between Protestant and Catholic.

    They are an Atheist. They don’t believe the god(s) claim. They have no interest in looking into it either.

    Of course I’m not in America – this would almost be impossible, but you’ll get there one day!

    – Simon

  42. RationalismRules says

    @Paxoll

    The problem is scientific evidence that it COULD have happened is to actually make it happen.

    Assuming I’ve correctly understood what you’re arguing here – that the only way to confirm it could have happened is to make it happen again – this is an absurdly simplistic argument, which ignores how we investigate complex processes.
    Do you also subscribe to the anti-evolutionists claim that species change (what they call ‘macroevolution’) is not possible because we haven’t directly observed it?

    I also don’t understand why you are making this odd equivalence to ‘god of the gaps’. You make it sound like scientists are saying “we don’t know how life came from non-living matter, which proves it must have happened”. That’s just silly.

  43. paxoll says

    @Monocle, you are obviously not a scientist where everything needs evidence and precision in things stated are paramount. I have seen many scientists making presentations or speeches on their area of expertise where they are passionate about and make bold and exaggerated claims about what is going on. But that is not science, and that is not real evidence. This is why so many people claim that science is always changing and that it is not reliable. They don’t understand the science, and they accept unscientific claims about the science (think the global cooling BS from the 70s). So, while you might not give a crap about your over confidence in this matter, you are contributing to the problem.

    @RR, I understand very well how complex processes are investigated. They are broken down into pieces and each piece is fitted to the one next to it like a puzzle. Let me ask you, if you have a puzzle piece that is not attached to any other pieces, how do you know it belongs in the puzzle? How do you know if even two pieces that fit are part of the puzzle? In most science you have a beginning and an end that have been observed, thus you have at least a complete border. You don’t have that in abiogenesis, simply two corner pieces and an reasonable assumption that a picture will appear if you can find pieces to connect the two. Abiogenesis unfortunately is unlike evolution, in the fact that evolution has fossils. Predictions are made and fossils are found to prove that it is an accurate prediction. Most science is like this. Unfortunately abiogenesis and other fields like evolutionary psychology don’t have that. If the theory of abiogenesis is ever completed, it will essentially be unconfirmed. For most people like me the chance that it is possible will be plenty enough evidence for me to believe it is true.
    What scientists “say” is that the earth is over 4 billion years old, there wasn’t life and now their is, how did that possibly happen. What non-scientists are saying is either god did it, or natural processes did it. The only evidence right now that people, including myself, have who believe natural processes did it, is that we only have reliable natural explanations of anything, but to conclude there is a natural explanation for everything is an induction fallacy.

  44. Monocle Smile says

    @paxoll
    For someone who tosses the “you’re not a scientist” line around, you sure get lots of stuff wrong. Notice that my statements are more precise than yours.

    Abiogenesis unfortunately is unlike evolution, in the fact that evolution has fossils. Predictions are made and fossils are found to prove that it is an accurate prediction

    A great deal of abiogenesis research includes testable predictions. We’ve witnessed self-replicating compounds form in specific environments in different ways. The fact that you are both unaware of this AND go to fossils instead of DNA when it comes to evidence for evolution shows me that you don’t understand this topic at all and are merely spouting from your butt. I can drop 77 links to peer-reviewed publications on abiogenesis here if you wish, although I suspect it may be a waste of time and space.

  45. paxoll says

    @monocle, “We’ve witnessed self-replicating compounds form in specific environments in different ways.” again that is completely irrelevant, we know that life contains self replicating elements that is 1 of 2 pieces of a puzzle we already know, and the pieces you are claiming might not even be in the puzzle. You can drop 77 irrelevant individual puzzles pieces that might not even belong to the puzzle, claiming they do when the science hasn’t demonstrated that is ignorant and not helpful. Why did I jump to fossils instead of DNA? Because criticism from ignorant people jump to fossils, because fossils are straight forward yes or no. I’m not going to bother explaining how chromosome 2 fused to someone who doesn’t understand the fossil record (I used the example for other readers benefits not just yours/RR).

  46. Monocle Smile says

    @paxoll

    again that is completely irrelevant, we know that life contains self replicating elements that is 1 of 2 pieces of a puzzle we already know, and the pieces you are claiming might not even be in the puzzle

    No. You’re just wrong here. This reads like a creationist nuclear option where because an event happened in the past, you can always deny, deny, deny that the current explanations are insufficient. If we have a cake, a bunch of ingredients, and a recipe that uses some or all of the ingredients to make the cake we observe, it is not ignorant to laugh at people babbling about evidently nonexistent ingredients and recipes that could somehow also make the cake. Again, you’re severely underselling the case. Hell, a Nobel Prize was won for some of the groundbreaking RNA-world discoveries in the friggin’ 80s.

    Stop screwing around with absolute certainty. Pointing out fossils has never stopped creationists from lying and making shit up to dismiss them. They are not “straightforward.”

  47. paxoll says

    @monocle, It reads like a scientist who can read and understand the literature. If you want to understand go get an education. I’m not talking about absolute certainty, and no where can you even pretend to get that bullshit from my posts. Please take your straw man and ignorance and go play on some SJW thread.

  48. Chancellor of the Exchequer says

    Has paxoll been hacked or something? These recents post are weird to me. Granted I haven’t interacted with them enough to know their character but this “SJW!1!” post was alarming.

  49. Devil Travels says

    The caller with Lupus…I wonder if her parents now realize their mistake and understand the consequences of their inaction?
    If they do, are they immobile with guilt or are they active in preventing this mistake from happening to others?
    If they remain in denial, that’s as sad of a condition as the woman with the illness.

  50. paxoll says

    @Chancellor, I have not bothered to post because most thing on these threads are irrelevant to atheism, and irrelevant to science which is my particular interest. I do read these threads though and have often seen Monocle have these tantrums where she dismisses arguments or evidence and throws up a straw man to the opponents position. Which is so ridiculous on a comment thread where everything is easily referenced, which in my experience is exactly what I see from the SJW threads where there is stupid ridiculous hyperbole on both sides.

  51. paxoll says

    Sorry meant he/she but my fingers are not as fast as my thoughts and there doesn’t seem to be any way to edit posts (which is probably a good thing, to keep people from changing what they said in the past.

  52. Robin says

    The Negative votes guy is just a sore loser.

    If you vote negatively, then you are suppressing the vote of others who has voted positively for a candidate
    It is better to just withhold your vote or vote as a blank vote.
    Or vote positively for the opposition if you do not agree with the other candidate.

    The only reason why one would like to have a negative vote is bragging rights. Just to tell others that you disagree and don’t want to conform to any candidate. You can remove the whole bragging rights by not telling who you voted.

  53. cameramanush says

    i love hamish! he is a religious nut but a hilarious one to boot. please take his calls!

  54. sandythehippy says

    Those videos of open/closed mind to ideas were awesome… ima be using them on my little bro…. currently in a TEEN CHALLENGE (UK) program of brainwashing… sorry I mean indoctrination… sorry I mean “help program”…

    Went from one day thinking that the Templars were devil worshipers were at war with masons… to ending every with God bless… after a half hour “chat” with a “councillor ” … made him give a house, a great job because he clearly “needed help” from substance abuse (tea and coffee, and PRESCRIBED and USED AS PRRSCRIBED medication for a very serious injury… twats lol…. thanks for the resources people’s… keep up the good work

  55. Alec says

    The best way to handle the issue of the Israel prophecy issue is to point out that if the prophecy was never written, Israel would never have been reestablished. Well, “never” is a strong word. Perhaps it’s better to say “extremely unlikely”. In other words, prophecies don’t predict future events, they cause them.

  56. SamFromUK says

    @Paxoll,

    There’s no point in arguing over scientific evidence when it comes to proving the existence of God with most of the atheists on this forum. The reason is that even when they see God and all the angels they’re just not willing to obey God as per Matt D. So what’s the point in proving the existence of God using science?

  57. SamFromUK says

    @heicart,

    “How was the universe created? God! How did life form? God! How will the world end? God! Where do we get our morality? God!”

    Just because we know God created everything it doesn’t mean we have to stop asking questions or carry on learning using faculties. There are some things in which we just have to have faith in God, as in what will happen to us in the future. Other things we can use science to learn and understand how God creates or simply study the vast number of phenomena he has created for us. Or we can use our minds to ponder and think about them philosophically.

    Just because we know God did everything it in no way means we stop thinking and learning. This is just who we are and is part of our design.

  58. SamFromUK says

    @Paxoll,

    “What non-scientists are saying is either god did it, or natural processes did it”

    Sorry but there is no such thing as a natural process. Everything is done by God. The only way we test for God is by testing his claims and studying our reality.

  59. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @SamFromUK #67:

    Everything is done by God.

    Hello God!
     
    Since you’re directly moving Sam’s fingers to write, could you please do a better job. You’re really making him lood bad. I know you’re terribly conflicted about that, since you’re writing this too and talking to yourself, but surely he’s not destined to loudly waste his life repetitively whining about his own futility like this? Surely he’s been punished enough. Maybe send him off to experience the joy of learning a craft, by which I, of course, mean witnessing your glorious handiwork firsthand – as a passenger in that marvelous body you chauffeur him around in.

  60. Monocle Smile says

    LOL Sam, you’re from the UK. Go get a price quote from an orthodontist and tell me how “marvellous” [sic] your body really is.

  61. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    We are evidence of God, we are the likeness of God. God creates, destroys, carries out justice, loves, hates, thinks, etc. We do all of these things as humans. Isn’t that enough evidence?

  62. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @Monocle Smile #70:
    Ehh, you didn’t need to sink to regional stereotype & body shaming. =/

  63. Monocle Smile says

    @Sky Captain
    If it somehow makes him fuck off and stop spamming the blog every so often, I’ll take the hit.

  64. RationalismRules says

    @Sam #71
    I have no idea why you directed this comment at me as it bears no relation to any of the comments I’ve made on this thread. But, given your previous interactions, I guess it’s silly of me to expect even that most basic level of coherence from you.
     

    we are the likeness of God

    Why would a god need a reproductive system? Why would a god need a hole at one end to put food in, and a hole at the other end to eliminate waste? Why would a god need legs for walking? Why would a god need vibrating vocal cords to communicate through the inefficient and subject-to-misinterpretation methodology of language?

    It makes sense that ignorant early humans inventing an idea of a sky-daddy would base it on themselves, but it makes no sense for anyone in the current age, with all that we know about human physiology, to hang on to this absurd notion.
     

    God creates, destroys, carries out justice, loves, hates, thinks, etc. We do all of these things as humans. Isn’t that enough evidence?

    No, of course it’s not. Simply listing shared properties between two things does not make one evidence of the other.
    Dragons live, die, kill, eat, fly, breathe, reproduce etc. Birds also do all of these things. Are birds evidence of dragons?

  65. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    “The substantive difference between this mechanism and “it’s possible god exists” is that no-one has ever demonstrated that a god could exist, even under the most unlikely of laboratory conditions…” #48

    “Why would a god need a reproductive system?”

    God doesn’t need one and doesn’t need a body. However he has a likeness to us in that he creates, destroys, has morals, intelligence, feelings, etc.

    “but it makes no sense for anyone in the current age, with all that we know about human physiology, to hang on to this absurd notion.”

    You’re very ignorant about the human physiology and science which is why you say it makes no sense.

    “Simply listing shared properties between two things does not make one evidence of the other.”

    Isn’t this how evolution supporters justify the existence of a common primate? Or do we think primates had no legs and slithered around the earth?

    Or how do you think the model the Big Bang? Is it no based off similar phenomena we can see today?

    Life is evidence of intelligent design. If you take a look at biology it’s obvious. For some reason atheists are in denial. Probably because atheist just don’t want to accept God and if they don’t want accept God then why do they need evidence?

  66. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    “Are birds evidence of dragons?”

    Birds are evidence that some living organisms can fly. Because of the way birds are we wouldn’t find it shocking that dragons used wings to fly since we’d know the mechanism. If the dragon breathed fire some may find it hard to accept since there is no animal that we know of which breaths fire. If the dragon had horns, teeth, scaly skin, etc all these wouldn’t be shocking to us.

    To some primitive tribes current modern day humans could easily be seen as gods since we could cure illnesses, make huge structures, talk to people around the earth, etc.

    Problem with non believers is that first they have no idea about the definition of God yet for some reason they’ll simply say there is no evidence. Is it not right to first ask which god and what this god does?

  67. RationalismRules says

    @Sam
    So many things to respond to… Which to choose? Let’s pick one and dig down, shall we?
     

    You’re very ignorant about the human physiology

    What is it that leads you to this conclusion about me, Sam? You and I only know each other through this blog, so you must be basing this on something I’ve said. I don’t remember ever referring to human physiology elsewhere on this blog, so I assume you’re taking issue with something I’ve said in this thread.
    What is it exactly?:
    – we use our legs for walking
    – we have a reproductive system
    – we have one hole for taking in food and another for expelling waste, at opposite ends of our torso
    – we use our vocal cords to communicate with language

    Which one of these do you disagree with?

  68. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    “but it makes no sense for anyone in the current age, with all that we know about human physiology, to hang on to this absurd notion.” #74

    Problem with atheists like yourself is that just because we have studied things in great detail, such as human physiology, you think that somehow that can be used to explain away certain beliefs. You think that because we understand certain processes in human physiology it somehow makes it “natural”. You’re unable to see and comprehend the miraculous phenomena and truly appreciate it because of the way you approach at looking the phenomena.

    Take for example the amazing phenomena of a human making something out of clay. To you that is nothing special. But if you take a look at it from a different perspective then it truly is amazing. Firstly the human is made up non-living elements. Those non-living elements combine together to form what we class as a “living organism”. Humans are made up of billions of separate living organisms all of which work together in some form to support what we call the human. How the human body works in keeping each cell in the human body “alive” is in itself vastly complex never mind the complexity of the individual cell or the the components of a cell. On top of all that this human is able to process the environment it lives in and derives “meaning” and “purpose”, things which are objective but subjective.

    Your response clearly shows your lack of appreciation of what you observe. I’m not putting you down. I’ve been there myself, many believers don’t appreciate it either. We’ve been designed to not be over awed by the many miracles that are in our reality. However if you want you can choose to take a deeper look at what you observe and truly appreciate it. Problem with most atheists like Matt D. is that they just don’t care. All they are concerned is about what makes them happy.

  69. RationalismRules says

    @Sam
    None of what you’ve just written has anything to do with my knowledge (or lack thereof) of human physiology.

    Whether or not I lack appreciation of what I observe has nothing to do with ignorance, it has to do with perspective. According to what you have just written, the most knowledgeable physiology professionals – doctors, anatomists, physiotherapists etc. – are all ignorant about human physiology if they don’t share your religious beliefs.

    Have another try.

  70. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    “the most knowledgeable physiology professionals – doctors, anatomists, physiotherapists etc. – are all ignorant about human physiology”

    Try speaking to them. Maybe you’ll believe how little we know once you actually speak to them. Your response is evidence of your ignorance of human physiology.

  71. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    Simple question. Would you be actually concerned/interested if there was God? As I’ve said before, if you’re not interested then why do you need evidence? Why even bother listening to theists and thinking how superior you are to them?

  72. RationalismRules says

    @Sam

    Try speaking to them. Maybe you’ll believe how little we know once you actually speak to them.

    So, just to be clear, now you are saying that everybody is ignorant of human physiology?
     

    Your response is evidence of your ignorance of human physiology.

    I pointed out that you had incorrectly conflated two separate concepts – appreciation and knowledge. That says nothing about human physiology.
    I pointed out that your statement applied to physiology professionals as much as it does to me. That is not a statement about physiology, it’s a statement about your statement.

    Since I offered no information about human physiology in my response, it’s nonsensical to say “Your response is evidence of your ignorance of human physiology”? You may just as well say “Your response contained 72 words, which is evidence of your ignorance of human physiology”. That would make as much sense.

    Besides, even if my latest response was in fact evidence of my ignorance of human physiology, it comes after your claim that I am ignorant on the subject. I asked you what you based that claim on. You can’t base a claim on something that hasn’t yet been said, can you? Or are you now claiming to be a time-traveller?

    Have another try.

    [I’d like to sort this issue out completely before we move on to other questions like you’ve asked in #84. I feel it’s important to stay on track and not get distracted from one subject to another.]

  73. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    “It makes sense that ignorant early humans inventing an idea of a sky-daddy would base it on themselves, but it makes no sense for anyone in the current age, with all that we know about human physiology, to hang on to this absurd notion.”

    The above is what you wrote. You’re saying that early human beings were ignorant hence they’d invent a “sky-daddy”. What’s a sky-daddy? Is that a term you’ve picked up from historical sources or made up from your arrogance as it seems you think you are somehow superior to early humans?

    You say “all that we know about human physiology”. This why I was saying you’re ignorant about human physiology. If you look into human physiology you’ll find we’ve barley scratched the surface.

  74. RationalismRules says

    @Sam
    I was going to play along for a bit longer, but I find I’m already bored with this game.

    Before I go, I’ll answer your question from #84:

    Would you be actually concerned/interested if there was God? As I’ve said before, if you’re not interested then why do you need evidence?

    Definitely. In the same way that I would be interested if it were discovered that fairies actually exist, that there are parallel universes, or that ESP is real. All of these things would be very interesting if they were demonstrated to be true.

    Why do I need evidence? Because evidence is the only way we have to distinguish whether a claim is true or false. Without evidence, it’s just making shit up.

  75. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    Fair enough. For most the existence of God is something rather more that something interesting. I guess some atheists just don’t care enough.

  76. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Would you be actually concerned/interested if there was God?

    To answer the question: Yes. I would want to know if there was an incredibly power alien intelligence out there. I would want to learn if it can be reasoned with, if it’s hostile, etc. To answer your next question: If it turned out to be similar to the god character described in the Christian bible, then I would want to know because I would want to be part of the committee that researches for a way to destroy it.

  77. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Sam
    I don’t understand what you mean. I understand what I’m talking about, and my positions have been well thought out.

  78. SamFromUK says

    @EL,

    You don’t understand the concept of God. If you did you wouldn’t say what you did. The monotheistic God has control over atoms and molecules and things beyond that. Whatever knowledge you have comes from God. What you are tested on is what you desire and how you conduct yourself on this life.

  79. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    That’s great. My position is: If you provide convincing proof that there is a god-like thing, it is still very hard to distinguish between the “all-powerful” flavor and the simply “very powerful” flavor, and the only way to find out is to test it. See: Stargate SG-1.

  80. SamFromUK says

    @EL,

    I can’t convince you of on all powerful God. Only God can guide you. I can show you the evidence of creation but you’ll just not be able to accept it just as @Evil in the other thread couldn’t. I think it would help if you could stop being an idiot like Matt D and relax more. Be open minded and more positive instead of being confrontational.
    Also as mentioned before you can’t test for an all powerful God unless you are a god yourself. You can see how powerful God is but not test for all powerfulness. It would be like you testing infinity. It’s just beyond our limits as creations.

  81. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Again, you should watch Stargate SG-1. Here’s an example of a test: Try to nuke it. If nuking it kills it, then it’s not an all-powerful god.

  82. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Could you please try to respond to the arguments being made instead of ad hom?

    Could you please also try to avoid ableist insults. I know it’s hard, and I’m still struggling with it myself.

  83. SamFromUK says

    @EL,

    My apologies for the ad hom. It just get’s frustrating when you get a silly response after trying to clearly explain something.

    I clearly said you can’t test for an all powerful God so why respond with “Again, you should watch Stargate SG-1. Here’s an example of a test: Try to nuke it. If nuking it kills it, then it’s not an all-powerful god.”?

  84. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    “What does ‘all powerful’ mean?”

    Means having complete power of absolutely anything.

  85. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I clearly said you can’t test for an all powerful God so why respond with […]

    Because you’re wrong, and I just gave an example of how you can test it. You’re just not using your imagination. Here is a test that can distinguish between an all-powerful god, and a god that can be destroyed by a nuclear weapon. It worked pretty well for SG-1.

  86. RationalismRules says

    @Sam

    Means having complete power of absolutely anything.

    Can it violate principles of logic?

  87. SamFromUK says

    @EL,

    You’re testing against something physical which is claiming to be a god. That’s totally different. When the real God makes himself known there won’t be a need to test whether this is God. You won’t have control over your body the way you do now. There won’t be nations upon who you can call for help or discuss how to handle God.

    So you’re getting way ahead of yourself when you give your example of SG-1.

  88. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    Yes it can violate principles of logic. Logic is a subjective concept which we have been designed with.

  89. RationalismRules says

    Yes it can violate principles of logic.

    Great.

    So could an all-powerful god create a rock that is so heavy that it could not lift it?

  90. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    It’s not question you can apply to God. The rock exists for you and can be heavy and lifted. But from God’s perspective it doesn’t apply. You’re putting forward ideas and questions which are trivial and nonsensical. They’re important for us to gauge and understanding of concepts but when it comes to God logic is just a created concept embedded into human understanding.

  91. RationalismRules says

    @Sam

    The rock exists for you and can be heavy and lifted. But from God’s perspective it doesn’t apply.

    What doesn’t apply? The rock doesn’t exist? The rock doesn’t have weight? The god can’t lift a rock?

    Either it is possible for a rock to exist which is too heavy to be lifted by your god, or it is not possible.
    If it is not possible for such a rock to exist, then your god cannot create such a rock.
     

    You’re putting forward ideas and questions which are trivial and nonsensical.

    If the question is trivial it should be trivially easy to answer. Yet you are unable to answer it.
    If it’s nonsensical you should be able to explain why it doesn’t make sense. Yet you are unable to.

  92. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    “Either it is possible for a rock to exist which is too heavy to be lifted by your god, or it is not possible.
    If it is not possible for such a rock to exist, then your god cannot create such a rock.”

    I thought I gave the answer – “But from God’s perspective it doesn’t apply”. It’s you who is making up conditions which don’t apply to God and you who is asserting that there can only certain outcomes. As I said before the rock and it’s properties are things which we relate to and understand in a certain way. However applying your logical question to God is nonsensical.

    Let’s say for example you imagine a rock in your mind. Is it heavy? Is it hard? Can you lift it? If someone asked you if you could imagine a rock which was so heavy even you couldn’t even lift it what response would you give? Is it a valid question?

    In a similar way we are kind of living in God’s imagination.

  93. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    Sorry I didn’t mean to belittle your question. It’s an important question and a good one as well.

  94. RationalismRules says

    @Sam

    Let’s say for example you imagine a rock in your mind. Is it heavy? Is it hard? Can you lift it?

    No, I can’t lift it. I can’t lift imaginary objects, I can only imagine lifting them.
    The fact that the rock is imaginary doesn’t mean the question of whether it can be physically lifted ‘doesn’t apply’. Physical lifting is a power that I possess, and I can assess whether or not it is possible to physically lift an imaginary object. I can’t. It’s that simple.

    Let’s go back to basics:
    Does your all-powerful god possess the power to lift a physical rock?

  95. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    OK, can you imagine a rock which is so heavy that you could not lift up in your imagination?

    Forget about the physical side.

  96. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    You’re testing against something physical which is claiming to be a god. That’s totally different. When the real God makes himself known there won’t be a need to test whether this is God.

    Yes there will be. I’m not just going to take the word of some stranger that they’re a god. I’m going to want evidence, i.e. demonstrations.

    You won’t have control over your body the way you do now.

    Well, if it actually mind-rapes me (a technical term),
    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MindRape
    then I am no longer me, and this discussion is entirely moot. If they actually dominates as per the D&D dominate spell,
    http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/d/dominate-person/
    then I would simply be a mind-controlled puppet.

    But there’s plenty of god hypotheses of gods that won’t instantly mind rape me, and those are still worth discussing. You assume that it’s going to be your particular god hypothesis, and I reject that conclusion, primarily because you don’t have the evidence to back it up.

  97. SamFromUK says

    @EL,

    “Yes there will be. I’m not just going to take the word of some stranger that they’re a god. I’m going to want evidence, i.e. demonstrations.”

    OK, so you see the sky fall apart, the sun and the moon become one. Angles pouring down by their millions from the sky. Earthquakes, destruction can be felt. You see some people being rescued by Angels. You hear a loud voice telling you that judgment day has arrived. After all that are you still going to ask for a demonstration?

    As I said before, it’s not evidence you want, what you need is to be convinced. The evidence is all around you, you just need to think a bit differently. One day it may just click and then you’ll realise that you’ve been looking at the evidences all the time but you just wasn’t seeing it.

    “Can’t see the woods for the trees”.

  98. Monocle Smile says

    @Sam
    Tomorrow, monkeys might fly out my ass. Until that happens, I have no reason to think monkeys will fly out my ass.
    Until that apocalypse scenario you describe actually happens…shut up and fuck off.

  99. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    The evidence is all around you, you just need to think a bit differently.

    The evidence is entirely consistent with a “no god” universe that happened from brute chance, and the mechanical uncaring unguided laws of physics.

    The evidence is actually inconsistent with the Christian god hypothesis. There is no firmament, held up by four pillars, contrary to the Old Testament. The world is a lot older than 6000 years old, and evolution is true, again contrary to the Old Testament. Jesus probably didn’t exist (see the work of Richard Carrier), and many of the miracles of the New Testament definitely didn’t happen, whether it was the mass zombie outbreak of IIRC the Gospel Of Mark, or the 3 hours of the sun standing still, etc.

    You’re just really, really bad at evaluating evidence and critical thinking.

  100. RationalismRules says

    @Sam
    You haven’t answered my question yet:
    Does your all-powerful god possess the power to lift a physical rock?

    I answered your question directly and clearly. Once you have answered mine I will answer your next question.

  101. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    The physical rock is to God an imagination but to you it’s physical.

    So, now can you imagine a rock which is too heavy for you to be able to lift up using your imagination?

  102. RationalismRules says

    @Sam

    The physical rock is to God an imagination but to you it’s physical.

    You still haven’t answered the question I asked. I asked whether the all-powerful god possesses the power to lift it. I’ve already demonstrated that this question can still be applied to an imaginary rock – either the god can lift it, or it cannot. Which is it?

    Happy to answer your question as soon as you answer my actual question, not some other question that I didn’t ask.

  103. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    God has the power to lift the rock but it’s not heavy to him. To God it’s like an imaginary object.

    Now I’ve answered your question. You answer mine.

  104. SamFromUK says

    @EL,

    If the evidence for God was there would you be convinced?

    Once you were convinced what then? Are you going to obey God and worship him?

  105. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    If the evidence for God was there would you be convinced?

    Yes

    Are you going to obey God and worship him?

    Worship? Never. If the god is a good person, then maybe I could view him as a friend, or mentor, or guide, etc.

  106. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @SamFromUK #100:

    “What does ‘all powerful’ mean?”
    Means having complete power of absolutely anything.

    @SamFromUK #108:

    we are kind of living in God’s imagination.

    Can god end its own existence, cease to be, or otherwise extirpate itself, permanently?
     
    Can God imagine someone capable of persuading it to do so?
     
    Can God imagine a means humans could wield to put god in such a state?
     
    Just curious.

  107. RationalismRules says

    @Sam

    Can you imagine a rock which is too heavy for you to be able to lift up using your imagination?

    No I can’t. No matter how heavy I imagine the rock to be I can imagine myself to be strong enough to overcome that weight.
     

    God has the power to lift the rock but it’s not heavy to him.

    Thank you.
    Next question: Does the all-powerful god possess the power to create a rock that is heavy to him?

  108. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    “Next question: Does the all-powerful god possess the power to create a rock that is heavy to him?”

    I don’t know. All I can go by is the attributes we know from scripture. Anything else is just my opinions and thoughts.

  109. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    My thoughts on whether God could create a rock which is heavy for him is no. The reason being that to God everything is easy. Also the term “heavy” is subjective. We only find things heavy because we have been designed to do so. Whatever we observe in the universe is simply the processing of information in our brains. There are some people who can’t feel pain, some who are very sensitive to pain.

    I guess what you’re asking is if can God create or do something which is difficult for him or impossible for him. My thoughts are no, simply because for God everything should be easy.

  110. RationalismRules says

    @Sam

    I guess what you’re asking is if can God create or do something which is difficult for him or impossible for him. My thoughts are no, simply because for God everything should be easy.

    If there is something the god cannot do, then it is clearly not all-powerful.

  111. RationalismRules says

    @Sam

    My thoughts are that it’s meaningless.

    If you consider holding contradictory beliefs about your god to be meaningless then you simply don’t care whether or not your beliefs are true.

    What is truly meaningless is preaching about a god that possesses an attribute that can be readily demonstrated to be self-contradictory. That is a nonsense god.

  112. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    Lol.

    How is it contradictory? I just said that to me it’s meaningless. All you’re doing is thinking up with ways to try and confuse theists or argue away God. I guess this just explains why you’re an atheist. That’s fine, you’re entitled to your opinions and thoughts.

  113. RationalismRules says

    @Sam

    How is it contradictory?

    You claim your god is all-powerful. You define all-powerful as “having complete power of absolutely anything”.
    Yet you acknowledge that there are things your god cannot do.

    Two ideas in direct contradiction.

    Saying “it’s meaningless to me” doesn’t change anything. The contradiction remains.

  114. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Wold you be grateful and thank God for the food you eat?

    Maybe. The answer is nuanced, and depends heavily on subtle details and context.

    Am I grateful to my parents for raising me, loving me, feeding me, and taking good care of me? Yes.

    If I was a slave in the American south circa 1820, would I be grateful and thank my slavemasters for the food that I ate? No. And when the time was right, I would try to kill them all.

  115. SamFromUK says

    @EL,

    Good.

    If you found out that it’s God that feeds you and put the love between you and your parents then would you thank him and be grateful?

  116. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I already gave the answer. It depends heavily on the details, context, etc. It depends on whether the god closer to a loving and proper parent, who raises a child to be independent and happy, or whether the god is closer to a slavemaster.

  117. SamFromUK says

    @EL,

    Our belief and understanding is that God is much more loving than a parent. Your understanding of God isn’t correct but I know where you are coming from. Probably been watching people like Matt and Dawkins too much.

  118. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Right now, I don’t care about your beliefs and understanding. I care about the truth of the factual matter of the nature of god. If this god demands worship, if this god demands that I submit myself as a slave, if this god demands to be called “lord” and “master”, then this god person can go fuck themself.

  119. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @SamFromUK #127:

    can God create or do something which is difficult for him […] no, simply because for God everything should be easy.

    Then that all-powerful god’s capacity for empathy is incredibly limited.
     
    #EnlightenmentLiberal #138:

    this god person can go fuck themself.

    Another interesting theological question.

  120. RationalismRules says

    @Sam

    How does that contradiction affect my belief in God?

    It has been demonstrated to you that your concept of an all-powerful god is self-contradictory, and thus nonsensical. Whether this in any way affects your belief depends on whether or not you care about the truth of your beliefs.

    If you are happy to believe in nonsense it wont affect you at all.

  121. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To RationalismRules
    You could use the phrase “more powerful than any other person / creature, and invincible and immortal” in place of “omnipotent”, and that would be a reasonably accurate description of his beliefs AFAICT.

    Even if you win this pedantic argument, you’re doing nothing to address Sam’s actual beliefs, IMO. Even if you convince Sam that “omnipotent” is the wrong word, and he should adopt a different word, you’ve done nothing to address his actual beliefs, IMO.

  122. Monocle Smile says

    @EL
    Good to see you posting again!
    However, there’s little hope of waking this troglodyte from its stupor.

  123. RationalismRules says

    @EL
    I think you’re entirely missing the point. My argument isn’t actually about the word, it’s about the concept – that the god is not subject to limits.
     

    You could use the phrase “more powerful than any other person / creature, and invincible and immortal” in place of “omnipotent”, and that would be a reasonably accurate description of his beliefs AFAICT.

    That is a pragmatic / practical view of the god’s attributes, based on interrogating the concept. However it is not the same as ‘unlimited’, and so I don’t agree that it is an accurate description of Sam’s beliefs.

    I very much doubt that Sam accepts that his god has limits, despite having been forced to acknowledge that there is something his god cannot do. He immediately resorted to “that’s your opinion, I think it’s meaningless”. Cognitive dissonance in action.

  124. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Meh. I’ll leave you to it, if you think it’ll be useful and effective. Good luck.

  125. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    Nevermind. I think it’s pointless having a discussion with atheists like yourself. Just going to bogged down arguing over meaningless things.

  126. RationalismRules says

    @Sam
    It seems odd that a theist would consider the question of whether or not their god has limits to its power to be a meaningless issue.
    But I don’t disagree with you – any imagined attribute of an imagined god is indeed meaningless. It’s like arguing over what colors are in the rainbows that unicorns poo out.

  127. SamFromUK says

    @RR,

    I these types of questions are best discussed with theists as to atheists as you say are meangingless.

    I guess it’s maybe best not to debate with atheists about God but maybe better to debate their understanding of science. Problem is vast majority of atheists need to go back to school to understand the basics of science so that may be futile aswell.

  128. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @SamFromUK #149:

    these types of questions are best discussed with theists as to atheists as you say are meangingless.

    Accepting unicorns unseen makes one better qualified to discuss their radiant poop?
     
    The emission/absorption lines in spectral evidence would tell us the composition of said excrement, and thus, the diet of the mystical creatures. Imagine the possibilities if we could detect anal gamma ray bursts!

  129. Monocle Smile says

    That comment #149 is brought to you by someone who thinks gravity isn’t a thing (or at least doesn’t think mass attracts mass).

  130. SamFromUK says

    @Sky,

    It’s not a good analogy. If there was a book which claimed to be from a unicorn or even a person who claimed they had seen and talked to one, then that would be a good analogy. This where atheists like yourself are confused. The fact is that there are books which claim to be from God. Those books are real.

    So please think again and correct your ignorance.

  131. SamFromUK says

    @MS,

    You’re ignorant on gravity. I suggest you read up on the experiments done on gravity.

  132. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @SamFromUK #152:

    If there was a book which claimed to be from a unicorn or even a person who claimed they had seen and talked to one, then that would be a good analogy.

     
    Book: Lore of the Unicorn: Folklore, Evidence and Reported Sightings

    This book discusses evidence and reported sightings of unicorns throughout history. It also covers information related to unicorns in great detail from literature, folklore and mythology, throughout the ages.

     
    From chapter 1…

    In the thirty-third and final fragment of the Indica Ctesias asserts roundly–or perhaps it is Photius who does it for him–that his book is all perfectly true, that he has set down nothing which he has not either seen himself or else heard from the mouths of credible witnesses. Indeed, says he, many more wonderful things than he has put into his book have been left out simply because he does not wish to be thought a liar.
     
    We do well to keep this assurance in mind when we come to consider his twenty-fifth fragment, the earliest and one of the most important of European documents relating to the unicorn

    In justice to him we may ask ourselves what would be the present reputation of Herodotus, his great contemporary, if the History had been preserved only in a few selections chosen by a credulous cleric of the Dark Ages.

  133. SamFromUK says

    @Sky,

    Great. Now you have something to examine and see if there are claims in there which are true and whether it is something which contains important information.

  134. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @SamFromUK #155:
    Which claims about God have you examined, and how did you determine the claims are true about an existing noun and not false or symbolic or poetry?

  135. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @SamFromUK:
    You’ve already accepted that this God noun is “all-powerful” and “we are kind of living in God’s imagination”. How did you determine that those claims are true?

  136. SamFromUK says

    @sky,

    That life cannot be created by humans and neither any other heavenly body such as stars, planets or asteroids. That we came from nothing but the earth and water, that way we grow and develop is miraculous. That everything is meangingless in our lives and every human must die.

    I don’t know if God is all powerful and that we live in his imagination. I’ll never know that but looking at the universe and our lives I believe it’s true. Anything is possible in the universe such talking animals.
    If I said to you that one day dirt will talk and walk around you’d think that was ridiculous. However you are simply just that.

  137. SamFromUK says

    @sky,

    Also the quean, gospel an torah will be around till the day of judgement. These are protected by God and no one can get rid of them or change them. People have tried and failed.

  138. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @SamFromUK #158:

    I don’t know […] I’ll never know that but […] I believe it’s true. Anything is possible in the universe

     
    Monocle Smile #114:

    Tomorrow, monkeys might fly out my ass. Until that happens, I have no reason to think monkeys will fly out my ass.

  139. SamFromUK says

    @sky,
    Anything is possible in this universe.

    I believe God is true because of my observations and what the scriptures say. It’s not based on my own ideas.

  140. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @SamFromUK #161:

    I believe God is true because of my observations

    You’ve made no connection between your observations and a god. You’ve denied the possibility of such evidence in fact, repeatedly, when asked for it. Observations do not help you.
     

    and what the scriptures say. It’s not based on my own ideas.

    You’ve based based your belief on borrowed ideas. Anyone can write a book with their own ideas and claim inviolate truth (see Ctesias on unicorns). That you saw claims in a book does not help you.
     
    #162:

    If you think about it MS’s mom ejected an ape from a hole where she pees from.

    Did you read that in scripture, too? Or should we credit that as your own idea?

  141. SamFromUK says

    @sky,

    The evidence is creation. Life is creation. I’ve repeatedly stated this as evidence.

    Yes anyone can write a book. Not every book is spread from generation to generation and followed and has claims which attract attention the way the Quran, gospel and torah do. The scriptures help me, they don’t help you.

    The way we are born and how we form is mentioned in scripture. It makes me think about how I started off from and how I developed into an adult through various stages.

    Think about it. Problem is you are at the moment blind to the miracles happening around you.

    Think about what you eat. Whatever you eat is made up from dirt and water. Yet you can’t eat dirt and water as food. It needs to be transformed into food. Scripture says all life depends on God for sustenance.

  142. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @SamFromUK #164:

    Whatever you eat is made up from dirt and water. Yet you can’t eat dirt and water as food.

    Nothing an atheist could say would be as disrespectful to the creator of the universe than the facile drivel written in its name and promoted as deep wisdom.

  143. SamFromUK says

    Problem with some of the atheists on this forum is that they don’t spend enough time thinking about this reality when they are presented with the evidence of God. Instead they are looking for an unusual phenomena as evidence or for something to automatically point to God. It’s not going to happen. Our reality is bizarre. We can’t eat dirt and water yet that’s the original state of our food. We are made of dirt and water which has no value yet when that dirt and water is transformed into something else we give it so much value.

  144. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Sam
    Yeah. It’s called chemistry and biology. You’re like 2000 years out-of-date on the science.

  145. RationalismRules says

    @San

    Our reality is bizarre.

    Yours more than most, considering you think babies come out of a woman’s urethra. (Though it does provide a clue as to why you think human physiology is so poorly understood)

    Also, considering that you think water has no value…

  146. SamFromUK says

    @EL,

    Using our knowledge of chemistry and biology please create food for humans from non life matter. This is a very simple challenge for you.

  147. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Sam
    It’s not rocket science, and it’s not magic. It’s just chemistry. It’s a very common freshmen and sophomore class in university, which you seemingly never took. You should go back to school and take some basic orgo.
    https://www.khanacademy.org/science/organic-chemistry
    https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/photosynthesis-in-plants
    https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/photosynthesis-in-plants/the-calvin-cycle-reactions/a/calvin-cycle
    You wouldn’t think it’s magic if you bothered to educate yourself.

    PS:
    You first may have to take some basic chemistry and physics courses before taking orgo. IIRC, you only need a 8th grade understanding of math, and so hopefully that won’t be a problem.

  148. SamFromUK says

    @EL,

    Sorry but which one of them sources of info point to making food for humans from non life matter? Please don’t cite plants as they are life.

  149. SamFromUK says

    @EL,

    If humans can create their food from non life matter than that would mean they don’t rely on God for their sustenance and that claim in the Quran will be proven to be false.

  150. Monocle Smile says

    Sam seems to be arguing that our current lack of the ability to manipulate matter at will and at the most fundamental level is somehow evidence for god.
    BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  151. SamFromUK says

    It’s a claim made in the quran and it’s true. It’s a fundamental claim which only those who understand will appreciate it’s importance. Not even most believers understand the importance of it.

  152. Monocle Smile says

    @Sam
    If I write down a claim that monkeys will never fly out my ass, does it make me a fucking prophet? Then shut the hell up.

  153. SamFromUK says

    Your claim is meangingless. The claim about sustenance of life is very important since it’s made in book revealed to very simple folk and claims to be from God. Feel free to write your own book and claim it’s from God.
    It should be straight forward for smart atheists to create food for humans. After all its just chemistry and biology.

  154. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @SamFromUK
    #100:

    having complete power of absolutely anything

    #127:

    for God everything should be easy

    #178:

    book revealed to very simple folk

    #176:

    Not even most believers understand

  155. SamFromUK says

    @sky,

    Lol.

    In the quran it says that had God wanted to he could have made everyone a believer. However he wil only guide those he wants to as he knows what’s in everyones hearts. So there is no blame on any prophet if the people don’t believe.

    Unfortunately the vast majority of muslims don’t understand the Quran as they are taught to just read it in Arabic without understanding the words. Even the arabs don’t understand it well hence some of the laws they have come up with.
    Most muslims follow their own communities ideology. Which explains the conflict between Sunnis and Shia. Both groups claim to follow the same quran but they hate each other.

  156. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @SamFromUK #180:

    However he will only guide those he wants to

    Then you have no reason to keep coming back here.

  157. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Sam.

    Your advocating the philosophical position known as vitalism.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

    Vitalism, especially this sort of vitalism, has been dead for a like 100 years. Again, please educate yourself.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3899854/

    Just for example, Fischer won the chemistry Nobel prize in 1902 for the total synthesis of glucose. In this context, the phrase “total synthesis” means the creation of the molecule in a lab from purely elemental constituents, i.e. free carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Emil_Fischer

    What are the minimal constituents of a human diet? Approximately: water, 9 of the 20 amino acids, 2 of the fatty acids, 13 vitamins (certain organic compounds), several minerals (i.e. inorganic calcium), and digestable food for calories (i.e. sugar, i.e. glucose).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_nutrient

    We have synthesized all of these in a lab (see earlier links). Not only have we done it once, but organic total synthesis for many compounds is a routine, even trivial, practice in many labs around the world. It was relatively hard for me to find a source on all of this because it’s that commonplace and trivial (and sometimes it can be hard to find a source that talks about the trivial). There are a great many books and resources written in extremely technical language that describe the synthesis of thousands, tens of thousands, even more, organic compounds. This is not an obscure academic discipline. This is not a cool lab trick. Organic synthesis is an everyday part of mainstream manufacture and economy.

    If you want to learn more, the google search terms that you should use are “vitalism” and “total synthesis”.

    You are supremely foolish and supremely ignorant. Again, go back to school. Read a book. Educate yourself.

  158. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Ugg. Too many links. To a mod, you can delete my earlier post.

    To Sam.

    Your advocating the philosophical position known as vitalism.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

    Vitalism, especially this sort of vitalism, has been dead for a like 100 years. Again, please educate yourself.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3899854/

    Just for example, Fischer won the chemistry Nobel prize in 1902 for the total synthesis of glucose. In this context, the phrase “total synthesis” means the creation of the molecule in a lab from purely elemental constituents, i.e. free carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Emil_Fischer

    What are the minimal constituents of a human diet? Approximately: water, 9 of the 20 amino acids, 2 of the fatty acids, 13 vitamins (certain organic compounds), several minerals (i.e. inorganic calcium), and digestable food for calories (i.e. sugar, i.e. glucose).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_nutrient

    We have synthesized all of these in a lab (see earlier links). Not only have we done it once, but organic total synthesis for many compounds is a routine, even trivial, practice in many labs around the world. It was relatively hard for me to find a source on all of this because it’s that commonplace and trivial (and sometimes it can be hard to find a source that talks about the trivial). There are a great many books and resources written in extremely technical language that describe the synthesis of thousands, tens of thousands, even more, organic compounds. This is not an obscure academic discipline. This is not a cool lab trick. Organic synthesis is an everyday part of mainstream manufacture and economy.

    If you want to learn more, the google search terms that you should use are “vitalism” and “total synthesis”.

    You are supremely foolish and supremely ignorant. Again, go back to school. Read a book. Educate yourself.

  159. SamFromUK says

    @EL,

    Good research. Let’s see what you’ve actually found.

    Vitalism – I see where you’re going with this but I don’t think you understand what they’re saying. As far as I understand it research has shown that living organisms don’t contain anything except your natural elements and all the mechanistic processes are natural. I don’t have a problem with. The important point to note is that given that life is composed of natural elements and all the processes are known why is that scientists are STILL NOT ABLE to create life from scratch. Think about this carefully.

    You list off the minimal constituents of a human diet and point to sources where we can use chemistry to create organic molecules. How does that point to food being created in the lab for humans? I think you’re saying look we can create x, y and z separately so it must be straight forward to create food as it should just be a matter of putting those things together. Well sorry to disappoint it doesn’t work like that. You need to show synthetic food being created which humans can eat not point to research showing the synthesis of organic matter. So show me research where scientists have created 100% synthetic food from non-life which are fit for consumption. Once you do you will become rich because it will solve a number of farming issues.

  160. SamFromUK says

    @Sky,

    “Then you have no reason to keep coming back here.”

    I’ve given up on trying to argue theologically as atheists will never understand. I’m now more interested in discussing atheists understanding of science. It’s much better to discuss with atheists are they are more critical. Theists may simply say it’s just a mystery of God, which is sometimes true but it’s good to have people really think about a subject.

    Also I’ve learnt why some people will never believe in God which helps me to educate my kids.

  161. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    The important point to note is that given that life is composed of natural elements and all the processes are known why is that scientists are STILL NOT ABLE to create life from scratch. Think about this carefully.

    Because cells are really, really complicated.

    Also moving the goalposts. We’re not talking about artificial cells. We’re talking about artificial food.

    As far as I understand it research has shown that living organisms don’t contain anything except your natural elements and all the mechanistic processes are natural. I don’t have a problem with.

    So show me research where scientists have created 100% synthetic food from non-life which are fit for consumption. Once you do you will become rich because it will solve a number of farming issues.

    You admit that vitalism is wrong, and you accept that human food is simply chemistry, and in the same post you still made a demand for further evidence on this point. This is asinine. You’re being a dishonest shit. I have shown that we can create human food from non-life, and therefore by your own standards I have shown the Quran to be wrong.

    Further, these artificial organic molecules are fit for human consumption, and they’re consumed all of the time, because total synthesis is frequently used as the basis for the creation of many medicines which are directly consumed by humans.

    Further, total synthesis is not used in place of farming, because total synthesis is very money-expensive and labor-expensive compared to traditional farming. The yields of total synthesis are often measured in milligrams and grams.

  162. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    For emphasis:

    If humans can create their food from non life matter than that would mean they don’t rely on God for their sustenance and that claim in the Quran will be proven to be false.

    I have shown exactly that. This is 100 year old information, at least, i.e. the 1902 Nobel prize for the total synthesis of glucose.

  163. SamFromUK says

    @EL,

    “Because cells are really, really complicated.”

    Great, glad you understand that as many atheists don’t.

    “You admit that vitalism is wrong, and you accept that human food is simply chemistry, and in the same post you still made a demand for further evidence on this point. This is asinine. You’re being a dishonest shit. I have shown that we can create human food from non-life, and therefore by your own standards I have shown the Quran to be wrong.”

    I didn’t say vitalism is wrong. I said I don’t have a problem with living organism being created from natural elements and processes. However there still could be another force which gives those molecules life which cannot observe. So in other words one day we could assemble a cell molecule by molecule to be exactly the same as a living cell but the synthetic one would still be dead/lifeless.

    I think yours and my definition of food may not be quite the same. When I say food I mean substance which can keep humans alive without any issues just as natural food can. So basically a human should be able to sustain themselves on synthetic food without resorting to natural food for a period of time. As far as I know you can’t sustain humans on glucose alone.

  164. SamFromUK says

    @EL,

    Also if you think you can synthetically create all the other nutrients such as vitamins, proteins, etc and simply add them all together then show me where this food is and how long humans have consumed it for.

  165. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    As far as I know you can’t sustain humans on glucose alone.

    Which is why I didn’t just cite total synthesis for glucose. This is borderline strawmanning.

    Also if you think you can synthetically create all the other nutrients such as vitamins, proteins, etc and simply add them all together then show me where this food is and how long humans have consumed it for.

    I don’t know if I can find such a thing, and I would be surprised if the “experiment” was actually done, because it would be extremely costly, with basically no scientific value.

    This is probably a form of “moving the goalposts”. It’s probably some other fallacious form of argument, like demanding excessive evidence that you already know doesn’t exist even though already presented evidence is more than sufficient.

  166. SamFromUK says

    @EL,

    Sorry I can’t see anywhere where you have provided sufficient evidence of humans creating food from non life which can sustain humans.

    All you did was cite papers which show the synthesis of certain components of foods. You know exactly what I was asking for since my claim was that its God who provides sustenance for humans.

    Please stop being adversarial. Try to accept the facts for what they are.