Sufficient yes. Valid no.

Of course its valid. That you don't agree doesn't make it invalid.

I assume you would not make this mistake for groups you consider real, if we have an expert on humans and another on chimpanzees you are not going to tell them that "yea that is all nice but they are all just apes". i.e. that there are really no differences.

But we're not debating whether the Christian God is to apes as the Jewish God is to humans. We are debating the particulars of a single being, started by Abraham. Hence, my analogy is far more apt of debating whether Silver Age Superman or Golden Age Superman is the real Superman. Yes, to the Superman aficionado, the debate holds much importance, but none of them will try to argue that Superman is really Batman. To say that the Christian God isn't the same being as the Jewish God is tantamount to my point.

If you wish to highlight the differences of the Christian interpretation of God vs. the Jewish interpretation of God, that is fine. The important thing to remember is that they are one and the same; simply different interpretations of the same being.

I can understand why you might believe that differences in fictions are distinctions without a difference and do not matter. That is your prerogative. But to the theist and trekker alike these distinctions are important and valid statements can be made about them that may not correspond to reality. They are still valid, however unreal they may be. ... And this follows for the whole of mathematics, where imaginary objects, of all types have all sorts of properties that distinguish sets and particulars one from the other.

That depends on how much weight we're putting on the phrase "level of importance". Certainly I agree that to theists and trekkies the level of importance on the particulars is high, though somehow I think the theists would put the particulars of their debate far higher than that of a trekky's debate. Of course "valid" arguments can be made in any debate, but what is the importance of the outcome? [Rhetorical question, as the answer is only defined by the parties involved in that particular discussion.]

As for the importance of the differences in fictional characters, I respect everyone's right to argue at great lengths if they wish. I, myself, enjoy a great discussion of some of the off-topic subject matter brought up. But when all is said and done, I know that it was a generous waste of time that meant nothing at all.

Also, even through particulars of the subject matter, no one arguing over which particular Superman was better would say that Superman was Batman. The same goes for the God of Abraham. The Jews, Christians and Muslims can all argue over the particulars, but it is still the same God; they are not arguing over one interpretation of God being Zeus.

By the way: Batman > Superman > Thor. Picard > Kirk. :-)

That said you still have a pretty large problem. It appears you are surrounded by billions of deluded people. As inferred on the outset of this thread, this being the case one could only observe that there is some evolutionary advantage given to those believing in delusions. As they appear to be the ones being selected... But not just any delusions. In the cases of other types of delusions where they are deluded about their surroundings or even their own identity, we call this psychotic and would consider them at a disadvantage for selection. But the delusion concerning the objects of religion, this is rampant throughout history into the present day. It would seem a very successful set of delusions.

Why is that?

If you wish to diagnose believers as delusional, that is certainly one turn we can take in this thread. I would simply refer to them as unable to let go, because to them religion means hope, immortality, meaning, and purpose. There are many who, despite showing all the data they require to not believe in a Higher Power would still believe because they believe it gives them purpose and meaning. However, this number is shrinking as we become more sophisticated as a species. As stated elsewhere and in this thread, the non-believers are growing, because people are starting to realize that which the religious doesn't want people to realize: we have one life and it has as much meaning as you give it.

People have been psychotic since the dawn of man. If its such a disadvantage then why do we still have psychotics still in exsistance?

Exactly.

hehehe. And they are Highly Educated, with Great "Public" Understanding and Knowledge. Let's say-Highly Versed in the Sciences. hehehe. And 99.99% of the time, No One knows they are Psychotic. hehehe

See the new PBS series where A Famed Hollywood Director in the first episode repeated an experiment from '61?

After 50+ years of Education; Sensitivity Training; Moralistic Diatribes; Enviromentalism; and all The Other Rot, We The Highly Educated/Understanding/Knowledgeable, still pressed The Higher Voltage Switch and "Zapped" the "Test" subjects-up to the point where The Fake Test Administors "Stopped" it. hehehe

Exactly NO CHANGE from 50+ years ago.

It gave Me Much Joy. And I am sure MOST of the Participants, "Zapping" the "Subject"(with the fake Heart Condition) are Dem/Libs. OUCH! hehehe

HighVoltageDullnanDo

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Set of Abrahamic Gods = YHWA, Christian Trinity (CT), Allah
Set of Trinitarian Gods = Hindu Triverti, Tripple Goddess, CT

In these sets, only CT can be a member of both. YHWA and Allah cannot be contained in the second set in orthodox interpretation.

Although you are right, CT belongs to the "same" set as the other Abrahamic Gods, it does not make them identical as it violates Leibniz Law or the Identity of Indiscernibles. This is where I would be coming from, and why it would appear to me to be invalid to say they were strictly the same. I am not being deliberately incorrigible, I literally think this way.

As per religiosity and non-belief it has also been stated that the percentage of dis-believers may be constant over time but are more and more able to live that doubt out in the open. So that population may not be growing, just more visible. My personal opinion here, is that in some of these subcultures, it may appear that there are less believes then there are as some people of faith are not willing to come out in the open due to open belittlement of their backward tendencies.

It looks like we agree that there are other aspects to religion beyond personal belief which is what always seems to be a primary point of focus. I tend to focus on the cognitive drive towards the connection of things, the principal of organization it can contribute to a population, and the need for ritual and rites of passage. It appears that we sould agree, that even if the notion of God is a secondary delusion, all of these things provide value to individuals and populations and have provided much advantage to us as a species. As a person, I find the secular versions lacking of substance and cohesion. And as a believer I look to the Kingdom of God in this life, as it is at hand… tomorrow has troubles of its own…

I would even go further... and state that the cognitive functions tied to the success of our evolution that may have led to religiosity, those pointed to by Dennett, Dawkins and Shermer, primarily pattern detection, function much as they present their basic cases. I just deny that this proves the non-existence of God. Some people’s brains are more wired to see patterns that others do not, and have very strong reinforcement habits. So when it comes to the intensity or focus of our faith or lack thereof, we may be more subject to our genetics, environments and developed neural networks then we would like to believe…. All puns intended…

Shermer on the Believing Brain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqAwfv3HYGo

Set of Abrahamic Gods = YHWA, Christian Trinity (CT), Allah
Set of Trinitarian Gods = Hindu Triverti, Tripple Goddess, CT

In these sets, only CT can be a member of both. YHWA and Allah cannot be contained in the second set in orthodox interpretation.

Although you are right, CT belongs to the "same" set as the other Abrahamic Gods, it does not make them identical as it violates Leibniz Law or the Identity of Indiscernibles. This is where I would be coming from, and why it would appear to me to be invalid to say they were strictly the same. I am not being deliberately incorrigible, I literally think this way.

Understood. But understand that I identify by origins. Christianity was born of Judaism, which is traced back to the God of Abraham. Therefore they are one and the same, even if they don't share the same interpretations.

As per religiosity and non-belief it has also been stated that the percentage of dis-believers may be constant over time but are more and more able to live that doubt out in the open. So that population may not be growing, just more visible. My personal opinion here, is that in some of these subcultures, it may appear that there are less believes then there are as some people of faith are not willing to come out in the open due to open belittlement of their backward tendencies.

This has been asserted before, which suggests that the "growing" population of non-believers is nothing more than people "coming out of the closet" as it were. I argue that it doesn't matter, as the end result is more non-believers. More people admitting to non-belief is less people proclaiming belief. Not to mention that I, myself, am one such converter, having formerly been Roman Catholic. I have heard many personal stories of others losing their faith as well, so while that may be anecdotal, I doubt that the growing population of non-believers is nothing more than people who were always non-believers.

This is nothing more than hand-waiving by the believers to deny they've lost any significant numbers, so they don't have to come to the reality that people aren't buying into the lie anymore. Waive it off and call it a non-issue so we don't have to talk about it and maybe it will go away. Religion has a history of using this stance, e.g. like the improper handling of young boys by certain ordained officials.

It looks like we agree that there are other aspects to religion beyond personal belief which is what always seems to be a primary point of focus. I tend to focus on the cognitive drive towards the connection of things, the principal of organization it can contribute to a population, and the need for ritual and rites of passage. It appears that we sould agree, that even if the notion of God is a secondary delusion, all of these things provide value to individuals and populations and have provided much advantage to us as a species.

No, I don't agree that it provides value. I believe it provides a lie. Not delusion, but a facade. A lie can never provide value; I'll take the harsh truth over a lie any day, as I believe it makes me stronger.

As a person, I find the secular versions lacking of substance and cohesion. And as a believer I look to the Kingdom of God in this life, as it is at hand… tomorrow has troubles of its own…

As a person, I find theist or deist belief a great, unnecessary burden that lacks true objectivity, while dictating morality at the cost of self. Shedding my belief has provided me with renewed vigor for my own life, and science has provided more substance and cohesion than faith ever tried to.

I would even go further... and state that the cognitive functions tied to the success of our evolution that may have led to religiosity, those pointed to by Dennett, Dawkins and Shermer, primarily pattern detection, function much as they present their basic cases. I just deny that this proves the non-existence of God. Some people’s brains are more wired to see patterns that others do not, and have very strong reinforcement habits. So when it comes to the intensity or focus of our faith or lack thereof, we may be more subject to our genetics, environments and developed neural networks then we would like to believe…. All puns intended…

Some people's brains are too wired to recognize what they perceive to be patterns. The greatest conspiracy theories are born from intelligent people that add patterns together to form a cohesion that wouldn't otherwise be associated with each other to form a world around them that only makes sense to them. Then they take advantage of other people's ignorance and gullibility to sell the idea to the masses. As stated [paraphrased], a million people believing in a lie doesn't make it truth.

Shermer on the Believing Brain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqAwfv3HYGo

I was going to find a witty link to counter, but just take any Penn and Teller Bullshit episode, especially the ones on the Bible, Creationism, and Near Death Experiences as great starting points.

As a person, I find theist or deist belief a great, unnecessary burden that lakes true objectivity, while dictating morality at the cost of self. Shedding my belief has provided me with renewed vigor for my own life, and science has provided more substance and cohesion than faith ever tried to.

Well put. All we need to do is look out our own windows, and see what we see. The real answers are there if we just look. There is this young, beautiful woman on TV, that fell in a zip line accident that lost one leg, the other foot, and both hands to a flesh eating bacteria. People are thanking God she is alive. Shouldn't they be hauling Him to jail for permitting that in the first place????

Steve

---

Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

as the end result is more non-believers

ROTFLMAO. Why? Scene: Our Future World. Everyone is a Non-Believer, or Everyone is a Believer. Except One Person.

One Person. And this One Person, A Believer or Non-take your pick-Destroys The World.

One can do it.

It (was) a Happy World of Believers('cause there is only one Non). Or,

It (was) a Happy World of Non-Believers('cause there is only one of The Other Kind).

Matter Not. Same Result.

Who made it through The Destruction? One of One Kind and One of Another. Male and Female.

What kind of World will they CREATE(LOL, get it? Create) from The Ashes, or Piles of Pus Filled Bags of Water?

So, Believers in Your Way(GOD or No GOD), keep on keepin' on with Getting Everyone On Your Side. Whether through Rationale of Science or The Faith of An Invisible Being, it Can Still End with The One.

It will continue to be A Long, Hard, Bloody Grind to your Happy World. Which like All Worlds, Ends.

OneWayDullNanDO

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

As a person, I find theist or deist belief a great, unnecessary burden that lakes true objectivity, while dictating morality at the cost of self. Shedding my belief has provided me with renewed vigor for my own life, and science has provided more substance and cohesion than faith ever tried to.

Well put. All we need to do is look out our own windows, and see what we see. The real answers are there if we just look. There is this young, beautiful woman on TV, that fell in a zip line accident that lost one leg, the other foot, and both hands to a flesh eating bacteria. People are thanking God she is alive. Shouldn't they be hauling Him to jail for permitting that in the first place????

Steve

Being the person of science that you say you are--why do you have such a hard time with Entropy? Some burn out, others fade away.

I normally don't tell people about books, but you're in need of one.
C.S. Lewis, The Problem with Pain

“A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

“The mold in which a key is made would be a strange thing, if you had never seen a key: and the key itself a strange thing if you had never seen a lock. Your soul has a curious shape because it is a hollow made to fit a particular swelling in the infinite contours of the divine substance, or a key to unlock one of the doors in the house with many mansions.

Your place in heaven will seem to be made for you and you alone, because you were made for it -- made for it stitch by stitch as a glove is made for a hand.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

“The human spirit will not even begin to try to surrender self-will as long as all seems to be well with it. Now error and sin both have this property, that the deeper they are the less their victim suspects their existence; they are masked evil. Pain is unmasked, unmistakable evil; every man knows that something is wrong when he is being hurt.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

“His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power.

If you choose to say, 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prifex to them the two other words, 'God can.'

It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

“The problem of reconciling human suffering with the existence of a God who loves, is only insoluble so long as we attach a trivial meaning to the word "love", and look on things as if man were the centre of them. Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake. "Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." We were made not primarily that we may love God (though we were made for that too) but that God may love us, that we may become objects in which the divine love may rest "well pleased".”
― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

As a person, I find theist or deist belief a great, unnecessary burden that lakes true objectivity, while dictating morality at the cost of self. Shedding my belief has provided me with renewed vigor for my own life, and science has provided more substance and cohesion than faith ever tried to.

Well put. All we need to do is look out our own windows, and see what we see. The real answers are there if we just look. There is this young, beautiful woman on TV, that fell in a zip line accident that lost one leg, the other foot, and both hands to a flesh eating bacteria. People are thanking God she is alive. Shouldn't they be hauling Him to jail for permitting that in the first place????

Steve

Being the person of science that you say you are--why do you have such a hard time with Entropy? Some burn out, others fade away.

I normally don't tell people about books, but you're in need of one.
C.S. Lewis, The Problem with Pain

“A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

“The mold in which a key is made would be a strange thing, if you had never seen a key: and the key itself a strange thing if you had never seen a lock. Your soul has a curious shape because it is a hollow made to fit a particular swelling in the infinite contours of the divine substance, or a key to unlock one of the doors in the house with many mansions.

Your place in heaven will seem to be made for you and you alone, because you were made for it -- made for it stitch by stitch as a glove is made for a hand.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

“The human spirit will not even begin to try to surrender self-will as long as all seems to be well with it. Now error and sin both have this property, that the deeper they are the less their victim suspects their existence; they are masked evil. Pain is unmasked, unmistakable evil; every man knows that something is wrong when he is being hurt.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

“His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power.

If you choose to say, 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prifex to them the two other words, 'God can.'

It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

“The problem of reconciling human suffering with the existence of a God who loves, is only insoluble so long as we attach a trivial meaning to the word "love", and look on things as if man were the centre of them. Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake. "Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." We were made not primarily that we may love God (though we were made for that too) but that God may love us, that we may become objects in which the divine love may rest "well pleased".”
― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

Unrelated to your specific post, but related to the topic at hand and from that same site:

3. The Existence of God

Discussions regarding religion often evoke the question: Does god exist? It is sometimes helpful to apply a little common sense to what pretends to be an intricate philosophical enigma.

What do we mean when we say that something exists? As far as human beings are concerned, nothing exists unless it manifests itself in some form, shape or manner to man or to his extended sensory perceptions.

If something is claimed to exist but does not impinge on man in any way whatsoever, we can safely say that it does not exist as far as human existence is concerned. This purported mirage may still exist somewhere in the universe or another universe. However, since this alleged object or event does not manifest itself to us, it does not affect us in any way whatsoever and we must simply state that it does not exist as far as human beings are concerned.

Religious people argue that, although they cannot prove that god exists, atheists cannot prove that god does not exist. This argument is inherently faulty.

It is logically impossible to prove that an object or event does not exist. However, it is the essence and the backbone of science to provide evidence that something does exist. If something exists, such as energy, matter or space, it manifests itself to us by objective evidence. We can measure such manifestations or we can take objective images of them.

It is axiomatic in the affairs of man, and steeped in common sense that, whoever makes a claim, has to prove its validity. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

If a person should claim that the moon is made of green cheese, he has to prove that the moon actually consists of green cheese, instead of rock, as established by previous, hard, factual, objective evidence. It is logically impossible and absurd to demand that, whoever does not accept the claim that the moon is made of green cheese, should disprove the claim.

Only persons, who do not utilize logic, will accept as true statements that are completely unsupported by factual evidence. Yet, this form of irrationality and lack of fundamental logic is the foundation of all religions. Since approximately 80 % of the world population accepts the completely unsubstantiated statements of various religions, 80 % of the world population suffers from a severely distorted and thus ineffective worldview.

Christian dogma expects people to believe the fairy tale of Noah’s ark, although it is patently impossible to squeeze even samples of billions of the world’s animals into one small ark. Rational persons consider such stories ludicrous. And yet, such is the brainwashing power of religion, that the majority of the people on earth accept such fairytales as facts.

The bible account of the creation of man and the universe, as set forth in the Book of Genesis, is in such contradiction to irrefutable facts that a rational person cannot help but laugh about such fantasies. It may be all right for children to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, but functional adults are expected to outgrow such fairy tales.

Another absurdity is imbedded in the fact that every religion claims to pray to the one and only true god. How can such contradiction be rationalized? Who is the true god? Allah, or Jesus, or Jehovah, or Buddha, or Krishna?

Where was the Jewish God Jehovah, when Hitler incinerated five million of his chosen people; where was the Buddha when Truman vaporized 250,000 Japanese women and children; where was the Christian God when Stalin killed thirty million Christians?

It defies rationality when religious persons pray to these same gods for individualized help and salvation.

3 a. Pascal's Wager

Another favorite statement by religious philosophers refers to Pascal’s Wager. Pascal was an eminent seventeenth century mathematician who struggled with the contradictions presented by Christian theology.

His wager consists of the statement: It is advantageous to believe in god because the worst thing that can happen is that you have spent your life believing in something that is untrue and you will end up just as dead as everyone else will. However, if you do not believe in god and if god actually exists, then god’s actual existence will matter in the extreme because you will be in big trouble with Him.

The problem with Pascal’s wager lies in the reality hat a person cannot pretend to believe in God just for the sake of a wager. The obvious insincerity in pretending a belief in God for the purpose of a wager makes an actual belief in God impossible.

Theologians have used Pascal’s wager to admonish people to believe in God, just in case he actually exists. This situation justifies the old definition of theologians as persons who are looking in a coal-bin on a dark night for a black cat that is not there.

3 b. The Epicurean Postulate

It is pointless to get involved in endless discussions regarding the existence or non-existence of god and the moral qualities of such a god. Such nonsensical and unproductive discussions have raged for the last three thousand years.

One of the problems in theism, the belief system involving a personal god, revolves around the allegedly benign nature of god, the existence of evil, and the resulting inconsistency in the concept of an omnipotent god.

The mere existence of evil in this world makes the existence of a benign god impossible: If god were omnipotent, he could eliminate evil and if he were benign, he would want to do so. Furthermore, if god were all-good, as he is supposed to be, he could not sin. However, if he were all-powerful, he could sin.

The Greek philosopher Epicurus illuminated this dilemma in 300 BC:

If God is willing to prevent evil but is not able to prevent evil, then he is not omnipotent.

If God is able to prevent evil but is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not benevolent.

Evil is either in accordance with God’s intention or contrary to it.

Thus, either God cannot prevent evil or he does not want to prevent evil.

Therefore, it follows that God is either not omnipotent or he is not benevolent. He cannot be both omnipotent and benevolent.

3 c. The Rock Lifting Paradox

If the Epicurean argument does not suffice in pointing out the inherent contradictions in the concept of a god, there remains the somewhat provocative and hilarious Rock Lifting Paradox: Can God make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? If we assume the common definition of omnipotence, we encounter a contradiction: If God was omnipotent, he should be able to do create such a rock but then he cannot lift the rock and his omnipotence breaks down.

This thought experiment makes it logically and factually untenable to claim the existence of any allegedly omnipotent God. This paradox creates a dire dilemma for the faithful: Who would really want or need a God who is not omnipotent, a god who would not be able to change the laws of the universe on behalf of a sinful supplicant? This paradox does not prove or disprove anything in itself, but it does point out the inherent logical impossibility of the existence of an omnipotent God.

3 d. Conclusion: The Existence of God

Religious people pursue their religion because they have blocked their rationality in all affairs pertaining to religion. They are impervious to the contradictions, logical inconsistencies and other obstacles to the existence of a personal, omnipotent god. They desperately need an omnipotent, omniscient, benign god to lean on. They prefer to walk through life with blinders so that the harsh facts of Objective Reality will not spook them.

There is no need to prove or disprove the existence of god or gods. The mere fact that no god has ever manifested himself in any form, shape or manner, eliminates any reliance we can place on him or any attention we need to pay to him.

As far as modern man is concerned, gods or other supposedly omnipotent beings never have and do not now interact with man. As far as we, as human beings, are concerned, gods do not exist because they do not manifest themselves to us or interact with us.

For the sake of argument, some people suggest that gods may exist in some other universe or plane of existence where we cannot be aware of them. However, as long as these nebulous, hidden gods do not interact with human beings in our universe, we need not concern ourselves with such extra-celestial god or gods.

In order to prove the existence of gods and other super-natural beings, adherents of religions have often claimed to talk to god. At times, these people claim to see miraculous visions of ethereal superior beings, gods, angels, virginal childbirth, the dear departed and other ephemeral appearances. All such visions or apparitions are strictly subjective and lack any objective evidence whatsoever. It is common for mentally disturbed persons, such as schizophrenics, to see visions or to hear voices that do not exist in reality.

Photography has been available for the last 150 years. However, nobody has ever captured an image of a god or angels or of any other supernatural being. If these omnipotent phantoms cannot even re-arrange a few electrons on photographic film, how are they going to interact with us or save us from disaster?


...


7. Atheism

Religious persons sometimes claim that atheism is merely another belief system, similar to any other religion. This assertion is due to a lack of understanding of semantic concepts. The word belief is similar to the concept of faith because it implies mental acceptance of something as true in the absence of firm evidence.

A belief is a vague idea supported only by the confidence that people place in it. If people have to resort to a belief in something, they have doubts regarding the veracity of what they believe in. If we know something to be a fact, we do not say that we believe in it. If people know the facts of a situation, they have no need for beliefs.

Atheists pronounce themselves skeptics or atheists, not because they adhere to a furtive belief system of not believing in god, but because gods do not exist. Gods do not exist in view of the indisputable fact that no god has ever manifested himself to a human being. The atheistic worldview is not a belief system because it does not rely on beliefs in unsupported claims. The atheistic worldview insists on objective evidence.

Much has been made of reports of alleged cures where God miraculously healed a repentant sinner. The purported miracle, lacking objective evidence, was more than likely attributable to luck or to other natural causes. It is a fact that people very often do get better with the help of their immune systems. If the poor sinner had died, as many sinners and non-sinners do, there would have been no miracle.

If our appeals to our God are successful and if He seems to solve our problem, he gets credit for the miracles he works. However, if he does not resolve our predicament, religious persons blame his lack of cooperation on insufficient prayer, the unworthiness of the supplicant, the lack of proper sacrifices, or the inscrutable ways of god.

Such situations arise frequently when human survival is threatened. Persons, who pray to God and who survive a pending calamity, sing hymns of praise to Him for answering their prayer. However, those persons who perished, although they prayed just as hard, are no longer available to blame Him for his failure to save their lives.

In acts of courage and defiance, many men have cursed the gods but the gods did not strike them with lightening, or anything else. Man has ignored the gods and they, in turn, have ignored him. Atheists have to help themselves and solve their problems without the delusion of divine intervention.

Atheists struck a deal with God: We will not bother you, if you will not bother us. They mocked god and nothing happened to them, because god does not exist. If he actually does exist, he cannot or does not want to punish atheists. In either case, he does not respond to prayers or to curses.

Without a god or gods, religion becomes meaningless and prayer becomes an empty delusion. What is prayer, but the appeal to nonexistent supernatural beings, to upset the laws of the universe on behalf of an admittedly unworthy sinner? Of course, in order to rely on prayer, a believer must have faith.

The word faith means to accept something as true without evidence and in contradiction to established facts. Otherwise, no reliance on faith, on unverified religious dogma, would be required: People need not have faith in gravity or other objective facts; people need to have faith only when they face an otherwise unacceptable falsehood. Faith is the unconditional acceptance of the impossible.

As man evolved, the survival benefits of a belief in the supernatural have become obsolete. In the third millennium, in this age of science and enlightenment, survival increasingly depends on increased rationality. The previous century has seen an overwhelming increase in scientific and technological knowledge. The ability of an individual to deal rationally, instead of emotionally, with his environment, has shifted survival benefits from the irrational and emotional arena to the rational and scientific domain.

In prior millennia, men like Socrates and Aristotle lacked the basic tools of knowledge and science to develop a clear view of Objective Reality. They were groping in the dark for small kernels of truth. Since then, man’s scientific knowledge has increased by a factor of millions, with regard to both the quality and the quantity of information accessible to him.

A rational, scientific person is able to align himself with Objective Reality, with truth, more appropriately than a religious person is who is relying on prayers to nonexistent gods. A person with rational thought processes is more likely to achieve his desired objectives, including enhanced survival and lasting happiness, than a person relying on prayer.

Adherents of religions often refer to the emotional benefits of reliance on miracles, on life after death, or on other illusory benefits offered by organized religion. They advance the idea that a person will benefit emotionally from such childish illusions although they are clearly distortions of reality. This stance defies common sense since it presumes that irrationality can be superior to rationality in any aspect of life and under any circumstances whatsoever.

The only exception to this rule might apply to religious persons on their deathbed. They may emotionally benefit from a childish belief in a life after death because it facilitates the pain of their departure. Moribund persons no longer need to concern themselves with objective evidence, as the basis for achieving desired results. Their view of reality is no longer oriented towards achieving desired results. They can afford to indulge in dreams of a better life to come, without further adverse effects.

No matter what Henry James says in his "Varieties of Religious Experience", or what Otto calls the Numinous, the fact remains that quackery of any kind, whether medical or religious, remains quackery and can never be as efficacious as hard science. Marx had many faults but he was correct when he stated, "Religion is the opiate of the masses". This pronouncement extends to all forms of superstition, religion, magic and the supernatural.

What makes you think I didn't read the site first? [smile]

What makes you think there is no proof for God?

What makes you ignor the odds of a chance happening of the universe, with just the right laws for life to develope?

I have given you proof in the form of science called Mathematical Statistics.

Mathematical Statistics is just as much of a science as the science you quote for the proof you need for there not being a God.

The point of what God can and cannot do is moot. What He has done is clear. And what He has done is made everything you see and dont see.

The article, as well as yourself, are not looking at things as they are. It's called perspective. Are you on the inside looking out? Or are you on the outside looking in? You have the same linear perspective as I do as far as how things happened to be as they are now. A event happened and the universe was born. In our corner of the universe life has happened. In a nutshell I see things like you do.

But you don't see me eye to eye on the why things happened. In your minds eye [I reckon?] you don't need the why. However, I have an enquiring mind. And the answer of chance that is only offered by what you believe is not good enough.

And the article lied about Neo-Darwinism not being a faith. It is a faith in nothingness. That is what chance is when we talk about the odds of a chance universe and life springing from that chance universe. If you believe in such a chance then you believe in nothingness. No room for God in this belief system.

Mr. C.S. Lewis and myself have a belief in Objective Reality, and Truth in something, not nothing.

What makes you think I didn't read the site first? [smile]

What makes you think I didn't believe you read the site? [grin]

What makes you think there is no proof for God?

Because I, and many other Atheists, are still waiting for this objective "proof". Instead you regurgitate the same unproven assertions time and time again, as if the more you say them, the truer they are.

I have given you proof in the form of science called Mathematical Statistics.

Mathematical Statistics is just as much of a science as the science you quote for the proof you need for there not being a God.

Statistical math, like all of math, deals with abstract concepts and theories that aren't necessarily directly related to objective reality. While math is used in science, I wouldn't use statistical math to prove the existence of a God.

The point of what God can and cannot do is moot. What He has done is clear. And what He has done is made everything you see and dont see.

Why? Because you sez so? What God has and hasn't done is precisely the point. That the challenges laid out before you and your inability to answer the call sufficiently shows a great weakness in your logic and your faith.

The article, as well as yourself, are not looking at things as they are. It's called perspective. Are you on the inside looking out? Or are you on the outside looking in? You have the same linear perspective as I do as far as how things happened to be as they are now. A event happened and the universe was born. In our corner of the universe life has happened. In a nutshell I see things like you do.

Until you understand that Atheism isn't faith, or a faith of nothing, then you and I do not see things the same way.

But you don't see me eye to eye on the why things happened. In your minds eye [I reckon?] you don't need the why. However, I have an enquiring mind. And the answer of chance that is only offered by what you believe is not good enough.

It seems we don't see eye to eye because you can't let go of your faith to understand that the assumptions you've made are just that: assumptions without objective backing.

And the article lied about Neo-Darwinism not being a faith. It is a faith in nothingness. That is what chance is when we talk about the odds of a chance universe and life springing from that chance universe. If you believe in such a chance then you believe in nothingness. No room for God in this belief system.

How can you have a faith in nothingness? Isn't that stretching the argument just to assert that Atheism has faith? What about the very definition of the word that I provided? By your assertion, nothing and no one is truly Atheist because they have faith, and Atheism is a lack of faith.

Are you or are you not open minded enough to listen to concepts you don't quite understand? I get that you don't understand Atheism in the least, but true Atheists lack faith.

Mr. C.S. Lewis and myself have a belief in Objective Reality, and Truth in something, not nothing.

Mr. Dawkins, Penn Jillette, Teller, and myself all believe in an Objective Reality based upon observation and falsifiable evidence. What you have is faith, and you assert your truth from the assumption that there is something out there guiding the Universe without anything beyond "statistical math".

Or do we need to go over the definition of objective now?

I.D. I want to ask you a question.

I promise not to challenge your answer if you choose to post one.

What would life be like or existence be like if by some mechanism of realisation earths population accepted your ideas of creation and reality ?

"Blankman" wrote:

Statistical math, like all of math, deals with abstract concepts and theories that aren't necessarily directly related to objective reality. While math is used in science, I wouldn't use statistical math to prove the existence of a God.

You imply you have correct math that relates correct reality? [smile]

Do tell..........

I'll come back to the rest of your post later. This question must be answered separately before I can answer anything else you have in your last post.

I.D. I want to ask you a question.

I promise not to challenge your answer if you choose to post one.

What would life be like or existence be like if by some mechanism of realisation earths population accepted your ideas of creation and reality ?

Im not ignoring you. I'll come back to your question and answer more fully.

I fully understand that what you have asked will never happen. There will always be evil, more so do to the Fallin Nature of man.

"Blankman" wrote:

Statistical math, like all of math, deals with abstract concepts and theories that aren't necessarily directly related to objective reality. While math is used in science, I wouldn't use statistical math to prove the existence of a God.

You imply you have correct math that relates correct reality? [smile]

There was no implication there. Whatever you read into it was not put there by the author of the statement. [grin]

"Blankman" wrote:

Statistical math, like all of math, deals with abstract concepts and theories that aren't necessarily directly related to objective reality. While math is used in science, I wouldn't use statistical math to prove the existence of a God.

You imply you have correct math that relates correct reality? [smile]

There was no implication there. Whatever you read into it was not put there by the author of the statement. [grin]

Then there is nothing to gain from more questions. You have--nothing.

"Blankman" wrote:

Statistical math, like all of math, deals with abstract concepts and theories that aren't necessarily directly related to objective reality. While math is used in science, I wouldn't use statistical math to prove the existence of a God.

You imply you have correct math that relates correct reality? [smile]

There was no implication there. Whatever you read into it was not put there by the author of the statement. [grin]

Then there is nothing to gain from more questions. You have--nothing.

No, "nothing" is the amount of proof you have for the existence of God. [grin]

Statistical math, like all of math, deals with abstract concepts and theories that aren't necessarily directly related to objective reality.

I take issue with the above statement. Probability underlies all of statistics and set theory underlies all of probability. These issues are not abstact. Flip a coin 5000 times and the percentage of heads of heads will be very close to 50% and well within the Margin of error predicted by statistics. Axiomatic set theory is accepted as a valid proof of all mathematical theorems and mathematics stangely enough describes our world at least to the point of useful control of the things in our world such as the atom, electricity and the fact that our buildings and bridges tend not to fall down when proper math is employed.

All of man's progress and functioning involves abstraction, modeling and thought. That is in fact how we perceive "reality".

Statistical math, like all of math, deals with abstract concepts and theories that aren't necessarily directly related to objective reality.

I take issue with the above statement. Probability underlies all of statistics and set theory underlies all of probability. These issues are not abstact. Flip a coin 5000 times and the percentage of heads of heads will be very close to 50% and well within the Margin of error predicted by statistics. Axiomatic set theory is accepted as a valid proof of all mathematical theorems and mathematics stangely enough describes our world at least to the point of useful control of the things in our world such as the atom, electricity and the fact that our buildings and bridges tend not to fall down when proper math is employed.

All of man's progress and functioning involves abstraction, modeling and thought.

What good is math if the numbers are man-made, only agreed upon by those that are aware of the rules? It is in this sense that I refer to the maths as "abstract".

Are both of you (Volunteer tester and Rothamel) implying that there are mathematical objects? That the symbols we use for mathematics, refer to actual things, not dependent upon human minds for their existence?

Or, are one or both of you stating that they are completely abstracts and mind dependent with no anchor as it were in objective reality?

Statistical math, like all of math, deals with abstract concepts and theories that aren't necessarily directly related to objective reality.

I take issue with the above statement. Probability underlies all of statistics and set theory underlies all of probability. These issues are not abstact. Flip a coin 5000 times and the percentage of heads of heads will be very close to 50% and well within the Margin of error predicted by statistics. Axiomatic set theory is accepted as a valid proof of all mathematical theorems and mathematics stangely enough describes our world at least to the point of useful control of the things in our world such as the atom, electricity and the fact that our buildings and bridges tend not to fall down when proper math is employed.

All of man's progress and functioning involves abstraction, modeling and thought.

What good is math if the numbers are man-made, only agreed upon by those that are aware of the rules? It is in this sense that I refer to the maths as "abstract".

Are they, surely Pi is Pi no matter who or what works in out. the ratio between the circumference of a circle and it's diameter is 3.14159...:1 I do not see what is abstract about that.