“I think he meant eye "witnesses". This minor distinction changes the question considerably. It goes from one of a witness lying, and we all know people lie for there own personal reasons everyday, to a massive conspiracy.” And people collectively witness different things, read any of Mark, Mathew, Luke, John, & you’ll find some at least minor inconsistencies between what they saw & didn�...more

“I think he meant eye "witnesses". This minor distinction changes the question considerably. It goes from one of a witness lying, and we all know people lie for there own personal reasons everyday, to a massive conspiracy.”

And people collectively witness different things, read any of Mark, Mathew, Luke, John, & you’ll find some at least minor inconsistencies between what they saw & didn’t see, & who saw it & who didn’t see it, & when it occurred, or didn’t occur.

My example of the mother asserting her son wasn’t at the crime scene can be viewed a few ways. Either a) she’s mistaken, & wrongly thinks her son wasn’t there, or b) she knows he wasn’t there but has convinced herself that he’s not a criminal & couldn’t have done it. Bias does that. Choice b) falls under the bias of a mother, that no doubt would be the same had it been ‘many family members’ who also assert he wasn’t at the crime scene. So as a collective, especially when it’s bias, the collective can often make such wrong claims.

This sort of bias would also find its way towards any new fledgling religion, especially one that is looking to take advantage of the then existing messianic messiah complex of ‘last days’ & ‘the christ to come’. The same could be said of how Mormonism literally sprouted up out of nowhere & now have many millions of followers. Eyewitness testimony was that Joseph Smith really read those gold plated discs, & they really said what's in the book of mormon after Smith had help writing it down. Where are the plates now o test if they really said that? No where, they in all likely hood never existed. The gullible were hoodwinked.less

Freethinker, “reoncile the mind, logic, and reason (non-material) to your views?” I am not really sure the basis for your inquiry. The mind cannot exist without a physical material brain in a specific pattern that allows for the mind to be ‘self-aware’ & self conscious. This very concept challenges those who say we can exist somehow independent of such material faculty. Plenty of n...more

Freethinker,

“reoncile the mind, logic, and reason (non-material) to your views?”

I am not really sure the basis for your inquiry. The mind cannot exist without a physical material brain in a specific pattern that allows for the mind to be ‘self-aware’ & self conscious. This very concept challenges those who say we can exist somehow independent of such material faculty. Plenty of neurological studies have shown brain activity is linked to thought & more specifically certain sections of the brain are active when certain modes of thought (love, hate, disgust, hunger, etc.) are being used.The mind using reason & logic are also dependent on the physical brain existing.less

“What I am saying is that it can be real.” That something *possibly* can be real, doesn’t make it real. That it’s possible, doesn’t mean it’s necessary either. The conceptual reality that this isn’t all there is & that in fact we go on living (somehow?) without a physical brain & body is in many aspects very comforting, consoling, especially to lost loves ones. But that something...more

“What I am saying is that it can be real.”

That something *possibly* can be real, doesn’t make it real. That it’s possible, doesn’t mean it’s necessary either. The conceptual reality that this isn’t all there is & that in fact we go on living (somehow?) without a physical brain & body is in many aspects very comforting, consoling, especially to lost loves ones. But that something is emotionally appealing doesn’t make it any more true.less

RL, “Why is not eye witness good enough if the person is creditable witness?” Even if the person is credible, the question of if they have a bias for making certain things more miraculous or stupendous (religions always do) in order to appeal to those who equate magic with god, & thus garner more believers as a result, is in question. It goes without saying that in order for a religion...more

RL,

“Why is not eye witness good enough if the person is creditable witness?”

Even if the person is credible, the question of if they have a bias for making certain things more miraculous or stupendous (religions always do) in order to appeal to those who equate magic with god, & thus garner more believers as a result, is in question. It goes without saying that in order for a religion to take hold that it must offer, generally, some miraculous tales, along with making it stand out from others which also claim similar miracles.

“A good eye witness is just as good as empirical evidence.”

No, not even close. Eyewitness testimony isn’t nearly as accurate or empirically testable as physical evidence from an event. I can question Mr. Rogers if he actually is the father of a questionable relationship, & he can come off asserting he’s not the father, & indeed others or relatives of him can provide witness testimony that he wasn’t around during when his proposed child was conceived. However, their memory can be wrong on the specific dates. Especially events that happened so long ago are dubious.
However, a quick swab of Mr. Rogers cheek provides the DNA which, after analysis shows he’s the unquestionable the daddy. With a very high accuracy (99.99…%) to boot. Even our justice systems and courts recognize that eye witness testimony is far less reliable, less accurate, then actual physically testable evidence. This is why when in courts a mom who asserts that her son wasn’t at the crime scene & rather at home with her is relegated to the dustbin as its compared with empirical evidence from many independent avenues that indeed he was not only there, but he was the only one who could have committed the crime.less

clover, Your god existing or not isn't contingent on one rejecting the belief in one. A fanciful thing like Santa need not actually exist either for those to reject its existence, & likewise a god(s) need not exist for those to reject it/their existence. You reject the existence of ALL those other gods humanity has conceived, & yet your disbelief in them IS NOT contingent on them actually e...more

clover,

Your god existing or not isn't contingent on one rejecting the belief in one. A fanciful thing like Santa need not actually exist either for those to reject its existence, & likewise a god(s) need not exist for those to reject it/their existence.

You reject the existence of ALL those other gods humanity has conceived, & yet your disbelief in them IS NOT contingent on them actually existing or not.less

freethinker01, Yes. being an atheist is mostly analogous as to rejecting the supernatural/non-material.

"The human mind does not stop at reality; there is also imagination. " So you're saying if I imagine something, thus it's real? No, that wouldn't be correct.

"There are many good people who witness that there is a God and life after death" Right, and where is the empirical evidence for this?

“those portions of either that contradict, violate, or supersede God's truth as found in God's Word are false and totally trumped by God's truth.” That’s what ‘circular reasoning’ is called, believer. The only thing you claim is that it’s infallible, more specifically YOUR interpretation of it is infallible, & to that end anything which isn’t congruent with it in physical reality ...more

“those portions of either that contradict, violate, or supersede God's truth as found in God's Word are false and totally trumped by God's truth.”

That’s what ‘circular reasoning’ is called, believer. The only thing you claim is that it’s infallible, more specifically YOUR interpretation of it is infallible, & to that end anything which isn’t congruent with it in physical reality is actually wrong. You’ve already assumed the bible correct on the onset & no amount of evidence could convince you otherwise. That is the definition of using circular reasoning & a closed mind.

Considering all the advancements in science & how they’ve increased our understanding of nature & from it produced fruits suggests they’re correct, & NOT claims to the contrary. What are the fruits of creationism?
“it is not God's truth because "it" says so but because God said so. “
It still appeals to itself, so it’s the same difference. You know god said it, how? Oh, b/c IT SAYS SO!

How would you know if god didn’t say it? One big tip off would be the incongruence with reality, but your circular reasoning defies that. Take for instance your insistence of ‘kind’ & how in nature we don’t find such an arbitrary definitions. Take for instance how you’d define big cats & small cats. Obviously they’re not the same species, nor ‘kind’ as tigers do no produce panthers, or house cats. But how did the diversity come along, but by evolution?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNrt90MJL08

What we do know is that humans have a nifty way of craftily making up religions; nothing in the bible suggests it was penned magically. All the inconsistencies & contradictions & barbarism show it was penned by men.

“what are the greater good moral actions you are speaking of?”

Apparently you didn’t watch that video, here it is again. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation would, I think, qualify as something quite notable.

http://vimeo.com/15773748less

“not the legions of theologians who for generations have not taken the Bible quite so literally” If the those who take it literally, at least in certain sections, weren’t taking it so literally then we wouldn’t have creationists pushing to teach young earth creationism in public schools. "you CAN prove a negative. " Of course we can, it's known as falsification in science. The hy...more

“not the legions of theologians who for generations have not taken the Bible quite so literally”

If the those who take it literally, at least in certain sections, weren’t taking it so literally then we wouldn’t have creationists pushing to teach young earth creationism in public schools.

"you CAN prove a negative. "

Of course we can, it's known as falsification in science. The hypothesis that dropping a pen allows for it to naturally defy gravity is wrong, assuming it's near a strong enough gravity field it will always fall towards the center of that mass.

But one CANNOT disprove a negative. That is actually how some of the theists (torrent earlier in this article) have put it forth in terms of why they still believe.

It's not really rational/logical to say that in the absence of supportive evidence for X (santa), that you appeal to the negative existence of its non-existence. The belief in a proposition comes after the evidence, always, not before.

"Now go out and use whatever method you like to prove that God does not exist. That claim cannot be empirically supported. "

We cannot disprove a negative. We cannot disprove that there isn't a celestial tea pot orbiting around in the solar system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapotless

"manmade logic or God's truth?" believer, you really need to read something else besides your bible, you have no depth of perception at all. Your conflation of 'man-made logic' is like that of 'man-made science' as if there were another kind?? And what do you call your religion, which was penned, edited, copied, translated, & enhanced by men? i guess according to you, all the editing & so fo...more

"manmade logic or God's truth?"

believer, you really need to read something else besides your bible, you have no depth of perception at all. Your conflation of 'man-made logic' is like that of 'man-made science' as if there were another kind??

And what do you call your religion, which was penned, edited, copied, translated, & enhanced by men? i guess according to you, all the editing & so forth doesn't make it at all 'man-made'? I guess only those *other religions* are 'man-made', but oh not, not yours?

It's god truth, & we know this how? Oh, right, b/c IT says so. Again, logic fail, based on circular reasoning.

"No problem there since God's truth trumps man's logic every time!!"

according to the bible those unbelievers can do no right, but apparently you missed the fact of their contributions to humanity, their selflessness to the common good above themselves. So, according to the bibles logic, an unbeliever cannot do right, while the unbelievers did greater good moral actions. Who ya gonna believe, some dusty ol book, or your lying eyes?less

"Without belief in God, there would be no atheists." Without belief in santa, there would be no a-santaists. Just as nonsensical a statement.

“a true atheist would be an anarchist, survival of the fittest.” Fail. Atheism is about the belief regarding the supernatural, it’s not a political ideology (anarchy) nor, does it denote nihilism. Pepper, did it ever occur to you that ‘fittest’ is a euphemism, that is, it doesn’t mean ‘those most ruthless’, or ‘those most strong’. With humans our ‘fitness’ is not our phy...more

“a true atheist would be an anarchist, survival of the fittest.”

Fail. Atheism is about the belief regarding the supernatural, it’s not a political ideology (anarchy) nor, does it denote nihilism. Pepper, did it ever occur to you that ‘fittest’ is a euphemism, that is, it doesn’t mean ‘those most ruthless’, or ‘those most strong’. With humans our ‘fitness’ is not our physical prowess, but our mental capacity for planning & working collectively with others in a social group.

I really don’t have to explain that for the purposes of human survival & longevity of the species; a social group has a higher survival rate than a lone individual, do I? It goes without saying that certain things cannot be achieved in solitude, whereas collectively as a group they can.

“Atheists who claim to have morals and ethics, are stealing them from the collective wisdom, traditions and values of those around them.”

We cannot help to have *some* of the same values, most of which are biologically programmed for our survival. E.g. Such universal values such as ‘do unto others…” is found universally in all societies as those societies that thought that rampant, indiscriminate killing, robbing, & lying were OK wouldn’t last very long. In terms of Christian ethics & morality, well there are some that atheists don’t agree or follow.

We don’t tell people they’re born sick, born worthless, & fill them with guilt & use fear mongering (stick) & offering of eternal life (carrot) in order for them to behave. Oddly, those who don’t follow such rhetoric aren’t any less moral, or causing more crimes than others who do believe in such rhetoric. When it comes to borrowing ethics from the religious, I have to laugh. Hitchens has asked the following:

1. If morality is really theistic (i.e., God-based), then there should be moral claims and actions that only believers can make or do.
2. Can you think of a good action that only a believer could do? (“I have a prize for the person who can,”)
3. Now, can you think of a heinously evil action that only a believer could perpetrate? (“Of course you can,” he says. “Just think of the most recent suicide bombing, priest molesting children, female circumcision.”)less

"Scientific dating schemes DEPEND on uniformitarianism." Well, all of science really depends on the concept that what has occurred can occur again for reasons of testability & predictability. If uniformity is wrong, then we would see gravity & atoms not behaving in a uniform way. "If uniformitarianism is wrong then the dating schemes are wrong." Any evidence the uniformity is wrong? "T...more

"Scientific dating schemes DEPEND on uniformitarianism."

Well, all of science really depends on the concept that what has occurred can occur again for reasons of testability & predictability. If uniformity is wrong, then we would see gravity & atoms not behaving in a uniform way.

"If uniformitarianism is wrong then the dating schemes are wrong."

Any evidence the uniformity is wrong?

"The bible declares uniformitarianism to be wrong. (below)
Therefore scientific dating schemes are wrong."

This is circular reasoning (logical fallacy).less

“Does Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Brown, PZ Myers, etc live under constant protection for criticizing christianity?” No, but then again they don’t live in Muslim countries where a quasi-theocracy is in place & people take religion waaay too seriously. Historically Christians used to burn witches & go on heretic raids, but no more. The reason Christians aren’t asking for their heads is due ...more

“Does Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Brown, PZ Myers, etc live under constant protection for criticizing christianity?”

No, but then again they don’t live in Muslim countries where a quasi-theocracy is in place & people take religion waaay too seriously. Historically Christians used to burn witches & go on heretic raids, but no more. The reason Christians aren’t asking for their heads is due to the blows of modernity of secularism in that killing others over religion is silly.

“You certainly cannot differentiate between war among religious follower and religious war?”

There is a distinction to be made, but to suggest the conflict in Ireland or the
one only over a decade ago in the Croatia conflict had nothing to do with religion is silly.less

“ typical liberals and atheist outdated news. “ Last march is outdated? What does the recentness of the news matter, either they plotted to kill govt officials & got caught or they didn’t. (they did!) The recentness of a crime has no bearing on if it’s true or not or if what they were committed to doing is wrong. I sure didn’t hear you saying it’s wrong of them to try to kill govt o...more

“ typical liberals and atheist outdated news. “

Last march is outdated? What does the recentness of the news matter, either they plotted to kill govt officials & got caught or they didn’t. (they did!) The recentness of a crime has no bearing on if it’s true or not or if what they were committed to doing is wrong. I sure didn’t hear you saying it’s wrong of them to try to kill govt officials, you must be ok with that?

“Do you know that those militia members have been released? And nobody was being killed by that militia?”

Correction, they’re on probation, so they weren’t acquitted under the law! No one was killed, yet… But they were plotting to carrying it out, which is what I had stated originally. My comment was regarding the concept of ‘militant’ which is so often conflated with those who critique religion.

“And how about this one? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/09/01/2010-09-01_reports_of_gunman_shots_fired_at_discovery_channel_hq_in_maryland.html”

And? What about it? Is it a militant atheist, if so, how?

“The same reason for people who said they are atheists but never read Origin of Species,”

Ha, being an atheist isn’t contingent on reading Origins, or even about knowing anything about it at all. One could easily be a philosopher or religious historian & find the belief in your god unreasonable.

“Atheists mean lack of belief in anything, of course they do not need to read book at all.”

Fail, epically. Atheism is the belief that the supernatural does not exist, they reject the belief in god(s). You reject the belief in ALL the other gods humans have conceived of, the only real difference is atheists go one god further in that regard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Most of christiondome resides in the westernized secularized world, where there are laws protecting freedom of speech & there are laws prohibiting persecution of those who critique religion openly.

"The law is useless if we don't care about law since by killing infidels we can get 72 virgins in heaven."

well, I wont put words in your mouth, but the OT bible demands infidels be stoned to death too...

“No, they are ATHEISTS criticizing Islam.”

Yeah, that’s what I said (But they were non-believers critiquing islam/religion). Non-believers = Atheists. Unless you think non-believers = believers, in which case I’d love to hear you explain how that works…less

"The traditional American values of self-reliance and liberty" Uh-huh, but why is such a philosophy a uniquely only christian view? You failed to explain that part...The emergence of the Renaissance, the Age of Reason & Enlightenment are more of a credit to america's sense of liberty. Prior to this, the westernized world was ruled under feudal lords & Kings were given 'divine rights' as per th...more

"The traditional American values of self-reliance and liberty"

Uh-huh, but why is such a philosophy a uniquely only christian view? You failed to explain that part...The emergence of the Renaissance, the Age of Reason & Enlightenment are more of a credit to america's sense of liberty. Prior to this, the westernized world was ruled under feudal lords & Kings were given 'divine rights' as per the bible in how to rule others.

" nor can they refrain from appealing to the authority of the Constitution and Judiciary."

Well of course we can't, we all live under the same laws as other religious believers do, nothing hypocritical about that.less

Kathy, "Let's see if these Atheists are brave enough to have an open debate, with brave and intelligent Christian leaders" Oh honey, they have been doing this for quite some time. If you want to talk about those from last century like Betrand Russell, Karl Popper & others then fine, but if you want those most recently in the past few decades, look no further then Christopher Hitchens, Daniel...more

Kathy,

"Let's see if these Atheists are brave enough to have an open debate, with brave and intelligent Christian leaders"

Oh honey, they have been doing this for quite some time. If you want to talk about those from last century like Betrand Russell, Karl Popper & others then fine, but if you want those most recently in the past few decades, look no further then Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, the aforementioned Nobel winner Dawkins', among others. It's certainly not the case that they haven't been critiquing religion already for decades...

"let us see if they dare to attack Islam the same way"

Go read End of Faith - Sam Harris, or Satanic Verses - Rushdie, or Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Harris devotes many chapters to critiquing Islam, but Rushdie's & Ayaan's books are centrally on critiquing Islam.

Here's one from 3 years ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-S7M0KZTsUless

I don't know how many times I've already refuted this nonsensical premise by you pepper, and yet you trot it every time as if were some new philosophical proof. Who would really cite a guy who's most well known as a fantasy writer in matters of metaphysical existence, pepper of course. It's like saying the following: If there were no santa, there would be no a-santaists. Obviously this ...more

I don't know how many times I've already refuted this nonsensical premise by you pepper, and yet you trot it every time as if were some new philosophical proof. Who would really cite a guy who's most well known as a fantasy writer in matters of metaphysical existence, pepper of course.

It's like saying the following:

If there were no santa, there would be no a-santaists.

Obviously this is flawed, the non-existence of santa no more makes it logically irrational to disbelieve in santa than it would for the non-existence of anything much less god(s).less

torrent, "but referring to empirical proof...you and agent just proofed my point...you have to rely on faith from both sides of the isle" Nonsense! I already explained in quite detail that we need not utilize 'faith' when it comes to sitting in a chair & knowing if it will hold ones weight or not. There are obvious distinctions between something which is physically readily evident, testab...more

torrent,

"but referring to empirical proof...you and agent just proofed my point...you have to rely on faith from both sides of the isle"

Nonsense! I already explained in quite detail that we need not utilize 'faith' when it comes to sitting in a chair & knowing if it will hold ones weight or not.

There are obvious distinctions between something which is physically readily evident, testable & with a HIGHER certitude to exist whereas the supernatural isn't physical, testable, or even measurablae & retains a lower certitude of existence and thus must be taken on faith.less