Darwin is greater than Jesus and Muhammad


A couple of my Muslim friends wont let me touch their Koran. They think that because I don’t believe in their silly little fairy tale, I am somehow unworthy of touching their book of nonsense. It is sacred apparently. I have therefore took it upon myself to ban all my religious friends from touching my copy of The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. I do this, because in the book, Darwin applies logic and evidence to come up with the greatest revelation the World has ever known. This revelation wasn’t given by a vicious dictatorial God/Allah in some obscure corner of a desert to a man from a nation of angry warring illiterate tribes who were convinced for centuries that the Earth was the centre of the universe and executed people for heresy if they thought otherwise. This revelation was given by nature, as pure fact. Fact is something both the Bible and the Koran seem to be lacking, and so I ban them from touching my copy of the Origin of Species, because they are unworthy of reading anything other than pure fiction. They are though, more than welcome to read my copy of The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe. Although I fear they may take it literally and start ordering the immediate deaths of anyone who says a bad word against Aslan.

It is interesting what people find sacred. Religious books, I prefer to laugh at. They are pointless, archaic, and worthy of ridicule. They should not be taken seriously, and people in a position of power should not have to swear on them, when they take office. It is apparently all about devotion to God.

God, or Allah, or whatever name he has to go by (Apollo, Yahweh, El) is to be obeyed at all times. Prayed too constantly, sang about, worshipped endlessly, feared, loved, and never disobeyed on fear of burning for eternity in utter pain (but he loves you, remember that). God is a dictator. Pretty fucking evil at that.

The painter Caravaggio, one of my favourite painters of all time, paints a beautiful baroque style piece depicting Abraham on the verge of sacrificing his son Isaac by the word of God, as an angel appears to stop him, revealing it was all just a test to see how devoted Abraham was to God. The contrast of light and dark is beautifully striking in the painting. But the subject of the painting is clearly Isaac. Which is great, because Christians tend to ignore the importance of Isaac in this story. This story doesn’t portray God as all loving, or Abraham as a great devoted Prophet of God. It portrays God as a dictatorial maniac, and Abraham as insane.
In the painting, as in my mind, Abraham has absolutely no emotion on his face. He is a man possessed. By contrast, Isaac is terrified. His dad has bound his hands behind his back, is holding him face down on a stone alter, and is about to gut him…. because God demanded it. When I have children, if I am told to kidnap my child, tie him/her to a stone alter and stab him/her to death, for God, I will happily tell you, no matter how sacred your God may be, he is a despicable cunt.

Child sacrifice is prominent throughout the Old Testament. The king of Moab sends a burnt offering of his dead son up to God. It works too, because his nemesis is swiftly dealt with:

Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And there came great wrath upon Israel; and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.

God appears to endorse child murder. As long as it’s in his name. The book of Exodus seems to confirm God’s need for people to kill their children as a sign of devotion to him:

“You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me.”

Less brutal, but just as despicable is both Judaism and Islam’s use of circumcision. I wont refer to it as circumcision for the remainder of this blog, it shall henceforth be known as child genital mutilation. According to Jewish law, a child should be genitally mutilated soon after birth. It is non-negotiable. The child has no say. He hasn’t even decided if he believes the bullshit his parents are forcing on him, before he is mutilated. It strikes me as utterly abhorrent, and worthy of prison (if I were to go out, and cut a bit off a kid’s penis, I am pretty sure i’d be thrown in prison and Daily Mail readers would call for the death penalty to be bought back for monsters like me), but instead, child genital mutilation is entirely legal purely because the cult that practices it, has quite a few members. No evidence for their logic, just strength in numbers. A logical fallacy if ever I saw one.

Islam is the largest group of people in the World that practice genital mutilation. The BBC website says:

Some Muslims see circumcision as a preventive measure against infection and diseases.

A better preventative measure against infection and disease, would be to recognise that the entire study and practice of modern medicine and biology, is based entirely and necessarily on Evolutionary theory, not on out dated, unnecessary, dirty, despicable rituals. Now, people who actively and happily mutilate babies, both Jewish and Muslim, are not bad people. Which suggests that their blind obedience to fairy tales leads them to make utterly absurd decisions. They are influenced by the illogical and the dangerous.

But that’s what happens when as a divine being, you spend 98,000 years of human existence ignoring them, and pop up in the last 2000 years, with a book of ridiculous rules. A book that you don’t bother giving to a society that has advanced to the stage where its population are largely literate and educated (China), but instead, you give it to crazed uneducated, illiterate tribesman in the middle of the fucking desert. God massively misjudged his original audience.

On the website Bible.ca, they have a page called “Darwin was wrong”. I read the first two paragraphs and sat wondering how anyone could be so ignorant and ridiculous. Then I noticed they were religious Americans. So I put 2 and 2 together.
Their website says:

If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40 million years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution. Time is the evolutionist’s magic wand. Fairy tales come in many forms!

– Apparently a talking snake in a magical garden of a man made out of dust and a woman made out of a rib of the man does not come under the whole idea of ‘fairy tale’. How ironic. Secondly. That isn’t what evolution says at all. No one has ever suggested a frog can become a human. A frog is just as evolved today, as you or I. A frog has adapted to its surroundings, and thus survived, and evolved to deal with change. 99% of all species throughout time have not been as lucky. I would happily start believing in God if a frog suddenly became a man. Stop misrepresenting Darwin, you absolute cretins.

Darwin’s theory of evolution says that over millions of years simple life forms (one celled creatures) slowly evolved into complex life forms (fish), and that one kind of animal evolved into another kind (ape to man)

No one has ever said a chimp suddenly became a businessman or politician (although George Bush exists, so I might be wrong). Man has simply adapted to changes in surroundings and climate over the millions of years of time on Earth, to situations and to the necessity of survival. We have evolved both biologically and socially over many millions of years. We are descended from the ape family, but we did not suddenly become human from ape, in the same way that your great grandad did not suddenly become you.

It isn’t even a debate any more. It is fact. Evolution is a fact. Natural Selection is the theory, the model behind Evolution. But Evolution itself is fact. Religion should be neglected; pushed aside as dangerous dogma and outdated superstition that has no place in the modern World.

I am taking quite a swipe at religion today. Most people on here know I hate religion and all it stands for. I hate its divisive nature. I hate its indoctrination of children. I hate that it has held science and discovery and human advancement back centuries. I hate its power. I hate when its members start getting violent and demanding special attention. I hate that I will get death threats to my email if I say “Isn’t God/Allah absolutely inhumane and a little bit shit“. I hate that I am supposed to respect religion. I don’t. It disgusts me. I say this, because both the books of Christianity and Islam condemn me, for being Atheist.

I was actually quite reassured when I read this verse in the Koran:

You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.

On the surface, this seems like the most important, and logical verse, in any religious book anywhere. It seems to be suggesting that you are your own person, free from the influence of others. Think for yourself. Come to your own conclusions. Don’t be dictated too. Almost Atheist thinking right there in the Koran.
So, following that rule, I have verified for myself, after reading the Bible in its entirety, and much of the Koran, as well as The Origin of Species, God is not Great, The Selfish Gene, and knowing that my dog is the result of mixed breeding, and that I am losing my hair at 24 years old, just like my dad did…. that the Koran and the Bible are both entirely nonsensical, and Evolution outranks them both. Great. I used my own evidence. I did what the Koran told me too. Allah must love me for this.

” If you encounter those who disbelieve, you may strike the necks.”
– Koran 47:4

“Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah’s sight are the ungrateful who will not believe”
– Koran 8:55

“That (is the award), so taste it, and (know) that for disbelievers is the torment of the Fire.”
– Koran 8:14

“But as for those who disbelieve, for them is fire of hell; it taketh not complete effect upon them so that they can die, nor is its torment lightened for them. Thus We punish every ingrate. And they cry for help there, (saying): Our Lord! Release us; we will do right, not (the wrong) that we used to do. … Now taste (the flavour of your deeds), for evil-doers have no helper.”
– Koran 35:36-37

Oh….erm…… okay. So, what the verse about thinking for yourself actually meant was: Think about it, but then agree with Islam, otherwise you’re going to burn in hell, tortuously for eternity, after my followers kill you. Whilst burning in hell, we will then cry for help, from the very entity that condemned us in the first place.

The Bible isn’t much easier on us evil non-believers (by non-believers, I mean, intelligent people). Deuteronomy suggests that not only should those who don’t believe in the Christian God be put to death, but the entire town in which an Atheist (or believer in another Faith) lives, should be exterminated.

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.
– Deuteronomy 13:13-19

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
– 2 Chronicles 15:12-13

Forgive me if I fail to respect religions that condemn me to the worst kind of punishment possible. I am clearly their enemy. So fuck them.

God/Allah/Hitler (they are all very similar) demands complete obedience. Which begs the question, what the fuck is the point of life? I despise these doctrines, and yet I’m supposed to follow them avidly or be eternally punished? What a horrible life. Atheism does not demand anything of the sort. We do not claim that you have to be moral because you might be punished in an afterlife if you aren’t. We say morality is based on social evolution and the need to survive.

We as a species are incredible. Morality comes from us, and nothing else. We do not need a vengeful lunatic fairy in the sky to make us perform good deeds. We do it for the sake of good, not for the sake of God. We do not need silly superstitions and rituals in an attempt to please a vindictive bastard in the sky, in the hope that we might go to a nice place when we die. Humanity is great. The discovery that Darwin made, is far more stunning and awe-inspiring (as well as truthful) than anything religion has ever had to offer. The name “Darwin” should be taught to children and heard in classrooms across the World, years before the names “Jesus” and “Muhammad” are uttered.

I would like to see Temple Mount in Jerusalem destroyed and replaced with a statue of Darwin, because Darwin makes the prophets of the two warring religions, look like amateurs in comparison.

Advertisements

85 Responses to Darwin is greater than Jesus and Muhammad

  1. atimetorend says:

    I’ve long felt similarly about the Abraham and Isaac story. Thanks for the mention of the Caravaggio, interesting angle. I appreciate seeing biblical stories of these cast in a different light than they are in sunday school (eg. abraham and isaac, noah’s big flood, various biblical stonings, etc.).

    Funny thought in your conclusion, but not sure I want to see Darwin on the Temple Mount. He might just become another god in a few generations to worship and subject others to, unrecognizable from Darwin the man. :^)

  2. Black Order says:

    Great piece! I found myself laughing quite often while reading.

    While I agree with much of the content with respect to organized religion and relative dogma, I can still appreciate the value of philosophy/theology as I’m not so arrogant to think that we have it all figured out. Not that I’m suggesting that you ARE, just that it has it’s place in society and the advancement of mankind.

    I mean really, where would we be if we weren’t so inquisitive, asking questions such as…how did the universe get here? What was here before it? How did IT get here? What was here before IT?..etc..etc..How and where did it all start? Is is intelligent?

    Ironically, even your beloved Darwin was a theist…one who’s scientific studies brought about a lot of controversy with the theory of transmutation of species,…which was in direct conflict with christian beliefs that we humans were designed as an unchanging species in the image and likeness of god.

    It is my understanding that Darwin’s position is that much of his findings support rather that dispute the existence of a god.

  3. I am not disputing the idea of a God. No one can prove or disprove the existence of God. I fully accept a creator is a possibility.

    I am entirely disputing the claims of organised religion. It is a massive leap to go from accepting the possibility of a creator, and one that cares about our sex lives, listens to prayer, performs miracles, and demands complete obedience on fear of eternal punishment.

  4. Ahmad Jomaa says:

    If you believe that Mohammed ص made up the Quran off the top of his head, or that he indeed received it in revelation from God, that’s your problem.

    But to call it a book of nonsense or fairy tales or fiction…

    The Quran to date is unparalleled as a literary document.
    Never before or since has any Arabic text matched its quality of language.
    Arabic is complex with water tight grammatical rules- one wrong letter or vowel could change the entire meaning of a whole page. yet in this book their is not one single linguistic error and yet it flows and is recited in a way more beautiful then any poetry.

    you don’t need to be a Muslim or a believer in God to recognise its command of language and brilliance.

    Allah says in the quran:

    And indeed We created man (Adam) out of an extract of clay (water and earth). (12) Thereafter We made him (the offspring of Adam) as a Nutfah (mixed drops of the male and female sexual discharge and lodged it) in a safe lodging (womb of the woman). (13) Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood), then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh, then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So Blessed is Allâh, the Best of creators.[] (14)

    From God or not, this 1400 year old book give a detailed and accurate description of the development of an embryo, its visual qualities, the fact that it develops on the wall of the womb. It describes the change from embryo to fetal development. (all in perfect flowing Arabic)

    in other similar places in the Quran the expansion of the universe is eloquently described. The fact that the world is in orbit of the sun and moon is in orbit of the earth. A description of the transition from night to day. even the fact that mountains are greater beneath the surface of the Earth’s crust.

    The Quran (and Islam) also contain a system that would have made the current economic crisis non existent.

    Quranic economics = 800 years in Spain with 0 inflation.

    That’s not nonsensical…

    You may not believe its from God and that’s up to you but its damn more impressive then anything Darwin wrote.

  5. “If you believe that Mohammed ص made up the Quran off the top of his head, or that he indeed received it in revelation from God, that’s your problem.”
    – Good argument. =/
    It isn’t my problem. I am happy with it. I am not a slave to outdated bullshit. This pleases me.

    I cannot help but think the word “unparalleled” is a little over the top. Dante’s Divine Comedy was ridiculously well written. That doesn’t mean it must be based on fact. And you have not read the original copy. You have read reprints. So of course it is pretty perfectly written. So is the Bible. It is a shame that your perfect book, contains a mass of contradictions.

    It is also massively irrelevant that it is quite a good written book. That is meaningless entirely. Well written does not = truth. I haven’t even argued in this blog, that it is badly written. It is very well written. It is well written nonsense.

    “From God or not, this 1400 year old book give a detailed and accurate description of the development of an embryo, its visual qualities, the fact that it develops on the wall of the womb”
    – no it didn’t. That’s how you interpret it. A very loose interpretation at that. As my lovely girlfriend just said “It looks like an 8 year old’s description.” In fact, Wikipedia describes the growth of a baby, in weeks 9 to 25 (far more precise than the word of the all powerful all knowing creator….. we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he was busy, he has a lot of Atheists to condemn to burning, and only 24 hours a day to do it) as:

    “The fetal stage commences at the beginning of the 9th week.[1] At the start of the fetal stage, the fetus is typically about 30 mm (1.2 inches) in length from crown to rump, and weighs about 8 grams.[1] The head makes up nearly half of the fetus’ size.[8] Breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen.[9]The heart, hands, feet, brain and other organs are present, but are only at the beginning of development and have minimal operation.[10][11]
    Fetuses are not capable of feeling pain at the beginning of the fetal stage, and may not be able to feel pain until the third trimester.[12] At this point in development, uncontrolled movements and twitches occur as muscles, the brain and pathways begin to develop.[13]”

    – I didn’t once notice the phrase “And indeed We created man (Adam) out of an extract of clay” in that description; mainly because it’s nonsense. Absolute tripe.

    http://www.patient.co.uk even offers a chart. Allah didn’t offer that. He did though, call a fetus, a “clot”, so it must be true.

    The Koran, is like the Bible, full of shit that some people try to find truth in, and link it to the modern World, in a very very loose and nonsensical way. You have just done that.

    I don’t think Muhammad made it up off the top of his head. I think a lot of people made it up. Fairy tales. Go look back over Roman literature. Their writings on their Gods are pretty spectacular. So I look forward to you telling me it must therefore be the word of Apollo.

    “You may not believe its from God and that’s up to you but its damn more impressive then anything Darwin wrote.”
    It isn’t even half as impressive as what Darwin wrote. We have had beautiful and violent myths and legends written amazingly, since the beginning of humanity. Cave art is stunning, especially given the lack of tools and a lack of coherent language at the time. What Darwin wrote required logic, years of research, a concept that had never been considered before, and you know……fact. (all in perfect flowing English). There is nothing more spectacular. He discovered something that religious people, who seem to think they have a monopoly on truth because their book was quite well written, haven’t been able to understand before, or actually, since.
    The Koran required collating manipulative fairy tales, in one big book.
    Good one.

  6. Ahmad Jomaa says:

    hmmm it seems that we are not arguing from equal footing since much of what you think you know about the Quran is infact wrong.

    For example that the Quran has not changed by a single vowel since it was first taught. Its been taught from teacher to student word for word letter for letter.

    so your understanding that it has been re written and perfected over time is null

    however ill give you the benefit of the doubt since you are restricted by you familiarity with only one (extremely base in comparison) language.

    Now what you may struggle to understand is the fact that there is more meaning/per/word in Arabic then in English, and if in a poem or comment contains multiple meanings it is considered to be well crafted.

    however in Arabic it is commonplace.

    you have to appreciate that what your reading is the English rendering of Arabic Verses. English can hardly handle the most simple of meaning from the Quran

    so yes it does sound like a simple explanation but that’s because English is simple.

    And it is unparalleled- The Quran invites challengers and the Arabs at the time where unable to match it. (let alone today’s Arabs)

    this crap that people keep saying about ‘its up to your interpretation’ is also nonsense since its written in a language so clear that there is no room for misunderstandings. People who say that either don’t know what they are talking about or want to use the Quran to justify what ever it is that they are doing.

    There are no contraindications in the Quran- not one inconsistency in the message. Again you may not believe it to be true- but that doesn’t affect the consistency of Islam.

    Infact the word Arabic comes from the root word Arab which means the clarity one sees when looking through the surface of the sea and they can see the ground.

    But anyway like you said well written doesn’t mean true
    But well written does mean your wrong to call it nonsense

    and that was my argument when it came to language.

    Ill be straight with you, Ive had this conversation too many times before.
    And the fact is that you will never have read the Quran (an will therefore be in no position to comment on how well written it is) until to learn Arabic.

    And as for it being ‘outdated bullshit.’ well…

    1- your able to formulate logical compelling arguments without the use of offensive language. it makes you look fox-news-ignorant which clearly you are not (the points you make on Mondays often blow me away)

    2- If its outdated to live in a society with 0 inflation due to no unjust interest and gambling bankers- with no crime due to fair taxation/distribution of tax to the needy- with no crime due to the poison of all society that is alcohol- in a society that the prophet Mohammad said is like one body if the one small part hurts the whole body works to heal it.

    then I wish we where all outdated. its not so different to socialism. Believing that you get heaven for being good is just the cherry on top.

    and
    3- Saying we (Muslims) follow an outdated barbaric religion just re enforces this western understanding we have today that Arabs are sub human. so their blood is cheap, cheaper then oil at least.

    Muslims once held the knowledge of this world. they where at the forefront of every scientific field; medicinal, physics, chemistry mathematics etc. ALL of the classical scholars of Islam like Ibin taymia, Imam Ahmed Bukhari they where all scientists and poets and astronomers fuelled by their belief in the Quran and Mohammed’s message ص

    but now we are all stupid backward Muslims who cant touch your sciency books because wer tooo stooopud to undastand.

  7. Ahmad Jomaa says:

    can i borrow your narnia collection?

  8. “For example that the Quran has not changed by a single vowel since it was first taught. Its been taught from teacher to student word for word letter for letter.”
    – And you know that, how? I mean, REALLY know, just religion-know. Muslims always tend to presume quite comically that their Holy Book is fantastically perfect. Because that’s what they’ve been told. They haven’t yet proven this point, and there is a whole raft of literature based on the contradictions in the Koran, as well as the Bible. The Koran is a torrent of contradictions. But apparently, you think it’s because i’ve only read it in English……. cop out. Why isn’t the Bible perfect? Why is it just your book? Are the rest of us in some evil land of the ignorant because we’re not convinced that it’s the word of God, or perfect? The suggesting that we are reading it in another language, so it’s all misinterpretation is an appeal to authority; it isn’t logical. You have no information, nor are you privy to any special information regarding universal truth, more or less than I am. We have the same information. You do not KNOW any more about the nature of creation than I do. We have facts (i.e – evolution) and we have belief (i.e – religion) and nothing more. Saying “Allah says” is meaningless, because it isn’t based on fact. You did not hear “Allah” say anything. You are regurgitating what others have told you “Allah” said.

    I am not attempting to insult Islam by the way. I have no problem with personal faith. And I know that the Arabic World has always been a great credit to civilization. The literature, the art, the science, has always intrigued me. People like al-Tusi were some of the most important names in the history of mathematics and science. I am solely against ALL organised religion.

    “Now what you may struggle to understand is the fact that there is more meaning/per/word in Arabic then in English, and if in a poem or comment contains multiple meanings it is considered to be well crafted.”
    – I know that. But it’s irrelevant again, as a really nice language doesn’t = truth. This is funny, because you seemed to take offence at my suggestion that religious people don’t understand scientific books, yet you here suggest I “may struggle to understand”. I’m not an idiot. I understand linguistics and the differences between languages. However, we are still limited to human experience, sense and understanding. We cannot transcend that plain. Further meaning per word, does not mean people who speak Arabic have a greater access to truth that the rest of us. Words are human creations. Meaning to words, are human creations. Sartre suggests that ideas like “purpose” are entirely human creations; that we try to create meaning out of chaos by appealing to language. This makes sense. Purpose didn’t exist before us, nor does any animal understand the idea of purpose, we have invented it. The Universe is chaotic and Absurd. Language doesn’t change that.

    “There are no contraindications in the Quran- not one inconsistency in the message. Again you may not believe it to be true- but that doesn’t affect the consistency of Islam.”
    – Please explain the verse about thinking for myself, and coming to my own conclusions, and then condemning all non-believers to hell. Do you believe, that as a non-believer, I am condemned to hell? You cannot hide behind “It’s a deep language”. I often hear muslims tell me the Koran is perfect. It isn’t. Not even nearly perfect. So far away from perfect, it can’t see the line needed to cross to be perfect.
    Quran 02: 256 There is no Compulsion in religion
    Quran 47: 4 When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads….
    Sounds pretty compulsary to me. Sounds like a crazed dictator to me. Explain why I should respect a tradition that says people like me should have our heads struck off? Even taking into account the historical context that it was written, why should people who did not believe in that God, be beheaded? And why aren’t the two above passages, contradictory in any way? I look forward to your explanation. Perhaps it’s a bad translation from the superior language, perhaps it actually means that people who don’t believe, should be loved and their thoughts entirely respected and debated peacefully, with no chopping off of any heads?
    Another contradiction (I have a copy of the Koran, I am citing):
    Allah created everything in six days:
    Quran 7: 54 Your gurdian-Lord is Allah who created the heavens and earth in Six Days
    Quran 10: 3 Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and earth in Six Days
    Allah created everything in two days:
    Quran 41: 9 Is it that ye deny Him who created the earth in Two Days ?
    Quran 41: 10 He set on the (earth) Mountains standing firm high above it, and bestowed blessing on the earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in FOUR DAYS…
    Quran 41: 12 So He completed them (heavens) as seven firmaments in Two days.
    Forgive me if my maths isn’t as great as the Islamic scholars who were better than everyone at everything, and hold a monopoly on truth…. but isn’t that eight days? I am not sure how you get six days from that. A massive contradiction. I’m sure though, you are going to tell me it is all a translation problem, rather than the possibility that your Holy Book could have a few mistakes. “Here’s a mistake”…. “NO!!!! IT’S PERFECT!!!”
    Here is another mistake, that you mentioned yourself in a previous post:
    “Quran 96: 2 Created man, out of a mere clot of congealed blood”
    – I am pretty sure a clot of congealed blood does not become human. In fact, a clot of congealed blood has never become anything, ever. If he meant the fusion of the sperm and the egg, he should have said so. He was a little bit vague, and then completely incorrect. BUT NO!!! IT’S PERFECT!!!!
    Again, you quoted the same verse, with:
    “We made the clot into a little lump of flesh, then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh”
    – This is not how an embryo grows. Bone and muscle grow at the same time, together. In fact, the idea that the flesh covered the bone, after the bone grew, was an idea from Galen, the Greek medical researcher, about 400 years before the Koran came about. It was nonsense. As we now know. The bones continue to grow into our teenage years. The Koran tends to not say anything about this. It is vague again, as well as then being completely wrong. It had no basis in fact, so there’s a mistake for you. Galen, in fact, influenced much of the advances in medicine in Islam. He is a major figure in the subject. Ideas that Islam certainly advanced – I don’t dispute that – did not originate with Islam, and did not originate with Allah, they originated through trade of goods and philosophy with the Western World. Both Islam and the West shared a lot of knowledge; this has absolutely nothing to do with revelation.

    “But anyway like you said well written doesn’t mean true
    But well written does mean your wrong to call it nonsense”
    – Good, i’m glad you’ve accepted my premise. Well written has nothing to do with whether it is sensical or nonsensical. It can be well written, and utter bullshit (which it is) at the exact same time. if I thought it made sense, I would be Muslim. Or, if I thought the Bible made sense, I would be Christian. I look at both books, and both are excellently written, with fantastic stories; but the idea that they hold truth in anyway, to me is nonsense and absurd. It is an insult to the intelligence of humanity that we hold on to these superstitions, to me.

    “your able to formulate logical compelling arguments without the use of offensive language. it makes you look fox-news-ignorant which clearly you are not (the points you make on Mondays often blow me away)”
    – No no, I accept anyones right to believe whatever they so wish, as long as they accept that it is just belief, that it isn’t fact, that it shouldn’t be pushed onto children, that it shouldn’t influence policy. I will defend everyones right to believe anything they wish, in any country they wish, without Nationalist morons attacking them for it. I sincerely love that this country is such a mesh of culture and belief. I also accept that there were once some magnificent islamic scholars. I have read a few. Great writers, and great thinkers. They had a mass of influence on their Greek contemporaries, and I think Western Civilisation owes a lot to Muslim scholarly work. However, Organised religion, and your attempt to insist that muslims have some monopoly on truth, is ridiculous. You don’t. You have belief. Belief is not fact. It is a toy. You play with your toy, but keep your toy away from my house, and children (not just you muslims, in fact I have more respect for Islam than Catholicism). It shouldn’t be taught as fact in school, it should take inferior status to Evolutionary theory. It has no claim on truth. I abhor organised religion as a whole. Don’t try to suggest that I am just attacking Islam. I hold all organised religion in contempt. It disgusts me. I find it vile. I cannot find one redeeming feature in any of it.

    The fact that it clearly states in the bible and the koran, that people like me should be killed and burn in hell, actually puts people who believe that, in the category of Fox News. You ignored everything else I said, and instead focused entirely on me saying “bullshit”. The fact that you seem to think me using the word “bullshit” is somehow more illogical than threatening death on anyone who doesn’t succumb entirely to the dictatorship of religion, is what is actually Illogical, angry, out-dated, and destructive. It creates a seperation between people, an us VS them mentality, and for what? Simply because I don’t believe? I am not sure how it can be justified. You told me that not believing is “your problem”. That is the same as me saying “bullshit”. You are suggesting that by not believing, it causes me problems, like it’s an issue. It isn’t. I love not believing. It means i’m not a slave to a violent, homophobic, hateful God. I love it. Not a problem at all.

    I never said you muslims are barbaric. I suggested all religions that are based on values from a time when we all just lived in deserts, is outdated. Religions certainly are barbaric at times. Christianity, i’d argue has been the worst of the lot. Islam can also have a barbaric element. And I have blogged endlessly about the horrific treatment of the Middle East by the West. I am allowed to be against Organised Religion, without endorsing the deaths of millions of Arabs across the World. To suggest otherwise, is pathetic.

    “Muslims once held the knowledge of this world. they where at the forefront of every scientific field; medicinal”
    – No. Because medicine was not based on evolutionary biology. Go to an NHS and tell them you think they should abandon their subject, because it is based on entirely on evolution by someone who wrote in this inferior language called English, and that they should base it entirely on medieval muslim medicine practice. I can’t imagine that if you get very ill, you’re going to say to NHS workers “Don’t treat me, your entire practice is false, because it is based on evolution, and evolution is false, my book of fairy tales says so”.

    Also, muslims were not more advanced than the Chinese at that time. But, even if Islamic nations and communities were massively advanced (I grant you, that Islamic spain was far more advanced socially and economically than under subsequent Christian monarchs) that still doesn’t prove that your God actually exists, and demands this sort of blind obedience on pain of burning in hell.

    “but now we are all stupid backward Muslims who cant touch your sciency books because wer tooo stooopud to undastand.”
    – I never said that. Straw man argument, it is a logical fallacy. I don’t think muslims are backward at all. I think organised religion holds back scientific advancement, and the peaceful coexistance of people, in the same way that Nation States do. A belief and obsession with an abstract concept, is what I abhor. Especially when it causes crusades, and hate, and preaches death and hell for unbelievers. If you think that is progressive, then I look forward to your argument as to why.
    My comment on banning the touching of the Origin of Species (which remains a far more exciting and factual account of human history, than the Koran, on absolutely every level) was in response to the fact that a few of my muslim friends, don’t let me touch the Koran, because I am not muslim. Isn’t that a little bit Fox-newsy in essence?

    This…
    “with no crime due to fair taxation/distribution of tax to the needy- with no crime due to the poison of all society that is alcohol- in a society that the prophet Mohammad said is like one body if the one small part hurts the whole body works to heal it.”
    ….. is not even worth an argument against. no crime? A crime free utopia? What utter rubbish. Alcohol has caused far less problems in society than Religious belief. If I have a pint, I don’t then suddenly call for the burning of all those who don’t drink pints. I don’t demand a Danish embassy be burnt. I don’t put Fatwas on Salman Rushdie for a book. I don’t shoot abortion doctors like the Christians in America do. I don’t give money and praise to Hitler, like the Catholic Church did. I do not fly planes into buildings.
    Alcohol causes minimal social problems in comparison to what the fucking brilliant Christopher Hitchens refers to as the poison of religion. It is amazingly arrogant and rich of religious people to assign blame for societal issues on other things. Religion has been fucking awful, for centuries.

    I have a question; what do you think will and should happen to unbelievers like me? Also, do you think homosexuals are condemned to hell? Do you accept evolution, and if not, why not? And what is your PROOF (not religious dogma) for the existence of God?

  9. Also, I don’t have the Narnia collection. Only the first. You may borrow it!!!!

  10. Ushiku says:

    I have issue with the concept of God of organised religion’s omnipotence.

    Take Christianity for example, now if God were perfect why would he create the ability to sin? Could the concept not exist without the application of the theory? It is abstract to scientific reasoning that an all powerful God could not create “good” and “bad” as concepts but have them be spiritually enlightened enough not to enact the latter.

    Of course giving that God/Allah is murderous hypocrite, it seems he requires complete obedience, and if angered may make non-believers/infidels feel his wrath – therefore making him no better than us “flawed and sinful humans”, yet if we were “made in his image” – does that mean that God is also a bit of a prick? His egomaniacal vanity and violence towards those who do not conform to his whim is not befitting of a perfect and loving being.

    Even Jesus, the being who was supposedly perfect and sin free felt and expressed anger, when he threw the market traders out of the temple.

    Oh, and as for Mohammed, if a paedophile is considered a prophet, then your religion isn’t worth a damn thing, and it’s followers are hypocritical in criticizing “normal/fallible” human behaviour when their highest holy figure is a perverted rapist. If marrying a 6 year old and consummating at 9 is “holy”, then I’m proud to be an “infidel”.

    The disadvantages of organised religion will always outweigh its flaws. Every major religion preaches civil obedience, chastity and against materialism whilst hoarding vast wealth for itself. Whether it’s the Catholic church, the Zionists or the oil Sheiks, they all hoard money whilst blasting poverty as immoral. What is more immoral than poverty is having the capability to do something about it and doing nothing.

    One may say I’m behaving “holier than thou”, in which case I reclaim this phrase and give it a new meaning. I am indeed more holy, because despite my belief in agnosticism I am still capable of treating my fellow humans, animals, plants, and this planet with love and respect without the need to be bribed by some terrifying violent God that somehow still loves us. Religion is the spiritual equivalent of battered wife syndrome.

  11. Black Flag says:

    Actually, if you really want to warp their minds, insist on them never touching this book.

    Kitâb al-Manâzir (Book of Optics ) by Ibn al-Haytham.

    Written in 980, by a Muslim, Ibn invented the scientific method and used it to demonstrate and prove his theory of light. It was this book, 500 years later, read by Newton, that inspired Newton to rediscover the properties of light.

    In this book Ibn explained the scientific method as the only way to know God.

    He explained that man is flawed, thus the word of a man about why the world is can also be flawed.

    But God is always perfect truth – and truth no matter who sees it, Muslim, Christian, Jew or Gentile – the truth is the truth.

    Thus, he proposed a method of discovery that did not depend on man, but by men demonstrating the same effect and event anywhere, by anyone, at anytime – then must be the truth of God

    This, to me, is the greatest revelation by modern man – the scientific method – and, given to the world by a Muslim.

    Your “friends” should not defile this book because it is, probably, the single greatest scientific discovery of all – the discovery of science itself.

  12. Black Flag says:

    Futile,

    No one can prove or disprove the existence of God. I fully accept a creator is a possibility.

    Ah, but we can – but it depends on your definition of God.

    If you accept St. Aquinas’ “First Cause” argument, that can be proven by Godel’s Theory of Incompleteness.

    But if you need the proof of a man in a beard sitting on a chair in the clouds, that also is proven by Godel – and he will show that if this is your definition of God, then leprechauns, fairies, orks, goblins, flying dragons, Santa Claus, and a bunny that lays eggs all exist too. You cannot prove just one irrationality without allowing ALL irrationality.

    But if you believe the Universe is perfectly consistent, then God of Aquinas exists.

  13. Black Flag says:

    Ushiku

    I have issue with the concept of God of organised religion’s omnipotence.

    Take Christianity for example, now if God were perfect why would he create the ability to sin?

    So, when one hits a contradiction, one can argue many ways to get out of it.

    (1) God is not omnipotent.

    But, this changes the root definition of God – thus, if we hold this then we are no longer talking about God, but some “lessor” being instead.

    So if we are no longer talking about God, then the argument is moot.

    So, if we are talking about God, and God is omnipotent, the other way we resolve the contradiction is:

    God knows no sin.

    It is all perfect to God, whether an asteroid wipes out mankind, or mankind nukes out mankind or mankind manages to avoid both – its all “perfect” execution of the laws of the Universe in action.

    So, sin is an invention of man and not by God.

    We judge ourselves, not God.

    A pious man stepping off a cliff hits the ground as hard as an evil man stepping of the cliff. God judges neither man, and applies His perfect and immutable laws to both equally.

    Therefore God see no difference between the men, but other men see a difference between these men.

    It is WE who call one man pious and the other evil, not God.

  14. Black Flag says:

    “For example that the Quran has not changed by a single vowel since it was first taught. Its been taught from teacher to student word for word letter for letter.”

    Wow!

    So, what is being said here is that the spiritual learning of Man and his learning about God came to a complete screeching halt in 650 AD, and absolutely everything that is known about God is all known, and nothing possibly could be learned 1500 years further up to today – or even in the future!

    We know everything, and there is nothing more to learn!

    Now, I would also say that all the other religions say the same thing too, whether they are Jews, or Christians.

    All of these preach that God is finished teaching, that the past lessons is all there is, there is nothing more, and that’s that!

    Rubbish!! and conceited arrogance!

  15. Black Flag says:

    Futile
    Alcohol causes minimal social problems in comparison to what the fucking brilliant Christopher Hitchens refers to as the poison of religion

    Alcohol was discovered by Muslims.

    Most words that start with Al- (such as Algebra and Alchemy) or Ad- (such as Admiral) are Arabic and entered into the English language during the Islamic Empire expansion in the Middle Ages….

  16. Black Flag says:

    Ahmad Jomaa,

    Do not take my stance against organized religion as an insult to the People, nor an insult to Arabs.

    The Arabic culture is old, revered, and wonderful in the many forms it holds.

    I had a wonderful, intimate relationship with an Arabic woman for many years (until her death in a car accident) and learned from her the wonders of her culture.

    I also figured out why the Christian knights, after subduing the Holy Land, didn’t want to leave …. the wiles of Arabic women is completely intoxicating.

  17. Black Flag says:

    Oh, and don’t forget this tidbit.

    Mohammad (Peace be upon Him) was likely illiterate. He was raised in the desert by Bedouins after the early deaths of his parents and guardians and the loss of the family fortune.

    The Qur’an was probably written by his wife, Khadijah and her Christian cousin and priest, Waraqah

  18. Ah, but we can – but it depends on your definition of God.

    I agree.
    But that requires a very loose and flexible understanding of a God. Call it “energy” or “prime mover”. That isn’t what the God of Organised Religion is. The God of Organised Religion listens to prayer, grants miracles, cares about your sex life, and condemns nonbelievers to an eternity of torture.

  19. Charles says:

    Remember logically burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position, religion based on god fails on this point because you cannot prove there is a god.

    If I was to make the statement that fairies or other creatures exist but you cannot see them. Its still up to me to prove that there are fairies. Saying that you cannot see them does not get me out of this. If I was to try to get out of this by saying fairies exist and must exist becuase you cannot prove they don’t, they could exist somewhere. This argument fails, as this leads to logical contradictions because not being able to prove something is not there, does not prove it exists on failure.

    Logically I would be creating a double standard because it is generally accepted that for something to be accepted to exist, it most be proven to exist first.

    It is reasonable if no proof is fouth comming to reject the concept of a god. This is a completely reasonable position; if it cannot be proven god exists, then its unreasonable to expect anyone to take anything that is based on the existence of god as being true.

    That means there is no reason to accept new rules or truths that this unproven god would create.

    If someone tells you that this book is holy and that its the word of god. Ask them for proof of god, the burden of proof of this statement is on them to prove it. If god cannot be proven, you can reject their statement as false. How can you say this is the word of god (being that exists), if you cannot prove this god exists to say these words.

  20. Ahmad Jomaa says:

    I think im done for now

    ill be back when Disneys Aladdin isnt the main source material for your understanding of Islam

    its a FACT that the Quran hasn’t changed not an opinion. historical proofs are ample. educate yourself

    if you belive that Islam teaches “kill all the infidels”
    then you have a turd where you brain should be.

    the whole point of Islams existence is to teach others its incredible way of life
    and the whole point of jihad is to free others from tyranny
    NEVER is someone been condemned just for not believing in Islamic law- ONLY god judges people for what they believe
    but please feel free to continue pretending you know what your talking about.

    and black flag-

    Muslims didn’t invent alcohol- what are you on about? Alcohol existed WAY before Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

    the arabic word for Intoxicants is Khamir and AL-Quhool is a very newly coined Arabic term that refers to the Alcohol chemicals in general (not only the ones you drink)

    and

    Waraka bin nawfal died the year Mohammad ص became a prophet and the first verses of the Quran came down.
    And Khadija died before he even went to Madina

    Quran was being continually reviled untill 15 years after she died

    how could they have written the quran when they were dead?

    and the prophet was illiterate- he didnt come with bits of paper that had quran written on them quran wasnt written down till the khalifate of othman (ra)
    and it is still to date only taught from teacher to student.

    so that theory is trash

  21. You will only debate with people who say “yes, you’re entirely right, how could you possibly be wrong”. Christians are the same. You bring them up on their fairy tale, and they cry that it is us who are the illogical ones. Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

    “its a FACT that the Quran hasn’t changed not an opinion. historical proofs are ample. educate yourself”
    – No it isn’t. It is seemingly impossible for religious people to tell the difference between fact and fiction (I suppose that is why they are religious in the first place). Evolution is a fact. A human being in the womb not coming from a blood clot, is a fact. Indoctrination is an awful thing.

    I have never watched Aladin.

    So it’s me who is done. I will just accept that you wont answer any of my points, and that I should just accept that you’re right, and everyone else is wrong.

  22. Black Order says:

    Charles – “Logically I would be creating a double standard because it is generally accepted that for something to be accepted to exist, it most be proven to exist first.

    It is reasonable if no proof is fouth comming to reject the concept of a god. This is a completely reasonable position; if it cannot be proven god exists, then its unreasonable to expect anyone to take anything that is based on the existence of god as being true. ”

    Black Order – Logically speaking, there MUST be a god. And as Black Flag pointed out…”…but it depends on your definition of God.”

    Personally, I would define god as whoever or whatever created the beginning(not necessarily the universe).

    I seriously doubt that it is some omnipotent father figure micromanaging the universe. I don’t think god gives a damn what we do or how we live, or if we live at all.

    When you start contemplating the origins of the universe, you have to ask, how did it get here, what was here before it, and before THAT, and so on…where did it all start???

    It HAD to start somewhere. And as a guess, I’d say that it’s more than likely some sort of intelligent entity.

    To suggest god doesn’t exist unless first proven is to say that you, me, this blog, the Earth we stand on, the universe it floats around in, etc., etc., etc., etc., …doesn’t exist.

    The burden of proof isn’t a burden at all. Just look around. It’s quite obvious as any fool can conclude that there is a universe with a beginning, therefore a god.

    Can YOU create a tangible universe out of nothing? ..or an amoeba? ..or even a rock? …anything?

  23. Black order. I certainly wouldn’t claim there is no creator. I simply say, we don’t know. It is beyond our understanding. We are limited to our senses.

    But, a creator is entirely different to a God of organised religion who demands utter obedience, throws us non-believers into a fiery pit of hell, hates alcohol, and cares who I sleep with. This is the God I totally reject, and not just because I don’t believe a word of the bullshit Organised Religion attempts to force feed us as truth (the Koran being perfect in every way, for example), it’s also because the God of all major religions that I have studied or read the apparent ‘word’ of, seems to be entirely at odds with my own sense of morality; he’s a bit of a dictatorial cunt.

  24. Black Order says:

    Futiledemocracy,

    We’re very much in agreement when it comes to organized religion. I find what most believe to be utterly ridiculous…even almost to the point of amusement in some respects. Not only does most’s concept/definition of god contradict others, but it’s own concept/definition as well. I say “almost”, because these absurd beliefs often come with great influence and consequence for society.

    I think Freud made a good point when he described the popular belief in god being a sort of surrogate loving father figure giving comfort and guidance to adults, …kind of like a security blanket or an imaginary friend for grown-ups.

  25. Black Flag says:

    Futile,

    I agree.
    But that requires a very loose and flexible understanding of a God. Call it “energy” or “prime mover”. That isn’t what the God of Organised Religion is. The God of Organised Religion listens to prayer, grants miracles, cares about your sex life, and condemns nonbelievers to an eternity of torture.

    And I agree with you. The “God” of Religion is wholly irrational. If you hold any of there Godly theories, they are completely contradictory.

    Yet! They will proclaim the “God” of Religion is not in contradiction.

    I have found it is pointless to discuss anything about such matters with them – you cannot argue rationally with an irrational person. Up is Down, Black is White and God the Fiddler-in-human-life exists.

    But I have found that the children can be caused to think about this.

    Around a campfire with a family of Christian fundamentals, I happened the discussion to the perfection of God – and questioned how a perfect being could create an imperfect and inferior being.

    The adults started their confused mumble, but the kids – …. became thoughtful….

    It is interesting the Organized religion has this ability to melt the minds of adults into children, and yet have a limited ability to seize the minds of kids.

  26. Black Flag says:

    Charles,

    It is reasonable if no proof is fouth comming to reject the concept of a god. This is a completely reasonable position; if it cannot be proven god exists, then its unreasonable to expect anyone to take anything that is based on the existence of god as being true

    I agree with most of your post, except here.

    It does NOT follow that if you cannot prove something, it must be false.

    Example:
    Please “prove” the geometric “point”.

    …I’m waiting….
    …still waiting…

    Therefore, the point does not exist, thus, geometry does not exist.

    Opps….not true…..

    Because we cannot prove a truth does not mean the truth is not the truth – it merely means we cannot prove it.

    As you point out, if further argument -based on the assumption that such a truth is still a truth even without proof DOES create a contradiction, then you can go back and argue that the assumption is quite possibly in error.

    The actual logic process is falsifiability – if you can prove it is true, or you can prove it is not true.

    But the ether between these two statements does not prove it to be true, nor does it prove it to be false!

  27. Black Order says:

    Black Flag – “Around a campfire with a family of Christian fundamentals, I happened the discussion to the perfection of God – and questioned how a perfect being could create an imperfect and inferior being.

    The adults started their confused mumble, but the kids – …. became thoughtful….

    It is interesting the Organized religion has this ability to melt the minds of adults into children, and yet have a limited ability to seize the minds of kids.”

    Black Order – That’s because they(kids) haven’t yet been completely influenced, indoctrinated, and confused with ridiculous rationalizations.

    Their minds are still open, not deterred or distracted from rational thought.

    …kinda reminds me of the scene in the Star Wars movie(Episode 2 – Attack Of The Clones) where Obi-Wan Kenobi is trying to find a planet that isn’t on the star chart and is confused by the contradictory and apparent evidence of it’s existence. One of the children simply suggests that it has been removed.

    “Truly wonderful the mind of a child is.” – Jedi Master Yoda.

  28. Black Flag says:

    Ahmad,

    Black flag-

    Muslims didn’t invent alcohol- what are you on about?

    I am about knowing the difference between “invent” and “discover”.

    I said discovered alcohol. They are the inventors of distillation.

    I pray you know the difference between those two sentences.

    Waraka bin nawfal died the year Mohammad ص became a prophet and the first verses of the Quran came down.
    And Khadija died before he even went to Madina

    …and I say… so what?

    Mohammad was an illiterate goat herder – and there is no insult in that statement.

    His wife was a well educated, wealthy, and royal. Her cousin taught Mohammad the Christian and Jewish biblical texts from which Mohammad extended into Islam – hence “The Brothers of the Book”.

    Quran was being continually reviled untill 15 years after she died

    And his other wives picked up the detail of writing.

    how could they have written the quran when they were dead?

    Because Mohammad had more than one wife who could read and write.

    The points I am making are:
    (1) Mohammad wrote nothing himself.
    (2) His religious education came from Christian preachers
    (3) Since he could neither read nor write, what was written in his name may not be anything near what he said.

  29. Black Flag says:

    Black Order,

    Indeed!
    “Truly wonderful the mind of a child is.”

  30. Charles says:

    Black Flag “It does NOT follow that if you cannot prove something, it must be false.”

    In God: The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, Victor J. Stenger offers this scientific argument against the existence of God:
    1. Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe. Saving souls, creation etc.
    2. Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.

    In the philosophies of most Western monotheistic religions, omnipotence is often listed as one of a deity’s characteristics among many, including omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence.

    3. Look for such evidence with an open mind.
    4. If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
    5. If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.

    This is basically how science would disprove the existence of any alleged entity and is modified form of the argument from a lack-of-evidence: God, as defined, should produce evidence of some sort; if we fail to find that evidence, God cannot exist as defined.

    This is how if you cannot prove something exists becomes false because we got a null result for that god when we looked for him. The bible makes lots of staements of how God plays an important role in the universe. None of which can be seen when looked for, its a null result and so it is logical to say if the affects of this god are not there. Is this god truely there at all?

    Statement, “The bible is the word of god”, but the word of god finds itself being falsified as scientific understanding has increased, or in some cases as science has gathered evidence of absence.

    The question becomes does god understand the universe he was meant to have created? How can god have played an important role in the universe, if his word shows a lack of understanding about basic things in his creation? God should understand what he creates? If not this god is not omniscience.

    Belief that omnipotence exists in any form is easily disproved. A classical example goes as follows:

    “Can a deity create a rock so heavy that even the deity itself cannot lift it? If so, then the rock is now unliftable, limiting the deity’s power. But if not, then the deity is still not omnipotent because it cannot create that rock.” God cannot be omnipotent.

    While the majority of Christians consider their deity omnipresent, some find difficulty pondering the absoluteness of their deity’s omnipresence because Hell is both a place and is also the absolute separation from God (“The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven with His mighty angels, In flaming fire taking Vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the Presence of the Lord, and from the Glory of his Power” (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)), presenting a paradox. Can a deity be both omnipresent and absent from Hell? If god is absent from hell he is not omnipresent.

    Omnibenevolence is often held to be impossible, or at least improbable, for a deity to exhibit such property along side omniscience and omnipotence as a result of the problem of evil.

    Logical problem of evil

    One example among many of a formulation of the problem of evil is often attributed to Epicurus and may be schematized as follows:

    1. If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
    2. There is evil in the world.
    3. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.

    Here we cannot prove god but the position that this god exists is false. The existence of this god is logically contradictory. This god does not exist.

  31. Black Flag says:

    Charles,

    Black Flag “It does NOT follow that if you cannot prove something, it must be false.”

    1. Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe. Saving souls, creation etc

    2. Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence..

    We have already been through this argument.

    It does matter what you define God to be. If one defines God as such, you start with an irrational premise, for you assign attributes to God – right at the start – that contradict other attributes of God.

    Thus your definition is faulty – you do not start a proof or argument by first trying to establish an irrational premise!

    In the philosophies of most Western monotheistic religions, omnipotence is often listed as one of a deity’s characteristics among many, including omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence.

    Again, the application of these human assigned attributes TO God create contradictions, and AGAIN! you are attempting to ESTABLISH the premise of your argument by first establishing CONTRADICTIONS in your argument – a form of “strawman”.

    The way to avoid this, Charles, is for you to select ONE characteristic only.

    I select omnipotent.

    3. Look for such evidence with an open mind.

    Ok, everywhere in the Universe I look, the Laws of Nature are immutable.

    4. If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.

    Nowhere in the Universe is there a void of Law of Nature. Ergo, conclusion: God exits.

    5. If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.

    Not even close to true.

    It could be, you haven’t looked hard enough, or ignored evidence.

    Again, because you can’t prove a truth does not mean it is not a truth. Because you can’t disprove a truth does not make it a truth.

    Falsifiability is fundamental. Without it, you can not guarantee nor dismiss a claim.

    This is basically how science would disprove the existence of any alleged entity

    False and anyone who makes such a claim about science knows nothing about science!

    Science is repeatable demonstration – either false or truth.

    The Laws of Nature are repeatable – anywhere, anytime, by anyone – thus, proof of the omnipotence of Nature (God).

    God, as defined, should produce evidence of some sort; if we fail to find that evidence, God cannot exist as defined.

    If, in your definition, you embed contradiction – it is not the argument that fails you, it is your definition.

    If I define an object to be both -at the same time- Pure Black and Pure White – and then subject such a definition to tests of contradiction – and then claim !Lo! it is in contradiction – you would complain I am merely playing irrational games.

    This is how if you cannot prove something exists becomes false because we got a null result for that god when we looked for him.

    You have only proven that you still have found nothing – and that is not a proof.

    In math, a proof is NOT simply running a formula over and over again with different numbers in the variables as a “proof”. It is NEVER considered a proof because no one can run ALL numbers – and thus, no one can PROVE that there isn’t some number that breaks the formula.

    A proof MUST stand alone in totality by logic and reason.

    Because you cannot offer a falsifiability, all you can say is “we cannot say, one way or the other”.

    The bible makes lots of staements of how God plays an important role in the universe.

    Books about Harry Potter make lots of statements about how magic plays an important role here on Earth, too.

    Would you accept Harry Potter as a definitive proof of magic?

    None of which can be seen when looked for, its a null result and so it is logical to say if the affects of this god are not there.

    Not true.

    You can say the book called the “Bible” is flawed.

    Is this god truely there at all?

    Depending on your definition, yes.

    Statement, “The bible is the word of god”,

    And if someone claimed that Harry Potter was the word of God, you would hold that sufficent as proof for or against the following:
    (1) kids exist or do not exist
    (2) magic exists or does not exist
    (3) there are stories about magic and kids

    The question becomes does god understand the universe he was meant to have created?

    I program a computer game.
    I give my game its universe – immutable laws that the computer program enforces absolutely.
    You play the computer game.

    (1) Can I predict HOW you will play the game? No.
    (2) Can I predict HOW you will achieve the outcome? No.
    (3) Do I understand my game? Yes, I wrote it.

    How can god have played an important role in the universe, if his word shows a lack of understanding about basic things in his creation?

    To ask a book, written by men, to explain the Universe, created by God is a bit of an extreme demand, not?

    God should understand what he creates?

    But that is not your question.

    You are using a book written by men as proof that the Universe God created is not understood by its creator.

    That would be like me complaining that you do not understand yourself, because the book I wrote about you says many things about you that may or may not be true.

    “Can a deity create a rock so heavy that even the deity itself cannot lift it?

    This nonsense.

    This is known as a linguistic contradiction – that is, creating a grammatically correct sentence by using – purposefully – two contradicting definitions.

    It has no place in reason, logic, or proof.

    It is, in fact, a definition of “nonsense” – it makes “no sense”.

    As far as omnipotent – it is merely a test that the Laws of God are immutable. And we have tested this, and found such.

    If anything about God, it is that it is omnipotent and perfectly so – thus, creates the Universal condition of Absolute Consistency.

    Can a deity be both omnipresent and absent from Hell? If god is absent from hell he is not omnipresent.

    Such creations of “place” is wholly an invention of man.

    Again, attributing a HUMAN understanding upon the entity of GOD is irrational.

    Logical problem of evil

    Good and evil are constructs of HUMAN thinking, and nothing to do with God.

    We can test this easily.

    A pious man and an evil man both walk off the same cliff.

    God does not judge piety nor malevolence – both fall at the same rate of gravity and impact the Earth precisely as defined by the Laws of Gravity, Force, Acceleration, Friction and Energy.

    Thus, God does not judge – his laws remain unmoved by HUMAN definitions of good or evil.

    1. If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
    2. There is evil in the world.
    3. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.

    Fallacy

    The argument infers that God holds the same definitions of Good and Evil as man.

    But that is not required. God holds His own definitions – and his definition is immutable.

    “Thou shalt not contradict a Law of the Universe”

    Thus, evil CANNOT exist in God’s eye as NOTHING can contradict the Law of the Universe.

    This god does not exist.

    But, by your definition, we knew that – as you started with a contradicted definition.

    Now try it with a non-contradicted definition and see where it takes you …..

  32. ajomaa says:

    OK I couldn’t help myself but futile-
    Ijaza system of teaching Quran works like this:
    teacher orally teaches entire quran (114 chapters) to student, and when the student is able to recite it back to them perfectly without one mistake, they get an “ijaaza” (licence) to become a teacher themselves and to do the same.
    The chain of Ijazaa is documented like a family tree.

    if the quran was to have changed then a teacher would have to teach their own student a different version to the one they have been taught

    how do we know that this hasn’t happened?
    because straight after the death of the Prophet س Islam spread across the Persian and Byzantine empires and with it so did the quran

    if two versions existed then eventually these two different versions would clash and the two different sides would dispute and war with each other

    however this has never happend and if it did it would have been massive. even today the sunna and sheea’ who differ on so many levels read the same quran and have never conflicted on a single letter.

    too many people know the quran off by heart to give the scope for somone to make up their own version

    if a student from china and a student from nyc met today and recited to one another their would be no dereference.

    you telling me that the quran not changeing is a matter of belife not factual historical knowlage
    is you assuming that you know more about the history of islam and the quran then i do
    which is not true because as you have displayed you know nothing about the history of Islam.

    that is why it is a historical FACT that the quran hasnt changed
    it has been tried by outsiders in the past (most recently the us army in sudan-they called it the furqaan and distributed it) to print their own version of the quran but these where rejected by even 10 year olds who knew the entire quran off by heart.

    saying that I wont debate with you because you don’t agree with me is childish and makes you look small- as well as being untrue since we’ve been at odds since my first comment.

    the reason I wont have this discussion is firstly because firstly you keep saying ignorant things like you people dont know the difference between fact and fiction- im not any less capable then you of rational thought and im unprepared to talk with someone so arrogant. and whats the point you think of me as being so incompetent? i dont want to waste your time or my time.
    which leads me to my second point: because i believe i exist for a purpose-
    and this argument is repetitive and non beneficial mainly since you argue what you think and not from a knowledgeable stand point.

    but mainly the arrogance

    ps
    evolution is not a fact. its a theory based on fact.
    natural selection is a fact and the THEORY of evolution was developed from it.

    and your full of shit saying that the religion of islam caused 9/11- how dare you be so ignorant. Islam never permits the killing on innocence. its Americas violence and hostility that drove those people to extreme ideology’s not the quran.

  33. Charles says:

    We have already been through this argument.
    @Black Flag
    “It does matter what you define God to be. If one defines God as such, you start with an irrational premise, for you assign attributes to God – right at the start – that contradict other attributes of God.

    Thus your definition is faulty – you do not start a proof or argument by first trying to establish an irrational premise!”

    These are the attributes for god assigned by the bible etc. You could call it bible/quran based.

    “Again, the application of these human assigned attributes TO God create contradictions, and AGAIN! you are attempting to ESTABLISH the premise of your argument by first establishing CONTRADICTIONS in your argument – a form of “strawman”.

    The way to avoid this, Charles, is for you to select ONE characteristic only.

    I select omnipotent.”

    All attributes for god are given in each holy book for each religion and all attributes assigned to to god create contradictions. Logically gods existence creates contradictions. One contradiction is free will.

    The argument can be stated as follows:

    1) If a being exists, then it must have some active tendency.
    2) If a being has some active tendency, then it has some power to resist its creator.
    3) If a being has the power to resist its creator, then the creator does not have absolute power.

    “Ok, everywhere in the Universe I look, the Laws of Nature are immutable.”

    “Nowhere in the Universe is there a void of Law of Nature. Ergo, conclusion: God exits.”

    Faulty reasoning. Because there are rules to are existence does not imply a god. There are places in the universe where the rules seem to break down. Lookup black holes, gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity. Infinite result of a physical quantity may mean that the theory being used to compute the result may be approaching the point where it fails. What we believe is the Law of Nature cannot explain everything we see and changes as our understand increases.

    “Not even close to true.”
    But still its correct.

    “It could be, you haven’t looked hard enough, or ignored evidence.”
    Argument from ignorance… informal fallacy.

    “Again, because you can’t prove a truth does not mean it is not a truth. Because you can’t disprove a truth does not make it a truth.”

    The existence of god is not obviously “true”, god cannot be seen everywhere. In fact god cannot be seen anywhere. So god is not an obvious truth that cannot be proven.

    “If I define an object to be both -at the same time- Pure Black and Pure White – and then subject such a definition to tests of contradiction – and then claim !Lo! it is in contradiction – you would complain I am merely playing irrational games.”

    I don’t have to falsify any claim god exists, its up to the person making the claim to prove it. If they can’t prove the statement, is is logical to just rejected it off-hand as a unfounded claim.

    “Falsifiability is fundamental. Without it, you can not guarantee nor dismiss a claim.”

    If no proof is given, I can dismiss out of hand. The burden of proof remains on the person claiming there is a god. If someone gives attributes for god and they are contradictory, then the statement has been falsified in theory. The statement is rejected as false, reductio ad absurdum as god attributes lead to impossible self-contradiction.

    “You have only proven that you still have found nothing – and that is not a proof.”

    I don’t have to prove anything, again its up to the person making the claim.

    “In math, a proof is NOT simply running a formula over and over again with different numbers in the variables as a “proof”. It is NEVER considered a proof because no one can run ALL numbers – and thus, no one can PROVE that there isn’t some number that breaks the formula.”

    Argument from ignorance.

    “A proof MUST stand alone in totality by logic and reason.”

    But the problem is the person making the claim is the one that has to create the proof, not me. If they can’t I can reject the statement as unfound, i.e., statement with no proof.

    “Because you cannot offer a falsifiability, all you can say is “we cannot say, one way or the other”.”

    The fallacy of argument from ignorance (sometimes known as demanding negative proof) is a fallacy of asserting that a claim is true as long as it has not been refuted. In other words, X is not proven simply because “not X” cannot be proven. This is related to the burden of proof, because one is placing the burden on the refutation, rather than on the proof of the assertion. Remember I don’t have to prove anything, its up to the person making the claims to prove it.

    “Books about Harry Potter make lots of statements about how magic plays an important role here on Earth, too.

    Would you accept Harry Potter as a definitive proof of magic?”

    This fails as the christain “proof” of god is the bible, same with some other holy books. The bible like other holy books is full of contradictions.

    “This nonsense.”

    Its not.

    “This is known as a linguistic contradiction – that is, creating a grammatically correct sentence by using – purposefully – two contradicting definitions.”

    This is a logical proof that god cannot be all powerful because god himself, could not create something that limits his power. By not being able to create something that limits his power, he limits his power. A contradiction, by being all powerfull, also means he has limits to his power and so creates a paradox.

    “It has no place in reason, logic, or proof.”

    “Y is omnipotent” means “Y can do X” is true if and only if X is a logically consistent description of a state of affairs. This position was once advocated by Thomas Aquinas. This definition of omnipotence solves some of the paradoxes associated with omnipotence, but some modern formulations of the paradox still work against this definition. Let X = “to make something that its maker cannot lift”. As Mavrodes points out there is nothing logically contradictory about this; a man could, for example, make a boat which he could not lift. It would be strange if humans could accomplish this feat, but an omnipotent being could not. Additionally, this definition has problems when X is morally or physically untenable for a being like God.

    “It is, in fact, a definition of “nonsense” – it makes “no sense”.” See full proof above.

    “As far as omnipotent – it is merely a test that the Laws of God are immutable. And we have tested this, and found such.”

    Prove there is a god before you claim there is Laws of god.

    “If anything about God, it is that it is omnipotent and perfectly so – thus, creates the Universal condition of Absolute Consistency.”

    God being omnipotent leads to a contradiction which is called the omnipotence paradox. To get out of the paradox you have to reduce the power of god to that of a powerfull being with limits. Like a powerfull human being, just more powerfull than you. The problem is god howe no long fits the meaning of the word omnipotent.

    “Such creations of “place” is wholly an invention of man.

    Again, attributing a HUMAN understanding upon the entity of GOD is irrational.”

    That is not true as hell etc is ment to be a creation of god, its not a human creation it comes from his word. Its funny how the word of god contradicts, what god is ment to be. If you are religious you cannot ignore your holy books.

    “Good and evil are constructs of HUMAN thinking, and nothing to do with God.

    We can test this easily.

    A pious man and an evil man both walk off the same cliff.

    God does not judge piety nor malevolence – both fall at the same rate of gravity and impact the Earth precisely as defined by the Laws of Gravity, Force, Acceleration, Friction and Energy.

    Thus, God does not judge – his laws remain unmoved by HUMAN definitions of good or evil.”

    Have you ever read any of these books. Evil is sin against god. If both walk off the same cliff, they both go to hell for comitting suicide. In both the bible and the quran it is only god that judges.

    “Fallacy”

    Its not look it up if you have to or go on a course.

    “The argument infers that God holds the same definitions of Good and Evil as man.”

    Evil is sin against god. Not doing what god tells you is a sin. Sinners burn in the lake of fire. The bible calls gods law the absolute moral standard.

    “But that is not required. God holds His own definitions – and his definition is immutable.”

    See above.

    “Thou shalt not contradict a Law of the Universe”

    God has his own laws, everything else be damned.

    “Thus, evil CANNOT exist in God’s eye as NOTHING can contradict the Law of the Universe.”

    Evil does exist in god eye if you have read the bible or the quran. But I guess you are a greater authority and can tell us what god thinks.

    “But, by your definition, we knew that – as you started with a contradicted definition.”

    There is no definition of god that does not lead to contradictions. Thats the biggest point, getting round the contradictions leaves you with a being that cannot fit the meaning of the word god.

    “Now try it with a non-contradicted definition and see where it takes you …..”

    There is none, I used the bible and the quran definition and they are contradictory. I used it to deprove their gods. Lets hear your proof, you define your god. Remember I don’t have to prove anything or even have to give a definition of a god. The proof and definition is up to you to create. I will wait for your proof and your definition as I an required to do nothing. If you can’t create one, then I can reject your position as unfounded.

  34. “and your full of shit saying that the religion of islam caused 9/11- how dare you be so ignorant. Islam never permits the killing on innocence. its Americas violence and hostility that drove those people to extreme ideology’s not the quran.”
    – I didn’t say Islam caused 9/11. I don’t believe it at all. If you can twist my words so easily, I am not surprised you are religious. I do believe that religion can be interpreted in many ways, and one of which is violent and anti-anything that isn’t part of that religion. You suggested alcohol is the cause of all the problems in the World. I simple think it is massively hypocritical of religious people to blame anything else for any violent act. Religion is the king of violence. Catholicism spread through the use of violence and fear. To suggest any religion (especially the three main) is the religion of peace, is to just ignore the horrendous deeds committed in its name. The amount of people who have died doing what they believe their religion is telling them to do, is huge. You cannot hide behind “oh…erm…. they’re interpreting it wrong”…. what if you’re interpreting it wrong?

    “Islam never permits the killing on innocence”
    I beg to differ….
    ” If you encounter those who disbelieve, you may strike the necks.”
    – Koran 47:4

    You are just doing what Christians tend to do, and ignore the fact that their book is a war manual, full of hate. Picking and choosing what to believe. Typical religious person.

    Either the Koran has been changed (that would explain the immense amount of contradictions and epic fails in it…. the contradictions and mistakes I pointed out, that you failed miserably to address) or God just isn’t very consistent.

    Don’t think i’m defending America. I am actually surprised the Latin Americans didn’t go mad first. I thought certain it would be them. America is based on a religion – Nation States. Abstract non-sensical concept. Doesn’t exist. Bullshit. Much like Religion. They are an empire of destruction.

    “you telling me that the quran not changeing is a matter of belife not factual historical knowlage
    is you assuming that you know more about the history of islam and the quran then i do
    which is not true because as you have displayed you know nothing about the history of Islam.”
    – No. You quite obviously no more about your religion than I do. It would be ridiculous of me to say otherwise. I just don’t accept that your Holy Book has had no changes, or additions, or subtractions, or anything else, in 1400 years. Especially when you have no proof other than what you’ve been told. And especially when there is much literature on why the Koran is not perfect.

    And also….. even if you’re right, and I am wrong, and it is perfect…….. it still doesn’t imply that a God exists.

    “the reason I wont have this discussion is firstly because firstly you keep saying ignorant things like you people dont know the difference between fact and fiction- im not any less capable then you of rational thought and im unprepared to talk with someone so arrogant.”
    – Let me recite some of the things you’ve said in this debate:
    “If you believe that Mohammed ص made up the Quran off the top of his head, or that he indeed received it in revelation from God, that’s your problem.”
    – As if it’s a problem for me. As if only you are enlightened and I am suffering. How arrogant of you.
    I put together quite a long and detailed argument a few comments back. You replied with:
    “ill be back when Disneys Aladdin isnt the main source material for your understanding of Islam”
    – How fucking arrogant of you. No one could possibly have an opinion on organised religion if it’s negative? The Freedom From Religion Foundation, I hope changes peoples minds. Because organised religion, is an infection.
    ” it makes you look fox-news-ignorant which clearly you are not (the points you make on Mondays often blow me away)”
    – Stop telling me it makes me look ignorant, and actually argue my points one by one, that’s a proper debate. You just keep calling me names and attacking me. Again, arrogant.
    ““with no crime due to fair taxation/distribution of tax to the needy- with no crime due to the poison of all society that is alcohol- in a society that the prophet Mohammad said is like one body if the one small part hurts the whole body works to heal it.”
    – Arrogant to suggest the only place ever to exist, that was entirely crime free – not one single crime of any nature whatsoever… was a muslim place…. of which you have absolutely no evidence for. Not only arrogant, but a blatant lie.
    To call me arrogant, and not recognise just how ridiculously arrogant and absolutely ignorant to any point anyone is making, instead choosing to just insult their intelligence, is actually very typical of religious people. They can’t handle when their religion is under scrutiny. They get defensive, because at the heart of the matter, there is absolutely no evidence let alone proof, for their religion, even though their religion has so much power.

    I loved the irony of calling me arrogant, and then starting your next line with “ps”. Not only is that ironic, it is almost brilliant because your “ps” followed up with something that isn’t true:
    “ps
    evolution is not a fact. its a theory based on fact.
    natural selection is a fact and the THEORY of evolution was developed from it.”
    – No, evolution is the fact. It is a fact that I am going bald, because my dad was bald, and his dad before him. It is a fact. The entire study of modern biology and medicine is based completely on evolution. Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection is the structure behind the fact. Much like Einstein’s theory is the currently accepted theory behind the fact of gravity. Evolution is fact. I understand religious people don’t like this, because it contradicts their entire belief system, but it’s true. Natural Selection is the theory – the structure and framework – one which the fact of evolution is understood.

    I have tried not to be arrogant above, and to present my argument. I look forward to your reply which doesn’t include “omg you’re so arrogant, you don’t understand blah blah blah”

  35. “Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience.”
    – Christopher Hitchens.

    One of the great Atheist writers of our time.

  36. ajomaa says:

    things are getting a bit personal- and since I know you in real life it could get awkward so ill try to dial it down a notch

    when you take a quote from the Quran look at its context. if you read the verses before and after the one you have quoted it shows clearly that this is in a time of oppression and that if they enemy stand down then the Quran commands Muslims to stand down.

    I never said all problems come from alcohol, I said that the problems that are sourced from alcohol (which are many) are addressed, and that the Quran and islam also address crime caused by poverty. you may feel i have twisted your words but havent you done the same here?

    and anyway from the start i wasnt arguing that islam was the one true religion- although i do indeed believe it to be true- i was arguing that you cant call the quran nonsense and rubbish when it contains a rational and just legal system that is fair to believers and non believers alike. that was my argument from the first thing i wrote and evrytime you respond to me you respond as if ive asked you to become a muslim

    the punishment for not believing in god (which anyone is free according to Allah who asks mankind to think freely in the quran) is hellfire- but if you don’t believe in hell fire then what’s the problem? you still get the same treatment in this life. your only asked to fear allah if you belive in allah- if you dont belive in allah then how are you going to fear hell fire? the prohphet س said that whoever dosnt feel shy (of his actions in front of allah) then they can do what they will.

    it dosent come much clearer then this (the chapter of the disbelivers 109 in the quran):

    Say: O disbelievers! (1) I worship not that which ye worship; (2) Nor worship ye that which I worship. (3) And I shall not worship that which ye worship. (4) Nor will ye worship that which I worship. (5) Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. (6)

    only when peoples liberties begin to infringe on the lives/safety of others does action need to be taken

    allah says in the quran that you are intitled to what you striver for. he says that if you strive for this world then he will give you it (ie disbelievers) and if you want the after life then feel free to pursue it.

    Islam doesn’t allow these atrocities to happen and when people who call themselves Muslims do these things they twist the words of the quran to manipulate their followers

    just like today some white supremacists have twisted the theory of evolution to argue that black people are less evolved then white people so they are closer to monkeys then whites so they are inferior. ive herd it with my own ears from a south African i met in abu dhabi. this is the nature of mankind-not religion. and again the quran says to take what you hear back to the source.

    lets say a guy who looks like a Muslim big beard and everything tells me to blow myself up to please Allah.

    when Allah told me in the quran to read what does and dosnt please him. and in the quran clear as day the lines have been drawn. so i know that this man is a lier and that i should probably call the terrorist hot line and get his ass behind bars.

    anyway
    id like to apologise for any thing that I may have said to offend you or that was arrogant or anything like that. its not my objective to upset anyone, only to defend what i find to be a beautiful book that contains sound laws and a prosperous way of life.

    one time long ago i was talking to a friend of mine and i said that even if i didn’t believe in Allah i would live according to Islam due to its balance.

    If i am wrong about islam then atleast i would have been at peace in my life and if im right then i get paradise so its a win win situation for me.

  37. “things are getting a bit personal- and since I know you in real life it could get awkward so ill try to dial it down a notch”
    – I dont think it’s getting personal at all. I think you’re a top bloke, genuinely one of my favourite people from University. I just think all religious beliefs are dangerous, and shouldn’t be taken seriously. You think oppositely, that’s fine. I have enjoyed debating with you actually. Despite the fact that I disagree entirely with you, you debate your point. A lot of religious people don’t. So I respect you massively for putting up this fight. I have no problem with you personally. I would absolutely love to debate this in person (not with any personal insult).

    “if you dont belive in allah then how are you going to fear hell fire?”
    – Oh I no i’m not going to burn in hell fire. It doesn’t exist. It is a man made way to control people. I have no worry about going to it, because I know it doesn’t exist. However, I get a little bit unnerved by people who believe that someone like me is going to hell fire. I am not sure why I should respect them.

    “Islam doesn’t allow these atrocities to happen and when people who call themselves Muslims do these things they twist the words of the quran to manipulate their followers”
    – We agree on this. But, people do find justification for their appalling actions, in religious texts (not just Islam. Catholicism has been the worst over history, i’d say). Like I said with Judaism, without their faith, I cannot imagine reasonable people would consider it perfectly acceptable to genitally mutilate a child. But with the protection of the words “it’s my faith”, it’s apparently okay.

    Personal religious belief, the kind you are talking about, I would never dream of trying to insult. It would be pathetic of me. I am not you. I cannot tell you what to think. I would feel massively guilty if that is how I am coming across, I certainly don’t mean that. My problem is with the power and the manipulative nature of Organised Religion. Institutionalised religion – i.e – faith schools. It seems abhorrent to me. And I am always going to argue against it, and present it as nothing but a force for lack of thought, and evil.

    I am however, not suggesting that the entire faith of Islam is responsible for 9/11. Of course I’m not. I am not an ignorant right winger. I think Islam, like Christianity has institutional problems that need to be addressed. I think politics has the same institutional problems. The desire to separate people, due to abstractions like Nations and Religions, will always cause war and hatred. I dislike both.

    On a more philosophical note, I cannot accept the basis of any religion. To go from a creator of everything, to a God who cares about who I have sex with and what food I eat, is a step too far for my liking. It is like a Dictator controlling me. I refuse to be controlled by religion, as I refuse to be controlled by a dictator. To quote Douglas Adams: “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom”

    “just like today some white supremacists have twisted the theory of evolution to argue that black people are less evolved then white people so they are closer to monkeys then whites so they are inferior. ive herd it with my own ears from a south African i met in abu dhabi.”
    – That is a not just twisting evolution, that is inventing what evolution actually means in the first place. Nothing is “less evolved” than anything else. A slug in my garden, is just as evolved as I am. I wouldn’t pay attention to people who say things like black people are less evolved than white people; it’s bullshit of the highest order.

    “(which anyone is free according to Allah who asks mankind to think freely in the quran)”
    – This isn’t freewill. When there is a fear of awful punishment, there is no freewill. And like you say, unbelievers will go to hell. So, it’s like saying to a child “You can either eat your peas, or i’ll put your head in the oven, but you have the freedom to choose”. It’s not really a choice.

    “i was arguing that you cant call the quran nonsense and rubbish when it contains a rational and just legal system that is fair to believers and non believers alike.”
    – I can call it nonsense and rubbish, because the claims it makes, the suggestion that it was divinely passed down, from a God, to a prophet, I find ludicrous. I have said before, I find the Bible and the Koran, fantastically written works. I absolutely love the stories in them. But, to me, there are completely works of fiction and nothing else.

    “If i am wrong about islam then atleast i would have been at peace in my life and if im right then i get paradise so its a win win situation for me.”
    – We agree again. If it is a system that works for you, then that is great and I wouldn’t want to demand that being taken away from anyone. I believe we all have a right to believe whatever we wish, in whatever country we wish, wear whatever religious clothes we wish, without being told it’s not allowed.

    Again, I am simply against all organised religion, at an institutional level. And I reject every claim by religion, that their God exists – unless they have absolute proof, in which case, I am open to change my mind.

  38. Black Flag says:

    Charles,

    These are the attributes for god assigned by the bible etc. You could call it bible/quran based.

    But we are NOT debating the Bible or Qur’an – you said you are debating the existence of God.

    Are you claiming the ONLY definitions of God comes from the Bible????

    All attributes for god are given in each holy book for each religion

    Again, you are confused in your own question.

    You said you were debating an existence of God.

    Now you -midstream- you are debating the existence of a God defined by some books you pull off the shelf.

    and that is my core point

    Start with a self-consistent definition of God and see if that works….

    Do NOT start with a self-contradictory definition of God, and be proud of yourself that you found contradictions!

    and all attributes assigned to to god create contradictions.

    You cannot assign ALL attributes to one thing!
    How can you assign the attribute of “really big” and “really small” to the same thing?
    How can you assign the attribute of “totally white” and “totally black” to the same thing?

    It is self-evident that ALL attributes cannot be assigned to one thing!

    Your attempt to do so, in a fallacious attempt to disprove this entity, makes YOU the contradiction, not the entity.

    Logically gods existence creates contradictions.

    False.

    It is your starting premise that is in error.

    One contradiction is free will.

    The argument can be stated as follows:

    1) If a being exists, then it must have some active tendency.
    2) If a being has some active tendency, then it has some power to resist its creator.

    3) If a being has the power to resist its creator, then the creator does not have absolute power.

    Your argument @ (3) fails.

    You have the power to resist gravity. Gravity, however, remains absolute and immutable.

    Faulty reasoning. Because there are rules to are existence does not imply a god.

    Whoa!
    You are the one who provided your definition of requirement.
    You demanded universality as proof of God.
    I provided it.
    Now you claim that is insufficient.

    You are using the fallacy of “Moving Goal Posts”

    There are places in the universe where the rules seem to break down. Lookup black holes, gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity.

    No, sir. You are suffering from ignorance in your understanding of physics.

    Black holes are a direct consequence of the Law of Gravity.
    Gravitational singularity is a direct consequence of the Law of Gravity.
    Time is a direct consequence of the Law of Gravity.

    No where is there a break down of the Laws of the Universe

    There is a human ignorance of the Laws of the Universe. Do not blame God for this ignorance.

    What we believe is the Law of Nature cannot explain everything we see and changes as our understand increases.

    The failure is not the Law of Nature, but our ignorance in our understanding – or as you say “belief”.

    “Not even close to true.”
    But still its correct.

    Charles, “not close to true” means it is “not correct”, no matter how much you preach your error.

    “It could be, you haven’t looked hard enough, or ignored evidence.”

    Argument from ignorance… informal fallacy.

    False application of this fallacy.

    Because you have not provided sufficient argument to prove your point does NOT make your point true, Charles.

    The existence of god is not obviously “true”, god cannot be seen everywhere.

    Your declaration is without merit.

    Case of proof against your declaration.

    “The existence of an atom is obviously not true, since you cannot see it everywhere”

    However, atoms exist – therefore, your claim is false.

    Same circumstance by substitution of God in place of atom, thus, your statement is false as well.

    So god is not an obvious truth that cannot be proven.

    God can be proven – easily – but requires an non-contradictory definition, which you have not provided.

    “If I define an object to be both -at the same time- Pure Black and Pure White – and then subject such a definition to tests of contradiction – and then claim !Lo! it is in contradiction – you would complain I am merely playing irrational games.”

    I don’t have to falsify any claim god exists, its up to the person making the claim to prove it.

    Not true. The onus is not exclusive on one or another.

    The hypothesis of God can sit unmolested by your inability to disprove it.

    But since I can prove the definition of God I have provided I have proven the existence of God.

    If they can’t prove the statement, is is logical to just rejected it off-hand as a unfounded claim.

    You have no justified cause to do so, and it is NOT logical to do so.

    The best you can claim is “it is not proven nor disproven, and thus sits in state of UNKNOWN”

    If no proof is given, I can dismiss out of hand.

    Proof is given within a definition. You cannot dismiss out of hand.

    The burden of proof remains on the person claiming there is a god.

    No such burden exists.
    The onus is upon you to disprove God as much as there is an onus on proof.
    Until one or the other side completes, the question remain moot.

    If someone gives attributes for god and they are contradictory, then the statement has been falsified in theory. The statement is rejected as false, reductio ad absurdum as god attributes lead to impossible self-contradiction.

    Correct. Their definition of God is contradictory – but this does not disprove God.

    It points to an error of definition, not of God.

    “You have only proven that you still have found nothing – and that is not a proof.”

    I don’t have to prove anything, again its up to the person making the claim.

    And upon you to disprove – otherwise the hypothesis is moot

    “In math, a proof is NOT simply running a formula over and over again with different numbers in the variables as a “proof”. It is NEVER considered a proof because no one can run ALL numbers – and thus, no one can PROVE that there isn’t some number that breaks the formula.”

    Argument from ignorance.

    Obviously, you have no mathematics understanding either.

    “Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments. That is, a proof must demonstrate that a statement is true in all cases, without a single exception. An unproven proposition that is believed to be true is known as a conjecture.”


    Undecidable statements

    A statement that is neither provable nor disprovable from a set of axioms is called undecidable (from those axioms). One example is the parallel postulate, which is neither provable nor refutable from the remaining axioms of Euclidean geometry.

    Mathematicians have shown there are many statements that are neither provable nor disprovable in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (ZFC), the standard system of set theory in mathematics (assuming that ZFC is consistent); see list of statements undecidable in ZFC.

    Gödel’s (first) incompleteness theorem shows that many axiom systems of mathematical interest will have undecidable statements.

    “A proof MUST stand alone in totality by logic and reason.”

    But the problem is the person making the claim is the one that has to create the proof, not me.

    To prove the existence of God, you are correct. They must do the problem.

    But for you to DISPROVE the existence of God, you must do the problem.

    You NOT doing the problem does not disprove God.

    If they can’t I can reject the statement as unfound, i.e., statement with no proof.

    No, you claim it to be conjecture

    “Because you cannot offer a falsifiability, all you can say is “we cannot say, one way or the other”.”

    The fallacy of argument from ignorance (sometimes known as demanding negative proof) is a fallacy of asserting that a claim is true as long as it has not been refuted.

    Charles, as you continue to demonstrate, you do not understand my post.

    I have NEVER claimed that the failure of you to disprove God, PROVED God.

    Thus your application of this fallacy is in error.

    I have -repeatedly- said it merely says the hypothesis is conjecture or moot.

    In other words, X is not proven simply because “not X” cannot be proven. This is related to the burden of proof, because one is placing the burden on the refutation, rather than on the proof of the assertion. Remember I don’t have to prove anything, its up to the person making the claims to prove it.

    No, sir, you need to remember that if YOUR goal is to disprove God, you must do so.

    The goal of proof of God is to prove God. If such proof is not forthcoming does not disprove God.

    Our past inability to “prove” that the Earth orbited the Sun does not disprove the fact the Earth orbited the Sun – it merely meant we could not prove it at that time.

    For your position to be correct, you must hold that up until a man proved that the Earth orbited the Sun, the Earth did not orbit the Sun – but that is irrational!

    Thus, equally, your demand regarding the proof of God (or lack of) here is equally as irrational.

    “Books about Harry Potter make lots of statements about how magic plays an important role here on Earth, too.

    Would you accept Harry Potter as a definitive proof of magic?”

    This fails as the christain “proof” of god is the bible, same with some other holy books. The bible like other holy books is full of contradictions.

    I agree.

    Thus, the problem is not God.

    It is the books that men write about God that is the problem.

    “This nonsense.”

    Its not.

    “This is known as a linguistic contradiction – that is, creating a grammatically correct sentence by using – purposefully – two contradicting definitions.”

    This is a logical proof that god cannot be all powerful because god himself, could not create something that limits his power.

    Charles, that is irrational.

    Creating a contradiction as a premise, then apply that contradiction to a subject, then point to the contradiction, then claim it disproves a condition regarding the subject is irrational.

    Example:

    (1) For Charles to exist, he must have be perfectly white and perfectly black

    (2) Being opposite states is a contradiction and cannot exist.

    (3) Therefore Charles cannot exist.

    That’s all you are doing, Charles….

    Linguistic contradiction characterizes a statement which cannot be true based simply on knowledge of the meaning of words:

    The unmarried woman is married to a bachelor; or the pregnant boy.

    Such a statement is said to be analytically false, or false by simple definition.

    By not being able to create something that limits his power, he limits his power. A contradiction, by being all powerfull, also means he has limits to his power and so creates a paradox.

    No, you are simply playing a linguistic contradiction game.

    “Y is omnipotent” means “Y can do X” is true if and only if X is a logically consistent description of a state of affairs.

    But that is not what you are describing. You infuse “X” to be “not Y” – this is no different as the math proof conclusively, logically but irrationally proving “1=2”

    Follow:

    * Step 1: Let a=b.
    * Step 2: Then (IMAGE) ,
    * Step 3: (IMAGE) ,
    * Step 4: (IMAGE) ,
    * Step 5: (IMAGE) ,
    * Step 6: and (IMAGE) .
    * Step 7: This can be written as (IMAGE) ,
    * Step 8: and canceling the (IMAGE) from both sides gives 1=2.

    So, where is the irrational statement, Charles???

    When you figure this out, you will find you are doing the same irrational step in your argument.

    “As far as omnipotent – it is merely a test that the Laws of God are immutable. And we have tested this, and found such.”

    Prove there is a god before you claim there is Laws of god.

    Sir, you demanded prove of God’s work as a Proof of God!

    I demonstrated.

    You change your demand.

    “Moving Goalposts”

    God being omnipotent leads to a contradiction which is called the omnipotence paradox.

    Only on those that get confused by linguistic contradictions.

    To get out of the paradox you have to reduce the power of god to that of a powerfull being with limits.

    No, you simply do not start your position and argument with a contradiction.

    That is not true as hell etc is ment to be a creation of god,

    Who says? You? A bunch of guys who wrote a book?

    Your argument is worthless, Charles!

    Charles:

    “A bunch of guys wrote in a book, therefore God must obey what men said about Him, and created Hell. Because Hell therefore exists and created by God, because a book said so, proves God does not exist”.

    What a bunch of crap, Charles!

    its not a human creation it comes from his word.

    The only language God speaks is mathematics.

    Its funny how the word of god contradicts, what god is ment to be.

    No, it’s funny that you demand that the writings of some men was God’s word.

    If you are religious you cannot ignore your holy books.

    Of course you can! They are merely the writings of other men!

    Your whole argument relies on the ignorance of men, and not on any proof (or disprove) of God.

    Have you ever read any of these books.

    All of them.

    Evil is sin against god.

    What “sin” can you do against a God whose laws cannot be broken?
    Answer: not one “sin.”

    If both walk off the same cliff, they both go to hell for comitting suicide. In both the bible and the quran it is only god that judges.

    Your entire argument rests on the written work of men, and not on any premise from a reasoned position.

    Hence, your error and fallacy.

    Evil is sin against god. Not doing what god tells you is a sin.

    If God’s laws are immutable (as already proven with the Law of Gravity and pious men, etc.) how is it possible to sin against God?

    You cannot do but follow the immutable laws of God. Therefore, you cannot sin against God

    But you want to replace that with mere subjective values of men.
    And that is YOUR error, not God’s.

    Sinners burn in the lake of fire. The bible calls gods law the absolute moral standard.

    Try arguing your position without having to reference the same error you repeat, over and over again.

    \

    God has his own laws, everything else be damned.

    No.

    God has his own Laws, and that is all there is.

    “Thus, evil CANNOT exist in God’s eye as NOTHING can contradict the Law of the Universe.”

    Evil does exist in god eye if you have read the bible or the quran.

    But we are NOT debating the Bible or the Qur’an.

    We are debating GOD.

    But I guess you are a greater authority and can tell us what god thinks.

    Yep, I am a greater authority as I am learned – because I understand the Laws of the Universe being immutable.

    There is no definition of god that does not lead to contradictions.

    I have provided such a definition and proof, and it does not lead to contradiction.

    There is none, I used the bible and the quran definition and they are contradictory.

    Thus, you have merely proven that those definitions are in error. Good job – some of us knew that a long time ago.

    Lets hear your proof, you define your god. Remember I don’t have to prove anything or even have to give a definition of a god.

    Nope, you don’t have to do anything to prove God.
    But you have to do something to disprove God.

  39. Black Flag says:

    Sorry, crappy editing AGAIN!

    Please use this post:

    Charles,

    These are the attributes for god assigned by the bible etc. You could call it bible/quran based.

    But we are NOT debating the Bible or Qur’an – you said you are debating the existence of God.

    Are you claiming the ONLY definitions of God comes from the Bible????

    All attributes for god are given in each holy book for each religion

    Again, you are confused in your own question.

    You said you were debating an existence of God.

    Now you -midstream- you are debating the existence of a God defined by some books you pull off the shelf.

    and that is my core point

    Start with a self-consistent definition of God and see if that works….

    Do NOT start with a self-contradictory definition of God, and be proud of yourself that you found contradictions!

    and all attributes assigned to to god create contradictions.

    You cannot assign ALL attributes to one thing!
    How can you assign the attribute of “really big” and “really small” to the same thing?
    How can you assign the attribute of “totally white” and “totally black” to the same thing?

    It is self-evident that ALL attributes cannot be assigned to one thing!

    Your attempt to do so, in a fallacious attempt to disprove this entity, makes YOU the contradiction, not the entity.

    Logically gods existence creates contradictions.

    False.

    It is your starting premise that is in error.

    One contradiction is free will.

    The argument can be stated as follows:

    1) If a being exists, then it must have some active tendency.
    2) If a being has some active tendency, then it has some power to resist its creator.

    3) If a being has the power to resist its creator, then the creator does not have absolute power.

    Your argument @ (3) fails.

    You have the power to resist gravity. Gravity, however, remains absolute and immutable.

    Faulty reasoning. Because there are rules to are existence does not imply a god.

    Whoa!
    You are the one who provided your definition of requirement.
    You demanded universality as proof of God.
    I provided it.
    Now you claim that is insufficient.

    You are using the fallacy of “Moving Goal Posts”

    There are places in the universe where the rules seem to break down. Lookup black holes, gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity.

    No, sir. You are suffering from ignorance in your understanding of physics.

    Black holes are a direct consequence of the Law of Gravity.
    Gravitational singularity is a direct consequence of the Law of Gravity.
    Time is a direct consequence of the Law of Gravity.

    No where is there a break down of the Laws of the Universe

    There is a human ignorance of the Laws of the Universe. Do not blame God for this ignorance.

    What we believe is the Law of Nature cannot explain everything we see and changes as our understand increases.

    The failure is not the Law of Nature, but our ignorance in our understanding – or as you say “belief”.

    “Not even close to true.”
    But still its correct.

    Charles, “not close to true” means it is “not correct”, no matter how much you preach your error.

    “It could be, you haven’t looked hard enough, or ignored evidence.”

    Argument from ignorance… informal fallacy.

    False application of this fallacy.

    Because you have not provided sufficient argument to prove your point does NOT make your point true, Charles.

    The existence of god is not obviously “true”, god cannot be seen everywhere.

    Your declaration is without merit.

    Case of proof against your declaration.

    “The existence of an atom is obviously not true, since you cannot “see” it everywhere”

    However, atoms exist – therefore, your claim is false.

    Same circumstance by substitution of God in place of atom, thus, your statement is false as well.

    So god is not an obvious truth that cannot be proven.

    God can be proven – easily – but requires an non-contradictory definition, which you have not provided.

    “If I define an object to be both -at the same time- Pure Black and Pure White – and then subject such a definition to tests of contradiction – and then claim !Lo! it is in contradiction – you would complain I am merely playing irrational games.”

    I don’t have to falsify any claim god exists, its up to the person making the claim to prove it.

    Not true. The onus is not exclusive on one or another.

    The hypothesis of God can sit unmolested by your inability to disprove it.

    But since I can prove the definition of God I have provided I have proven the existence of God.

    If they can’t prove the statement, is is logical to just rejected it off-hand as a unfounded claim.

    You have no justified cause to do so, and it is NOT logical to do so.

    The best you can claim is “it is not proven nor disproven, and thus sits in state of Unknown or Conjecture”

    If no proof is given, I can dismiss out of hand.

    Proof is given within a definition. You cannot dismiss out of hand.

    The burden of proof remains on the person claiming there is a god.

    No such burden exists.

    The onus is upon you to disprove God as much as there is an onus on proof.

    Until one or the other side completes, the question remain moot.

    If someone gives attributes for god and they are contradictory, then the statement has been falsified in theory. The statement is rejected as false, reductio ad absurdum as god attributes lead to impossible self-contradiction.

    Correct. Their definition of God is contradictory – but this does not disprove God.

    It points to an error of definition, not of God.

    “You have only proven that you still have found nothing – and that is not a proof.”

    I don’t have to prove anything, again its up to the person making the claim.

    And upon you to disprove – otherwise the hypothesis is moot

    “In math, a proof is NOT simply running a formula over and over again with different numbers in the variables as a “proof”. It is NEVER considered a proof because no one can run ALL numbers – and thus, no one can PROVE that there isn’t some number that breaks the formula.”

    Argument from ignorance.

    Obviously, you have little mathematics understanding either.

    “Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments. That is, a proof must demonstrate that a statement is true in all cases, without a single exception. An unproven proposition that is believed to be true is known as a conjecture.”


    Undecidable statements

    A statement that is neither provable nor disprovable from a set of axioms is called undecidable (from those axioms). One example is the parallel postulate, which is neither provable nor refutable from the remaining axioms of Euclidean geometry.

    Mathematicians have shown there are many statements that are neither provable nor disprovable in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (ZFC), the standard system of set theory in mathematics (assuming that ZFC is consistent); see list of statements undecidable in ZFC.

    Gödel’s (first) incompleteness theorem shows that many axiom systems of mathematical interest will have undecidable statements.

    “A proof MUST stand alone in totality by logic and reason.”

    But the problem is the person making the claim is the one that has to create the proof, not me.

    To prove the existence of God, you are correct. They must do the problem.

    But for you to DISPROVE the existence of God, you must do the problem.

    You NOT doing the problem does not disprove God.

    If they can’t I can reject the statement as unfound, i.e., statement with no proof.

    No, you claim it to be conjecture

    “Because you cannot offer a falsifiability, all you can say is “we cannot say, one way or the other”.”

    The fallacy of argument from ignorance (sometimes known as demanding negative proof) is a fallacy of asserting that a claim is true as long as it has not been refuted.

    Charles, as you continue to demonstrate, you do not understand my post.

    I have NEVER claimed that the failure of you to disprove God, PROVED God.

    Thus your application of this fallacy is in error.

    I have -repeatedly- said it merely says the hypothesis is conjecture or moot.

    In other words, X is not proven simply because “not X” cannot be proven. This is related to the burden of proof, because one is placing the burden on the refutation, rather than on the proof of the assertion. Remember I don’t have to prove anything, its up to the person making the claims to prove it.

    No, sir, you need to remember that if YOUR goal is to disprove God, you must do so.

    The goal of proof of God is to prove God. If such proof is not forthcoming does not disprove God.

    Our past inability to “prove” that the Earth orbited the Sun does not disprove the fact the Earth orbited the Sun – it merely meant we could not prove it at that time.

    For your position to be correct, you must hold that up until a man proved that the Earth orbited the Sun, the Earth did not orbit the Sun – but that is irrational!

    Thus, equally, your demand regarding the proof of God (or lack of) here is equally as irrational.

    “Books about Harry Potter make lots of statements about how magic plays an important role here on Earth, too.

    Would you accept Harry Potter as a definitive proof of magic?”

    This fails as the christain “proof” of god is the bible, same with some other holy books. The bible like other holy books is full of contradictions.

    I agree.

    Thus, the problem is not God.

    It is the books that men write about God that is the problem.

    “This nonsense.”

    Its not.

    “This is known as a linguistic contradiction – that is, creating a grammatically correct sentence by using – purposefully – two contradicting definitions.”

    This is a logical proof that god cannot be all powerful because god himself, could not create something that limits his power.

    Charles, that is irrational.

    Creating a contradiction as a premise, then apply that contradiction to a subject, then point to the contradiction, then claim it disproves a condition regarding the subject is irrational.

    Example:

    (1) For Charles to exist, he must have be perfectly white and perfectly black

    (2) Being opposite states is a contradiction and cannot exist.

    (3) Therefore Charles cannot exist.

    That’s all you are doing, Charles….

    Linguistic contradiction characterizes a statement which cannot be true based simply on knowledge of the meaning of words:

    The unmarried woman is married to a bachelor; or the pregnant boy.

    Such a statement is said to be analytically false, or false by simple definition.

    By not being able to create something that limits his power, he limits his power. A contradiction, by being all powerfull, also means he has limits to his power and so creates a paradox.

    No, you are simply playing a linguistic contradiction game.

    “Y is omnipotent” means “Y can do X” is true if and only if X is a logically consistent description of a state of affairs.

    But that is not what you are describing. You infuse “X” to be “not Y” – this is no different as the math proof conclusively, logically but irrationally proving “1=2”

    Follow:

    * Step 1: Let a=b.
    * Step 2: Then (a^2)=a*b,
    * Step 3: a^2+a^2=ab+a^2 ,
    * Step 4: 2a^2=ab+a^2 ,
    * Step 5: 2a^2-2ab=ab+a^2-2ab ,
    * Step 6: and 2a^2-2ab=a^2-ab
    * Step 7: This can be written as 2(a^2-ab)=(a^2-ab),
    * Step 8: and canceling the (a^2-ab) from both sides gives 1=2.

    So, where is the irrational statement, Charles???

    When you figure this out, you will find you are doing the same irrational step in your argument.

    “As far as omnipotent – it is merely a test that the Laws of God are immutable. And we have tested this, and found such.”

    Prove there is a god before you claim there is Laws of god.

    Sir, you demanded prove of God’s work as a Proof of God!

    I demonstrated.

    You change your demand.

    “Moving Goalposts”

    God being omnipotent leads to a contradiction which is called the omnipotence paradox.

    Only on those that get confused by linguistic contradictions.

    To get out of the paradox you have to reduce the power of god to that of a powerfull being with limits.

    No, you simply do not start your position and argument with a contradiction.

    That is not true as hell etc is ment to be a creation of god,

    Who says? You? A bunch of guys who wrote a book?

    Your argument is worthless, Charles!

    Charles:

    “A bunch of guys wrote in a book, therefore God must obey what men said about Him, and created Hell. Because Hell therefore exists and created by God, because a book said so, proves God does not exist”.

    What a bunch of crap, Charles!

    its not a human creation it comes from his word.

    The only language God speaks is mathematics.

    Its funny how the word of god contradicts, what god is ment to be.

    No, it’s funny that you demand that the writings of some men was God’s word.

    If you are religious you cannot ignore your holy books.

    Of course you can! They are merely the writings of other men!

    Your whole argument relies on the ignorance of men, and not on any proof (or disprove) of God.

    Have you ever read any of these books.

    All of them.

    Evil is sin against god.

    What “sin” can you do against a God whose laws cannot be broken?
    Answer: not one “sin.”

    If both walk off the same cliff, they both go to hell for comitting suicide. In both the bible and the quran it is only god that judges.

    Your entire argument rests on the written work of men, and not on any premise from a reasoned position.

    Hence, your error and fallacy.

    Evil is sin against god. Not doing what god tells you is a sin.

    If God’s laws are immutable (as already proven with the Law of Gravity and pious men, etc.) how is it possible to sin against God?

    You cannot do but follow the immutable laws of God. Therefore, you cannot sin against God

    But you want to replace that with mere subjective values of men.
    And that is YOUR error, not God’s.

    Sinners burn in the lake of fire. The bible calls gods law the absolute moral standard.

    Try arguing your position without having to reference the same error you repeat, over and over again.

    \

    God has his own laws, everything else be damned.

    No.

    God has his own Laws, and that is all there is.

    “Thus, evil CANNOT exist in God’s eye as NOTHING can contradict the Law of the Universe.”

    Evil does exist in god eye if you have read the bible or the quran.

    But we are NOT debating the Bible or the Qur’an.

    We are debating GOD.

    But I guess you are a greater authority and can tell us what god thinks.

    Yep, I am a greater authority as I am learned – because I understand the Laws of the Universe being immutable.

    There is no definition of god that does not lead to contradictions.

    I have provided such a definition and proof, and it does not lead to contradiction.

    There is none, I used the bible and the quran definition and they are contradictory.

    Thus, you have merely proven that those definitions are in error. Good job – some of us knew that a long time ago.

    Lets hear your proof, you define your god. Remember I don’t have to prove anything or even have to give a definition of a god.

    Nope, you don’t have to do anything to prove God.
    But you have to do something to disprove God.

  40. Black Flag says:

    Charles,
    Before one applies a proof, you will need accept the following:

    (1) The Universe is perfectly consistent in its application of Universal Laws.
    (2) A definition of “God” = “First Cause”
    (3) Godel’s Theory of Incompleteness is accepted.

  41. Black Order says:

    Flag,

    I’m gonna kind of stray from the debates here and pick your brain/AI program for a minute. Forgive me for getting bored with and distracting you from the semantics and logic of proof/no proof of “God”…

    Black Order – “Personally, I would define god as whoever or whatever created the beginning(not necessarily the universe).”

    Black Flag – “(2) A definition of “God” = “First Cause””

    Black Order – Our definitions of “God” are essentially the same, although I kinda like yours better as it is more accurate. Mine is more assuming by using the word “creator”.

    The first commandment in the bible says that “he” is “…the beginning and the end…”, which is also quite similar to ours, but differs as it also uses the words “…and the end…”.

    This makes me wonder…

    What if there is no beginning, no first? What if the beginning IS the end, that there is some sort of time loop phenomenon that we are thus far completely ignorant of, that is beyond simple human knowledge and/or perception?

    There is a lot of suggestive evidence(too much to mention right now) that early human civilization was visited and influenced by extra terrestrials.

    I’m inclined to think that a superior species knows a bit more about “the beginning/first cause”, and was trying to explain it to the early civilization in an overly simplified manner much like you would have to try to explain quantum physics to a three year old.

    I’m also inclined to think that we humans are a genetics experiment “made in the image and likeness of” E.T.’s.

    ..and when they tried to explain all of this, early man just got confused and misinterpreted it, tried to pass it on as best that they could via the bible and other holy books, etc…

    I’m no theologists, but I’m inclined to think as such because, well…it just fits, like a missing chapter so to speak.

    Maybe Eve was LITERALLY made from Adam’s rib.

    Maybe Ezekiel was indeed trying to describe a UFO.

    Maybe that’s why it was so important to document who begot who in the book of Genesis.

    Maybe that’s why our strength, intellect, physiology, psychic abilities, nature/behavior, social structure, etc… are all consistent with something of an ape/alien hybrid.

    I could go on, but I think you get the point(of course).

    What say you?

  42. Black Flag says:

    Black Order,

    Black Flag – “(2) A definition of “God” = “First Cause””

    Black Order – Our definitions of “God” are essentially the same, although I kinda like yours better as it is more accurate. Mine is more assuming by using the word “creator”.

    It is essentially the same; I blatantly copy St. Thomas Aquinas’ here. I kinda liked how well he put it.

    What if there is no beginning, no first? What if the beginning IS the end, that there is some sort of time loop phenomenon that we are thus far completely ignorant of, that is beyond simple human knowledge and/or perception?

    It is conjuncture, and as Hawking has said “There is nothing necessary for the Universe to behave in this way, though it is possible

    There is a lot of suggestive evidence(too much to mention right now) that early human civilization was visited and influenced by extra terrestrials.

    It is an interesting hypothesis with lots of circumstantial evidence, I agree.

    What say you?

    I say, good sir, this book would very much interest you (as it did me!)

    The 12th Planet
    Zecharia Sitchin
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin

  43. Black Order says:

    BF – “It is essentially the same; I blatantly copy St. Thomas Aquinas’ here. I kinda liked how well he put it.”

    BO – Indeed, he defines it well. I’ll have to look up St. Thomas Aquinas’ to see what else he states so well.

    BF – “It is conjuncture, and as Hawking has said “There is nothing necessary for the Universe to behave in this way, though it is possible”

    BO – Just because it is beyond our current understanding, doesn’t mean it isn’t so. Humans are just insignificant ignorant babies in this great big complex universe. Of course it’s possible.

    (The 12th Planet
    Zecharia Sitchin)

    I’m unfamiliar with the book, but familiar with the story of the Sumerians, Anunnaki, and planet Nibiru as there is stuff all over the net about it. Maybe I’ll look up “The 12th Planet” next time I visit the library.

    BF – “It is an interesting hypothesis with lots of circumstantial evidence, I agree.”

    BO – There is a mountain of evidence to support said hypothesis. SOMETHING was going on. We may never know exactly what, but it sure is interesting and even fun to consider, and it makes more sense to me than mainstream beliefs.

    BTW, while we’re on the subject, …I was watching History Channel a couple of weeks ago when I saw the most interesting theory to date about the purpose of the Great Pyramids…

    An engineer by the name of “Chris Dunn” explained how they could have been used as an interstellar communication device of sorts. Apparently, it worked like a giant battery when filled with the proper substances via the network of small tunnels/shafts. The energy created somehow transmitted a microwave into space.

  44. Charles says:

    “Sorry, crappy editing AGAIN!

    Please use this post:

    Charles,

    These are the attributes for god assigned by the bible etc. You could call it

    bible/quran based.

    But we are NOT debating the Bible or Qur’an – you said you are debating the existence of

    God.

    Are you claiming the ONLY definitions of God comes from the Bible????

    All attributes for god are given in each holy book for each religion

    Again, you are confused in your own question.

    You said you were debating an existence of God.

    Now you -midstream- you are debating the existence of a God defined by some books you pull

    off the shelf.

    …and that is my core point…

    Start with a self-consistent definition of God and see if that works….

    Do NOT start with a self-contradictory definition of God, and be proud of yourself that you

    found contradictions!

    and all attributes assigned to to god create contradictions.”

    All attributes applied to something that cannot be proven to exists become contradictions.

    If I say there is a being we cannot see (and I mean there is no way we can find this being

    by any means known), but exists, I create a contradiction. How can I maintain that a being

    exists and is a part of our reality when there is no way it can be seen (and I mean there is

    no way we can find this being by any means known). Its an imposible contradiction because

    you cannot say a being exists but exists ownly with the properties of a being that is no

    different from something that does not exist. You would have to prove existence of the

    being in some way, but the attributes given here would make it impossible. How do

    you find something that cannot be found? The only way to prove this being is if the effects of his existence could be experienced in our reallity but then that would contradict the attributes applied here.

    “You cannot assign ALL attributes to one thing!”

    A being can have more than one attribute, there is no logical problem with this.

    “How can you assign the attribute of “really big” and “really small” to the same thing?”

    Thats not what I am doing.

    “How can you assign the attribute of “totally white” and “totally black” to the same thing?”

    Not true.

    “It is self-evident that ALL attributes cannot be assigned to one thing!”

    Its not self-evident. Each attribute on its own, given by the bible or quran create a contradiction.

    “Your attempt to do so, in a fallacious attempt to disprove this entity, makes YOU the

    contradiction, not the entity.

    Logically gods existence creates contradictions.

    False.”

    Then how can a being that cannot be proven to exist, then be taken to exist? This is a contradiction without proof of a god.

    “It is your starting premise that is in error.

    One contradiction is free will.

    The argument can be stated as follows:

    1) If a being exists, then it must have some active tendency.
    2) If a being has some active tendency, then it has some power to resist its creator.

    3) If a being has the power to resist its creator, then the creator does not have

    absolute power.

    Your argument @ (3) fails.

    You have the power to resist gravity. Gravity, however, remains absolute and immutable.

    Faulty reasoning. Because there are rules to are existence does not imply a god.”

    No if I have the power to resist gravity, gravity is not all powerfull over me. Conclusion gravity is not anyways all powerfull. You could argument gravity is all powerfull in black holes, but then gravity is only all powerful sometimes. The faulty reasoning is yours. For a god that is, this means omnipotence has to have limits and god cannot be all powerfull all the time. For god or a being to be able to do anything the being must be omnipotence one time and non-omnipotence at other times. For god to create a stone that he cannot lift, a god that has omnipotence can create the stone and then remove his omnipotence so he cannot lift it. The creation of a stone which the omnipotent being cannot lift would be an impossibility. The omnipotent being cannot create such a stone, but nevertheless retains its omnipotence. However, a reduction of ones’ own power is possible for non-omnipotent beings, so one would have the paradoxical situation that non-omnipotent beings can do something which an essentially omnipotent being can not accomplish. For example I can make a boat that is to heavy for me to lift.

    “Whoa!
    You are the one who provided your definition of requirement.
    You demanded universality as proof of God.
    I provided it.
    Now you claim that is insufficient.
    You are using the fallacy of “Moving Goal Posts””

    All I ask is a proof of god, I don’t care what it is. If you can I would be a very happy man, noone has created a proof of god in all of human history. If you can create a proof you would be the greatest human ever to live.

    ” “There are places in the universe where the rules seem to break down. Lookup black holes, gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity.”

    No, sir. You are suffering from ignorance in your understanding of physics.

    Black holes are a direct consequence of the Law of Gravity.
    Gravitational singularity is a direct consequence of the Law of Gravity.
    Time is a direct consequence of the Law of Gravity.”

    Some theories, such as the theory of Loop quantum gravity suggest that singularities may not exist. The idea is that due to quantum gravity effects, there is a minimum distance beyond which the force of gravity no longer continues to increase as the distance between the masses become shorter.

    Some theories, like the general theory of relativity predict black holes and their gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity.

    Both cannot be right.

    “You are suffering from ignorance in your understanding of physics.”

    The problem is that physics itself cannot explain gravity totally or what happens in a black hole.

    “No where is there a break down of the Laws of the Universe”

    The universe is what it is, it requires no laws to govern it. Humans create laws/rules to explain the universe that does not imply the universe itself is governed by laws/rules. The universe could be existing in this state for a time, we don’t know if it will change but we know that the rules we know came into existence just after the big bang.

    “There is a human ignorance of the Laws of the Universe. Do not blame God for this ignorance.””

    Noone knows if there is “Laws of the Universe”, the universe could change, nothing to rule that out. The universe is what it is and no human being understands anything other than that. We can create rules or laws for what we understand but the universe itself is what it is. For all we know the universe, itself could be governed by different rules elsewhere and we just happen to live in an area that is just right for us to exist.
    . source:- http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19429-laws-of-physics-may-change-across-the-universe.html

    “The failure is not the Law of Nature, but our ignorance in our understanding – or as you say

    “belief”.”

    “Not even close to true.”
    But still its correct.

    Charles, “not close to true” means it is “not correct”, no matter how much you preach your

    error.

    “It could be, you haven’t looked hard enough, or ignored evidence.””

    Argument from ignorance… informal fallacy.

    False application of this fallacy.”

    Because you have not provided sufficient argument to prove your point does NOT make your

    point true, Charles.”

    Argument from ignorance in religion is where you expect others to prove there is not a god. The requirement for accepting there is a god is proof of one.

    “The existence of god is not obviously “true”, god cannot be seen everywhere.

    Your declaration is without merit.

    Case of proof against your declaration.”

    It stands becuase if the existence of god was obviously true there would be a proof of god that everyone could accept. There is no proof of god so the statement stands on its own merit. If you want it to be disproven you have to provide a proof of god. Remember if god could be seem everywhere, his existence would be in no doubt and any contradictions to his existence would seem foolish.

    ““The existence of an atom is obviously not true, since you cannot “see” it everywhere”

    However, atoms exist – therefore, your claim is false.”

    And yet you are made up of atoms and I can see you. Epic fail.

    “Same circumstance by substitution of God in place of atom, thus, your statement is false as

    well.

    So god is not an obvious truth that cannot be proven.”

    Faulty reasoning.

    “God can be proven – easily – but requires an non-contradictory definition, which you have

    not provided.”

    Lets here it then…

    ““If I define an object to be both -at the same time- Pure Black and Pure White – and

    then subject such a definition to tests of contradiction – and then claim !Lo! it is in

    contradiction – you would complain I am merely playing irrational games.””

    Your yourself have given god the attribute of omnipotence, this in itself creates contradictions. There are a family of omnipotence paradox’s that most be overcome to address the question of whether the existence of an omnipotent entity is logically possible.

    “I don’t have to falsify any claim god exists, its up to the person making the claim to

    prove it.

    Not true. The onus is not exclusive on one or another.”

    You commit argument from ignorance… informal fallacy. Burden of proof is often asymmetrical, if you claim god exists its your problem proving it. Source:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

    “The hypothesis of God can sit unmolested by your inability to disprove it.

    But since I can prove the definition of God I have provided I have proven the existence of

    God.”

    You can’t.

    “If they can’t prove the statement, is is logical to just rejected it off-hand as a

    unfounded claim.”

    “You have no justified cause to do so, and it is NOT logical to do so.”

    No proof, no reason to accept as true.

    “The best you can claim is “it is not proven nor disproven, and thus sits in state of Unknown or Conjecture”” Nope I say its not proven, the reason for this is simple, the person who made the claim could not prove it. There is no requirement to disprove the claim by anyone.

    If no proof is given, I can dismiss out of hand.

    “Proof is given within a definition. You cannot dismiss out of hand.”

    And any definition of god like omnipotence leads to contradictions, noone has overcome them to date. People have tried but all atempts have failed.

    ” The burden of proof remains on the person claiming there is a god.

    No such burden exists.

    The onus is upon you to disprove God as much as there is an onus on proof.”

    No this “is” argument from ignorance you cannot shift the burden of proof to me, its your claim and its up to you to prove it.

    “Until one or the other side completes, the question remain moot.”

    You commit argument from ignorance.

    “If someone gives attributes for god and they are contradictory, then the statement has

    been falsified in theory. The statement is rejected as false, reductio ad absurdum as god

    attributes lead to impossible self-contradiction.

    Correct. Their definition of God is contradictory – but this does not disprove God.”

    The problem is all common definitions of god are contrdictory, you are left with rewriting what god “is” to try to make it possible for him to exist.

    “It points to an error of definition, not of God.

    “You have only proven that you still have found nothing – and that is not a proof.”

    I don’t have to prove anything, again its up to the person making the claim.

    And upon you to disprove – otherwise the hypothesis is moot”

    You commit argument from ignorance.

    ” “In math, a proof is NOT simply running a formula over and over again with different

    numbers in the variables as a “proof”. It is NEVER considered a proof because no one can run

    ALL numbers – and thus, no one can PROVE that there isn’t some number that breaks the

    formula.”

    Argument from ignorance.

    Obviously, you have little mathematics understanding either.”

    I don’t have to “prove” anything, the burden of proof is on the person making the claims.

    “Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical

    arguments. That is, a proof must demonstrate that a statement is true in all cases, without

    a single exception. An unproven proposition that is believed to be true is known as a

    conjecture.”

    A proof can be anything, its not just deductive reasoning. If something exists, it exists.

    “Undecidable statements

    A statement that is neither provable nor disprovable from a set of axioms is called

    undecidable (from those axioms). One example is the parallel postulate, which is neither

    provable nor refutable from the remaining axioms of Euclidean geometry.

    Mathematicians have shown there are many statements that are neither provable nor

    disprovable in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (ZFC), the standard

    system of set theory in mathematics (assuming that ZFC is consistent); see list of

    statements undecidable in ZFC.

    Gödel’s (first) incompleteness theorem shows that many axiom systems of mathematical

    interest will have undecidable statements.”

    “A proof MUST stand alone in totality by logic and reason.”

    But the problem is the person making the claim is the one that has to create the proof,

    not me.

    To prove the existence of God, you are correct. They must do the problem.

    But for you to DISPROVE the existence of God, you must do the problem.

    You NOT doing the problem does not disprove God.”

    You commit argument from ignorance, I explained why.

    “If they can’t I can reject the statement as unfound, i.e., statement with no proof.

    “No, you claim it to be conjecture”

    There is no logical proof of god and no objective evidence. A statement, “there is a god”, is unfounded.

    Meaning of unfounded being, not based on fact.

    ““Because you cannot offer a falsifiability, all you can say is “we cannot say, one way

    or the other”.””

    The fallacy of argument from ignorance (sometimes known as demanding negative proof) is

    a fallacy of asserting that a claim is true as long as it has not been refuted.

    Charles, as you continue to demonstrate, you do not understand my post.

    I have NEVER claimed that the failure of you to disprove God, PROVED God.”

    In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof. There is no requirement for me to prove anything, by saying I have to prove god does not exist, shifts the burden of proof towards me. Now you can say that noone can prove that there “could not” be a god, instead of having to prove one exists. This gives you a better position than you rightfully should have to argue for a god. You are slanting the debate unfairly in your favor, while avoiding the problems with having to prove god. With this accepted you could say that I am being unreasonable for not accepting that possibility and thus because of this not accepting your “right” proof of god. There is no logical problems with me expecting a proof from you for god, logically there are “no” requirements on me to provide anything. You say god exists, in just next post prove it.

    Godel’s Theory of Incompleteness, I will kill this right away. This is a good try at least.

    The implication of the proof is that logic is not sufficient to account for all truth but the problem here is you yourself have defind god as omnipotent.

    The problem with applying Godel’s theorem is that if you leave god outside of Godel’s theorem you have not accepted it.

    Therefore, according to Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, you have created a god who can never understand himself and what he his created. How can god create something he cannot fully understand? Thus rendering the idea of an omnipotent being scientifically impossible.

  45. Black Flag says:

    Black Order,

    Pyramids – Sitchen goes into detail about them as well.

    What we do know, for a fact, is it is NOT a tomb for Pharaohs.

  46. Black Flag says:

    Charles
    Chopping up the long replies into smaller sections:

    All attributes applied to something that cannot be proven to exists become contradictions.

    Fallacy: Begging the Question
    Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true

    You pre-conclude that God cannot be proven, and then premise that since “something” cannot be proven, any attempt is a contradiction.

    If I say there is a being we cannot see (and I mean there is no way we can find this being

    by any means known), but exists, I create a contradiction.

    And my case against you – atoms – still stands.

    You are claiming that atoms did not exist for 99% of human existence because no human knew about them.

    Note:

    Because you have yet to know such a means of discovery is not proof that the item in search does not exist.

    Its an imposible contradiction because

    you cannot say a being exists but exists ownly with the properties of a being that is no

    different from something that does not exist.

    Your claim here, reworded:

    If you do not know something exists, it does not exist.

    When you read your claim here, laid out, you will see how ridiculous your statement is.

    You would have to prove existence of the

    being in some way, but the attributes given here would make it impossible.

    I agree, by creating contradictions within your premise, any proof is impossible.

    How do you find something that cannot be found?

    Difficult, yes – not impossible.

    Example: How do we know that virtual particles exist as required by Quantum mechanics?

    These particles appear and disappear – within an area where there is no energy – faster than anything in the Universe can measure them.

    We find these particles – not by direct measure – but by their influence on the matter surrounding them – they cause adjacent matter to “vibrate”.

    Just because something cannot be seen does not mean it does not exist.

    The only way to prove this being is if the effects of his existence could be experienced in our reallity but then that would contradict the attributes applied here.

    But you are experience the effects in your experience – called “Laws of Nature” – you simply choose to ignore this in a search for “something else”.

    Here is your ROOT problem:

    Your definition of God (whatever the source) requires a God who exists in contradiction.

    You observe the Universe and find it absolutely never in contradiction.

    You conclude “God cannot exist”.

    You do not understand it is your definition that is in error.

  47. Black Flag says:

    Charles

    “You cannot assign ALL attributes to one thing!”
    A being can have more than one attribute, there is no logical problem with this.

    True, but you assign attributes which contradict one another as part of your premise.

    With no surprise, you find the contradiction you created.

    The problem: you believe finding the contradictions you created disproves anything you assign this attributes to.

    “How can you assign the attribute of “really big” and “really small” to the same thing?”
    Thats not what I am doing.

    Yes, sir you are.
    Please review your “immovable/irresistible” linguistic contradiction attempt.

    Other cases you have attempted:
    “Free will/Omniscient” argument.
    “Omnipotent/Inconsistent” argument.

    Each one of these is a result of you assigning a host of attributes, then building an argument to refute the contradiction you have assigned.

    This is a fallacy akin to “Strawman”.

    Logically gods existence creates contradictions.

    It may be logical, but your argument is irrational.

    It is logical, because the consequence of the logic demonstrates a contradiction.

    It is irrational, because you premise a contradiction in the first place.

    Then how can a being that cannot be proven to exist, then be taken to exist?

    Fallacy: Begging the Question

    You pre-conclude that a being cannot exist.
    Therefore, you state that no argument can exist to prove its existence,
    You then conclude: this being cannot exist.

    Your argument @ (3) fails.
    You have the power to resist gravity. Gravity, however, remains absolute and immutable.
    Faulty reasoning.

    HUH???

    Do you understand what “reasoning” means?
    Do you understand what “faulty” means?

    Are you claiming you cannot jump???

    Because there are rules to are existence does not imply a god.

    You have stated that a God is omnipotent.
    I point to the omnipotent Laws of Nature.

    You then say:
    “Nope, I do not accept THOSE rules – I demand irrational rules to prove God because that is my definition – but if you try to demonstrate those irrational rules, I will point to the contradiction of irrationality to DISPROVE God.”

    Again, begging the question – you start with an irrational definition, find it faulty, and then declare “therefore God does not exist”

    No if I have the power to resist gravity, gravity is not all powerfull over me. Conclusion gravity is not anyways all powerfull. You could argument gravity is all powerfull in black holes, but then gravity is only all powerful sometimes.

    Obviously, you do not understand at all the Law of Gravity, thus grossly misinterpret it to suit your argument.

    Gravity is all powerful over you. It never, ever, never stops applying itself on you.

    For a god that is, this means omnipotence has to have limits and god cannot be all powerfull all the time.

    Your fault is in your definition and understanding – as such any bizarre argument might make sense to you.

    For god or a being to be able to do anything the being must be omnipotence one time and non-omnipotence at other times

    Again, you embed a contradiction.

    (1)God is omnipotent.
    (2)Omnipotent (by your irrational definition) means the ability to act irrational ie: contradict God’s own Laws of Nature
    (3)God does not contradict his own Laws of Nature
    (4)Therefore you conclude, God does not exist.

    The problem, repeatedly, is your irrational definitions.

    . For god to create a stone that he cannot lift, a god that has omnipotence can create the stone and then remove his omnipotence so he cannot lift it.

    Again you repeat your irrational position.
    You continue to use Linguistic Contradictions as if it proves your point.

    “Whoa!
    You are the one who provided your definition of requirement.
    You demanded universality as proof of God.
    I provided it.
    Now you claim that is insufficient.
    You are using the fallacy of “Moving Goal Posts””
    All I ask is a proof of god, I don’t care what it is.

    I gave it:
    Immutable application of the Laws of the Universe everywhere, over all time.

    If you can I would be a very happy man, noone has created a proof of god in all of human history.

    Many have, but many are like you.
    As Churchill said, many men trip right over the truth, pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and continue right along as if nothing happened.

    If you can create a proof you would be the greatest human ever to live.

    Nah, it’s been around for 1,000 years – since 980AD (see above).

    Some theories, such as the theory of Loop quantum gravity suggest that singularities may not exist.

    There are infinite number of theories saying all sorts of things.

    There is no theory that stands that says the Laws of the Universe are inconsistent.

    Some theories, like the general theory of relativity predict black holes and their gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity.
    Both cannot be right.

    But they both can be wrong – and another theory exists that better explains the Laws of Nature. But in all cases, the Laws of Nature are immutable.

    “You are suffering from ignorance in your understanding of physics.”
    The problem is that physics itself cannot explain gravity totally or what happens in a black hole.

    It sure can!

    Just because it might not explain everything right now does not make Physics wrong or incapable.

    “No where is there a break down of the Laws of the Universe”
    The universe is what it is, it requires no laws to govern it.

    HUH???

    The Universe is governed by immutable Laws – called the Laws of the Universe

    Humans create laws/rules to explain the universe that does not imply the universe itself is governed by laws/rules.

    It absolutely demands that the Universe is governed by laws of the Universe

    If there is one thing that is absolutely certain, it is the immutable application of the Laws of the Universe which applies to everything in the Universe … there are NO EXCEPTIONS.

    The universe could be existing in this state for a time, we don’t know if it will change but we know that the rules we know came into existence just after the big bang.

    (1) We do not know all the rules – we just know there are rules and they are immutable
    (2) The Big Bang is a theory – and has been shown to be faulty or incomplete.
    (3) We know the Universe has been in this state for some time (ie: “could” does not exist in this context).
    (4) We do know it changes – we observe it. But we also know the Laws governing these changes do not change.

    “There is a human ignorance of the Laws of the Universe. Do not blame God for this ignorance.””
    Noone knows if there is “Laws of the Universe”, the universe could change, nothing to rule that out.

    The Universe CHANGES.
    The Laws of the Universe DO NOT CHANGE.

    If you are struggling here, then any debate with you about God can only be irrational.

    If such a proof of God is delivered to you, you will immediately ignore it based on your irrational understanding of the Universe – allowing you to claim that the proof is faulty and God does not exist.

    By your own misunderstanding of the Universe, you exclude everything and anything rational.

    Thus, you claim consistency, unless it disagrees with you, then you claim that which is immutable is not immutable.

    You are a Nihilist – nothing is known, therefore nothing is knowable.

    (…knowledge is not possible or that contrary to our belief, some aspect of reality does not exist as such…)

  48. Charles says:

    Charles,
    Before one applies a proof, you will need accept the following:

    (1) The Universe is perfectly consistent in its application of Universal Laws.

    This is debatable. See the source above that the laws of physics could change across the

    universe. new scientist. For arguements sake I will accept, I want to see what happens.

    (2) A definition of “God” = “First Cause”

    God dictionary of philosophy which defines god as being the first cause or what caused the

    creation of our universe.

    This also leads to contradictions. If the universe is created by god, it begs the question

    what created god and becomes a pain. If you say that god is the first cause and nothing is

    needed to create god or god existed eternally. Then if we accept that something can just

    exist in any of these ways, then using Ockham’s razor. It is logical to say if god can just

    exist without a creater, then why not the universe as well. The reduction then just leaves

    the universe coming into existence by itself or it existed eternally. Adding a god does not

    asnswer the problem of why something can just exist. The question applies equally to god and

    the universe. If god is why the universe exists, then why does god just exist? Given this

    god we have added does not fix the original probelm, it is simpler just to return to, “Why

    does the universe exist?”

    (3) Godel’s Theory of Incompleteness is accepted.

    The incompleteness theorem.

    A formal system is either incomplete, or inconsistent.

    There are three main parts to this demonstration:

    * If a system can represent integers, then it can represent mathematical statements
    * Provability in a such a formal system can be represented in that system
    * It is possible for an expression to describe its own construction, which is

    interpreted as the “This statement” phrase.

    For example we cannot create a proof within logic for why the universe exists, we cannot

    explain why. We know under logic that the reason for universe existing should be provable,

    after all we can infer exist within it but under logic we cannot prove that it. Part of a

    logical proof of way it exists, would be an understanding of how it exists. All we know is

    that we must exist or we would not be here to ask why, we infer. In the formal system

    provability can be represented for the universe but we cannot explain why and cannot create

    a proof. It is true the universe exists but the reason for its existence cannot be proven

    or disproven. I accept the existence of the universe because I have proof. I believe in

    the universe even when I cannot explain why it exists.

    This is the same position as the statement, “There is a god” but with one difference,

    provability under the formal system cannot be represented. I cannot use explicit statements

    to explain god but I can with the universe. The difference between god and the universe, is

    I can infer the universe exists.

    The whole concept of explanation is completely outside the bounds of Gödel, it only applies

    to proofs. It should be noted that it is possible to verify or falsify whole theories, it

    is not possible to verify or falsify individual statements. Almost any particular statements

    can be saved, given sufficiently radical modifications of the containing theory. Thats why

    I cannot accept just a statement that there is a god. Some proof is required.

    Even so say I accept that the incompleteness theorem applied to the existence of god for

    arguments sake.

    Whatever the capabilities of my mind are, I would be subject to my own version Gödel

    sentence. For example, “I cannot believe this sentence” is true, yet for me I cannot believe

    it, therefore my own mind is incomplete with respect to the truth. However, anyone else may

    see that it is true, therefore, by mine own argument, anyone else’s mind is superior to my

    own.

    This would be true of gods mind as well it implies two things are true for god.
    1) There are limits to what god can know.
    2) Some being other than god can know something god cannot himself know.

    Thus God cannot have omniscence, he cannot know everythig infinitely, if he does he breaks

    the second theorem. “If a formal system can prove its own completeness, then it is

    inconsistent.” He can use another system but it would be still true that god would be

    subject to his own Gödel sentence and this new system would be incomplete as well or it

    would become inconsistant.

    It gets worse, the question becomes is god powerful enough to create something that He

    Himself cannot understand? If yes, then he is not all-knowing. If no, then he is not all-

    powerful.

    Does Gödel really say that you can’t describe the physics of reality mathematically? No.

    Logic just cannot give a complete picture, but we cannot say because of the limits of logic

    god could exist. If we do, we are arguing that god exists where we lack understanding. I

    have heard people calling this the god of the gaps arguement.

    Omnipotent
    “If given the axioms of Riemannian geometry, can an omnipotent being create a triangle whose

    angles do not add up to more than 180 degrees?” The real question is whether or not an

    omnipotent being would have the ability to evade the consequences which follow logically

    from a system of axioms that the being created. God creates a “Universe perfectly

    consistent in its application of Universal Laws.”, it seems logical to me that god would

    need to fully understand what he was doing to evade the consequences. Under this example he

    may be limiting his power by his own free will but god still has his omnipotence.

    If God changed his mind or had to breaked your universal laws (1), that can ONLY mean that

    he did not know the future — that some event or circumstance altered his knowledge and

    caused him to make changes to the laws but this would be impossible if (1) cannot change.

    If God is omniscient (knows all things), then he cannot change his mind, for there could be

    no unknown circumstance or event. (1) implies that god is omniscient if the universal laws

    are not to change so that the universe is perfectly consistent in its application of the

    Universal Laws. If not small changes would mean the universal laws where not univerally

    applied.

    However, on all understandings of omnipotence, it is generally held that a deity is able to

    intervene in the world by superseding the laws of physics, since they are not part of its

    nature, but the principles on which it has created the physical world. This would contradict

    (1) if so required, changes in one small part of the universe would mean the universe could

    not be perfectly consistent in its application of Universal Laws. Large changes that affect

    the whole universe would change the universe totally but not break (1) as the universe could

    still be perfectly consistent in its application of the new Universal Laws but this would

    become a different universe. Given a god cannot know everything this maybe will be required,

    we should see any proof of this effect happening and could infer god exists. Omnipotence

    cannot exist with omniscience. There has never been an example of this happening. God is

    made to give up some of his power so (1) can remain true, (1) is not true if god can act.

    If a god cannot change the laws of the universe he cannot claim omnipotence but he would also require omnipotence to create the laws of the universe as well. Example a deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do to create the universe. But anyway wiki gives 6 different positions for omnipotence.

  49. Charles says:

    Forgive any errors with my post, I am very tired atm.

  50. Black Flag says:

    Charles

    For all we know the universe, itself could be governed by different rules elsewhere and we just happen to live in an area that is just right for us to exist.

    You appear to get your education from news headlines.

    ….extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence…

    And, of course, you haven’t followed the overwhelming evidence and understanding that offers a consistent explanation for the small delta – all maintaining the absolute IMMUTABLE Laws of Nature.

    Argument from ignorance in religion is where you expect others to prove there is not a god.

    I care not one wit what some other person used as an argument with you.

    Do not apply their arguments, nor possible fallacy to me. Doing so, is a fallacy of yours.

    I do NOT expect you to disprove God.
    I DO expect you – if you are entering a debate about God – to provide a self-consistent definition of God.

    If you do NOT want to provide this, what the heck are you doing in this debate?

    It stands becuase if the existence of god was obviously true there would be a proof of god that everyone could accept.


    “It stands because if the existence of atoms was obviously true, there would be a proof of atoms that everyone would have accepted…. but since most of humanity was oblivious to the existence of atoms, atoms did not come into existence until 1789 when the first empirical evidence of atoms was found. ”

    Only after 1789, did atoms exist”

    Clearly, your argument here applied to the proof of God is equally as faulty as if it was applied to atoms.

    Remember if god could be seem everywhere, his existence would be in no doubt and any contradictions to his existence would seem foolish.

    Yet you pound your head repeatedly against the immutable wall of the Laws of Nature – but it makes no impact on you.

    The “doubt” of God is yours and held by you.

    If you refuse to see God, it is not the fault of God.

    And yet you are made up of atoms and I can see you. Epic fail.

    But you do not see the atoms, therefore they do not exist <- this is your argument.
    You are made up of atoms, and I see you, therefore atoms exist <- this is my argument.

    You do not see God, therefore God does not exist <- this is your argument
    I see the Laws of Nature, immutable, everywhere and I see that, therefore God exists <- this is part of my argument.

    “Same circumstance by substitution of God in place of atom, thus, your statement is false as
    well.
    So god is not an obvious truth that cannot be proven.”
    Faulty reasoning.

    Based on what? Your irrational declaration?

    ““If I define an object to be both -at the same time- Pure Black and Pure White – and
    then subject such a definition to tests of contradiction – and then claim !Lo! it is in
    contradiction – you would complain I am merely playing irrational games.””
    Your yourself have given god the attribute of omnipotence, this in itself creates contradictions.

    No, it does not.

    The problem solely exists with your irrational definition of omnipotent – that is, your definition includes contradictions.

    Thus the fault is not any proof – it is the fault of your definition.

    There are a family of omnipotence paradox’s that most be overcome to address the question of whether the existence of an omnipotent entity is logically possible.

    Logic cannot provide anything to you if you hold irrational definitions.

    “I don’t have to falsify any claim god exists, its up to the person making the claim to
    prove it.
    Not true. The onus is not exclusive on one or another.”
    You commit argument from ignorance… informal fallacy. Burden of proof is often asymmetrical, if you claim god exists its your problem proving it.

    If you claim God does NOT exist, it is YOUR problem to prove it.

    “The hypothesis of God can sit unmolested by your inability to disprove it.
    But since I can prove the definition of God I have provided I have proven the existence of
    God.”
    You can’t.

    Already done – thus did

    “If they can’t prove the statement, is is logical to just rejected it off-hand as a
    unfounded claim.”
    “You have no justified cause to do so, and it is NOT logical to do so.”
    No proof, no reason to accept as true.

    Since your definition depends on contradiction, it is irrational to prove it to you.

    And any definition of god like omnipotence leads to contradictions

    It only does so because you hold irrational definition of omnipotent

    Correct. Their definition of God is contradictory – but this does not disprove God.”
    The problem is all common definitions of god are contrdictory, you are left with rewriting what god “is” to try to make it possible for him to exist.

    Correct!

    If you start with an irrational definition, the task is to redefine until it becomes rational.

    Thus, is science. When the hypothesis is shown to be in error, one changes the hypothesis to correct the error, and reapply reason once again as a test. Repeat as necessary.

    You merely give up and abandon your search. With no surprise, you find nothing.

    Thus, I repeat:
    “It points to an error of definition, not of God”

    But the problem is the person making the claim is the one that has to create the proof,
    not me
    To prove the existence of God, you are correct. They must do the problem.
    But for you to DISPROVE the existence of God, you must do the problem.
    You NOT doing the problem does not disprove God.”
    You commit argument from ignorance, I explained why.

    Your declaration is in error.

    If you wish to DISPROVE God, you must do the work.

    Your refusal – but maintenance of the claim of the disprovablity of God – is your argument from ignorance.

    Their inability (or lack of effort) to prove God does not disprove God. If you claim such, you are in fallacy.

    “If they can’t I can reject the statement as unfound, i.e., statement with no proof.
    “No, you claim it to be conjecture”
    There is no logical proof of god and no objective evidence. A statement, “there is a god”, is unfounded.

    If some have not provided you a rational proof, then your claim of “unfounded” is accurate.

    But “unfounded” is not the same as “not existent”.

    Meaning of unfounded being, not based on fact.

    In the context in a dialogue in reasoning, it means:
    “not yet established”

    “I have NEVER claimed that the failure of you to disprove God, PROVED God.”

    In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

    So what? This is not the case here.

    No shift has taken place. I have never demanded that your failure or lack of effort to disprove God has proven God!

    However, you have claimed the non-existence of God – and therefore have burdened yourself with the onus of proof of such a claim.

    There is no requirement for me to prove anything, by saying I have to prove god does not exist, shifts the burden of proof towards me.

    What mental tornado!

    By me saying “You do not have to prove God” means to you that I have shifted the proof of God to you!!!

    Gasp!

    The depths of irrationality you reach is staggering.

    Please understand the difference between you saying:
    “I see no proof of God”

    and

    “God does not exist”

    You have linked -irrationally- these two statements.

    The former allows you to say “God is conjecture” and that is all.

    The latter, if you claim it, burdens you with a proof.

    You are slanting the debate unfairly in your favor, while avoiding the problems with having to prove god.

    There is no “slant” to truth.

    If you claim there is no God, you must prove it. If you do not, your claim exists as merely a conjecture.

    If others claim there is a God, they must prove it. If they do not, their claim exists as merely a conjecture.

    Do you understand this?

    Godel’s Theory of Incompleteness, I will kill this right away. This is a good try at least.
    The implication of the proof is that logic is not sufficient to account for all truth but the problem here is you yourself have defind god as omnipotent.

    Please do not pretend to argue my point for me so to disprove my point.

    You are wholly incapable of arguing for me on my behalf.

    I did not ask for you to argue my point.

    I insisted that you agree to Godel’s Theory.

    If you do not agree with Godel’s Theory, we have ended our dialogue, as we have no shared degree of reference for any further discussion.

  51. Black Flag says:

    Charles,

    PS: You jumped over my 1=2 section. If you review, you will find it perfectly logical and reasoned – resulting in an irrational conclusion.

    I provided this to demonstrate one of your techniques – I urge you to solve the math problem and resolve it.

    It will clue you into your fallacy.

  52. Black Flag says:

    Charles,

    Forgive any errors with my post, I am very tired atm.

    Of course!

    I will never debate based on errors of presentation – heck, I’d lose that one … badly!

    🙂

  53. Charles says:

    “You do not see God, therefore God does not exist <- this is your argument"

    No it isn't, but for starters prove to me you exist.

    "I see the Laws of Nature, immutable, everywhere and I see that, therefore God exists <- this is part of my argument."

    This statement fails basic logic, lets as we accept that the "Laws of Nature" are "immutable", we cannot then up to the conclusion that god exists. Under logic or just common sense, if you proo
    ve that the laws of nature are immutable all you have proven is the laws of nature are immutable.

    Even so there is some evidence that this may not be the case with the fine structure constant, also known as alpha. Even so it does not prove a god.

  54. Charles says:

    Black Flag I will try to explain a different way.

    Existence…unprovable?

    If we take the universe we live in, we accept as true that the universe is real. All that are senses tells us is that it exists but there is a problem.

    Say that there are two universes, one real but one fake. One really exists but the other is a created copy on something like a Star Trek holodeck, it is fake. To an observer both seem just as real as the other. The problem is that inside both the fake and the real universe one cannot tell the difference. One cannot prove the real one as real and the fake one as fake. We cannot tell, to us both universes must be real if we are real. We make an assumption that what our senses tell us is real is real. We think it exists, so it must exist to us. This is true for the real and the fake universe. We cannot prove the real universe as real or the false one as fake.

    Say if a person was dreaming, that dream would be as real as real life until you wake up. You could only prove that “within” that particular dream or real that you exist.

    Say that you are dreaming, within the dream you try to prove someone exists, you ask all sorts of questions and do all sorts of tests, that someone answers all the questions and passes all these tests within the dream. That person ‘proves’ to you by answering and passing all your tests that they exist, but the problem is that they would still be an imagined part of your dream. You would have to be real as someone must be dreaming and that would be you.

    Which means that we can’t actually prove without any doubt that this life is REAL, that it exists physically the way “I” think it is, and that we’re not all just figments of someone’s (whoever that may be, God or not) dream. Therefore we can’t really prove we are real. So, I can’t prove that I am real either, that I exist physically.

    The only way I can know that I am not just a figment of someone else’s dream is if I wake up and realize that I was the one dreaming. But I still wouldn’t be able to really prove it to someone else, because we get into the same situation again, I could be just a figment of someone else’s imagination/dream.

    If god exists in the dream, he could be the one dreaming I exist and be real but if I wake up then I must have been real and god was just imagined. I still wouldn’t be able to really prove it to someone else, because I could have dreamed I woke up and I could be just a figment of someone else’s imagination/dream.

    In the mind of “every person is an isolated universe containing infinite possibilities, and living is completely subjective to personal relativity.” More too come, but how can you prove god is real if you cannot prove your own existence.

  55. Charles says:

    Godel’s First Incompleteness Theorem. Any adequate axiomatizable theory is incomplete. In particular the sentence “This god is not provable” is true but not provable in the theory. Proof. Given a computably generated set of axioms, let PROVABLE be the set of numbers which encode sentences which are provable from the given axioms.
    Thus for any sentence s,
    (1) is in PROVABLE iff s is provable.
    Since the set of axioms is computably generable,
    so is the set of proofs which use these axioms and
    so is the set of provable theorems and hence
    so is PROVABLE, the set of encodings of provable theorems.
    Since computable implies definable in adequate theories, PROVABLE is definable.
    Let s be the sentence “This god is unprovable”.
    By Tarski, s exists since it is the solution of:
    (2) s iff is not in PROVABLE.
    Thus
    (3) s iff is not in PROVABLE iff s is not provable.
    Now (excluded middle again) s is either true or false.
    If s is false, then by (3), s is provable.
    This is impossible since provable sentences are true.
    Thus s is true.
    Thus by (3), s is not provable.
    Hence s is true but unprovable.
    Note 1. An analysis of the proof shows that the axioms don’t have to be true. It suffices that (a) the system is consistent and (b) it can prove the basic facts needed to do arithmetical computations, e.g., prove that 2+2=4. The latter is needed to encode sequences of numbers and insure that computable sets are definable.
    Note 2. “This god is unprovable” was provably equivalent to the sentence CON:
    “There is no with both and in PROVABLE”.
    CON is the formal statement that the system is consistent.
    Since s was not provable, and since s and CON are equivalent,
    CON is not provable. Thus

  56. Charles says:

    Godel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem. In any consistent axiomatizable theory (axiomatizable means the axioms can be computably generated) which can encode sequences of numbers (and thus the syntactic notions of “formula”, “sentence”, “proof”) the consistency of the system is not provable in the system.

    There is a weak theological parallel in the Problem of Evil:

    God doesn’t exist since an ultimate ruler must be responsible for all things but a perfectly just being wouldn’t be responsible for evil acts.

  57. Charles says:

    Actually this doesn’t prove divine nonexistence: just that certain notions of being “ultimately responsible” (first cause) and being “perfectly just” are inconsistent. Being ultimately responsible is a form of strength like being able to encode sequences of numbers. Being just is like the property of being self-consistent (inconsistency is the sole mathematical evil).

  58. Charles says:

    This god is not provable or this statement is not provable, both I think works.

  59. Lis says:

    Oy.

    I’m just happy to be here. Whatever happens to me after I stop being happy and end up dead, so be it. Whatever was written in centuries gone by, as long as I can still read and ponder it years from now before I’m dust, so be it.

    Right, guys?

  60. Lis says:

    In other words, does it really matter who got us here? Or why? It’s not like we’ll ever know.

    Okay, MAYBE if we have our wishes come true, when we die we’ll find out all the answers. But, seriously, I don’t see that it’s gonna play out that way.

    So, rather than get our panties in a bunch over whether the Quran or the Bible has it right, or whether Buddhists have it right, or whether Darwin had it right (or anyone else, or any other religion), why not just enjoy being here while we’re here, and treat each other well?

    Simple, really. But then, simple doesn’t play well, does it? Everyone loves complexity and down and dirty in-fighting. Makes for more drama, I suppose.

  61. I love complexity! And I love the philosophical arguments. And I love the stunning beauty of Evolution and science. And I despise Organised Religion.

  62. RGB says:

    God could be a woman for all we know? Organised religion, indoctrination of the masses, pisses me off more than anything else about our primitive species.

    Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but for good people to do bad things you need religion.

    I enjoy the island that I live on and apart from good health a roof over my head, food and clothing I need nothing else.

  63. PLEASE says:

    You are such a disrespectful cunt, Jamie
    Get off your high horse and fuck off

  64. That was the most ironic sentence I think I’ve ever read.

  65. PLEASE says:

    Your head looks like a “mutilated” pee pee

  66. I can’t argue with that. That’s very accurate.

  67. PLEASE says:

    You have a mangina.
    Only someone with a mangina would complain as much as you do.

  68. Also true.
    A head like a mutilated nob, and a mangina.

  69. Charlie says:

    This PLEASE person is a right numpty. What’s next?

    PLEASE says:
    *pushes Jamie over* you’re a doody head! hehehHHhehehehe!

  70. I may have a mutilated cock head, and I may have a mangina, but I certainly DO NOT have a doody head.

  71. Charlie says:

    You sure?

  72. YES!!! I’ve checked in the mirror and everything.

  73. please says:

    It’s true he doesn’t have a doody head.
    But in all seriousness, we’re not theists. And yet even we think your anti-religious blogs are too much.
    It’s just too… below the belt. Like if we wrote a blog about how shit your girlfriend is.

  74. My girlfriend is real. She isn’t an abstract concept. I’m not sure you’ve grasped the difference between real offensive language (race/sexuality etc) and questioning the validity and the power of a concept.
    She also isn’t the direct cause of about 2000 years of brutality, murder, torture, and regressive attitudes.

    My anti-religious blogs are not without substance. I reason my arguments out. I didn’t just write “Isn’t religion shit”. I argued why I believe it is a corrupting evil. You are more than welcome to refute my statements, and prove me wrong. That’s fine. When religion ceases to have so much power and influence over the World, in a negative way, I will stop being such a “disrespectful cunt”.

    For example, if I were to say I cut off a bit of the penis of a baby, most people wouldn’t say “I will be respectful about this”, most people would yell at me. Maybe even hit me. But if it is masked by Organised Religion; I am supposed to suddenly say “ooooh, why didn’t you say so!! It’s okay then!!”

    What I refuse to do is be careful not to offend a concept. I have no problem with people, even those who are religious. People however, are wholly independent of organised religion and its institutions and apparent “values”. This is a concept. The concept, I am fully entitled to argue against; especially given that it is a concept I absolutely abhor.

    There are plenty of people who would refer to Progressivism as having a corrupting influence on the World. I consider myself progressive, and those who disagree with the concept I adhere to, are more than welcome to belitte it, degrade it, and argue against it all they want, because the concept is not me. I will defend my belief in that concept and its principles, but it would be ridiculous of me to be offended by it. If someone were to say “Progressivism is shit”, i’d just ignore it, because it has no rationale behind it. If they were to then expand on why it’s shit, with reasoned argument, then i’d try my best to refute the arguments made. I wouldn’t take offence by rational argument, even if its premise is “isn’t…….[insert abstract concept] …..shit”.

    Nevertheless, I find organised religion to be utterly appalling. If this makes me disrespectful (even though i’m not the one condemning believers to an afterlife of painful hell, like they are with me), then great, I wear that badge proudly.

  75. Ash says:

    I really hope no one is going to write a blog about how shit I am…

  76. Geoff says:

    If we ignore the crusades, the oppression of Jews and all the stuff..

    Oh Fuck it. I’m ruling out everything before the 20th century.

    The church IS STILL covering up child abuse. Now if its any other organization we would. Raid the head quarters, and the outposts, and have them sued until they no longer existed while prosecuting anyone who had anything to do with covering up the claims, the performing of the abuse and those who knew about the abuse and failed to do anything.

    but, wait. There’s a dude in the Sky and you take orders from him, so for the most part we’ll let you handle it internally.

  77. It is also masterfully annoying that whoever “PLEASE” is, is too cowardly to tell us who they are.

  78. Zion says:

    Mans antichrist conscience banks religions n governments r judged by God. Important note to the world.
    https://www.facebook.com/notes/zion-omega/mans-antichrist-conscience-bank-of-america-banks-governments-nations-and-religio/535945876420716

  79. Zion says:

    Children of the rebellion of Korah. Jude 1 NKJV

  80. Are you pushing your overly dramatic bitterness on my blog?

  81. Steve says:

    I’ve just read this three and a half year old article and I like most of it. I agree entirely that ‘On the Origin of Species’ is vastly superior in every way to the unpleasant fairy tales contained in the Bible, the Koran and other ‘Holy’ books, scrolls, tablets or magical gold plates (Mormonism) that have popped up around the world or been scribbled down by charlatans or deranged, self appointed prophets over the centuries.

    I would make three points. The first refers to your critic Ahmad Jomaa who helpfully explains that Arabic is so beautiful that its complexity cannot be properly translated into English. I do not read Arabic but this is clearly crap. English is, by far, the most precise and adaptable language spoken by our species. It has a vocabulary that is far greater than any other language and it has (for those fluent in it – which is the minority of those who claim to speak it) the ability to be absolutely precise and to convey any idea or concept. It may not be as poetic sounding as the Romance languages (or possibly Arabic) but any notion or idea written in any other language can be conveyed in English. If English versions of the Koran are lacking the supposedly subtle nuances of the original Arabic (written, rewritten and edited by numerous scribes over some years – as you have said) then this will be because the translations are poor or (more likely) because the Arabic is vague, ambiguous or imprecise. I think you have also pointed out in another article that the original Koran was not written in modern Arabic script anyway as this did not exist in the early seventh century.

    So to my two criticisms of (related) points in the article itself. Firstly, you state that:

    “…but instead, child genital mutilation is entirely legal
    purely because the cult that practices it, has quite a few
    members. No evidence for their logic, just strength in
    numbers. A logical fallacy if ever I saw one.”

    I am not certain whether you are referring to Jews or Muslims here but in the case of Jews this statement is factually wrong. Jews are not a large group (either globally or in the UK) but the enormous influence and power of Jewish or Jewish led organisations, and of Israel, comes from wealth and political power wielded in key areas or politics and business. The acceptance of the circumcision of minors unable to give their own informed consent (which I agree is outrageous and should be prohibited by law) is largely because of this political and economic power. There is also a widespread but idiotic notion that customs that claim a religious justification should have some respect irrespective of whether they are rational or reasonable but I would bet that if the only people practicing male circumcision in the UK were poor Muslims rather than wealthy Jews then there would be far more pressure to ban this obscene practice.

    My second point concerns your reference to two warring religions in relation to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The comment was tongue in cheek but there is an important point to be made here. The conflict in Palestine is not a religious conflict between two Abrahamic faiths. It is a racial/tribal conflict over land. If my maternal grandmother had been Jewish but I was an atheist (or even a Muslim) then I would still be eligible to apply to enter Israel and become a citizen, even if I was born in the USA and my family had lived in America or Europe as far back as could be traced. However if I was an Arab born in Haifa and my family had lived there for as long as anyone knew until we were driven out by fire and sword and terror and I was now living in a disgusting slum of a refugee camp in Lebanon or Egypt then my chances of returning to my own actual home would be nil as far as Israel is concerned.

    Religious sectarianism and hatred is used by some elements on both sides to mobilise support for their group or party (and cynically exploited by the Israelis who effectively created Hamas to divide the Palestinians and deprive them of international support) but it is not the core of the conflict. The struggle is over one racial group (overwhelmingly settlers or the relatively recent descendents of settlers) claiming exclusive ownership and control of land and seeking to expel and dispossess the existing indigenous population. Please do not misrepresent this as a clash between Islam and Judaism.

    Apart from that it’s a good piece. Keep it up.

  82. Peterson says:

    I want to have a logical reasoning about God with you and here is my first question:
    Do you believe the stories you are quoting from the Bible are true or false?

  83. Odari says:

    Jesus and Muhammad are two most influential people, both #1 and #2. Darwin is top 30 or 40.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: