Sunday

Happy Easter

A week early I know, but Happy Easter everyone!

36 comments:

  1. Danny Boy,
    You say you are Highly Evolved Pond Scum. We can agree on one thing at least.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cure Faith,
    You and Danny Boy are cut from the same swamp. Enjoy your common ancestry and bleak future.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Want to provide some evidence as to why Christianity is not a fairytale? Or do you just want to fling mud?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Infidel,
    You guys are hysterical. I was just trying to fit in here with your mockery and insulting tone and I'm the one flinging mud...nice.
    Now that we are improperly introduced, we can begin with the evidence...are you ready?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry, you are right, I DID start the mud flinging contest. Christianity seems so laughable to me now that I forgot I was even being insulting.

    Bring on the evidence!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Let's back up a bit here. Belief in Christianity (Jesus) is dependent on the belief of, or at least acknowledgement of, God's existence. So trying to prove Christianity to someone who doesn't believe in God is somewhat dislocated and futile. Agree so far?

    ReplyDelete
  7. God and Christianity are one and the same here. You need to find evidence of the Christian God from the bible if that's what you want to convince me of. If you don't have any then Christianity is no different than the Easter bunny and I'm justified in saying that.

    Here's a helpful guide.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Fidel,
    First of all, I have plenty of evidence to provide, but how can I trust the evidence will be processed properly by someone who thinks Christianity is no different than the Easter bunny?

    You must be able to concede that these two are very different. You have to at least admit that you think one story "tricked" many millions of people, while the other has remained a harmless, relatively unaffecting child's story, and has yet to compel people to kill others in it's name.

    Can we agree on that?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think Christianity is no different than the Easter bunny BECAUSE of the evidence (or lack of). If you provide evidence, I'll gladly consider it and change my mind accordingly. I'm not looking to confirm my views here, I'm looking for the truth. Please do convince me!

    I'm only saying Christianity and the Easter bunny are the same where evidence is concerned. I agree with you, they have very different impacts.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have a few questions for you.

    Do you think that the Bible depicts any actual events?

    Do you believe that King Herod the Great, and Pontius Pilate are real historical figures?

    Do you consider modern mathematics and physics extremely reliable and trustworthy?

    Do you know of anyone ever living past the age of 150 years?

    Do you know what the statistical probablity of the letters of the alphabet appearing in order is, if randomly generated?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Some of the events depicted in the bible likely did happen.

    King Herod the great and Pontius Pilate were real historical figures.

    Modern Science is the most reliable and trustworthy way of predicting and understanding the universe.

    I have never heard of anyone living past 150 years of age.

    The probability of the letters of the alphabet appearing in order if randomly generated is:
    1 in 6.1561195802071573107966742884002e+36

    ReplyDelete
  12. Did you know that the star of Bethlehem was scientifically proven to be a real astrological event?
    It incorporated modern scientific software and planetary physics to show what the Magi saw in the night sky in the Middle East circa 3 to 2 BC. Do you find this somewhat interesting and perhaps worth investigating?

    I see you used 26^26 for the probability instead of 26! (factorial) but either way we arrive at some very large numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  13. By the looks of things there are many possibilities for the star of Bethlehem. The gospels and historians cannot even agree on when or where Jesus was born, let alone the star, so finding an astrological event that roughly matches the time frame is of little consequence.

    Your probability question was a little ambiguous. I assumed that each letter would be generated out of all 26, so duplicate letters would be possible. Either way, you're right, it's incredibly low odds. What are you getting at with it?

    ReplyDelete
  14. inFidel,

    Try this web site, see what you think.
    For those who trust science, math, astronomy, I found it pretty convincing.

    www.bethlehemstar.net

    As for the exercise in odds and probability, this sets the stage for the unreal odds involved in even the simplest forms of life developing by chance.

    Here's a question: Why would the book of Genesis speak of some people living to 700, 800, and up to 969 years old? Is this proof of a make believe story?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I watched the Bethlehem star DVD .

    Like I said, there's so much leeway in interpretation, finding an astrological event that roughly matches the story is not even surprising let alone significant. There are many possibilities. including this more recent one calculated by actual astronomers. Even if the bible gave exact dates which matched exactly with this event, it would still only show that one event in the bible did happen, and suggest nothing about the validity of the rest of the story.

    To set the stage for life evolving against incredible odds, I'd like to point out the incredibly vast stage on which life did evolve - The universe. I agree, the odds of the alphabet being generated in order are tiny, but if the simulation is run enough times, it stops being unlikely, and starts being probable!

    A book claiming that people lived up to 969 years old is more likely to be make believe given there is no evidence for that having been possible.

    ReplyDelete
  16. A book claiming that people lived up to 969 years old is more likely to be make believe given there is no evidence for that having been possible.
    - - -
    Are you absolutely sure of this? Would you say it was scientifically impossible?

    - - - - - -
    "but if the simulation is run enough times, it stops being unlikely, and starts being probable!"
    - - -
    Good point. Now why would scientists agree that no two snowflakes are ever alike, knowing that the more it snows the more probable it becomes.
    They are conceding that this particular event is beyond any probable reoccurrence. Now we are supposed to defy this rationale and assume that life forms were able to spontaneously occur, develop in increasing complexity, and repeat (reproduce) with more likelihood than a comparitively simple reoccurrence of a duplicate snowflake.

    Do you know how many different elements of just a single cell need to form simultaneously and correctly in order for it to be functional? Now add to that unbelievable improbability that this original "freak" of nature, the cell, just happens to divide itself into two!

    What great faith you have!

    ReplyDelete
  17. There's nothing to suggest we couldn't be genetically modified to live that long. Future scientific advances may allow just that.

    There are no laws prohibiting two identical snowflakes, and scientists do not agree that no two snowflakes can ever be alike. Even, two identical snowflakes were discovered by Nancy Knight in 1988. That's beside the point though. You're making a very common argument stemming from misconception. Life forms likely didn't spontaneously occur, rather, much simpler self replicating molecules were the precursors to life. Natural selection can work on many things, including these simpler self replicating molecules. Ironically, the religion by which you adhere also evolved through the same process, but in this case through natural selection of ideas rather than organisms.

    I'm a computer programmer by trade and quite familiar with Evolutionary algorithms which have been quite successful in creating useful designs. Faith has nothing to do with my understanding of evolution, and understanding everything to do with it. You claim I take on faith what you demonstratively do not understand.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ah, a code monkey! Don't worry, someday your ancestors may evolve into code humans!
    Your familiarity and appreciation of evolutionary algorithms must be key in your demonstrative use of artificial intelligence.

    "Faith has nothing to do with my understanding of evolution."
    - - - -
    Yes it does. How many things have you read about evolution and believed it without even seeing it?

    "Ironically, the religion by which you adhere also evolved through the same process, but in this case through natural selection of ideas rather than organisms."
    - - - - - -
    That's pretty funny. Are you sure you can trust your own thoughts on this as it is equally ironic that your belief in evolution should bring you to the conclusion that your own brain is just an accidental mass of neurons with randomly firing synapses, constantly under development through trial and error.


    "There's nothing to suggest we couldn't be genetically modified to live that long. Future scientific advances may allow just that."
    - - - - - -
    Fair enough. Now why would someone try to write an account of historical nature and risk all credibility by including a 969 year old man in it? Why didn't the early church edit that out?

    "You're making a very common argument stemming from misconception. Life forms likely didn't spontaneously occur,..."
    - - - - - -
    Likely? Shouldn't the misconception be countered with a more definite and authoritative term than "likely didn't occur"? Otherwise, YOUR argument may likely be perceived as a misconception.


    By the way, the snowflake links you provided are hesitant to say without reservation that 2 snowflakes have any reasonable probability of being duplicated. One says that if the ice crystals are small enough (really really small), then maybe.
    Anyway, I would be remiss in not pointing out another example of you putting your faith in something you read but have not seen.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm defining faith as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".
    My belief in evolution rests on both evidence and logical understanding.

    We all believe things without actually seeing them. It's just impractical or impossible to witness most of them. By your interpretation I believe Australia exists based on faith, not on evidence because I have never been there.

    Why not take things a step further and say we cannot even trust what we see or what we think (oh wait, you did). Knowing things with absolute certainty is impossible and irrelevant, and that way of thinking is useless for our purposes.

    I'm also well aware my senses and thought processes can be fooled. I consider my times as a devout Christian to be the most vulnerable, during which I accepted much fiction and rejected many facts.

    It IS "Likely" that life started as simple self replicating molecules. Your misconception was believing that a spontaneously occurring fully formed cell was the only way possible. You are picking on my choice of words instead of the argument. An appropriate choice of words even!

    "why would someone try to write an account of historical nature and risk all credibility by including a 969 year old man in it?"
    Let me get this clear. You are arguing for the validity of the bible based on its lack of credibility? Thats a terrible argument. Admitedly there are thousands of absurd ideas in the bible , but your inability to understand possible motivations to write such fiction in no way makes it more credible. Motivation is irrelevant to the argument anyway considering we have so many shining examples of fiction being accepted as fact (Book of Mormon, Torah, Qur'an, etc). What makes Christianities obvious inaccuracies any more credible than other religions?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm also well aware my senses and thought processes can be fooled. I consider my times as a devout Christian to be the most vulnerable, during which I accepted much fiction and rejected many facts.
    - - - - - -
    Did you go from believer to non believer gradually or quickly? Do you think a different denomination/church may have had a different impact?

    Your misconception was believing that a spontaneously occurring fully formed cell was the only way possible
    - - - - - - -
    Is it a misconception on my part to pick the simplest life form to use as a reference point in exemplifying the unbelievable amount of desireable "accidents" needed for life to even begin?
    Because you move the reference point to the molecular level does not circumvent the enormous amount of preferable circumstances needed in arriving at the outcome...life.


    You are arguing for the validity of the bible based on its lack of credibility?
    - - - - - -
    No, I think the Bible is very credible, with very incredible events. My argument is if I were trying to trick people I wouldn't do it with a 969 year old man in the story.


    What makes Christianities obvious inaccuracies any more credible than other religions?
    - - - -
    Jesus said he was the way, the truth, and the life...AND he rose from the dead. I'll believe Him before anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The evidence against Christianity slowly piled up. It was a gradual process. I don't think a different denomination/church would have made the slightest difference to the outcome. All Religions have allot of the same evidence against them. Even the fact there are many different religions is evidence against any of them being true. Check out Greta Christina's fairly religion impartial 10 reasons why I don't believe in God.

    It was a misconception on your part to pick the simplest life form you know as a starting point. Moving the reference point to the molecular level eliminates your initial argument against Evolution starting with astronomical odds. Without the need for a spontaneously occurring fully formed cell, Simple random changes pruned through natural selection require no sudden jump.

    "the bible is very credible, with very incredible events". What gives these increadible events credibility?

    Nearly all religions claim to be the one true path and claim supernatural events. "Jesus said he was the way, the truth, and the life...AND he rose from the dead". This is what makes your religion just like others. How is the avid Muslim with just as much conviction for their profit any different? What makes your religion right and others wrong? You can't reference scripture on this one, because people of other faiths will do just the same. Anyway, claiming your religion is right because it says so in your religious text is a circular argument!Please do check out Greta's 10 reasons why I don't believe in God. Let me know what you think.

    Thanks for the dialogue.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Even the fact there are many different religions is evidence against any of them being true.
    - - - - - -
    So if we have 5 murder suspects in an investigation, that means nobody did it?


    Moving the reference point to the molecular level eliminates your initial argument against Evolution starting with astronomical odds
    - - - - - -
    No it does not. You are saying that since molecules could move and interact, that evolution leading to a live cell was an inevitable and simple outcome, devoid of astronomical odds.


    the bible is very credible, with very incredible events". What gives these increadible events credibility?
    - - - - - -
    The fact that these events were recorded, passed on, and survived as real accounts to this day. 2,000 years is plenty of time for mere fairy tales to fall by the wayside. When atheists argue that Christianity is based on a bunch of other older religions...well, what happened to those religions? Is there anyone around still following Mithra?


    What makes your religion right and others wrong?
    - - - - -
    Jesus makes Christianity the right (true) religion. The huge effect that Christianity has had, even to this day, is undeniable. This religion was built by countless martyrs who chose death rather than deny their belief. There are also countless saints who lived exemplary lives helping the poor and sick because of Christianity.
    Christianity is unrivaled in this respect.
    Now where can I learn about all the atheist martyrs?


    Please do check out Greta's 10 reasons why I don't believe in God. Let me know what you think.
    - - - - - -
    I think she has put a lot of thinking and effort into her list. I wonder if she will do a top ten list of why she doesn't believe in the Easter Bunny, since these two are equally preposterous...right?

    ReplyDelete
  23. "So if we have 5 murder suspects in an investigation, that means nobody did it?". This is a completely irrelevant analogy.

    Austin Cline's article "Too Many Gods, Too Many Religions: All Can't Be True, But All Can Be False".does a good job of explaining my point and addressing some of yours.

    Where does the jump of impossible odds happen in evolution if not the instantaneous formation of the first living cell?

    Many false religions have recorded events that have been passed on and survived. Many fairy tales have been around much longer than Christianity. Allot of the religions Christianity was based on have been replaced by Christianity, Islam, etc. Why would you expect to see all of their heritage alive and well today? The religions best at surviving beat out weaker religions. See my post "Survival of the fittest, not the factual"Muhammad makes Islam the right (true) religion. The huge effect that Islam has had, even to this day, is undeniable. This religion was built by countless martyrs who chose death rather than deny their belief. There are also countless saints who lived exemplary lives helping the poor and sick because of Islam.

    If you are making the argument that your religion is biggest, then keep in mind the hundreds of individual Christian denominations that deny the others. There has to be a biggest religion even if all of them are false anyway, so Christianity's size is a moot point. Which specific Christian denomination is correct?

    Christianity and Islam can claim martyrs just as they can claim countless murders committed in their name. Atheism isn't responsible for either martyrs or murderers.

    Thanks for reading Greta's post. If you have nothing to say in response to her arguments, I don't know why you bothered though.

    ReplyDelete
  24. So if we have 5 murder suspects in an investigation, that means nobody did it?". This is a completely irrelevant analogy.
    - - - - - -
    That's what you think. Read again what you said-- "Even the fact there are many different religions is evidence against any of them being true."
    You are saying that all of them are false because there are too many. This logic from a computer programmer? Too many religions would indicate a higher likelihood that God has designed humans to seek Him. By the way, how did evolution allow such an anomoly to infiltrate our psychology?


    Which specific Christian denomination is correct?
    - - - - -
    The Catholic church because I saw it written on a napkin somewhere.


    Atheism isn't responsible for either martyrs or murderers.
    - - - - -
    Ha ha. Martyrs...probably not. Murderers...definitely.
    You guys are hysterical. You say that Christians scare everyone with hell and damnation, but yet we are out there in droves killing people to insure that fate for ourselves. That is a good one.


    Muhammad makes Islam the right (true) religion. The huge effect that Islam has had, even to this day, is undeniable. This religion was built by countless martyrs who chose death rather than deny their belief. There are also countless saints who lived exemplary lives helping the poor and sick because of Islam.
    - - - - -
    This is a completely irrelevant analogy.


    Thanks for reading Greta's post. If you have nothing to say in response to her arguments, I don't know why you bothered though.
    - - - - -
    My response to her arguments? Her own "About" page is the best counter argument there is....totally hysterical!

    ReplyDelete
  25. More evidence:

    Why do people say "Wow" when seeing a beautiful sunset, landscape, starry night, etc.
    This has no evolutionary benefit. There is absolutely no reason for a response to beauty in order to survive.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "So if we have 5 murder suspects in an investigation, that means nobody did it?"
    -----
    This is completely irrelevant because:
    1. It assumes someone was murdered. For our argument the existence of God is very much under debate.
    2. The 5 suspects are all for the same investigation. In our case, there are thousands of different religions all claiming theirs is the true path.

    If you prefer not to read and understand Austin Cline's article, I'll try to put it simply:
    Many religions have people utterly convinced of their validity. We both agree that nearly all of these religions are false. If a false religion can convince so many, then all religions could be false. As no one faith provides better evidence than another, the simplest explanation is that all religions false.

    My substitution of Christianity with Islam was to show that your arguments could be made in the same form by someone of a different false religion. I ask again, what evidence do you have that your particular strain of faith is less false than any other?

    "Her own "About" page is the best counter argument there is....totally hysterical!"
    -----
    I think your response could be described as an abusive ad hominem fallacy. What is your response to the arguments, not the character of the person who wrote them?

    "Why do people say "Wow" when seeing a beautiful sunset."
    -----
    One possibility is that wonderment can fuel curiosity. Appreciation of beauty gives us a survival advantage when it leads to understanding and utilization of our environment. It wouldn't matter if I didn't have an explanation though; our lack of understanding is not evidence for God.

    ReplyDelete
  27. For our argument the existence of God is very much under debate.
    - - - - -
    Not really, you still have me convinced that He exists.

    In our case, there are thousands of different religions all claiming theirs is the true path.
    - - - - - - -
    Whether it's 5, 1000, or a million religions, God's existence is not dependent on the number of variations and denominations. In fact, it again shows an inherent human desire (which evolution just can't seem to weed out) to seek God, or a god, or even to go to great lengths to explain Him away as you do on a daily basis.

    ReplyDelete
  28. As no one faith provides better evidence than another....
    - - - - - -
    In their opinion.

    ....the simplest explanation is that all religions false.
    - - - - - -
    The more logical conclusion is that all of them point to a supreme being. There is one God and many religions, some more correct than others. As to which one is most correct is where more thought is best invested. Giving in to atheism usually means just giving up on God because it's too much to think or worry about. Atheism supresses or denies an inner need you can't get rid of. Even this blog is a testament to this great fact. The irony is that your need to disprove God has created a by-product which replaces that which you sought to remove in the first place.
    Yes, you can now count your own religion among the ones you claim are all wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Her own "About" page is the best counter argument there is....totally hysterical!"
    -----
    I think your response could be described as an abusive ad hominem fallacy. What is your response to the arguments, not the character of the person who wrote them?
    - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    My statement was not abusive nor was it fallacious. Ad hominem? Not unless you think her own “About” page was self derogatory or self demeaning in some way. Do you? In that case, any ad hominum attack was self inflicted by Greta herself. My response never mentioned anything about her character.
    My response to her arguments will be and have been addressed sporadically throughout our correspondence.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Appreciation of beauty gives us a survival advantage when it leads to understanding and utilization of our environment
    - - - - - -

    Ha ha!!!… this sounds like what Spock might have said to Kirk after they saw that green alien woman. So this “beauty appreciation” gene was a necessary and inevitable product of evolution for the survival of mankind, but not for any other known animal species?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Infidel,

    Here is a question for you. Would you categorize the origins of life as a simple or complex series of events and circumstances?

    ReplyDelete
  32. "The more logical conclusion is that all of them point to a supreme being."
    ------
    Why is it more logical to explain this with a supreme being when it can already be explained with science?. I recently did a post addressing the choice between explaining something with naturalism vs god, Occam's Chainsaw.Why do you keep arguing against evolution? Even if you proved that the theory isn't sound, it still wouldn't be evidence for God.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Are you kidding me with that first link? From the folks who brought you the gay gene back in the 90's, we now introduce the God gene! Ha ha! Did Greta see that one?

    Why do you keep arguing against evolution?
    - - - - -
    Because I don't think you came from monkeys, even if you do.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Maybe I'm a bit late for the discussion, but there's something that caught my attention:

    Anonymous said:
    How can I trust the evidence will be processed properly by someone who thinks Christianity is no different than the Easter bunny?

    And then he said:
    "For our argument the existence of God is very much under debate."
    - - - - -
    Not really, you still have me convinced that He exists.

    So why does he think himself as the one who is giving evidences to Infidel, if he doesn't accept any of his arguments? Why is he convinced of knowing the truth and doesn't accept the possibility of being wrong, just to analyze objectively Infidel's arguments?

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'd like to say that, I'm neither atheist nor Christian. On any given day, I'm not sure. Some times I feel like I lean on god for the whole life after death thing. Some days I believe in god. Some days I'm an atheist. Some days I believe in reincarnation. Nonetheless, in the spirit of the debate I would like to point out a very simple yet overlooked statement here. A few times the Christian warrior here referred to us and our many religions as our genetics and questioned how evolution can't weed out our "need to search for God" when in all reality, thar is in no way genetic. Before you even ask how I say this, its simple really. When such a vast amount of people believe in God how hard would it be to say there is none? The answer is very easy. You believe in God the way a child believes in the easter bunny or santa. This was dismissed as different or absurd earlier, but it truely isn't thar far off base. When you tell a child of santa, he believes you because he trusts you as you're all he's known. The reason he continues believing is because not many will steer him otherwise. Why? Because he fraternizes with kids his age. Who also. Believe. In. Santa. Soon your child starts to dwindle in his beliefs in santa because some kids start to figure out santa isn't real sooner than others. But maybe you want your kid to beieve for another year or two. So you tell him to ignore those kids.they're not telling the truth.but eventually you have to give up the charade.... but whar if you DIDN'T? What if NOBODY did? Then not very many kids would figure out santa wasn't real. And anyone who did would simply be a liar or an outcast.
    Why would just one kid be right in a sea of santa believers? He would be a social outcast.
    Now substitute santa with Christianity. What argument is there? They're almost identical. Santa has loose historic ties and as children we
    ignore and accept the fact that he can do some things that seem impossible. But we go based on FAITH of what we heard. It's not genetic so much as hereditary. You could tell your kids about Jesus and God until the cows came home
    and they'd believe you. But it never ends there. You never finally sit little billy down and say, "we've been lying. There's no such thing as
    Jesus. So he's caught believing and defending his ideals. I think you'll find that resoundingly, children who are raised in homes where freedom to think for yourself and come to your osn logical conclusions will choose atheism. I was raised to think freely and always look at it from all directions and that is why I struggle with religon. Again I refuse to pick a side at this
    point. The only reason I even chose the argument against is because I Fucking hate Christian counter agruments. I'd have rather seen you at least take the "well it can't be proves and it can't be disapproved." Or the "well ya can't see the wibd, but you know it's there." Argument, but I hate when Christians quote the bible or god as their argument. That's the equivalent of using the word you're defining in the definition. If anything, you make some people believe LESS in religion that way. Sorry in advance. Just felt the need to pla (ironically) devil's advocate.

    ReplyDelete