HaloScan.com - Comments

Oh well.
Jason | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 4:50 am | #

F'em.
JohnB | 01.28.08 - 5:21 am | #

I clicked on the link and found this quite amusing.

Christendom has done away with Christianity without being quite aware of it.
[Soren Kierkegaard, Time magazine, 16 December 1946]

Popped up in the Random Quotes section.

Couldn't they have just sited Practice in Christianity? And you know most there have no idea of what Kierkegaard meant by that statement.
Keljeck | 01.28.08 - 5:40 am | #

Maybe they'd be happy to accept your advert if you weren't a racist and misogynistic hack? Just a thought.
Old Ned | 01.28.08 - 6:19 am | #

It may be a thought, it's just not a very intelligent one. You might at least have had a theoretical case if MN Atheists hadn't explicitly said that they wouldn't take advertisements from the Christian opposition.

Of course, since I'm neither racist nor misogynistic, you don't have a case at all. Now, I may be a hack, it's certainly not for me to judge the quality of my writing, but if I am, then what does that say about Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett and Onfray that a mere hack could so easily dismantle their verifiably flawed arguments?

Of course, in light of reading those books, I can't say I'm surprised at another example of irrational atheist thought.
VD | 01.28.08 - 6:40 am | #

Highlarious!
Tom B. | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 6:53 am | #

I find their attitude hilarious. Talk about insecure. They're so sure about the superiority of their beliefs but they can't stomach allowing someone they consider obviously wrong to air ads on their show.

Hey Vox, why not suggest they air ads and that you would even encourage them to mock you and your book? Of course they won't bite. They know such mocking would invite two added sales (their audience probably numbers three people).
Scott | 01.28.08 - 6:56 am | #

I told them that I'll be happy to go on the show and defend TIA against anyone they like even if they won't take the advertising. I suspect they'll prefer to stick to their endless circle-jerking, but I could be wrong.
VD | 01.28.08 - 6:58 am | #

That's right, VD, you're not racist and misogynistic at all. Also, you don't live in a complete fantasy world. No sir.

Since you don't feel that you're in a position to judge your own writing, I'm happy to help: you're a hack.
Old Ned | 01.28.08 - 7:00 am | #

That's right, VD, you're not racist and misogynistic at all. Also, you don't live in a complete fantasy world. No sir.

It pains me to admit it, Vox, but I believe this is proof you have drawn blood.
JACIII | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 7:10 am | #

VD: Brilliant and well played, Hoss.
John Quincy Public | 01.28.08 - 7:10 am | #

Since you don't feel that you're in a position to judge your own writing, I'm happy to help: you're a hack.

Well, thank you very much indeed! Now, do please explain how a mere hack has managed to completely dismantle the arguments put forth by the five leading icons of atheism, a conclusion that has been independently reached by Christians, atheists, and agnostics alike?

Don't bother trying to evade it, just answer the question, Old Ned my boy.

Is there a high profile atheist that you would consider a worthy adversary?

I'd be interested in a discussion with Dennett, but I don't think there would be too many fireworks or that it would be an adversarial debate. I suspect that unlike the others, he'd readily admit the logical errors that I pointed out, just as I'll be happy to correct any errors I've made. There's got to be SOME in a book of 100k+ words, after all.

Not to be too arrogant or anything - (waits as the audience guffaws loudly) - but aside from Dennett, the others just aren't in my intellectual weight class.
VD | 01.28.08 - 7:20 am | #

It pains me to admit it, Vox, but I believe this is proof you have drawn blood.

Nah, he didn't threaten to not have sex with me. And as far as my living in a fantasy world goes, I suspect Spacebunny would be the very last to disagree with him.

Now, if you'll excuse me, my guild's elite team of PvP specialists is off to slaughter some unsuspecting Horde in Alterac....
VD | 01.28.08 - 7:26 am | #

If you kill some horde and I don't know how it goes in there but if someone calls you a hack and then says good day sir. Well.
Jamie R | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 7:52 am | #

Not to be too arrogant or anything - (waits as the audience guffaws loudly) - but aside from Dennett, the others just aren't in my intellectual weight class.

Yea, but if any of them do try and take you on, my bet would be on Hitchins. His debate with DeSousa showed his MO is trying to bully his opponent. He'd have his ass handed to him, but I wouldn't put it past him to try.
Tom B. | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 7:57 am | #

I miss the good old days of Warcraft. I could never get into W3 or WoW. All well.
Kawaika | 01.28.08 - 8:02 am | #

Tom: Nah, they'll take the road common to all when faced with an adversary frowned upon in terms of status that may not just devour them but do so with style.

eg. "I don't have anything to say to a racist and misogynistic homophobe like that. A complete waste to give them the time and air to broadcast their hatred and bigotry. Anyone want a fresh baked godfree muffin? Anyone?"
John Quincy Public | 01.28.08 - 8:03 am | #

Air America has overlooked the 'performance art' angle. What they need is some NEA funding. Then they wouldn't have to worry about 'sponsors' or 'listeners' or any of the other unpleasent aspects of the marketplace.
PORCUS | 01.28.08 - 8:04 am | #

That's funny. I remembered to ensure that I am not drinking coffee (or other beverages) while reading anything by Vox.

After all, I don't want to have coffee coming out of my nose.
Amir Larijani | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 8:19 am | #

A red letter day... the first TIA inspired troll.

Raise a glass!
Nate | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 8:20 am | #

I thought Air America went bankrupt.
So who's funding them now?
Please don't tell me the taxpayers.
I'd be mad but not surprised.
Move Zig | 01.28.08 - 8:23 am | #

I thought that Air America was a left-wing political station. What's up with all of the atheist stuff on there? I thought they'd want people's private, personal, beliefs out of politics.

Could it possibly be that they are disingenuous about their motives, and politics?!?

Say it isn't so.
Earth and All Stars | 01.28.08 - 8:29 am | #

Tom: Nah, they'll take the road common to all when faced with an adversary frowned upon in terms of status that may not just devour them but do so with style.

Dawkins and Harris, yes; but Hitchins would concider TIA an afront to him personally.
Tom B. | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 8:36 am | #

"I thought that Air America was a left-wing political station."
Earth and All Stars | 01.28.08 - 8:29 am | #

Air America is to radio what Fox News is to television...
O'Conner | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 8:37 am | #

Sweet VD.

Ya can't make this stuff up.

What a bunch of chickenshits they got over there. And stupid too. What could be more interesting to their audience than you going at it with ... well, anyone they want to put up against you. Someone might actually listen to that. Course you'd have to find them on the dial first.
rdkraus | 01.28.08 - 8:43 am | #

"Air America is to radio what Fox News is to television..."

'cept Fox turns a profit.
PORCUS | 01.28.08 - 8:45 am | #

Tom: Point well taken.

O'Conner: Farther left then the mainstream of the party they claim to represent?

rdkaus: A reasonably even match might be more entertaining. I just cannot see people getting all that jazzed about boxing if you consistently paired off the heavy's and welters.
John Quincy Public | 01.28.08 - 8:46 am | #

WOW! They HAVE an advertizer?
Roci | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 8:50 am | #

I'd pay to see Floyd Mayweather kick the hell out of whatever the heavyweight of the day is.
Nate | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 8:50 am | #

I'd pay to see Floyd Mayweather kick the hell out of whatever the heavyweight of the day is.
Nate | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 8:50 am | #

Good big man beats a good little man. There are some good heavweights, right?
CJ | 01.28.08 - 8:56 am | #

Hold on a second, people.

Can you imagine any Christian radio station adverstising for "God is Not Great"?

Probably not.
FtK | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 8:58 am | #

But they say that Atheism is not a religion. I don't see any conflict, unless they are lying.
Kriston | 01.28.08 - 9:00 am | #

OT - Vox, have yu seen this?

After a decade fighting to stop illegal file-sharing, the music industry will give fans today what they have always wanted: an unlimited supply of free and legal songs.

With CD sales in free fall and legal downloads yet to fill the gap, the music industry has reluctantly embraced the file-sharing technology that threatened to destroy it.
http:// entertainment.timesonline...icle3261591.ece
Salt | 01.28.08 - 9:05 am | #

CJ Good big man does beat good little man. However... genuis defeats the average... regardless of size... and all of the current big men are average.
Nate | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 9:07 am | #

"But they say that Atheism is not a religion."

Which I find as much as non-starter as I find it a curiously pungent way to discard all the legal protections and influence one can have by declaring oneself a religion.

It almost makes it interesting to engage in thought games about how one would outlaw Atheism and what the objections would be.
John Quincy Public | 01.28.08 - 9:10 am | #

FtK, its not an "atheist" radio station. Its merely an atheist show. Air America is liberal... which if you ask the democrats is neither theist nor atheist. Therefore it is not about taking sides. Its about making money.

So yes... depending on the market.. I could see a conservative radio station advertizing The God Delusion on air during a theist themed show. Especially considering the hosts would then have an excellent chance to mock it.
Nate | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 9:11 am | #

Perhaps...
FtK | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 9:13 am | #

What an excellent way to start a monday.

It's funny that they've been reduced to simple name-calling when in fact they are the social retards. It also appears they're also capitalistic retards as well.
trk | 01.28.08 - 9:38 am | #

Ftk,
the point is that the Atheist broadcasters claimed they were being discriminated against by someone pulling sponsorship.

vox demonstrated that they also discriminate.

You can have your leg back now. Sorry Nate.
zeno | 01.28.08 - 10:04 am | #

A while back I arrived at the conclusion that most rank-and-file atheists are such not due to some new logic only they have been graced with, but rather because they can't believe there's a God in Heaven that could possibly let their learned self not climb head and shoulders above the supposed rabble. That because their dreams didn't fall into their lap, because the world doesn't seek their sage advice, God can't exist. They have no religious belief because they lack the will needed to preserver through the curves life throws. Easier to be sullen and quit, then stand around and act like the oh-so-esoteric elitist.

Most are little more than broken people whom can't cope with the challenges of life.
Orange Ape | 01.28.08 - 10:15 am | #

Sherlock Holmes?
Anonymous | 01.28.08 - 10:17 am | #

Is this social autism as well?
The CronoLink | 01.28.08 - 10:19 am | #

Okay zeno, that makes more sense.

Oh, and thanks for unlatching from my leg...was worried I'd have trouble shaking you off..*wink*.
FtK | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 10:24 am | #

Wow. I can't think of too many folks that would think to advertise on their "enemies'" shows. Too funny.

Not at all surprising that they refused to take you up on their offer, but still funny.
Michael Maier | 01.28.08 - 10:26 am | #

"Since you don't feel that you're in a position to judge your own writing, I'm happy to help: you're a hack.

Well, thank you very much indeed! Now, do please explain how a mere hack has managed to completely dismantle the arguments put forth by the five leading icons of atheism, a conclusion that has been independently reached by Christians, atheists, and agnostics alike?

Don't bother trying to evade it, just answer the question, Old Ned my boy.

Is there a high profile atheist that you would consider a worthy adversary?

I'd be interested in a discussion with Dennett, but I don't think there would be too many fireworks or that it would be an adversarial debate. I suspect that unlike the others, he'd readily admit the logical errors that I pointed out, just as I'll be happy to correct any errors I've made. There's got to be SOME in a book of 100k+ words, after all.

Not to be too arrogant or anything - (waits as the audience guffaws loudly) - but aside from Dennett, the others just aren't in my intellectual weight."

God how I love a good vox beatdown.
wEz | 01.28.08 - 10:42 am | #

"It almost makes it interesting to engage in thought games about how one would outlaw Atheism and what the objections would be."

Violation of the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."

They should have let you advertise, VD.
crypticlife | 01.28.08 - 10:59 am | #

Violation of the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."

But atheists always insist that atheism is not a religion, so establishment or disestablishment shouldn't be a problem.
Larry | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 11:09 am | #

Vox, you made my day. Again.
Dude | 01.28.08 - 11:14 am | #

Wow, Old Ned appears to be the first...ERRRRRR...infinity-th atheist to back down from the request to answer a direct question.
Bisch | 01.28.08 - 11:14 am | #

Thanks for the quick catch, Larry.
John Quincy Public | 01.28.08 - 11:19 am | #

"But atheists always insist that atheism is not a religion, so establishment or disestablishment shouldn't be a problem."

I thought that it was kinda cute that they are broadcasting on Sunday mornings while the rest of us are in church. Now, they get to have their little atheist service as well.

Everything about the "New Atheism" movement seems religiously motivated to me...very much the faith based community.
FtK | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 11:20 am | #

Most are little more than broken people whom can't cope with the challenges of life.

I think it's simpler than that, Orange Ape. They get to the part of the Bible about Onan and decide right then and there to reject Judeo-Christianity, because it gets in the way of the greatest pleasure in their life.
Knarf | 01.28.08 - 11:23 am | #

I'm amazed, Vox, that the needy atheists of Minnesota didn't want to dip into your pocket some to advance their cause, particularly when we consider their largely-held belief that no one can come within an intellectual mile of their beloved Richard Dawkins!

That they would refuse to allow you to help them generate revenue for their 'righteous' cause, which is freeing the God-fearing world from the love of Christ which grips our minds leaving us in a state of intellectual bondage, leaves me scratching my head.

Dare we think they're scared that the long-term effect of your book being read by their audience could harm their chances of being able to free the enslaved minds of Christians everywhere?

Hmmmmm....
Mike | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 11:25 am | #

That's right, VD, you're not racist and misogynistic at all. Also, you don't live in a complete fantasy world. No sir.
Old Ned | 01.28.08 - 7:00 am | #

Wow, Vox. He's got you there. Such a brilliant display of evidence, coupled with such eloquence and depth of perspective, cannot be refuted.

Yet a further demonstration of the atheist superiority over all Christians everywhere.

(...YES, I'm being sarcastic, atheists!)
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 11:30 am | #

But atheists always insist that atheism is not a religion,

Somebody appears to be trying to change that:

http://www.churchofreality.org/w...m/welcome_home/
.
zeno | 01.28.08 - 11:39 am | #

All this atheism talk is making me paranoid.
But then again, you already KNEW that, didn't you!?!...
Spaniard | 01.28.08 - 11:50 am | #

BTW,
The Church of Reality is REALLY RETARDED.
Spaniard | 01.28.08 - 11:53 am | #

But atheists always insist that atheism is not a religion,

Somebody appears to be trying to change that:

http://www.churchofreality.org/w...m/welcome_home/
.
zeno | 01.28.08 - 11:39 am | #

I think Michael Newdow already established something like an atheist "church"--but granted, that was so as to challenge the theistic language on dollar bills in court.

Cheap all around.

I'm thinking, should that go to the SCOTUS, I'll write an amicus brief to the effect that you'd pretty much have to wipe the whole stinkin' mintage clean, because everything on it would offend someone's religious sensibilities--from the "all-seeing eye" (anti-Masons) to the very image of humans (Muslims).

And don't get me started on how that eagle might offend Dakota Sioux.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 12:05 pm | #

"We are Monorealists, which means we believe in The One True Reality. This reality is the sum of everything that actually exists. Our definition of reality includes what some people call "other realities" that actually are real with the exclusion of imaginary realities and religious fiction. We care about what is real, not what we think is real or what we want to believe is real. The Church of Reality puts "real" reality first."

... I'll continue to believe in the One True Penguin of Destiny before I drop my brain in a blender and hit puree like these characters.
orion | 01.28.08 - 12:12 pm | #

As quoted by Orion: "We are Monorealists, which means we believe in The One True Reality. This reality is the sum of everything that actually exists. Our definition of reality includes what some people call "other realities" that actually are real with the exclusion of imaginary realities and religious fiction. We care about what is real, not what we think is real or what we want to believe is real. The Church of Reality puts "real" reality first."

I wonder how they KNOW that any given thing is "real."
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 12:13 pm | #

Wow...is the Church of Reality for real...or is it a parody site??

In Nancy Pearcey’s Book, Total Truth, she makes a very profound statement, IMO. She wrote that, “Humans are inherently religious beings, created to be in relationship with God - and if they reject God, they don’t stop being religious; they simply find some other ultimate principle upon which to base their lives.”

Obviously, that’s what atheists have done...with Darwin /Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris as their reigning prophets, priests, and kings.

Every atheist site you run across worships Darwin like God, but they're completely blind to the fact. Very, very strange.
FtK | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 12:16 pm | #

Oh, and another thing:

"...with the exclusion of imaginary realities..."

I wonder if any of them ever took an English class.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 12:16 pm | #

“Humans are inherently religious beings, created to be in relationship with God - and if they reject God, they don’t stop being religious; they simply find some other ultimate principle upon which to base their lives.”

Global Warming: the New Catholicism
Orange Ape | 01.28.08 - 12:19 pm | #

Every atheist site you run across worships Darwin like God, but they're completely blind to the fact. Very, very strange.
FtK | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 12:16 pm | #

I think it's referred to, generally, as "wanting to have their ears tickled," which makes them "accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and [turn] away their ears from the truth and [turn] aside to myths."

2 Timothy 4:3-4. Paul had these guys pegged, pseudo-Christian and rank unbeliever alike.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 12:21 pm | #

"The declaration of reality evokes proof and since faith specifically excludes proof then faith excludes the understanding of reality."

Sorry. It just all falls apart right there. You have faith in science's ability to prove. Yet science consistantly demonstrates otherwise.

Can I not contend that scientists have no understanding of reality?

You can have your faith in science. I prefer faith in History. Its not revised nearly as often... and has proven far more accurate.

I find it remarkable that people will latch on to the methods of science, and then apply them to a historical event. "X could not have happened becasue we don't understand it!", says the fool.

There is no supernatural because God IS natural. That which God does IS natural. What is also natural...is man's ignorance.

God's existense will be scientificly provable, just as it was scientificly proven millenia ago.

I suggest you apply the rules of history to the events of the past with the same rigor you apply the rules of science, and you'll find that the more likely scenario is... it happened... we just don't know how yet.
Nate | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 12:25 pm | #

Mrs. P: Refer to the bit I quoted for how they define reality.

Nate: Truly awe-inspiring isn't it?
John Quincy Public | 01.28.08 - 12:28 pm | #

Now, do please explain how a mere hack has managed to completely dismantle the arguments put forth by the five leading icons of atheism, a conclusion that has been independently reached by Christians, atheists, and agnostics alike?

I imagine that you did it (if you have indeed done it) by examining their arguments and then presenting counter-arguments. Although I'm not sure what that has to do with the fact that you're a hack - it just makes you a hack with a set of encyclopedias.
Old Ned | 01.28.08 - 12:33 pm | #

I wonder how they KNOW that any given thing is "real."
Mrs. Pilgrim

Faith that their eyes are working properly.
Starbuck | 01.28.08 - 12:33 pm | #

"it just makes you a hack with a set of encyclopedias."

So... Perhaps dear troll you can define "hack"? Judging by your comments let me offer this suggestion:

Hack: One who disagrees with me.
Nate | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 12:36 pm | #

I imagine that you did it (if you have indeed done it) by examining their arguments and then presenting counter-arguments. Although I'm not sure what that has to do with the fact that you're a hack - it just makes you a hack with a set of encyclopedias.
Old Ned

Hey Old Ned, read the book. Some very smart athiests are giving the book excellent reviews and are wondering if the athiests are going to reply.

My bet is that they won't, they will ignore TIA and hope in time it goes away.
Starbuck | 01.28.08 - 12:37 pm | #

Humans are inherently religious beings, created to be in relationship with God - and if they reject God, they don’t stop being religious; they simply find some other ultimate principle upon which to base their lives.”

Hence the admonitions against idolatry. This is one of the things atheists always seem to ignore when arguing that morality is not exclusive to religion.
zeno | 01.28.08 - 12:39 pm | #

Old Ned isn't using the term 'hack' in the commonly and historically understood meaning of the term.

Hacks are pens for hire, literary mercenaries. I wonder if Old Ned knows who has pre-paid VD to write the kind of book they have requested he write?
zeno | 01.28.08 - 12:52 pm | #

Huzzah, Ol' Ned! I completely agree with you that any random 6 year old on the short bus could tear the High Church Atheists down if they had nothing more than a football helmet, a little pudding, and an encyclopedia.

Shame so many Atheists have so much Faith in their Vicars that they fail to raise themselves to that minimum bar.
John Quincy Public | 01.28.08 - 12:54 pm | #

I find it amusing that an atheist will have no problem believe all sorts of nonesense about dinosaurs and how they lived and what they ate... when there is far more historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

For crying out loud... AFTER He was resurrected Cesar went to meet Him! He even took along a hundred of his guards! This is SECULAR history!

People today think they are so much smarter than the ancients... at least the ancients knew that there was stuff out there they didn't understand. They didn't immediately assume something was impossible simply because they didn't understand it.

We have shiney toy and trinkets... but we're dumber than we were 3000 years ago.
Nate | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 12:59 pm | #

VD -- I esteem you as a true Christian, one who, when his adversary was thirsty, (needed advertising income), offered him water, (advertising). Exactly as it has been written:

" BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."
Romans 12:19-21

Burning coals are a bitch.
Art | 01.28.08 - 1:00 pm | #

At last! I get TIA today.
BrianTheGreat | 01.28.08 - 1:01 pm | #

Art, you rock.
Michael Maier | 01.28.08 - 1:03 pm | #

Nate

AFTER He was resurrected Cesar went to meet Him! He even took along a hundred of his guards! This is SECULAR history!

I never heard this before. Very interesting, where can I find a source?
Art | 01.28.08 - 1:04 pm | #

Thanks Michael.
Art | 01.28.08 - 1:05 pm | #

"But atheists always insist that atheism is not a religion, so establishment or disestablishment shouldn't be a problem."

Of course it is, Larry -- no law respecting an establishment of religion. Outlawing atheism would establish religion as preferred. It would, in fact, also outlaw specific atheistic religions such as some forms of Buddhism.
crypticlife | 01.28.08 - 1:22 pm | #

Art
I don't know how much is known about what actually happened at the meeting or who said what to whom. But it is referenced in Roman documents. I don't know of any religious writings that cooroberate it.
Nate | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 1:27 pm | #

Outlawing atheism
crypticlife | 01.28.08 - 1:22 pm | #

Most interesting Crypticlife, outlawing that which does not exist.
Salt | 01.28.08 - 1:31 pm | #

"They didn't immediately assume something was impossible simply because they didn't understand it." -- Nate

Man, does that need to be driven home.

crypticlife: For the sake of argument, if one were to mandate religious affiliation without specifying what or which kind then it would not be in violation of the text regardless of which way you want to interpret "establishment".

However, if we recognize that Buddhism is Atheistic whilst still being a religion then we can show that the two are not incompatible. However, the boundaries of the thought experiment are that they are not compatible; for is this not what Atheists roundly and routinely claim?
John Quincy Public | 01.28.08 - 1:32 pm | #

no law respecting an establishment of religion. Outlawing atheism would establish religion as preferred

So? The first amendment doesn't say anything about religion as a whole, just individual religions. If atheism were outlawed one could still be a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or any one of hundreds of different things, and no establishment of religion would have occurred. There would be no state church. Since atheists are in agreement there are no practices or rituals involved with atheism, the free exercise clause could not be invoked, either.
Larry | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 1:34 pm | #

"Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion"

Not, "establishing an official religion", or "establishing one religion over others" -- Larry, the first amendment does say it about religion as a whole.

JQP, If one were to mandate religious affiliation without specifying, it would be a violation of the first amendment, because it would be "establishing religion". And while I cannot speak for all atheists, many will note that there are atheistic religions. I don't recall the initial boundaries for the thought experiment being set, but if you'd like to set them that way I still would view mandating stated religious affiliation as violating the first amendment. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a legal scholar who'd agree with your point of view, but let me know if you do and where I can read their writings.

Salt,
I'm not the one who brought up the idea of outlawing atheism to begin with, nor did I say it does not exist.
crypticlife | 01.28.08 - 1:49 pm | #

Nate, Ron Charles (The Search) discusses (Tiberius) Caesar seeking, what Tiberius termed, "The Theophus". Tiberius appointed a Commission to inquire as to a dream he had had. Many were looked at as fitting that which Tiberius dreamed, but only Jesus actually fulfilled Tiberius' dream.

Valleus Paterculus (chief ambassador commissioner over the 130 member Commission, appointed by Tiberius) met Jesus. The events leading up to that meeting are recorded in John 12:21-27 and Luke 13:31-33 but neither Gospel mentions the meeting, though "The encounter is recorded in the writings of Valleus Paterculus, Priscian, Tacitus, Dio cassius and Petronius." (PP 452, The Search)

Ron Charles found no evidence of Caesar meeting Jesus himself.
Salt | 01.28.08 - 1:55 pm | #

Not, "establishing an official religion", or "establishing one religion over others" -- Larry, the first amendment does say it about religion as a whole.

Please review the ratification debates, they were talking about not establishing an official religion, a "Church of the Unites States" as there is a Church of England. You are applying 21st century grammar and definitions to an 18th century document. For instance, by "religion" they meant what we would call a "denomination", and that was what was not to be established, not this vague and amorphous definition of "religion" (which also evidently includes "non-religion") that you are positing.
Larry | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 1:58 pm | #

Maybe they'd be happy to accept your advert if you weren't a racist and misogynistic hack? Just a thought.
Old Ned | 01.28.08 - 6:19 am | #

I thought this was a parody at first read. I guess not.
Wendy | 01.28.08 - 1:59 pm | #

An interesting passage from The Search -

Valleus arrived in Jerusalem in October, AD30, less than seven months before Jesus was to face death by Crucifixion. He questioned the Roman officials in Jerusalem about Jesus' whereabouts. They did not know much about him, other than they had heard that he was a Jewish Rabboni of Roman citizenship due to his being adopted by Caesar's Senator to Britain and Imperial Minister of Mines, who also represents Rome and her interests before the Jewish Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, and the he [Jesus] was highly regarded in the Galilee.
Salt | 01.28.08 - 2:11 pm | #

Old Ned is providing me with much anticipation and entertianment today.

He seems to be doing the intellectual equivalent of spreading his legs, pointing to his groin and begging, "Please, Vox! Kick me really hard!"
Daddynichol | 01.28.08 - 2:28 pm | #

Larry,
There were a number of patterns of "establishment" in the early colonies, including cases in which multiple religions were established. Had the framers wished to distinguish the situations, they could have.

"We know that several non preferential proposals were made and all lost out to the more broad, less defined word establishment, but even that word did have meaning that applied in this country. "

The First Freedoms, Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment, by Thomas Curry, page 220.
crypticlife | 01.28.08 - 2:29 pm | #

I verified the time line. The Caesar of the time stayed on Capri from 25-37 AD, so he would never have met Christ.
orion | 01.28.08 - 2:37 pm | #

Note below, a number of alternative texts that were rejected.

September 3, 1789--First Federal Congress (Amendments-religious reference)

The third article, as it passed the house, stand thus:

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."

On motion, To amend Article third, and to strike out these words. "Religion or prohibiting the free Exercise thereof," and Insert, "One Religious Sect or Society in preference to others,"

It passed in the Negative.

On motion, For reconsideration,

It passed in the Affirmative.

On motion, That Article the third be striken out,

It passed in the Negative.

On motion, To adopt the following, in lieu of the third Article, "Congress shall not make any law, infringing the rights of conscience or establishing any Religious Sect or Society,"

It passed in the Negative.

On motion, To amend the third Article, to read thus- "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."

It passed in the Negative.
crypticlife | 01.28.08 - 2:38 pm | #

crypticlife: I made the conjecture at 9:10 above.

Larry, carried the day again with his reply to you on 'establishment'. Your rebuttal doesn't really carry water as we're, insofar as I see, as we're talking about the law once the colonies were no longer colonies.
John Quincy Public | 01.28.08 - 2:39 pm | #

crypticlife: Your second piece still doesn't hold water. The 2nd amendment guarantees the Right to keep and bear arms. The Milita Act of 1792 then made mandatory certain goods and kinds of firearms for certain classes of people.

So it's certainly not been historically out of bounds to follow up the Right to do something with a compulsion to engage in it within various boundaries as a matter of Federal law.
John Quincy Public | 01.28.08 - 2:49 pm | #

JQP,

Yes, I was just pointing out that the boundaries hadn't been defined.

The examples of colonial establishment were to serve as evidence that the Framers were aware of multiple forms of Establishment, and were not quite so myopic as you seem to wish to believe.

While the establishment of a "Church of America" was certainly one of their concerns, I think the options that were rejected clearly show it wasn't their only concern. As far as applying "21st century grammar", they were still aware of articles in the eighteenth century, and could have put an "a" in front of "religion".

Note also that the debates show the words "denomination" and "sect" were both known and proposed in alternatives.

Larry, carried the day again with his reply to you on 'establishment'.

Self-congratulatory crowing is quite amusing.
crypticlife | 01.28.08 - 2:51 pm | #

crypticlife: Or perhaps they were more tenuous about the outcome of 'Religious Society' or the possibility of infringing 'conscience'. I can read it quite capably that way and come up with some manners that make governance unpossible in such a manner.

So not only does it not quite strictly show what you want it to show. It's entirely immaterial as that is not the law that was passed.

And rebutting me for an argument that Larry made is not showing your strong-side. Perhaps you should think more and snark less.
John Quincy Public | 01.28.08 - 2:59 pm | #

That's sort of a dodge, JQP, picking out some unrelated bit of legislation. The US government has done a lot of legislating. Not all of it was constitutional, and many of the unconstitutional laws may never have been challenged.

The second amendment is the right to bear arms, not the right NOT to bear them. The first is the right to be free of governmental interference in religion. That the government may be able to compel in one case does not mean the government may permissibly compel in another.

I might add, also from the debates, "MR. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforced the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. "

Men shall not be compelled to worship God (for myself, worshipping any God at all would be contrary to my conscience).
crypticlife | 01.28.08 - 3:14 pm | #

The point, JQP, is that it's not the law that was passed was because it's not what was intended. It shows that they clearly could distinguish between "establishment of religion" and "establishment of a sect".

You also skipped over the last rejected option, "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed." (perhaps not intentionally, I missed it on a second reading).

Please forgive the snark, but this just seems like that kind of place.
crypticlife | 01.28.08 - 3:24 pm | #

crypticlife: The problem is that the 2nd ensures that the government may not restrict exercise of that Right. Exactly the argument your providing for the 1st. This should be self-obvious in the definition as a Right as something that was not ceded to government to regulate. (Granted, none of that has anything to do with the fact that government has passed laws regulating both firearms and religion.)

So if government can compel for one Right it can compel for another. You can see this shot throughout law. For example see Posse Comitatus.

Secondly, your quote of Madison makes the point Larry was on about; in whole or in part as you wish.

In the uncontestable part Madison interpreted it to mean that the government should not establish a religion and force observation of it. In the second part he states that we should not compel worship of "God in any manner contrary to their conscience" -- fine and dandy -- there are plenty of religions that do not share the Deist conception of the One True Creator God. Buddhism comes immediately to mind; a thing you mentioned earlier.
John Quincy Public | 01.28.08 - 3:32 pm | #

crypticlife: could distinguish between "establishment of religion" and "establishment of a sect".

Sect or society -- they always appeared together in the drafts.

rights of conscience

Yes, I noted that in my reply.

Please forgive the snark, but this just seems like that kind of place.

It absolutely is that kind of place and I've something of a reputation for being an unstable firebrand that would embarrass the most jaded with the depths of my depraved vulgarity. At least, when I get on a roll. I was just trying to encourage you to think a bit more for the purpose of helping your own argument. But if you prefer, feel free to take it up a notch.
John Quincy Public | 01.28.08 - 3:37 pm | #

Art:

"VD -- I esteem you as a true Christian, one who, when his adversary was thirsty, (needed advertising income), offered him water, (advertising). Exactly as it has been written:

" BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."
Romans 12:19-21

Burning coals are a bitch."

Laughing at that. Very nice.
Vidad | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 3:37 pm | #

And the offer to buy advertising, Vox - brilliant.

I'm still chuckling.
Vidad | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 3:38 pm | #

JQP,

If they'd had an objection to the word "society" but not "sect" I'm sure it could have been eliminated. There were numerous alternatives proposed and voted on, and likely more that were considered on a less formal level.

You set out in your thought experiment that religion and atheism were incompatible as part of a boundary condition. You're really changing your thought experiment from outlawing atheism to outlawing areligionism. And I still say the "Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion" is violated by it. A number of quotes indicate they weren't just talking about the establishment of a specific religion or preferential treatment of one religion over another. That they were talking about denominations, sects, and societies indicates they were aware of the difference between "establishment of a religion" and "establishment of religion".
crypticlife | 01.28.08 - 4:10 pm | #

If they'd had an objection to the word

This is the argument you wanted to make; that the previous wordings should be used as a guide in what they meant. Unfortunately, it doesn't support your argument; rather it supports Larry's point on the matter. I continue to state that it's immaterial.

You're really changing your thought experiment from outlawing atheism to outlawing areligionism.

Debating whether Atheism is or is not a religion is a huge and separate topic. Since I'm taking the Atheist claim that it is not a religion at face value it's really the same difference.

And I still say the "Congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion" is violated by it.

You can say it as much as you want. You have failed to establish that point. Despite you claiming that the quotes show otherwise every piece of evidence you've provided shows -- quite literally -- that it was about preferential treatment of differing religious groups. Save one: The "nor" clause in the quote from Madison which I've already adressed.

From this it follows that if Atheism is not a religion then it does not fall under the protection against compulsion. Put another way. The 2nd allows, conceptually, the Right to an absence of firearms; none the less the Militia Act outlawed that absence. Likewise, if Atheism is the absence of religion, then there is no sound argument against stating that religion cannot be compelled.

You can quite correctly mention that the State cannot compel a particular religion; but that's a different argument.
John Quincy Public | 01.28.08 - 4:27 pm | #

"that the previous wordings should be used as a guide in what they meant. "

They're not "previous wordings" they were proposed changes. And they were rejected. They rejected every option under which it would apply to a specific religion, and accepted the general phrase. Because they rejected these options, they were aware that they were not picking a word that meant "denomination" or "sect". Because they had examples of jurisdictions with more than one established religion, they were aware it was not simply the "church of America" they were preventing from coming into fruition.

Your argument that the framers only meant establishment of a specific religion is undermined by the rejection of alternatives that would support that. The plain text of "establishment of religion" is that it refers to religion in general. That it refers to religion in general is why it also covers lack of religion, i.e., atheism. I'm not discussing the Militia act or whether it was proper. However, generally I don't think one uses Federal law as a guideline for how to interpret the Constitution.
crypticlife | 01.28.08 - 4:41 pm | #

That it refers to religion in general is why it also covers lack of religion, i.e., atheism.

How odd. So what then did you mean when you previously stated:

"The second amendment is the right to bear arms, not the right NOT to bear them."

However, generally I don't think one uses Federal law as a guideline for how to interpret the Constitution.

I imagine if the law was passed the year after the BoR and has stood since (I know of no challenge to it.) then I think we can say that it carries at least as much weight, if not more, than laws that failed to pass the house that you uphold as evidence of intent. Regardless, Posse Comitatus has been tested in court and upheld and makes the same point.
John Quincy Public | 01.28.08 - 5:07 pm | #

crypticlife: For reference the BoR was passed on Dec 15th, 1791 and the Militia Act was passed on May 2, 1792. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that both were passed by the same men in the same congressional session.
John Quincy Public | 01.28.08 - 5:11 pm | #

For reference the BoR was passed on Dec 15th, 1791 and the Militia Act was passed on May 2, 1792. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that both were passed by the same men in the same congressional session.

That same Congress also passed bills that crypticlife would undoubtedly consider unconstitutional, one allowing for the funding of missionaries (and Catholic missionaries at that!) for example. But what did they know about original intent, anyway?
Larry | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 5:20 pm | #

Hah. You are too funny. Successful experiment.
superninja | 01.28.08 - 5:23 pm | #

There are differing standards for passing law than for passing amendments. One might also not argue as much over laws that can be easily repealed or might have sunset provisions as one would over amendments. I don't think that some law exists that might violate another amendment in a similar way is particularly persuasive. Is there a Supreme Court case where that type of logic is used?
crypticlife | 01.28.08 - 5:37 pm | #

There are differing standards for passing law than for passing amendments.
crypticlife | 01.28.08 - 5:37 pm | #

Consider, though, that the people passing the amendment also passed the law.

NOW look at it again.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 5:40 pm | #

Mrs. Pilgrim,

If you need 50 people to pass a law that can be modified easily later, and 75 people to pass something binding for a long time, I wouldn't look at the proposition that passed with the 50 people for interpretation of the 75.
crypticlife | 01.28.08 - 5:47 pm | #

I wouldn't look at the proposition that passed with the 50 people for interpretation of the 75.

Why not? At an absolute minimum there would have to be a 25 person overlap between the two groups. In other words, at a minimum, one third of the people who voted for ratification also voted for the proposed law. Now are these people idiots or hypocrites, yeah they could be they are politicians after all. But it is also possible that they have an better understanding of what they created than you do.
Larry | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 5:58 pm | #

If you need 50 people to pass a law that can be modified easily later, and 75 people to pass something binding for a long time, I wouldn't look at the proposition that passed with the 50 people for interpretation of the 75.
crypticlife | 01.28.08 - 5:47 pm | #

Interesting idea. I'd suggest we pursue it by checking the vote tallies from the First Congress, but that might go farther OT than we already are.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 6:00 pm | #

you can't pay a self-proclaimed freethinker

No, you can't pay for what's free (and worth every penny).
duckman1957 | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 7:18 pm | #

crypticlife: Your objection on percentages of majority just isn't credible. On one hand you declare intent is derivable from those passages that repeatedly failed to achieve a majority vote whilst also claiming that we cannot infer anything from the fact that a differing passage did achieve a majority vote.

As a general concept I find the conclusion likely more uncomfortable than you do, but I don't see that it is incorrect either.
John Quincy Public | 01.28.08 - 7:21 pm | #

Funny little experiment. Too bad they don't mean what they say, that would have been a funny ad placement!
JCclimber | 01.28.08 - 8:19 pm | #

RE: http://wnd.com/news/article.asp? ...RTICLE_ID=59914

Ordinarily, I would be very supportive of you Vox, and WND, because we have a common interest in fighting socialism. However, you are treading on my turf now. I'm a molecular biologist with a PhD in Biophysics. Dobson, and perhaps you too, have decided that losing as martyrs is better than getting at least a partial victory in that battle. What you forget is that we have been losing the battle to a slowly moving Fabian Socialist tidal wave at work for nearly 100 years. To think that electing one more conservative US President will save us is completely naive. We need a strategy that will slowly swing an entire way of thinking back to reality. That might require support of less than 'ideal' candidates, whatever that means. Regardless, the economy may force the issue; i.e., we may no longer be able to afford the welfare state.

But I digress.

The issue at hand is whether science makes any sense. I find it funny that people who have never studied much science think that they can have a rational discussion that gets us anywhere. That's like talking about banking with a kindergartener. They don't even know how to add.

Let's see how far we can go here.

1) We are here, therefore the probability of existing can't be infinitesimal. Some people even argue whether the world we live in is real or just an illusion. You can't get anywhere with someone like that except to suggest they go play in the freeway if they truly believe that the world isn't real.

2) Of course we don't know the origin of the Universe. Even the Big Bang is a theory with errors. That doesn't mean we need to explain our existence using a magical solution. That's not much different than saying our world is a present brought to us by some Universal Santa Claus. Just because we don't have the answers to some of the really big questions, it doesn't follow that we can't ever know the answers. It wasn't long ago that people believed diseases were caused by demonic possession. Silly now, wouldn't you agree? Perhaps we will know the answers in another 10,000 years or if we are lucky another 100.

3) Physics provides for spontaneous creation of order in a subsystem, as long as the overall order of the Universe decreases. That is the principle of entropy.

-- OK, now I'm putting you to sleep. See why we can't have a really good discussion? --

Consider, you maintain your body, for example, by burning up energy. There is a high energy cost to maintaining the order that makes your body able to function. Similarly, it takes a lot of energy on your part to keep your room clean. Yet, you can maintain the order of your room and in your body. So it is possible to create order, such as in DNA or RNA as long as energy is coupled to driving that order, and the overall order of the Universe decreases. You flush some of your newly created disorder every day.

The way life could arise spontaneously (over 100s of millions of years!) is by coupling energy processes to produce and maintain more of the same structures that are capable of reproduction. More order and complexity is created as new participants join in the process and add to or replace exising functions. In a few cases energy is used in a more efficient manner, and the new system has a competitive advantage. In other words, when more of the new thing is made faster than the old things, the new replaces the old. That's how more complex and more efficient systems win. See M. Eigen, Scientific American, in 1970, if I recall correctly.

Applied to our world, consider the same argument applied to Western Civilization versus Islam. Islam started with a huge advantage in knowledge around 600 AD. However, we recaptured some of our discarded Classical Greek and Roman knowledge, and obtained new information from India. We transformed through the Renaissance and Reformation into a society that developed new knowledge and applied it. During this time, the Islamic world stagnated, and was left behind. Now they are jealous and blame us instead of themselves for their predicament.

4) Let's consider another probability. What do you suppose the chance is that God even knows we are here? What is the chance that you are aware of any one single influenza virus particle in the entire world? So why should God take any notice us out of the entire Universe?

-- Come on, let's get real. Omniscience? --

What makes more sense is that God (whatever that is) would create or possibly BE the Universe, and have defined rules (physical laws) that set things in motion. Once the conditions for development are set, God can just watch it all happen. I hate anthropomorphizing, but I'm going to do more to make a point.

So why can't God make life arise spontaneously even if you don't understand how he did it?

Why can't God make life evolve spontaneously, to see what works better, and find out what he gets in the end? Hmm. God the experimental scientist!

Why can't God write his true word in DNA, and rock strata, and what we call Maxwell's equations (fiat lux!), and spectra coming from stars billions of light years away?

If you believe in a 6000 year old Earth, go join the Flat Earth Society. And be sure not to believe we landed on the moon, or that the Sun is the center of the SOLAR system.

If you do believe in God, and in His omnipotence, I can't think of anything more presumptuous for you to do than arbitrarily limiting what God can do. And you would be doing so just because of a book written by MAN between 4000 and 2000 years ago. Did you ever consider that maybe you are wrong, and God isn't?
biophysicist | 01.28.08 - 8:33 pm | #

Biophysicist, did you even bother to read the article that you linked to? It wasn't about science, cosmology or evolution, but about Dawkins fallacious argument against the existence of God. It said nothing about entropy or biogenesis. It appears that you saw the name "Dawkins" and assumed that Vox was talking about Darwinism.
Larry | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 8:46 pm | #

biophysicist | 01.28.08 - 8:33 pm

That Was sure a whole lot of writin' not to say a damn thing in writin' it.
equus pallidus | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 8:49 pm | #

*spits chaw juice at offenders feet *
zeno | 01.28.08 - 8:52 pm | #

*sneezes in offenders face* - There's an influenza virus for ya.
Taylor | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 9:04 pm | #

Biophysicist...

You fail to realize that the problem is not the laymen, or you ability to communicate with them.

The problem is your system itself.

It is profoundly limited.

The truth is the vast majority of the world believes something to be true. We have mountains of historical evidence (which by the way is more effective in the court of law than scientific evidence)that the something is true.

You're system can't prove God exists?

So what?

For centuries Scientists KNEW the stars were stationary in the sky.. because we had no instruments capable of detecting the pallax.

Are we to believe nature suddenly up and changes every time your little system gets around to figuring part of it out?

You take science... I'll take history... that way I won't have to wait around for you to tell me what I already know.
Nate | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 9:09 pm | #

And what's a biophysicist anyway? Is that like a physicist with extremely unreliable models?

He seems impressed with geology and its timescale... I wonder where he learned that assumption was an integral part of science?
Nate | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 9:18 pm | #

The way life could arise spontaneously (over 100s of millions of years!) is by coupling energy processes to produce and maintain more of the same structures that are capable of reproduction. More order and complexity is created as new participants join in the process and add to or replace exising functions. In a few cases energy is used in a more efficient manner, and the new system has a competitive advantage. In other words, when more of the new thing is made faster than the old things, the new replaces the old. That's how more complex and more efficient systems win. - Biophysicist

Same question - if you are correct, why do we not see some sort of "evidence" that such is true? Why did evolution "suddenly stop" thousands of years ago and not produce any "new" or "transitioning" species? Where is your highly valued scientific verifiable evidence?
CunningDove | 01.28.08 - 9:40 pm | #

Biophysicist, allow me:

1) We are here, therefore the probability of existing can't be infinitesimal.

Sounds like a conversation one would have with a reckless teen:

Mom: Oh my GOSH!
Teen: What?
Mom: Do you realize how close you came to crashing and dying when you did that 540-degree spin across the freeway?
Teen: Well, I didn't, so obviously there wasn't much chance that I could've.

Seriously...

2) ...That doesn't mean we need to explain our existence using a magical solution...Perhaps we will know the answers in another 10,000 years or if we are lucky another 100.

Check for the appearance of the words "perhaps" and "luck" in your statement. I think you're injecting quite a large dose of "belief in something that cannot be demonstrated" into your proposal.

3) Physics provides for spontaneous creation of order in a subsystem, as long as the overall order of the Universe decreases. That is the principle of entropy.

The problem with your argument is that the universe went from abject lawless chaos to law-abiding order. However, as the primordial chaos would have been (almost) absolute, wouldn't you agree that it's a little hard to have a consistent noticeable decrease in order over the billions of years an old-universe system would exist?

Furthermore, the universe apparently went from this nearly absolute chaos to a very noticeable, observable order--so much so that pattern recognition could "evolve" in its inhabitants. And that, completely at random, according to the average atheist's notion.

You understand why this does not pass the sniff test by now, I trust?

4) Let's consider another probability.

You list several "probabilities," so I'm going to break out part 4 for you in the next comment.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 9:58 pm | #

What do you suppose the chance is that God even knows we are here? What is the chance that you are aware of any one single influenza virus particle in the entire world? So why should God take any notice us out of the entire Universe?

Because He said He does. What's your basis for disagreeing with that statement?

-- Come on, let's get real. Omniscience? --

Why not? As you so deftly put it later in your own comment: "I can't think of anything more presumptuous for you to do than arbitrarily limiting what God can do."

So why can't God make life arise spontaneously even if you don't understand how he did it?

Why can't God make life evolve spontaneously, to see what works better, and find out what he gets in the end? Hmm. God the experimental scientist!

But similarly, why couldn't God simply have done it in six days--or one day--or half a minute? Again, the presumption on your part...

Why can't God write his true word in DNA, and rock strata, and what we call Maxwell's equations (fiat lux!), and spectra coming from stars billions of light years away?

Nobody said He doesn't (or at least, He leaves clues for us). But why couldn't He ALSO dictate it to a handful of people who were willing to listen and relay faithfully--even when it reflected poorly on themselves? Presumption on your part...

If you believe in a 6000 year old Earth, go join the Flat Earth Society. And be sure not to believe we landed on the moon, or that the Sun is the center of the SOLAR system.

And if you believe that young-universe believers hold to those beliefs, you need to actually TALK to one, rather than just believing what you've been told about us. Presumption, presumption.

And you would be doing so just because of a book written by MAN between 4000 and 2000 years ago.

Again, there's that presumption that God doesn't tell people things, and that He can't make sure they write it down correctly. You're trying to put limits on what God can do or chooses to do, without any real basis therefor.

In summary: You deists think you're clever, but all you do is contradict yourselves. You say, "We can't know anything about God," but fail to understand that this is, itself, an absolute statement requiring certain knowledge about the nature of God, His inclinations, and His abilities.

(CAVEAT: I do not claim to know everything about God. I do claim, however, to know of Him what He has seen fit to reveal to me.)
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 10:13 pm | #

*LMAO*
We can only hope Der Schtaat doesn't hear of their plight and resolve to subsidize them (You can be certain that offer will be accepted)!
Galt-in-Da-Box | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 11:02 pm | #

We can only hope Der Schtaat doesn't hear of their plight and resolve to subsidize them (You can be certain that offer will be accepted)!
Galt-in-Da-Box | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 11:02 pm | #

Well, they could always move their program to NPR...
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 01.28.08 - 11:11 pm | #

"Consider, you maintain your body, for example, by burning up energy. There is a high energy cost to maintaining the order that makes your body able to function. Similarly, it takes a lot of energy on your part to keep your room clean. Yet, you can maintain the order of your room and in your body. So it is possible to create order, such as in DNA or RNA as long as energy is coupled to driving that order, and the overall order of the Universe decreases. You flush some of your newly created disorder every day."

Order does NOT come from adding energy
anymore than warming up my room will make it clean and orderly.

Intelligent intent has to be added or the room just gets hot or the parts for a car don't get designed, produced and assembled. Without intelligent intent everything just sits there getting warm, or in the case of atomic elements just moving faster.
T.L. | 01.28.08 - 11:48 pm | #

"To declare something real is to declare that it's provable by science, or that it will at least some day be proved by science to be real. Until then it might still be real, but it will just be a guess. The declaration of reality evokes proof and since faith specifically excludes proof then faith excludes the understanding of reality." -- The Faith Paradox, CoR

I'm not convinced because of the assumed
definition of faith.

I have faith that a bridge will stand because I have knowledge about bridge building and the education and abilities of bridge builders.

Jesus performed miracles and people believed. He gave them a reason to believe and then people had faith in His words.

If faith excludes proof them Jesus should have been prohibited from performing miracles.

The 'faith paradox' is built on a fallacy, intentionally or not.
T.L. | 01.29.08 - 12:04 am | #

Always an ax to grind.

Like I've been saying.

There is a theological motivation for this phenomenan.

There always is.

Romans 1: 18-25

God cannot lie and has testified to the human condition.
Manatee | 01.29.08 - 1:22 am | #

biophyicist Physics provides for spontaneous creation of order in a subsystem, as long as the overall order of the Universe decreases. That is the principle of entropy.

Consider, you maintain your body, for example, by burning up energy. There is a high energy cost to maintaining the order that makes your body able to function. Similarly, it takes a lot of energy on your part to keep your room clean. Yet, you can maintain the order of your room and in your body. So it is possible to create order, such as in DNA or RNA as long as energy is coupled to driving that order, and the overall order of the Universe decreases. You flush some of your newly created disorder every day.

I am not certain that Vox would disagree with much of what you say. He wasn't arguing against increase in order in his column. And Vox does not think the world is 6000 years old.

But you statement is incorrect. Energy is not enough to give you creativity. It is energy and machine. http://bethyada.blogspot.com/200...nergy- work.html

Raw energy doesn't create. But harnessed to a energy converter much can be done.

From whence comes the machine?
bethyada | Homepage | 01.29.08 - 3:25 am | #

Manatee.... has it ever occured to you to actually add something to the conversation? Why don't you save us all the time and simply cut and paste *** Insert Standard Manatee Comment Here*** 3 or 4 times in every thread.

We all know what you're going to say. Why bother typing it over and over and over again?
Nate | Homepage | 01.29.08 - 7:40 am | #

Especially since next time, I'm just going to start nuking as soon as you start in with more of the same.

JQP will be the first godless infidel to convert to Christianity out of embarrassment. Manatee looks to be the first Christian to convert Christians to agnosticism out of sheer tediousness.
VD | 01.29.08 - 8:09 am | #

If faith excludes proof them Jesus should have been prohibited from performing miracles.

The 'faith paradox' is built on a fallacy, intentionally or not.
T.L. | 01.29.08 - 12:04 am | #

Hear hear!

Another point of aggravation for me is that, ultimately, even those who hold to the "experts'" scientific opinions are putting faith in the experts.
Mrs. Pilgrim | Homepage | 01.29.08 - 11:27 am | #

Commenting by HaloScan