Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?

2007-06-26T23:55:00Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* YES */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The theory of "evolution through natural selection" is ''predicated'' upon an atheistic assumption. It is based on so-called [[methodological naturalism]], i.e., a refusal to consider supernatural causes. Right from the start it consciously and deliberately rules out God's creative and guiding power.

Legislation and especially court rulings in the United States enforce this atheistic doctrine. In public schools, during science class, teachers are authorized to ''squelch'' any challenge to this atheistic premise. Note that I do not mean that science classes simply say, let's ignore God. I mean that ''by choosing to ignore God'' they are supporting atheism and attacking religion.

The doctrine of [[unguided evolution]] is essential to atheism. No atheist can survive intellectually, without having a satisfactory answer to the question, "Where did human beings come from? How did life begin? Why is planet Earth so hospitable to life?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:The Bible says that God created life in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Any belief other than this is anti-Christian, and therefore atheistic. [[User:BornAgain|BornAgain]] 17:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, you are correct in saying that noone can survive intellectually without an answer to those questions. The thing is that us atheists do have satisfactory answers to those questions. And the planet Earth is so hospitable to life because ''life evolved to suit the Earth''. Regardless of what Earth actually turned out to be, life would have evolved to suit it.

::BornAgain, without meaning to be rude that is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. What about Hindus? They are definately not atheists however they have a different creation story to you. It involves gods, so how is that an atheistic belief? [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 9:52, 27 June 2007

==NO==
Ed Poor's argument is based on the assumption that humans can fathom the manner in which God created life. This is a faulty premise. The majority of scientists support the theory of evolution and the vast majority of scientists believe in God. They are able to have both of these beliefs because they realize that we cannot possibly understand the works of God. On the other hand, we can seek understanding of the world we live in by creating theories based on our observations. The theory of evolution says nothing about the existence of God. It is simply a theory, based on certain observations, that creates certain predictions.

If evolution is undermining religion, it is doing so only because creationists posit that they know how God created life, and evolution is not how He created it. When evolution is supported, creationists feel like their beliefs are being undermined. Belief in evolution is an exercise in humility and perseverance - accepting the fact that we cannot understand God's works combined with an unceasing effort to understand what we can in our world.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 14:42, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:I feel I have to disillusion you over religious scientists. Out of the two academically highest fellowships of scientists in the USA and Great Britain only 7% are religious. Unfortunately as well, there is no way to really believe in god and science at the same time. Science proves that the bible is wrong on many counts, and to believe in science you must accept that the bible is wrong on so many things. How then can you accept that god exists considering that the only evidence for his existences is proven to be a mess of falsehoods and folklore? Simply, you cannot. The reason is because religion was created by humans as a way of explaining how they came to be and where they are going. Now science is better at explaining these things yet people insist that religion is true or that religion is more important then science. Until these people are disillusioned of religion then scientific progress will be hindered and humanity will stagnate. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:35, 8 June 2007

Bolly, you actually need to crack your Bible open, assuming have ever read it, and read what it says. For example, In Job, God mentions (or I think it was God) streams in the seas. Science did not even know that such things existed until recently. Evolution may be a way of explaining where you are going in this lifetime, but it is not a promising or comforting thought. Most of evolution is based on opinions, ideas, thoughts, etc. Look through any textbook. "We believe...", "perhaps", "scientists assume/think," etc. It is all hype. Watch any serious creation video, and they raise very interesting questions. For example (I am going to have to write something, this is getting exciting!)

1. The Big Bang can not have formed the universe, because mathematically it is impossible. If you add up the estimated masses of all planetary bodies, and compare it with earth's mass and gravity, the speed neccesary for particals to leave that small of a region would approach light-speed. Black holes are a example of this. How often do we see exploding black holes?

2. The chances that information can come from non-information to form life is astronomical. We all know and love the illustration about the airplane being assembled in a junkyard with the components therein. While I forget the exact the exact figure, one major scientist theorized that the chances that one E. Clori bacteria would form from soup was one chance in 10 with many BILLION zeros following it. That means that said bacteria would have to have several succesful mutations per year in order to evolve into a human.

I could keep on going here, but I will let others join in

In Christ
[[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:09, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:In reply I have to say ComputerWizard, you need to study the theory of the Big Bang, assuming you have ever read that. The Big Bang theory does not say that the entire mass of the universe started at one point in space and has spread out ever since. It says that ''space itself'' has expanded from that point. The particles in it did not move however they did move away from each other due to the expansion of space. One reasonably good metaphor is a balloon with dots on it. When the balloon is blown up the dots move away from each other, although they do not have any of their own velocity.

:Yes the airplane in the junkyard. That is in fact an argument ''against'' your position, not for it. How do you explain how God came to be? Surely the chance of nothing forming into one obviously complex creature impossible? On the other hand, it is possible for the primordial soup to form into proteins and highly simple forms of proto-life. Of course soup cannot form into E. Clori bacteria, because that bacteria is quite complex in comparison to what it has evolved from.

:Watching a very serious creationist video does raise some very interesting questions. "How much research have these people actually done on this subject?" "Where is their proof?" "Do they honestly believe such absolute garbage?" I feel exaclty this way after any kind of creationist video/book/talk. Yes the words "scientists thinkg/assume..." appear in textbooks. Yet why do they believe it? Because the evidence is strongly in favour of their position. They don't accept the Bible or the Koran as a source of evidence. In fact if someone did quote the Koran as a source of evidence then the christian community would be in uproar! But when it's the Bible, it is all "Yes it is very accurate and believable" when really it is just as bad as the Koran.

:Admittedly the theory of evolution is not as comforting or promising as the religious ideology however that doesn't make it any less true than it is. There are far more unpleasant truths that may be confronted in life and they are no less true just because they are distasteful. Personally I find it quite refreshing and stimulating to think that we are the result of a complex series of reactions, mutations, nuclear collisions and so on, as it means that we are indeed very special and unique and that we are perfect for what we evolved to do, not what a creator designed us to do. Although I highly doubt that I will change your mind, I do hope that you consider these points fairly and maybe I will. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:04, 14 June 2007

::I've been watching show after show preaching that the Evolutionary Theory is based on scientific fact without proceeding to show any. I ask myself if anyone honestly believes such absolute garbage? Why? Because their Humanist religion requires it. Judeo-Christians have archeological, geological, as well as scientific studies and research that back up the historic record of the Christian Old and New Testaments. As well as prophetic events that have come to pass or are happening now. Yet people will still reject facts as they are presented to them and attribute these things in conformence to their own world view. So what? The Neo-Cains will continue to do whatever pleases themselves. It is their place in history to continually repeat it again, and again.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:00, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Roo, your whole paragraph could be taken as completely for evolution if you switched some words around. Replace evolutionary theory with creationism, humanist with christian, Judeo-Christians with scientists, 'back up' with disprove and then it makes perfect sense and is an accurate reference to todays situation. There is plenty of scientific facts that support evolution. Try reading "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. It isn't perfect but it is very convincing. Try all the books and scientific papers that have ever been published in support of the theory. How can such a theory be accepted by the vast majority of biologists if it was false or was not supported by evidence?

There are many many problems with the Old and New Testaments historical records. There are events described in there that either did not happen or happened at a different time altogether. The Sumerian civilisation invented the first writing and recording and that started at over 7000 years ago. How do you account for that in your young earth theory? As for the 'prophetic events', where are they? Please give me examples because I am yet to see any. People will reject facts because they don't conform to their world view, it happens all the time in the USA in creationist churches and homes and it saddens those of us who search for truth in these times. Please look at your facts before presenting the same tired old trojan horses. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 10:56, 20 June 2007

Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?

2007-06-19T23:57:28Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The theory of "evolution through natural selection" is ''predicated'' upon an atheistic assumption. It is based on so-called [[methodological naturalism]], i.e., a refusal to consider supernatural causes. Right from the start it consciously and deliberately rules out God's creative and guiding power.

Legislation and especially court rulings in the United States enforce this atheistic doctrine. In public schools, during science class, teachers are authorized to ''squelch'' any challenge to this atheistic premise. Note that I do not mean that science classes simply say, let's ignore God. I mean that ''by choosing to ignore God'' they are supporting atheism and attacking religion.

The doctrine of [[unguided evolution]] is essential to atheism. No atheist can survive intellectually, without having a satisfactory answer to the question, "Where did human beings come from? How did life begin? Why is planet Earth so hospitable to life?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:The Bible says that God created life in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Any belief other than this is anti-Christian, and therefore atheistic. [[User:BornAgain|BornAgain]] 17:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==
Ed Poor's argument is based on the assumption that humans can fathom the manner in which God created life. This is a faulty premise. The majority of scientists support the theory of evolution and the vast majority of scientists believe in God. They are able to have both of these beliefs because they realize that we cannot possibly understand the works of God. On the other hand, we can seek understanding of the world we live in by creating theories based on our observations. The theory of evolution says nothing about the existence of God. It is simply a theory, based on certain observations, that creates certain predictions.

If evolution is undermining religion, it is doing so only because creationists posit that they know how God created life, and evolution is not how He created it. When evolution is supported, creationists feel like their beliefs are being undermined. Belief in evolution is an exercise in humility and perseverance - accepting the fact that we cannot understand God's works combined with an unceasing effort to understand what we can in our world.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 14:42, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:I feel I have to disillusion you over religious scientists. Out of the two academically highest fellowships of scientists in the USA and Great Britain only 7% are religious. Unfortunately as well, there is no way to really believe in god and science at the same time. Science proves that the bible is wrong on many counts, and to believe in science you must accept that the bible is wrong on so many things. How then can you accept that god exists considering that the only evidence for his existences is proven to be a mess of falsehoods and folklore? Simply, you cannot. The reason is because religion was created by humans as a way of explaining how they came to be and where they are going. Now science is better at explaining these things yet people insist that religion is true or that religion is more important then science. Until these people are disillusioned of religion then scientific progress will be hindered and humanity will stagnate. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:35, 8 June 2007

Bolly, you actually need to crack your Bible open, assuming have ever read it, and read what it says. For example, In Job, God mentions (or I think it was God) streams in the seas. Science did not even know that such things existed until recently. Evolution may be a way of explaining where you are going in this lifetime, but it is not a promising or comforting thought. Most of evolution is based on opinions, ideas, thoughts, etc. Look through any textbook. "We believe...", "perhaps", "scientists assume/think," etc. It is all hype. Watch any serious creation video, and they raise very interesting questions. For example (I am going to have to write something, this is getting exciting!)

1. The Big Bang can not have formed the universe, because mathematically it is impossible. If you add up the estimated masses of all planetary bodies, and compare it with earth's mass and gravity, the speed neccesary for particals to leave that small of a region would approach light-speed. Black holes are a example of this. How often do we see exploding black holes?

2. The chances that information can come from non-information to form life is astronomical. We all know and love the illustration about the airplane being assembled in a junkyard with the components therein. While I forget the exact the exact figure, one major scientist theorized that the chances that one E. Clori bacteria would form from soup was one chance in 10 with many BILLION zeros following it. That means that said bacteria would have to have several succesful mutations per year in order to evolve into a human.

I could keep on going here, but I will let others join in

In Christ
[[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:09, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:In reply I have to say ComputerWizard, you need to study the theory of the Big Bang, assuming you have ever read that. The Big Bang theory does not say that the entire mass of the universe started at one point in space and has spread out ever since. It says that ''space itself'' has expanded from that point. The particles in it did not move however they did move away from each other due to the expansion of space. One reasonably good metaphor is a balloon with dots on it. When the balloon is blown up the dots move away from each other, although they do not have any of their own velocity.

:Yes the airplane in the junkyard. That is in fact an argument ''against'' your position, not for it. How do you explain how God came to be? Surely the chance of nothing forming into one obviously complex creature impossible? On the other hand, it is possible for the primordial soup to form into proteins and highly simple forms of proto-life. Of course soup cannot form into E. Clori bacteria, because that bacteria is quite complex in comparison to what it has evolved from.

:Watching a very serious creationist video does raise some very interesting questions. "How much research have these people actually done on this subject?" "Where is their proof?" "Do they honestly believe such absolute garbage?" I feel exaclty this way after any kind of creationist video/book/talk. Yes the words "scientists thinkg/assume..." appear in textbooks. Yet why do they believe it? Because the evidence is strongly in favour of their position. They don't accept the Bible or the Koran as a source of evidence. In fact if someone did quote the Koran as a source of evidence then the christian community would be in uproar! But when it's the Bible, it is all "Yes it is very accurate and believable" when really it is just as bad as the Koran.

:Admittedly the theory of evolution is not as comforting or promising as the religious ideology however that doesn't make it any less true than it is. There are far more unpleasant truths that may be confronted in life and they are no less true just because they are distasteful. Personally I find it quite refreshing and stimulating to think that we are the result of a complex series of reactions, mutations, nuclear collisions and so on, as it means that we are indeed very special and unique and that we are perfect for what we evolved to do, not what a creator designed us to do. Although I highly doubt that I will change your mind, I do hope that you consider these points fairly and maybe I will. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:04, 14 June 2007

::I've been watching show after show preaching that the Evolutionary Theory is based on scientific fact without proceeding to show any. I ask myself if anyone honestly believes such absolute garbage? Why? Because their Humanist religion requires it. Judeo-Christians have archeological, geological, as well as scientific studies and research that back up the historic record of the Christian Old and New Testaments. As well as prophetic events that have come to pass or are happening now. Yet people will still reject facts as they are presented to them and attribute these things in conformence to their own world view. So what? The Neo-Cains will continue to do whatever pleases themselves. It is their place in history to continually repeat it again, and again.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:00, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Roo, your whole paragraph could be taken as completely for evolution if you switched some words around. Replace evolutionary theory with creationism, humanist with christian, Judeo-Christians with scientists, 'back up' with disprove and then it makes perfect sense and is an accurate reference to todays situation. There is plenty of scientific facts that support evolution. Try reading "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. It isn't perfect but it is very convincing. Try all the books and scientific papers that have ever been published in support of the theory. How can such a theory be accepted by the vast majority of biologists if it was false or was not supported by evidence?

There are many many problems with the Old and New Testaments historical records. There are events described in there that either did not happen or happened at a different time altogether. The Sumerian civilisation invented the first writing and recording and that started at over 7000 years ago. How do you account for that in your young earth theory? As for the 'prophetic events', where are they? Please give me examples because I am yet to see any. People will reject facts because they don't conform to their world view, it happens all the time in the USA in creationist churches and homes and it saddens those of us who search for truth in these times. Please look at your facts before presenting the same tired old trojan horses. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 10:56, 20 June 2007

Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?

2007-06-14T11:05:27Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The theory of "evolution through natural selection" is ''predicated'' upon an atheistic assumption. It is based on so-called [[methodological naturalism]], i.e., a refusal to consider supernatural causes. Right from the start it consciously and deliberately rules out God's creative and guiding power.

Legislation and especially court rulings in the United States enforce this atheistic doctrine. In public schools, during science class, teachers are authorized to ''squelch'' any challenge to this atheistic premise. Note that I do not mean that science classes simply say, let's ignore God. I mean that ''by choosing to ignore God'' they are supporting atheism and attacking religion.

The doctrine of [[unguided evolution]] is essential to atheism. No atheist can survive intellectually, without having a satisfactory answer to the question, "Where did human beings come from? How did life begin? Why is planet Earth so hospitable to life?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:The Bible says that God created life in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Any belief other than this is anti-Christian, and therefore atheistic. [[User:BornAgain|BornAgain]] 17:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==
Ed Poor's argument is based on the assumption that humans can fathom the manner in which God created life. This is a faulty premise. The majority of scientists support the theory of evolution and the vast majority of scientists believe in God. They are able to have both of these beliefs because they realize that we cannot possibly understand the works of God. On the other hand, we can seek understanding of the world we live in by creating theories based on our observations. The theory of evolution says nothing about the existence of God. It is simply a theory, based on certain observations, that creates certain predictions.

If evolution is undermining religion, it is doing so only because creationists posit that they know how God created life, and evolution is not how He created it. When evolution is supported, creationists feel like their beliefs are being undermined. Belief in evolution is an exercise in humility and perseverance - accepting the fact that we cannot understand God's works combined with an unceasing effort to understand what we can in our world.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 14:42, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:I feel I have to disillusion you over religious scientists. Out of the two academically highest fellowships of scientists in the USA and Great Britain only 7% are religious. Unfortunately as well, there is no way to really believe in god and science at the same time. Science proves that the bible is wrong on many counts, and to believe in science you must accept that the bible is wrong on so many things. How then can you accept that god exists considering that the only evidence for his existences is proven to be a mess of falsehoods and folklore? Simply, you cannot. The reason is because religion was created by humans as a way of explaining how they came to be and where they are going. Now science is better at explaining these things yet people insist that religion is true or that religion is more important then science. Until these people are disillusioned of religion then scientific progress will be hindered and humanity will stagnate. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:35, 8 June 2007

Bolly, you actually need to crack your Bible open, assuming have ever read it, and read what it says. For example, In Job, God mentions (or I think it was God) streams in the seas. Science did not even know that such things existed until recently. Evolution may be a way of explaining where you are going in this lifetime, but it is not a promising or comforting thought. Most of evolution is based on opinions, ideas, thoughts, etc. Look through any textbook. "We believe...", "perhaps", "scientists assume/think," etc. It is all hype. Watch any serious creation video, and they raise very interesting questions. For example (I am going to have to write something, this is getting exciting!)

1. The Big Bang can not have formed the universe, because mathematically it is impossible. If you add up the estimated masses of all planetary bodies, and compare it with earth's mass and gravity, the speed neccesary for particals to leave that small of a region would approach light-speed. Black holes are a example of this. How often do we see exploding black holes?

2. The chances that information can come from non-information to form life is astronomical. We all know and love the illustration about the airplane being assembled in a junkyard with the components therein. While I forget the exact the exact figure, one major scientist theorized that the chances that one E. Clori bacteria would form from soup was one chance in 10 with many BILLION zeros following it. That means that said bacteria would have to have several succesful mutations per year in order to evolve into a human.

I could keep on going here, but I will let others join in

In Christ
[[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:09, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:In reply I have to say ComputerWizard, you need to study the theory of the Big Bang, assuming you have ever read that. The Big Bang theory does not say that the entire mass of the universe started at one point in space and has spread out ever since. It says that ''space itself'' has expanded from that point. The particles in it did not move however they did move away from each other due to the expansion of space. One reasonably good metaphor is a balloon with dots on it. When the balloon is blown up the dots move away from each other, although they do not have any of their own velocity.

:Yes the airplane in the junkyard. That is in fact an argument ''against'' your position, not for it. How do you explain how God came to be? Surely the chance of nothing forming into one obviously complex creature impossible? On the other hand, it is possible for the primordial soup to form into proteins and highly simple forms of proto-life. Of course soup cannot form into E. Clori bacteria, because that bacteria is quite complex in comparison to what it has evolved from.

:Watching a very serious creationist video does raise some very interesting questions. "How much research have these people actually done on this subject?" "Where is their proof?" "Do they honestly believe such absolute garbage?" I feel exaclty this way after any kind of creationist video/book/talk. Yes the words "scientists thinkg/assume..." appear in textbooks. Yet why do they believe it? Because the evidence is strongly in favour of their position. They don't accept the Bible or the Koran as a source of evidence. In fact if someone did quote the Koran as a source of evidence then the christian community would be in uproar! But when it's the Bible, it is all "Yes it is very accurate and believable" when really it is just as bad as the Koran.

:Admittedly the theory of evolution is not as comforting or promising as the religious ideology however that doesn't make it any less true than it is. There are far more unpleasant truths that may be confronted in life and they are no less true just because they are distasteful. Personally I find it quite refreshing and stimulating to think that we are the result of a complex series of reactions, mutations, nuclear collisions and so on, as it means that we are indeed very special and unique and that we are perfect for what we evolved to do, not what a creator designed us to do. Although I highly doubt that I will change your mind, I do hope that you consider these points fairly and maybe I will. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:04, 14 June 2007

Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-06-08T00:24:39Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Alleged errors and contradictions in the Bible */

Wow, great topic. Do we all get to creat a 1-2-3-4-5 ... 19-20 list? I'll try. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Solutions by God/Jesus discussion ==

1) overpopulation 2) preventing war 3) preventable disease 4) natural resource protection .... 19) maintaining American sovereignty over the world 20) asteroid striking Earth. 99) finding an extraterrestrial intelligent race that is broadcasting solutions to all these problems for any species that need them. My quick 0.02, arbitraged through the Euro. Human 00:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:We've already been visited by an intelligent extraterrestrial with solutions to all these problems. But most reject the solutions, and question his identity. His name was Jesus. Philip J. Rayment 21:56, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::Good one - touché. I was thinking you were going to identify It as God. Human 22:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I did. Jesus is God. Philip J. Rayment 22:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Hello over here, PJR. I was curious if you would briefly synopsize Jesus' solutions to 1 through 4 on my list? Thanks! [[User:Human|Human]] 12:10, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:1 Overpopulation is not a problem. The problem is a lack of food production in some countries, due to corrupt governments and worldviews that don't encourage productive effort. Believing in the God of truth would get rid of corruption, and believing in the God that tells us that we should do a fair day's work would increase productive effort.
:Would it bring water to the desert, cure plant blight, bring rain to the drought areas and dryness to the floods? Starvation isn't always the result of corruption and laziness. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 22:59, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Apart from Divine intervention to solve those problems (which should not be dismissed), then yes, those problems would remain. But they wouldn't be the major problems that they are today if everything else was working properly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:2 Believing in the Prince of Peace (Jesus) and following God's instruction to love one another, and to love our enemies (not that we'd have any left) would stop people starting wars with each other.
:3 Preventable diseases exist because of people's lifestyles, whether they be immoral ones or related to my comments in point 1. Leading moral lives as God expects would therefore eliminate preventable diseases.
:4 God has given us the use of this planet, but it is still His and He expects us to look after it. If we did that, we would not waste or otherwise abuse natural resources.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:09, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for humoring me, I appreciate your taking the trouble to clarify the answers. And the discussion continues... [[User:Human|Human]] 13:38, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:# There is a limit to food production (and living space): one planet can only support a certain maximum population, and we're approaching that limit.
:# If everyone believed in one ideology there would be peace, for a while... conflict is part of human nature, history teaches us that the only way to unite humanity is to give them a common enemy.
:# People get sick because there are viruses and bacteria around, don't forget genetic mutations: a person doesn't choose to get leukemia or Parkinson.
:# Damn right, that's why your point about overpopulation is wrong.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

::# Yes, there is a limit, but I dispute that we are getting close to that limit. Population densities are ''far'' higher in some places than others, and food production is ''far'' higher in some places than others, indicating that there is still plenty of room for growth. (I realise that not all places will sustain the same population or food production, but I still believe that there is plenty of room for growth).
::# Conflict is a part of a person's ''fallen'' nature, i.e. after rejecting God. If we all accepted and obeyed God, it would not be an issue. You are judging how a particular ideology would work by ascribing to it a characteristic of different ideologies.
::# Yes, it wouldn't eliminate all disease. But human's point was ''preventable'' disease, and it was that which I was addressing.
::# God has also told us to "be fruitful and multiply", meaning increase the population. So clearly that can't be something contrary to point 1.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:#I for one don't want to see the whole world turn into one giant Tokyo: I enjoy <s>breathable</s> fresh air, and would like to have multiple! square meters to call my own. Really, why isn't 6.5 billion enough anyway?
:#Conflict is in our hearts, our DNA and our brains (our ancient hunting instincts and such), Einstein once said: "there are only two things eternal: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not even entirely sure about the first one", any ideology will eventually start to suppress "dissidents" for "the greater good", we've even been there with Christianity (the dark ages, aren't called that way because people hadn't invented the light bulb yet), no single ideology can please everyone, except maybe freedom, so let's just keep our freedom!
:#No, medicine and hygiene are how you stop disease.
:#Not multiply like rabbits, we're a sentient species, we should at least be able to control our own population, don't you think?
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

::# We've a long way to go before the entire world has a population density of Tokyo. How much is enough?
::# Please point me to the "conflict" gene in the DNA. Yes, it is in our hearts (but not our DNA) and minds because of sin, but that's why people returning to God would solve this problem. You are lumping all ideologies in together, without any attempt to see of perhaps one of them might be different. The "dark ages" are not called that for the reason that you think. They are called that for the very purpose of maligning Christianity. See the quotes below.
::# Medicine and hygiene are not the only ways of stopping diseases.
::# No, I don't think we should do something contrary to what the all-wise, all-knowing God has told us to do. That is logically stupid, with the only defence being to reject God, which is of course what you do.
{{QuoteBox|...not only did religion not cause the “Dark Ages”; nothing else did either—the story that after the “fall” of Rome a long dark night of ignorance and superstition settled over Europe is as fictional as the Columbus story. In fact this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress … the Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth century was the … result of [Christian scholarship] starting in the eleventh century… Why did real science develop in Europe … and not anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian theology… The “Enlightenment” [was] conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists and humanists [e.g. Voltaire, Diderot and Gibbon] who attempted to claim credit for the rise of science [through promulgating] the falsehood that science required the defeat of religion.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ Rodney Stark, quoted by a reviewer of his book]}}
{{QuoteBox|What about the ‘Dark Ages’? The term was invented in the 19th century, and is now rejected by historians as being a pejorative incorrectly denoting it to be a period of intellectual darkness and barbarity (p. 129) [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ By the reviewer of Stark's book, from the same link]}}
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Discussion regarding religion, evil, etc. ==

I moved this from the article page with the permission of the two main "discussers". [[User:Human|Human]] 17:24, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:"Solving" the rejection of god would do absolutely nothing for anything. religion causes more problems then it solves, northern Ireland, terrorism, ID, the Tamil Tigers etc. My list would be 1) global warming 2) poverty 3) freedom of government for every country 4) endangered species of animals 5) freedom of sexuality 6)scientists need to be believed and people must accept that science is seperate from religion 7) seperation of church and state in every country 8) securing Earth from asteroids etc. 9) spreading the word about the fallibility of religion and everything associated with it including ID and young earth. I know a lot of the conservatives around here won't like my liberal take on things, but its a debate and there is my view. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 10 May 2007

::Not that religion is without its problems, I heard this canard tonight on Nightline (that religion is at the root of so much of the world's problems). From Stalin's Terror to Chairman Mao's Communist and Cultural revolutions, I do think religious disputes pale in comparison. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Global warming. Let me illustrate what I mean:
{{cquote|2PE 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.}}

Signing... [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

- ::Bolly Ottihw, your comments are illogical, because they treat all religions (except, presumably, atheistic ones) as equal, and as they make contradictory claims and can't all be correct, as equally wrong. But it it not logical to assume that because some are wrong that all are, yet you are lumping them all together, despite, as HeartOfGold says, atheist worldviews have been far worse, and despite all the good that a Christian worldview has done for society. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Please explain how lumping all religions together is so wrong? Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all monotheistic, all believe in the same god and are all similar in a theoretical extent. I am not assuming that because one is wrong they all are, I am saying that they are because I think there is enough evidence that they all have a detrimental effect on society. Good things? I have seen very few. Firstly, look at some of the things a christian world view has brought about. In Australia there was the 'stolen generation'. This was when aboriginal children (aboriginals are the native people of Australia, much the same as American Indians) were taken from their parents by missionaries because they were 'not being brought up the right way'. Thus these children were denied there parents and as a result, aboriginal society has been fractured and almost destroyed. Then of course, there is the crusades, death and disease being the only outcomes of these misguided 'religious wars'. Don't forget the Inquisition or the witch hunts of the medieval times. Christianity has done far far more evil to the world than it has done good, just as with all the other religions.
:::Heart of Gold, I assume you meant athiestic when you said religious in your post about Chairman Mao and Stalin? Please correct me if you haven't. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:40, 10 May 2007

:::: Islam and Judaism deny the Divinity of Jesus, for one thing. They can't all be correct on that.
:::: As for the effects of Christianity on society, please read this review of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery].
:::: The 'stolen generation' is an urban myth, with most examples of "stolen" children not being stolen at all. And to the extent that any were taken against their parents' will, it was generally by governments, not missionaries.
:::: The Crusades were, in part, a military action to stop and reverse the invasions by Muslims of various countries.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

How dare you call the stolen generation an 'urban myth'? It is a fact, and most of the participants in it were either missionaries or christian. If you said that Down Under you would find very few people who would seriously consider it, and a wealth of aboriginals who were part of the stolen generation, as well as caucasians who admit to having instigated it.

So what is your point? Christians deny that Mohummed was a prophet, how can you all be correct on that? It cuts both ways. As for that review, 535 people were executed for 'religious heresy' in Aragon? How is that good? 535? That is a lot of deaths, just because these people did not think the same thoughts that the rulers did. Sounds a lot like communism or facism.

The Crusades would not have been nearly as major as they were if the church hadn't have called them a holy war to recapture Jerusalem and put all their support behind it. Another example of the detrimental affect the church had on society: in Italy in the 17-1800's many Jewish children were taken from their parents and banned from seeing them ever again, simply because they had been baptised as a baby by a catholic housekeeper who was employed by the Jewish families. What those children needed was the love and care of their parents, not the harsh upbringing of the catholic church. And you still haven't responded to the Northern Ireland crisis. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:25, 10 May 2007

:I "dare" call it an 'urban myth' (well, perhaps that's not the best term, how about 'non-existent'?) because it is, and I do so 'down under', because that's where I am. Nobody has been able to name these supposed 'wealth of aboriginals', which is very strong evidence that there is no 'wealth of aboriginals' that were 'stolen'.
: I never said that all agreed that Mohammad was a prophet; that actually supports my point that they all disagree. If they all disagree, then they can't all be correct, but it does not follow that they are all ''incorrect''; it is still possible for one of them to be correct, yet you lump them all in together.
: Neither did I say that Christians have never done anything bad. Sure, you can quote me some instances of Christians doing bad things (now, however, consistent with Christianity), but a few examples does not meant that Christianity per se is bad, and as I pointed out, it has done an enormous amount of good. And in fact it has primarily been Protestantism that has done the most good, whereas most of your examples are of non-Protestants.
: Northern Ireland is a political dispute, not a religious one, even though the two political sides are split along nominally religious lines.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::A fellow Aussie! Hip hip, Huzzah! Anyway, I am surprised that you deny this as it is well documented and quite easy to find some simple facts about it.
::Ok they are all different in some respects. The reason I lump them all together is because all of them are about defending the indefencible in the face of overwhelming evidence, and because they are all a tool to discourage individual thought and different POV's.
::Please enlighten me with some example of this 'good' that christianity, or protentism, has done because I have found none that is not outweighed enormously by the amount of death and suffering it has caused over the years.
:: Northern Ireland is a political dispute, however without the definition of one side as catholics, and the others as protestants, the trouble would have ended long ago. Instead a rival group mentality is fostered by sending children to denominational religious schools, by going to church and by marrying into the same group. If it wasn't for this, there would be no way of telling who was on what side, or any easy ways with which to inspire hatred. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:10, 10 May 2007

::: I deny it for the reasons that I gave; that there is a lack of evidence. Yes, it is well "documented", but without any actual list of "stolen" aborigines (beyond a handful). Most that were supposedly "stolen" were actually voluntarily given up by their parents who couldn't look after them, and reasons such as that.
::: Your argument about "defending the indefensible" presumes that it is indefensible, which it isn't. And Christianity is not "a tool to discourage individual thought"; if anything it has encouraged it.
::: I've already pointed you to a page which mentions some of the good that Christianity has done. Did you read it?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:34, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Bolly Ottihw: do you have a source for that 1700-1800 Italy story? I never heard of that before. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 08:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Firstly, I don't have a direct source, it came from 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, and I do not have a copy with me to check what sources he quoted, however if you do want to find out, I'm sure that it is not hard to obtain a copy of said book.
::If you mean the book review? I did read that. I did not find very many examples of 'good to society' in there. Firstly, of those scientists who were christian, there was almost no alternative at that time. Christianity was taught as a fact because there was little scientific evidence to challenge the god hypothesis. If raised in this day and age then very few of them would have been christians as they would have had a wealth of information on the subject that was not available then. Also, Copernicus lived under house arrest for the majority of his later years, because the church did not like his theory that the earth revolved around the sun. Does not sound like a church that is pushing for revolutions in the field of science. All there is there is a small paragraph about the abolition of slavery. Yes, you now have one good thing that the church has done for society. All of this compared with the amount of people that have been killed as a result of the church? What about all the wars that were the result of England becoming protestant as compared with the majority of European nations who were catholic? There's another example of death for religion.
::Of course religion discourages individual thought. You are not allowed to question the authority of the priests and bishops, or the bible. It is indoctrinated in young children as a fact and if they question, they are threatened with hell or simply told not to question. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:47, 11 May 2007

:::While I don't agree with Dawkins on this issue, I confess I haven't read the book. I have read other books by him and I know he tends to quote his sources. I will have to find a library copy. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Your attempt to make out that the relationship between Christianity and the scientific efforts of the scientists was coincidence more than anything else ignores the fact that the book's author (along with other researchers) specifically said that one was dependent on the other. Your handwaving away the dependency says much about your lack of objectivity.
::: Similarly, your attempt to counter the church's documented support for science with the odd counter-example shows that you are willing to grasp at straws.
::: I was raised in a Christian home and have attended church all my life, yet I have ''never'' been taught that I'm not allowed to question the authority of the church leadership, or even the Bible. Perhaps that's because I was raised as a Protestant, but I've already mentioned that it was Protestantism that I'm referring to as much as anything.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:50, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Leopeo, I do encourage you to read the book, as I found it quite a revalation, I credit it for turning me from an agnostic to an atheist. Even if you are comfortable with your christian beliefs, I still think it is a very good book and worthwhile reading.

:I am not making out that it was coincidence, it is true that the church has played a role in the dvelopment of science during the dark and middle ages. The main problem is that it has discourage scientific research that goes against its world view or ideology, for example the helioentric model, or evolution. Recently, ie the past 300-400 years there has been a tendency for the church to only use science where it supports their theology or whatever. I do admit however, that my knowledge of this is confined mostly to the catholic church and evangelicals so I cannot counter any claims you make about Protestantism, which sounds fairly mild as religions go. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:19, 11 May 2007

::I've seen very little evidence of the church discouraging scientific research that goes against its worldview. Rather, I'm dismayed at the support that it gives to evolution (including from the Catholic church). Galileo had a lot of support for the heliocentric model, and the opposition of the church at the time had more to do with him offending the powers that be than with the science. On the other hand, atheism and its ilk strongly discourages scientific research that goes against ''its'' ideology; just look at the opposition in the scientific community to creationism, and look at the level of funding for each.
::I have a friend who read The God Delusion. He is a Christian, and a fairly young one (i.e., he's been a Christian for only a few years), and I'm told by a mutual friend that The God Delusion strengthened his faith! His reasoning was that if this was the best case that atheists can raise against Christianity, they have no case!
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Why are you so dismayed at the support it gives to evolution? As far as scientific theories go it is a very strong one with a lot of supporting evidence. There is no need to abandon god just to believe it. I find it astonishing that so many people cannot accept that just maybe there is a possibility that the bible isn't 100% historically accurate, in fact there is quite a lot of proof that it isn't. Thats not to say that god doesn't exist, although that is my belief, it's simply that the bible was written by humans who aren't perfect.
Good on him. I honestly mean that, if he is that certain in his faith then that's good. Much better to be certain about what you believe. On the other hand though if he belives that atheism has no case against christianity I would suggest that just maybe he didn't quite understand, or want to understand, the actual arguments put forward in the book. Richard Dawkins was not arguing that god did not exist, all he was arguing was that god is extremely unlikely and that there is no good proof of his existence. But there you go, people are different and they shall stay that way. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:34, 12 May 2007

:I'm dismayed because it is cutting its own throat by doing so. Evolution and God ''as described in the Bible'' are mutually inconsistent. Sure, you can continue to believe in "a god", but not the God of the Bible. There is ''no'' proof that the Bible isn't 100% historically accurate, only flawed arguments against it. As far as scientific theories go, goo-to-you evolution barely qualifies, not even being falsifiable. The Bible claims to be written by God, millions of people have believed that it was written by God, many thousands of quite intelligent people are amongst those millions who have believed that, yet you simply assert that it wasn't. That's hardly a convincing argument.
:You suggest that my friend maybe didn't understand. Have you considered that maybe ''you'' don't understand the strength (or lack of) of the arguments? Even another atheist has said that Dawkins' book makes him embarrassed to be an atheist.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:32, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:: So when Paul says 'not the Lord, but I ...', that was the Lord, and not him? Why would God write in barely literate koine in the Gospel of Mark, and then in medical greek for the Gospel of Luke? I'm a Christian, but I recognise that the Bible was written by people, and diverges further from the truth with each translation. That's why I study and read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, to get at it in a more reliable form. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

::::God was the ultimate author, but not a dictator (in the sense of dictation), so He got the human authors to write what He wanted written, and He ensured that they were accurate, but they wrote it in their own styles and their own words.
::::How can it diverge further from the truth with each translation? That strongly suggests that it has gone through multiple steps of translation, such as A-B-C-D-E... I've often had bibliosceptics say similar things to me. The opposite is true, however. Modern translations are "single-step" translations, i.e. from the original languages directly into English. Sure, this has happened multiple time, but what that means is that the translation has gone A-B once, A-B again, A-B again, and so on. Each time it is translated, it is from the original languages, just as you do with your personal reading.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well why do you have to believe in the god from the bible? Evolution is in fact a very strong scientific theory and it is falsifiable. If one fossil turned up in the wrong strata of rock, for example a rabbit fossil in the pre cambrian rock then evolution would be conclusively proven wrong. However nothing like this has ever happened, despite some creationist claims otherwise.

:::So you are saying that loads of people cannot be wrong? over 1 million people voted Hitler into power in 1933 and they turned out to have made a bad choice. As well as this Islam is one of the most widespread religions in the world, alongside christianity, millions of people belive Islam and thousands of them are quite intelligent. So why are its claims any less valid? There are historical inaccuracies. Noah's arc. There is no evidence at all for the world wide flood yet people still believe it. And the 6000 year old creation. Again all the evidence points to the fact that the world is 4.3 billion years old and that the universe has been in existence for 13 billion years. That doesn't mean it is complete and certain fact but it is far far far more likely than the creation theories.

:::I have considered his arguments. I think they are quite strong. As for your atheist friend, I can understand why the book made him uncomfortable. However that does not make his arguments any less strong. They are by no means cast iron but they are very good. At the very least he does destroy all the logical 'proofs' for gods existence as well as suggesting some very believable ways in which the human mind could have conceived of god without his existing. At the very least it is an informative book, and I believe a breath of fresh air. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 13:56, 13 May 2007

:::: So much of what you have written is nothing more than anti-creationist and anti-biblical rhetoric. As far as evolution being falsifiable is concerned, I've rejected that notion [[User:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism#Is creationism falsifiable?|here]].
:::: Other than that, you've offered no evidence that it is the very strong theory that you claim.
:::: No, I'm not saying that loads of people cannot be wrong. I'm saying that with so many claiming a particular point of view, you need to do more than just dismiss all those people; you need to actually offer some good evidence or logic to support your claim.
:::: You claim that there is no evidence for a global flood, but you offer no explanation of what sort of evidence one should find if it were true, so your claim is hollow. Just for starters, a global flood would result in massive amounts of sediment, which would turn to rock. Most of the rock on the Earth's surface is sedimentary. There's prima facie evidence right there. And it is simply not true that ''all'' the evidence points to the world being 4.3 billion years old, etc. If you believe that, you clearly have not read some of the evidence that creationists have offered, which means that you are criticising and dismissing an idea that you obviously know next to nothing about.
:::: The atheist I referred to is not my friend, but a well-known atheistic/evolutionary scientist in America, and your response does nothing to explain away his objections.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Noah's Ark: Fact or Fiction ==
:I do attempt not to revert to simply bible bashing etc. What I would like to know is why you feel that the bible must be taken literally? There are a lot of christians and theologists who don't, not that that means you are wrong, simply that there are differences of opinion even amongst christians. I just explained how evolution is falsifiable. If fossils turn up in the wrong rock then evolution is wrong. There have been plenty of attempts to disprove evolution yet it is still regarded as a scientific fact by the majority of biologists.

:My main problem with claims that the bible was guided by god or written by him or any variation on that theme, is that it is a circular form of logic. "The bible was written by god because the bible shows proof of god. These proofs are correct because god wrote the bible and He cannot be wrong." Do you see where I am coming from?

:There is a lot of evidence against the great flood. Firstly, where did the water come from? If the world was covered in water then there would have to have been far far more water than exists today. Where has it gone? There is no evidence for this water. What about the animals that came off the ship? How big would the ship have to be to contain pairs of all the species of animals, plus the food to feed them with? What about inbreeding once the floodwaters subsided? A lot of animals would have simply failed to breed or have died out within a few generations. Where are the fossils? Of all of the animals and humans that were killed at the time of the great flood, a lot would have fossilised. So why are there no great bands of fossils that indicate a mass drowning such as this? There are more problems with the story, such as the current population of all the animal species etc. however surely these problems indicate that the bible is not actually literally true.

:Ok, not 'all' the evidence does. But most of it. And it is the simplest theory, Occam's Razor strikes again. I have read the creationist theories of the age of the universe and starlight reaching the earth and so on, and I was impressed with how fair they can be. On the other hand it seemed to be a rather convoluted way to explain why we can see stars that are 13 billion years old, compared to the rather simple "because the star ''is'' 13 billion years old".

:Ah ok, my mistake. Well he has his objections to the book, yet he is still an atheist. However I do understand his point of view (I think) because i did think that the book could have been improved a little and there were some weaknesses with his points. On the other hand there were some excellent arguments in there and also some very good scientific explanations regarding how god was created in the minds of humans and other things.

:[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:30, 14 May 2007

::I believe that parts of the Bible should be taken literally (i.e. not the parts that are metaphor and otherwise were not ''intended'' to be taken literally) because that's the way it was intended to be taken, and because there is good evidence that it is what it claims to be—God's infallible record.
:: Yes, you mentioned that you considered evolution falsifiable, and I pointed you to my explanation of why it is not. So what is your response to my explanation? None. You simply repeated your claim without even giving any indication that you read my rebuttal.
:: Your "circular reasoning" explanation for the Bible's authorship does not prove that it was ''not'' written by God, and is in fact a straw-man. I do not argue that "these proofs are correct because god wrote the bible and He cannot be wrong".
:: I said that you offered no evidence for a lack of a global flood, and that you clearly have no knowledge of the idea that you so readily dismiss. So now you offer some weak "evidence", but they are straw-man arguments or arguments that you should know the answer to if you had any knowledge of the idea. You still clearly do not have such knowledge, but are still arrogant enough to criticise it! I hate to point you to an entire book to read, but at least it is on-line and free, so I suggest that you have a read of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4018/ this book], then come back with whatever questions you still have. That will answer many of your questions and objections. Please find out something about creationism before you waste my time criticising it. Wouldn't you agree that it is best to have a working knowledge (at least) of a subject that you are going to criticise?
:: Personally, I think Occam's Razor often favours the creationist view. Surely it is better to explain the origin of the universe as "it was created by a being capable of creating it" than "nothing became something for no reason".
:: Yes, I'll admit that some of the creationist explanations are not as intuitive as one might like. However, I would argue that exactly the same criticism applies to evolution, the Big Bang, etc. Are you aware that the Big Bang model has a similar problem to the starlight/time problem? It's known as the horizon problem, and it's discussed in that book. The cosmologists' solutions are just as convoluted, including proposing that the speed of light used to be different! Now where have I heard that before?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm again intervening between you two. Sorry... ;-)
Philip, care to elaborate: "because there is good evidence that it is what it claims to be—God's infallible record."? By the way, TimS a few moments ago posted an interesting article on evolution being supposedly unfalsifiable, which might be of interest to both of you [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 10:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT): [[User:Tims/A_Response_to_Locke%27s%2C_%22The_Scientific_Case_Against_Evolution%22]]

:Well I didn't read the whole book, however I did read a few of the more important chapters for this discussion. I find it interesting that when referring to the animals on the arc, and the common ancestors, such as the equine ancestor for the zebra, horse and mule, they in fact need to agree with evolution to allow for the species to become so separated. Noah's arc could only have fitted all the animals onto it if most of todays animals evolved from the much smaller number of animals alive at that time. The book didn't answer one of my other questions: why didn't a lot of species of animals die out, and why is the human population so large when it came from 7-8 people only 4000 years ago?

:Occams Razor does not favour the creationist side of things, because to do so requires an incredibly complex creator or god. Compared to everything obeying the laws of physics etc., you invoke a being who is not only human in his emotions, jealousy, rage, love, hate and so on, and who is omnipotent and omniscient and so on. Just as an aside it is important to note that god cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent, as if he is omniscient then he can see his future self changing the future with his omnipotence, yet he has no choice as to whether he intervenes or not.

:I think anyone who suggests that the speed of light used to be different needs to have a real look at cosmology and physics. That is highly unlikely and it is also not a scientific theory as it is not falsifiable. Yes physics and science aren't perfect, and probably never will be but we try. And one day (barring disaster, destruction of the earth, extinction of humans etc.) we will have an almost complete understanding of the universe and how it behaves. I will go out on a limb and suggest that it is highly improbably that god will feature in it. And thankyou to Leopeo for pointing out that great article.

:[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:26, 15 May 2007

::Thanks for taking the time to learn. Not that this would make you sufficiently knowledgeable to dismiss creationism, but it's a very good start.
:: Regarding the requirement for "evolution" of the animals on the ark, Chapter 18 of that book touches on it, but a better explanation is [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831/106/ here]. It is also covered very briefly in [[definitions of evolution]], but you would be better off reading that external link.
:: Regarding human population, the real question is why there aren't many more people if humans have been around for 100,000 years, or whatever is the current figure. Doing the population growth calculations, it is quite easy to get today's population from eight people 4,500 years ago, but very difficult to get it with an evolutionary timescale without proposing "growth" rates that are virtually static (i.e. no growth) for most of that time.
:: I don't follow your question about species going extinct. Lots of species ''have'' died out.
:: It might seem counter-intuitive (it surprised me when I heard it), but God is not a complex being. Complexity means being composed of many parts, and God is not that; He is simply, ''God''.
:: Your objection regarding omniscience and omnipotence is based on a caricature of those terms. Being omnipotent does not mean being able to do things that are nonsense. For example, not even an omnipotent being can create a green drop, or a (thermally-)hot accent. Such are simply nonsense word constructions, not meaningful things. Similarly, an omnipotent being contradicting Himself is a nonsense thing. But perhaps more to the point of your specific objection, God has no "future", because "future" is a time-based term, and ''time'' is part of God's creation, along with space and matter, and God is outside of His creation, not part of it. What this means is that God does not exist ''in'' time. God is timeless. He has no past and no future, He just is. (This also explains why the question, "who created God" is nonsense. He had no beginning, because that is a time-base term, so there was no need for Him to be created.)
:: As I said, ''secular'' scientists have now proposed that the speed of light might have changed. I won't argue that it's falsifiable, but the reason it's perhaps not falsifiable is because it is something that only occurred (assuming it did) in the distant past, which we don't have to observe and test. But exactly the same criticism applies to the Big Bang, evolutionary history, etc. etc.
:: I disagree of course with your expectation regarding God featuring in our future understanding, but the main point I want to note is that this is a ''faith position'' of yours.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:10, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I found a couple of problems with that article. Firstly, they have admitted that natural selection occurs, fair enough, they give their reasons for that. But then they say that gene information is simply lost when natural selection favours, say long haired wolves over short haired ones. I only have to refer to the example of the moths (unfortunately I do not know what species of moth) who habit the woods around London. Before the Industrial Revolution these moths were very light brown as they matched the colour of the tree trunks. There was a slight mutation in one of the genes that occasionally threw up black or dark coloured moths, however they did not survive well as they were not camouflaged against the tree trunk. Then when London expanded rapidly and polution became a major issue, the trees around the city became covered in soot. Now it was the black moths who survived to breed and very soon the population of moths were entirely dark coloured. When the city cleaned up (a bit) and the woods returned to their previous colour, the odd moths that were born light coloured were once again the best adapted and so the population has returned to its pre-industrial state. According to that article, the gene information should have been lost and therefore the moths would have been unable to revert back to their original colouring.

The human population is an easy one. The population growth chart would only need static areas if wars and pandemics were left out. The bubonic plague killed almost three quaters of the population of Europe in the 1400's as well as many people in Asia and northern Africa. Wars and fighting over the past 2000 years have resulted in millions, if not billions of deaths as well as outbreaks of disease caused by poor health care up until recently. When such disasters and pandemics and wars are factored into the equation, the graph makes a lot more sense than the 8 people to 7 billion one. My other problem with noahs arc is: why did the human population not become infertile due to the human genes coming only from one families gene pool?

Yes it is counter-intuitive, it is also really weird. If god is so simple, then how can he do all the things you say he does? Creating the world and all the species of animals that inhabit it, creating the whole universe and being able to see and hear everyone on the world at the same time? That is not a simple being at all.

If god exists outside of time and space then how can he influence them? And contradicting himself is not a logical impossibility. What it basically means is that he has no choice in what he does because if he did then he would not be omniscient as he would not be able to see whether or not he interferes or not. So if god is omniscient then he has no choice or free will and therefore is not much of a god as praying to him will have no effect on what he does.

Well the only time I have heard the speed of light used to be faster argument was in that creation on the web book, however they did discount it. I find it hard to believe that serious physicists do actually think that.

I would disagree that it is a faith position, it is simply a prediction. I should not have used the word 'believe' to say how I think the future may pan out however it is not a cast iron faith position.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 10:22, 16 May 2007

:Of course they "admit" that natural selection occurs: A creationist discovered it before Darwin!
:The example of the wolves involves environmental pressures removing ''all'' the wolves with the genes for short hair. But this is not always what will happen. In the case of the peppered moths, the environmental pressure caused ''most'' of the dark/light moths to be eliminated, but not ''all''. So when the environment changed back, there was still a small population of the other form around to repopulate. By the way, although the story of the peppered moths is probably true, and is actually a nice example of natural selection without ([[information]]-gaining) evolution, the evidence (the photographs of the moths on tree trunks) was faked.
:When I referred to a "static growth" for human population, I was meaning over the long term. Sure, in the short term, it can fluctuate up and down, which means that if you select just the right time period (some increase, some decrease), you can show the population remaining static. But to sustain that stasis for a long, and especially a very long, time, where the wars, plagues, etc. exactly balance out the growth, is a very unlikely ad hoc explanation.
:I believe that infertility is not a direct result of inbreeding, but an indirect result. That is, it is not due to sexual intercourse in a small group, but to the rapid accumulation of genetic defects that results from that. If Noah and his family, living only a few generations after Adam and Eve, still had very few genetic defects, then there would have been no problem.
:Your questions about the nature of God are things that I mostly can't answer, simply because His very nature is so unlike all that we understand. We can glean much about Him, especially from what He has revealed to us, but there is so much more that we don't yet know and probably never will (until we join him in heaven). You ask how he could influence time and space if He is outside of them. Rather, I'd ask why you think that's a problem. The question seems to presuppose that you know something about how these things work to know that it shouldn't be possible. But to give a possible answer, you and I can influence things outside ourselves. We don't have to be in someone's family, for example, to influence what happens in that family.
:Omniscience can be hard to understand, I'll grant, but I don't see, for example, how praying is useless. Sure, God knows before you pray that you will pray, so He already knows what He is going to do, but if you don't pray, He instead already knows that and doesn't act on that non-prayer.
:Just in case you misunderstand, the secular scientists who have proposed that the speed of light was different in the past did not propose that it was different by anything like the amount that the creationist had earlier proposed, or for as long. About the only similarity between the two ideas was that it was not the constant (for all time) that is generally believed.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes but that leaves them in a weaker position because that is what evolution is all about. Now it seems that the only part of evolution that creationists object to is the gene mutations. Why is that when they have already taken the step of admitting natural selection? There is evidence of gene mutations that occur, such as bacteria and viruses mutating and becoming resistant to antibiotics or other medicines. And the creationist explanation did nothing for me. How is it possible that they already had the genetic information for the resistance of antibiotics in them, not to mention all the other drugs and medicines that some strains of bacteria are becoming resistant to? What about leopards and tigers, they had a common ancestor and they share similar information yet how did they become so different when some of them live in the same environment? According to the creationist theory, the common ancestor of snow leopards and siberian tigers should have lost the same types of genetic information when they 'migrated' from Ararat mountain to Russia and Mongolia, yet the two species have split to the extent that they can no longer mate. Surely only the mutations of genes can account for this.

::One thing i failed to understand was how the animals supposedly spread from Mount Ararat to all corners of the globe. Animals such as the kangaroo, and the koala, how did they get across asia and Indoniesia to end up here, without settling in other parts of the world? Why did most of the animals not stay around Israel? Why don't the native peoples of places such as Australia, North and South America and Asia have flood stories and tales of how they descended from Noah? How can you explain the diversity of species in different areas when it is obvious that some of them could not have crossed an ocean to get there. And the fact that the whole species (or its ancestor) must have crossed the oceans, leaving none of them behind? Birds is understandable but not sloths, grizzly bears, koalaa and buffalo not to mention thousands of others. There are plenty of holes in the story that have not yet been explained.

::[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:23, 17 May 2007

::: "''Yes but that leaves them in a weaker position because that is what evolution is all about.''". I'm sorry, I don't know what this is referring to.
::: Evolution could be described as the belief that a combination of two observed processes (natural selection and mutations) can result in creatures gradually changing into other types of creatures to the extent that all life has come from a single organism via this process. Creationists don't disagree that natural selection and mutations are real (both have been observed happening, and as I said, a creationist discovered and described natural selection before Darwin), but they do disagree that the combination of these two processes can lead to new organs, abilities, etc. (or more precisely, the new genetic [[information]] required for this). Not only has this part has ''not'' been observed, the opposite has been observed!
::: How did they already have the resistance? It depends on just how they have that resistance. I believe that it is not specific resistance to a given antibiotic as such, but rather some factor that results in them being resistant. Here is an explanation of one way this works (there are a number of different methods:
{{QuoteBox|Some antibiotics need to be taken into the bacterium to do their work. There are sophisticated chemical pumps in bacteria which can actively pump nutrients from the outside through the cell wall into the germ’s interior. Those germs which do this efficiently, when in the presence of one of these antibiotics, will therefore efficiently pump into themselves their own executioner. 
However, what if one of these bacteria inherits a defective gene, by way of a DNA copying mistake (mutation) which will interfere with the efficiency of this chemical pumping mechanism? Although this bacterium will not be as good at surviving in normal circumstances, this defect actually gives it a survival advantage in the presence of the man-made poison.}}
::: You can see from that explanation that the bacterium does not have a specific resistance to a given antibiotic, but a defect that ''effectively'' makes it resistant to antibiotics that work in that way.
::: Perhaps leopards and tigers did not always live in the same environment. Regardless, surely evolution has the same problem? How did leopards and tigers become different in the evolutionary scenario if they lived in the same environment?
::: Scientists don't have all the answers. Scientific research continues, because there are still things to learn, still questions to be answered, still problems to be solved. This should be even more the case with creationism, because creationism gets practically no funding (what it does get is mostly from private donations), yet evolutionists get (by comparison) vast amounts of funding. So no creationist claims to have all the answers to every last problem (although considering the amount of research they have been able to do, I think they've done remarkably well). One area that I can't give a really good answer on is the animal migration one. However, there are still some points that I can answer:
:::* Australia has no large carnivorous animals and not many medium-size ones either. Therefore, the kangaroo and koala have little in the way of natural enemies (except for disease, etc.). If there were larger carnivorous animals, the roo and koala would likely not fare very well. Carnivorous animals, on the other hand, would not survive so well where there are not other animals to eat. What this suggests is that as the animals spread around the world from Ararat, over many years, if not centuries in some cases, the vegetarians would migrate first, to be followed by the carnivores. So in some cases, the only vegetarians to survive would be the ones that kept ahead of the carnivores. If the kangaroos and koalas reached Australia first, and then rising sea levels following the [[ice age]] cut Australia off from Asia before the carnivores got there, the kangaroos and koalas on Australia would be protected and survive, whilst the ones remaining in Asia were wiped out.
:::* Animals will spread out to find new food sources, especially as populations increase and there is more competition for food. Rabbits were released in one location in Australia 150 odd years ago, and within a matter of decades had spread to cover half the continent. That is what happens; there is no way that animals would stay confined to the Middle East.
:::* Aborigines and other native peoples ''do'' have stories of the Flood, etc. See [[Great Flood]] for some examples.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:27, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== Animal Migration ==

Yes, that sentence was fairly poor and made little sense except to me. I do apologise for such poor argument techniques, my only (very poor) excuse is that I was absolutely wrecked at the time.

How do you mean that the opposite has been observed? From what I understand, bacteria have been observed to evolve and change quite significantly because of mutations and natural selection. Bacteria are one of the best organisms to observe as they reproduce very rapidly and the population can have progressed by tens of generations every day. Other animals appear to be evolving as we watch, such as the Hawthorn Fly and its new sub-species: the apple fly. go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution#Evidence_from_speciation] and have a look at the Hawthorn fly at the bottom of the page.

Regarding the 8000 species to fit on Noahs arc, how did so few species become so many after the flood? Natural selection does not result in the differentiation of species so quickly, and the differences between some of the species that were chosen as having a common ancestor are so marked that they must have divulged from the ancestor at a much much earlier date.

Well I don't pretend to understand how bacteria are resitant to antibiotics so I won't argue that point.

Leopards and tigers would have evolved to be quite different as their common ancestor split into two seperate breeding groups that became isolated from each other, either by mountains or migration of prey and then over thousands of years, mutations and differences in the two populations led to the differences between the species. That is my rather simplified understanding of how it occurs.

Well of course scientists don't know everything, if they did then religion would either be undisputable truth or ridiculed as fiction. That is the beauty of science, that there is always disagreements that lead to research in that area.

My understanding was that the last ice age that created a land bridge between Asia and Australia was over 6000 years ago. Regardless, how did animals get to the Americas? Specifically animals such as jaguars and pythons who would not have survived the cold temperatures in the north of Russia, where the only real land bridge between Asia and America may have existed. And how do you account for the predatorial megafauna that existed in Australia for a long time?

Of course the animals would not have stayed in the middle east, that is understandable, however how did they spread so far? It is not feasible that so many large animals travelled by rafts of seaweed or vegetation for so long without the herbivores eating the raft or carnivores eating the herbivores or each other.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:05, 22 May 2007

: "''How do you mean that the opposite has been observed?''". Goo-to-you evolution requires the ''generation'' of massive amounts of new genetic [[information]], whilst observations show that mutations not only do not result in increases in genetic information, but actually ''destroy'' genetic information. Destruction of genetic information is the opposite of the generation of new genetic information.
: "''From what I understand, bacteria have been observed to evolve and change quite significantly because of mutations and natural selection.''". That depends on what you mean by "evolve". Sure, they change, but they don't generate ''new genetic information''.
: "''Bacteria are one of the best organisms to observe as they reproduce very rapidly and the population can have progressed by tens of generations every day.''". Very true. And you know what? They are ''still'' bacteria! They have not generated new information to become anything else. If bacteria are still bacteria after, say, 100,000 generations (ten generations per day for less than 30 years), how did ape-like creatures change into men in, say, 33,000 generations (1 million years divided by 30 years per generation)?
: "''Regarding the 8000 species to fit on Noahs arc, how did so few species become so many after the flood? Natural selection does not result in the differentiation of species so quickly''". Yet just before that you commented about how fast creatures change and how we've seen new species appear fairly quickly!
: I attended a public meeting many years ago, put on by the Australian Skeptics, attempting to debunk creationism. They had four speakers, three scientists and a journalist. Two scientists and the journalist attacked creationists' motives and tried a guilt-by-association argument, and only one scientist actually discussed science! And his argument was that species form quite rapidly. I was puzzled (and I wasn't the only one) as to how this argument was supposed to refute creationism when it actually helped explain the very question you are asking.
: The point is that speciation ''can'' occur rapidly in the right conditions; it's been observed in our lifetime, so the 4,500 years since the flood is plenty of time. Your ideas of the pace of speciation are probably based on evolutionary ideas of how long evolutionists have think it has taken, rather than any actual observations.
: "''My understanding was that the last ice age that created a land bridge between Asia and Australia was over 6000 years ago''". That's according to the evolutionary timescale, which young-Earth creationists reject. My point about scientists not knowing everything was that I probably can't answer all your questions about how animals got to other parts of the world from Ararat.
: "''...how do you account for the predatorial megafauna that existed in Australia for a long time?''". First, was it really predatorial? Second, was it post-flood or pre-flood?
: "''..how did they spread so far?''". Slowly. They didn't need to travel all the way from Ararat to Australia in one trip, or one generation. Just as rabbits have spread across much of Australia in the say, 50 years after they were introduced, animals would have spread around the world over, say, 200 years (to pick a couple of figure out of the air).
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:50, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::This will probably be the last thing I say in this discussion as I feel that there are some major differences of opinion and the like that will inhibit any progress from here.

::Gene mutations do lead to the destruction of genetic material and it does not create new material, it alters genetic material which alters the organism slightly. Most mutations result in very little or no change because they are useless and simply get bred out again however some are productive and that is when the species advances.

::Bacteria are still bacteria because they have not progressed to a multi-cellular organism. Also there are a ''lot'' of strains or species of bacteria because they change so rapidly.

::I explained that smaller and short lived creatures can change rather rapidly however larger animals such as humans and elephants and so on who breed quite slowly take a long time to evolve, look at the two million years it took cro-magnon men to evolve into homo sapiens, although of course you won't agree with that.

::Evolutionary timescale. That is one reason that this argument can no longer progress as I 'know' that the scientific dating methods are accurate while you 'know' that the world is only 6000 years old and therefore science must be wrong. I would ask how you can doubt the scientific methods of dating fossils and glacier movement and all those kind of things.

::Well the some of the megafauna that existed was predatorial, insofar as they had long, sharp canines and incisors, their eyes were facing forward from the front of their skull and all the other indications that show predatorial habits. Well I assume that to overcome this problem you would say that they were pre-flood and indeed the fossils were dated to be over 20,000 years old.

::[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:39, 23 May 2007

:::"''...I feel that there are some major differences of opinion...''". You reckon? I'm glad you told me, because I wouldn't have guessed! :-)
:::"''...however some [mutations] are productive and that is when the species advances.''". Some mutations do confer a benefit on the creature, but even these are not increases in genetic information, but losses. For examples, beetles on a windy island that have a mutation that causes their wings to not develop have an advantage in that they don't get blown off the island into the sea. But even though this is an advantage, and could result in them being classified as a different species, it still doesn't explain where the genetic information for wings (etc.) came from in the first place. In other words, the genetic change is going in the wrong direction for goo-to-you evolution.
:::"''Bacteria are still bacteria because they have not progressed to a multi-cellular organism.''". Which explains nothing about evolution. That's equivalent to saying that bacteria are still bacteria because they haven't evolved into something else. Wow! Isn't that precisely what I was saying?
:::"''I explained that smaller and short lived creatures can change rather rapidly however larger animals such as humans and elephants and so on who breed quite slowly take a long time to evolve...''". Yes, which is why if you were going to see something evolving into something else, you would expect to see it in something like bacteria. '''But you don't'''!
:::"''...look at the two million years it took cro-magnon men to evolve into homo sapiens, although of course you won't agree with that''". Of course not, because (a) I believe that cro-magnon men were fully human, and (b) the timescale is based on assumptions that I disagree with.
:::"''Evolutionary timescale. That is one reason that this argument can no longer progress as I 'know' that the scientific dating methods are accurate ...''". Despite the fact that the evidence for such has been shown so many times to be unreliable.
:::"''...while you 'know' that the world is only 6000 years old ...''". I have it from a ''very'' reliable source, and the counter-evidence is demonstrably unreliable.
:::"''...and therefore science must be wrong''". No, it's not science that is wrong, but the materialistic assumptions of evolutionists.
:::"''I would ask how you can doubt the scientific methods of dating fossils and glacier movement and all those kind of things.''". The dating methods are based on unprovable assumptions that, as I have mentioned, have been shown to be unreliable.
:::"''...I assume that to overcome this problem you would say that they were pre-flood and indeed the fossils were dated to be over 20,000 years old''". I'm not saying that they were ''not'' predatory, just questioning whether or not we can say for sure that they ''were''. Neither am I saying that they ''are'' pre-flood, just wondering if we ''know'' that they weren't.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:18, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeh I know, I know. What I meant was that there really isn't anywhere for this arguement to go because you know what I think and vice-versa and basically because you accept the bible as fact and I think its a load of fairytales, and you say you have scientific evidence for them and I say I have evidence against it and so on and so forth, it'll only devolve into glorified "I'm right" "No you aren't, I am" and so on. But whatever!!

But you do! Bacteria evolve into different types of bacteria, becoming resistant to antibiotics, adapting to different organs and so on. If you took two different strains of bacteria that had a common ancestor, say three years ago, and examined these two bacteria, they would be so different as a result of living in a different environment that they would have very little resemblance to each other. That is a change of genetic material, where did it come from? Mutations of their genes of course.

What assumptions do you base your timescale on then? When the agricultural revolution began before god created the world then there is a slight problem, and I still fail to see why you doubt such dating methods, because even if they are hundreds of thousands of years off, even millions of years, the earth is still a lot older then the bible says it is.

Well the animals have been dated to have lived since just after the last ice age. So over 10,000 years old easily although again you have a different dating method. What I would like to know is why there are no records of the ice age in the bible or anywhere else from around the period of time after Noahs Arc?
[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 13:56, 28 May 2007

:"''But you do! Bacteria evolve into different types of bacteria...''". When I said that you don't see it evolve into something else, I mean something that is no longer bacteria. Creationists accept that living things have a range of adaptability, but not that they can create new genetic information and become something entirely different, ''which is what evolution requires to go from the first living thing to the vast variety we have today''. There is a "change in genetic material", but no new genetic [[information]].
:"''What assumptions do you base your timescale on then?''". That the Bible is an accurate historical record.
:"''When the agricultural revolution began before god created the world ...''". Only according to the timescale connected to the theory which denies God.
:"''I still fail to see why you doubt such dating methods, because even if they are hundreds of thousands of years off, even millions of years, the earth is still a lot older then the bible says it is.''". But not if they are off by hundreds of millions of years (or whatever the case may be). I doubt them because (a) they conflict with the reliable historical record of the Bible, and (b) because they have been shown to be unreliable when tested on rocks of known age, as well as inconsistent with each other in some cases.
:"''What I would like to know is why there are no records of the ice age in the bible or anywhere else from around the period of time after Noahs Arc?''". Have a read of [[ice age]] and see that there are likely references in the Bible.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:15, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Alleged errors and contradictions in the Bible ==

::How about these for some starters?
::[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html]
::Some of these are not as good as others but there are a lot of errors and inconsistencies in the Bible that are shown here. Please give me your opinion on them. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:42, 30 May 2007

:::There are a lot of ''alleged'' errors and inconsistencies shown there. I've seen these lists many times before, and the main problem is that they are looking ''for'' inconsistencies rather than objectively looking to see if they really are inconsistencies.
:::Also, what might at first appear to be a contradiction or error might in fact have an explanation. The onus is on the person claiming a contradiction or error to demonstrate that it is one, not on someone else to prove that it's not. To put it another way, there might be several ways to explain an alleged contradiction or error. The mere fact that it ''can'' be explained means that one ''cannot'' claim that it is a contradiction or error, even if nobody knows for sure which explanation is correct.
:::Another problem is that, despite these lists often being directed against "literalists", they argue from an overly-literalistic reading of the Bible. In other words, they are being literalists in arguing against literalists.
:::Anyway, to get to the point...
:::The first one ''assumes'' that a supernatural, all-powerful, God is not able to interact in a physical way with the physical world He created. There is no argument offered as to why this would be so.
:::The second part of that one is a case of begging the question. He argues against the biblical record by assuming and citing the opposing viewpoint!
:::The second one (regarding night and day) is illogical. He asserts that night and day is not possible without the sun, whereas what really distinguishes night and day is ''light'', and Genesis records that ''light'' had already been created. The second part, about light from the stars (although he doesn't explicitly mention them), is the first one that is at all reasonable, yet even it has been answered by creationists.
:::The third one claims that plants began to grow before there was sunlight. Wow! So what's the problem? First, there was already light, even if the sun wasn't at that stage the source of the light. Second, they existed for about 24 hours without ''sun''light. Does he think that plants can't survive for 24 hours without sunlight?
:::There's the first three passages (about five "errors") answered, which should be enough to show that this list has no credibility. I don't intend to waste my time refuting more.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:21, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes I'm sorry, I gave you the wrong link, those absurdities aren't very good are they. You should look at the contradictions page, that's what I meant to send. I don't ask you to refute all of them I just ask that you consider them because there are some that are just plain obvious and show that the bible does contain contradictions. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 10:22, 8 June 2007

Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?

2007-06-07T23:35:32Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* NO */

Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-30T09:43:10Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Animal Migration */

Wow, great topic. Do we all get to creat a 1-2-3-4-5 ... 19-20 list? I'll try. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Solutions by God/Jesus discussion ==

1) overpopulation 2) preventing war 3) preventable disease 4) natural resource protection .... 19) maintaining American sovereignty over the world 20) asteroid striking Earth. 99) finding an extraterrestrial intelligent race that is broadcasting solutions to all these problems for any species that need them. My quick 0.02, arbitraged through the Euro. Human 00:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:We've already been visited by an intelligent extraterrestrial with solutions to all these problems. But most reject the solutions, and question his identity. His name was Jesus. Philip J. Rayment 21:56, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::Good one - touché. I was thinking you were going to identify It as God. Human 22:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I did. Jesus is God. Philip J. Rayment 22:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Hello over here, PJR. I was curious if you would briefly synopsize Jesus' solutions to 1 through 4 on my list? Thanks! [[User:Human|Human]] 12:10, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:1 Overpopulation is not a problem. The problem is a lack of food production in some countries, due to corrupt governments and worldviews that don't encourage productive effort. Believing in the God of truth would get rid of corruption, and believing in the God that tells us that we should do a fair day's work would increase productive effort.
:Would it bring water to the desert, cure plant blight, bring rain to the drought areas and dryness to the floods? Starvation isn't always the result of corruption and laziness. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 22:59, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Apart from Divine intervention to solve those problems (which should not be dismissed), then yes, those problems would remain. But they wouldn't be the major problems that they are today if everything else was working properly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:2 Believing in the Prince of Peace (Jesus) and following God's instruction to love one another, and to love our enemies (not that we'd have any left) would stop people starting wars with each other.
:3 Preventable diseases exist because of people's lifestyles, whether they be immoral ones or related to my comments in point 1. Leading moral lives as God expects would therefore eliminate preventable diseases.
:4 God has given us the use of this planet, but it is still His and He expects us to look after it. If we did that, we would not waste or otherwise abuse natural resources.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:09, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for humoring me, I appreciate your taking the trouble to clarify the answers. And the discussion continues... [[User:Human|Human]] 13:38, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:# There is a limit to food production (and living space): one planet can only support a certain maximum population, and we're approaching that limit.
:# If everyone believed in one ideology there would be peace, for a while... conflict is part of human nature, history teaches us that the only way to unite humanity is to give them a common enemy.
:# People get sick because there are viruses and bacteria around, don't forget genetic mutations: a person doesn't choose to get leukemia or Parkinson.
:# Damn right, that's why your point about overpopulation is wrong.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

::# Yes, there is a limit, but I dispute that we are getting close to that limit. Population densities are ''far'' higher in some places than others, and food production is ''far'' higher in some places than others, indicating that there is still plenty of room for growth. (I realise that not all places will sustain the same population or food production, but I still believe that there is plenty of room for growth).
::# Conflict is a part of a person's ''fallen'' nature, i.e. after rejecting God. If we all accepted and obeyed God, it would not be an issue. You are judging how a particular ideology would work by ascribing to it a characteristic of different ideologies.
::# Yes, it wouldn't eliminate all disease. But human's point was ''preventable'' disease, and it was that which I was addressing.
::# God has also told us to "be fruitful and multiply", meaning increase the population. So clearly that can't be something contrary to point 1.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:#I for one don't want to see the whole world turn into one giant Tokyo: I enjoy <s>breathable</s> fresh air, and would like to have multiple! square meters to call my own. Really, why isn't 6.5 billion enough anyway?
:#Conflict is in our hearts, our DNA and our brains (our ancient hunting instincts and such), Einstein once said: "there are only two things eternal: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not even entirely sure about the first one", any ideology will eventually start to suppress "dissidents" for "the greater good", we've even been there with Christianity (the dark ages, aren't called that way because people hadn't invented the light bulb yet), no single ideology can please everyone, except maybe freedom, so let's just keep our freedom!
:#No, medicine and hygiene are how you stop disease.
:#Not multiply like rabbits, we're a sentient species, we should at least be able to control our own population, don't you think?
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

::# We've a long way to go before the entire world has a population density of Tokyo. How much is enough?
::# Please point me to the "conflict" gene in the DNA. Yes, it is in our hearts (but not our DNA) and minds because of sin, but that's why people returning to God would solve this problem. You are lumping all ideologies in together, without any attempt to see of perhaps one of them might be different. The "dark ages" are not called that for the reason that you think. They are called that for the very purpose of maligning Christianity. See the quotes below.
::# Medicine and hygiene are not the only ways of stopping diseases.
::# No, I don't think we should do something contrary to what the all-wise, all-knowing God has told us to do. That is logically stupid, with the only defence being to reject God, which is of course what you do.
{{QuoteBox|...not only did religion not cause the “Dark Ages”; nothing else did either—the story that after the “fall” of Rome a long dark night of ignorance and superstition settled over Europe is as fictional as the Columbus story. In fact this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress … the Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth century was the … result of [Christian scholarship] starting in the eleventh century… Why did real science develop in Europe … and not anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian theology… The “Enlightenment” [was] conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists and humanists [e.g. Voltaire, Diderot and Gibbon] who attempted to claim credit for the rise of science [through promulgating] the falsehood that science required the defeat of religion.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ Rodney Stark, quoted by a reviewer of his book]}}
{{QuoteBox|What about the ‘Dark Ages’? The term was invented in the 19th century, and is now rejected by historians as being a pejorative incorrectly denoting it to be a period of intellectual darkness and barbarity (p. 129) [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ By the reviewer of Stark's book, from the same link]}}
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Discussion regarding religion, evil, etc. ==

I moved this from the article page with the permission of the two main "discussers". [[User:Human|Human]] 17:24, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:"Solving" the rejection of god would do absolutely nothing for anything. religion causes more problems then it solves, northern Ireland, terrorism, ID, the Tamil Tigers etc. My list would be 1) global warming 2) poverty 3) freedom of government for every country 4) endangered species of animals 5) freedom of sexuality 6)scientists need to be believed and people must accept that science is seperate from religion 7) seperation of church and state in every country 8) securing Earth from asteroids etc. 9) spreading the word about the fallibility of religion and everything associated with it including ID and young earth. I know a lot of the conservatives around here won't like my liberal take on things, but its a debate and there is my view. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 10 May 2007

::Not that religion is without its problems, I heard this canard tonight on Nightline (that religion is at the root of so much of the world's problems). From Stalin's Terror to Chairman Mao's Communist and Cultural revolutions, I do think religious disputes pale in comparison. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Global warming. Let me illustrate what I mean:
{{cquote|2PE 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.}}

Signing... [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

- ::Bolly Ottihw, your comments are illogical, because they treat all religions (except, presumably, atheistic ones) as equal, and as they make contradictory claims and can't all be correct, as equally wrong. But it it not logical to assume that because some are wrong that all are, yet you are lumping them all together, despite, as HeartOfGold says, atheist worldviews have been far worse, and despite all the good that a Christian worldview has done for society. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Please explain how lumping all religions together is so wrong? Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all monotheistic, all believe in the same god and are all similar in a theoretical extent. I am not assuming that because one is wrong they all are, I am saying that they are because I think there is enough evidence that they all have a detrimental effect on society. Good things? I have seen very few. Firstly, look at some of the things a christian world view has brought about. In Australia there was the 'stolen generation'. This was when aboriginal children (aboriginals are the native people of Australia, much the same as American Indians) were taken from their parents by missionaries because they were 'not being brought up the right way'. Thus these children were denied there parents and as a result, aboriginal society has been fractured and almost destroyed. Then of course, there is the crusades, death and disease being the only outcomes of these misguided 'religious wars'. Don't forget the Inquisition or the witch hunts of the medieval times. Christianity has done far far more evil to the world than it has done good, just as with all the other religions.
:::Heart of Gold, I assume you meant athiestic when you said religious in your post about Chairman Mao and Stalin? Please correct me if you haven't. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:40, 10 May 2007

:::: Islam and Judaism deny the Divinity of Jesus, for one thing. They can't all be correct on that.
:::: As for the effects of Christianity on society, please read this review of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery].
:::: The 'stolen generation' is an urban myth, with most examples of "stolen" children not being stolen at all. And to the extent that any were taken against their parents' will, it was generally by governments, not missionaries.
:::: The Crusades were, in part, a military action to stop and reverse the invasions by Muslims of various countries.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

How dare you call the stolen generation an 'urban myth'? It is a fact, and most of the participants in it were either missionaries or christian. If you said that Down Under you would find very few people who would seriously consider it, and a wealth of aboriginals who were part of the stolen generation, as well as caucasians who admit to having instigated it.

So what is your point? Christians deny that Mohummed was a prophet, how can you all be correct on that? It cuts both ways. As for that review, 535 people were executed for 'religious heresy' in Aragon? How is that good? 535? That is a lot of deaths, just because these people did not think the same thoughts that the rulers did. Sounds a lot like communism or facism.

The Crusades would not have been nearly as major as they were if the church hadn't have called them a holy war to recapture Jerusalem and put all their support behind it. Another example of the detrimental affect the church had on society: in Italy in the 17-1800's many Jewish children were taken from their parents and banned from seeing them ever again, simply because they had been baptised as a baby by a catholic housekeeper who was employed by the Jewish families. What those children needed was the love and care of their parents, not the harsh upbringing of the catholic church. And you still haven't responded to the Northern Ireland crisis. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:25, 10 May 2007

:I "dare" call it an 'urban myth' (well, perhaps that's not the best term, how about 'non-existent'?) because it is, and I do so 'down under', because that's where I am. Nobody has been able to name these supposed 'wealth of aboriginals', which is very strong evidence that there is no 'wealth of aboriginals' that were 'stolen'.
: I never said that all agreed that Mohammad was a prophet; that actually supports my point that they all disagree. If they all disagree, then they can't all be correct, but it does not follow that they are all ''incorrect''; it is still possible for one of them to be correct, yet you lump them all in together.
: Neither did I say that Christians have never done anything bad. Sure, you can quote me some instances of Christians doing bad things (now, however, consistent with Christianity), but a few examples does not meant that Christianity per se is bad, and as I pointed out, it has done an enormous amount of good. And in fact it has primarily been Protestantism that has done the most good, whereas most of your examples are of non-Protestants.
: Northern Ireland is a political dispute, not a religious one, even though the two political sides are split along nominally religious lines.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::A fellow Aussie! Hip hip, Huzzah! Anyway, I am surprised that you deny this as it is well documented and quite easy to find some simple facts about it.
::Ok they are all different in some respects. The reason I lump them all together is because all of them are about defending the indefencible in the face of overwhelming evidence, and because they are all a tool to discourage individual thought and different POV's.
::Please enlighten me with some example of this 'good' that christianity, or protentism, has done because I have found none that is not outweighed enormously by the amount of death and suffering it has caused over the years.
:: Northern Ireland is a political dispute, however without the definition of one side as catholics, and the others as protestants, the trouble would have ended long ago. Instead a rival group mentality is fostered by sending children to denominational religious schools, by going to church and by marrying into the same group. If it wasn't for this, there would be no way of telling who was on what side, or any easy ways with which to inspire hatred. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:10, 10 May 2007

::: I deny it for the reasons that I gave; that there is a lack of evidence. Yes, it is well "documented", but without any actual list of "stolen" aborigines (beyond a handful). Most that were supposedly "stolen" were actually voluntarily given up by their parents who couldn't look after them, and reasons such as that.
::: Your argument about "defending the indefensible" presumes that it is indefensible, which it isn't. And Christianity is not "a tool to discourage individual thought"; if anything it has encouraged it.
::: I've already pointed you to a page which mentions some of the good that Christianity has done. Did you read it?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:34, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Bolly Ottihw: do you have a source for that 1700-1800 Italy story? I never heard of that before. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 08:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Firstly, I don't have a direct source, it came from 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, and I do not have a copy with me to check what sources he quoted, however if you do want to find out, I'm sure that it is not hard to obtain a copy of said book.
::If you mean the book review? I did read that. I did not find very many examples of 'good to society' in there. Firstly, of those scientists who were christian, there was almost no alternative at that time. Christianity was taught as a fact because there was little scientific evidence to challenge the god hypothesis. If raised in this day and age then very few of them would have been christians as they would have had a wealth of information on the subject that was not available then. Also, Copernicus lived under house arrest for the majority of his later years, because the church did not like his theory that the earth revolved around the sun. Does not sound like a church that is pushing for revolutions in the field of science. All there is there is a small paragraph about the abolition of slavery. Yes, you now have one good thing that the church has done for society. All of this compared with the amount of people that have been killed as a result of the church? What about all the wars that were the result of England becoming protestant as compared with the majority of European nations who were catholic? There's another example of death for religion.
::Of course religion discourages individual thought. You are not allowed to question the authority of the priests and bishops, or the bible. It is indoctrinated in young children as a fact and if they question, they are threatened with hell or simply told not to question. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:47, 11 May 2007

:::While I don't agree with Dawkins on this issue, I confess I haven't read the book. I have read other books by him and I know he tends to quote his sources. I will have to find a library copy. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Your attempt to make out that the relationship between Christianity and the scientific efforts of the scientists was coincidence more than anything else ignores the fact that the book's author (along with other researchers) specifically said that one was dependent on the other. Your handwaving away the dependency says much about your lack of objectivity.
::: Similarly, your attempt to counter the church's documented support for science with the odd counter-example shows that you are willing to grasp at straws.
::: I was raised in a Christian home and have attended church all my life, yet I have ''never'' been taught that I'm not allowed to question the authority of the church leadership, or even the Bible. Perhaps that's because I was raised as a Protestant, but I've already mentioned that it was Protestantism that I'm referring to as much as anything.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:50, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Leopeo, I do encourage you to read the book, as I found it quite a revalation, I credit it for turning me from an agnostic to an atheist. Even if you are comfortable with your christian beliefs, I still think it is a very good book and worthwhile reading.

:I am not making out that it was coincidence, it is true that the church has played a role in the dvelopment of science during the dark and middle ages. The main problem is that it has discourage scientific research that goes against its world view or ideology, for example the helioentric model, or evolution. Recently, ie the past 300-400 years there has been a tendency for the church to only use science where it supports their theology or whatever. I do admit however, that my knowledge of this is confined mostly to the catholic church and evangelicals so I cannot counter any claims you make about Protestantism, which sounds fairly mild as religions go. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:19, 11 May 2007

::I've seen very little evidence of the church discouraging scientific research that goes against its worldview. Rather, I'm dismayed at the support that it gives to evolution (including from the Catholic church). Galileo had a lot of support for the heliocentric model, and the opposition of the church at the time had more to do with him offending the powers that be than with the science. On the other hand, atheism and its ilk strongly discourages scientific research that goes against ''its'' ideology; just look at the opposition in the scientific community to creationism, and look at the level of funding for each.
::I have a friend who read The God Delusion. He is a Christian, and a fairly young one (i.e., he's been a Christian for only a few years), and I'm told by a mutual friend that The God Delusion strengthened his faith! His reasoning was that if this was the best case that atheists can raise against Christianity, they have no case!
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Why are you so dismayed at the support it gives to evolution? As far as scientific theories go it is a very strong one with a lot of supporting evidence. There is no need to abandon god just to believe it. I find it astonishing that so many people cannot accept that just maybe there is a possibility that the bible isn't 100% historically accurate, in fact there is quite a lot of proof that it isn't. Thats not to say that god doesn't exist, although that is my belief, it's simply that the bible was written by humans who aren't perfect.
Good on him. I honestly mean that, if he is that certain in his faith then that's good. Much better to be certain about what you believe. On the other hand though if he belives that atheism has no case against christianity I would suggest that just maybe he didn't quite understand, or want to understand, the actual arguments put forward in the book. Richard Dawkins was not arguing that god did not exist, all he was arguing was that god is extremely unlikely and that there is no good proof of his existence. But there you go, people are different and they shall stay that way. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:34, 12 May 2007

:I'm dismayed because it is cutting its own throat by doing so. Evolution and God ''as described in the Bible'' are mutually inconsistent. Sure, you can continue to believe in "a god", but not the God of the Bible. There is ''no'' proof that the Bible isn't 100% historically accurate, only flawed arguments against it. As far as scientific theories go, goo-to-you evolution barely qualifies, not even being falsifiable. The Bible claims to be written by God, millions of people have believed that it was written by God, many thousands of quite intelligent people are amongst those millions who have believed that, yet you simply assert that it wasn't. That's hardly a convincing argument.
:You suggest that my friend maybe didn't understand. Have you considered that maybe ''you'' don't understand the strength (or lack of) of the arguments? Even another atheist has said that Dawkins' book makes him embarrassed to be an atheist.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:32, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:: So when Paul says 'not the Lord, but I ...', that was the Lord, and not him? Why would God write in barely literate koine in the Gospel of Mark, and then in medical greek for the Gospel of Luke? I'm a Christian, but I recognise that the Bible was written by people, and diverges further from the truth with each translation. That's why I study and read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, to get at it in a more reliable form. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

::::God was the ultimate author, but not a dictator (in the sense of dictation), so He got the human authors to write what He wanted written, and He ensured that they were accurate, but they wrote it in their own styles and their own words.
::::How can it diverge further from the truth with each translation? That strongly suggests that it has gone through multiple steps of translation, such as A-B-C-D-E... I've often had bibliosceptics say similar things to me. The opposite is true, however. Modern translations are "single-step" translations, i.e. from the original languages directly into English. Sure, this has happened multiple time, but what that means is that the translation has gone A-B once, A-B again, A-B again, and so on. Each time it is translated, it is from the original languages, just as you do with your personal reading.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well why do you have to believe in the god from the bible? Evolution is in fact a very strong scientific theory and it is falsifiable. If one fossil turned up in the wrong strata of rock, for example a rabbit fossil in the pre cambrian rock then evolution would be conclusively proven wrong. However nothing like this has ever happened, despite some creationist claims otherwise.

:::So you are saying that loads of people cannot be wrong? over 1 million people voted Hitler into power in 1933 and they turned out to have made a bad choice. As well as this Islam is one of the most widespread religions in the world, alongside christianity, millions of people belive Islam and thousands of them are quite intelligent. So why are its claims any less valid? There are historical inaccuracies. Noah's arc. There is no evidence at all for the world wide flood yet people still believe it. And the 6000 year old creation. Again all the evidence points to the fact that the world is 4.3 billion years old and that the universe has been in existence for 13 billion years. That doesn't mean it is complete and certain fact but it is far far far more likely than the creation theories.

:::I have considered his arguments. I think they are quite strong. As for your atheist friend, I can understand why the book made him uncomfortable. However that does not make his arguments any less strong. They are by no means cast iron but they are very good. At the very least he does destroy all the logical 'proofs' for gods existence as well as suggesting some very believable ways in which the human mind could have conceived of god without his existing. At the very least it is an informative book, and I believe a breath of fresh air. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 13:56, 13 May 2007

:::: So much of what you have written is nothing more than anti-creationist and anti-biblical rhetoric. As far as evolution being falsifiable is concerned, I've rejected that notion [[User:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism#Is creationism falsifiable?|here]].
:::: Other than that, you've offered no evidence that it is the very strong theory that you claim.
:::: No, I'm not saying that loads of people cannot be wrong. I'm saying that with so many claiming a particular point of view, you need to do more than just dismiss all those people; you need to actually offer some good evidence or logic to support your claim.
:::: You claim that there is no evidence for a global flood, but you offer no explanation of what sort of evidence one should find if it were true, so your claim is hollow. Just for starters, a global flood would result in massive amounts of sediment, which would turn to rock. Most of the rock on the Earth's surface is sedimentary. There's prima facie evidence right there. And it is simply not true that ''all'' the evidence points to the world being 4.3 billion years old, etc. If you believe that, you clearly have not read some of the evidence that creationists have offered, which means that you are criticising and dismissing an idea that you obviously know next to nothing about.
:::: The atheist I referred to is not my friend, but a well-known atheistic/evolutionary scientist in America, and your response does nothing to explain away his objections.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Noah's Ark: Fact or Fiction ==
:I do attempt not to revert to simply bible bashing etc. What I would like to know is why you feel that the bible must be taken literally? There are a lot of christians and theologists who don't, not that that means you are wrong, simply that there are differences of opinion even amongst christians. I just explained how evolution is falsifiable. If fossils turn up in the wrong rock then evolution is wrong. There have been plenty of attempts to disprove evolution yet it is still regarded as a scientific fact by the majority of biologists.

:My main problem with claims that the bible was guided by god or written by him or any variation on that theme, is that it is a circular form of logic. "The bible was written by god because the bible shows proof of god. These proofs are correct because god wrote the bible and He cannot be wrong." Do you see where I am coming from?

:There is a lot of evidence against the great flood. Firstly, where did the water come from? If the world was covered in water then there would have to have been far far more water than exists today. Where has it gone? There is no evidence for this water. What about the animals that came off the ship? How big would the ship have to be to contain pairs of all the species of animals, plus the food to feed them with? What about inbreeding once the floodwaters subsided? A lot of animals would have simply failed to breed or have died out within a few generations. Where are the fossils? Of all of the animals and humans that were killed at the time of the great flood, a lot would have fossilised. So why are there no great bands of fossils that indicate a mass drowning such as this? There are more problems with the story, such as the current population of all the animal species etc. however surely these problems indicate that the bible is not actually literally true.

:Ok, not 'all' the evidence does. But most of it. And it is the simplest theory, Occam's Razor strikes again. I have read the creationist theories of the age of the universe and starlight reaching the earth and so on, and I was impressed with how fair they can be. On the other hand it seemed to be a rather convoluted way to explain why we can see stars that are 13 billion years old, compared to the rather simple "because the star ''is'' 13 billion years old".

:Ah ok, my mistake. Well he has his objections to the book, yet he is still an atheist. However I do understand his point of view (I think) because i did think that the book could have been improved a little and there were some weaknesses with his points. On the other hand there were some excellent arguments in there and also some very good scientific explanations regarding how god was created in the minds of humans and other things.

:[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:30, 14 May 2007

::I believe that parts of the Bible should be taken literally (i.e. not the parts that are metaphor and otherwise were not ''intended'' to be taken literally) because that's the way it was intended to be taken, and because there is good evidence that it is what it claims to be—God's infallible record.
:: Yes, you mentioned that you considered evolution falsifiable, and I pointed you to my explanation of why it is not. So what is your response to my explanation? None. You simply repeated your claim without even giving any indication that you read my rebuttal.
:: Your "circular reasoning" explanation for the Bible's authorship does not prove that it was ''not'' written by God, and is in fact a straw-man. I do not argue that "these proofs are correct because god wrote the bible and He cannot be wrong".
:: I said that you offered no evidence for a lack of a global flood, and that you clearly have no knowledge of the idea that you so readily dismiss. So now you offer some weak "evidence", but they are straw-man arguments or arguments that you should know the answer to if you had any knowledge of the idea. You still clearly do not have such knowledge, but are still arrogant enough to criticise it! I hate to point you to an entire book to read, but at least it is on-line and free, so I suggest that you have a read of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4018/ this book], then come back with whatever questions you still have. That will answer many of your questions and objections. Please find out something about creationism before you waste my time criticising it. Wouldn't you agree that it is best to have a working knowledge (at least) of a subject that you are going to criticise?
:: Personally, I think Occam's Razor often favours the creationist view. Surely it is better to explain the origin of the universe as "it was created by a being capable of creating it" than "nothing became something for no reason".
:: Yes, I'll admit that some of the creationist explanations are not as intuitive as one might like. However, I would argue that exactly the same criticism applies to evolution, the Big Bang, etc. Are you aware that the Big Bang model has a similar problem to the starlight/time problem? It's known as the horizon problem, and it's discussed in that book. The cosmologists' solutions are just as convoluted, including proposing that the speed of light used to be different! Now where have I heard that before?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm again intervening between you two. Sorry... ;-)
Philip, care to elaborate: "because there is good evidence that it is what it claims to be—God's infallible record."? By the way, TimS a few moments ago posted an interesting article on evolution being supposedly unfalsifiable, which might be of interest to both of you [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 10:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT): [[User:Tims/A_Response_to_Locke%27s%2C_%22The_Scientific_Case_Against_Evolution%22]]

:Well I didn't read the whole book, however I did read a few of the more important chapters for this discussion. I find it interesting that when referring to the animals on the arc, and the common ancestors, such as the equine ancestor for the zebra, horse and mule, they in fact need to agree with evolution to allow for the species to become so separated. Noah's arc could only have fitted all the animals onto it if most of todays animals evolved from the much smaller number of animals alive at that time. The book didn't answer one of my other questions: why didn't a lot of species of animals die out, and why is the human population so large when it came from 7-8 people only 4000 years ago?

:Occams Razor does not favour the creationist side of things, because to do so requires an incredibly complex creator or god. Compared to everything obeying the laws of physics etc., you invoke a being who is not only human in his emotions, jealousy, rage, love, hate and so on, and who is omnipotent and omniscient and so on. Just as an aside it is important to note that god cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent, as if he is omniscient then he can see his future self changing the future with his omnipotence, yet he has no choice as to whether he intervenes or not.

:I think anyone who suggests that the speed of light used to be different needs to have a real look at cosmology and physics. That is highly unlikely and it is also not a scientific theory as it is not falsifiable. Yes physics and science aren't perfect, and probably never will be but we try. And one day (barring disaster, destruction of the earth, extinction of humans etc.) we will have an almost complete understanding of the universe and how it behaves. I will go out on a limb and suggest that it is highly improbably that god will feature in it. And thankyou to Leopeo for pointing out that great article.

:[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:26, 15 May 2007

::Thanks for taking the time to learn. Not that this would make you sufficiently knowledgeable to dismiss creationism, but it's a very good start.
:: Regarding the requirement for "evolution" of the animals on the ark, Chapter 18 of that book touches on it, but a better explanation is [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831/106/ here]. It is also covered very briefly in [[definitions of evolution]], but you would be better off reading that external link.
:: Regarding human population, the real question is why there aren't many more people if humans have been around for 100,000 years, or whatever is the current figure. Doing the population growth calculations, it is quite easy to get today's population from eight people 4,500 years ago, but very difficult to get it with an evolutionary timescale without proposing "growth" rates that are virtually static (i.e. no growth) for most of that time.
:: I don't follow your question about species going extinct. Lots of species ''have'' died out.
:: It might seem counter-intuitive (it surprised me when I heard it), but God is not a complex being. Complexity means being composed of many parts, and God is not that; He is simply, ''God''.
:: Your objection regarding omniscience and omnipotence is based on a caricature of those terms. Being omnipotent does not mean being able to do things that are nonsense. For example, not even an omnipotent being can create a green drop, or a (thermally-)hot accent. Such are simply nonsense word constructions, not meaningful things. Similarly, an omnipotent being contradicting Himself is a nonsense thing. But perhaps more to the point of your specific objection, God has no "future", because "future" is a time-based term, and ''time'' is part of God's creation, along with space and matter, and God is outside of His creation, not part of it. What this means is that God does not exist ''in'' time. God is timeless. He has no past and no future, He just is. (This also explains why the question, "who created God" is nonsense. He had no beginning, because that is a time-base term, so there was no need for Him to be created.)
:: As I said, ''secular'' scientists have now proposed that the speed of light might have changed. I won't argue that it's falsifiable, but the reason it's perhaps not falsifiable is because it is something that only occurred (assuming it did) in the distant past, which we don't have to observe and test. But exactly the same criticism applies to the Big Bang, evolutionary history, etc. etc.
:: I disagree of course with your expectation regarding God featuring in our future understanding, but the main point I want to note is that this is a ''faith position'' of yours.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:10, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I found a couple of problems with that article. Firstly, they have admitted that natural selection occurs, fair enough, they give their reasons for that. But then they say that gene information is simply lost when natural selection favours, say long haired wolves over short haired ones. I only have to refer to the example of the moths (unfortunately I do not know what species of moth) who habit the woods around London. Before the Industrial Revolution these moths were very light brown as they matched the colour of the tree trunks. There was a slight mutation in one of the genes that occasionally threw up black or dark coloured moths, however they did not survive well as they were not camouflaged against the tree trunk. Then when London expanded rapidly and polution became a major issue, the trees around the city became covered in soot. Now it was the black moths who survived to breed and very soon the population of moths were entirely dark coloured. When the city cleaned up (a bit) and the woods returned to their previous colour, the odd moths that were born light coloured were once again the best adapted and so the population has returned to its pre-industrial state. According to that article, the gene information should have been lost and therefore the moths would have been unable to revert back to their original colouring.

The human population is an easy one. The population growth chart would only need static areas if wars and pandemics were left out. The bubonic plague killed almost three quaters of the population of Europe in the 1400's as well as many people in Asia and northern Africa. Wars and fighting over the past 2000 years have resulted in millions, if not billions of deaths as well as outbreaks of disease caused by poor health care up until recently. When such disasters and pandemics and wars are factored into the equation, the graph makes a lot more sense than the 8 people to 7 billion one. My other problem with noahs arc is: why did the human population not become infertile due to the human genes coming only from one families gene pool?

Yes it is counter-intuitive, it is also really weird. If god is so simple, then how can he do all the things you say he does? Creating the world and all the species of animals that inhabit it, creating the whole universe and being able to see and hear everyone on the world at the same time? That is not a simple being at all.

If god exists outside of time and space then how can he influence them? And contradicting himself is not a logical impossibility. What it basically means is that he has no choice in what he does because if he did then he would not be omniscient as he would not be able to see whether or not he interferes or not. So if god is omniscient then he has no choice or free will and therefore is not much of a god as praying to him will have no effect on what he does.

Well the only time I have heard the speed of light used to be faster argument was in that creation on the web book, however they did discount it. I find it hard to believe that serious physicists do actually think that.

I would disagree that it is a faith position, it is simply a prediction. I should not have used the word 'believe' to say how I think the future may pan out however it is not a cast iron faith position.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 10:22, 16 May 2007

:Of course they "admit" that natural selection occurs: A creationist discovered it before Darwin!
:The example of the wolves involves environmental pressures removing ''all'' the wolves with the genes for short hair. But this is not always what will happen. In the case of the peppered moths, the environmental pressure caused ''most'' of the dark/light moths to be eliminated, but not ''all''. So when the environment changed back, there was still a small population of the other form around to repopulate. By the way, although the story of the peppered moths is probably true, and is actually a nice example of natural selection without ([[information]]-gaining) evolution, the evidence (the photographs of the moths on tree trunks) was faked.
:When I referred to a "static growth" for human population, I was meaning over the long term. Sure, in the short term, it can fluctuate up and down, which means that if you select just the right time period (some increase, some decrease), you can show the population remaining static. But to sustain that stasis for a long, and especially a very long, time, where the wars, plagues, etc. exactly balance out the growth, is a very unlikely ad hoc explanation.
:I believe that infertility is not a direct result of inbreeding, but an indirect result. That is, it is not due to sexual intercourse in a small group, but to the rapid accumulation of genetic defects that results from that. If Noah and his family, living only a few generations after Adam and Eve, still had very few genetic defects, then there would have been no problem.
:Your questions about the nature of God are things that I mostly can't answer, simply because His very nature is so unlike all that we understand. We can glean much about Him, especially from what He has revealed to us, but there is so much more that we don't yet know and probably never will (until we join him in heaven). You ask how he could influence time and space if He is outside of them. Rather, I'd ask why you think that's a problem. The question seems to presuppose that you know something about how these things work to know that it shouldn't be possible. But to give a possible answer, you and I can influence things outside ourselves. We don't have to be in someone's family, for example, to influence what happens in that family.
:Omniscience can be hard to understand, I'll grant, but I don't see, for example, how praying is useless. Sure, God knows before you pray that you will pray, so He already knows what He is going to do, but if you don't pray, He instead already knows that and doesn't act on that non-prayer.
:Just in case you misunderstand, the secular scientists who have proposed that the speed of light was different in the past did not propose that it was different by anything like the amount that the creationist had earlier proposed, or for as long. About the only similarity between the two ideas was that it was not the constant (for all time) that is generally believed.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes but that leaves them in a weaker position because that is what evolution is all about. Now it seems that the only part of evolution that creationists object to is the gene mutations. Why is that when they have already taken the step of admitting natural selection? There is evidence of gene mutations that occur, such as bacteria and viruses mutating and becoming resistant to antibiotics or other medicines. And the creationist explanation did nothing for me. How is it possible that they already had the genetic information for the resistance of antibiotics in them, not to mention all the other drugs and medicines that some strains of bacteria are becoming resistant to? What about leopards and tigers, they had a common ancestor and they share similar information yet how did they become so different when some of them live in the same environment? According to the creationist theory, the common ancestor of snow leopards and siberian tigers should have lost the same types of genetic information when they 'migrated' from Ararat mountain to Russia and Mongolia, yet the two species have split to the extent that they can no longer mate. Surely only the mutations of genes can account for this.

::One thing i failed to understand was how the animals supposedly spread from Mount Ararat to all corners of the globe. Animals such as the kangaroo, and the koala, how did they get across asia and Indoniesia to end up here, without settling in other parts of the world? Why did most of the animals not stay around Israel? Why don't the native peoples of places such as Australia, North and South America and Asia have flood stories and tales of how they descended from Noah? How can you explain the diversity of species in different areas when it is obvious that some of them could not have crossed an ocean to get there. And the fact that the whole species (or its ancestor) must have crossed the oceans, leaving none of them behind? Birds is understandable but not sloths, grizzly bears, koalaa and buffalo not to mention thousands of others. There are plenty of holes in the story that have not yet been explained.

::[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:23, 17 May 2007

::: "''Yes but that leaves them in a weaker position because that is what evolution is all about.''". I'm sorry, I don't know what this is referring to.
::: Evolution could be described as the belief that a combination of two observed processes (natural selection and mutations) can result in creatures gradually changing into other types of creatures to the extent that all life has come from a single organism via this process. Creationists don't disagree that natural selection and mutations are real (both have been observed happening, and as I said, a creationist discovered and described natural selection before Darwin), but they do disagree that the combination of these two processes can lead to new organs, abilities, etc. (or more precisely, the new genetic [[information]] required for this). Not only has this part has ''not'' been observed, the opposite has been observed!
::: How did they already have the resistance? It depends on just how they have that resistance. I believe that it is not specific resistance to a given antibiotic as such, but rather some factor that results in them being resistant. Here is an explanation of one way this works (there are a number of different methods:
{{QuoteBox|Some antibiotics need to be taken into the bacterium to do their work. There are sophisticated chemical pumps in bacteria which can actively pump nutrients from the outside through the cell wall into the germ’s interior. Those germs which do this efficiently, when in the presence of one of these antibiotics, will therefore efficiently pump into themselves their own executioner. 
However, what if one of these bacteria inherits a defective gene, by way of a DNA copying mistake (mutation) which will interfere with the efficiency of this chemical pumping mechanism? Although this bacterium will not be as good at surviving in normal circumstances, this defect actually gives it a survival advantage in the presence of the man-made poison.}}
::: You can see from that explanation that the bacterium does not have a specific resistance to a given antibiotic, but a defect that ''effectively'' makes it resistant to antibiotics that work in that way.
::: Perhaps leopards and tigers did not always live in the same environment. Regardless, surely evolution has the same problem? How did leopards and tigers become different in the evolutionary scenario if they lived in the same environment?
::: Scientists don't have all the answers. Scientific research continues, because there are still things to learn, still questions to be answered, still problems to be solved. This should be even more the case with creationism, because creationism gets practically no funding (what it does get is mostly from private donations), yet evolutionists get (by comparison) vast amounts of funding. So no creationist claims to have all the answers to every last problem (although considering the amount of research they have been able to do, I think they've done remarkably well). One area that I can't give a really good answer on is the animal migration one. However, there are still some points that I can answer:
:::* Australia has no large carnivorous animals and not many medium-size ones either. Therefore, the kangaroo and koala have little in the way of natural enemies (except for disease, etc.). If there were larger carnivorous animals, the roo and koala would likely not fare very well. Carnivorous animals, on the other hand, would not survive so well where there are not other animals to eat. What this suggests is that as the animals spread around the world from Ararat, over many years, if not centuries in some cases, the vegetarians would migrate first, to be followed by the carnivores. So in some cases, the only vegetarians to survive would be the ones that kept ahead of the carnivores. If the kangaroos and koalas reached Australia first, and then rising sea levels following the [[ice age]] cut Australia off from Asia before the carnivores got there, the kangaroos and koalas on Australia would be protected and survive, whilst the ones remaining in Asia were wiped out.
:::* Animals will spread out to find new food sources, especially as populations increase and there is more competition for food. Rabbits were released in one location in Australia 150 odd years ago, and within a matter of decades had spread to cover half the continent. That is what happens; there is no way that animals would stay confined to the Middle East.
:::* Aborigines and other native peoples ''do'' have stories of the Flood, etc. See [[Great Flood]] for some examples.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:27, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== Animal Migration ==

Yes, that sentence was fairly poor and made little sense except to me. I do apologise for such poor argument techniques, my only (very poor) excuse is that I was absolutely wrecked at the time.

How do you mean that the opposite has been observed? From what I understand, bacteria have been observed to evolve and change quite significantly because of mutations and natural selection. Bacteria are one of the best organisms to observe as they reproduce very rapidly and the population can have progressed by tens of generations every day. Other animals appear to be evolving as we watch, such as the Hawthorn Fly and its new sub-species: the apple fly. go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution#Evidence_from_speciation] and have a look at the Hawthorn fly at the bottom of the page.

Regarding the 8000 species to fit on Noahs arc, how did so few species become so many after the flood? Natural selection does not result in the differentiation of species so quickly, and the differences between some of the species that were chosen as having a common ancestor are so marked that they must have divulged from the ancestor at a much much earlier date.

Well I don't pretend to understand how bacteria are resitant to antibiotics so I won't argue that point.

Leopards and tigers would have evolved to be quite different as their common ancestor split into two seperate breeding groups that became isolated from each other, either by mountains or migration of prey and then over thousands of years, mutations and differences in the two populations led to the differences between the species. That is my rather simplified understanding of how it occurs.

Well of course scientists don't know everything, if they did then religion would either be undisputable truth or ridiculed as fiction. That is the beauty of science, that there is always disagreements that lead to research in that area.

My understanding was that the last ice age that created a land bridge between Asia and Australia was over 6000 years ago. Regardless, how did animals get to the Americas? Specifically animals such as jaguars and pythons who would not have survived the cold temperatures in the north of Russia, where the only real land bridge between Asia and America may have existed. And how do you account for the predatorial megafauna that existed in Australia for a long time?

Of course the animals would not have stayed in the middle east, that is understandable, however how did they spread so far? It is not feasible that so many large animals travelled by rafts of seaweed or vegetation for so long without the herbivores eating the raft or carnivores eating the herbivores or each other.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:05, 22 May 2007

: "''How do you mean that the opposite has been observed?''". Goo-to-you evolution requires the ''generation'' of massive amounts of new genetic [[information]], whilst observations show that mutations not only do not result in increases in genetic information, but actually ''destroy'' genetic information. Destruction of genetic information is the opposite of the generation of new genetic information.
: "''From what I understand, bacteria have been observed to evolve and change quite significantly because of mutations and natural selection.''". That depends on what you mean by "evolve". Sure, they change, but they don't generate ''new genetic information''.
: "''Bacteria are one of the best organisms to observe as they reproduce very rapidly and the population can have progressed by tens of generations every day.''". Very true. And you know what? They are ''still'' bacteria! They have not generated new information to become anything else. If bacteria are still bacteria after, say, 100,000 generations (ten generations per day for less than 30 years), how did ape-like creatures change into men in, say, 33,000 generations (1 million years divided by 30 years per generation)?
: "''Regarding the 8000 species to fit on Noahs arc, how did so few species become so many after the flood? Natural selection does not result in the differentiation of species so quickly''". Yet just before that you commented about how fast creatures change and how we've seen new species appear fairly quickly!
: I attended a public meeting many years ago, put on by the Australian Skeptics, attempting to debunk creationism. They had four speakers, three scientists and a journalist. Two scientists and the journalist attacked creationists' motives and tried a guilt-by-association argument, and only one scientist actually discussed science! And his argument was that species form quite rapidly. I was puzzled (and I wasn't the only one) as to how this argument was supposed to refute creationism when it actually helped explain the very question you are asking.
: The point is that speciation ''can'' occur rapidly in the right conditions; it's been observed in our lifetime, so the 4,500 years since the flood is plenty of time. Your ideas of the pace of speciation are probably based on evolutionary ideas of how long evolutionists have think it has taken, rather than any actual observations.
: "''My understanding was that the last ice age that created a land bridge between Asia and Australia was over 6000 years ago''". That's according to the evolutionary timescale, which young-Earth creationists reject. My point about scientists not knowing everything was that I probably can't answer all your questions about how animals got to other parts of the world from Ararat.
: "''...how do you account for the predatorial megafauna that existed in Australia for a long time?''". First, was it really predatorial? Second, was it post-flood or pre-flood?
: "''..how did they spread so far?''". Slowly. They didn't need to travel all the way from Ararat to Australia in one trip, or one generation. Just as rabbits have spread across much of Australia in the say, 50 years after they were introduced, animals would have spread around the world over, say, 200 years (to pick a couple of figure out of the air).
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:50, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::This will probably be the last thing I say in this discussion as I feel that there are some major differences of opinion and the like that will inhibit any progress from here.

::Gene mutations do lead to the destruction of genetic material and it does not create new material, it alters genetic material which alters the organism slightly. Most mutations result in very little or no change because they are useless and simply get bred out again however some are productive and that is when the species advances.

::Bacteria are still bacteria because they have not progressed to a multi-cellular organism. Also there are a ''lot'' of strains or species of bacteria because they change so rapidly.

::I explained that smaller and short lived creatures can change rather rapidly however larger animals such as humans and elephants and so on who breed quite slowly take a long time to evolve, look at the two million years it took cro-magnon men to evolve into homo sapiens, although of course you won't agree with that.

::Evolutionary timescale. That is one reason that this argument can no longer progress as I 'know' that the scientific dating methods are accurate while you 'know' that the world is only 6000 years old and therefore science must be wrong. I would ask how you can doubt the scientific methods of dating fossils and glacier movement and all those kind of things.

::Well the some of the megafauna that existed was predatorial, insofar as they had long, sharp canines and incisors, their eyes were facing forward from the front of their skull and all the other indications that show predatorial habits. Well I assume that to overcome this problem you would say that they were pre-flood and indeed the fossils were dated to be over 20,000 years old.

::[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:39, 23 May 2007

:::"''...I feel that there are some major differences of opinion...''". You reckon? I'm glad you told me, because I wouldn't have guessed! :-)
:::"''...however some [mutations] are productive and that is when the species advances.''". Some mutations do confer a benefit on the creature, but even these are not increases in genetic information, but losses. For examples, beetles on a windy island that have a mutation that causes their wings to not develop have an advantage in that they don't get blown off the island into the sea. But even though this is an advantage, and could result in them being classified as a different species, it still doesn't explain where the genetic information for wings (etc.) came from in the first place. In other words, the genetic change is going in the wrong direction for goo-to-you evolution.
:::"''Bacteria are still bacteria because they have not progressed to a multi-cellular organism.''". Which explains nothing about evolution. That's equivalent to saying that bacteria are still bacteria because they haven't evolved into something else. Wow! Isn't that precisely what I was saying?
:::"''I explained that smaller and short lived creatures can change rather rapidly however larger animals such as humans and elephants and so on who breed quite slowly take a long time to evolve...''". Yes, which is why if you were going to see something evolving into something else, you would expect to see it in something like bacteria. '''But you don't'''!
:::"''...look at the two million years it took cro-magnon men to evolve into homo sapiens, although of course you won't agree with that''". Of course not, because (a) I believe that cro-magnon men were fully human, and (b) the timescale is based on assumptions that I disagree with.
:::"''Evolutionary timescale. That is one reason that this argument can no longer progress as I 'know' that the scientific dating methods are accurate ...''". Despite the fact that the evidence for such has been shown so many times to be unreliable.
:::"''...while you 'know' that the world is only 6000 years old ...''". I have it from a ''very'' reliable source, and the counter-evidence is demonstrably unreliable.
:::"''...and therefore science must be wrong''". No, it's not science that is wrong, but the materialistic assumptions of evolutionists.
:::"''I would ask how you can doubt the scientific methods of dating fossils and glacier movement and all those kind of things.''". The dating methods are based on unprovable assumptions that, as I have mentioned, have been shown to be unreliable.
:::"''...I assume that to overcome this problem you would say that they were pre-flood and indeed the fossils were dated to be over 20,000 years old''". I'm not saying that they were ''not'' predatory, just questioning whether or not we can say for sure that they ''were''. Neither am I saying that they ''are'' pre-flood, just wondering if we ''know'' that they weren't.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:18, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeh I know, I know. What I meant was that there really isn't anywhere for this arguement to go because you know what I think and vice-versa and basically because you accept the bible as fact and I think its a load of fairytales, and you say you have scientific evidence for them and I say I have evidence against it and so on and so forth, it'll only devolve into glorified "I'm right" "No you aren't, I am" and so on. But whatever!!

But you do! Bacteria evolve into different types of bacteria, becoming resistant to antibiotics, adapting to different organs and so on. If you took two different strains of bacteria that had a common ancestor, say three years ago, and examined these two bacteria, they would be so different as a result of living in a different environment that they would have very little resemblance to each other. That is a change of genetic material, where did it come from? Mutations of their genes of course.

What assumptions do you base your timescale on then? When the agricultural revolution began before god created the world then there is a slight problem, and I still fail to see why you doubt such dating methods, because even if they are hundreds of thousands of years off, even millions of years, the earth is still a lot older then the bible says it is.

Well the animals have been dated to have lived since just after the last ice age. So over 10,000 years old easily although again you have a different dating method. What I would like to know is why there are no records of the ice age in the bible or anywhere else from around the period of time after Noahs Arc?
[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 13:56, 28 May 2007

:"''But you do! Bacteria evolve into different types of bacteria...''". When I said that you don't see it evolve into something else, I mean something that is no longer bacteria. Creationists accept that living things have a range of adaptability, but not that they can create new genetic information and become something entirely different, ''which is what evolution requires to go from the first living thing to the vast variety we have today''. There is a "change in genetic material", but no new genetic [[information]].
:"''What assumptions do you base your timescale on then?''". That the Bible is an accurate historical record.
:"''When the agricultural revolution began before god created the world ...''". Only according to the timescale connected to the theory which denies God.
:"''I still fail to see why you doubt such dating methods, because even if they are hundreds of thousands of years off, even millions of years, the earth is still a lot older then the bible says it is.''". But not if they are off by hundreds of millions of years (or whatever the case may be). I doubt them because (a) they conflict with the reliable historical record of the Bible, and (b) because they have been shown to be unreliable when tested on rocks of known age, as well as inconsistent with each other in some cases.
:"''What I would like to know is why there are no records of the ice age in the bible or anywhere else from around the period of time after Noahs Arc?''". Have a read of [[ice age]] and see that there are likely references in the Bible.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:15, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

::How about these for some starters?
::[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html]
::Some of these are not as good as others but there are a lot of errors and inconsistencies in the Bible that are shown here. Please give me your opinion on them. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:42, 30 May 2007

Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-28T03:56:22Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Noah's Ark: Fact or Fiction */

Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-23T09:40:23Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Noah's Ark: Fact or Fiction */

Wow, great topic. Do we all get to creat a 1-2-3-4-5 ... 19-20 list? I'll try. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Solutions by God/Jesus discussion ==

1) overpopulation 2) preventing war 3) preventable disease 4) natural resource protection .... 19) maintaining American sovereignty over the world 20) asteroid striking Earth. 99) finding an extraterrestrial intelligent race that is broadcasting solutions to all these problems for any species that need them. My quick 0.02, arbitraged through the Euro. Human 00:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:We've already been visited by an intelligent extraterrestrial with solutions to all these problems. But most reject the solutions, and question his identity. His name was Jesus. Philip J. Rayment 21:56, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::Good one - touché. I was thinking you were going to identify It as God. Human 22:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I did. Jesus is God. Philip J. Rayment 22:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Hello over here, PJR. I was curious if you would briefly synopsize Jesus' solutions to 1 through 4 on my list? Thanks! [[User:Human|Human]] 12:10, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:1 Overpopulation is not a problem. The problem is a lack of food production in some countries, due to corrupt governments and worldviews that don't encourage productive effort. Believing in the God of truth would get rid of corruption, and believing in the God that tells us that we should do a fair day's work would increase productive effort.
:Would it bring water to the desert, cure plant blight, bring rain to the drought areas and dryness to the floods? Starvation isn't always the result of corruption and laziness. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 22:59, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Apart from Divine intervention to solve those problems (which should not be dismissed), then yes, those problems would remain. But they wouldn't be the major problems that they are today if everything else was working properly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:2 Believing in the Prince of Peace (Jesus) and following God's instruction to love one another, and to love our enemies (not that we'd have any left) would stop people starting wars with each other.
:3 Preventable diseases exist because of people's lifestyles, whether they be immoral ones or related to my comments in point 1. Leading moral lives as God expects would therefore eliminate preventable diseases.
:4 God has given us the use of this planet, but it is still His and He expects us to look after it. If we did that, we would not waste or otherwise abuse natural resources.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:09, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for humoring me, I appreciate your taking the trouble to clarify the answers. And the discussion continues... [[User:Human|Human]] 13:38, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:# There is a limit to food production (and living space): one planet can only support a certain maximum population, and we're approaching that limit.
:# If everyone believed in one ideology there would be peace, for a while... conflict is part of human nature, history teaches us that the only way to unite humanity is to give them a common enemy.
:# People get sick because there are viruses and bacteria around, don't forget genetic mutations: a person doesn't choose to get leukemia or Parkinson.
:# Damn right, that's why your point about overpopulation is wrong.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

::# Yes, there is a limit, but I dispute that we are getting close to that limit. Population densities are ''far'' higher in some places than others, and food production is ''far'' higher in some places than others, indicating that there is still plenty of room for growth. (I realise that not all places will sustain the same population or food production, but I still believe that there is plenty of room for growth).
::# Conflict is a part of a person's ''fallen'' nature, i.e. after rejecting God. If we all accepted and obeyed God, it would not be an issue. You are judging how a particular ideology would work by ascribing to it a characteristic of different ideologies.
::# Yes, it wouldn't eliminate all disease. But human's point was ''preventable'' disease, and it was that which I was addressing.
::# God has also told us to "be fruitful and multiply", meaning increase the population. So clearly that can't be something contrary to point 1.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:#I for one don't want to see the whole world turn into one giant Tokyo: I enjoy <s>breathable</s> fresh air, and would like to have multiple! square meters to call my own. Really, why isn't 6.5 billion enough anyway?
:#Conflict is in our hearts, our DNA and our brains (our ancient hunting instincts and such), Einstein once said: "there are only two things eternal: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not even entirely sure about the first one", any ideology will eventually start to suppress "dissidents" for "the greater good", we've even been there with Christianity (the dark ages, aren't called that way because people hadn't invented the light bulb yet), no single ideology can please everyone, except maybe freedom, so let's just keep our freedom!
:#No, medicine and hygiene are how you stop disease.
:#Not multiply like rabbits, we're a sentient species, we should at least be able to control our own population, don't you think?
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

::# We've a long way to go before the entire world has a population density of Tokyo. How much is enough?
::# Please point me to the "conflict" gene in the DNA. Yes, it is in our hearts (but not our DNA) and minds because of sin, but that's why people returning to God would solve this problem. You are lumping all ideologies in together, without any attempt to see of perhaps one of them might be different. The "dark ages" are not called that for the reason that you think. They are called that for the very purpose of maligning Christianity. See the quotes below.
::# Medicine and hygiene are not the only ways of stopping diseases.
::# No, I don't think we should do something contrary to what the all-wise, all-knowing God has told us to do. That is logically stupid, with the only defence being to reject God, which is of course what you do.
{{QuoteBox|...not only did religion not cause the “Dark Ages”; nothing else did either—the story that after the “fall” of Rome a long dark night of ignorance and superstition settled over Europe is as fictional as the Columbus story. In fact this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress … the Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth century was the … result of [Christian scholarship] starting in the eleventh century… Why did real science develop in Europe … and not anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian theology… The “Enlightenment” [was] conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists and humanists [e.g. Voltaire, Diderot and Gibbon] who attempted to claim credit for the rise of science [through promulgating] the falsehood that science required the defeat of religion.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ Rodney Stark, quoted by a reviewer of his book]}}
{{QuoteBox|What about the ‘Dark Ages’? The term was invented in the 19th century, and is now rejected by historians as being a pejorative incorrectly denoting it to be a period of intellectual darkness and barbarity (p. 129) [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ By the reviewer of Stark's book, from the same link]}}
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Discussion regarding religion, evil, etc. ==

I moved this from the article page with the permission of the two main "discussers". [[User:Human|Human]] 17:24, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:"Solving" the rejection of god would do absolutely nothing for anything. religion causes more problems then it solves, northern Ireland, terrorism, ID, the Tamil Tigers etc. My list would be 1) global warming 2) poverty 3) freedom of government for every country 4) endangered species of animals 5) freedom of sexuality 6)scientists need to be believed and people must accept that science is seperate from religion 7) seperation of church and state in every country 8) securing Earth from asteroids etc. 9) spreading the word about the fallibility of religion and everything associated with it including ID and young earth. I know a lot of the conservatives around here won't like my liberal take on things, but its a debate and there is my view. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 10 May 2007

::Not that religion is without its problems, I heard this canard tonight on Nightline (that religion is at the root of so much of the world's problems). From Stalin's Terror to Chairman Mao's Communist and Cultural revolutions, I do think religious disputes pale in comparison. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Global warming. Let me illustrate what I mean:
{{cquote|2PE 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.}}

Signing... [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

- ::Bolly Ottihw, your comments are illogical, because they treat all religions (except, presumably, atheistic ones) as equal, and as they make contradictory claims and can't all be correct, as equally wrong. But it it not logical to assume that because some are wrong that all are, yet you are lumping them all together, despite, as HeartOfGold says, atheist worldviews have been far worse, and despite all the good that a Christian worldview has done for society. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Please explain how lumping all religions together is so wrong? Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all monotheistic, all believe in the same god and are all similar in a theoretical extent. I am not assuming that because one is wrong they all are, I am saying that they are because I think there is enough evidence that they all have a detrimental effect on society. Good things? I have seen very few. Firstly, look at some of the things a christian world view has brought about. In Australia there was the 'stolen generation'. This was when aboriginal children (aboriginals are the native people of Australia, much the same as American Indians) were taken from their parents by missionaries because they were 'not being brought up the right way'. Thus these children were denied there parents and as a result, aboriginal society has been fractured and almost destroyed. Then of course, there is the crusades, death and disease being the only outcomes of these misguided 'religious wars'. Don't forget the Inquisition or the witch hunts of the medieval times. Christianity has done far far more evil to the world than it has done good, just as with all the other religions.
:::Heart of Gold, I assume you meant athiestic when you said religious in your post about Chairman Mao and Stalin? Please correct me if you haven't. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:40, 10 May 2007

:::: Islam and Judaism deny the Divinity of Jesus, for one thing. They can't all be correct on that.
:::: As for the effects of Christianity on society, please read this review of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery].
:::: The 'stolen generation' is an urban myth, with most examples of "stolen" children not being stolen at all. And to the extent that any were taken against their parents' will, it was generally by governments, not missionaries.
:::: The Crusades were, in part, a military action to stop and reverse the invasions by Muslims of various countries.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

How dare you call the stolen generation an 'urban myth'? It is a fact, and most of the participants in it were either missionaries or christian. If you said that Down Under you would find very few people who would seriously consider it, and a wealth of aboriginals who were part of the stolen generation, as well as caucasians who admit to having instigated it.

So what is your point? Christians deny that Mohummed was a prophet, how can you all be correct on that? It cuts both ways. As for that review, 535 people were executed for 'religious heresy' in Aragon? How is that good? 535? That is a lot of deaths, just because these people did not think the same thoughts that the rulers did. Sounds a lot like communism or facism.

The Crusades would not have been nearly as major as they were if the church hadn't have called them a holy war to recapture Jerusalem and put all their support behind it. Another example of the detrimental affect the church had on society: in Italy in the 17-1800's many Jewish children were taken from their parents and banned from seeing them ever again, simply because they had been baptised as a baby by a catholic housekeeper who was employed by the Jewish families. What those children needed was the love and care of their parents, not the harsh upbringing of the catholic church. And you still haven't responded to the Northern Ireland crisis. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:25, 10 May 2007

:I "dare" call it an 'urban myth' (well, perhaps that's not the best term, how about 'non-existent'?) because it is, and I do so 'down under', because that's where I am. Nobody has been able to name these supposed 'wealth of aboriginals', which is very strong evidence that there is no 'wealth of aboriginals' that were 'stolen'.
: I never said that all agreed that Mohammad was a prophet; that actually supports my point that they all disagree. If they all disagree, then they can't all be correct, but it does not follow that they are all ''incorrect''; it is still possible for one of them to be correct, yet you lump them all in together.
: Neither did I say that Christians have never done anything bad. Sure, you can quote me some instances of Christians doing bad things (now, however, consistent with Christianity), but a few examples does not meant that Christianity per se is bad, and as I pointed out, it has done an enormous amount of good. And in fact it has primarily been Protestantism that has done the most good, whereas most of your examples are of non-Protestants.
: Northern Ireland is a political dispute, not a religious one, even though the two political sides are split along nominally religious lines.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::A fellow Aussie! Hip hip, Huzzah! Anyway, I am surprised that you deny this as it is well documented and quite easy to find some simple facts about it.
::Ok they are all different in some respects. The reason I lump them all together is because all of them are about defending the indefencible in the face of overwhelming evidence, and because they are all a tool to discourage individual thought and different POV's.
::Please enlighten me with some example of this 'good' that christianity, or protentism, has done because I have found none that is not outweighed enormously by the amount of death and suffering it has caused over the years.
:: Northern Ireland is a political dispute, however without the definition of one side as catholics, and the others as protestants, the trouble would have ended long ago. Instead a rival group mentality is fostered by sending children to denominational religious schools, by going to church and by marrying into the same group. If it wasn't for this, there would be no way of telling who was on what side, or any easy ways with which to inspire hatred. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:10, 10 May 2007

::: I deny it for the reasons that I gave; that there is a lack of evidence. Yes, it is well "documented", but without any actual list of "stolen" aborigines (beyond a handful). Most that were supposedly "stolen" were actually voluntarily given up by their parents who couldn't look after them, and reasons such as that.
::: Your argument about "defending the indefensible" presumes that it is indefensible, which it isn't. And Christianity is not "a tool to discourage individual thought"; if anything it has encouraged it.
::: I've already pointed you to a page which mentions some of the good that Christianity has done. Did you read it?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:34, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Bolly Ottihw: do you have a source for that 1700-1800 Italy story? I never heard of that before. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 08:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Firstly, I don't have a direct source, it came from 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, and I do not have a copy with me to check what sources he quoted, however if you do want to find out, I'm sure that it is not hard to obtain a copy of said book.
::If you mean the book review? I did read that. I did not find very many examples of 'good to society' in there. Firstly, of those scientists who were christian, there was almost no alternative at that time. Christianity was taught as a fact because there was little scientific evidence to challenge the god hypothesis. If raised in this day and age then very few of them would have been christians as they would have had a wealth of information on the subject that was not available then. Also, Copernicus lived under house arrest for the majority of his later years, because the church did not like his theory that the earth revolved around the sun. Does not sound like a church that is pushing for revolutions in the field of science. All there is there is a small paragraph about the abolition of slavery. Yes, you now have one good thing that the church has done for society. All of this compared with the amount of people that have been killed as a result of the church? What about all the wars that were the result of England becoming protestant as compared with the majority of European nations who were catholic? There's another example of death for religion.
::Of course religion discourages individual thought. You are not allowed to question the authority of the priests and bishops, or the bible. It is indoctrinated in young children as a fact and if they question, they are threatened with hell or simply told not to question. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:47, 11 May 2007

:::While I don't agree with Dawkins on this issue, I confess I haven't read the book. I have read other books by him and I know he tends to quote his sources. I will have to find a library copy. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Your attempt to make out that the relationship between Christianity and the scientific efforts of the scientists was coincidence more than anything else ignores the fact that the book's author (along with other researchers) specifically said that one was dependent on the other. Your handwaving away the dependency says much about your lack of objectivity.
::: Similarly, your attempt to counter the church's documented support for science with the odd counter-example shows that you are willing to grasp at straws.
::: I was raised in a Christian home and have attended church all my life, yet I have ''never'' been taught that I'm not allowed to question the authority of the church leadership, or even the Bible. Perhaps that's because I was raised as a Protestant, but I've already mentioned that it was Protestantism that I'm referring to as much as anything.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:50, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Leopeo, I do encourage you to read the book, as I found it quite a revalation, I credit it for turning me from an agnostic to an atheist. Even if you are comfortable with your christian beliefs, I still think it is a very good book and worthwhile reading.

:I am not making out that it was coincidence, it is true that the church has played a role in the dvelopment of science during the dark and middle ages. The main problem is that it has discourage scientific research that goes against its world view or ideology, for example the helioentric model, or evolution. Recently, ie the past 300-400 years there has been a tendency for the church to only use science where it supports their theology or whatever. I do admit however, that my knowledge of this is confined mostly to the catholic church and evangelicals so I cannot counter any claims you make about Protestantism, which sounds fairly mild as religions go. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:19, 11 May 2007

::I've seen very little evidence of the church discouraging scientific research that goes against its worldview. Rather, I'm dismayed at the support that it gives to evolution (including from the Catholic church). Galileo had a lot of support for the heliocentric model, and the opposition of the church at the time had more to do with him offending the powers that be than with the science. On the other hand, atheism and its ilk strongly discourages scientific research that goes against ''its'' ideology; just look at the opposition in the scientific community to creationism, and look at the level of funding for each.
::I have a friend who read The God Delusion. He is a Christian, and a fairly young one (i.e., he's been a Christian for only a few years), and I'm told by a mutual friend that The God Delusion strengthened his faith! His reasoning was that if this was the best case that atheists can raise against Christianity, they have no case!
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Why are you so dismayed at the support it gives to evolution? As far as scientific theories go it is a very strong one with a lot of supporting evidence. There is no need to abandon god just to believe it. I find it astonishing that so many people cannot accept that just maybe there is a possibility that the bible isn't 100% historically accurate, in fact there is quite a lot of proof that it isn't. Thats not to say that god doesn't exist, although that is my belief, it's simply that the bible was written by humans who aren't perfect.
Good on him. I honestly mean that, if he is that certain in his faith then that's good. Much better to be certain about what you believe. On the other hand though if he belives that atheism has no case against christianity I would suggest that just maybe he didn't quite understand, or want to understand, the actual arguments put forward in the book. Richard Dawkins was not arguing that god did not exist, all he was arguing was that god is extremely unlikely and that there is no good proof of his existence. But there you go, people are different and they shall stay that way. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:34, 12 May 2007

:I'm dismayed because it is cutting its own throat by doing so. Evolution and God ''as described in the Bible'' are mutually inconsistent. Sure, you can continue to believe in "a god", but not the God of the Bible. There is ''no'' proof that the Bible isn't 100% historically accurate, only flawed arguments against it. As far as scientific theories go, goo-to-you evolution barely qualifies, not even being falsifiable. The Bible claims to be written by God, millions of people have believed that it was written by God, many thousands of quite intelligent people are amongst those millions who have believed that, yet you simply assert that it wasn't. That's hardly a convincing argument.
:You suggest that my friend maybe didn't understand. Have you considered that maybe ''you'' don't understand the strength (or lack of) of the arguments? Even another atheist has said that Dawkins' book makes him embarrassed to be an atheist.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:32, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:: So when Paul says 'not the Lord, but I ...', that was the Lord, and not him? Why would God write in barely literate koine in the Gospel of Mark, and then in medical greek for the Gospel of Luke? I'm a Christian, but I recognise that the Bible was written by people, and diverges further from the truth with each translation. That's why I study and read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, to get at it in a more reliable form. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

::::God was the ultimate author, but not a dictator (in the sense of dictation), so He got the human authors to write what He wanted written, and He ensured that they were accurate, but they wrote it in their own styles and their own words.
::::How can it diverge further from the truth with each translation? That strongly suggests that it has gone through multiple steps of translation, such as A-B-C-D-E... I've often had bibliosceptics say similar things to me. The opposite is true, however. Modern translations are "single-step" translations, i.e. from the original languages directly into English. Sure, this has happened multiple time, but what that means is that the translation has gone A-B once, A-B again, A-B again, and so on. Each time it is translated, it is from the original languages, just as you do with your personal reading.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well why do you have to believe in the god from the bible? Evolution is in fact a very strong scientific theory and it is falsifiable. If one fossil turned up in the wrong strata of rock, for example a rabbit fossil in the pre cambrian rock then evolution would be conclusively proven wrong. However nothing like this has ever happened, despite some creationist claims otherwise.

:::So you are saying that loads of people cannot be wrong? over 1 million people voted Hitler into power in 1933 and they turned out to have made a bad choice. As well as this Islam is one of the most widespread religions in the world, alongside christianity, millions of people belive Islam and thousands of them are quite intelligent. So why are its claims any less valid? There are historical inaccuracies. Noah's arc. There is no evidence at all for the world wide flood yet people still believe it. And the 6000 year old creation. Again all the evidence points to the fact that the world is 4.3 billion years old and that the universe has been in existence for 13 billion years. That doesn't mean it is complete and certain fact but it is far far far more likely than the creation theories.

:::I have considered his arguments. I think they are quite strong. As for your atheist friend, I can understand why the book made him uncomfortable. However that does not make his arguments any less strong. They are by no means cast iron but they are very good. At the very least he does destroy all the logical 'proofs' for gods existence as well as suggesting some very believable ways in which the human mind could have conceived of god without his existing. At the very least it is an informative book, and I believe a breath of fresh air. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 13:56, 13 May 2007

:::: So much of what you have written is nothing more than anti-creationist and anti-biblical rhetoric. As far as evolution being falsifiable is concerned, I've rejected that notion [[User:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism#Is creationism falsifiable?|here]].
:::: Other than that, you've offered no evidence that it is the very strong theory that you claim.
:::: No, I'm not saying that loads of people cannot be wrong. I'm saying that with so many claiming a particular point of view, you need to do more than just dismiss all those people; you need to actually offer some good evidence or logic to support your claim.
:::: You claim that there is no evidence for a global flood, but you offer no explanation of what sort of evidence one should find if it were true, so your claim is hollow. Just for starters, a global flood would result in massive amounts of sediment, which would turn to rock. Most of the rock on the Earth's surface is sedimentary. There's prima facie evidence right there. And it is simply not true that ''all'' the evidence points to the world being 4.3 billion years old, etc. If you believe that, you clearly have not read some of the evidence that creationists have offered, which means that you are criticising and dismissing an idea that you obviously know next to nothing about.
:::: The atheist I referred to is not my friend, but a well-known atheistic/evolutionary scientist in America, and your response does nothing to explain away his objections.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Noah's Ark: Fact or Fiction ==
:I do attempt not to revert to simply bible bashing etc. What I would like to know is why you feel that the bible must be taken literally? There are a lot of christians and theologists who don't, not that that means you are wrong, simply that there are differences of opinion even amongst christians. I just explained how evolution is falsifiable. If fossils turn up in the wrong rock then evolution is wrong. There have been plenty of attempts to disprove evolution yet it is still regarded as a scientific fact by the majority of biologists.

:My main problem with claims that the bible was guided by god or written by him or any variation on that theme, is that it is a circular form of logic. "The bible was written by god because the bible shows proof of god. These proofs are correct because god wrote the bible and He cannot be wrong." Do you see where I am coming from?

:There is a lot of evidence against the great flood. Firstly, where did the water come from? If the world was covered in water then there would have to have been far far more water than exists today. Where has it gone? There is no evidence for this water. What about the animals that came off the ship? How big would the ship have to be to contain pairs of all the species of animals, plus the food to feed them with? What about inbreeding once the floodwaters subsided? A lot of animals would have simply failed to breed or have died out within a few generations. Where are the fossils? Of all of the animals and humans that were killed at the time of the great flood, a lot would have fossilised. So why are there no great bands of fossils that indicate a mass drowning such as this? There are more problems with the story, such as the current population of all the animal species etc. however surely these problems indicate that the bible is not actually literally true.

:Ok, not 'all' the evidence does. But most of it. And it is the simplest theory, Occam's Razor strikes again. I have read the creationist theories of the age of the universe and starlight reaching the earth and so on, and I was impressed with how fair they can be. On the other hand it seemed to be a rather convoluted way to explain why we can see stars that are 13 billion years old, compared to the rather simple "because the star ''is'' 13 billion years old".

:Ah ok, my mistake. Well he has his objections to the book, yet he is still an atheist. However I do understand his point of view (I think) because i did think that the book could have been improved a little and there were some weaknesses with his points. On the other hand there were some excellent arguments in there and also some very good scientific explanations regarding how god was created in the minds of humans and other things.

:[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:30, 14 May 2007

::I believe that parts of the Bible should be taken literally (i.e. not the parts that are metaphor and otherwise were not ''intended'' to be taken literally) because that's the way it was intended to be taken, and because there is good evidence that it is what it claims to be—God's infallible record.
:: Yes, you mentioned that you considered evolution falsifiable, and I pointed you to my explanation of why it is not. So what is your response to my explanation? None. You simply repeated your claim without even giving any indication that you read my rebuttal.
:: Your "circular reasoning" explanation for the Bible's authorship does not prove that it was ''not'' written by God, and is in fact a straw-man. I do not argue that "these proofs are correct because god wrote the bible and He cannot be wrong".
:: I said that you offered no evidence for a lack of a global flood, and that you clearly have no knowledge of the idea that you so readily dismiss. So now you offer some weak "evidence", but they are straw-man arguments or arguments that you should know the answer to if you had any knowledge of the idea. You still clearly do not have such knowledge, but are still arrogant enough to criticise it! I hate to point you to an entire book to read, but at least it is on-line and free, so I suggest that you have a read of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4018/ this book], then come back with whatever questions you still have. That will answer many of your questions and objections. Please find out something about creationism before you waste my time criticising it. Wouldn't you agree that it is best to have a working knowledge (at least) of a subject that you are going to criticise?
:: Personally, I think Occam's Razor often favours the creationist view. Surely it is better to explain the origin of the universe as "it was created by a being capable of creating it" than "nothing became something for no reason".
:: Yes, I'll admit that some of the creationist explanations are not as intuitive as one might like. However, I would argue that exactly the same criticism applies to evolution, the Big Bang, etc. Are you aware that the Big Bang model has a similar problem to the starlight/time problem? It's known as the horizon problem, and it's discussed in that book. The cosmologists' solutions are just as convoluted, including proposing that the speed of light used to be different! Now where have I heard that before?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm again intervening between you two. Sorry... ;-)
Philip, care to elaborate: "because there is good evidence that it is what it claims to be—God's infallible record."? By the way, TimS a few moments ago posted an interesting article on evolution being supposedly unfalsifiable, which might be of interest to both of you [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 10:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT): [[User:Tims/A_Response_to_Locke%27s%2C_%22The_Scientific_Case_Against_Evolution%22]]

:Well I didn't read the whole book, however I did read a few of the more important chapters for this discussion. I find it interesting that when referring to the animals on the arc, and the common ancestors, such as the equine ancestor for the zebra, horse and mule, they in fact need to agree with evolution to allow for the species to become so separated. Noah's arc could only have fitted all the animals onto it if most of todays animals evolved from the much smaller number of animals alive at that time. The book didn't answer one of my other questions: why didn't a lot of species of animals die out, and why is the human population so large when it came from 7-8 people only 4000 years ago?

:Occams Razor does not favour the creationist side of things, because to do so requires an incredibly complex creator or god. Compared to everything obeying the laws of physics etc., you invoke a being who is not only human in his emotions, jealousy, rage, love, hate and so on, and who is omnipotent and omniscient and so on. Just as an aside it is important to note that god cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent, as if he is omniscient then he can see his future self changing the future with his omnipotence, yet he has no choice as to whether he intervenes or not.

:I think anyone who suggests that the speed of light used to be different needs to have a real look at cosmology and physics. That is highly unlikely and it is also not a scientific theory as it is not falsifiable. Yes physics and science aren't perfect, and probably never will be but we try. And one day (barring disaster, destruction of the earth, extinction of humans etc.) we will have an almost complete understanding of the universe and how it behaves. I will go out on a limb and suggest that it is highly improbably that god will feature in it. And thankyou to Leopeo for pointing out that great article.

:[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:26, 15 May 2007

::Thanks for taking the time to learn. Not that this would make you sufficiently knowledgeable to dismiss creationism, but it's a very good start.
:: Regarding the requirement for "evolution" of the animals on the ark, Chapter 18 of that book touches on it, but a better explanation is [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831/106/ here]. It is also covered very briefly in [[definitions of evolution]], but you would be better off reading that external link.
:: Regarding human population, the real question is why there aren't many more people if humans have been around for 100,000 years, or whatever is the current figure. Doing the population growth calculations, it is quite easy to get today's population from eight people 4,500 years ago, but very difficult to get it with an evolutionary timescale without proposing "growth" rates that are virtually static (i.e. no growth) for most of that time.
:: I don't follow your question about species going extinct. Lots of species ''have'' died out.
:: It might seem counter-intuitive (it surprised me when I heard it), but God is not a complex being. Complexity means being composed of many parts, and God is not that; He is simply, ''God''.
:: Your objection regarding omniscience and omnipotence is based on a caricature of those terms. Being omnipotent does not mean being able to do things that are nonsense. For example, not even an omnipotent being can create a green drop, or a (thermally-)hot accent. Such are simply nonsense word constructions, not meaningful things. Similarly, an omnipotent being contradicting Himself is a nonsense thing. But perhaps more to the point of your specific objection, God has no "future", because "future" is a time-based term, and ''time'' is part of God's creation, along with space and matter, and God is outside of His creation, not part of it. What this means is that God does not exist ''in'' time. God is timeless. He has no past and no future, He just is. (This also explains why the question, "who created God" is nonsense. He had no beginning, because that is a time-base term, so there was no need for Him to be created.)
:: As I said, ''secular'' scientists have now proposed that the speed of light might have changed. I won't argue that it's falsifiable, but the reason it's perhaps not falsifiable is because it is something that only occurred (assuming it did) in the distant past, which we don't have to observe and test. But exactly the same criticism applies to the Big Bang, evolutionary history, etc. etc.
:: I disagree of course with your expectation regarding God featuring in our future understanding, but the main point I want to note is that this is a ''faith position'' of yours.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:10, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I found a couple of problems with that article. Firstly, they have admitted that natural selection occurs, fair enough, they give their reasons for that. But then they say that gene information is simply lost when natural selection favours, say long haired wolves over short haired ones. I only have to refer to the example of the moths (unfortunately I do not know what species of moth) who habit the woods around London. Before the Industrial Revolution these moths were very light brown as they matched the colour of the tree trunks. There was a slight mutation in one of the genes that occasionally threw up black or dark coloured moths, however they did not survive well as they were not camouflaged against the tree trunk. Then when London expanded rapidly and polution became a major issue, the trees around the city became covered in soot. Now it was the black moths who survived to breed and very soon the population of moths were entirely dark coloured. When the city cleaned up (a bit) and the woods returned to their previous colour, the odd moths that were born light coloured were once again the best adapted and so the population has returned to its pre-industrial state. According to that article, the gene information should have been lost and therefore the moths would have been unable to revert back to their original colouring.

The human population is an easy one. The population growth chart would only need static areas if wars and pandemics were left out. The bubonic plague killed almost three quaters of the population of Europe in the 1400's as well as many people in Asia and northern Africa. Wars and fighting over the past 2000 years have resulted in millions, if not billions of deaths as well as outbreaks of disease caused by poor health care up until recently. When such disasters and pandemics and wars are factored into the equation, the graph makes a lot more sense than the 8 people to 7 billion one. My other problem with noahs arc is: why did the human population not become infertile due to the human genes coming only from one families gene pool?

Yes it is counter-intuitive, it is also really weird. If god is so simple, then how can he do all the things you say he does? Creating the world and all the species of animals that inhabit it, creating the whole universe and being able to see and hear everyone on the world at the same time? That is not a simple being at all.

If god exists outside of time and space then how can he influence them? And contradicting himself is not a logical impossibility. What it basically means is that he has no choice in what he does because if he did then he would not be omniscient as he would not be able to see whether or not he interferes or not. So if god is omniscient then he has no choice or free will and therefore is not much of a god as praying to him will have no effect on what he does.

Well the only time I have heard the speed of light used to be faster argument was in that creation on the web book, however they did discount it. I find it hard to believe that serious physicists do actually think that.

I would disagree that it is a faith position, it is simply a prediction. I should not have used the word 'believe' to say how I think the future may pan out however it is not a cast iron faith position.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 10:22, 16 May 2007

:Of course they "admit" that natural selection occurs: A creationist discovered it before Darwin!
:The example of the wolves involves environmental pressures removing ''all'' the wolves with the genes for short hair. But this is not always what will happen. In the case of the peppered moths, the environmental pressure caused ''most'' of the dark/light moths to be eliminated, but not ''all''. So when the environment changed back, there was still a small population of the other form around to repopulate. By the way, although the story of the peppered moths is probably true, and is actually a nice example of natural selection without ([[information]]-gaining) evolution, the evidence (the photographs of the moths on tree trunks) was faked.
:When I referred to a "static growth" for human population, I was meaning over the long term. Sure, in the short term, it can fluctuate up and down, which means that if you select just the right time period (some increase, some decrease), you can show the population remaining static. But to sustain that stasis for a long, and especially a very long, time, where the wars, plagues, etc. exactly balance out the growth, is a very unlikely ad hoc explanation.
:I believe that infertility is not a direct result of inbreeding, but an indirect result. That is, it is not due to sexual intercourse in a small group, but to the rapid accumulation of genetic defects that results from that. If Noah and his family, living only a few generations after Adam and Eve, still had very few genetic defects, then there would have been no problem.
:Your questions about the nature of God are things that I mostly can't answer, simply because His very nature is so unlike all that we understand. We can glean much about Him, especially from what He has revealed to us, but there is so much more that we don't yet know and probably never will (until we join him in heaven). You ask how he could influence time and space if He is outside of them. Rather, I'd ask why you think that's a problem. The question seems to presuppose that you know something about how these things work to know that it shouldn't be possible. But to give a possible answer, you and I can influence things outside ourselves. We don't have to be in someone's family, for example, to influence what happens in that family.
:Omniscience can be hard to understand, I'll grant, but I don't see, for example, how praying is useless. Sure, God knows before you pray that you will pray, so He already knows what He is going to do, but if you don't pray, He instead already knows that and doesn't act on that non-prayer.
:Just in case you misunderstand, the secular scientists who have proposed that the speed of light was different in the past did not propose that it was different by anything like the amount that the creationist had earlier proposed, or for as long. About the only similarity between the two ideas was that it was not the constant (for all time) that is generally believed.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes but that leaves them in a weaker position because that is what evolution is all about. Now it seems that the only part of evolution that creationists object to is the gene mutations. Why is that when they have already taken the step of admitting natural selection? There is evidence of gene mutations that occur, such as bacteria and viruses mutating and becoming resistant to antibiotics or other medicines. And the creationist explanation did nothing for me. How is it possible that they already had the genetic information for the resistance of antibiotics in them, not to mention all the other drugs and medicines that some strains of bacteria are becoming resistant to? What about leopards and tigers, they had a common ancestor and they share similar information yet how did they become so different when some of them live in the same environment? According to the creationist theory, the common ancestor of snow leopards and siberian tigers should have lost the same types of genetic information when they 'migrated' from Ararat mountain to Russia and Mongolia, yet the two species have split to the extent that they can no longer mate. Surely only the mutations of genes can account for this.

::One thing i failed to understand was how the animals supposedly spread from Mount Ararat to all corners of the globe. Animals such as the kangaroo, and the koala, how did they get across asia and Indoniesia to end up here, without settling in other parts of the world? Why did most of the animals not stay around Israel? Why don't the native peoples of places such as Australia, North and South America and Asia have flood stories and tales of how they descended from Noah? How can you explain the diversity of species in different areas when it is obvious that some of them could not have crossed an ocean to get there. And the fact that the whole species (or its ancestor) must have crossed the oceans, leaving none of them behind? Birds is understandable but not sloths, grizzly bears, koalaa and buffalo not to mention thousands of others. There are plenty of holes in the story that have not yet been explained.

::[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:23, 17 May 2007

::: "''Yes but that leaves them in a weaker position because that is what evolution is all about.''". I'm sorry, I don't know what this is referring to.
::: Evolution could be described as the belief that a combination of two observed processes (natural selection and mutations) can result in creatures gradually changing into other types of creatures to the extent that all life has come from a single organism via this process. Creationists don't disagree that natural selection and mutations are real (both have been observed happening, and as I said, a creationist discovered and described natural selection before Darwin), but they do disagree that the combination of these two processes can lead to new organs, abilities, etc. (or more precisely, the new genetic [[information]] required for this). Not only has this part has ''not'' been observed, the opposite has been observed!
::: How did they already have the resistance? It depends on just how they have that resistance. I believe that it is not specific resistance to a given antibiotic as such, but rather some factor that results in them being resistant. Here is an explanation of one way this works (there are a number of different methods:
{{QuoteBox|Some antibiotics need to be taken into the bacterium to do their work. There are sophisticated chemical pumps in bacteria which can actively pump nutrients from the outside through the cell wall into the germ’s interior. Those germs which do this efficiently, when in the presence of one of these antibiotics, will therefore efficiently pump into themselves their own executioner. 
However, what if one of these bacteria inherits a defective gene, by way of a DNA copying mistake (mutation) which will interfere with the efficiency of this chemical pumping mechanism? Although this bacterium will not be as good at surviving in normal circumstances, this defect actually gives it a survival advantage in the presence of the man-made poison.}}
::: You can see from that explanation that the bacterium does not have a specific resistance to a given antibiotic, but a defect that ''effectively'' makes it resistant to antibiotics that work in that way.
::: Perhaps leopards and tigers did not always live in the same environment. Regardless, surely evolution has the same problem? How did leopards and tigers become different in the evolutionary scenario if they lived in the same environment?
::: Scientists don't have all the answers. Scientific research continues, because there are still things to learn, still questions to be answered, still problems to be solved. This should be even more the case with creationism, because creationism gets practically no funding (what it does get is mostly from private donations), yet evolutionists get (by comparison) vast amounts of funding. So no creationist claims to have all the answers to every last problem (although considering the amount of research they have been able to do, I think they've done remarkably well). One area that I can't give a really good answer on is the animal migration one. However, there are still some points that I can answer:
:::* Australia has no large carnivorous animals and not many medium-size ones either. Therefore, the kangaroo and koala have little in the way of natural enemies (except for disease, etc.). If there were larger carnivorous animals, the roo and koala would likely not fare very well. Carnivorous animals, on the other hand, would not survive so well where there are not other animals to eat. What this suggests is that as the animals spread around the world from Ararat, over many years, if not centuries in some cases, the vegetarians would migrate first, to be followed by the carnivores. So in some cases, the only vegetarians to survive would be the ones that kept ahead of the carnivores. If the kangaroos and koalas reached Australia first, and then rising sea levels following the [[ice age]] cut Australia off from Asia before the carnivores got there, the kangaroos and koalas on Australia would be protected and survive, whilst the ones remaining in Asia were wiped out.
:::* Animals will spread out to find new food sources, especially as populations increase and there is more competition for food. Rabbits were released in one location in Australia 150 odd years ago, and within a matter of decades had spread to cover half the continent. That is what happens; there is no way that animals would stay confined to the Middle East.
:::* Aborigines and other native peoples ''do'' have stories of the Flood, etc. See [[Great Flood]] for some examples.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:27, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that sentence was fairly poor and made little sense except to me. I do apologise for such poor argument techniques, my only (very poor) excuse is that I was absolutely wrecked at the time.

How do you mean that the opposite has been observed? From what I understand, bacteria have been observed to evolve and change quite significantly because of mutations and natural selection. Bacteria are one of the best organisms to observe as they reproduce very rapidly and the population can have progressed by tens of generations every day. Other animals appear to be evolving as we watch, such as the Hawthorn Fly and its new sub-species: the apple fly. go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution#Evidence_from_speciation] and have a look at the Hawthorn fly at the bottom of the page.

Regarding the 8000 species to fit on Noahs arc, how did so few species become so many after the flood? Natural selection does not result in the differentiation of species so quickly, and the differences between some of the species that were chosen as having a common ancestor are so marked that they must have divulged from the ancestor at a much much earlier date.

Well I don't pretend to understand how bacteria are resitant to antibiotics so I won't argue that point.

Leopards and tigers would have evolved to be quite different as their common ancestor split into two seperate breeding groups that became isolated from each other, either by mountains or migration of prey and then over thousands of years, mutations and differences in the two populations led to the differences between the species. That is my rather simplified understanding of how it occurs.

Well of course scientists don't know everything, if they did then religion would either be undisputable truth or ridiculed as fiction. That is the beauty of science, that there is always disagreements that lead to research in that area.

My understanding was that the last ice age that created a land bridge between Asia and Australia was over 6000 years ago. Regardless, how did animals get to the Americas? Specifically animals such as jaguars and pythons who would not have survived the cold temperatures in the north of Russia, where the only real land bridge between Asia and America may have existed. And how do you account for the predatorial megafauna that existed in Australia for a long time?

Of course the animals would not have stayed in the middle east, that is understandable, however how did they spread so far? It is not feasible that so many large animals travelled by rafts of seaweed or vegetation for so long without the herbivores eating the raft or carnivores eating the herbivores or each other.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:05, 22 May 2007

: "''How do you mean that the opposite has been observed?''". Goo-to-you evolution requires the ''generation'' of massive amounts of new genetic [[information]], whilst observations show that mutations not only do not result in increases in genetic information, but actually ''destroy'' genetic information. Destruction of genetic information is the opposite of the generation of new genetic information.
: "''From what I understand, bacteria have been observed to evolve and change quite significantly because of mutations and natural selection.''". That depends on what you mean by "evolve". Sure, they change, but they don't generate ''new genetic information''.
: "''Bacteria are one of the best organisms to observe as they reproduce very rapidly and the population can have progressed by tens of generations every day.''". Very true. And you know what? They are ''still'' bacteria! They have not generated new information to become anything else. If bacteria are still bacteria after, say, 100,000 generations (ten generations per day for less than 30 years), how did ape-like creatures change into men in, say, 33,000 generations (1 million years divided by 30 years per generation)?
: "''Regarding the 8000 species to fit on Noahs arc, how did so few species become so many after the flood? Natural selection does not result in the differentiation of species so quickly''". Yet just before that you commented about how fast creatures change and how we've seen new species appear fairly quickly!
: I attended a public meeting many years ago, put on by the Australian Skeptics, attempting to debunk creationism. They had four speakers, three scientists and a journalist. Two scientists and the journalist attacked creationists' motives and tried a guilt-by-association argument, and only one scientist actually discussed science! And his argument was that species form quite rapidly. I was puzzled (and I wasn't the only one) as to how this argument was supposed to refute creationism when it actually helped explain the very question you are asking.
: The point is that speciation ''can'' occur rapidly in the right conditions; it's been observed in our lifetime, so the 4,500 years since the flood is plenty of time. Your ideas of the pace of speciation are probably based on evolutionary ideas of how long evolutionists have think it has taken, rather than any actual observations.
: "''My understanding was that the last ice age that created a land bridge between Asia and Australia was over 6000 years ago''". That's according to the evolutionary timescale, which young-Earth creationists reject. My point about scientists not knowing everything was that I probably can't answer all your questions about how animals got to other parts of the world from Ararat.
: "''...how do you account for the predatorial megafauna that existed in Australia for a long time?''". First, was it really predatorial? Second, was it post-flood or pre-flood?
: "''..how did they spread so far?''". Slowly. They didn't need to travel all the way from Ararat to Australia in one trip, or one generation. Just as rabbits have spread across much of Australia in the say, 50 years after they were introduced, animals would have spread around the world over, say, 200 years (to pick a couple of figure out of the air).
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:50, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::This will probably be the last thing I say in this discussion as I feel that there are some major differences of opinion and the like that will inhibit any progress from here.

::Gene mutations do lead to the destruction of genetic material and it does not create new material, it alters genetic material which alters the organism slightly. Most mutations result in very little or no change because they are useless and simply get bred out again however some are productive and that is when the species advances.

::Bacteria are still bacteria because they have not progressed to a multi-cellular organism. Also there are a ''lot'' of strains or species of bacteria because they change so rapidly.

::I explained that smaller and short lived creatures can change rather rapidly however larger animals such as humans and elephants and so on who breed quite slowly take a long time to evolve, look at the two million years it took cro-magnon men to evolve into homo sapiens, although of course you won't agree with that.

::Evolutionary timescale. That is one reason that this argument can no longer progress as I 'know' that the scientific dating methods are accurate while you 'know' that the world is only 6000 years old and therefore science must be wrong. I would ask how you can doubt the scientific methods of dating fossils and glacier movement and all those kind of things.

::Well the some of the megafauna that existed was predatorial, insofar as they had long, sharp canines and incisors, their eyes were facing forward from the front of their skull and all the other indications that show predatorial habits. Well I assume that to overcome this problem you would say that they were pre-flood and indeed the fossils were dated to be over 20,000 years old.

::[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:39, 23 May 2007

Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-22T11:07:25Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Noah's Ark: Fact or Fiction */

Wow, great topic. Do we all get to creat a 1-2-3-4-5 ... 19-20 list? I'll try. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Solutions by God/Jesus discussion ==

1) overpopulation 2) preventing war 3) preventable disease 4) natural resource protection .... 19) maintaining American sovereignty over the world 20) asteroid striking Earth. 99) finding an extraterrestrial intelligent race that is broadcasting solutions to all these problems for any species that need them. My quick 0.02, arbitraged through the Euro. Human 00:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:We've already been visited by an intelligent extraterrestrial with solutions to all these problems. But most reject the solutions, and question his identity. His name was Jesus. Philip J. Rayment 21:56, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

::Good one - touché. I was thinking you were going to identify It as God. Human 22:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I did. Jesus is God. Philip J. Rayment 22:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Hello over here, PJR. I was curious if you would briefly synopsize Jesus' solutions to 1 through 4 on my list? Thanks! [[User:Human|Human]] 12:10, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:1 Overpopulation is not a problem. The problem is a lack of food production in some countries, due to corrupt governments and worldviews that don't encourage productive effort. Believing in the God of truth would get rid of corruption, and believing in the God that tells us that we should do a fair day's work would increase productive effort.
:Would it bring water to the desert, cure plant blight, bring rain to the drought areas and dryness to the floods? Starvation isn't always the result of corruption and laziness. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 22:59, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Apart from Divine intervention to solve those problems (which should not be dismissed), then yes, those problems would remain. But they wouldn't be the major problems that they are today if everything else was working properly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:2 Believing in the Prince of Peace (Jesus) and following God's instruction to love one another, and to love our enemies (not that we'd have any left) would stop people starting wars with each other.
:3 Preventable diseases exist because of people's lifestyles, whether they be immoral ones or related to my comments in point 1. Leading moral lives as God expects would therefore eliminate preventable diseases.
:4 God has given us the use of this planet, but it is still His and He expects us to look after it. If we did that, we would not waste or otherwise abuse natural resources.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:09, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for humoring me, I appreciate your taking the trouble to clarify the answers. And the discussion continues... [[User:Human|Human]] 13:38, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:# There is a limit to food production (and living space): one planet can only support a certain maximum population, and we're approaching that limit.
:# If everyone believed in one ideology there would be peace, for a while... conflict is part of human nature, history teaches us that the only way to unite humanity is to give them a common enemy.
:# People get sick because there are viruses and bacteria around, don't forget genetic mutations: a person doesn't choose to get leukemia or Parkinson.
:# Damn right, that's why your point about overpopulation is wrong.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

::# Yes, there is a limit, but I dispute that we are getting close to that limit. Population densities are ''far'' higher in some places than others, and food production is ''far'' higher in some places than others, indicating that there is still plenty of room for growth. (I realise that not all places will sustain the same population or food production, but I still believe that there is plenty of room for growth).
::# Conflict is a part of a person's ''fallen'' nature, i.e. after rejecting God. If we all accepted and obeyed God, it would not be an issue. You are judging how a particular ideology would work by ascribing to it a characteristic of different ideologies.
::# Yes, it wouldn't eliminate all disease. But human's point was ''preventable'' disease, and it was that which I was addressing.
::# God has also told us to "be fruitful and multiply", meaning increase the population. So clearly that can't be something contrary to point 1.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:#I for one don't want to see the whole world turn into one giant Tokyo: I enjoy <s>breathable</s> fresh air, and would like to have multiple! square meters to call my own. Really, why isn't 6.5 billion enough anyway?
:#Conflict is in our hearts, our DNA and our brains (our ancient hunting instincts and such), Einstein once said: "there are only two things eternal: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not even entirely sure about the first one", any ideology will eventually start to suppress "dissidents" for "the greater good", we've even been there with Christianity (the dark ages, aren't called that way because people hadn't invented the light bulb yet), no single ideology can please everyone, except maybe freedom, so let's just keep our freedom!
:#No, medicine and hygiene are how you stop disease.
:#Not multiply like rabbits, we're a sentient species, we should at least be able to control our own population, don't you think?
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

::# We've a long way to go before the entire world has a population density of Tokyo. How much is enough?
::# Please point me to the "conflict" gene in the DNA. Yes, it is in our hearts (but not our DNA) and minds because of sin, but that's why people returning to God would solve this problem. You are lumping all ideologies in together, without any attempt to see of perhaps one of them might be different. The "dark ages" are not called that for the reason that you think. They are called that for the very purpose of maligning Christianity. See the quotes below.
::# Medicine and hygiene are not the only ways of stopping diseases.
::# No, I don't think we should do something contrary to what the all-wise, all-knowing God has told us to do. That is logically stupid, with the only defence being to reject God, which is of course what you do.
{{QuoteBox|...not only did religion not cause the “Dark Ages”; nothing else did either—the story that after the “fall” of Rome a long dark night of ignorance and superstition settled over Europe is as fictional as the Columbus story. In fact this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress … the Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth century was the … result of [Christian scholarship] starting in the eleventh century… Why did real science develop in Europe … and not anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian theology… The “Enlightenment” [was] conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists and humanists [e.g. Voltaire, Diderot and Gibbon] who attempted to claim credit for the rise of science [through promulgating] the falsehood that science required the defeat of religion.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ Rodney Stark, quoted by a reviewer of his book]}}
{{QuoteBox|What about the ‘Dark Ages’? The term was invented in the 19th century, and is now rejected by historians as being a pejorative incorrectly denoting it to be a period of intellectual darkness and barbarity (p. 129) [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ By the reviewer of Stark's book, from the same link]}}
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Discussion regarding religion, evil, etc. ==

I moved this from the article page with the permission of the two main "discussers". [[User:Human|Human]] 17:24, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:"Solving" the rejection of god would do absolutely nothing for anything. religion causes more problems then it solves, northern Ireland, terrorism, ID, the Tamil Tigers etc. My list would be 1) global warming 2) poverty 3) freedom of government for every country 4) endangered species of animals 5) freedom of sexuality 6)scientists need to be believed and people must accept that science is seperate from religion 7) seperation of church and state in every country 8) securing Earth from asteroids etc. 9) spreading the word about the fallibility of religion and everything associated with it including ID and young earth. I know a lot of the conservatives around here won't like my liberal take on things, but its a debate and there is my view. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 10 May 2007

::Not that religion is without its problems, I heard this canard tonight on Nightline (that religion is at the root of so much of the world's problems). From Stalin's Terror to Chairman Mao's Communist and Cultural revolutions, I do think religious disputes pale in comparison. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Global warming. Let me illustrate what I mean:
{{cquote|2PE 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.}}

Signing... [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

- ::Bolly Ottihw, your comments are illogical, because they treat all religions (except, presumably, atheistic ones) as equal, and as they make contradictory claims and can't all be correct, as equally wrong. But it it not logical to assume that because some are wrong that all are, yet you are lumping them all together, despite, as HeartOfGold says, atheist worldviews have been far worse, and despite all the good that a Christian worldview has done for society. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Please explain how lumping all religions together is so wrong? Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all monotheistic, all believe in the same god and are all similar in a theoretical extent. I am not assuming that because one is wrong they all are, I am saying that they are because I think there is enough evidence that they all have a detrimental effect on society. Good things? I have seen very few. Firstly, look at some of the things a christian world view has brought about. In Australia there was the 'stolen generation'. This was when aboriginal children (aboriginals are the native people of Australia, much the same as American Indians) were taken from their parents by missionaries because they were 'not being brought up the right way'. Thus these children were denied there parents and as a result, aboriginal society has been fractured and almost destroyed. Then of course, there is the crusades, death and disease being the only outcomes of these misguided 'religious wars'. Don't forget the Inquisition or the witch hunts of the medieval times. Christianity has done far far more evil to the world than it has done good, just as with all the other religions.
:::Heart of Gold, I assume you meant athiestic when you said religious in your post about Chairman Mao and Stalin? Please correct me if you haven't. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:40, 10 May 2007

:::: Islam and Judaism deny the Divinity of Jesus, for one thing. They can't all be correct on that.
:::: As for the effects of Christianity on society, please read this review of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery].
:::: The 'stolen generation' is an urban myth, with most examples of "stolen" children not being stolen at all. And to the extent that any were taken against their parents' will, it was generally by governments, not missionaries.
:::: The Crusades were, in part, a military action to stop and reverse the invasions by Muslims of various countries.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

How dare you call the stolen generation an 'urban myth'? It is a fact, and most of the participants in it were either missionaries or christian. If you said that Down Under you would find very few people who would seriously consider it, and a wealth of aboriginals who were part of the stolen generation, as well as caucasians who admit to having instigated it.

So what is your point? Christians deny that Mohummed was a prophet, how can you all be correct on that? It cuts both ways. As for that review, 535 people were executed for 'religious heresy' in Aragon? How is that good? 535? That is a lot of deaths, just because these people did not think the same thoughts that the rulers did. Sounds a lot like communism or facism.

The Crusades would not have been nearly as major as they were if the church hadn't have called them a holy war to recapture Jerusalem and put all their support behind it. Another example of the detrimental affect the church had on society: in Italy in the 17-1800's many Jewish children were taken from their parents and banned from seeing them ever again, simply because they had been baptised as a baby by a catholic housekeeper who was employed by the Jewish families. What those children needed was the love and care of their parents, not the harsh upbringing of the catholic church. And you still haven't responded to the Northern Ireland crisis. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:25, 10 May 2007

:I "dare" call it an 'urban myth' (well, perhaps that's not the best term, how about 'non-existent'?) because it is, and I do so 'down under', because that's where I am. Nobody has been able to name these supposed 'wealth of aboriginals', which is very strong evidence that there is no 'wealth of aboriginals' that were 'stolen'.
: I never said that all agreed that Mohammad was a prophet; that actually supports my point that they all disagree. If they all disagree, then they can't all be correct, but it does not follow that they are all ''incorrect''; it is still possible for one of them to be correct, yet you lump them all in together.
: Neither did I say that Christians have never done anything bad. Sure, you can quote me some instances of Christians doing bad things (now, however, consistent with Christianity), but a few examples does not meant that Christianity per se is bad, and as I pointed out, it has done an enormous amount of good. And in fact it has primarily been Protestantism that has done the most good, whereas most of your examples are of non-Protestants.
: Northern Ireland is a political dispute, not a religious one, even though the two political sides are split along nominally religious lines.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::A fellow Aussie! Hip hip, Huzzah! Anyway, I am surprised that you deny this as it is well documented and quite easy to find some simple facts about it.
::Ok they are all different in some respects. The reason I lump them all together is because all of them are about defending the indefencible in the face of overwhelming evidence, and because they are all a tool to discourage individual thought and different POV's.
::Please enlighten me with some example of this 'good' that christianity, or protentism, has done because I have found none that is not outweighed enormously by the amount of death and suffering it has caused over the years.
:: Northern Ireland is a political dispute, however without the definition of one side as catholics, and the others as protestants, the trouble would have ended long ago. Instead a rival group mentality is fostered by sending children to denominational religious schools, by going to church and by marrying into the same group. If it wasn't for this, there would be no way of telling who was on what side, or any easy ways with which to inspire hatred. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:10, 10 May 2007

::: I deny it for the reasons that I gave; that there is a lack of evidence. Yes, it is well "documented", but without any actual list of "stolen" aborigines (beyond a handful). Most that were supposedly "stolen" were actually voluntarily given up by their parents who couldn't look after them, and reasons such as that.
::: Your argument about "defending the indefensible" presumes that it is indefensible, which it isn't. And Christianity is not "a tool to discourage individual thought"; if anything it has encouraged it.
::: I've already pointed you to a page which mentions some of the good that Christianity has done. Did you read it?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:34, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Bolly Ottihw: do you have a source for that 1700-1800 Italy story? I never heard of that before. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 08:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Firstly, I don't have a direct source, it came from 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, and I do not have a copy with me to check what sources he quoted, however if you do want to find out, I'm sure that it is not hard to obtain a copy of said book.
::If you mean the book review? I did read that. I did not find very many examples of 'good to society' in there. Firstly, of those scientists who were christian, there was almost no alternative at that time. Christianity was taught as a fact because there was little scientific evidence to challenge the god hypothesis. If raised in this day and age then very few of them would have been christians as they would have had a wealth of information on the subject that was not available then. Also, Copernicus lived under house arrest for the majority of his later years, because the church did not like his theory that the earth revolved around the sun. Does not sound like a church that is pushing for revolutions in the field of science. All there is there is a small paragraph about the abolition of slavery. Yes, you now have one good thing that the church has done for society. All of this compared with the amount of people that have been killed as a result of the church? What about all the wars that were the result of England becoming protestant as compared with the majority of European nations who were catholic? There's another example of death for religion.
::Of course religion discourages individual thought. You are not allowed to question the authority of the priests and bishops, or the bible. It is indoctrinated in young children as a fact and if they question, they are threatened with hell or simply told not to question. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:47, 11 May 2007

:::While I don't agree with Dawkins on this issue, I confess I haven't read the book. I have read other books by him and I know he tends to quote his sources. I will have to find a library copy. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Your attempt to make out that the relationship between Christianity and the scientific efforts of the scientists was coincidence more than anything else ignores the fact that the book's author (along with other researchers) specifically said that one was dependent on the other. Your handwaving away the dependency says much about your lack of objectivity.
::: Similarly, your attempt to counter the church's documented support for science with the odd counter-example shows that you are willing to grasp at straws.
::: I was raised in a Christian home and have attended church all my life, yet I have ''never'' been taught that I'm not allowed to question the authority of the church leadership, or even the Bible. Perhaps that's because I was raised as a Protestant, but I've already mentioned that it was Protestantism that I'm referring to as much as anything.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:50, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Leopeo, I do encourage you to read the book, as I found it quite a revalation, I credit it for turning me from an agnostic to an atheist. Even if you are comfortable with your christian beliefs, I still think it is a very good book and worthwhile reading.

:I am not making out that it was coincidence, it is true that the church has played a role in the dvelopment of science during the dark and middle ages. The main problem is that it has discourage scientific research that goes against its world view or ideology, for example the helioentric model, or evolution. Recently, ie the past 300-400 years there has been a tendency for the church to only use science where it supports their theology or whatever. I do admit however, that my knowledge of this is confined mostly to the catholic church and evangelicals so I cannot counter any claims you make about Protestantism, which sounds fairly mild as religions go. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:19, 11 May 2007

::I've seen very little evidence of the church discouraging scientific research that goes against its worldview. Rather, I'm dismayed at the support that it gives to evolution (including from the Catholic church). Galileo had a lot of support for the heliocentric model, and the opposition of the church at the time had more to do with him offending the powers that be than with the science. On the other hand, atheism and its ilk strongly discourages scientific research that goes against ''its'' ideology; just look at the opposition in the scientific community to creationism, and look at the level of funding for each.
::I have a friend who read The God Delusion. He is a Christian, and a fairly young one (i.e., he's been a Christian for only a few years), and I'm told by a mutual friend that The God Delusion strengthened his faith! His reasoning was that if this was the best case that atheists can raise against Christianity, they have no case!
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Why are you so dismayed at the support it gives to evolution? As far as scientific theories go it is a very strong one with a lot of supporting evidence. There is no need to abandon god just to believe it. I find it astonishing that so many people cannot accept that just maybe there is a possibility that the bible isn't 100% historically accurate, in fact there is quite a lot of proof that it isn't. Thats not to say that god doesn't exist, although that is my belief, it's simply that the bible was written by humans who aren't perfect.
Good on him. I honestly mean that, if he is that certain in his faith then that's good. Much better to be certain about what you believe. On the other hand though if he belives that atheism has no case against christianity I would suggest that just maybe he didn't quite understand, or want to understand, the actual arguments put forward in the book. Richard Dawkins was not arguing that god did not exist, all he was arguing was that god is extremely unlikely and that there is no good proof of his existence. But there you go, people are different and they shall stay that way. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:34, 12 May 2007

:I'm dismayed because it is cutting its own throat by doing so. Evolution and God ''as described in the Bible'' are mutually inconsistent. Sure, you can continue to believe in "a god", but not the God of the Bible. There is ''no'' proof that the Bible isn't 100% historically accurate, only flawed arguments against it. As far as scientific theories go, goo-to-you evolution barely qualifies, not even being falsifiable. The Bible claims to be written by God, millions of people have believed that it was written by God, many thousands of quite intelligent people are amongst those millions who have believed that, yet you simply assert that it wasn't. That's hardly a convincing argument.
:You suggest that my friend maybe didn't understand. Have you considered that maybe ''you'' don't understand the strength (or lack of) of the arguments? Even another atheist has said that Dawkins' book makes him embarrassed to be an atheist.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:32, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:: So when Paul says 'not the Lord, but I ...', that was the Lord, and not him? Why would God write in barely literate koine in the Gospel of Mark, and then in medical greek for the Gospel of Luke? I'm a Christian, but I recognise that the Bible was written by people, and diverges further from the truth with each translation. That's why I study and read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, to get at it in a more reliable form. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

::::God was the ultimate author, but not a dictator (in the sense of dictation), so He got the human authors to write what He wanted written, and He ensured that they were accurate, but they wrote it in their own styles and their own words.
::::How can it diverge further from the truth with each translation? That strongly suggests that it has gone through multiple steps of translation, such as A-B-C-D-E... I've often had bibliosceptics say similar things to me. The opposite is true, however. Modern translations are "single-step" translations, i.e. from the original languages directly into English. Sure, this has happened multiple time, but what that means is that the translation has gone A-B once, A-B again, A-B again, and so on. Each time it is translated, it is from the original languages, just as you do with your personal reading.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well why do you have to believe in the god from the bible? Evolution is in fact a very strong scientific theory and it is falsifiable. If one fossil turned up in the wrong strata of rock, for example a rabbit fossil in the pre cambrian rock then evolution would be conclusively proven wrong. However nothing like this has ever happened, despite some creationist claims otherwise.

:::So you are saying that loads of people cannot be wrong? over 1 million people voted Hitler into power in 1933 and they turned out to have made a bad choice. As well as this Islam is one of the most widespread religions in the world, alongside christianity, millions of people belive Islam and thousands of them are quite intelligent. So why are its claims any less valid? There are historical inaccuracies. Noah's arc. There is no evidence at all for the world wide flood yet people still believe it. And the 6000 year old creation. Again all the evidence points to the fact that the world is 4.3 billion years old and that the universe has been in existence for 13 billion years. That doesn't mean it is complete and certain fact but it is far far far more likely than the creation theories.

:::I have considered his arguments. I think they are quite strong. As for your atheist friend, I can understand why the book made him uncomfortable. However that does not make his arguments any less strong. They are by no means cast iron but they are very good. At the very least he does destroy all the logical 'proofs' for gods existence as well as suggesting some very believable ways in which the human mind could have conceived of god without his existing. At the very least it is an informative book, and I believe a breath of fresh air. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 13:56, 13 May 2007

:::: So much of what you have written is nothing more than anti-creationist and anti-biblical rhetoric. As far as evolution being falsifiable is concerned, I've rejected that notion [[User:Philip J. Rayment/Creationism#Is creationism falsifiable?|here]].
:::: Other than that, you've offered no evidence that it is the very strong theory that you claim.
:::: No, I'm not saying that loads of people cannot be wrong. I'm saying that with so many claiming a particular point of view, you need to do more than just dismiss all those people; you need to actually offer some good evidence or logic to support your claim.
:::: You claim that there is no evidence for a global flood, but you offer no explanation of what sort of evidence one should find if it were true, so your claim is hollow. Just for starters, a global flood would result in massive amounts of sediment, which would turn to rock. Most of the rock on the Earth's surface is sedimentary. There's prima facie evidence right there. And it is simply not true that ''all'' the evidence points to the world being 4.3 billion years old, etc. If you believe that, you clearly have not read some of the evidence that creationists have offered, which means that you are criticising and dismissing an idea that you obviously know next to nothing about.
:::: The atheist I referred to is not my friend, but a well-known atheistic/evolutionary scientist in America, and your response does nothing to explain away his objections.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Noah's Ark: Fact or Fiction ==
:I do attempt not to revert to simply bible bashing etc. What I would like to know is why you feel that the bible must be taken literally? There are a lot of christians and theologists who don't, not that that means you are wrong, simply that there are differences of opinion even amongst christians. I just explained how evolution is falsifiable. If fossils turn up in the wrong rock then evolution is wrong. There have been plenty of attempts to disprove evolution yet it is still regarded as a scientific fact by the majority of biologists.

:My main problem with claims that the bible was guided by god or written by him or any variation on that theme, is that it is a circular form of logic. "The bible was written by god because the bible shows proof of god. These proofs are correct because god wrote the bible and He cannot be wrong." Do you see where I am coming from?

:There is a lot of evidence against the great flood. Firstly, where did the water come from? If the world was covered in water then there would have to have been far far more water than exists today. Where has it gone? There is no evidence for this water. What about the animals that came off the ship? How big would the ship have to be to contain pairs of all the species of animals, plus the food to feed them with? What about inbreeding once the floodwaters subsided? A lot of animals would have simply failed to breed or have died out within a few generations. Where are the fossils? Of all of the animals and humans that were killed at the time of the great flood, a lot would have fossilised. So why are there no great bands of fossils that indicate a mass drowning such as this? There are more problems with the story, such as the current population of all the animal species etc. however surely these problems indicate that the bible is not actually literally true.

:Ok, not 'all' the evidence does. But most of it. And it is the simplest theory, Occam's Razor strikes again. I have read the creationist theories of the age of the universe and starlight reaching the earth and so on, and I was impressed with how fair they can be. On the other hand it seemed to be a rather convoluted way to explain why we can see stars that are 13 billion years old, compared to the rather simple "because the star ''is'' 13 billion years old".

:Ah ok, my mistake. Well he has his objections to the book, yet he is still an atheist. However I do understand his point of view (I think) because i did think that the book could have been improved a little and there were some weaknesses with his points. On the other hand there were some excellent arguments in there and also some very good scientific explanations regarding how god was created in the minds of humans and other things.

:[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:30, 14 May 2007

::I believe that parts of the Bible should be taken literally (i.e. not the parts that are metaphor and otherwise were not ''intended'' to be taken literally) because that's the way it was intended to be taken, and because there is good evidence that it is what it claims to be—God's infallible record.
:: Yes, you mentioned that you considered evolution falsifiable, and I pointed you to my explanation of why it is not. So what is your response to my explanation? None. You simply repeated your claim without even giving any indication that you read my rebuttal.
:: Your "circular reasoning" explanation for the Bible's authorship does not prove that it was ''not'' written by God, and is in fact a straw-man. I do not argue that "these proofs are correct because god wrote the bible and He cannot be wrong".
:: I said that you offered no evidence for a lack of a global flood, and that you clearly have no knowledge of the idea that you so readily dismiss. So now you offer some weak "evidence", but they are straw-man arguments or arguments that you should know the answer to if you had any knowledge of the idea. You still clearly do not have such knowledge, but are still arrogant enough to criticise it! I hate to point you to an entire book to read, but at least it is on-line and free, so I suggest that you have a read of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4018/ this book], then come back with whatever questions you still have. That will answer many of your questions and objections. Please find out something about creationism before you waste my time criticising it. Wouldn't you agree that it is best to have a working knowledge (at least) of a subject that you are going to criticise?
:: Personally, I think Occam's Razor often favours the creationist view. Surely it is better to explain the origin of the universe as "it was created by a being capable of creating it" than "nothing became something for no reason".
:: Yes, I'll admit that some of the creationist explanations are not as intuitive as one might like. However, I would argue that exactly the same criticism applies to evolution, the Big Bang, etc. Are you aware that the Big Bang model has a similar problem to the starlight/time problem? It's known as the horizon problem, and it's discussed in that book. The cosmologists' solutions are just as convoluted, including proposing that the speed of light used to be different! Now where have I heard that before?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm again intervening between you two. Sorry... ;-)
Philip, care to elaborate: "because there is good evidence that it is what it claims to be—God's infallible record."? By the way, TimS a few moments ago posted an interesting article on evolution being supposedly unfalsifiable, which might be of interest to both of you [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 10:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT): [[User:Tims/A_Response_to_Locke%27s%2C_%22The_Scientific_Case_Against_Evolution%22]]

:Well I didn't read the whole book, however I did read a few of the more important chapters for this discussion. I find it interesting that when referring to the animals on the arc, and the common ancestors, such as the equine ancestor for the zebra, horse and mule, they in fact need to agree with evolution to allow for the species to become so separated. Noah's arc could only have fitted all the animals onto it if most of todays animals evolved from the much smaller number of animals alive at that time. The book didn't answer one of my other questions: why didn't a lot of species of animals die out, and why is the human population so large when it came from 7-8 people only 4000 years ago?

:Occams Razor does not favour the creationist side of things, because to do so requires an incredibly complex creator or god. Compared to everything obeying the laws of physics etc., you invoke a being who is not only human in his emotions, jealousy, rage, love, hate and so on, and who is omnipotent and omniscient and so on. Just as an aside it is important to note that god cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent, as if he is omniscient then he can see his future self changing the future with his omnipotence, yet he has no choice as to whether he intervenes or not.

:I think anyone who suggests that the speed of light used to be different needs to have a real look at cosmology and physics. That is highly unlikely and it is also not a scientific theory as it is not falsifiable. Yes physics and science aren't perfect, and probably never will be but we try. And one day (barring disaster, destruction of the earth, extinction of humans etc.) we will have an almost complete understanding of the universe and how it behaves. I will go out on a limb and suggest that it is highly improbably that god will feature in it. And thankyou to Leopeo for pointing out that great article.

:[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:26, 15 May 2007

::Thanks for taking the time to learn. Not that this would make you sufficiently knowledgeable to dismiss creationism, but it's a very good start.
:: Regarding the requirement for "evolution" of the animals on the ark, Chapter 18 of that book touches on it, but a better explanation is [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831/106/ here]. It is also covered very briefly in [[definitions of evolution]], but you would be better off reading that external link.
:: Regarding human population, the real question is why there aren't many more people if humans have been around for 100,000 years, or whatever is the current figure. Doing the population growth calculations, it is quite easy to get today's population from eight people 4,500 years ago, but very difficult to get it with an evolutionary timescale without proposing "growth" rates that are virtually static (i.e. no growth) for most of that time.
:: I don't follow your question about species going extinct. Lots of species ''have'' died out.
:: It might seem counter-intuitive (it surprised me when I heard it), but God is not a complex being. Complexity means being composed of many parts, and God is not that; He is simply, ''God''.
:: Your objection regarding omniscience and omnipotence is based on a caricature of those terms. Being omnipotent does not mean being able to do things that are nonsense. For example, not even an omnipotent being can create a green drop, or a (thermally-)hot accent. Such are simply nonsense word constructions, not meaningful things. Similarly, an omnipotent being contradicting Himself is a nonsense thing. But perhaps more to the point of your specific objection, God has no "future", because "future" is a time-based term, and ''time'' is part of God's creation, along with space and matter, and God is outside of His creation, not part of it. What this means is that God does not exist ''in'' time. God is timeless. He has no past and no future, He just is. (This also explains why the question, "who created God" is nonsense. He had no beginning, because that is a time-base term, so there was no need for Him to be created.)
:: As I said, ''secular'' scientists have now proposed that the speed of light might have changed. I won't argue that it's falsifiable, but the reason it's perhaps not falsifiable is because it is something that only occurred (assuming it did) in the distant past, which we don't have to observe and test. But exactly the same criticism applies to the Big Bang, evolutionary history, etc. etc.
:: I disagree of course with your expectation regarding God featuring in our future understanding, but the main point I want to note is that this is a ''faith position'' of yours.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:10, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I found a couple of problems with that article. Firstly, they have admitted that natural selection occurs, fair enough, they give their reasons for that. But then they say that gene information is simply lost when natural selection favours, say long haired wolves over short haired ones. I only have to refer to the example of the moths (unfortunately I do not know what species of moth) who habit the woods around London. Before the Industrial Revolution these moths were very light brown as they matched the colour of the tree trunks. There was a slight mutation in one of the genes that occasionally threw up black or dark coloured moths, however they did not survive well as they were not camouflaged against the tree trunk. Then when London expanded rapidly and polution became a major issue, the trees around the city became covered in soot. Now it was the black moths who survived to breed and very soon the population of moths were entirely dark coloured. When the city cleaned up (a bit) and the woods returned to their previous colour, the odd moths that were born light coloured were once again the best adapted and so the population has returned to its pre-industrial state. According to that article, the gene information should have been lost and therefore the moths would have been unable to revert back to their original colouring.

The human population is an easy one. The population growth chart would only need static areas if wars and pandemics were left out. The bubonic plague killed almost three quaters of the population of Europe in the 1400's as well as many people in Asia and northern Africa. Wars and fighting over the past 2000 years have resulted in millions, if not billions of deaths as well as outbreaks of disease caused by poor health care up until recently. When such disasters and pandemics and wars are factored into the equation, the graph makes a lot more sense than the 8 people to 7 billion one. My other problem with noahs arc is: why did the human population not become infertile due to the human genes coming only from one families gene pool?

Yes it is counter-intuitive, it is also really weird. If god is so simple, then how can he do all the things you say he does? Creating the world and all the species of animals that inhabit it, creating the whole universe and being able to see and hear everyone on the world at the same time? That is not a simple being at all.

If god exists outside of time and space then how can he influence them? And contradicting himself is not a logical impossibility. What it basically means is that he has no choice in what he does because if he did then he would not be omniscient as he would not be able to see whether or not he interferes or not. So if god is omniscient then he has no choice or free will and therefore is not much of a god as praying to him will have no effect on what he does.

Well the only time I have heard the speed of light used to be faster argument was in that creation on the web book, however they did discount it. I find it hard to believe that serious physicists do actually think that.

I would disagree that it is a faith position, it is simply a prediction. I should not have used the word 'believe' to say how I think the future may pan out however it is not a cast iron faith position.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 10:22, 16 May 2007

:Of course they "admit" that natural selection occurs: A creationist discovered it before Darwin!
:The example of the wolves involves environmental pressures removing ''all'' the wolves with the genes for short hair. But this is not always what will happen. In the case of the peppered moths, the environmental pressure caused ''most'' of the dark/light moths to be eliminated, but not ''all''. So when the environment changed back, there was still a small population of the other form around to repopulate. By the way, although the story of the peppered moths is probably true, and is actually a nice example of natural selection without ([[information]]-gaining) evolution, the evidence (the photographs of the moths on tree trunks) was faked.
:When I referred to a "static growth" for human population, I was meaning over the long term. Sure, in the short term, it can fluctuate up and down, which means that if you select just the right time period (some increase, some decrease), you can show the population remaining static. But to sustain that stasis for a long, and especially a very long, time, where the wars, plagues, etc. exactly balance out the growth, is a very unlikely ad hoc explanation.
:I believe that infertility is not a direct result of inbreeding, but an indirect result. That is, it is not due to sexual intercourse in a small group, but to the rapid accumulation of genetic defects that results from that. If Noah and his family, living only a few generations after Adam and Eve, still had very few genetic defects, then there would have been no problem.
:Your questions about the nature of God are things that I mostly can't answer, simply because His very nature is so unlike all that we understand. We can glean much about Him, especially from what He has revealed to us, but there is so much more that we don't yet know and probably never will (until we join him in heaven). You ask how he could influence time and space if He is outside of them. Rather, I'd ask why you think that's a problem. The question seems to presuppose that you know something about how these things work to know that it shouldn't be possible. But to give a possible answer, you and I can influence things outside ourselves. We don't have to be in someone's family, for example, to influence what happens in that family.
:Omniscience can be hard to understand, I'll grant, but I don't see, for example, how praying is useless. Sure, God knows before you pray that you will pray, so He already knows what He is going to do, but if you don't pray, He instead already knows that and doesn't act on that non-prayer.
:Just in case you misunderstand, the secular scientists who have proposed that the speed of light was different in the past did not propose that it was different by anything like the amount that the creationist had earlier proposed, or for as long. About the only similarity between the two ideas was that it was not the constant (for all time) that is generally believed.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::Yes but that leaves them in a weaker position because that is what evolution is all about. Now it seems that the only part of evolution that creationists object to is the gene mutations. Why is that when they have already taken the step of admitting natural selection? There is evidence of gene mutations that occur, such as bacteria and viruses mutating and becoming resistant to antibiotics or other medicines. And the creationist explanation did nothing for me. How is it possible that they already had the genetic information for the resistance of antibiotics in them, not to mention all the other drugs and medicines that some strains of bacteria are becoming resistant to? What about leopards and tigers, they had a common ancestor and they share similar information yet how did they become so different when some of them live in the same environment? According to the creationist theory, the common ancestor of snow leopards and siberian tigers should have lost the same types of genetic information when they 'migrated' from Ararat mountain to Russia and Mongolia, yet the two species have split to the extent that they can no longer mate. Surely only the mutations of genes can account for this.

::One thing i failed to understand was how the animals supposedly spread from Mount Ararat to all corners of the globe. Animals such as the kangaroo, and the koala, how did they get across asia and Indoniesia to end up here, without settling in other parts of the world? Why did most of the animals not stay around Israel? Why don't the native peoples of places such as Australia, North and South America and Asia have flood stories and tales of how they descended from Noah? How can you explain the diversity of species in different areas when it is obvious that some of them could not have crossed an ocean to get there. And the fact that the whole species (or its ancestor) must have crossed the oceans, leaving none of them behind? Birds is understandable but not sloths, grizzly bears, koalaa and buffalo not to mention thousands of others. There are plenty of holes in the story that have not yet been explained.

::[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:23, 17 May 2007

::: "''Yes but that leaves them in a weaker position because that is what evolution is all about.''". I'm sorry, I don't know what this is referring to.
::: Evolution could be described as the belief that a combination of two observed processes (natural selection and mutations) can result in creatures gradually changing into other types of creatures to the extent that all life has come from a single organism via this process. Creationists don't disagree that natural selection and mutations are real (both have been observed happening, and as I said, a creationist discovered and described natural selection before Darwin), but they do disagree that the combination of these two processes can lead to new organs, abilities, etc. (or more precisely, the new genetic [[information]] required for this). Not only has this part has ''not'' been observed, the opposite has been observed!
::: How did they already have the resistance? It depends on just how they have that resistance. I believe that it is not specific resistance to a given antibiotic as such, but rather some factor that results in them being resistant. Here is an explanation of one way this works (there are a number of different methods:
{{QuoteBox|Some antibiotics need to be taken into the bacterium to do their work. There are sophisticated chemical pumps in bacteria which can actively pump nutrients from the outside through the cell wall into the germ’s interior. Those germs which do this efficiently, when in the presence of one of these antibiotics, will therefore efficiently pump into themselves their own executioner. 
However, what if one of these bacteria inherits a defective gene, by way of a DNA copying mistake (mutation) which will interfere with the efficiency of this chemical pumping mechanism? Although this bacterium will not be as good at surviving in normal circumstances, this defect actually gives it a survival advantage in the presence of the man-made poison.}}
::: You can see from that explanation that the bacterium does not have a specific resistance to a given antibiotic, but a defect that ''effectively'' makes it resistant to antibiotics that work in that way.
::: Perhaps leopards and tigers did not always live in the same environment. Regardless, surely evolution has the same problem? How did leopards and tigers become different in the evolutionary scenario if they lived in the same environment?
::: Scientists don't have all the answers. Scientific research continues, because there are still things to learn, still questions to be answered, still problems to be solved. This should be even more the case with creationism, because creationism gets practically no funding (what it does get is mostly from private donations), yet evolutionists get (by comparison) vast amounts of funding. So no creationist claims to have all the answers to every last problem (although considering the amount of research they have been able to do, I think they've done remarkably well). One area that I can't give a really good answer on is the animal migration one. However, there are still some points that I can answer:
:::* Australia has no large carnivorous animals and not many medium-size ones either. Therefore, the kangaroo and koala have little in the way of natural enemies (except for disease, etc.). If there were larger carnivorous animals, the roo and koala would likely not fare very well. Carnivorous animals, on the other hand, would not survive so well where there are not other animals to eat. What this suggests is that as the animals spread around the world from Ararat, over many years, if not centuries in some cases, the vegetarians would migrate first, to be followed by the carnivores. So in some cases, the only vegetarians to survive would be the ones that kept ahead of the carnivores. If the kangaroos and koalas reached Australia first, and then rising sea levels following the [[ice age]] cut Australia off from Asia before the carnivores got there, the kangaroos and koalas on Australia would be protected and survive, whilst the ones remaining in Asia were wiped out.
:::* Animals will spread out to find new food sources, especially as populations increase and there is more competition for food. Rabbits were released in one location in Australia 150 odd years ago, and within a matter of decades had spread to cover half the continent. That is what happens; there is no way that animals would stay confined to the Middle East.
:::* Aborigines and other native peoples ''do'' have stories of the Flood, etc. See [[Great Flood]] for some examples.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:27, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that sentence was fairly poor and made little sense except to me. I do apologise for such poor argument techniques, my only (very poor) excuse is that I was absolutely wrecked at the time.

How do you mean that the opposite has been observed? From what I understand, bacteria have been observed to evolve and change quite significantly because of mutations and natural selection. Bacteria are one of the best organisms to observe as they reproduce very rapidly and the population can have progressed by tens of generations every day. Other animals appear to be evolving as we watch, such as the Hawthorn Fly and its new sub-species: the apple fly. go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution#Evidence_from_speciation] and have a look at the Hawthorn fly at the bottom of the page.

Regarding the 8000 species to fit on Noahs arc, how did so few species become so many after the flood? Natural selection does not result in the differentiation of species so quickly, and the differences between some of the species that were chosen as having a common ancestor are so marked that they must have divulged from the ancestor at a much much earlier date.

Well I don't pretend to understand how bacteria are resitant to antibiotics so I won't argue that point.

Leopards and tigers would have evolved to be quite different as their common ancestor split into two seperate breeding groups that became isolated from each other, either by mountains or migration of prey and then over thousands of years, mutations and differences in the two populations led to the differences between the species. That is my rather simplified understanding of how it occurs.

Well of course scientists don't know everything, if they did then religion would either be undisputable truth or ridiculed as fiction. That is the beauty of science, that there is always disagreements that lead to research in that area.

My understanding was that the last ice age that created a land bridge between Asia and Australia was over 6000 years ago. Regardless, how did animals get to the Americas? Specifically animals such as jaguars and pythons who would not have survived the cold temperatures in the north of Russia, where the only real land bridge between Asia and America may have existed. And how do you account for the predatorial megafauna that existed in Australia for a long time?

Of course the animals would not have stayed in the middle east, that is understandable, however how did they spread so far? It is not feasible that so many large animals travelled by rafts of seaweed or vegetation for so long without the herbivores eating the raft or carnivores eating the herbivores or each other.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:05, 22 May 2007

Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-17T07:25:46Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Noah's Ark: Fact or Fiction */

Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-16T00:22:59Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Headline text */

Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-16T00:21:56Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Discussion regarding religion, evil, etc. */

Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-15T04:25:57Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Discussion regarding religion, evil, etc. */

Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-14T12:29:19Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Discussion regarding religion, evil, etc. */

User:Bolly Ottihw

2007-05-14T12:09:49Z

Bolly Ottihw: New page: I'm new to the site, I joined around mid-April. To say a little about myself, I am a radical atheist, which I define as: someone who believes that god is as likely as invisible, intangible...

I'm new to the site, I joined around mid-April. To say a little about myself, I am a radical atheist, which I define as: someone who believes that god is as likely as invisible, intangible unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster or the orbiting teapot. I also think that a lot of the damage and death that has happened has been caused by religion, although not necessarily in the spirit of religion. I also think that if more people realised that the bible was written by humans, not god, (I'll accent the humans part again) ''humans'' not god and therefore is just as accurate guide to history as the Silmarillion by J.R.R Tolkein. I know that will not make me very popular on this site, however I do enjoy this site as I find that it is generally a good site for stimulating discussions regarding morality and the existence of any kind of deity. Thats really all that needs to be said by me. I may add to this in more depth at a later date. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]]

Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-13T03:56:47Z

Bolly Ottihw:

To save humanity, we should focus on the worst first. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:30, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

1) hunger 2) preventable disease 3) unsolved diseases like AIDS 4) natural resources 5) preventing war 6) poverty ..... 19) global warming 20) asteroid striking Earth.

1) overpopulation 2) preventing war 3) preventable disease 4) natural resource protection .... 19) maintaining American sovereignty over the world 20) asteroid striking Earth. 99) finding an extraterrestrial intelligent race that is broadcasting solutions to all these problems for any species that need them. My quick 0.02, arbitraged through the Euro. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:We've already been visited by an intelligent extraterrestrial with solutions to all these problems. But most reject the solutions, and question his identity. His name was [[Jesus]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
::Good one - ''touché''. I was thinking you were going to identify It as God. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I did. Jesus is God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

1) totalitarianism/world government 2) global warming 3) pandemic risk 4) US national debt 5) genocide [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) terrorism 2) Communism 3) genocide 4) Hunger/Poverty (not the government's job however)... 19) US national debt ..... 267) natural resources ..... 1,532) asteroid striking earth ..... 7,854,238) alien invasion 7,854,239) global warming. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 00:31, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) preventing gay marriage 2) preventing abortion 3) putting the 10 commandments in schools 4) convincing the global scientific community that evolution is false 5) defeating terrorism indefinitely and continuously 6) stopping liberals 7) keeping guns 8) stopping socialised health care 9) preventing environmentalist lies from damaging America's economy 10) making the speed of light more scriptural 11) abolishing public education 12) promoting conservative facts

1) Rejection of God. Solve that one and the rest would fall into place. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1)Prevent global warming, by finding alternative (read:wind, solar, hydrogen, and, if it ever appears, fusion) sources of energy.
2) Stop, and reverse, the deleterious effect that free trade and international repression has had on developing African and Asia countries.
3) Enshrine the [[UDHR]], the effective culmination of 12,000 years of thought from various religions and philosophies, into national law throughout the world. Give the UN a credible way of enforcing this which is independent of [[Russia|various]] [[USA|national]] [[China|interests]]. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::: Yikes, add mind control--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Poverty (people with money tend not to go hungry). 2) Wider, deeper democracy in all countries. 3) Preventable disease. 4) Alternative energy sources. 5) Be generally nicer to each other. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 10:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

(obscenity removed - keep it clean and comply with the [[rules]])--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Poverty 2) Democracy by choice, not war, in all countries. 3) Cure as many diseases as possible 4) Alternative energy sources [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Establish a democratic world government with a global military 2) Eliminate poverty (this should take care of preventable diseases as well) 3) Stabilize world population 4) Nuclear fusion (this should take care of the energy problem and pollution) 5) Be generally nicer to each other 6) Securing Earth against alien invasions or asteroids. [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:"Solving" the rejection of god would do absolutely nothing for anything. religion causes more problems then it solves, northern Ireland, terrorism, ID, the Tamil Tigers etc. My list would be 1) global warming 2) poverty 3) freedom of government for every country 4) endangered species of animals 5) freedom of sexuality 6)scientists need to be believed and people must accept that science is seperate from religion 7) seperation of church and state in every country 8) securing Earth from asteroids etc. 9) spreading the word about the fallibility of religion and everything associated with it including ID and young earth. I know a lot of the conservatives around here won't like my liberal take on things, but its a debate and there is my view. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 10 May 2007

::Not that religion is without its problems, I heard this canard tonight on Nightline (that religion is at the root of so much of the world's problems). From Stalin's Terror to Chairman Mao's Communist and Cultural revolutions, I do think religious disputes pale in comparison. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Global warming. Let me illustrate what I mean:
{{cquote|2PE 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.}}

Signing... [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

- ::Bolly Ottihw, your comments are illogical, because they treat all religions (except, presumably, atheistic ones) as equal, and as they make contradictory claims and can't all be correct, as equally wrong. But it it not logical to assume that because some are wrong that all are, yet you are lumping them all together, despite, as HeartOfGold says, atheist worldviews have been far worse, and despite all the good that a Christian worldview has done for society. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Please explain how lumping all religions together is so wrong? Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all monotheistic, all believe in the same god and are all similar in a theoretical extent. I am not assuming that because one is wrong they all are, I am saying that they are because I think there is enough evidence that they all have a detrimental effect on society. Good things? I have seen very few. Firstly, look at some of the things a christian world view has brought about. In Australia there was the 'stolen generation'. This was when aboriginal children (aboriginals are the native people of Australia, much the same as American Indians) were taken from their parents by missionaries because they were 'not being brought up the right way'. Thus these children were denied there parents and as a result, aboriginal society has been fractured and almost destroyed. Then of course, there is the crusades, death and disease being the only outcomes of these misguided 'religious wars'. Don't forget the Inquisition or the witch hunts of the medieval times. Christianity has done far far more evil to the world than it has done good, just as with all the other religions.
:::Heart of Gold, I assume you meant athiestic when you said religious in your post about Chairman Mao and Stalin? Please correct me if you haven't. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:40, 10 May 2007

:::: Islam and Judaism deny the Divinity of Jesus, for one thing. They can't all be correct on that.
:::: As for the effects of Christianity on society, please read this review of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery].
:::: The 'stolen generation' is an urban myth, with most examples of "stolen" children not being stolen at all. And to the extent that any were taken against their parents' will, it was generally by governments, not missionaries.
:::: The Crusades were, in part, a military action to stop and reverse the invasions by Muslims of various countries.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

How dare you call the stolen generation an 'urban myth'? It is a fact, and most of the participants in it were either missionaries or christian. If you said that Down Under you would find very few people who would seriously consider it, and a wealth of aboriginals who were part of the stolen generation, as well as caucasians who admit to having instigated it.

So what is your point? Christians deny that Mohummed was a prophet, how can you all be correct on that? It cuts both ways. As for that review, 535 people were executed for 'religious heresy' in Aragon? How is that good? 535? That is a lot of deaths, just because these people did not think the same thoughts that the rulers did. Sounds a lot like communism or facism.

The Crusades would not have been nearly as major as they were if the church hadn't have called them a holy war to recapture Jerusalem and put all their support behind it. Another example of the detrimental affect the church had on society: in Italy in the 17-1800's many Jewish children were taken from their parents and banned from seeing them ever again, simply because they had been baptised as a baby by a catholic housekeeper who was employed by the Jewish families. What those children needed was the love and care of their parents, not the harsh upbringing of the catholic church. And you still haven't responded to the Northern Ireland crisis. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:25, 10 May 2007

:I "dare" call it an 'urban myth' (well, perhaps that's not the best term, how about 'non-existent'?) because it is, and I do so 'down under', because that's where I am. Nobody has been able to name these supposed 'wealth of aboriginals', which is very strong evidence that there is no 'wealth of aboriginals' that were 'stolen'.
: I never said that all agreed that Mohammad was a prophet; that actually supports my point that they all disagree. If they all disagree, then they can't all be correct, but it does not follow that they are all ''incorrect''; it is still possible for one of them to be correct, yet you lump them all in together.
: Neither did I say that Christians have never done anything bad. Sure, you can quote me some instances of Christians doing bad things (now, however, consistent with Christianity), but a few examples does not meant that Christianity per se is bad, and as I pointed out, it has done an enormous amount of good. And in fact it has primarily been Protestantism that has done the most good, whereas most of your examples are of non-Protestants.
: Northern Ireland is a political dispute, not a religious one, even though the two political sides are split along nominally religious lines.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::A fellow Aussie! Hip hip, Huzzah! Anyway, I am surprised that you deny this as it is well documented and quite easy to find some simple facts about it.
::Ok they are all different in some respects. The reason I lump them all together is because all of them are about defending the indefencible in the face of overwhelming evidence, and because they are all a tool to discourage individual thought and different POV's.
::Please enlighten me with some example of this 'good' that christianity, or protentism, has done because I have found none that is not outweighed enormously by the amount of death and suffering it has caused over the years.
:: Northern Ireland is a political dispute, however without the definition of one side as catholics, and the others as protestants, the trouble would have ended long ago. Instead a rival group mentality is fostered by sending children to denominational religious schools, by going to church and by marrying into the same group. If it wasn't for this, there would be no way of telling who was on what side, or any easy ways with which to inspire hatred. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:10, 10 May 2007

::: I deny it for the reasons that I gave; that there is a lack of evidence. Yes, it is well "documented", but without any actual list of "stolen" aborigines (beyond a handful). Most that were supposedly "stolen" were actually voluntarily given up by their parents who couldn't look after them, and reasons such as that.
::: Your argument about "defending the indefensible" presumes that it is indefensible, which it isn't. And Christianity is not "a tool to discourage individual thought"; if anything it has encouraged it.
::: I've already pointed you to a page which mentions some of the good that Christianity has done. Did you read it?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:34, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Bolly Ottihw: do you have a source for that 1700-1800 Italy story? I never heard of that before. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 08:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Firstly, I don't have a direct source, it came from 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, and I do not have a copy with me to check what sources he quoted, however if you do want to find out, I'm sure that it is not hard to obtain a copy of said book.
::If you mean the book review? I did read that. I did not find very many examples of 'good to society' in there. Firstly, of those scientists who were christian, there was almost no alternative at that time. Christianity was taught as a fact because there was little scientific evidence to challenge the god hypothesis. If raised in this day and age then very few of them would have been christians as they would have had a wealth of information on the subject that was not available then. Also, Copernicus lived under house arrest for the majority of his later years, because the church did not like his theory that the earth revolved around the sun. Does not sound like a church that is pushing for revolutions in the field of science. All there is there is a small paragraph about the abolition of slavery. Yes, you now have one good thing that the church has done for society. All of this compared with the amount of people that have been killed as a result of the church? What about all the wars that were the result of England becoming protestant as compared with the majority of European nations who were catholic? There's another example of death for religion.
::Of course religion discourages individual thought. You are not allowed to question the authority of the priests and bishops, or the bible. It is indoctrinated in young children as a fact and if they question, they are threatened with hell or simply told not to question. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:47, 11 May 2007

:::While I don't agree with Dawkins on this issue, I confess I haven't read the book. I have read other books by him and I know he tends to quote his sources. I will have to find a library copy. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Your attempt to make out that the relationship between Christianity and the scientific efforts of the scientists was coincidence more than anything else ignores the fact that the book's author (along with other researchers) specifically said that one was dependent on the other. Your handwaving away the dependency says much about your lack of objectivity.
::: Similarly, your attempt to counter the church's documented support for science with the odd counter-example shows that you are willing to grasp at straws.
::: I was raised in a Christian home and have attended church all my life, yet I have ''never'' been taught that I'm not allowed to question the authority of the church leadership, or even the Bible. Perhaps that's because I was raised as a Protestant, but I've already mentioned that it was Protestantism that I'm referring to as much as anything.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:50, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Leopeo, I do encourage you to read the book, as I found it quite a revalation, I credit it for turning me from an agnostic to an atheist. Even if you are comfortable with your christian beliefs, I still think it is a very good book and worthwhile reading.

:I am not making out that it was coincidence, it is true that the church has played a role in the dvelopment of science during the dark and middle ages. The main problem is that it has discourage scientific research that goes against its world view or ideology, for example the helioentric model, or evolution. Recently, ie the past 300-400 years there has been a tendency for the church to only use science where it supports their theology or whatever. I do admit however, that my knowledge of this is confined mostly to the catholic church and evangelicals so I cannot counter any claims you make about Protestantism, which sounds fairly mild as religions go. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:19, 11 May 2007

::I've seen very little evidence of the church discouraging scientific research that goes against its worldview. Rather, I'm dismayed at the support that it gives to evolution (including from the Catholic church). Galileo had a lot of support for the heliocentric model, and the opposition of the church at the time had more to do with him offending the powers that be than with the science. On the other hand, atheism and its ilk strongly discourages scientific research that goes against ''its'' ideology; just look at the opposition in the scientific community to creationism, and look at the level of funding for each.
::I have a friend who read The God Delusion. He is a Christian, and a fairly young one (i.e., he's been a Christian for only a few years), and I'm told by a mutual friend that The God Delusion strengthened his faith! His reasoning was that if this was the best case that atheists can raise against Christianity, they have no case!
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Why are you so dismayed at the support it gives to evolution? As far as scientific theories go it is a very strong one with a lot of supporting evidence. There is no need to abandon god just to believe it. I find it astonishing that so many people cannot accept that just maybe there is a possibility that the bible isn't 100% historically accurate, in fact there is quite a lot of proof that it isn't. Thats not to say that god doesn't exist, although that is my belief, it's simply that the bible was written by humans who aren't perfect.
Good on him. I honestly mean that, if he is that certain in his faith then that's good. Much better to be certain about what you believe. On the other hand though if he belives that atheism has no case against christianity I would suggest that just maybe he didn't quite understand, or want to understand, the actual arguments put forward in the book. Richard Dawkins was not arguing that god did not exist, all he was arguing was that god is extremely unlikely and that there is no good proof of his existence. But there you go, people are different and they shall stay that way. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:34, 12 May 2007

:I'm dismayed because it is cutting its own throat by doing so. Evolution and God ''as described in the Bible'' are mutually inconsistent. Sure, you can continue to believe in "a god", but not the God of the Bible. There is ''no'' proof that the Bible isn't 100% historically accurate, only flawed arguments against it. As far as scientific theories go, goo-to-you evolution barely qualifies, not even being falsifiable. The Bible claims to be written by God, millions of people have believed that it was written by God, many thousands of quite intelligent people are amongst those millions who have believed that, yet you simply assert that it wasn't. That's hardly a convincing argument.
:You suggest that my friend maybe didn't understand. Have you considered that maybe ''you'' don't understand the strength (or lack of) of the arguments? Even another atheist has said that Dawkins' book makes him embarrassed to be an atheist.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:32, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:: So when Paul says 'not the Lord, but I ...', that was the Lord, and not him? Why would God write in barely literate koine in the Gospel of Mark, and then in medical greek for the Gospel of Luke? I'm a Christian, but I recognise that the Bible was written by people, and diverges further from the truth with each translation. That's why I study and read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, to get at it in a more reliable form. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

:::Well why do you have to believe in the god from the bible? Evolution is in fact a very strong scientific theory and it is falsifiable. If one fossil turned up in the wrong strata of rock, for example a rabbit fossil in the pre cambrian rock then evolution would be conclusively proven wrong. However nothing like this has ever happened, despite some creationist claims otherwise.

:::So you are saying that loads of people cannot be wrong? over 1 million people voted Hitler into power in 1933 and they turned out to have made a bad choice. As well as this Islam is one of the most widespread religions in the world, alongside christianity, millions of people belive Islam and thousands of them are quite intelligent. So why are its claims any less valid? There are historical inaccuracies. Noah's arc. There is no evidence at all for the world wide flood yet people still believe it. And the 6000 year old creation. Again all the evidence points to the fact that the world is 4.3 billion years old and that the universe has been in existence for 13 billion years. That doesn't mean it is complete and certain fact but it is far far far more likely than the creation theories.

:::I have considered his arguments. I think they are quite strong. As for your atheist friend, I can understand why the book made him uncomfortable. However that does not make his arguments any less strong. They are by no means cast iron but they are very good. At the very least he does destroy all the logical 'proofs' for gods existence as well as suggesting some very believable ways in which the human mind could have conceived of god without his existing. At the very least it is an informative book, and I believe a breath of fresh air. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 13:56, 13 May 2007

Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-13T03:56:05Z

Bolly Ottihw:

To save humanity, we should focus on the worst first. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:30, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

1) hunger 2) preventable disease 3) unsolved diseases like AIDS 4) natural resources 5) preventing war 6) poverty ..... 19) global warming 20) asteroid striking Earth.

1) overpopulation 2) preventing war 3) preventable disease 4) natural resource protection .... 19) maintaining American sovereignty over the world 20) asteroid striking Earth. 99) finding an extraterrestrial intelligent race that is broadcasting solutions to all these problems for any species that need them. My quick 0.02, arbitraged through the Euro. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:We've already been visited by an intelligent extraterrestrial with solutions to all these problems. But most reject the solutions, and question his identity. His name was [[Jesus]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
::Good one - ''touché''. I was thinking you were going to identify It as God. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I did. Jesus is God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

1) totalitarianism/world government 2) global warming 3) pandemic risk 4) US national debt 5) genocide [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) terrorism 2) Communism 3) genocide 4) Hunger/Poverty (not the government's job however)... 19) US national debt ..... 267) natural resources ..... 1,532) asteroid striking earth ..... 7,854,238) alien invasion 7,854,239) global warming. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 00:31, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) preventing gay marriage 2) preventing abortion 3) putting the 10 commandments in schools 4) convincing the global scientific community that evolution is false 5) defeating terrorism indefinitely and continuously 6) stopping liberals 7) keeping guns 8) stopping socialised health care 9) preventing environmentalist lies from damaging America's economy 10) making the speed of light more scriptural 11) abolishing public education 12) promoting conservative facts

1) Rejection of God. Solve that one and the rest would fall into place. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1)Prevent global warming, by finding alternative (read:wind, solar, hydrogen, and, if it ever appears, fusion) sources of energy.
2) Stop, and reverse, the deleterious effect that free trade and international repression has had on developing African and Asia countries.
3) Enshrine the [[UDHR]], the effective culmination of 12,000 years of thought from various religions and philosophies, into national law throughout the world. Give the UN a credible way of enforcing this which is independent of [[Russia|various]] [[USA|national]] [[China|interests]]. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::: Yikes, add mind control--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Poverty (people with money tend not to go hungry). 2) Wider, deeper democracy in all countries. 3) Preventable disease. 4) Alternative energy sources. 5) Be generally nicer to each other. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 10:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

(obscenity removed - keep it clean and comply with the [[rules]])--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Poverty 2) Democracy by choice, not war, in all countries. 3) Cure as many diseases as possible 4) Alternative energy sources [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Establish a democratic world government with a global military 2) Eliminate poverty (this should take care of preventable diseases as well) 3) Stabilize world population 4) Nuclear fusion (this should take care of the energy problem and pollution) 5) Be generally nicer to each other 6) Securing Earth against alien invasions or asteroids. [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:"Solving" the rejection of god would do absolutely nothing for anything. religion causes more problems then it solves, northern Ireland, terrorism, ID, the Tamil Tigers etc. My list would be 1) global warming 2) poverty 3) freedom of government for every country 4) endangered species of animals 5) freedom of sexuality 6)scientists need to be believed and people must accept that science is seperate from religion 7) seperation of church and state in every country 8) securing Earth from asteroids etc. 9) spreading the word about the fallibility of religion and everything associated with it including ID and young earth. I know a lot of the conservatives around here won't like my liberal take on things, but its a debate and there is my view. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 10 May 2007

::Not that religion is without its problems, I heard this canard tonight on Nightline (that religion is at the root of so much of the world's problems). From Stalin's Terror to Chairman Mao's Communist and Cultural revolutions, I do think religious disputes pale in comparison. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Global warming. Let me illustrate what I mean:
{{cquote|2PE 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.}}

Signing... [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

- ::Bolly Ottihw, your comments are illogical, because they treat all religions (except, presumably, atheistic ones) as equal, and as they make contradictory claims and can't all be correct, as equally wrong. But it it not logical to assume that because some are wrong that all are, yet you are lumping them all together, despite, as HeartOfGold says, atheist worldviews have been far worse, and despite all the good that a Christian worldview has done for society. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Please explain how lumping all religions together is so wrong? Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all monotheistic, all believe in the same god and are all similar in a theoretical extent. I am not assuming that because one is wrong they all are, I am saying that they are because I think there is enough evidence that they all have a detrimental effect on society. Good things? I have seen very few. Firstly, look at some of the things a christian world view has brought about. In Australia there was the 'stolen generation'. This was when aboriginal children (aboriginals are the native people of Australia, much the same as American Indians) were taken from their parents by missionaries because they were 'not being brought up the right way'. Thus these children were denied there parents and as a result, aboriginal society has been fractured and almost destroyed. Then of course, there is the crusades, death and disease being the only outcomes of these misguided 'religious wars'. Don't forget the Inquisition or the witch hunts of the medieval times. Christianity has done far far more evil to the world than it has done good, just as with all the other religions.
:::Heart of Gold, I assume you meant athiestic when you said religious in your post about Chairman Mao and Stalin? Please correct me if you haven't. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:40, 10 May 2007

:::: Islam and Judaism deny the Divinity of Jesus, for one thing. They can't all be correct on that.
:::: As for the effects of Christianity on society, please read this review of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery].
:::: The 'stolen generation' is an urban myth, with most examples of "stolen" children not being stolen at all. And to the extent that any were taken against their parents' will, it was generally by governments, not missionaries.
:::: The Crusades were, in part, a military action to stop and reverse the invasions by Muslims of various countries.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

How dare you call the stolen generation an 'urban myth'? It is a fact, and most of the participants in it were either missionaries or christian. If you said that Down Under you would find very few people who would seriously consider it, and a wealth of aboriginals who were part of the stolen generation, as well as caucasians who admit to having instigated it.

So what is your point? Christians deny that Mohummed was a prophet, how can you all be correct on that? It cuts both ways. As for that review, 535 people were executed for 'religious heresy' in Aragon? How is that good? 535? That is a lot of deaths, just because these people did not think the same thoughts that the rulers did. Sounds a lot like communism or facism.

The Crusades would not have been nearly as major as they were if the church hadn't have called them a holy war to recapture Jerusalem and put all their support behind it. Another example of the detrimental affect the church had on society: in Italy in the 17-1800's many Jewish children were taken from their parents and banned from seeing them ever again, simply because they had been baptised as a baby by a catholic housekeeper who was employed by the Jewish families. What those children needed was the love and care of their parents, not the harsh upbringing of the catholic church. And you still haven't responded to the Northern Ireland crisis. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:25, 10 May 2007

:I "dare" call it an 'urban myth' (well, perhaps that's not the best term, how about 'non-existent'?) because it is, and I do so 'down under', because that's where I am. Nobody has been able to name these supposed 'wealth of aboriginals', which is very strong evidence that there is no 'wealth of aboriginals' that were 'stolen'.
: I never said that all agreed that Mohammad was a prophet; that actually supports my point that they all disagree. If they all disagree, then they can't all be correct, but it does not follow that they are all ''incorrect''; it is still possible for one of them to be correct, yet you lump them all in together.
: Neither did I say that Christians have never done anything bad. Sure, you can quote me some instances of Christians doing bad things (now, however, consistent with Christianity), but a few examples does not meant that Christianity per se is bad, and as I pointed out, it has done an enormous amount of good. And in fact it has primarily been Protestantism that has done the most good, whereas most of your examples are of non-Protestants.
: Northern Ireland is a political dispute, not a religious one, even though the two political sides are split along nominally religious lines.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::A fellow Aussie! Hip hip, Huzzah! Anyway, I am surprised that you deny this as it is well documented and quite easy to find some simple facts about it.
::Ok they are all different in some respects. The reason I lump them all together is because all of them are about defending the indefencible in the face of overwhelming evidence, and because they are all a tool to discourage individual thought and different POV's.
::Please enlighten me with some example of this 'good' that christianity, or protentism, has done because I have found none that is not outweighed enormously by the amount of death and suffering it has caused over the years.
:: Northern Ireland is a political dispute, however without the definition of one side as catholics, and the others as protestants, the trouble would have ended long ago. Instead a rival group mentality is fostered by sending children to denominational religious schools, by going to church and by marrying into the same group. If it wasn't for this, there would be no way of telling who was on what side, or any easy ways with which to inspire hatred. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:10, 10 May 2007

::: I deny it for the reasons that I gave; that there is a lack of evidence. Yes, it is well "documented", but without any actual list of "stolen" aborigines (beyond a handful). Most that were supposedly "stolen" were actually voluntarily given up by their parents who couldn't look after them, and reasons such as that.
::: Your argument about "defending the indefensible" presumes that it is indefensible, which it isn't. And Christianity is not "a tool to discourage individual thought"; if anything it has encouraged it.
::: I've already pointed you to a page which mentions some of the good that Christianity has done. Did you read it?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:34, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Bolly Ottihw: do you have a source for that 1700-1800 Italy story? I never heard of that before. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 08:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Firstly, I don't have a direct source, it came from 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, and I do not have a copy with me to check what sources he quoted, however if you do want to find out, I'm sure that it is not hard to obtain a copy of said book.
::If you mean the book review? I did read that. I did not find very many examples of 'good to society' in there. Firstly, of those scientists who were christian, there was almost no alternative at that time. Christianity was taught as a fact because there was little scientific evidence to challenge the god hypothesis. If raised in this day and age then very few of them would have been christians as they would have had a wealth of information on the subject that was not available then. Also, Copernicus lived under house arrest for the majority of his later years, because the church did not like his theory that the earth revolved around the sun. Does not sound like a church that is pushing for revolutions in the field of science. All there is there is a small paragraph about the abolition of slavery. Yes, you now have one good thing that the church has done for society. All of this compared with the amount of people that have been killed as a result of the church? What about all the wars that were the result of England becoming protestant as compared with the majority of European nations who were catholic? There's another example of death for religion.
::Of course religion discourages individual thought. You are not allowed to question the authority of the priests and bishops, or the bible. It is indoctrinated in young children as a fact and if they question, they are threatened with hell or simply told not to question. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:47, 11 May 2007

:::While I don't agree with Dawkins on this issue, I confess I haven't read the book. I have read other books by him and I know he tends to quote his sources. I will have to find a library copy. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Your attempt to make out that the relationship between Christianity and the scientific efforts of the scientists was coincidence more than anything else ignores the fact that the book's author (along with other researchers) specifically said that one was dependent on the other. Your handwaving away the dependency says much about your lack of objectivity.
::: Similarly, your attempt to counter the church's documented support for science with the odd counter-example shows that you are willing to grasp at straws.
::: I was raised in a Christian home and have attended church all my life, yet I have ''never'' been taught that I'm not allowed to question the authority of the church leadership, or even the Bible. Perhaps that's because I was raised as a Protestant, but I've already mentioned that it was Protestantism that I'm referring to as much as anything.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:50, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:Leopeo, I do encourage you to read the book, as I found it quite a revalation, I credit it for turning me from an agnostic to an atheist. Even if you are comfortable with your christian beliefs, I still think it is a very good book and worthwhile reading.

:I am not making out that it was coincidence, it is true that the church has played a role in the dvelopment of science during the dark and middle ages. The main problem is that it has discourage scientific research that goes against its world view or ideology, for example the helioentric model, or evolution. Recently, ie the past 300-400 years there has been a tendency for the church to only use science where it supports their theology or whatever. I do admit however, that my knowledge of this is confined mostly to the catholic church and evangelicals so I cannot counter any claims you make about Protestantism, which sounds fairly mild as religions go. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:19, 11 May 2007

::I've seen very little evidence of the church discouraging scientific research that goes against its worldview. Rather, I'm dismayed at the support that it gives to evolution (including from the Catholic church). Galileo had a lot of support for the heliocentric model, and the opposition of the church at the time had more to do with him offending the powers that be than with the science. On the other hand, atheism and its ilk strongly discourages scientific research that goes against ''its'' ideology; just look at the opposition in the scientific community to creationism, and look at the level of funding for each.
::I have a friend who read The God Delusion. He is a Christian, and a fairly young one (i.e., he's been a Christian for only a few years), and I'm told by a mutual friend that The God Delusion strengthened his faith! His reasoning was that if this was the best case that atheists can raise against Christianity, they have no case!
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Why are you so dismayed at the support it gives to evolution? As far as scientific theories go it is a very strong one with a lot of supporting evidence. There is no need to abandon god just to believe it. I find it astonishing that so many people cannot accept that just maybe there is a possibility that the bible isn't 100% historically accurate, in fact there is quite a lot of proof that it isn't. Thats not to say that god doesn't exist, although that is my belief, it's simply that the bible was written by humans who aren't perfect.
Good on him. I honestly mean that, if he is that certain in his faith then that's good. Much better to be certain about what you believe. On the other hand though if he belives that atheism has no case against christianity I would suggest that just maybe he didn't quite understand, or want to understand, the actual arguments put forward in the book. Richard Dawkins was not arguing that god did not exist, all he was arguing was that god is extremely unlikely and that there is no good proof of his existence. But there you go, people are different and they shall stay that way. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:34, 12 May 2007

:I'm dismayed because it is cutting its own throat by doing so. Evolution and God ''as described in the Bible'' are mutually inconsistent. Sure, you can continue to believe in "a god", but not the God of the Bible. There is ''no'' proof that the Bible isn't 100% historically accurate, only flawed arguments against it. As far as scientific theories go, goo-to-you evolution barely qualifies, not even being falsifiable. The Bible claims to be written by God, millions of people have believed that it was written by God, many thousands of quite intelligent people are amongst those millions who have believed that, yet you simply assert that it wasn't. That's hardly a convincing argument.
:You suggest that my friend maybe didn't understand. Have you considered that maybe ''you'' don't understand the strength (or lack of) of the arguments? Even another atheist has said that Dawkins' book makes him embarrassed to be an atheist.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:32, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:: So when Paul says 'not the Lord, but I ...', that was the Lord, and not him? Why would God write in barely literate koine in the Gospel of Mark, and then in medical greek for the Gospel of Luke? I'm a Christian, but I recognise that the Bible was written by people, and diverges further from the truth with each translation. That's why I study and read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, to get at it in a more reliable form. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

:::Well why do you have to believe in the god from the bible? Evolution is in fact a very strong scientific theory and it is falsifiable. If one fossil turned up in the wrong strata of rock, for example a rabbit fossil in the pre cambrian rock then evolution would be conclusively proven wrong. However nothing like this has ever happened, despite some creationist claims otherwise.

:::So you are saying that loads of people cannot be wrong? over 1 million people voted Hitler into power in 1933 and they turned out to have made a bad choice. As well as this Islam is one of the most widespread religions in the world, alongside christianity, millions of people belive Islam and thousands of them are quite intelligent. So why are its claims any less valid? There are historical inaccuracies. Noah's arc. There is no evidence at all for the world wide flood yet people still believe it. And the 6000 year old creation. Again all the evidence points to the fact that the world is 4.3 billion years old and that the universe has been in existence for 13 billion years. That doesn't mean it is complete and certain fact but it is far far far more likely than the creation theories.

:::I have considered his arguments. I think they are quite strong. As for your atheist friend, I can understand why the book made him uncomfortable. However that does not make his arguments any less strong. They are by no means cast iron but they are very good. At the very least he does destroy all the logical 'proofs' for gods existence as well as suggesting some very believable ways in which the human mind could have conceived of god without his existing. At the very least it is an informative book, and I believe a breath of fresh air. [User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 13:56, 13 May 2007

Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-12T12:33:12Z

Bolly Ottihw:

Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-11T10:19:14Z

Bolly Ottihw:

Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-11T10:18:17Z

Bolly Ottihw:

To save humanity, we should focus on the worst first. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:30, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

1) hunger 2) preventable disease 3) unsolved diseases like AIDS 4) natural resources 5) preventing war 6) poverty ..... 19) global warming 20) asteroid striking Earth.

1) overpopulation 2) preventing war 3) preventable disease 4) natural resource protection .... 19) maintaining American sovereignty over the world 20) asteroid striking Earth. 99) finding an extraterrestrial intelligent race that is broadcasting solutions to all these problems for any species that need them. My quick 0.02, arbitraged through the Euro. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:We've already been visited by an intelligent extraterrestrial with solutions to all these problems. But most reject the solutions, and question his identity. His name was [[Jesus]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
::Good one - ''touché''. I was thinking you were going to identify It as God. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I did. Jesus is God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

1) totalitarianism/world government 2) global warming 3) pandemic risk 4) US national debt 5) genocide [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) terrorism 2) Communism 3) genocide 4) Hunger/Poverty (not the government's job however)... 19) US national debt ..... 267) natural resources ..... 1,532) asteroid striking earth ..... 7,854,238) alien invasion 7,854,239) global warming. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 00:31, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) preventing gay marriage 2) preventing abortion 3) putting the 10 commandments in schools 4) convincing the global scientific community that evolution is false 5) defeating terrorism indefinitely and continuously 6) stopping liberals 7) keeping guns 8) stopping socialised health care 9) preventing environmentalist lies from damaging America's economy 10) making the speed of light more scriptural 11) abolishing public education 12) promoting conservative facts

1) Rejection of God. Solve that one and the rest would fall into place. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1)Prevent global warming, by finding alternative (read:wind, solar, hydrogen, and, if it ever appears, fusion) sources of energy.
2) Stop, and reverse, the deleterious effect that free trade and international repression has had on developing African and Asia countries.
3) Enshrine the [[UDHR]], the effective culmination of 12,000 years of thought from various religions and philosophies, into national law throughout the world. Give the UN a credible way of enforcing this which is independent of [[Russia|various]] [[USA|national]] [[China|interests]]. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::: Yikes, add mind control--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Poverty (people with money tend not to go hungry). 2) Wider, deeper democracy in all countries. 3) Preventable disease. 4) Alternative energy sources. 5) Be generally nicer to each other. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 10:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

(obscenity removed - keep it clean and comply with the [[rules]])--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Poverty 2) Democracy by choice, not war, in all countries. 3) Cure as many diseases as possible 4) Alternative energy sources [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Establish a democratic world government with a global military 2) Eliminate poverty (this should take care of preventable diseases as well) 3) Stabilize world population 4) Nuclear fusion (this should take care of the energy problem and pollution) 5) Be generally nicer to each other 6) Securing Earth against alien invasions or asteroids. [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:"Solving" the rejection of god would do absolutely nothing for anything. religion causes more problems then it solves, northern Ireland, terrorism, ID, the Tamil Tigers etc. My list would be 1) global warming 2) poverty 3) freedom of government for every country 4) endangered species of animals 5) freedom of sexuality 6)scientists need to be believed and people must accept that science is seperate from religion 7) seperation of church and state in every country 8) securing Earth from asteroids etc. 9) spreading the word about the fallibility of religion and everything associated with it including ID and young earth. I know a lot of the conservatives around here won't like my liberal take on things, but its a debate and there is my view. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 10 May 2007

::Not that religion is without its problems, I heard this canard tonight on Nightline (that religion is at the root of so much of the world's problems). From Stalin's Terror to Chairman Mao's Communist and Cultural revolutions, I do think religious disputes pale in comparison. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Global warming. Let me illustrate what I mean:
{{cquote|2PE 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.}}

Signing... [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

- ::Bolly Ottihw, your comments are illogical, because they treat all religions (except, presumably, atheistic ones) as equal, and as they make contradictory claims and can't all be correct, as equally wrong. But it it not logical to assume that because some are wrong that all are, yet you are lumping them all together, despite, as HeartOfGold says, atheist worldviews have been far worse, and despite all the good that a Christian worldview has done for society. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Please explain how lumping all religions together is so wrong? Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all monotheistic, all believe in the same god and are all similar in a theoretical extent. I am not assuming that because one is wrong they all are, I am saying that they are because I think there is enough evidence that they all have a detrimental effect on society. Good things? I have seen very few. Firstly, look at some of the things a christian world view has brought about. In Australia there was the 'stolen generation'. This was when aboriginal children (aboriginals are the native people of Australia, much the same as American Indians) were taken from their parents by missionaries because they were 'not being brought up the right way'. Thus these children were denied there parents and as a result, aboriginal society has been fractured and almost destroyed. Then of course, there is the crusades, death and disease being the only outcomes of these misguided 'religious wars'. Don't forget the Inquisition or the witch hunts of the medieval times. Christianity has done far far more evil to the world than it has done good, just as with all the other religions.
:::Heart of Gold, I assume you meant athiestic when you said religious in your post about Chairman Mao and Stalin? Please correct me if you haven't. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:40, 10 May 2007

:::: Islam and Judaism deny the Divinity of Jesus, for one thing. They can't all be correct on that.
:::: As for the effects of Christianity on society, please read this review of [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/ For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery].
:::: The 'stolen generation' is an urban myth, with most examples of "stolen" children not being stolen at all. And to the extent that any were taken against their parents' will, it was generally by governments, not missionaries.
:::: The Crusades were, in part, a military action to stop and reverse the invasions by Muslims of various countries.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:25, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

How dare you call the stolen generation an 'urban myth'? It is a fact, and most of the participants in it were either missionaries or christian. If you said that Down Under you would find very few people who would seriously consider it, and a wealth of aboriginals who were part of the stolen generation, as well as caucasians who admit to having instigated it.

So what is your point? Christians deny that Mohummed was a prophet, how can you all be correct on that? It cuts both ways. As for that review, 535 people were executed for 'religious heresy' in Aragon? How is that good? 535? That is a lot of deaths, just because these people did not think the same thoughts that the rulers did. Sounds a lot like communism or facism.

The Crusades would not have been nearly as major as they were if the church hadn't have called them a holy war to recapture Jerusalem and put all their support behind it. Another example of the detrimental affect the church had on society: in Italy in the 17-1800's many Jewish children were taken from their parents and banned from seeing them ever again, simply because they had been baptised as a baby by a catholic housekeeper who was employed by the Jewish families. What those children needed was the love and care of their parents, not the harsh upbringing of the catholic church. And you still haven't responded to the Northern Ireland crisis. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:25, 10 May 2007

:I "dare" call it an 'urban myth' (well, perhaps that's not the best term, how about 'non-existent'?) because it is, and I do so 'down under', because that's where I am. Nobody has been able to name these supposed 'wealth of aboriginals', which is very strong evidence that there is no 'wealth of aboriginals' that were 'stolen'.
: I never said that all agreed that Mohammad was a prophet; that actually supports my point that they all disagree. If they all disagree, then they can't all be correct, but it does not follow that they are all ''incorrect''; it is still possible for one of them to be correct, yet you lump them all in together.
: Neither did I say that Christians have never done anything bad. Sure, you can quote me some instances of Christians doing bad things (now, however, consistent with Christianity), but a few examples does not meant that Christianity per se is bad, and as I pointed out, it has done an enormous amount of good. And in fact it has primarily been Protestantism that has done the most good, whereas most of your examples are of non-Protestants.
: Northern Ireland is a political dispute, not a religious one, even though the two political sides are split along nominally religious lines.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::A fellow Aussie! Hip hip, Huzzah! Anyway, I am surprised that you deny this as it is well documented and quite easy to find some simple facts about it.
::Ok they are all different in some respects. The reason I lump them all together is because all of them are about defending the indefencible in the face of overwhelming evidence, and because they are all a tool to discourage individual thought and different POV's.
::Please enlighten me with some example of this 'good' that christianity, or protentism, has done because I have found none that is not outweighed enormously by the amount of death and suffering it has caused over the years.
:: Northern Ireland is a political dispute, however without the definition of one side as catholics, and the others as protestants, the trouble would have ended long ago. Instead a rival group mentality is fostered by sending children to denominational religious schools, by going to church and by marrying into the same group. If it wasn't for this, there would be no way of telling who was on what side, or any easy ways with which to inspire hatred. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 22:10, 10 May 2007

::: I deny it for the reasons that I gave; that there is a lack of evidence. Yes, it is well "documented", but without any actual list of "stolen" aborigines (beyond a handful). Most that were supposedly "stolen" were actually voluntarily given up by their parents who couldn't look after them, and reasons such as that.
::: Your argument about "defending the indefensible" presumes that it is indefensible, which it isn't. And Christianity is not "a tool to discourage individual thought"; if anything it has encouraged it.
::: I've already pointed you to a page which mentions some of the good that Christianity has done. Did you read it?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:34, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Bolly Ottihw: do you have a source for that 1700-1800 Italy story? I never heard of that before. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 08:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

::Firstly, I don't have a direct source, it came from 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, and I do not have a copy with me to check what sources he quoted, however if you do want to find out, I'm sure that it is not hard to obtain a copy of said book.
::If you mean the book review? I did read that. I did not find very many examples of 'good to society' in there. Firstly, of those scientists who were christian, there was almost no alternative at that time. Christianity was taught as a fact because there was little scientific evidence to challenge the god hypothesis. If raised in this day and age then very few of them would have been christians as they would have had a wealth of information on the subject that was not available then. Also, Copernicus lived under house arrest for the majority of his later years, because the church did not like his theory that the earth revolved around the sun. Does not sound like a church that is pushing for revolutions in the field of science. All there is there is a small paragraph about the abolition of slavery. Yes, you now have one good thing that the church has done for society. All of this compared with the amount of people that have been killed as a result of the church? What about all the wars that were the result of England becoming protestant as compared with the majority of European nations who were catholic? There's another example of death for religion.
::Of course religion discourages individual thought. You are not allowed to question the authority of the priests and bishops, or the bible. It is indoctrinated in young children as a fact and if they question, they are threatened with hell or simply told not to question. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:47, 11 May 2007

:::While I don't agree with Dawkins on this issue, I confess I haven't read the book. I have read other books by him and I know he tends to quote his sources. I will have to find a library copy. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:08, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Your attempt to make out that the relationship between Christianity and the scientific efforts of the scientists was coincidence more than anything else ignores the fact that the book's author (along with other researchers) specifically said that one was dependent on the other. Your handwaving away the dependency says much about your lack of objectivity.
::: Similarly, your attempt to counter the church's documented support for science with the odd counter-example shows that you are willing to grasp at straws.
::: I was raised in a Christian home and have attended church all my life, yet I have ''never'' been taught that I'm not allowed to question the authority of the church leadership, or even the Bible. Perhaps that's because I was raised as a Protestant, but I've already mentioned that it was Protestantism that I'm referring to as much as anything.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:50, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Leopeo, I do encourage you to read the book, as I found it quite a revalation, I credit it for turning me from an agnostic to an atheist. Even if you are comfortable with your christian beliefs, I still think it is a very good book and worthwhile reading.
I am not making out that it was coincidence, it is true that the church has played a role in the dvelopment of science during the dark and middle ages. The main problem is that it has discourage scientific research that goes against its world view or ideology, for example the helioentric model, or evolution. Recently, ie the past 300-400 years there has been a tendency for the church to only use science where it supports their theology or whatever. I do admit however, that my knowledge of this is confined mostly to the catholic church and evangelicals so I cannot counter any claims you make about Protestantism, which sounds fairly mild as religions go. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:19, 11 May 2007

Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-11T07:46:04Z

Bolly Ottihw:

Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-10T12:10:33Z

Bolly Ottihw:

Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-10T11:24:08Z

Bolly Ottihw:

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2007-05-10T09:46:07Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Religious debates */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==

# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Stem Cells: Why or why not]]
# [[Conservapedia:Front Page| Front Page - Encylopedia? Or Propaganda?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Sarkozy | Enamoured of Sarkozy]]
# [[Conservapedia:Holier Than Thou | Holier Than Thou]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia: 'το πνευμα ἁγιον'; how would you translate it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]

# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?|Does the Conservapedia entry for "Bible" need revision to clarify that The Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah of God and His Gospel and Church?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible|On the issue of Jews/Jesus/Bible...]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Are there any people who visit this site and contribute to debates that aren’t Christian?? ]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Are Souls Unlimited?]]
# [[The current front page focus on homosexuality]]
# [[Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britian become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?|Is Rush Limbaugh in touch with reality, or just an uneducated opinionated conservative mouthpiece ?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Keep Richard Around?|Should Richard Stay?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Two sides to a coin. The liberals use of Swift Boat]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]

==Scientific debates==

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Do violent video games play a role in people on the edge of sanity?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God did not mean us to develop a Theory of Evolution, why did he provide us with the capacity to do science, and leave such convincing evidence lying around ?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==

# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia_Discussions#Quality_of_References|Quality of References]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?|Is NPOV and wiki culture an example of a postmodern culture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Major bias in conservapedia]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Communists at Conservapedia|Should known communists be banned from editing at Conservapedia??]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of conservapeida see wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Should I remove the gross Spanish profanity passing itself off as translations in several articles?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Why do so many topical debates descend into embarassing personal attacks?]]
# [[Why are editors allowed to use personal blogs and other unsourced sites as citations?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Does Aschlafly deserve an article on himself?]]
# [[Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Why does every two-bit bunch of pea brains in America want its own encyclopedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Lightbulb|How many Baptist Conservatives does it take to screw in a lightbulb?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Fork or Spoon|Should chunky stew be eaten with a fork or a spoon?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are we living in a computer simulation?| Are we living in a computer simulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Who named our planet "Earth"?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should some of the Sysops on here Lighten Up?]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does your mom go to college?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]

Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-10T09:40:03Z

Bolly Ottihw:

Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2007-05-10T04:12:55Z

Bolly Ottihw:

Hindenburg

2007-05-06T04:24:26Z

Bolly Ottihw:

The '''Hindenburg''' was the largest [[aircraft]] ever to fly (along with a sister aircraft), having a length nearly as long as the [[Titanic]] and more than three times as long as a [[Boeing 747]]. The Hindenburg weighed a massive 242 tons. The Hindenburg was a Zeppelin design, an engineering masterpiece. It was designed to be filled with non-flammable [[helium]] rather than flammable [[hydrogen]] to make it lighter than air and capable of carrying passengers across the Atlantic Ocean.

But Congress passed a law prohibiting the sale of [[helium]] to Germany in the 1930s, and the Hindenburg was filled with the flammable [[hydrogen]] to make its flights to the [[United States]]. On May 6, 1937, the Hindenburg caught fire while landing at Lakehurst Naval Air Station in [[Manchester]], [[New Jersey]]. About one third of those on board, 35 passengers, died not from the [[fire]] but by jumping to the ground the below. Those who stayed calm and rode the aircraft to its landing survived unharmed.

The tragedy was caught on film, radio and pictures. The bad publicity destroyed the future of this type of aircraft. The cause of the fire was the skin of the '''Hindenburg''' which was waterproofed with cellulose acetate, very flammable, and coated with the aluminium powder that is used as a rocket fuel today. Hydrogen burns with a blue flame, however the '''Hindenburg''' burned with a bright red flame. The hydrogen would have escaped upwards when the bladders opened and did not contribute to the disaster.

The Hindenburg was named after the President of Germany, [[Paul von Hindenburg]], who served from 1925 to 1934.

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Aircraft]]

Atheism vs. Deism

2007-04-30T09:21:53Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Musing about the Motives of God */

==Why Atheism is ridiculous==
Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "God" is another word for "everything." God equals everything. Everthing is God. To deny that "God" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if God is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does God (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does God have a plan? Or is Everything (''i.e.'' God) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies. Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstien included) believe that time is an illusion and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or God) is sentient. God has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:That's not the God I know. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::As a godless, atheistic, morally-bankrupt existentialist, I have to say I disagree with this "assessment." If I am to take what you say at face value I come to the immediate conclusion that atheism is still correct. If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....

:::I think of the universe this way: I don't know how it came to be, but I assume it was a chemical and physical event, not supernatural. I know that this "stuff" doesn't have to have a plan in order to exist. There need not be a man in the sky to protect me from everything. I don't need to pray to something that I will succeed in life because there is no one listening. But, I'm not sad about this, I don't feel alone or unloved by the big ol' scary universe. Rather, I feel emboldened to take moral actions when I can.

:::Camus is my hero. His basic equation boils down to this: once a person realizes that there is no god they have two choices--suicide or a "faith flight." That is, if one accepts the religious view of things. If Camus is correct, and existence does indeed precede essence, then there is a third choice, the philosophy of moral action. Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.

:::Now, since I don't believe everything has a plan, and that I have a moral obligation to help my fellow man (and woman), I have an obligation to come to sites like this and try to fix them. Not by including so-called "liberal bias." Rather, the point is to make sure truth trumps propaganda. Wether I like it or not, I have a duty to help fix this garbage. I liken it to watching a child roll their tricycle toward the street. You, the adult, are standing there and you can see a truck bearing down on the child. Do you try and help her, or do you pray? I must take action and this website affords me a chance to help everybody. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You have mistaken my meaning, despite repeating exactly what I said:

::''If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....''

This is indeed exactly what I meant. So in fact, there is a god. The question is God sentient or not. Does God have thoughts, plans, etc. Or is the universe a jumble of meaningless matter that is and always was. A tangental thought to ponder: auantum mechancics seem to suggest that reality can change depending on the observer.

For those who say "this is not the God I know". Indeed it is the God you. Here's the line of logic:

::1. God = Everything
::2. Therefore God exists. (And the corrollary, atheism is ridiculous.)
::3. Now there is a choice: one can choose to believe that God is sentient; or one can deny the sentience of God despite overwhelming of evidence to the contrary.
::4. Then, if God is sentient then what can we mortals know of God? Where will we find His truths? We might find them in science. We find them in religion. We each find out own personal truth in different ways.

If you make it to step 4, the arguement becomes which religion is best. Which truth makes the most sense to you. Christians, Buddhists, Islamist, they all have their own personal arguments. I won't waste time debating religion when atheists are in the room. It's pointless, because they haven't made the logical step to 3.

If your mind doesn't make the leap to step 3, there is no point in discussing morals. In fact, it's ridiculous to postulate morals or philosophy because the universe is meaningless. For those who are at this point in personal growth: thine only commandment is ''do what thou wilt''. It is pointless to do anything other than that which makes you happy if you get to step 2 but don't make the jump to step 3. However, if you can comprehend step two but don't believe in 3 then all this poppycock about morals and goodness is ridiculous. Furthermore, when an atheist discusses morals and philosophy it only only serves to prove there is a God. This is because the atheist's spirit (which he doesn't believe believe exists) nags and naws at him like the quite voices of angels.

If you make it to step one but can't make it to step 2, then you are a) either incapable of higher thought; or b) intellectually dishonest because you fear where this argument leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, what you are trying to do, in logic, is referred to as an [[enthymeme]]. However, your argument does not work. First, you must show HOW god equals everything. Otherwise you can say anything. Thus:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

:::But you tried to do something else. You tried to insert statements as if they are quantifiable terms. Sort of like saying, "E = mc2" ''Well what do those letters mean?'' "Elephants equal mustard and cows times themselves." You've defined nothing except a lack of basic logical principles.

Being intellectually dishonest would be if I said, well, "god likes strawberries more than cherries." When you ask ''why'' I'll say "because they taste better." Asserting your opinion as fact is what makes it less than true. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin, why do you care if a child rides into traffic on a tricycle? What do you gain if she is saved? What do you lose if she dies? It sounds a lot like your a theist to me. You obviously think the universe has some meaning or some order. If the universe has order and meaning then it only follows that you believe the universe is God. The next step to make is to find out where God best reveals his truth. You think that his truth is best revealed in the philosophical musings of your hero Camus. Camus wrote your Bible. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::It might be difficult to understand but I did not say that god=toast. I agree that God is not toast. Is "Everything" that is to say the universe as a whole sentient or not? Simple question. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:50, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Furthermore, by your example:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

By your definition, then it would be possible to know the true nature of toast. We pretty well already know how to make toast. It's a silly diversion from the question you are afraid to ask yourself. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

No it isn't. I have already asked myself--for years--if there is a god. I have come to the conclusion ther very likely isn't. I am not an atheist (they are 100% sure) but I sit at about 99.9% sure. I have diverted nothing--being intellectually honest with myself meant I had to realize there was no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:As the one who said, "this is not the God I know", I reject the first point in the line of logic, that God equals everything. I am a monotheist, not a pantheist. God ''made'' the universe, He ''isn't'' the universe.
:Flippin, your counter-logic is wrong. Everwill's logic skipped a step. His logic was:
::1. God = Everything
::1A. We know that everything exists.
::2. Therefore God exists.

:So in order to match Everwill's argument from logic, your counter logic should have been:
::1. god = toast
::1A. we know that toast exists
::2. therefore god exists.
:But you got point 2 back to front.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Phil,

So as I understand it you think God is outside of the universe? God is apart from the universe. God is not everywhere at all times, rather he is somewhere else. Where is that somewhere else and what reason have you to believe (other than blind faith) that somewhere else exists? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:God is a spiritual being. He is "outside" the universe—a physical place—in the sense that He is not part of it. But being an omnipresent spiritual being He is not confined to a physical place, so He is not outside in a geographical sense. He is everywhere at once, but not synonymous with the universe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that God is not "confined" to anything. But I'm not sure there's any value to arguing the fine differences between "everything", the universe and God. We're not philosophers, and others have explored this better than we can. I think there is some value to helping atheists understand why the question is not whether God exist or not. The real question is whether God is an omnipresent sentience or not. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Everwill, your argument that god = everything is preposterous. Firstly, i do not agree with the first statement you make, that god is everything. I would like some hard proof, or at least a convincing argument that god equals everything before the first premise of your argument.

If, for arguements sake, we assume that your first premise is correct, then the only question is, as you say, whether everything (or god) is sentient? Again, you can say so, however i want proof. I have yet to see a plan in the universe or everything. According to the current predictions by astronomers and physcists, the universe is set to expand for an idefinete period and that eventually all the stars will run out of hydrogen and go out, and that everything will spread further and further apart at faster and faster speeds until the universe tears itself apart. Can you explain the plan in this? It displays all the theories about gravity, dark matter, quantum theory and strong and weak nuclear forces. There is nothing to show an added level of intelligence in this everything.

Please do not assume that your first premise is correct until you show some evidence for this, otherwise your argument is entirely invalid.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:06, 26 April 2007

:::You must have made things pretty difficult for your alegbra teacher. The teacher presents the following:

::::''x + 1 = 2''
::::''X is'' unknown.
::::''Solve for X.''

:::To which you reply, "Prove that X is unknown and a mathematical value. X is a letter and has no value, thus algebra is entirely invalid."

:::Hopefully you see how silly your reply is, but I'll grant you that I may have given you too much credit above. Perhaps the concept is a little too complicated for you to understand as I presented above. I'll try harder.

:::If the word "God" is synomous with "everything" then I assume you believe God exists. If the word "God" means "magical bogeyman who meddles in the affairs of mankind" then I assume we agree that God does not exist. In the framework of the argument above, God means everything.

:::Now I'll put that aside and try to explain the concept without using words that offend your sensibilities. The universe shows organization and complexity beyond any single human's comprehension at every level. The components of a cell, atomic structures, galactic structures, geological structures, biologal structures. It's vastly intricate, interconnected and complicated. The universe functions like an immense machine and so far as we can tell, it will continue to function for quite some time and it functioned long ago.

:::With this knowledge one has to make a leap of faith, and science has taught us that the simple solution is usually the right solution. The simple solution is that the universe is organization implies design, design implies designer. The only other plausible choice is that the everything that every happens, happened or will happened is the result of something that makes a lottery ticket or a lightning strike look like a easy money and a daily occurence. Now, I respect your right to belive that, but I think it's sort of naive.

:::So you think the universe is randomness. I think the universe has order. Now to work back into the definitions presented above. I think God has order. You think God is randomness. Whether we call it God, the universe or everything, it makes no difference. I'm not trying to take away your right to believe what you want. I'm not trying to tell you to go to church. I'm just trying to find a common ground on which we can agree. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Alright, now i understand the point you were making. I do not agree with it, however i see now where you are coming from.

The reason that the whole of the universe is so incomprehensible to us, is because we evolved on a scale where the only distances that mattered were a couple of hundred kilometres to about a centimetre. That was all that was needed to survive as homo erectus in a hostile world. It was not necessary for us to be able to understand a cell or an atom or a star. The complex machinery that is our brain is not built for such things as the universe or quantum theory. This is why it is so hard to comprehend.

The simple solution is the right solution in the majority of cases, however the simple solution in this case is not one of design. Darwin has already shown that while animals and plants may look designed they are in fact the end result of a massive series of gene mutations and adaptations. In this case, there is no designer and thus your point that organization implies design implies designer is proved wrong in the case of natural life. Simply because there is no such explanation for how the universe has come to be in such a way does not mean that there is no explanation that does not need to attribute it to a designer. Just think that 300 years ago, noone thought that something complex could come from something less complex as it balked common sense. However our common sense only applies to simple, mundane everyday things, not the huge distances and complexities of space or an atom.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:56, 27 April 2007

==Questions and Answers==
Plato showed how in a debate one asks questions so that the debaters can pursue the truth together rather than being adversaries. So what I can't understand is why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests? Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you? Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share? Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?

To be more specific you say ''Because I feel an obligation to help her''. What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? Will she pay you? What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

So here are my questions:

::''"Why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests?"''

:::* Atheist says: I might ask you the same thing. I have no short-term interest in this child's death. I have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer).
:::* Theist replies, because there is something, perhaps a spirit or a god, that imparts to ever soul the knowledge of good from evil and right from wrong. Doing evil moves you further from god and thus it does not feel good to do evil (''even when it feels good to do evil''!) This is a shorthand way of saying that when you commit acts which are pleasurable but evil, you feel shallow and empty inside. On the other hand, when one commit acts of kindness without any payback of any kind, one feels good inside. This is something most humans learn as they progress into maturity. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::''"Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you?"''

:::* Atheist says: Two parts there: I wouldn't murder a child--as I said--so what is there to feel guilty about? If no one would punish me presupposes I have done this act, so the question is invalidated by the former.
:::* Theist replies, I should hope you wouldn't murder a child, but your reply ducks the obvious answer. Of course I wouldn't murder a child to get what I wanted, but if I did murder a child to get what I wanted I would feel guilty. What causes that feeling of guilty? Is that not proof of a spiritual aspect of life?

::''"Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share?"''

:::* Atheist say: It certainly could be. ''"Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?"'' Reason allows me to discern right from wrong, as I said above. I am compelled to act according to this obligation to help others and not let them have their choice made by another.
:::* Theist says, what is this "reason" you are talking about in an athistic universe. Without God or morality, what is the difference between good and evil or right and wrong? From an atheistic (i.e. Satanic) POV right and wrong are silly concepts. "Good" is just an excuse to chump the strong from their rightful place at the top of the food chain. Don't you agree?

''"What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? <s>Will she pay you?</s> What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?"''

:::* Atheist says: Okay, now you're getting to the meat of the matter. I am obligated by this sense of everyone's right to exist. I have no more right to take you're life than I do to steal your bike. Not that those two are equal, but the line of demarcation is the same. It is only selfish in the sense that I ''gain'' when this child is allowed to grow up and make her own choices. If, in the process, I am killed, then I have served my principles. If she dies, then I took moral action and can feel good about my effort. However, if I let her die I am as guilty as any of those Nazi guards at Aushwitz who said ''"I was only following orders."''
:::* Theist replies: your answer implies the existence of God even if you can't see the forest for all the trees. Why does everyone have a right to exist? Because you said so? That makes no sense in your concept of reality. What if my country elects a leader, for the purposes of illustration let's call him ''Adolf Hitler''. Our leader through legal government manuevers manages to establish a process to eliminate what he sees as a cancer on our nation. By your reasoning that leader has a moral imperative to kill Jews BECAUSE he thinks it's best for the nation. From the theist stand-point, we believe that all life is precious, most especially human life. Therefore it doesn't matter what logic, rationale or legal manuevers Hitler makes, killing is wrong.

Atheist summary: As long as you have a choice, to defer your morality to a god, or priest or whatever you ask for figiveness is to shirk your duty to society--that being to think for yourself. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Theist summary: No one ever defers any choices to anyone ever. Each individual is always responsible for his own actions and choices. To clear up your confusion: a theist defers his choices to a priest about as much as a judge in a court room defers his choices to his first year law professor. Religion is a tool to help us understand God. Religion and religious leaders do not speak for God. An "atheist" who follows a moral code is just a theist who doesn't know much about his God because he's too afraid to trust others. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:In point of fact here, I have said I am not an atheist, I am more properly called an agnostic. An atheist, by definition, holds that they have the answer--that there is no god. As an agnostic I am open to the idea that a god exists, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Please don't refer to me as an atheist--it is a different thing altogether. Also, in addition to agnosticism, I am an existentialist--so you could also use that term if you like.

:Finally, I don't have a god-belief so I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done. I do things that I reason are beneficial to society, e.g. actions that foster growth, development and change. I abhor stifling debate and that seems to be the purpose of religion as it is used most of the time. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm comfortable with my approach to all questions. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

You claim that "I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done". You do things because a little voice inside your head tells you to do things? Who is that little voice?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't have a "little voice." That is superstition. I use reason. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

It's easy to dodge the obvious with semantics. There is absolutely no question you (and all human beings) have a "little voice", that's not a superstition, that's a fact. The argument is about what is the driving force behind that little voice.

You claim that you simply rationalize everything out through the use of reason, and you are perhaps superior to moral codes found in religion. For example, you won't kill the little child because as you say you "have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer)." But if killing the little child would give you a billion dollars, you would kill the child because of the risk versus reward principle found in rationalization. The odds of that little girl inventing a cure for cancer are pretty remote. Furthermore, you might not ever contract cancer. But with a billion dollars you could finance a health care system that would further benefit you and those you deem worthy. That's "reason" at work and to you way of thinking that's much better than silly and archaic notions like "good" or "evil". [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think you have more of a stake in believing that a "non-believer" would like to kill a child for some kind of gain. I don't see it that way. I don't think there is anything that would make me kill a child. That's silly.
::Also, I don't have a "little voice" in my head. People who do I deem to be psychotic or lying. Simple as that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

A hypothetical argument takes a certain statement as an assumption and attempts to analyze it. You seem to be (perhaps intentionally) misunderstanding the hypothetical in the form in which it is presented. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend like you really don't understand because of inability to communicate.

Let's change the hypothetical slightly, you state there there is nothing that would make you kill a child. Why would you never kill a child? I understand that you base this decision on reason, but I don't understand the basis of your reason. Is your reason based upon moral codes? Aren't "moral codes" just superstition to help supress the will of the strong? Is your "reason" based upon what most helps society or is your reason based upon what most helps you? Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?

As the wise philospher Camus/Flippin says, ''Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.'' This is all well and good if one is perfect reasonable. But what about people who are unreasonable and who devise a meaning of life exemplified by people like Hitler, Jim Jones, Jeffery Dahmer, Stalin, and Charles Manson? By what right can we impose our value-system upon them?

By the same token, should each individual have the right, nay the duty, to devise his own code of laws and not wait for some legistlature or society to impose those laws upon them? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
.
==Trying to parse some of this==
:Since I consider myself a good communicator I will try and communicate with you.

:Okay, you said: "Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?" How could one do anything that helped society that didn't help oneself? Maybe I should try and explain that by asking is there really anything that one can do that helps society, yet hurts the self? If one takes an action that helps society, like picking up garbage alongside the road, does not that act help society? And if we agree that it does, how is one harmed by it?

:A reasonable person might say that the individual could get a sunburn. The individual could be hit by a truck. These are true statements, but the probability of these things happening is low (for the truck) and not that dangerous (for a sunburn). But what is the value of picking up debris left by less reasonable citizenry? Do we not gain as a society by having less trash by the roadside?

:A reasonable person might also say, yes, but must I pick up all the debris along the roadside? My answer would be no. The responsibility for cleaning up roadsides is spread equally between us all. We have a shared responsibility to do this because it helps the individual ''and'' the society.

:Now, you also mention examples like Hitler who reasoned that murdering Jews would benefit him. But is Hitler an example of a reasonable man? Honestly? Hitler was more likely sociopathic, which is a disorder that affects one's ability to reason. If we rely on reason to tell us that what is of the greatest benefit for society is of the greatest benefit for the individual, then opposing someone like Hitler, or another damaged person, is reasonable. Thus, we not only have a right to oppose them, we have an obligation to oppose them. Just as we have an obligation to oppose trash on the roadways.

:I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children? Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

:Finally, why do you feel the need to paint me as something less than moral? I have explained this repeatedly yet you do not understand. Is the failure to communicate really mine then? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not trying to paint you as immoral. I've said repeatedly I think you are moral. But I'm trying to work withing your framework to understand the truth (according to you) and I'm trying to understand the source of your morality. Where (according to you) does moral authority flow from?

I thought you said that morals comes from "reason". But as you describe it it seems that morals don't come from "reason", but from your rationalizations. I don't understand why you think your rationlizations are any more valid than the rationalizations of any other person? Of course, millions of Germans agreed with Hitler's rationalization. They were not '''all''' sociopaths. I assume that we agree their rationalization was flawed, but why is it flawed? This seems to indicate that there is some higher moral authority than rationalization. Is there some absolute code of moral authority, or were the Germans simply wrong because they lost the war? What does it matter if they were morally wrong anyway? That was in the past. There is no spiritual world and there is no God. Today is a new day. This is a new minute.

I think you're trying to claim that certain rationalizations is more valid than other rationalizations. If some rationalization is more valid than others, then why don't we as humans attempt to find the true source of the best rationalization possible and then follow that reasoning? If that is not a religion, what is that?

Secondly, I suppose I find it difficult to believe that anyone does anything simply because of "reasoning" alone. In my experince people do good things because it makes them feel good, not because they rationalized and reasoned away the degree of goodness vs. the effort required. Like every other human being, you sometimes do some bad things. After the commission of these acts of badness, why do you feel ''guilty''? If the ends justify the means there shoudl be no such thing as guilt.

Thirdly, what is the point of morality? Who cares? Why not take from the system whatever you can whenever you can. Your actions will not stop the world from spinning. You will not stop the stupid morons who worship the flying spaghetti monster, so why not exploit them? Then you can better use their resources, since you have a higher level of rationalization? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::# Rationalization seems to make the unreasonable, reasonable. That is what religion is for.
:::# Reason, as I have stated serves as a guide. It then becomes automatic.
:::# What you describe are the acts of a person that is unreasonable. I have addressed that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

What you haven't address is this: who defines what is reasonable? The guy with the biggest gun? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==The Theist answers==
Here are my answers to your questions:

The theistic-denier states:

::I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children?

I can think of many incidents of killing children which would benefit society. Our society could harvest children from poverty-stricken regions where resources are depleted and food-shortages are chronic. This is good for the environment and greatly reduces the chance that their children will suffer from famine. Then we could use those children to reseach cancer, AIDs and other diseases. Rather than working on cadavers, young doctors could practice their trade on these children. Then we could pulverize the remains and feed them to hogs. This would provide more food for other people. If you are opposed to killing (because of some fear of the mythic god) you could just enslave the children instead. We have plenty of jobs they can do which will help society more than some miserable existence in a barren wasteland.

Working strictly from a framework of reason and rationalization, why not kill children to better serve society? Furthermore, of course, this rational begs the question: why is the society of any importance at all? Why is "society" any bigger than the individual?

::Please, as one human being to another, it is much easier if you call me an agnostic--which is what I am. I don't call you a gods-worshipper, or whatever. (Jesusfreak I know is a popular perjorative that I don't use either. I am trying to be respectful.) I don't fear god--that isn't the reason to do/not do anything. I don't want anyone to kill me, so I don't kill others. Religion gives those who don't know why they do things a reason to say why they did. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Additionally, the "agnostic" asks:

::Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

Please understand that at this point, I'm not trying to prove to you my point of view. I'm trying to understand your point of view. So, while I believe that faith is the strongest barrier to crime that I know of, I won't bother to explain why I think this to you because you are clearly more enlightened than I. You've advance beyond the need for some silly god-figure.

What I would like to know is; what is your barrier to crime in the atheistic framework? It appears (based on my example above) that it is something other than reasoning, because I've proven how killing children can be good for society.

I'd be more than happy to answer why God allows suffering in the universe, but the answer to that question is pointless if we don't agree that God exists. Let's not waste time. Hypothetically, I'm agreeing with your argument that the fact that there is suffering in the universe is evidence that there is no god. Let's proceed along your path and see where it leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Religious faith is no more a barrier to crime than atheistic, or agnostic, moral reasoning. In Toronto sometime in the 70's the police went on strike. It took two hours for the first bank to be robbed, and at then end of the strike $3 million worth of damage had been done to shops and almost every bank in the city had been robbed. The vast majority of people who were arrested as a result of the crimes were religious. I'm not suggesting that therefore religion encourages crime, it just shows that it isn't such a barrier to crime as you would think. There is also anecdotal evidence that there are very few atheists and agnostics in prison compared to christians.

:The agnostic and atheistic framework is different from what you seem to think. The value of life is the most important part of my beliefs. This is not because of god or the bible, this is simply because those were the morals that i was brought up with and because they make the most logical sense. If life was not valued, then mass murders would be common and unnoticed as greedy people killed and stole to take what they wanted. This would lead to the breakdown of society as a whole. That is why enslaving and killing third world children is wrong, as they have exactly the same right to life that i do.

:This moral framework is far more effective as a crime barrier because people who use it have thought about why they think things are right and wrong from their own POV. Your framework comes from a book that was writtn 2000 years ago, and therefore not all its morals are up to date with the changing zeitgeist. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 26 April 2007

::You don't advance the argument by pointing to facts that don't answer my questions. This is what I call the ''magician's argument''. The magician's argument goes as follows: there is nothing in the hat therefore the rabbit from the hat must be magic. I don't care about your claims about religion of criminals. I'd like to have answers to my questions. As best as I can see your answer to my hypotheical question is to deny the framework of my hypothetical question. I can only assume that you refuse to answer this line of question undermines your belief set and that's why you won't answer.

::BTW, the reason I am pursuing this line of questions is not because I don't understand the atheistic point of view. I understand the false premises of atheism quite well. This is because for many years, I was an atheist. As I matured I came to realized just how much I didn't know. I still don't know what I don't know, but as the arrogance of youth recedes I begin to know how much I don't know. Thus, I realized atheism was naive and foolish, so I became an agnostic. Since that time, I learned more and came to believe that I am probably a [[deist]] but my search for truth continues. I may yet get more specific in my religious beliefs as I further mature. I will point out to you that it is a universal truth that as we get older we get wiser. It is not a coincidence that churches are full of old people. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:52, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what your point is here. Could you state, in just a sentence or two, what your hypothetical that we are ignoring is? Also, we may need to archive some of this (which I don't know how to do yet.) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:08, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The hypothetical (previously stated in a wildly exaggerated example) is: if in truth "reason" is your only guide and if in fact there is no soul, no spiritual world and no God, why do you do good things that don't follow reason? Why don't you do "bad" things that have perfectly good rationale? Your answer to the second question was: devise a better hypothetical because my reasoning is arbitrary and supports whatever rational I choose to follow. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==A place for a few more answers==

From the Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist:

"We have evolved the ability to empathize, to share the motivations and feelings of those around us. From this, we
have gained the ability to sympathize with the plight of others, to understand what may be causing them distress or
pain, and to wish, for their sake, that their suffering would stop. Armed with this sympathy, we act in a moral way to
prevent the distress and suffering of others. Our opinions on what constitutes a moral course of action may differ, but
the underlying sympathy is the same."

"With sympathy for others and recognition of the similarities between people, we each build an internal code of the
morality of our actions. We seek to protect innocent children, for we were once children ourselves and needed
protection. We seek a society that does not foster immoral actions, in order to protect the members of society like
ourselves. We feel and internalize various plights and pains of others in this process, and develop a true morality.
American revolutionary and President Thomas Jefferson put it well when he wrote in an 1814 letter, “Nature [has]
implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us
irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.”

Though I am sure this will mean little to a "deist" it is useful to those who at one time tried to find god but realized that the effort was too intellectually dishonest for them to ultimately accept. I think, Everwill, if you are really interested in learning about this and not just baiting the less conservative folk here, you might do well to read some of this material. http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thebgma/BGMA.pdf

::This is exactly my point, but I don't want to jam it down the throats of our resident atheists. Although they don't yet realize it, if you are a moral atheist, you are not an atheist at all, but rather you are a [[deist]]. The slippery slope is: once you realize you are a deist, you begin the search through religions to find a deeper meaning of life and learn more about the true nature of God. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:53, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:But that's just it--I am not a deist because I do not accept there is a god that needs to exist. If that means you are going to call me an atheist, fine, whatever, but otherwise there is no reason to be condescending about "poor little atheists." It just isn't necessary. We feel, if I may be so bold, that ''you'' are the one who is lost. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:14, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin this statement so far as I can tell doesn't seem to based upon reason but rather upon faith. As Thomas Jefferson (a deist) said, “Nature [has] implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.” In your "Nature" means "good luck" or at the very difference "luck". I don't see any difference between "good luck" and God. You think these are unrelated concepts, but I'm not sure why. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

If I sound condescending it is because you are no different from a fundamentalist muslim. That is you refuse to critically examine your belief set objectively. To answer hypothetical questions will lead you in a direction you refuse to go. You demand that others prove the unprovable as evidence that there is a God. Understand this: we agree that God is neither a flying spaghetti monster, nor a bearded old man laying on a cloud. Relax, I understand your position completely, because I've been where you are. It's okay. Each finds his own path in due time.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe there is a reason it is "unprovable." Truth be told, I think what passes for "good luck" is also random. Just as the rest of universe, this computer I'm typing on and the bowl of Cheerios I had for breakfast. It occurred through chance that this came about--not by a bearded man in the sky waving a wand. If you are looking for fantasy, watch Harry Potter or read the bible. I live in a world of facts and evidence and am content to do so until my lamp is extinguished. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I really have no idea what Harry Potter or the Bible has to do with the central question. After all this talking I have discerned (with much difficulty) that you attribute all that we see to "good luck". I call it "God" but I agree completely that whether it's just good luck or whether it is God this realization does not change reality. Other than that we are in complete agreement. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Good, we agree that god is a delusion based on random chance and superstition in the ill-informed mind. Glad to hear that, too. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

No. We agree that your misinformed characterization of the word "God" is the based on your perceptions about what you think God is. Since we agree that the universe is the product of luck, henceforth I will refer to the guiding force behind the universe as Luck so as to not offend your belief-set.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

''Don't you love how the Truth flows like water? No matter where you damn it up, it will still find the way. This is the miracle of Luck to me.'' [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:05, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

good lord this is boring.... [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

How 'bout I say "you win" and you evangelize someone else? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's "reasoning" for you ... heh ... [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, you win by attrition. Congrats. Now, I'll go back to not going to churc and telling school children there is no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Funny, you took the words right out of my mouth. ;-) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So, in fact this is not attrition or victory (I was never trying to win). Rather the discussion is at an end because you have refused to expand the boundaries of your perceptions. You came here believing that god was a myth and you continue to believe that god is a myth. You refuse to examine the implications of this possibility: myths are myths, but God is something else entirely. The thing you call Luck, I call God. That's called finding common ground. Your current problem is your very fearful of where that common ground might take you. It might shatter your arrogantly held belief-set.

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Good Luck==
Since all of the universe occurred out of good luck (according to Flippin), can we humans influence Luck? Should we attempt to commune with Luck? Do you think that hundreds of thousands of years ago, men (equally smart) pondered these same questions (since they didn't have a TV to occupied their evenings). Do you think luck, or perhaps Luck, resulted in the strange coincidence that after many generations the consensus view in every culture and society has always been that we can affect our luck by a combination of worshipping Luck and doing good things? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::No no no no no no no. The universe came to be the way it is due to the laws of physics etc, that so far have been proven to be as true as anything can be and apply to the universe exceedingly well. Add to this the theory of evolution, and yes there are one or two holes there, but soon we will have filled them all. The process of life is an attempt to discover things. You may say that we believe that we came here due to luck however i do not believe this to be true. We came here because of a reason that i do not know. However i have faith that i will not remain ignorant forever, and that soon we will know and we need not invoke luck or god to describe how we got here.

::I sympathise with you because of your above description of how you came to be a deist, however there are a few things that you might need to consider again. Firstly that just because we dont know something does not mean that we will always not know it. Look at the progress science has made over the past 500 years. We have gone from believing that the earth is at the centre of the universe and that the world is only 6000 years old, to the earth being just one planet revolving around an unremarkable star and is over 4 billion years old. Consider what we may discover in the next 500 years as our technology continues to progress and we begin to explore space outside the playground of the solar system. I would not be surprised if within my lifetime, we have an explanation for how life started and a reason for the big bang that does not rely on some higher being.

::As an aside i think that to say that as you grow older you grow wiser is slightly misguided. Yes a some people do because they have more experience and they have the foresight to use that to plan there future. However a large part of the human population does not use this experience at all, and simply assumes that they know best because they are older not because they are wiser. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:27, 27 April 2007

What's the difference between what you just said and what I just said? You wrote, "The universe came to be the way it is due to the laws of physics etc, that so far have been proven to be as true as anything can be and apply to the universe exceedingly well." Okay. we agree. So the universe is ordered. It has laws. How did the "laws" come about? Did the protons and electrons elect a neutron who decided what laws everyone should follow? I guess these laws are and always have been. I guess we were just lucky to have the Laws of Physics.

As an aside I find this assertion amusing, "As an aside i think that to say that as you grow older you grow wiser is slightly misguided." I'm not so much suprised that someone who believes there is more wisdom in youth than in age doubts the foundations of the philosophies that provided his every waking and sleeping daily need. I wish I were that naive again. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:21, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::We, as in humanity, do not know why the laws of physics happen to be the way they are. Maybe there was no choice, and for the universe to have come into existence these laws must have been the way they are. Or maybe there are other explanations. We simply do not know, however again, this admission of lack of knowledge does not mean that I decide that therefore God must be the answer. I simply accept that I do not know everything and then I attempt to find out why such things are the way they are. I do not think that we were lucky to have the laws of physics, I am confident that there is a solid scientific reason that does not allow any greater sentience to have a hand in things and that this reason will become evident in the not to distant future.

::I do not think there is more wisdom in youth than in age. That is the reason I said 'slightly misguided'. Not totally misguided and not completely idiotic. Just that there are old people who are not wise just as there are young people who are. I do not claim to be one of those young people, I am not wise in any sense, although I do hope to learn from my experiences and others and thus become wise. However many people do not use experience in this way and so do not become wise, just as some people pick up on things quickly and are. I do not doubt the foundations of the philosophies that provide me with such. I doubt the philsophies of Thomas Aquinas, St Anselm and any that have agreed with these two charlatans parading themselves as philosophers.[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:52, 28 April 2007

::''Bolly, '''please''' learn the conventions of colons to seperate text. (I'm tired of adding your colons.) I put instructions on your discussion page some days ago.''

==The Imaginary Catalyst==
There's a part of the concept you're having a very difficult time wrapping your head around. You wrote:

::''We simply do not know, however again, this admission of lack of knowledge does not mean that I decide that therefore God must be the answer.''

You don't know it but your making an argument of semantics not a argument of logic. It doesn't matter whether you call it Luck, God, or some as yet uknown catalyst, in the end all rational humans agree that SOMETHING is the answer. Once we agree that there answer then we can begin to examine by deduction the properties of that something. People tend to get hung up on words because it connects them to some childhood they are rebelling against or a childhood that they are attempting to validate.

Whether we call it God, Luck, Fate, No-alternative, the concept descriptor doesn't change the concept. In other to explain to others, I prefer to find use words which make sense to them, rather than fighting them about things that don't matter. Here's another way to look at it:

Do you remember the concept of ''i'', the imaginary number from mathematics? Conservapedia doesn't have an article about ''i'' yet, but you can read one from Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number | here]. The idea behind ''i'' is that some concepts are not fully understood but still can be examined in an objective manner. According to some Wikipedia editor,
:"''Many other mathematicians were slow to believe in imaginary numbers at first, including Descartes who wrote about them in his La Géométrie, where the term was meant to be derogatory.''"
Thus, I can understand why you are resistant to this concept. But if mathemeticians can do it, so can you.

Forget about "God", the word touches a fear deep in your psyche. The previous debater wanted to call it ''Luck''. How about for your benefit we call it ''g'', an as-yet unknown causation of the laws of physics and the origins of the universe as God. I agree we might one day learn all the properties of ''g'' but right now we don't know the properties of ''g''.

The atheistic proposition is we haven't discovered the imaginary catalyst yet, and therefore ''g'' doesn't exist. The deistic proposition is that it's silly to think that ''g'' doesn't exist just because we can't understand or define ''g''. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree with you over all your points there except your final one. As you say, the catalyst can be called ''g'' as i feel that leaves out any unnecessary baggage that comes with the terms god or luck. My point is not that ''g'' does not exist, of course it does. There must have been a catalyst. My view is that ''g'' is not some sentient thing, rather it is some process that is automatic and with no thought, such as a boulder rolling down a hill. The boulder has no choice in the matter of rolling, nor does it have any way of experiencing its rolling, as it has no nerves or centre of intelligence with which to experience outside influences such as gravity. This is how i see ''g''. It is (was) a process that happened with no alternative or even any way of knowing there could be an alternative.

::Apologies for not using colons, I did not realise this was common courtesy on this site. Thankyou for pointing that out to me. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:03, 29 April 2007

And this is why I say it's ridiculous to say that you're an atheist. You might be arreligious, but it's ridiculous to be atheistic.

This is because you and I can have a reasonable arguement about the nature of ''g'' or we can argue about the properties of ''g'', but it's silly to say that ''g'' doesn't exist. Now that we finally agre on terminology, it might make sense to argue the properties of ''g''.

I understand why you might think ''g'' is not sentient. Afterall, like a boulder rolling down a hill, ''g'' would appear to have no nervous system, nueral net or anything else which might sustain thought as we detect it in most brains. If ''g'' is sentient then the level of intelligence is so far superior to our own that it would be almost incomprehensible. All of the things you see as normal, I see as miraculous. But there is no sense wasting time arguing about it. I respect your right to analyze and postulate on true nature of ''g''. Please respect the conclusion that I have drawn.

I have concluded that ''g'' is somehow part of a Unified Theory which still eludes our smartest minds. The Unified Theory ties together light, energy, mass, time and ''g''. I think that if we had a greater understanding of ''g'' we could easily manipulate the other elements described above.

I believe this because I believe both the scientists and the philosophers. They both are experts in their fields. Neither party is dishonest. Additionally, I have limited and anecdotal and experiential evidence that this it is possible to affect ''g'' and to commune with ''g'' on some level. I rely upon the scientific method. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:30, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, we do agree on those points. I would just like to add that i do not see most things as normal, i do see them as miraculous, the difference being that you attribute them to a sentient ''g'' while I attribute it simply to the way things have happened.

:Your idea that if we understood ''g'' we would be able to manipulate those elements is intruiging. I cannot wait to see if scientists do manage to understand ''g'' in some way and are then able to do those things, although of course, the results could be potentially catastrophic.

:Finally, just as a matter of definition, I am not strictly an atheist. I refer to myself as such, as the majority of religious believers understand my position in relation to theirs easier then if I say "I'm an agnostic, verging on atheistic but still open to solid evidence for the existence of god." For them, that is an atheist. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:17, 30 April 2007

==Let Me Paint a Picture==

(NB also posted on [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]], but that had a title so obscure that I thought no-one would read it there!)

Just suppose there was a universe in a multiverse far far away....

... and in that universe, which came from nothing, and had no organisation, no structure, by some remote chance of fate that only happens once in every 10 to the squillion years, that matter self organised into a self-reproducing molecule. To begin with, that structure was crude, basic and lacked any real semblance of we might call life, but it had one single feature, that it was able to self-replicate (albeit somewhat haphazardly) and reproduce. Reproduce it did, and over time there were many copies of this thing. I say 'thing'; I actually mean things, because from this simple rudimentary molecule, came others, better equipped to reproduce, and so began the process of reproduction, change, survival and adaptation.

A squillion years passed and that self-reproducing molecule had became so sophisticated that it was no longer a molecule, but had packaged itself with a coating of material for protection; that material had its own molecules which told it how to reproduce and survive, how to accrete and modify naturally occurring minerals in the surrounding context, and how to use the natural energy of starlight to produce different molecules.

Time passed, and these packages of molecules began to take on a myriad forms; some remained stationary, making complex molecules from the atmosphere and starlight; others roamed about using the stationary packages as raw materials to create their own package coverings. The diversity was amazing. The single molecule had by now invaded every part of the planet; every ecological niche was filled by a different type of package, and everything worked. Many of the moving packages began to use other packages for their material needed to grow and survive; some got rather good at it. Some even began to be able to structure rudimentary plans of how to do it better, and these were passed on to other packages of the same type. These packages became so good at adapting to their environment that they began to shape their environment for themselves; at first, simply finding cosy spots to rest, then hollowing out spaces or using material to construct things.

One day, one of these packages, used the complex set of molecules within its package not to plan a nice cosy spot to rest, or to work out even better ways of accreting more material to itself, but to ask the question 'Why am I here?' That unanswered question inevitably led to other questions, such as 'What is space?' 'What is time?', and 'Why is so much of my life spent looking for nice cosy spots to rest and better ways of accreting material to myself?'.

A squillion years later and the descendants of these packages were still asking themselves the same questions. Long ago they had enlisted the help of most of the universe in their quest to find the answers. They had harnessed the power of the very small: atomic nuclei and quantum fluctuations to power and drive their auxilliary questioning devices; they had reached out on the very large scale to the furthest depths of their universe, and all were connected. The question was still unanswered until one day, the huge, all-encomassing packeage managed to make the final connection which pieced everything in the universe together. Then it all fell into place. All at once the package could see - not only where everything is, but how everything was, and where it will be. The package knew all the answers, and knew that it could change them.

For a time, the package wallowed in smugness and self-satisfaction. It had answered all of the questions that could usefully be asked, and many that were useless. There followed a period of boredom followed by a long peiod of emptiness. Most of all, it was lonely. Desperately and unutterably lonely. How lonely you cannot possibly imagine. Destined to be for the whole of time without any other being for comfort or companionship. It craved attention. For a while it went mad. Then out of that madness came a brilliant idea. As it could change time and space, why not look back over its long multisquillion year history and change things?

The universal package didnt really approve of its humble beginnings so it decided that a tweak here or there wouldn't go amiss. The first package to ask the question 'Why am I here?' didn't really seem right. Wouldn't it be better if the first question recognised the importance of where that primitive package was heading? Why not change that question to 'Who put me here?' or 'What am I destined for?', or more importantly 'Is this everything, or is there something else?'. Best of all, putting the idea 'Who put me here?' meant that primitive packages would come to a realisation (but not understand the significance) of a universal package, and would begin to talk to it.

Its first attempts to do this were crude and clumsy. They missed the mark by miles. Packages attributed 'universal package status' to stars, minerals, and other packages, but not the one universal package itself. Then it hit upon the solution, almost by accident - to put into the mind of one lowly package the idea that this lowly package was the naturally occuring descendant of the one universal package. That idea was so powerful that it reverberated down through the whole of time like an avalanche down a mountain slope. All at once, all the packages wanted to talk to the universal package, and it was happy. It was no longer alone, and it was loved.

Some packages believed in the one universal package; other packages believed that they had arisen from the mud of the planet in a multi squillion year history. Did it matter to the universal package? Not a jot. They were both right - and both wrong. It amused the universal package to watch the antics of these primitve packages arguing with each other in such a pointless manner. This was entertainment, and it was certainly much better than being bored, lonely or going mad.

--CatWatcher 02:35, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That was great. It is the most stupid yet intelligent thing i have heard for ages. You should copyright that story then sell it as a new religion. As well as this it also makes a weird sort of sense. God is just some random who discovered the question and answer to the ultimate question of the life, the universe and everything and was driven to madness, lonliness and complete power. He then used that power to make people pray to him so he could feel loved!! Ahh...the irony. God, who loves everyone, only wants to be loved in return. So I suppose that now, as an atheist, I'm a cruel sadistic bastard who denies a lonely superbeing some loving care. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:54, 29 April 2007

::What is the point of this story? Is the point is that it's fun to mock a potential creation motive for God? What does this parable prove or disprove? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:52, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::: This is like asking what is the point of 'The Mona Lisa' or 'Under Milk Wood'. Essentially it has no intrinsic value whatsoever, unless it speaks to you. Clearly it doesn't, so give up, and view it as a worthless piece of junk. If, however, it has some meaning for you, ponder on it, and it may allow you to look at the world in a slighly different way. I wrote it, but I do not believe it. It is however, a [[possible world]], and is not inconceivable that something like this will happen/has happened. Retaining an open mind is all important; such thoughts will ultimately allow our decendants and successors to achieve great things. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 16:21, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: It's fine as far as fairy tales go. Keep working on it and I'm sure it will evolve into something even better. But why on Earth would someone walk into a debate about Atheism and Deism, raise their hand and then hold up a picture of the Mona Lisa. Is that supposed to make sense because the subject of your fairy tale is tangentally related? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 19:13, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I sometimes feel that I am on another planet. The Fairy tale was supposed to be a cautionary exercise to demonstrate that this question (Atheism v. Deism) is ultimately futile. Both sides can be right, and both sides can be wrong. The question is a false dichotomy.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 19:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Musing about the Motives of God==

It is arrogance to presume to understand the motives of ''g''. But I think this statement completely inaccurate:

::''So I suppose that now, as an atheist, I'm a cruel sadistic bastard who denies a lonely superbeing some loving care.''

I think this would be a more accurate and fair statement:

::''So I suppose that now, as an arreligious who thinks he's atheistic, I'm a pitiable masochistic bastard who denies himself a full connection to the power and glory of the superbeing who cares not a whit whether I love ''g'' or not.

You can't deprive ''g'' of anything. But it is possible to deprive yourself of something because life has not yet fully humbled you. I understand. I was arrogant myself. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:46, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well of course I was just playing along to the story. I do not presume to understand the motives of ''g'' simply because I do not believe that ''g'' has motives. And I find that I can connect with something wonderful when I examine the underworld of my lawn with a magnifying glass, or when i gaze upon the stars from my small telescope. This something is nature and I find it is more satisfying to connect with this then to connect with a sentient ''g'', although this is of course, my personal view. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 19:21, 30 April 2007

Atheism vs. Deism

2007-04-30T09:17:55Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* The Imaginary Catalyst */

Atheism vs. Deism

2007-04-29T11:55:14Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Let Me Paint a Picture */

==Why Atheism is ridiculous==
Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "God" is another word for "everything." God equals everything. Everthing is God. To deny that "God" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if God is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does God (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does God have a plan? Or is Everything (''i.e.'' God) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies. Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstien included) believe that time is an illusion and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or God) is sentient. God has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:That's not the God I know. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::As a godless, atheistic, morally-bankrupt existentialist, I have to say I disagree with this "assessment." If I am to take what you say at face value I come to the immediate conclusion that atheism is still correct. If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....

:::I think of the universe this way: I don't know how it came to be, but I assume it was a chemical and physical event, not supernatural. I know that this "stuff" doesn't have to have a plan in order to exist. There need not be a man in the sky to protect me from everything. I don't need to pray to something that I will succeed in life because there is no one listening. But, I'm not sad about this, I don't feel alone or unloved by the big ol' scary universe. Rather, I feel emboldened to take moral actions when I can.

:::Camus is my hero. His basic equation boils down to this: once a person realizes that there is no god they have two choices--suicide or a "faith flight." That is, if one accepts the religious view of things. If Camus is correct, and existence does indeed precede essence, then there is a third choice, the philosophy of moral action. Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.

:::Now, since I don't believe everything has a plan, and that I have a moral obligation to help my fellow man (and woman), I have an obligation to come to sites like this and try to fix them. Not by including so-called "liberal bias." Rather, the point is to make sure truth trumps propaganda. Wether I like it or not, I have a duty to help fix this garbage. I liken it to watching a child roll their tricycle toward the street. You, the adult, are standing there and you can see a truck bearing down on the child. Do you try and help her, or do you pray? I must take action and this website affords me a chance to help everybody. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You have mistaken my meaning, despite repeating exactly what I said:

::''If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....''

This is indeed exactly what I meant. So in fact, there is a god. The question is God sentient or not. Does God have thoughts, plans, etc. Or is the universe a jumble of meaningless matter that is and always was. A tangental thought to ponder: auantum mechancics seem to suggest that reality can change depending on the observer.

For those who say "this is not the God I know". Indeed it is the God you. Here's the line of logic:

::1. God = Everything
::2. Therefore God exists. (And the corrollary, atheism is ridiculous.)
::3. Now there is a choice: one can choose to believe that God is sentient; or one can deny the sentience of God despite overwhelming of evidence to the contrary.
::4. Then, if God is sentient then what can we mortals know of God? Where will we find His truths? We might find them in science. We find them in religion. We each find out own personal truth in different ways.

If you make it to step 4, the arguement becomes which religion is best. Which truth makes the most sense to you. Christians, Buddhists, Islamist, they all have their own personal arguments. I won't waste time debating religion when atheists are in the room. It's pointless, because they haven't made the logical step to 3.

If your mind doesn't make the leap to step 3, there is no point in discussing morals. In fact, it's ridiculous to postulate morals or philosophy because the universe is meaningless. For those who are at this point in personal growth: thine only commandment is ''do what thou wilt''. It is pointless to do anything other than that which makes you happy if you get to step 2 but don't make the jump to step 3. However, if you can comprehend step two but don't believe in 3 then all this poppycock about morals and goodness is ridiculous. Furthermore, when an atheist discusses morals and philosophy it only only serves to prove there is a God. This is because the atheist's spirit (which he doesn't believe believe exists) nags and naws at him like the quite voices of angels.

If you make it to step one but can't make it to step 2, then you are a) either incapable of higher thought; or b) intellectually dishonest because you fear where this argument leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, what you are trying to do, in logic, is referred to as an [[enthymeme]]. However, your argument does not work. First, you must show HOW god equals everything. Otherwise you can say anything. Thus:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

:::But you tried to do something else. You tried to insert statements as if they are quantifiable terms. Sort of like saying, "E = mc2" ''Well what do those letters mean?'' "Elephants equal mustard and cows times themselves." You've defined nothing except a lack of basic logical principles.

Being intellectually dishonest would be if I said, well, "god likes strawberries more than cherries." When you ask ''why'' I'll say "because they taste better." Asserting your opinion as fact is what makes it less than true. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin, why do you care if a child rides into traffic on a tricycle? What do you gain if she is saved? What do you lose if she dies? It sounds a lot like your a theist to me. You obviously think the universe has some meaning or some order. If the universe has order and meaning then it only follows that you believe the universe is God. The next step to make is to find out where God best reveals his truth. You think that his truth is best revealed in the philosophical musings of your hero Camus. Camus wrote your Bible. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::It might be difficult to understand but I did not say that god=toast. I agree that God is not toast. Is "Everything" that is to say the universe as a whole sentient or not? Simple question. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:50, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Furthermore, by your example:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

By your definition, then it would be possible to know the true nature of toast. We pretty well already know how to make toast. It's a silly diversion from the question you are afraid to ask yourself. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

No it isn't. I have already asked myself--for years--if there is a god. I have come to the conclusion ther very likely isn't. I am not an atheist (they are 100% sure) but I sit at about 99.9% sure. I have diverted nothing--being intellectually honest with myself meant I had to realize there was no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:As the one who said, "this is not the God I know", I reject the first point in the line of logic, that God equals everything. I am a monotheist, not a pantheist. God ''made'' the universe, He ''isn't'' the universe.
:Flippin, your counter-logic is wrong. Everwill's logic skipped a step. His logic was:
::1. God = Everything
::1A. We know that everything exists.
::2. Therefore God exists.

:So in order to match Everwill's argument from logic, your counter logic should have been:
::1. god = toast
::1A. we know that toast exists
::2. therefore god exists.
:But you got point 2 back to front.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Phil,

So as I understand it you think God is outside of the universe? God is apart from the universe. God is not everywhere at all times, rather he is somewhere else. Where is that somewhere else and what reason have you to believe (other than blind faith) that somewhere else exists? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:God is a spiritual being. He is "outside" the universe—a physical place—in the sense that He is not part of it. But being an omnipresent spiritual being He is not confined to a physical place, so He is not outside in a geographical sense. He is everywhere at once, but not synonymous with the universe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that God is not "confined" to anything. But I'm not sure there's any value to arguing the fine differences between "everything", the universe and God. We're not philosophers, and others have explored this better than we can. I think there is some value to helping atheists understand why the question is not whether God exist or not. The real question is whether God is an omnipresent sentience or not. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Everwill, your argument that god = everything is preposterous. Firstly, i do not agree with the first statement you make, that god is everything. I would like some hard proof, or at least a convincing argument that god equals everything before the first premise of your argument.

If, for arguements sake, we assume that your first premise is correct, then the only question is, as you say, whether everything (or god) is sentient? Again, you can say so, however i want proof. I have yet to see a plan in the universe or everything. According to the current predictions by astronomers and physcists, the universe is set to expand for an idefinete period and that eventually all the stars will run out of hydrogen and go out, and that everything will spread further and further apart at faster and faster speeds until the universe tears itself apart. Can you explain the plan in this? It displays all the theories about gravity, dark matter, quantum theory and strong and weak nuclear forces. There is nothing to show an added level of intelligence in this everything.

Please do not assume that your first premise is correct until you show some evidence for this, otherwise your argument is entirely invalid.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:06, 26 April 2007

:::You must have made things pretty difficult for your alegbra teacher. The teacher presents the following:

::::''x + 1 = 2''
::::''X is'' unknown.
::::''Solve for X.''

:::To which you reply, "Prove that X is unknown and a mathematical value. X is a letter and has no value, thus algebra is entirely invalid."

:::Hopefully you see how silly your reply is, but I'll grant you that I may have given you too much credit above. Perhaps the concept is a little too complicated for you to understand as I presented above. I'll try harder.

:::If the word "God" is synomous with "everything" then I assume you believe God exists. If the word "God" means "magical bogeyman who meddles in the affairs of mankind" then I assume we agree that God does not exist. In the framework of the argument above, God means everything.

:::Now I'll put that aside and try to explain the concept without using words that offend your sensibilities. The universe shows organization and complexity beyond any single human's comprehension at every level. The components of a cell, atomic structures, galactic structures, geological structures, biologal structures. It's vastly intricate, interconnected and complicated. The universe functions like an immense machine and so far as we can tell, it will continue to function for quite some time and it functioned long ago.

:::With this knowledge one has to make a leap of faith, and science has taught us that the simple solution is usually the right solution. The simple solution is that the universe is organization implies design, design implies designer. The only other plausible choice is that the everything that every happens, happened or will happened is the result of something that makes a lottery ticket or a lightning strike look like a easy money and a daily occurence. Now, I respect your right to belive that, but I think it's sort of naive.

:::So you think the universe is randomness. I think the universe has order. Now to work back into the definitions presented above. I think God has order. You think God is randomness. Whether we call it God, the universe or everything, it makes no difference. I'm not trying to take away your right to believe what you want. I'm not trying to tell you to go to church. I'm just trying to find a common ground on which we can agree. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Alright, now i understand the point you were making. I do not agree with it, however i see now where you are coming from.

The reason that the whole of the universe is so incomprehensible to us, is because we evolved on a scale where the only distances that mattered were a couple of hundred kilometres to about a centimetre. That was all that was needed to survive as homo erectus in a hostile world. It was not necessary for us to be able to understand a cell or an atom or a star. The complex machinery that is our brain is not built for such things as the universe or quantum theory. This is why it is so hard to comprehend.

The simple solution is the right solution in the majority of cases, however the simple solution in this case is not one of design. Darwin has already shown that while animals and plants may look designed they are in fact the end result of a massive series of gene mutations and adaptations. In this case, there is no designer and thus your point that organization implies design implies designer is proved wrong in the case of natural life. Simply because there is no such explanation for how the universe has come to be in such a way does not mean that there is no explanation that does not need to attribute it to a designer. Just think that 300 years ago, noone thought that something complex could come from something less complex as it balked common sense. However our common sense only applies to simple, mundane everyday things, not the huge distances and complexities of space or an atom.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:56, 27 April 2007

==Questions and Answers==
Plato showed how in a debate one asks questions so that the debaters can pursue the truth together rather than being adversaries. So what I can't understand is why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests? Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you? Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share? Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?

To be more specific you say ''Because I feel an obligation to help her''. What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? Will she pay you? What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

So here are my questions:

::''"Why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests?"''

:::* Atheist says: I might ask you the same thing. I have no short-term interest in this child's death. I have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer).
:::* Theist replies, because there is something, perhaps a spirit or a god, that imparts to ever soul the knowledge of good from evil and right from wrong. Doing evil moves you further from god and thus it does not feel good to do evil (''even when it feels good to do evil''!) This is a shorthand way of saying that when you commit acts which are pleasurable but evil, you feel shallow and empty inside. On the other hand, when one commit acts of kindness without any payback of any kind, one feels good inside. This is something most humans learn as they progress into maturity. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::''"Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you?"''

:::* Atheist says: Two parts there: I wouldn't murder a child--as I said--so what is there to feel guilty about? If no one would punish me presupposes I have done this act, so the question is invalidated by the former.
:::* Theist replies, I should hope you wouldn't murder a child, but your reply ducks the obvious answer. Of course I wouldn't murder a child to get what I wanted, but if I did murder a child to get what I wanted I would feel guilty. What causes that feeling of guilty? Is that not proof of a spiritual aspect of life?

::''"Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share?"''

:::* Atheist say: It certainly could be. ''"Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?"'' Reason allows me to discern right from wrong, as I said above. I am compelled to act according to this obligation to help others and not let them have their choice made by another.
:::* Theist says, what is this "reason" you are talking about in an athistic universe. Without God or morality, what is the difference between good and evil or right and wrong? From an atheistic (i.e. Satanic) POV right and wrong are silly concepts. "Good" is just an excuse to chump the strong from their rightful place at the top of the food chain. Don't you agree?

''"What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? <s>Will she pay you?</s> What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?"''

:::* Atheist says: Okay, now you're getting to the meat of the matter. I am obligated by this sense of everyone's right to exist. I have no more right to take you're life than I do to steal your bike. Not that those two are equal, but the line of demarcation is the same. It is only selfish in the sense that I ''gain'' when this child is allowed to grow up and make her own choices. If, in the process, I am killed, then I have served my principles. If she dies, then I took moral action and can feel good about my effort. However, if I let her die I am as guilty as any of those Nazi guards at Aushwitz who said ''"I was only following orders."''
:::* Theist replies: your answer implies the existence of God even if you can't see the forest for all the trees. Why does everyone have a right to exist? Because you said so? That makes no sense in your concept of reality. What if my country elects a leader, for the purposes of illustration let's call him ''Adolf Hitler''. Our leader through legal government manuevers manages to establish a process to eliminate what he sees as a cancer on our nation. By your reasoning that leader has a moral imperative to kill Jews BECAUSE he thinks it's best for the nation. From the theist stand-point, we believe that all life is precious, most especially human life. Therefore it doesn't matter what logic, rationale or legal manuevers Hitler makes, killing is wrong.

Atheist summary: As long as you have a choice, to defer your morality to a god, or priest or whatever you ask for figiveness is to shirk your duty to society--that being to think for yourself. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Theist summary: No one ever defers any choices to anyone ever. Each individual is always responsible for his own actions and choices. To clear up your confusion: a theist defers his choices to a priest about as much as a judge in a court room defers his choices to his first year law professor. Religion is a tool to help us understand God. Religion and religious leaders do not speak for God. An "atheist" who follows a moral code is just a theist who doesn't know much about his God because he's too afraid to trust others. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:In point of fact here, I have said I am not an atheist, I am more properly called an agnostic. An atheist, by definition, holds that they have the answer--that there is no god. As an agnostic I am open to the idea that a god exists, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Please don't refer to me as an atheist--it is a different thing altogether. Also, in addition to agnosticism, I am an existentialist--so you could also use that term if you like.

:Finally, I don't have a god-belief so I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done. I do things that I reason are beneficial to society, e.g. actions that foster growth, development and change. I abhor stifling debate and that seems to be the purpose of religion as it is used most of the time. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm comfortable with my approach to all questions. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

You claim that "I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done". You do things because a little voice inside your head tells you to do things? Who is that little voice?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't have a "little voice." That is superstition. I use reason. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

It's easy to dodge the obvious with semantics. There is absolutely no question you (and all human beings) have a "little voice", that's not a superstition, that's a fact. The argument is about what is the driving force behind that little voice.

You claim that you simply rationalize everything out through the use of reason, and you are perhaps superior to moral codes found in religion. For example, you won't kill the little child because as you say you "have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer)." But if killing the little child would give you a billion dollars, you would kill the child because of the risk versus reward principle found in rationalization. The odds of that little girl inventing a cure for cancer are pretty remote. Furthermore, you might not ever contract cancer. But with a billion dollars you could finance a health care system that would further benefit you and those you deem worthy. That's "reason" at work and to you way of thinking that's much better than silly and archaic notions like "good" or "evil". [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think you have more of a stake in believing that a "non-believer" would like to kill a child for some kind of gain. I don't see it that way. I don't think there is anything that would make me kill a child. That's silly.
::Also, I don't have a "little voice" in my head. People who do I deem to be psychotic or lying. Simple as that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

A hypothetical argument takes a certain statement as an assumption and attempts to analyze it. You seem to be (perhaps intentionally) misunderstanding the hypothetical in the form in which it is presented. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend like you really don't understand because of inability to communicate.

Let's change the hypothetical slightly, you state there there is nothing that would make you kill a child. Why would you never kill a child? I understand that you base this decision on reason, but I don't understand the basis of your reason. Is your reason based upon moral codes? Aren't "moral codes" just superstition to help supress the will of the strong? Is your "reason" based upon what most helps society or is your reason based upon what most helps you? Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?

As the wise philospher Camus/Flippin says, ''Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.'' This is all well and good if one is perfect reasonable. But what about people who are unreasonable and who devise a meaning of life exemplified by people like Hitler, Jim Jones, Jeffery Dahmer, Stalin, and Charles Manson? By what right can we impose our value-system upon them?

By the same token, should each individual have the right, nay the duty, to devise his own code of laws and not wait for some legistlature or society to impose those laws upon them? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
.
==Trying to parse some of this==
:Since I consider myself a good communicator I will try and communicate with you.

:Okay, you said: "Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?" How could one do anything that helped society that didn't help oneself? Maybe I should try and explain that by asking is there really anything that one can do that helps society, yet hurts the self? If one takes an action that helps society, like picking up garbage alongside the road, does not that act help society? And if we agree that it does, how is one harmed by it?

:A reasonable person might say that the individual could get a sunburn. The individual could be hit by a truck. These are true statements, but the probability of these things happening is low (for the truck) and not that dangerous (for a sunburn). But what is the value of picking up debris left by less reasonable citizenry? Do we not gain as a society by having less trash by the roadside?

:A reasonable person might also say, yes, but must I pick up all the debris along the roadside? My answer would be no. The responsibility for cleaning up roadsides is spread equally between us all. We have a shared responsibility to do this because it helps the individual ''and'' the society.

:Now, you also mention examples like Hitler who reasoned that murdering Jews would benefit him. But is Hitler an example of a reasonable man? Honestly? Hitler was more likely sociopathic, which is a disorder that affects one's ability to reason. If we rely on reason to tell us that what is of the greatest benefit for society is of the greatest benefit for the individual, then opposing someone like Hitler, or another damaged person, is reasonable. Thus, we not only have a right to oppose them, we have an obligation to oppose them. Just as we have an obligation to oppose trash on the roadways.

:I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children? Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

:Finally, why do you feel the need to paint me as something less than moral? I have explained this repeatedly yet you do not understand. Is the failure to communicate really mine then? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not trying to paint you as immoral. I've said repeatedly I think you are moral. But I'm trying to work withing your framework to understand the truth (according to you) and I'm trying to understand the source of your morality. Where (according to you) does moral authority flow from?

I thought you said that morals comes from "reason". But as you describe it it seems that morals don't come from "reason", but from your rationalizations. I don't understand why you think your rationlizations are any more valid than the rationalizations of any other person? Of course, millions of Germans agreed with Hitler's rationalization. They were not '''all''' sociopaths. I assume that we agree their rationalization was flawed, but why is it flawed? This seems to indicate that there is some higher moral authority than rationalization. Is there some absolute code of moral authority, or were the Germans simply wrong because they lost the war? What does it matter if they were morally wrong anyway? That was in the past. There is no spiritual world and there is no God. Today is a new day. This is a new minute.

I think you're trying to claim that certain rationalizations is more valid than other rationalizations. If some rationalization is more valid than others, then why don't we as humans attempt to find the true source of the best rationalization possible and then follow that reasoning? If that is not a religion, what is that?

Secondly, I suppose I find it difficult to believe that anyone does anything simply because of "reasoning" alone. In my experince people do good things because it makes them feel good, not because they rationalized and reasoned away the degree of goodness vs. the effort required. Like every other human being, you sometimes do some bad things. After the commission of these acts of badness, why do you feel ''guilty''? If the ends justify the means there shoudl be no such thing as guilt.

Thirdly, what is the point of morality? Who cares? Why not take from the system whatever you can whenever you can. Your actions will not stop the world from spinning. You will not stop the stupid morons who worship the flying spaghetti monster, so why not exploit them? Then you can better use their resources, since you have a higher level of rationalization? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::# Rationalization seems to make the unreasonable, reasonable. That is what religion is for.
:::# Reason, as I have stated serves as a guide. It then becomes automatic.
:::# What you describe are the acts of a person that is unreasonable. I have addressed that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

What you haven't address is this: who defines what is reasonable? The guy with the biggest gun? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==The Theist answers==
Here are my answers to your questions:

The theistic-denier states:

::I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children?

I can think of many incidents of killing children which would benefit society. Our society could harvest children from poverty-stricken regions where resources are depleted and food-shortages are chronic. This is good for the environment and greatly reduces the chance that their children will suffer from famine. Then we could use those children to reseach cancer, AIDs and other diseases. Rather than working on cadavers, young doctors could practice their trade on these children. Then we could pulverize the remains and feed them to hogs. This would provide more food for other people. If you are opposed to killing (because of some fear of the mythic god) you could just enslave the children instead. We have plenty of jobs they can do which will help society more than some miserable existence in a barren wasteland.

Working strictly from a framework of reason and rationalization, why not kill children to better serve society? Furthermore, of course, this rational begs the question: why is the society of any importance at all? Why is "society" any bigger than the individual?

::Please, as one human being to another, it is much easier if you call me an agnostic--which is what I am. I don't call you a gods-worshipper, or whatever. (Jesusfreak I know is a popular perjorative that I don't use either. I am trying to be respectful.) I don't fear god--that isn't the reason to do/not do anything. I don't want anyone to kill me, so I don't kill others. Religion gives those who don't know why they do things a reason to say why they did. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Additionally, the "agnostic" asks:

::Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

Please understand that at this point, I'm not trying to prove to you my point of view. I'm trying to understand your point of view. So, while I believe that faith is the strongest barrier to crime that I know of, I won't bother to explain why I think this to you because you are clearly more enlightened than I. You've advance beyond the need for some silly god-figure.

What I would like to know is; what is your barrier to crime in the atheistic framework? It appears (based on my example above) that it is something other than reasoning, because I've proven how killing children can be good for society.

I'd be more than happy to answer why God allows suffering in the universe, but the answer to that question is pointless if we don't agree that God exists. Let's not waste time. Hypothetically, I'm agreeing with your argument that the fact that there is suffering in the universe is evidence that there is no god. Let's proceed along your path and see where it leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Religious faith is no more a barrier to crime than atheistic, or agnostic, moral reasoning. In Toronto sometime in the 70's the police went on strike. It took two hours for the first bank to be robbed, and at then end of the strike $3 million worth of damage had been done to shops and almost every bank in the city had been robbed. The vast majority of people who were arrested as a result of the crimes were religious. I'm not suggesting that therefore religion encourages crime, it just shows that it isn't such a barrier to crime as you would think. There is also anecdotal evidence that there are very few atheists and agnostics in prison compared to christians.

:The agnostic and atheistic framework is different from what you seem to think. The value of life is the most important part of my beliefs. This is not because of god or the bible, this is simply because those were the morals that i was brought up with and because they make the most logical sense. If life was not valued, then mass murders would be common and unnoticed as greedy people killed and stole to take what they wanted. This would lead to the breakdown of society as a whole. That is why enslaving and killing third world children is wrong, as they have exactly the same right to life that i do.

:This moral framework is far more effective as a crime barrier because people who use it have thought about why they think things are right and wrong from their own POV. Your framework comes from a book that was writtn 2000 years ago, and therefore not all its morals are up to date with the changing zeitgeist. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 26 April 2007

::You don't advance the argument by pointing to facts that don't answer my questions. This is what I call the ''magician's argument''. The magician's argument goes as follows: there is nothing in the hat therefore the rabbit from the hat must be magic. I don't care about your claims about religion of criminals. I'd like to have answers to my questions. As best as I can see your answer to my hypotheical question is to deny the framework of my hypothetical question. I can only assume that you refuse to answer this line of question undermines your belief set and that's why you won't answer.

::BTW, the reason I am pursuing this line of questions is not because I don't understand the atheistic point of view. I understand the false premises of atheism quite well. This is because for many years, I was an atheist. As I matured I came to realized just how much I didn't know. I still don't know what I don't know, but as the arrogance of youth recedes I begin to know how much I don't know. Thus, I realized atheism was naive and foolish, so I became an agnostic. Since that time, I learned more and came to believe that I am probably a [[deist]] but my search for truth continues. I may yet get more specific in my religious beliefs as I further mature. I will point out to you that it is a universal truth that as we get older we get wiser. It is not a coincidence that churches are full of old people. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:52, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what your point is here. Could you state, in just a sentence or two, what your hypothetical that we are ignoring is? Also, we may need to archive some of this (which I don't know how to do yet.) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:08, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The hypothetical (previously stated in a wildly exaggerated example) is: if in truth "reason" is your only guide and if in fact there is no soul, no spiritual world and no God, why do you do good things that don't follow reason? Why don't you do "bad" things that have perfectly good rationale? Your answer to the second question was: devise a better hypothetical because my reasoning is arbitrary and supports whatever rational I choose to follow. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==A place for a few more answers==

From the Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist:

"We have evolved the ability to empathize, to share the motivations and feelings of those around us. From this, we
have gained the ability to sympathize with the plight of others, to understand what may be causing them distress or
pain, and to wish, for their sake, that their suffering would stop. Armed with this sympathy, we act in a moral way to
prevent the distress and suffering of others. Our opinions on what constitutes a moral course of action may differ, but
the underlying sympathy is the same."

"With sympathy for others and recognition of the similarities between people, we each build an internal code of the
morality of our actions. We seek to protect innocent children, for we were once children ourselves and needed
protection. We seek a society that does not foster immoral actions, in order to protect the members of society like
ourselves. We feel and internalize various plights and pains of others in this process, and develop a true morality.
American revolutionary and President Thomas Jefferson put it well when he wrote in an 1814 letter, “Nature [has]
implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us
irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.”

Though I am sure this will mean little to a "deist" it is useful to those who at one time tried to find god but realized that the effort was too intellectually dishonest for them to ultimately accept. I think, Everwill, if you are really interested in learning about this and not just baiting the less conservative folk here, you might do well to read some of this material. http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thebgma/BGMA.pdf

::This is exactly my point, but I don't want to jam it down the throats of our resident atheists. Although they don't yet realize it, if you are a moral atheist, you are not an atheist at all, but rather you are a [[deist]]. The slippery slope is: once you realize you are a deist, you begin the search through religions to find a deeper meaning of life and learn more about the true nature of God. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:53, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:But that's just it--I am not a deist because I do not accept there is a god that needs to exist. If that means you are going to call me an atheist, fine, whatever, but otherwise there is no reason to be condescending about "poor little atheists." It just isn't necessary. We feel, if I may be so bold, that ''you'' are the one who is lost. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:14, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin this statement so far as I can tell doesn't seem to based upon reason but rather upon faith. As Thomas Jefferson (a deist) said, “Nature [has] implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.” In your "Nature" means "good luck" or at the very difference "luck". I don't see any difference between "good luck" and God. You think these are unrelated concepts, but I'm not sure why. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

If I sound condescending it is because you are no different from a fundamentalist muslim. That is you refuse to critically examine your belief set objectively. To answer hypothetical questions will lead you in a direction you refuse to go. You demand that others prove the unprovable as evidence that there is a God. Understand this: we agree that God is neither a flying spaghetti monster, nor a bearded old man laying on a cloud. Relax, I understand your position completely, because I've been where you are. It's okay. Each finds his own path in due time.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe there is a reason it is "unprovable." Truth be told, I think what passes for "good luck" is also random. Just as the rest of universe, this computer I'm typing on and the bowl of Cheerios I had for breakfast. It occurred through chance that this came about--not by a bearded man in the sky waving a wand. If you are looking for fantasy, watch Harry Potter or read the bible. I live in a world of facts and evidence and am content to do so until my lamp is extinguished. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I really have no idea what Harry Potter or the Bible has to do with the central question. After all this talking I have discerned (with much difficulty) that you attribute all that we see to "good luck". I call it "God" but I agree completely that whether it's just good luck or whether it is God this realization does not change reality. Other than that we are in complete agreement. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Good, we agree that god is a delusion based on random chance and superstition in the ill-informed mind. Glad to hear that, too. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

No. We agree that your misinformed characterization of the word "God" is the based on your perceptions about what you think God is. Since we agree that the universe is the product of luck, henceforth I will refer to the guiding force behind the universe as Luck so as to not offend your belief-set.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

''Don't you love how the Truth flows like water? No matter where you damn it up, it will still find the way. This is the miracle of Luck to me.'' [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:05, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

good lord this is boring.... [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

How 'bout I say "you win" and you evangelize someone else? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's "reasoning" for you ... heh ... [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, you win by attrition. Congrats. Now, I'll go back to not going to churc and telling school children there is no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Funny, you took the words right out of my mouth. ;-) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So, in fact this is not attrition or victory (I was never trying to win). Rather the discussion is at an end because you have refused to expand the boundaries of your perceptions. You came here believing that god was a myth and you continue to believe that god is a myth. You refuse to examine the implications of this possibility: myths are myths, but God is something else entirely. The thing you call Luck, I call God. That's called finding common ground. Your current problem is your very fearful of where that common ground might take you. It might shatter your arrogantly held belief-set.

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Good Luck==
Since all of the universe occurred out of good luck (according to Flippin), can we humans influence Luck? Should we attempt to commune with Luck? Do you think that hundreds of thousands of years ago, men (equally smart) pondered these same questions (since they didn't have a TV to occupied their evenings). Do you think luck, or perhaps Luck, resulted in the strange coincidence that after many generations the consensus view in every culture and society has always been that we can affect our luck by a combination of worshipping Luck and doing good things? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::No no no no no no no. The universe came to be the way it is due to the laws of physics etc, that so far have been proven to be as true as anything can be and apply to the universe exceedingly well. Add to this the theory of evolution, and yes there are one or two holes there, but soon we will have filled them all. The process of life is an attempt to discover things. You may say that we believe that we came here due to luck however i do not believe this to be true. We came here because of a reason that i do not know. However i have faith that i will not remain ignorant forever, and that soon we will know and we need not invoke luck or god to describe how we got here.

::I sympathise with you because of your above description of how you came to be a deist, however there are a few things that you might need to consider again. Firstly that just because we dont know something does not mean that we will always not know it. Look at the progress science has made over the past 500 years. We have gone from believing that the earth is at the centre of the universe and that the world is only 6000 years old, to the earth being just one planet revolving around an unremarkable star and is over 4 billion years old. Consider what we may discover in the next 500 years as our technology continues to progress and we begin to explore space outside the playground of the solar system. I would not be surprised if within my lifetime, we have an explanation for how life started and a reason for the big bang that does not rely on some higher being.

::As an aside i think that to say that as you grow older you grow wiser is slightly misguided. Yes a some people do because they have more experience and they have the foresight to use that to plan there future. However a large part of the human population does not use this experience at all, and simply assumes that they know best because they are older not because they are wiser. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:27, 27 April 2007

What's the difference between what you just said and what I just said? You wrote, "The universe came to be the way it is due to the laws of physics etc, that so far have been proven to be as true as anything can be and apply to the universe exceedingly well." Okay. we agree. So the universe is ordered. It has laws. How did the "laws" come about? Did the protons and electrons elect a neutron who decided what laws everyone should follow? I guess these laws are and always have been. I guess we were just lucky to have the Laws of Physics.

As an aside I find this assertion amusing, "As an aside i think that to say that as you grow older you grow wiser is slightly misguided." I'm not so much suprised that someone who believes there is more wisdom in youth than in age doubts the foundations of the philosophies that provided his every waking and sleeping daily need. I wish I were that naive again. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:21, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::We, as in humanity, do not know why the laws of physics happen to be the way they are. Maybe there was no choice, and for the universe to have come into existence these laws must have been the way they are. Or maybe there are other explanations. We simply do not know, however again, this admission of lack of knowledge does not mean that I decide that therefore God must be the answer. I simply accept that I do not know everything and then I attempt to find out why such things are the way they are. I do not think that we were lucky to have the laws of physics, I am confident that there is a solid scientific reason that does not allow any greater sentience to have a hand in things and that this reason will become evident in the not to distant future.

::I do not think there is more wisdom in youth than in age. That is the reason I said 'slightly misguided'. Not totally misguided and not completely idiotic. Just that there are old people who are not wise just as there are young people who are. I do not claim to be one of those young people, I am not wise in any sense, although I do hope to learn from my experiences and others and thus become wise. However many people do not use experience in this way and so do not become wise, just as some people pick up on things quickly and are. I do not doubt the foundations of the philosophies that provide me with such. I doubt the philsophies of Thomas Aquinas, St Anselm and any that have agreed with these two charlatans parading themselves as philosophers.[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:52, 28 April 2007

::''Bolly, '''please''' learn the conventions of colons to seperate text. (I'm tired of adding your colons.) I put instructions on your discussion page some days ago.''

==The Imaginary Catalyst==
There's a part of the concept you're having a very difficult time wrapping your head around. You wrote:

::''We simply do not know, however again, this admission of lack of knowledge does not mean that I decide that therefore God must be the answer.''

You don't know it but your making an argument of semantics not a argument of logic. It doesn't matter whether you call it Luck, God, or some as yet uknown catalyst, in the end all rational humans agree that SOMETHING is the answer. Once we agree that there answer then we can begin to examine by deduction the properties of that something. People tend to get hung up on words because it connects them to some childhood they are rebelling against or a childhood that they are attempting to validate.

Whether we call it God, Luck, Fate, No-alternative, the concept descriptor doesn't change the concept. In other to explain to others, I prefer to find use words which make sense to them, rather than fighting them about things that don't matter. Here's another way to look at it:

Do you remember the concept of ''i'', the imaginary number from mathematics? Conservapedia doesn't have an article about ''i'' yet, but you can read one from Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number | here]. The idea behind ''i'' is that some concepts are not fully understood but still can be examined in an objective manner. According to some Wikipedia editor,
:"''Many other mathematicians were slow to believe in imaginary numbers at first, including Descartes who wrote about them in his La Géométrie, where the term was meant to be derogatory.''"
Thus, I can understand why you are resistant to this concept. But if mathemeticians can do it, so can you.

Forget about "God", the word touches a fear deep in your psyche. The previous debater wanted to call it ''Luck''. How about for your benefit we call it ''g'', an as-yet unknown causation of the laws of physics and the origins of the universe as God. I agree we might one day learn all the properties of ''g'' but right now we don't know the properties of ''g''.

The atheistic proposition is we haven't discovered the imaginary catalyst yet, and therefore ''g'' doesn't exist. The deistic proposition is that it's silly to think that ''g'' doesn't exist just because we can't understand or define ''g''. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree with you over all your points there except your final one. As you say, the catalyst can be called ''g'' as i feel that leaves out any unnecessary baggage that comes with the terms god or luck. My point is not that ''g'' does not exist, of course it does. There must have been a catalyst. My view is that ''g'' is not some sentient thing, rather it is some process that is automatic and with no thought, such as a boulder rolling down a hill. The boulder has no choice in the matter of rolling, nor does it have any way of experiencing its rolling, as it has no nerves or centre of intelligence with which to experience outside influences such as gravity. This is how i see ''g''. It is (was) a process that happened with no alternative or even any way of knowing there could be an alternative.

::Apologies for not using colons, I did not realise this was common courtesy on this site. Thankyou for pointing that out to me. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:03, 29 April 2007

==Let Me Paint a Picture==

(NB also posted on [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]], but that had a title so obscure that I thought no-one would read it there!)

Just suppose there was a universe in a multiverse far far away....

... and in that universe, which came from nothing, and had no organisation, no structure, by some remote chance of fate that only happens once in every 10 to the squillion years, that matter self organised into a self-reproducing molecule. To begin with, that structure was crude, basic and lacked any real semblance of we might call life, but it had one single feature, that it was able to self-replicate (albeit somewhat haphazardly) and reproduce. Reproduce it did, and over time there were many copies of this thing. I say 'thing'; I actually mean things, because from this simple rudimentary molecule, came others, better equipped to reproduce, and so began the process of reproduction, change, survival and adaptation.

A squillion years passed and that self-reproducing molecule had became so sophisticated that it was no longer a molecule, but had packaged itself with a coating of material for protection; that material had its own molecules which told it how to reproduce and survive, how to accrete and modify naturally occurring minerals in the surrounding context, and how to use the natural energy of starlight to produce different molecules.

Time passed, and these packages of molecules began to take on a myriad forms; some remained stationary, making complex molecules from the atmosphere and starlight; others roamed about using the stationary packages as raw materials to create their own package coverings. The diversity was amazing. The single molecule had by now invaded every part of the planet; every ecological niche was filled by a different type of package, and everything worked. Many of the moving packages began to use other packages for their material needed to grow and survive; some got rather good at it. Some even began to be able to structure rudimentary plans of how to do it better, and these were passed on to other packages of the same type. These packages became so good at adapting to their environment that they began to shape their environment for themselves; at first, simply finding cosy spots to rest, then hollowing out spaces or using material to construct things.

One day, one of these packages, used the complex set of molecules within its package not to plan a nice cosy spot to rest, or to work out even better ways of accreting more material to itself, but to ask the question 'Why am I here?' That unanswered question inevitably led to other questions, such as 'What is space?' 'What is time?', and 'Why is so much of my life spent looking for nice cosy spots to rest and better ways of accreting material to myself?'.

A squillion years later and the descendants of these packages were still asking themselves the same questions. Long ago they had enlisted the help of most of the universe in their quest to find the answers. They had harnessed the power of the very small: atomic nuclei and quantum fluctuations to power and drive their auxilliary questioning devices; they had reached out on the very large scale to the furthest depths of their universe, and all were connected. The question was still unanswered until one day, the huge, all-encomassing packeage managed to make the final connection which pieced everything in the universe together. Then it all fell into place. All at once the package could see - not only where everything is, but how everything was, and where it will be. The package knew all the answers, and knew that it could change them.

For a time, the package wallowed in smugness and self-satisfaction. It had answered all of the questions that could usefully be asked, and many that were useless. There followed a period of boredom followed by a long peiod of emptiness. Most of all, it was lonely. Desperately and unutterably lonely. How lonely you cannot possibly imagine. Destined to be for the whole of time without any other being for comfort or companionship. It craved attention. For a while it went mad. Then out of that madness came a brilliant idea. As it could change time and space, why not look back over its long multisquillion year history and change things?

The universal package didnt really approve of its humble beginnings so it decided that a tweak here or there wouldn't go amiss. The first package to ask the question 'Why am I here?' didn't really seem right. Wouldn't it be better if the first question recognised the importance of where that primitive package was heading? Why not change that question to 'Who put me here?' or 'What am I destined for?', or more importantly 'Is this everything, or is there something else?'. Best of all, putting the idea 'Who put me here?' meant that primitive packages would come to a realisation (but not understand the significance) of a universal package, and would begin to talk to it.

Its first attempts to do this were crude and clumsy. They missed the mark by miles. Packages attributed 'universal package status' to stars, minerals, and other packages, but not the one universal package itself. Then it hit upon the solution, almost by accident - to put into the mind of one lowly package the idea that this lowly package was the naturally occuring descendant of the one universal package. That idea was so powerful that it reverberated down through the whole of time like an avalanche down a mountain slope. All at once, all the packages wanted to talk to the universal package, and it was happy. It was no longer alone, and it was loved.

Some packages believed in the one universal package; other packages believed that they had arisen from the mud of the planet in a multi squillion year history. Did it matter to the universal package? Not a jot. They were both right - and both wrong. It amused the universal package to watch the antics of these primitve packages arguing with each other in such a pointless manner. This was entertainment, and it was certainly much better than being bored, lonely or going mad.

--CatWatcher 02:35, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That was great. It is the most stupid yet intelligent thing i have heard for ages. You should copyright that story then sell it as a new religion. As well as this it also makes a weird sort of sense. God is just some random who discovered the question and answer to the ultimate question of the life, the universe and everything and was driven to madness, lonliness and complete power. He then used that power to make people pray to him so he could feel loved!! Ahh...the irony. God, who loves everyone, only wants to be loved in return. So I suppose that now, as an atheist, I'm a cruel sadistic bastard who denies a lonely superbeing some loving care. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:54, 29 April 2007

Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?

2007-04-29T08:16:12Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Some responses */

A recent report in New Scientist see http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426006.000-chimps-are-the-most-refined-ape-of-all.html.team found that 233 chimp genes, compared with only 154 human ones, have been changed by selection since chimps and humans split from their common ancestor about 6 million years ago (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0701705104). In the research Jianzhi Zhang and his colleagues at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, compared DNA sequences for 13,888 human, chimp and rhesus macaque genes.

This research appears to demonstrate that chimps are more evolved than humans, and if this is correct, has some implications for the creationist's claim that we were made in god's image. If this is true, then god would appear to be less evolved than a chimp.

More seriously, it is difficult for the creation story to account for the history that can be read into the succession of DNA sequence changes, and in particular, to account for why god's chosen species should require fewer changes to 'get right' than chimpanzees. --[[User:Felix|Felix]] 11:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:The question makes the assumption that evolution starts with a ''primitive'' form and progresses to an ''advanced'' form. That's not strictly true. Unfortunately the article [[evolution]] won't help clarify how evolution works. Try another encyclopedia. The question is daft becuse it is based on a misunderstanding of evolution.

I completely doubt the validity of any of their research. But if it is true that humans have had less microevolution than chimps, I think it shows that, since humans were created in God's own image, it takes fewer changes to get it "right". I think, physically, we have always been alright. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Auld Nick is right of course, nothing is "more evolved" than anything else by the standards of the question. Certain species are more suited to survive and reproduce within their environmental niche. That's all. Anything that is ill-suited to survive in its niche is likely to become extinct - it isn't "less evolved". The "most evolved" species is whichever one has undergone the most genetic mutations since it diverged from the first concestor. That could just as easily be a fly or a germ as an ape or homo sapiens.
[[User:Olly|Olly]] 11:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

===Some responses===
To David R:
First of all the question does not assume that anything starts off being 'primitive', and moves onto something 'advanced'. You have inserted this language into the debate, not me. In addition, how can you doubt the validity of their research without actually reading it? What on earth can you mean by the statement "physically, we have always been alright"; physically, we have fitted into the ecological niche that we are fit for. It seems to me that 'alright' is a judgemental term about quality.

To Olly
You are wrong. The notion of 'genetic distance' between two species is a demonstrable fact. We can analyse DNA to find out the number of base pairs that are different, and can determine how far apart two species are. What will be contentious to the creationists is to go that step further and say that two species which are close genetically, such as humans and chimpanzees have evolved from a common ancestor. In these terms, the chimpanzee appears to have undergone more genetic mutations than humans (a lot more), so in that sense it is more evolved. I am not saying that chimpanzees are the 'most evolved' animal on the planet, just that they are 'more evolved' than humans, by virtue of having a greater number of base pair changes from their common ancestor. Their survival is a function of the base pair changes, and for the purposes of this debate, is totally irrelelvant.
--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 14:28, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Felix, thanks. I understand what you're saying and of course you are right - but I still maintain that nothing is "more evolved" in the sense of the original question. Obviously the original question is yours so we are at cross-purposes here. The only sense in which "God" might be involved in evolution is if evolution were in fact leading to a predefined "ideal" species, which creationists believe to be homo sapiens. I don't think you or I believe that to be the case - and creationists (here at least) reject evolution, let alone natural selection, as the cause of the variety of species. So it's rather moot. Apologies for my contrariness, I can't help it I'm afraid. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 05:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

This argument does not mean Chimps are "better" than humans.

Being more evolved means that species has been under a greater pressure to evolve or that the species has become a specialist, very well adapted to its own environment.
It does not mean it's the most successful or robust species on Earth:
Chimps are better suited to survive in a jungle environment and have greater physical strength than humans, but humans can survive pretty much everywhere and are more intelligent.
Cockroaches reproduce faster, can eat almost anything will survive a nuclear war and are able to thrive everywhere except the polar regions, even though they are relatively primitive.

Check out the "perfection" paragraph on the [[natural selection]] article.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I know this is a very tiny bone to pick however I'm pedantic. Cockroaches cannot survive a nuclear war, only the woodlouse can. Cockroaches are in fact more vunerable to nuclear radiation then most other species of invertabrate. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:15, 29 April 2007

==Question==

Isn't God the most evolved animal? Not in the "advanced" sense, but in the "alive the longest" sense. Just read your Bible, God goes from nasty and vindictive to kind and loving. I'd call that "evolution", or at least, "personal growth". PBUH, [[User:Human|Human]] 21:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

He got anger management classes from Ra (that other god who almost wiped out humanity for its sins).

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Atheism vs. Deism

2007-04-29T08:04:27Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* The Imaginary Catalyst */

Debate:Is religion morally wrong?

2007-04-28T10:55:30Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* This is an invalid question */

{{debate}}
==Yes==
anything that teaches young children to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question, and then teaches them that anyone who does not believe what they do is wrong and needs to have their immortal soul 'saved' is morally wrong. as well as that, waging wars against "non-believers" or "infidels" and killing thousands of millions of people, puts religion in the morally wrong category. as in interesting aside, the link to this debate is actually titled "is athiesm morally wrong?" which may need to be fixed. --[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30 (EDT)
: Done. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::''Wha' ...?'' Anyone who thinks that religion teaches one "to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question" just plain doesn't understand any religion to which I have ever been exposed. However, I'm pretty sure I can guess why your so confused.

::There is a belief, which is generally held by most religions and most people over the age of 30, that human nature is constant. Moral codes, philosophy and religion are built upon assumptions about the constants of human nature. In this way, moral codes are similar to alegbra. Algebra is built upon a foundation of unchanging constants. Math is unchanging. Human nature is unchanging. Therefore, each generation doesn't need to reinvent algebra. Similarly, each generation needn't rediscover the reason that people devised certain moral codes which were based upon countless generations of knowledge about human nature and where then incorporated into religion and philosophy.

::This does not mean that the field of mathemics should cease to expand. This does not mean that curiosity is bad. This means that we already know that 1+1=2. We already know what happens to civilizations and societies where wild sexual activities are encouraged. This does not mean that we stop digging up fossils. This does mean that we don't kill unborn children to expiriment on them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::(wow, first ever post on a debate page!) Everwill, I would argue that human nature '''is''' changing and most certainly can't be likened to algebra. Algebra is indeed definite. It always follows the same rules reagrdless of the complexity of the problem. Surely, you can't say that human nature is like that? The scale of variation is unimaginable!

:::Also, in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher. Or, they are taught in a slanted view, which distorts the truth. All this because those parents or teachers seem afraid that their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught! That '''is''' morally wrong. The choice should be the child's not the elders'. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a reason that William Shakespeare's dramas, King David's tribulations & and the Andy Griffith show (how's that for a unexpected twist?) are timeless stories that affect us in the same way as when they affected those to whom these stories were first told. They affect us all the same way because human nature does not change. The truth is we all love, hate, breath, live and die. The human condition is infinitely variable, but human nature is constant. Of course, there are countless examples of this simple and plainly evident truth. I'm quite sure I'm not the first one to tell you that human nature is the same. In fact, this truth is the foundation of our concepts of equality and our freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

::I don't want to spend a lot of time defending something that is an elemental and accepted truth spanning time, civilizations and belief systems. This is because I'm not sure whether you're denying the fact that human nature is universal because you are ignorant (unlikely) or because you are intellectually dishonesty (my guess). In either case, it would consume far too much time to explain to you the definition of human nature to your liking. But I what I can posit in reply is an answer to your simple question: there are absolutes in morality, just as there are absolutes in algebra. For example, murder is always wrong. There is no compromise in this principle.

::''As a quick aside I must note that I always find it humorous when people (usually liberals) stereotype the upbringing found in fundamentalist religious groups.''

::To your point, it is true that "in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." But guess what, you've just proven my point. This is because, EVERY SINGLE human that ever reached adulthood was "brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." '''DUH!'''

::It is possible that your theory is true. Perhaps, teachers and parents want to shield children from outside influences because "their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught!" But who do you think is most likely to have the child's best interests at heart? I would presume that a child's parents and that child's teachers want what is best for the child. I think you are implying that the pornographers, salesmen, MTV, rappers, strangers and passerby's---all of whom the child might find more interesting (and more permissive) than the parents and teachers---are better for the child? You think it's better that the child find out (the hard way) the lessons which the parents and grandparents into the mists of history, have already found out? Preposterous. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not argueing that modern celebrities are the way forwards by any means. The messages put forward by that group does not teach very good lessons for kids (or adults!). I'm merely pointing out that the near brainwashing of the young by their parents and teachers with regards religious teaching is also wrong and can teach a child "bad" things. An example would be homosexuality. Kids in religious families who think they might be gay receive no support from parents who believe that homosexuality is bad, simply because it is the parents belief. Surely a parents love for their child should come before their religion?

:::I am not being intellectually dishonest, just ignorant (ha like thats any better!). What I thought you meant by human nature isn't what is used in the definitions I found on the internet. I took human nature to be the general world viewpoint held by each individual person; where there is substantial difference!

:::I think argueing that children should accept what their parents tell them because they have learnt it from their experience is flawed. Every person has a different PoV so will experience things differently. If a child recieves all their advice from a parent who sees the world entirely differently to them, what will that child think of themselves? Is that fair on the child? A parent should be there for guidance, yes, but not for absolute teaching. To relate this to religion: religion is a predetermined set of "rules" that followers must stick to. Choosing a religion (and its rules) is a personal choice. Parents will naturally try to enforce their beliefs and rules on their children, thereby removing their choice to religion and actions, which is removing their freedom to be themselves. Surely that is a terrible wrong to do to that child? I am not argueing that children should be given no rules, nothing of the sort. I am merely saying that the rules given to a child by their parents should not be based on the religion of the parent(s) as that is a moral wrong to that child. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I see. By your logic the child should have rules and the rules should come from the parent (sort of) but the parent shouldn't base the rule structure or belief set upon something found in religion. Instead, you believe that religion must be by a higher and more correct authority. And just who is that authority? ''Will & Grace''? Madonna & Britney? Who is this higher and more perfect authority? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to enjoy mentioning celebrities...perhaps they have affected you more than you think. Their ability to corrupt is unbounded! I don't know what you mean by "religion must be by a higher and more correct authority". I am merely argueing for separation of of religious doctrine from a child's upbringing. Yes, make a child aware of their parents belief, why they believe it, etc., but don't "force it down their necks" or make them feel bad for "not believing". That is what I find to be morally wrong about religion: the automatic assumption of parents that their children should follow in their beliefs. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

a childs parents should bring up their children to be open to new ideas and to trust their senses and logic in ideological matters. religion of any kind does not allow this to be taught to children. as well as this, many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is a false characterization of religion, perhaps based in ignorance. Every major religion teaches personal accountability and free will. Therefore, religion encourages children (and everyone else) to "trust their senses and logic in ideological matters." Religion is a framework to assist in decision making. Religion does not take personal responsiblity or logic from anyone. (Perhaps you should read a bit of C.S. Lewis or Thomas Aquinas to better acquaint yourself with the value of logic to the Christian mind.)

::You state (no caps and no punctuation are all yours): "many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are." Who knows better what the child's best interests are? The media? The government? The child? Who?

::I'm glad we're having this discussion, mostly because it's apparent that you are the victim of the propaganda of another religion. You're repeating the mantra of the liberal religion, which teaches that all religions are equal and there are no moral boundaries. Your religion might be the "one true" religion, but I doubt it.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

The childs best interests are known only by the child itself. I do not mean to say that no parents ever get it right, or wrong, however what is in the childs best interests is not to foist a belief system on him/her without letting him/her have any choice or free will in the matter. The majority of religions (liberal or fundamentalist) do not encourage children to take advantage of their natural curiosity and explore all the possibilities of logic and science, as they see science as a threat to their belief system. Just as an example, the enactment of hell that occurs in an American state led by Pastor Ted Roberts which attempts to scare children into beliveing in God by scaring them with the sheer horror of the act. This would be dismissed as simply a fringe sect, however the supporters of this pastor, in his home state (i apologise for not knowing which state this is) number around 3 million. This is only one example of the methods used by religious leaders to force children into mindlessly believing what they are told. Another example is the muslim state of Saudi Arabia, where simply being of another faith or of no faith at all, is punishable by beheading. Note the similar use of fear tactics in both cases here. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:54, 19 April 2007

::What you're trying to say makes sounds ridiculous to me, but perhaps this is because we have not agreed to what the meaning of the word "child" is. Please allow me to insert a few definitions so that I don't miss your point and vice-versa.

:::* ward --- someone incapable of making personal decisions for some reason or another. There are several types of ward:
::::* child --- This individual cannot make personal decisions because they have not reached maturity (generally 17 and under). Children might step into traffic. Children might drink poison. Children can be cultivated into giving sexual favors to pedofiles. For all these reasons and many more, "parents" (''defined below'') make decisions for parents.
::::** mental defective --- This individual has poor reasoning skills or does not understand reality. For this reason "parents" or care-takers must make decisions for the mental defective
::::** sick or enfermed --- This individual might be in a coma. This individual might be extremely sick or otherwise unable to communicate. Thus, caretakers or "parents" must make decisions for this individual.

:::* parent --- one (ideally of two) individuals responsible for the care and nuturing of a ward or child

:::* adult --- An individual who is mentally competant and mature and thus has the free will to make any decisions they want so long as they don't violate the laws of the community where they reside.

::Children, and in fact, all other wards, need people to care for them and to make decisions for them. I'm quite sure there are a good many teenagers who would agree with your ridiculous notion that children make should make their own decisions, but most adults and most parents today (and throughout history) have come to agree that it is both unwise and unsafe to grant complete and total freewill to children (perhaps most especially teenagers). This is because children don't alwasy make good decisions. Children are easily swayed and they don't have the normal defenses of doubt and fear of strangers to protect them.

::This is a plain, simple and accepted truth. I'm not sure what possible connection that has to anything Ted Roberts ever said or did. Whether Ted Roberts or Jeffrey Dahmer or Hitler is a bogeyman or not, that doesn't change the fact that children need parents. I guess what you'll have to accept is that some parents will raise children who don't agree with your beliefs. I'm quite comfortable with the fact that not all parents or people agree with me. I much too busy and quite frankly don't feel the need to tell other people how to raise their children. I doubt you have any idea what any of the parents in former Pastor Robert's church are teaching their children. I thought liberals believed in tolerance and diversity? Why can't you tolerate their differences and celebrate their Christian diversity?

::What would you like to see in Saudi Arabia, a crackdown on parents? Do you want to take the children from their parents and raise them yourself? Have you ever considered the possiblity that the concept (called "fascism") of imposing your values upon others is wrong-heaed and evil? Don't you think Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live? Are you trying to suggest that the US should invade Saudi Arabia and replace the mullahs with ACLU? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No i am not attempting to say much of that, i think that you are right in that i have misunderstood the point that you were making. I do apologise for that. What i would like to say in regards to your previous point, is that while i agree that parents should have the role in making decisions for their children (with an increasing amount of input from the child as they grow older) at the same time, they should not force their beliefs onto their children and, where possible, educate them enough so that they have the intelligence and a high enough level or reasoning to be able to make their own decision in matters of faith and belief. While a lot of parents do this, i believe that the majority don't, although i am willing and hoping to be proven wrong. I do belive in tolerance and diversity, but that is what my main problem with religion is. Religion tends to preach the opposite of this, generally against other faiths but also against homosexuals and other groups that seem to break the rules of their faith. I do think that Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live, however i think that maybe a lot do not want to live the way they do, and that another large number would not want to live that way, if they were not devout muslims. I honestly think the US should keep out of the middle east in general, as the problems it has caused there seem to be greater then the amount solved, however that is not the topic on discussion here. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:56, 20 April 2007

:This debate title seems to be relatively unfocussed, but the debate itself seems to have settled down into a focussed discussion of whether or not it is morally right for religions to pass on their codifications, conventions and beliefs to their children in a manner which could be construed as 'indoctrination'. [[Richard Dawkins]] makes the point that it would not be acceptable in today's society to label children as 'a Democrat Child' or 'a Republican child', nor to set up schools which say that we are going to only teach 'Democrat' values in this school, and to only honour Democrats. However, it does appear to be acceptable to have 'catholic' scools, catholic, muslim and hindu children. Why is this? Any Religion and or Political Stance, when it comes down to it are idealogies, and have many parallels in the way they are dogmatic about the way that adherents should behave. They both present strong arguments as to the way that you should treat knowledge, evidence, and all present a very biased world view. This is fine if you are an adult, and you understand the rules, and you know that this is the way the world works, and that you have a choice about whether to question or to belive at all; but if you are an uimpressionable youngester you could be scarred for life: 'Give me a child until he is seven...."

There is a very strong argument to say that we should NOT allow people to present contraversial points of view to children AS IF these were uncontestable facts. This, after all, is the arguments of the creationists against evolution. They maintain children should be exposed to both points of view. However, I cannot imagine that any catholic school would suggest teaching that God may or may not exist, and allowing children to experience both the sacrament and the indoctrination ceremony of freemasons, and asking them to compare & contrast!--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 04:18, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Thankyou Felix for articulating what i was attempting to say, and i apologise again to Everwill for not wording my arguement very clearly. Having attended an anglican school till i was 13, i never was fully concious that they did not present their teachings as anything other then indisputable fact and that we were expected to believe that without question. The other thing that struck me was that i was never allowed to avoid communion on the basis that i was an atheist, while one of my friends who was jewish was excused. It was almost as if they rathered that we believed in a god, even if it is a slightly different set of beliefs that come attached, than that we had no beliefs at all. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30, 20 April 2007

::Bolly, it sounds like you're trying to impose your own parental issues on others. I understand that you thought you were an atheist and yoru parents wanted to impose their theistic beliefs on you. The fact is, they have every right to impose these theistic beliefs on you. After you come of age, you can think or do anything you like. It would appear that they weren't too oppressive and it would appear they were quite open-minded because they raised an atheist. It would appear that you are the one who is oppressive because you want to raise other children to think like you. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:15, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

No, my parents are both atheists as well, the only reason i went to that school was because it was the best school in the area. However adults do not have the right to impose their theistic beliefs on their children, just as they have no right to impose their political ideologies on them. Children are trusting of their parents because in the majority of situations their parents are doing what is best for them. What i believe parents should do is to raise their children to be open minded about belief regardless of their own beliefs. Therefore any parents should educate their children about different faiths (including atheism although it is not really a faith) in a totally balanced and fair manner with no predjudice. This allows children to make up their own mind about their own personal beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:48, 21 April 2007

::Ever wonder why the religious school was the best school in the area? Have you ever once considered the possibility that this school was better because the religious school wasn't attempting to relearn the lessons of the past? This school already had a functioning set of moral codes and they didn't need to wander through the maze of pitfalls in our new ACLU-friendly world of multi-culturalist moral equivelancy? Or perhaps you think the school was better because of dumb luck?

::As defined above, adults do not have the right to impose their beliefs on children. However, ''parents'' have a right (and more importantly a duty) to impose their beliefs on children. Parents should educate their children in the way that feels best to them.

::But what you fail to comprehend is that '''anything''' you teach children is a view point. You're just upset because you want everyone else to teach your view point. Your viewpoint embraces moral equivalism and the belief that all religions are equal. That is a viewpoint. It may or may not be valid, but the fact is, it is a viewpoint. It is just another value-set. It may or may not be more valid than the values of another parent. That's an argument that can be had, but it's not at issue here.

::The issue is that you want other parents to teach their children what you believe. Furthermore, you think it's immoral that they won't teach their children your values. Don't you think that's a little silly? Do you think you're any different from the fundamentalist Christians who are upset because you're not teaching your child about Jesus? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 05:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Imposing values on other people's children==

Yes i did think about why my school was the best school in the area. The reason was that it was the richest, as it was a private school and charged massive fees for attendance. And its moral codes are almost indistinguishable from the school i attended after, which was an international college and had no religious affiliation. No adults do not have a right to impose their beliefs on children. Parents also do not have this right. To impose a personal belief on a trusting child is not morally right. Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe. I believe that all parents should teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice. Up until a certain age, say 13, children cannot believe in anything purely because it makes sense to them and, if allowed by their parents, many children do make up their own religion for a while or switch repeatedly between religions until they reach a point of maturity where they can make a choice based upon what they have learned. Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:37, 21 April 2007

::You absolutely don't make any sense. I always think ''ad hominem'' attacks are inappropriate, so I hope I don't sound like I'm attacking you, but based upon the evidence (spelling, grammatical & punctuation errors) I'm beginning to doubt your claim that your private school was the best in the area. Furthermore, I doubt that the religious indoctrination in your school was oppressive based upon the fact that you obviously attended the school, but don't share the school's values. I can't help but tell you that once again you have posted something which does not make logical sense.

::You wrote:
:::"''Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism.''"
::Of course exploiting anyone (most especially children) is never morally right. This is because according to Merriam Webster Online "exploit" means "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <''exploiting migrant farm workers''>". But you haven't laid even a meager basis for this wild accusation. Who are you accusing of exploiting children and for what gain? Are you trying to say that parents are exploiting their own children? What do parents gain from that?

::You write,
:::"''Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe.''"
::In the first sentence you describe your "beliefs" (which is just a different term for your "religion") and furthermore you demand that parents teach their children your values. In the second sentence you state the exact opposite. Perhaps the silliest thing you imply is that it is somehow dangerous or bad to trust your parents and teachers. If one can't trust ones parents or teachers, then who can one trust?

::I very seriously doubt you have learned much if anything through this process you describe above. I doubt you have tested how the world works to verify the claims of teachers and parents. For example, I'm pretty sure you trusted your Driver's Education teacher when he told you that "green means go". You didn't feel the need to experiment with driving on red first. I doubt you ever verified any claims made in the DMV Manual by using the scientific method and a double-blind study. I'm pretty sure that you trust that when you flip a light switch and turn on the boob-tube that electrons will serve your will and pleasure. But, I doubt you have actually flown a kite in a thunderstorm to verify that electricity exists. By the same token, I doubt you need to violate any of the Ten Commandments to agree that these simple laws are for the benefit of all of humanity. I'm sure you agree that children don't need to experiment with adultery, murder or lying. They're better off just taking their parents' word that these are bad things.

::The reason you agree is because it's just plain silly to waste time verifying every claim of trusted parents and teachers. Therefore, the issue for you is not that "children need to reason things on their own".

::The real issue for you is that you are an atheistic evangelist and you are frustrated because some people aren't open to receiving your message. You are frustrated because some people trust their parents more than they trust you.

::Buck up, trooper. You should satisfy yourself with the many victories of the secular progressive agenda. For example, traditional parents were forced to allow people like you to ban prayer and religious discussion from our schools. This should satisfy you. Now you can safely raise your children without fear that they will overhear a prayer and thus they might accidentally become infected with religion. You have successfully had the 10 Commandments removed from many courtrooms. Be happy because you've already won all you can logically win.

::The only thing left for you is to take away more freedom from others to practice their religion and teach their religion to their children. You're not satisfied with leaving them to do what they want to do. Instead, you want to teach other people's children to force parents (and I quote) to "''teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice.''" Why do you feel the need to force other people not to talk about religion until the child is thirteen?

::My guess is that you believe this because you can't seem to understand that your personal opinion about religion '''is''' just another religion. I'm quite sure that you are trying to be a good person. I'm quite sure that you want to teach other people your religion because you want what's best for the child. But in America we have a concept called "Freedom of Religion". Because of our Freedom of Religion, you are prohibited from ramming your value-set down the throats of other people's children.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I admit you have quite easily picked out some flaws in the way i have argued my point, and you are right in about that paragraph where i contradict myself. I shall attempt to explain myself more clearly. I do not think all children should be taught my beliefs. That is the most important part. My beliefs are of the atheistic kind, as you already know. What i think is that children should not be indoctrinated into any religion or set of beliefs. If the person chooses at a later date to be a christian or muslim or atheist, good on them. But, to come to your point on how we trust what certain people tell us about certain things, like the driving instructor when it comes to driving and so on, children trust their parents. That is because the vast majority of parents do have their childrens best interests in mind all the time. However some do use this trust, often without intending to, to teach their child to believe what they believe about God, or lack thereof (you are right about exploiting, it was the wrong word to use in that situation). My arguement in a nutshell: Children should have freedom of religion. What i mean by that is that they should not be influenced by their parents. Because many people do not have freedom of religion, in America or elsewhere (i should point out that freedom of religion is part of the Australian constitution as well) as they did not realise they had a choice. They have always been brought up to believe that Christianity was right, or that Islam was right, etc. and because it is from their parents whom they trust, they do not question this, and they are often denied the tools with which to apply logic to religious arguements.

Just as an aside to my main point, the ten commandments aren't actually such a great set of morals to live by. The very first commandment violates freedom of religion : thou shalt worship no other god but me. Also, according to the commandments, disrespecting your parents results in being stoned to death. And to compound it, thou shalt not kill, does not apply to people who are not the same religion as you. When taken the way they were intended, they aren't such a good set of morals to live by. [[User:Bolly Ottihw:Bolly Ottihw]] 14:57, 23 April 2007
::I won't waste time defending the Ten Commandments, something I belive to be a foundation of everything good in Western Civilization. The courts have agreed to remove the Ten Commandments from public life and I am not in a position to change the law, so I obey the law.

::But I will repeat the following in the hopes that you might understand this concept. Your opinion about religion, in other words "your personal definition of freedom of religion" is just another religion. It is clear that you want other parents to teach your definition of "freedom of religion" to other children.

::It may offend your sensibilities, but some people don't agree with your opinions about religion. In American, they don't have to agree with you. They can believe whatever they want. Thus, most American parents teach their children that America is a free country, where people can believe whatever they want. Further, they teach their children their own family's values and religion. Some people are Baptists or Muslims or Hindus. Some people (like you) prefer like to teach their children to sample a hodgepodge of all religions so that they will better understand atheism. That is their right. Please don't take it away from them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Selective application of logic==
Isn't it amusing that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age, but the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, i disagree (although of course i would, i am a so-called liberal). I think that the reason is that there are facts about sex and that religion is more hazy, in that there is very little proof on both sides of the arguement, and it becomes philosophical which is harder for a child to deal with. However i think that sex education should start at around age 13, which is about the same time i think children should start to seriously consider their religion or beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 15:03, 23 April 2007

You disagree with what? You disagree with:
::* The assertion that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age;
::* The assertion that the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age;
::* With the idea of teaching children family values;
::* With the idea of teaching children regilious values;
::* With the idea that sex education should be postponed;
::* All of the above;
::* Something else?

You don't make much sense to me.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Aside from the fact that you've ignored the bulk of what Bolly wrote and focused mainly on a fairly trivial thing that he said, you seem to think that "we" (being us liberal bods) are applying selective logic by saying we should teach about "sex" and not religion. In fact, by your reasoning, "you" (being the conservative bunch) are applying the same selective logic by saying that we should teach religion but not teach "sex". A horrible dilemma for you, don't you think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::1. I've not ignored anything anyone said. Please explain.

::2. I'm sorry that I've seemed to confuse you. Please allow me to explain my interpretation of the conservative position on the education of sex and the education of religion.
:::* One should teach children family values, morals and religion at an early age. This is for the child's benefit and for the benefit of mankind. (As an adult they can do whatever they would like to do, provided they don't break the law.)
:::* Regarding sex, the conservative position is that it is desirable to prolong the child's innocence by postponing sex education as long as possible.
::I'm sorry if this flavor of common sense offends you. Furthermore, I'm sorry but I can't begin to understand why this common sense would support in any way the ridiculous notion that "religion is morally wrong" by ''any'' definition of "religion" as posted below by another editor. As best as I can figure from the poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled statements above here's what I suppose the liberal position is:
:::* One should not teach children about religion because religion is evil. They won't come to realize how evil religion is until they reach 13 to 25 (commonly known as the Age of Rebellion). As a quick aside, it is a universal truth that the older people become, the wiser they become. I wonder why churches are full of old people?
:::* One should teach children about sex as soon as they are old enough to masturbate. This is because masturbation is healthy and can lead to an active and enjoyable sex life. It's important for children to understand the dangers of STD's and how to avoid pregnancy through the use of pills and condoms. Furthermore, all children should be aware if a little girl wants want an abortion, she can safely get an abortion without her parent's ever even knowing that she was pregnant. In this way she can continue with the lifestyle of her choosing without parents invading her right to privacy. If a child has a child and ends up dependent on the parents or the system, it's the conservative's fault for not talking about birth control more.
::Please correct me if I've mistated the liberal position.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You ignored the fact that Bolly made a valid point about the definition of fact and religion, and the age at which children should be educated about "sex".

:::Secondly, you say yourself that the statements written above are "poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled" and then go on to derive a definition from them!? Surely a better course of action would have been to take the definition from some credible source? As to what you have said, I would agree with most of what you define the conservative view to be, apart from teaching children a specific religion at an early age. I suppose it comes down to setting an age where innocence is lost (and I doubt many are naive enough to think that that is the age of consent). People under the age of 16 will have sex (not all, but some) and if no sex education is available for them, what sort of experiences will they have? Is it not better that from a certain age (and I would say that 13 is a good age for this to start) children are introduced to the idea of safe sex, with few (and preferably one) partner(s)?

:::You're right though, we have divulged from the debate topic, but this is an interesting tangent to the debate which I would very much like to continue if you care to carry on? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::For the second time, I'm ignoring Bolly's "valid point" because I have no clue what you are talking about. I didn't read any valid point which wasn't addressed ''ad nauseum'' already. Please read the dialogue to this point if you are confused as to why I think it's ridiculous (and invalid) to demand that other people teach their children ''your'' values. I've already explained why this is ridiculous above.

::I attempted to derive a definition from Bolly's statement only to appease your pretense of indignation when you accused me of ignoring Bolly's alleged "points". By your reaction, I'm now assuming that you just haven't read the entire argument yet and that you concur, Bolly made no points in the gibberish above. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

My point was that i think that children should be educated about sex and religion at the same age. This is because it is the age where both become major issues for children growing up. Please do explain how this is hard to understand, and how this is a selective application of logic. (I apologise for my poor grammar, it is because i write my line or thought and arguement down the same way i would say it out loud) [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:42, 24 April 2007

::You don't need to keep writing the same thing over and over and over. We already understand your opinion about how ''you think'' things should be. You've made that quite clear.

::What you still don't seem to understand is that you don't have the right to tell other people how to live, nor do you have the right to teach other children your beliefs. That's pretty self-centered. You're self-centered nature is further evidenced by the fact that you admission that you would prefer to force others to spend their precious time deciphering your cryptic musings directly from your stream of consciousness, rather than taking the time and effort to write coherent sentences with good spelling and grammar. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Age at which sex education should be taught==

Regarding the interesting tangent: to what particularly are you referring? Are you trying to debate the age at which sex education should be imposed upon children?

This is a complicated issue because there are several related factors. Most churches teach that sex outside of marriage is adultery, a sin and a mistake. But it is my personal opinion, that church and religion is a guideline and the morals espoused therein are ideals. Ideally one never lies. Ideally one never commits adultery. But here in the real world, there are a good many liars and adulterers (myself included in both counts). Additionally, most parents think that sex under the age of 18 is a mistake. Most everyone agrees that sex under the age of 16 is a mistake. Does it happen in the real world? Yes it happens. Beyond the basic biological functions of sex, sexuality is about morality. Certainly every child over the age of 13 should be taught something about the biology of sex. But what of the morality of the sex, the politics of sex and the religious or spiritual aspects of sex? These are much more complicated and personal issues and these issues should be handled within the family.

I think it's important to teach young teens "where babies come from." I think it's important to leave discussions about homosexuality, adultery and abortion to the family and church. But my original point is not that I presume to know how or when to push sex education. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:What i find interesting is that you assume that the church knows more about homosexuality than homosexuals. And regarding this, the church brings 2000 year old arguements to this subject without considering how it applies in todays society. In the past homosexuality would not have been profitable as it would not have benifited the tribe in anyway compared to heterosexual sex. In this age, there is no lack of benefit from not having children and so there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. The other thing i disagree with is that here is a religious aspect to sex. Sex should be a coupling between two people who share a great love between each other. Again, that doesnt always happen, however it is essential that children learn this at the same time they learn about the biological side of sex. [[Bolly ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:47, 24 April 2007

::Of course, that's your opinion and your entitled to it. You've got a right to live your life however you want. For me the choice is obvious. On one hand I have 2000 to 10000 years of wisdom. On the other hand, there's some dude on the Internet {{strike personal remark|who doesn't know how to write proper English, but }} who claims to know more than the Church, and Thomas Aquinas. All I ask is that you let others live their lives the way they want. Is that too much to ask? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Did you just make a personal remark? (I should block your account for 1 second. ;-)

I apologize if I offended anyone. I don't believe in ''ad hominem'' attacks. I think they are rude and pointless. However, if someone admits that they don't write properly in a forum where writing is the only means of communication, then they have openned the door to commentary by others. I'm quite sure you're just kidding anyway, I hope this doesn't sound too stern. I'm just tired right now. I was up late, up early and I'm facing a long day. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Atheists have it all figured out ... ==
My point above in ''Selective application of logic'' is that it looks very hypocritical for liberals to want to teach children about sex as young as possible, but the same crowd doesn't want to teach children religion until after they are suspectible to corruption and experimentation.

What amateur philosophers like Bolly don't seem to understand is that theologians, philosophers and generations of people with more time on their hands than all of us have already put a great deal of effort and experimentation into evolving a set of moral codes and sound religious creeds. Bolly is naive enough to expect the unreasonable notion that any '''one''' man can compete with the thoughts and knowledge of countless generations who have gone before him. He honestly thinks he can invent a personal philosophy and religious-code based upon his individual experiences. He believes that his own personal philosophy can rival the combined thoughts of generations of philosophers and theologians.

/begin rant: We as modern humans don't have to invent medicine, or geology, or build a TV set and write computer code. That's already been done by others! We can stand on their shoulders. Can you imagine how silly and presumptive it sounds to those former atheists like myself when they read that Bolly thinks he knows how the universe works and that he can definitively say that he understands the nature of God?

Bolly doesn't know the first thing about God or philosophy, but he wants to teach other people's children his credo of experiment with all religions and then become an atheist. I know why [[Thomas Aquinas]] and [[Socrates]] and even [[Aleister Crowley]] are famous (or infamous as the case may be), but I don't know why Bolly presumes to know what's best for other people's children. /end rant.

You don't have to invent moral codes or laws or waste time experimenting with life's dead-ends. You can look up the answer in the book of your choice and things will be so much easier for you.

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I have explained that it is not hypocritical, as i believe they should be taught at the same age, neither
before the other.

I am not naive enough to think that i can rival any of the great philosophers in logic and philosophy, however i dont think i would have any trouble outthinking Thomas Aquinas, for example. The reason for this is that he (and others like him) used their religious credibility to establish themselves as philosophical geniuses when in fact, he was not much smarter then anyone of the time, and certainly not smarter then the average uni graduate today. This can be amply demonstrated by his '5 proofs' of gods existence which are more full of holes than a swiss cheese.

To compare moral codes to medicing or geology is not an adequate comparison. The basic ideas of medicine and geology are based on sound proof and will not change much within the next thousand years. On the other hand, moral codes are always changing depending on the society that they are employed by. Look at the change in opinion about non-caucasian people over the past 200 years! only 100 years ago it was considered the height of stupidity to consider an african american the equal of a white man, yet today, even though there is still far to much prejudice in the world, it is generally accepted that there is no difference between any of the races of humanity. The great thinkers of one age would be considered backwards and redundant if they were transported in time to today.

I do not presume to know the nature of god. I do know, within myself, that god does not exist and i am content with that knowledge. You say you were an atheist, i would like to know what converted you to christianity.

No you do not need to waste time experimenting with dead ends, however because i believe in freedom of religion, i think it would only be fair that children are shown all the alternative modes of beliefs.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:00, 24 April 2007

::Fine. Show your children and leave others alone.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== This is an invalid question ==

I've stayed away from the debates on Conservapedia, and this one is an example of why. I'm only here now because I was asked for my input.

The problem with the question is that "religion" is not defined. On my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment#.22Religion.22 Wikipedia user page] I've listed some of the main ways that the word "religion" is used:
{{QuoteBox|
# A set of beliefs on which one bases one's life
# Belief in a deity or deities (e.g. Christianity is a religion)
# A particular set of rituals (e.g. He is practising his religion)
# A particular broad set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Christian, Muslim, or Hindu?)
# A particular narrower set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Methodist, Baptist, or Catholic?) }}

I further say there:
{{QuoteBox|No. 2 is, in my opinion, an arbitrary subset of No. 1. People believe in multiples gods (polytheism), everything-is-god (pantheism), one god (monotheism) or no god (atheism). Pantheism and atheism don't fit into definition No. 2, yet to consider them somehow "different" is arbitrary and self-serving ... . Thus I use definition No. 1 in preference to No. 2, and argue that atheism (and related views such as secular humanism) are religions, every bit as much as Christianity is. The difference is simply how many gods one believes in.}}

So if "religion" is a worldview (or ''ideology'' if you prefer), then it follows that ''everybody has one'', by its very nature and definition. How can one then ask if it is morally wrong?

Of course the person who asked the question obviously didn't have that definition in mind. But which one did he have?

To a Christian, Christianity is No. 1: a core set of beliefs on which one bases one's life. I would hope that it is obvious even to atheists that one cannot help but base one's actions on one's beliefs. So in that sense, "religion" comes before children, because when dealing with children, one ''must'' deal with them according to one's beliefs. That is why everyone, even atheists, do so.

To an atheist (who conveniently would not describe atheism as a religion), "religion" is a "optional extra". And on that basis, clearly children's welfare should come before "optional extra" beliefs.

To recap, the problem here is that there is no definition of what is intended by "religion" in this question, let alone any actual agreement by opposing viewpoints.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

This is dead-on correct. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

We do not 'conveniently' choose not to describe atheism as a religion. Atheism is defined as : a lack of belief. Lack of belief is not a religion. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:02, 24 April 2007

:Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is an ardent ''belief'' that there is no God. And even ignoring that point, you ''do'' have core beliefs, which can be considered your worldview/ideology/religion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:23, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is. When split up: A-Theism. no-belief. I do not ardently believe god does not exist. I dont think god exists. If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic.

I do have core beliefs. That does not consitute religion except in your definition. And i would argue that that is not religion, that is simply morality dressed up. My worldview is not my ideology or religion, because it would be a really weird religion compared to the main ones around today.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:57, 24 April 2007

:According to the Oxford dictionary[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk], the "atheism" means "the belief that God does not exist". The prefix "a-" can mean "without", but it can also mean "not", and "theism" is a reference to God, not just belief. Not all atheists hold their belief in no god as strongly, but for many atheists, it is a ''belief'' in no god.
:It is not "my definition". It is one of several dictionary definitions. The rest of your last two sentences don't make sense. You have not explained how atheism is not a religion yet Christianity is. As I quoted myself above, any such distinction is arbitrary and self-serving.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Bolly says, ''If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic. '' Evidence for God lies around us in all directions and in all things. (See other topics herein for a few examples.) The reason you don't see evidence of God is your picture of God has nothing to do with what God is about. God is not some magical being. God is not flying spaghetti. God does not defy logic. God is logic. In your mind the great machine of the univers happened out of sheer luck. What's the difference between sheer luck and God? Aren't they the same thing? Hopefully I can give you a clue where to find God by telling you where to look.

God is in the details. The electrons are busy doing their thing. The subatomic particles are inside the protons hard at work doing whatever they do to make matter do what it does. Complex chains of molecules describe how to build a human being more efficiently than any code written by any programmer.

God is in the everyday. God is in the mother who cares for her child. God is in the man who jumps into freezing water to save a stranger. God is in the reason you feel good when you do good things, even when they aren't fun.

God is in the grandeur. God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time.

God is everywhere, everywhere but where you're looking. You're looking for god to do something other than what the universe already does. You're presumption is that the universe is fantastic, wonderfully complicated, a well-oiled machine, but you expect something over and above all of this. ''Yeah the universe is vastly complicate, but what have you done for me lately?''

The naivety of the atheist lies in the belief that the universe itself is not evidence of God. By Bolly's definition, God is only evidenced by something beyond the atheist's explanation and comprehension. By this definition you'll never find God, because if you could comprehended the magical proof of God and God could be explained, then it would not longer be magical and no longer beyond comprehension! [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely it is enough to gaze upon the vastness and awe inspring vistas of the universe without having to attribute it to some other being. Your above definition of god: "God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time." seems to me to be more naive then my atheism. You are simply defining the universe but replacing it with god.

I would like to see some of this 'proof' of gods existence for so far i have seen nothing that comes remotely close to convincing me that god exists. On the other hand, there is no need for god in this world. Science has come very close to completly shut out godly influence in the creation of life and the universe.

The universe has not come about out of sheer luck. The strong and weak nuclear force, gravity and quantum theory all allow us to model the creation of stars, planets and black holes in a purely logical manner. If you wish to call that logic and those laws 'God' then you are free to do so. But then god is not a being who can be worshipped or who answers prayers or makes miracles. Then God simply becomes another name for the universe with no added baggage of being the creator. I trust that this dismisses your last point about the magical proof of god. You are welcome to call the universe what you will, however don't expect many people to address prayers to the law of gravity.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:50, 26 April 2007

:::I understand what you say, but I don't think that's what you mean. What you are actually saying is that you have defined your image of God and unless God conforms to your idea of what God means/is and then someone else proves to you that idea is true, then you will not believe in God. Have you considered the possibility that what you thought of as God is just a magical bogeyman? Have you considered the possibility that God is something else entirely than what you thought as a child and later realized was preposterous when you grew up? What we teach children about God is drastically simplified for their consumption. It up to you to purse the truth of God after you realize there is no magical bogeyman. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, well i was arguing under the assumption that you are a theist, when you are in fact a deist. I do not believe in either type of god, or any kind of god whatsoever, the magical bogeyman, the sentient universe or whatever others someone comes up with. When you say 'we' though i am a little confused, as the majority of religious people seem to be theists. Please correct me if this is a wrong impression however. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:54, 28 April 2007

==Why Atheism is ridiculous==
Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "God" is another word for "everything." God equals everything. Everthing is God. To deny that "God" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if God is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does God (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does God have a plan? Or is Everything (''i.e.'' God) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies. Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstien included) believe that time is an illusion and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or God) is sentient. God has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:That's not the God I know. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::As a godless, atheistic, morally-bankrupt existentialist, I have to say I disagree with this "assessment." If I am to take what you say at face value I come to the immediate conclusion that atheism is still correct. If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....

:::I think of the universe this way: I don't know how it came to be, but I assume it was a chemical and physical event, not supernatural. I know that this "stuff" doesn't have to have a plan in order to exist. There need not be a man in the sky to protect me from everything. I don't need to pray to something that I will succeed in life because there is no one listening. But, I'm not sad about this, I don't feel alone or unloved by the big ol' scary universe. Rather, I feel emboldened to take moral actions when I can.

:::Camus is my hero. His basic equation boils down to this: once a person realizes that there is no god they have two choices--suicide or a "faith flight." That is, if one accepts the religious view of things. If Camus is correct, and existence does indeed precede essence, then there is a third choice, the philosophy of moral action. Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.

:::Now, since I don't believe everything has a plan, and that I have a moral obligation to help my fellow man (and woman), I have an obligation to come to sites like this and try to fix them. Not by including so-called "liberal bias." Rather, the point is to make sure truth trumps propaganda. Wether I like it or not, I have a duty to help fix this garbage. I liken it to watching a child roll their tricycle toward the street. You, the adult, are standing there and you can see a truck bearing down on the child. Do you try and help her, or do you pray? I must take action and this website affords me a chance to help everybody. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You have mistaken my meaning, despite repeating exactly what I said:

::''If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....''

This is indeed exactly what I meant. So in fact, there is a god. The question is God sentient or not. Does God have thoughts, plans, etc. Or is the universe a jumble of meaningless matter that is and always was. A tangental thought to ponder: auantum mechancics seem to suggest that reality can change depending on the observer.

For those who say "this is not the God I know". Indeed it is the God you. Here's the line of logic:

::1. God = Everything
::2. Therefore God exists. (And the corrollary, atheism is ridiculous.)
::3. Now there is a choice: one can choose to believe that God is sentient; or one can deny the sentience of God despite overwhelming of evidence to the contrary.
::4. Then, if God is sentient then what can we mortals know of God? Where will we find His truths? We might find them in science. We find them in religion. We each find out own personal truth in different ways.

If you make it to step 4, the arguement becomes which religion is best. Which truth makes the most sense to you. Christians, Buddhists, Islamist, they all have their own personal arguments. I won't waste time debating religion when atheists are in the room. It's pointless, because they haven't made the logical step to 3.

If your mind doesn't make the leap to step 3, there is no point in discussing morals. In fact, it's ridiculous to postulate morals or philosophy because the universe is meaningless. For those who are at this point in personal growth: thine only commandment is ''do what thou wilt''. It is pointless to do anything other than that which makes you happy if you get to step 2 but don't make the jump to step 3. However, if you can comprehend step two but don't believe in 3 then all this poppycock about morals and goodness is ridiculous. Furthermore, when an atheist discusses morals and philosophy it only only serves to prove there is a God. This is because the atheist's spirit (which he doesn't believe believe exists) nags and naws at him like the quite voices of angels.

If you make it to step one but can't make it to step 2, then you are a) either incapable of higher thought; or b) intellectually dishonest because you fear where this argument leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, what you are trying to do, in logic, is referred to as an [[enthymeme]]. However, your argument does not work. First, you must show HOW god equals everything. Otherwise you can say anything. Thus:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

:::But you tried to do something else. You tried to insert statements as if they are quantifiable terms. Sort of like saying, "E = mc2" ''Well what do those letters mean?'' "Elephants equal mustard and cows times themselves." You've defined nothing except a lack of basic logical principles.

Being intellectually dishonest would be if I said, well, "god likes strawberries more than cherries." When you ask ''why'' I'll say "because they taste better." Asserting your opinion as fact is what makes it less than true. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin, why do you care if a child rides into traffic on a tricycle? What do you gain if she is saved? What do you lose if she dies? It sounds a lot like your a theist to me. You obviously think the universe has some meaning or some order. If the universe has order and meaning then it only follows that you believe the universe is God. The next step to make is to find out where God best reveals his truth. You think that his truth is best revealed in the philosophical musings of your hero Camus. Camus wrote your Bible. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::It might be difficult to understand but I did not say that god=toast. I agree that God is not toast. Is "Everything" that is to say the universe as a whole sentient or not? Simple question. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:50, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Furthermore, by your example:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

By your definition, then it would be possible to know the true nature of toast. We pretty well already know how to make toast. It's a silly diversion from the question you are afraid to ask yourself. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

No it isn't. I have already asked myself--for years--if there is a god. I have come to the conclusion ther very likely isn't. I am not an atheist (they are 100% sure) but I sit at about 99.9% sure. I have diverted nothing--being intellectually honest with myself meant I had to realize there was no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:As the one who said, "this is not the God I know", I reject the first point in the line of logic, that God equals everything. I am a monotheist, not a pantheist. God ''made'' the universe, He ''isn't'' the universe.
:Flippin, your counter-logic is wrong. Everwill's logic skipped a step. His logic was:
::1. God = Everything
::1A. We know that everything exists.
::2. Therefore God exists.

:So in order to match Everwill's argument from logic, your counter logic should have been:
::1. god = toast
::1A. we know that toast exists
::2. therefore god exists.
:But you got point 2 back to front.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Phil,

So as I understand it you think God is outside of the universe? God is apart from the universe. God is not everywhere at all times, rather he is somewhere else. Where is that somewhere else and what reason have you to believe (other than blind faith) that somewhere else exists? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:God is a spiritual being. He is "outside" the universe—a physical place—in the sense that He is not part of it. But being an omnipresent spiritual being He is not confined to a physical place, so He is not outside in a geographical sense. He is everywhere at once, but not synonymous with the universe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that God is not "confined" to anything. But I'm not sure there's any value to arguing the fine differences between "everything", the universe and God. We're not philosophers, and others have explored this better than we can. I think there is some value to helping atheists understand why the question is not whether God exist or not. The real question is whether God is an omnipresent sentience or not. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Everwill, your argument that god = everything is preposterous. Firstly, i do not agree with the first statement you make, that god is everything. I would like some hard proof, or at least a convincing argument that god equals everything before the first premise of your argument.

If, for arguements sake, we assume that your first premise is correct, then the only question is, as you say, whether everything (or god) is sentient? Again, you can say so, however i want proof. I have yet to see a plan in the universe or everything. According to the current predictions by astronomers and physcists, the universe is set to expand for an idefinete period and that eventually all the stars will run out of hydrogen and go out, and that everything will spread further and further apart at faster and faster speeds until the universe tears itself apart. Can you explain the plan in this? It displays all the theories about gravity, dark matter, quantum theory and strong and weak nuclear forces. There is nothing to show an added level of intelligence in this everything.

Please do not assume that your first premise is correct until you show some evidence for this, otherwise your argument is entirely invalid.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:06, 26 April 2007

:::You must have made things pretty difficult for your alegbra teacher. The teacher presents the following:

::::''x + 1 = 2''
::::''X is'' unknown.
::::''Solve for X.''

:::To which you reply, "Prove that X is unknown and a mathematical value. X is a letter and has no value, thus algebra is entirely invalid."

:::Hopefully you see how silly your reply is, but I'll grant you that I may have given you too much credit above. Perhaps the concept is a little too complicated for you to understand as I presented above. I'll try harder.

:::If the word "God" is synomous with "everything" then I assume you believe God exists. If the word "God" means "magical bogeyman who meddles in the affairs of mankind" then I assume we agree that God does not exist. In the framework of the argument above, God means everything.

:::Now I'll put that aside and try to explain the concept without using words that offend your sensibilities. The universe shows organization and complexity beyond any single human's comprehension at every level. The components of a cell, atomic structures, galactic structures, geological structures, biologal structures. It's vastly intricate, interconnected and complicated. The universe functions like an immense machine and so far as we can tell, it will continue to function for quite some time and it functioned long ago.

:::With this knowledge one has to make a leap of faith, and science has taught us that the simple solution is usually the right solution. The simple solution is that the universe is organization implies design, design implies designer. The only other plausible choice is that the everything that every happens, happened or will happened is the result of something that makes a lottery ticket or a lightning strike look like a easy money and a daily occurence. Now, I respect your right to belive that, but I think it's sort of naive.

:::So you think the universe is randomness. I think the universe has order. Now to work back into the definitions presented above. I think God has order. You think God is randomness. Whether we call it God, the universe or everything, it makes no difference. I'm not trying to take away your right to believe what you want. I'm not trying to tell you to go to church. I'm just trying to find a common ground on which we can agree. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Alright, now i understand the point you were making. I do not agree with it, however i see now where you are coming from.

The reason that the whole of the universe is so incomprehensible to us, is because we evolved on a scale where the only distances that mattered were a couple of hundred kilometres to about a centimetre. That was all that was needed to survive as homo erectus in a hostile world. It was not necessary for us to be able to understand a cell or an atom or a star. The complex machinery that is our brain is not built for such things as the universe or quantum theory. This is why it is so hard to comprehend.

The simple solution is the right solution in the majority of cases, however the simple solution in this case is not one of design. Darwin has already shown that while animals and plants may look designed they are in fact the end result of a massive series of gene mutations and adaptations. In this case, there is no designer and thus your point that organization implies design implies designer is proved wrong in the case of natural life. Simply because there is no such explanation for how the universe has come to be in such a way does not mean that there is no explanation that does not need to attribute it to a designer. Just think that 300 years ago, noone thought that something complex could come from something less complex as it balked common sense. However our common sense only applies to simple, mundane everyday things, not the huge distances and complexities of space or an atom.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:56, 27 April 2007

==Is Atheism Ridiculous?==
::::On what basis do can you decide that something is "moral"? If I saw a truck bearing down on a child, I would try and help her, because God loves her and He would want me to help, and I would be praying at the same time. But why would you help her? From an atheistic point of view, she is just an accidental combination of a bunch of chemicals facing a life of suffering, disease, and ultimate death. What's the point in helping? Why not just let chance shortcut the process and save her all those years of pain? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:24, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Because I feel an obligation to help her, as I said. Saying it is moral means nothing. It is the action one takes. I believe that it is right to keep someone alive rather than kill them (what the above example allows for). If I let her die, she cannot make her own decisions--I am taking away her inalienable right to decide her own fate, if you will. I have no right to hurt someone else--that takes away from their right to choose how they will spend their existence.

::Yes, she is accidental, as are you and me, but I have no right to infringe on the rights of a sentient human being by allowing them to die. Standing by and watching her die would make me just as guilty as putting a gun to her head and pulling the trigger. Morality is based on this single point: existence precedes essence. We are all responsible for our own choices with regard to how they affect others.

::I don't need a religion to tell me that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Just another quick note--don't you think you have an obligation to do something outside of a god's wrath? When you say "because god loves her" you tacitly give up the responsibility for taking action. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Yes, you feel an obligation to help her. But why? I'd say that it's because you've been raised in a country with a Christian heritage and have absorbed some of its values. But I'm asking what basis atheism provides for that. Why do you feel that it is "right". What if I "feel" differently? Who is right and who is wrong? Where did her "inalienable right to decide her own fate" come from? Does she in fact have such a right? I assert that you ''do'' need a religion—or more specifically, God—to tell you that, because atheism can't.
:::::I fail to see how I'm giving up responsibility for taking action. On the contrary, it's because God loves her that I have that responsibility.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::You know, atheism has almost nothing to do with it. I don't think about, or believe in god the way you don't believe (I assume) in the flying spaghetti monster.

::But saying that "because god loves her...I have a responsibility" is equivalent to saying, "I'll go to Grandma's because it makes Mom happy." It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you.

::Finally, that "right to exist" could also be thought of as a prohibition against her death. That comes from the notion that even though our very existence is absurd, I don't have a right to decide how you will affect it. To throw my hands up and say "but who is right and who is wrong" is just reducing the argument to multiplicity, and thus relativism.

::I guess what I'm saying is I don't have a right to decide for that child so I will save her and let her make her own choice. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:::"''It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you''". On the contrary, I have ''decided'' to do what God would like, rather than do something for a selfish reason of it being something that ''I'' would like.
:::You say that the "right to exist" comes from the notion that you don't have a right to decide how you will affect it, yet by saving the girl you ''have'' decided to affect things. Yes, throwing your hands up is relativism, but the opposite of relatives is absolutes, and absolutes only come from God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes exactly, you have decided what god would like. Other people can have a different understanding, people such as Adolf Hitler who decided that god thought it was right that he should kill all jews, as they were "christ killers". Or the young man who shot a doctor who practised abortions because "god would have wanted me to do it". The fact that you have to interpret a book to decide your morals means that several different people can gain different moral codes from the same book, while there are very few people who would disagree that wanton killings would lead to society fracturing. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:17, 26 April 2007

::Adolf Hitler was an atheist. Beyond this factual error, I don't understand your point. We all decide what god would like. (It's call concept called ''free will''.) The underlying philosophy and truths found in all major religions are the same. Is this an accident? I suppose you would answer yes. In fact, the entire universe and everything that led to this moment is one collossal accident that happened for your benefit. Children have no idea what their parents endure to provide for them. In the same way the atheist scoffs at the mysteries of the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:03, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ottihw, no, I haven't decided what God would like. I have ''learnt'' what God would like be reading what He has told us. Everwill is correct that Hitler was an atheist, but I disagree that we can all gain different morals from the Bible. That is in effect saying that words have no meaning, so we can choose to understand them any way we want. Should I choose to understand your words any way I want, or should I presume that we are both using the same convention of English (in this case) language and that you mean what you've said? Besides, if you and I can both derive different morals from reading the Bible, how is it any better if we ''don't'' read the Bible? Surely that would mean even ''less'' restraint on what we choose our morals to be? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Which is another way of saying that Phil is a "strict constructionist" when it comes to the Bible. I think the mullahs in Iran (though they use a different book) agree with him in this way. I'm more of a deconstructionist and have more doubts about the Bible being the "Word of God". I think God's Words are way too complicated for one man or one book to describe. However, I would agree on 99% of the big picture with Phil and probably with the so-called atheists in here. That to me is evidence of God. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:47, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I happen to believe that God is clever enough to put things in words that we can understand. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

God is very clever indeed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:You havea copy of the Bible in God's handwriting? Or you beleive that every step from initial writing, through every translation throughout time has been divinely guided to lay out His message clearly? So, which translation is the divinely guided one? And if He were so inclined to so specifically direct the writing ans subsequent translation of a book, might he not have made it a bit clearer which translation is correct, and which parts of the Bible can be taken literally and which are metaphors? You claim to know the difference... I've never seen that footnote anywhere in the Bible. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The copies and translations of the Bible are very accurate, and accurate enough to know what God was saying. And the phrase "every translation through time" is quite misleading, as mot current English Bibles have been translated directly from the original languages, i.e. a one-step translation. It couldn't get much better than that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

(copied below).

: Standard non-answer... How do you know they are accurate, which version? The differences are quite spectacular at times. Not to mention that even if one accepts your "one-step translation" proposition we are talking (in the case of Genesis) about an account put down long after the event itself (even by your time scale), and then translated from languages with enough nuances to allow for all these different translations that arise today... Not to mention that the "accurate enough to know what God was saying" ignores the reality that if people debate it to the degree we do today, it sure doesn't seem so crystal clear... I say the the story of Genesis clearly reads like a parable or metaphor... you believe it is clearly meant to be taken literally, though you allow that some portions of the Bible are not literal... I was asking for the magic footnote that tells us which is which? [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::That was not a non-answer; it made valid points. The differences are not that spectacular. Why don't you accept the "one-step translation"? Look in almost any modern version and it will tell you that it was translated from the original languages. I tend to subscribe to the belief that Genesis was originally written in sections by the people that witnessed the events (e.g. Adam himself) and Moses compiled those handed-down written histories into the book of Genesis.
::People debate the Bible to the degree that they do because some people will do anything to avoid the implications of what it is teaching, including calling black white (actually, calling six days billions of years). But that doesn't mean that the text is ambiguous, just that some people will not take it at face value.
::Parable and metaphor have particular linguistic characteristics, and Genesis doesn't have those characteristics, so it is not parable nor metaphor (on the whole; some bits may be). You determine which is which by the language, just as you do in everyday life. If I said that "it's raining cats and dogs", would you wonder if I was being literal or not?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Please do not parade that old falsehood that Hitler was an atheist. He was brought up a roman catholic, he made several references to God in his speeches and almost everyone who was close to him described him as a 'good practising catholic'. To call him an atheist is in complete denial of all the facts that surround him.

The reason that people can draw different morals from the bible is simple. The bible has been written by hundreds of authors over 900 years, many of whom described the same story in different ways and the vast majority were not written down until many years after the even they were describing. And of course, in the way of any community effort, the book has been 'improved' by several authors down the years, in different languages and often by people who had no idea about the event they were writing about. To call this text "the word of god" and to attempt to draw a single conclusion from this is just plain ridiculous. Why not have a look yourself, and look for the amount of contradictions and just plain weirdness in there.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:13, 27 April 2007

:Please do not parade that old falsehood that Hitler was a Christian. Despite being raised as a Catholic and making out that he was invoking God in his speeches, he realised that the churches would never go along with his policies and planned on eliminating them[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/464].
:I can understand your scepticism towards the Bible, given your view on how it was written. But I reject your views on how it was written. Sure, it was written by quite a few different authors (but not "hundreds"), but under the guidance of God, so it had a single ultimate author. The vast majority was written by eyewitnesses, and the vast majority of the rest by people who knew the eyewitnesses. The Jews respected the Scriptures as God's Word and would not dare alter it, so it was generally not "improved" by other authors (the exceptions being things like authors close to the original authors anyway, as in Joshua writing the final part of Moses' Deuteronomy). And there are no contradictions; at the very least none that can be conclusively shown to be contradictions. Any "weirdness" is likely to be from you not understanding the customs of the time, etc.
:Now I'm sure you will reject most of what I've just said, but the point is that your ''conclusion'' about it's trustworthiness is based on your ''belief'' about how it came to be, yet you present that belief as though it was accepted or self-evident truth. It is neither self-evident nor is it accepted by a lot of people.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:56, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

There is not hard evidence on whether Hitler was in fact religious. The Vatican was a great ally to him in many cases and Goebbals and Himmler both wrote that he was a practising catholic. He refered to himself as the hand of God in many speeches. On the other hand he said things such as "Christianity is the greatest evil the world has seen since the Black Plague". Historians think that he was a Christain until around 1940 where he converted to agnostiscism or atheism. The main point is that most of his plans and programs had begun well before this such as the holocaust and the complete indoctrination of German children with his propoganda (almost like churches today). As an aside he could still be christian while disliking the church.

There is a point on which we cannot be reconciled. You believe that god guided the writing of the bible, i don't believe he exists and therefore that the writers were often flying by the seat of their pants as they wrote. However to deny that there were 'improvements' is a little bit ignorant. As an example, the story of the ressurection was not written until over 200 years after Jesus's death.

There are many contradictions in the bible, not the least of which come in the story of the birth of Jesus. John writes in his gospel that several of his followers were surprised that Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem, while of course, Mark and Luke write that he was born there. However while Mark has Mary and Joseph always having lived there, Luke gets them there by refering to a census of Israel by the Romans that results in Joseph having to return to his home town. Unfortunately for Luke, the records show that the census occured in 6 AD, after King Herod's death. As well as this, there are gospels that the church decided to leave out of the final version of the bible, including the gospels of Judas, Bartholomew, Nicodemus and Mary Magdalen. What was wrong with these gospels that was right with the four that were chosen? May it have been to the fact that some of them do not portray such a saintly image of Jesus as the others? The gospel of Thomas has stories of a young Jesus abusing his powers by turning his friends into goats or mud into sparrows.

My conclusion about its trustworthiness is based upon the facts that i have read that show that the bible is not such an accurate account after all. And if the writers were guided by god, then how could they have gotten some historical facts so wrong? The creation of the world, Noahs arc, the birth of Jesus, the ressurection and so on. This I think exposes exactly how innacurate the bible is as any sort of record or source of morals.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:35, 28 April 2007

==Questions and Answers==
Plato showed how in a debate one asks questions so that the debaters can pursue the truth together rather than being adversaries. So what I can't understand is why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests? Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you? Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share? Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?

To be more specific you say ''Because I feel an obligation to help her''. What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? Will she pay you? What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

So here are my questions:

::''"Why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests?"''

:::* Atheist says: I might ask you the same thing. I have no short-term interest in this child's death. I have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer).
:::* Theist replies, because there is something, perhaps a spirit or a god, that imparts to ever soul the knowledge of good from evil and right from wrong. Doing evil moves you further from god and thus it does not feel good to do evil (''even when it feels good to do evil''!) This is a shorthand way of saying that when you commit acts which are pleasurable but evil, you feel shallow and empty inside. On the other hand, when one commit acts of kindness without any payback of any kind, one feels good inside. This is something most humans learn as they progress into maturity. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::''"Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you?"''

:::* Atheist says: Two parts there: I wouldn't murder a child--as I said--so what is there to feel guilty about? If no one would punish me presupposes I have done this act, so the question is invalidated by the former.
:::* Theist replies, I should hope you wouldn't murder a child, but your reply ducks the obvious answer. Of course I wouldn't murder a child to get what I wanted, but if I did murder a child to get what I wanted I would feel guilty. What causes that feeling of guilty? Is that not proof of a spiritual aspect of life?

::''"Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share?"''

:::* Atheist say: It certainly could be. ''"Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?"'' Reason allows me to discern right from wrong, as I said above. I am compelled to act according to this obligation to help others and not let them have their choice made by another.
:::* Theist says, what is this "reason" you are talking about in an athistic universe. Without God or morality, what is the difference between good and evil or right and wrong? From an atheistic (i.e. Satanic) POV right and wrong are silly concepts. "Good" is just an excuse to chump the strong from their rightful place at the top of the food chain. Don't you agree?

''"What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? <s>Will she pay you?</s> What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?"''

:::* Atheist says: Okay, now you're getting to the meat of the matter. I am obligated by this sense of everyone's right to exist. I have no more right to take you're life than I do to steal your bike. Not that those two are equal, but the line of demarcation is the same. It is only selfish in the sense that I ''gain'' when this child is allowed to grow up and make her own choices. If, in the process, I am killed, then I have served my principles. If she dies, then I took moral action and can feel good about my effort. However, if I let her die I am as guilty as any of those Nazi guards at Aushwitz who said ''"I was only following orders."''
:::* Theist replies: your answer implies the existence of God even if you can't see the forest for all the trees. Why does everyone have a right to exist? Because you said so? That makes no sense in your concept of reality. What if my country elects a leader, for the purposes of illustration let's call him ''Adolf Hitler''. Our leader through legal government manuevers manages to establish a process to eliminate what he sees as a cancer on our nation. By your reasoning that leader has a moral imperative to kill Jews BECAUSE he thinks it's best for the nation. From the theist stand-point, we believe that all life is precious, most especially human life. Therefore it doesn't matter what logic, rationale or legal manuevers Hitler makes, killing is wrong.

Atheist summary: As long as you have a choice, to defer your morality to a god, or priest or whatever you ask for figiveness is to shirk your duty to society--that being to think for yourself. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Theist summary: No one ever defers any choices to anyone ever. Each individual is always responsible for his own actions and choices. To clear up your confusion: a theist defers his choices to a priest about as much as a judge in a court room defers his choices to his first year law professor. Religion is a tool to help us understand God. Religion and religious leaders do not speak for God. An "atheist" who follows a moral code is just a theist who doesn't know much about his God because he's too afraid to trust others. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:In point of fact here, I have said I am not an atheist, I am more properly called an agnostic. An atheist, by definition, holds that they have the answer--that there is no god. As an agnostic I am open to the idea that a god exists, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Please don't refer to me as an atheist--it is a different thing altogether. Also, in addition to agnosticism, I am an existentialist--so you could also use that term if you like.

:Finally, I don't have a god-belief so I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done. I do things that I reason are beneficial to society, e.g. actions that foster growth, development and change. I abhor stifling debate and that seems to be the purpose of religion as it is used most of the time. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm comfortable with my approach to all questions. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

You claim that "I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done". You do things because a little voice inside your head tells you to do things? Who is that little voice?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't have a "little voice." That is superstition. I use reason. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

It's easy to dodge the obvious with semantics. There is absolutely no question you (and all human beings) have a "little voice", that's not a superstition, that's a fact. The argument is about what is the driving force behind that little voice.

You claim that you simply rationalize everything out through the use of reason, and you are perhaps superior to moral codes found in religion. For example, you won't kill the little child because as you say you "have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer)." But if killing the little child would give you a billion dollars, you would kill the child because of the risk versus reward principle found in rationalization. The odds of that little girl inventing a cure for cancer are pretty remote. Furthermore, you might not ever contract cancer. But with a billion dollars you could finance a health care system that would further benefit you and those you deem worthy. That's "reason" at work and to you way of thinking that's much better than silly and archaic notions like "good" or "evil". [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think you have more of a stake in believing that a "non-believer" would like to kill a child for some kind of gain. I don't see it that way. I don't think there is anything that would make me kill a child. That's silly.
::Also, I don't have a "little voice" in my head. People who do I deem to be psychotic or lying. Simple as that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

A hypothetical argument takes a certain statement as an assumption and attempts to analyze it. You seem to be (perhaps intentionally) misunderstanding the hypothetical in the form in which it is presented. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend like you really don't understand because of inability to communicate.

Let's change the hypothetical slightly, you state there there is nothing that would make you kill a child. Why would you never kill a child? I understand that you base this decision on reason, but I don't understand the basis of your reason. Is your reason based upon moral codes? Aren't "moral codes" just superstition to help supress the will of the strong? Is your "reason" based upon what most helps society or is your reason based upon what most helps you? Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?

As the wise philospher Camus/Flippin says, ''Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.'' This is all well and good if one is perfect reasonable. But what about people who are unreasonable and who devise a meaning of life exemplified by people like Hitler, Jim Jones, Jeffery Dahmer, Stalin, and Charles Manson? By what right can we impose our value-system upon them?

By the same token, should each individual have the right, nay the duty, to devise his own code of laws and not wait for some legistlature or society to impose those laws upon them? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
.
==Trying to parse some of this==
:Since I consider myself a good communicator I will try and communicate with you.

:Okay, you said: "Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?" How could one do anything that helped society that didn't help oneself? Maybe I should try and explain that by asking is there really anything that one can do that helps society, yet hurts the self? If one takes an action that helps society, like picking up garbage alongside the road, does not that act help society? And if we agree that it does, how is one harmed by it?

:A reasonable person might say that the individual could get a sunburn. The individual could be hit by a truck. These are true statements, but the probability of these things happening is low (for the truck) and not that dangerous (for a sunburn). But what is the value of picking up debris left by less reasonable citizenry? Do we not gain as a society by having less trash by the roadside?

:A reasonable person might also say, yes, but must I pick up all the debris along the roadside? My answer would be no. The responsibility for cleaning up roadsides is spread equally between us all. We have a shared responsibility to do this because it helps the individual ''and'' the society.

:Now, you also mention examples like Hitler who reasoned that murdering Jews would benefit him. But is Hitler an example of a reasonable man? Honestly? Hitler was more likely sociopathic, which is a disorder that affects one's ability to reason. If we rely on reason to tell us that what is of the greatest benefit for society is of the greatest benefit for the individual, then opposing someone like Hitler, or another damaged person, is reasonable. Thus, we not only have a right to oppose them, we have an obligation to oppose them. Just as we have an obligation to oppose trash on the roadways.

:I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children? Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

:Finally, why do you feel the need to paint me as something less than moral? I have explained this repeatedly yet you do not understand. Is the failure to communicate really mine then? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not trying to paint you as immoral. I've said repeatedly I think you are moral. But I'm trying to work withing your framework to understand the truth (according to you) and I'm trying to understand the source of your morality. Where (according to you) does moral authority flow from?

I thought you said that morals comes from "reason". But as you describe it it seems that morals don't come from "reason", but from your rationalizations. I don't understand why you think your rationlizations are any more valid than the rationalizations of any other person? Of course, millions of Germans agreed with Hitler's rationalization. They were not '''all''' sociopaths. I assume that we agree their rationalization was flawed, but why is it flawed? This seems to indicate that there is some higher moral authority than rationalization. Is there some absolute code of moral authority, or were the Germans simply wrong because they lost the war? What does it matter if they were morally wrong anyway? That was in the past. There is no spiritual world and there is no God. Today is a new day. This is a new minute.

I think you're trying to claim that certain rationalizations is more valid than other rationalizations. If some rationalization is more valid than others, then why don't we as humans attempt to find the true source of the best rationalization possible and then follow that reasoning? If that is not a religion, what is that?

Secondly, I suppose I find it difficult to believe that anyone does anything simply because of "reasoning" alone. In my experince people do good things because it makes them feel good, not because they rationalized and reasoned away the degree of goodness vs. the effort required. Like every other human being, you sometimes do some bad things. After the commission of these acts of badness, why do you feel ''guilty''? If the ends justify the means there shoudl be no such thing as guilt.

Thirdly, what is the point of morality? Who cares? Why not take from the system whatever you can whenever you can. Your actions will not stop the world from spinning. You will not stop the stupid morons who worship the flying spaghetti monster, so why not exploit them? Then you can better use their resources, since you have a higher level of rationalization? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::# Rationalization seems to make the unreasonable, reasonable. That is what religion is for.
:::# Reason, as I have stated serves as a guide. It then becomes automatic.
:::# What you describe are the acts of a person that is unreasonable. I have addressed that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

What you haven't address is this: who defines what is reasonable? The guy with the biggest gun? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==The Theist answers==
Here are my answers to your questions:

The theistic-denier states:

::I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children?

I can think of many incidents of killing children which would benefit society. Our society could harvest children from poverty-stricken regions where resources are depleted and food-shortages are chronic. This is good for the environment and greatly reduces the chance that their children will suffer from famine. Then we could use those children to reseach cancer, AIDs and other diseases. Rather than working on cadavers, young doctors could practice their trade on these children. Then we could pulverize the remains and feed them to hogs. This would provide more food for other people. If you are opposed to killing (because of some fear of the mythic god) you could just enslave the children instead. We have plenty of jobs they can do which will help society more than some miserable existence in a barren wasteland.

Working strictly from a framework of reason and rationalization, why not kill children to better serve society? Furthermore, of course, this rational begs the question: why is the society of any importance at all? Why is "society" any bigger than the individual?

::Please, as one human being to another, it is much easier if you call me an agnostic--which is what I am. I don't call you a gods-worshipper, or whatever. (Jesusfreak I know is a popular perjorative that I don't use either. I am trying to be respectful.) I don't fear god--that isn't the reason to do/not do anything. I don't want anyone to kill me, so I don't kill others. Religion gives those who don't know why they do things a reason to say why they did. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Additionally, the "agnostic" asks:

::Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

Please understand that at this point, I'm not trying to prove to you my point of view. I'm trying to understand your point of view. So, while I believe that faith is the strongest barrier to crime that I know of, I won't bother to explain why I think this to you because you are clearly more enlightened than I. You've advance beyond the need for some silly god-figure.

What I would like to know is; what is your barrier to crime in the atheistic framework? It appears (based on my example above) that it is something other than reasoning, because I've proven how killing children can be good for society.

I'd be more than happy to answer why God allows suffering in the universe, but the answer to that question is pointless if we don't agree that God exists. Let's not waste time. Hypothetically, I'm agreeing with your argument that the fact that there is suffering in the universe is evidence that there is no god. Let's proceed along your path and see where it leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Religious faith is no more a barrier to crime than atheistic, or agnostic, moral reasoning. In Toronto sometime in the 70's the police went on strike. It took two hours for the first bank to be robbed, and at then end of the strike $3 million worth of damage had been done to shops and almost every bank in the city had been robbed. The vast majority of people who were arrested as a result of the crimes were religious. I'm not suggesting that therefore religion encourages crime, it just shows that it isn't such a barrier to crime as you would think. There is also anecdotal evidence that there are very few atheists and agnostics in prison compared to christians.

:The agnostic and atheistic framework is different from what you seem to think. The value of life is the most important part of my beliefs. This is not because of god or the bible, this is simply because those were the morals that i was brought up with and because they make the most logical sense. If life was not valued, then mass murders would be common and unnoticed as greedy people killed and stole to take what they wanted. This would lead to the breakdown of society as a whole. That is why enslaving and killing third world children is wrong, as they have exactly the same right to life that i do.

:This moral framework is far more effective as a crime barrier because people who use it have thought about why they think things are right and wrong from their own POV. Your framework comes from a book that was writtn 2000 years ago, and therefore not all its morals are up to date with the changing zeitgeist. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 26 April 2007

::You don't advance the argument by pointing to facts that don't answer my questions. This is what I call the ''magician's argument''. The magician's argument goes as follows: there is nothing in the hat therefore the rabbit from the hat must be magic. I don't care about your claims about religion of criminals. I'd like to have answers to my questions. As best as I can see your answer to my hypotheical question is to deny the framework of my hypothetical question. I can only assume that you refuse to answer this line of question undermines your belief set and that's why you won't answer.

::BTW, the reason I am pursuing this line of questions is not because I don't understand the atheistic point of view. I understand the false premises of atheism quite well. This is because for many years, I was an atheist. As I matured I came to realized just how much I didn't know. I still don't know what I don't know, but as the arrogance of youth recedes I begin to know how much I don't know. Thus, I realized atheism was naive and foolish, so I became an agnostic. Since that time, I learned more and came to believe that I am probably a [[deist]] but my search for truth continues. I may yet get more specific in my religious beliefs as I further mature. I will point out to you that it is a universal truth that as we get older we get wiser. It is not a coincidence that churches are full of old people. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:52, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what your point is here. Could you state, in just a sentence or two, what your hypothetical that we are ignoring is? Also, we may need to archive some of this (which I don't know how to do yet.) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:08, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The hypothetical (previously stated in a wildly exaggerated example) is: if in truth "reason" is your only guide and if in fact there is no soul, no spiritual world and no God, why do you do good things that don't follow reason? Why don't you do "bad" things that have perfectly good rationale? Your answer to the second question was: devise a better hypothetical because my reasoning is arbitrary and supports whatever rational I choose to follow. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Question==
Do you believe that there is absolute moral truth? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Please define an absolute moral truth? [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:08, 26 April 2007

==A place for a few more answers==

From the Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist:

"We have evolved the ability to empathize, to share the motivations and feelings of those around us. From this, we
have gained the ability to sympathize with the plight of others, to understand what may be causing them distress or
pain, and to wish, for their sake, that their suffering would stop. Armed with this sympathy, we act in a moral way to
prevent the distress and suffering of others. Our opinions on what constitutes a moral course of action may differ, but
the underlying sympathy is the same."

"With sympathy for others and recognition of the similarities between people, we each build an internal code of the
morality of our actions. We seek to protect innocent children, for we were once children ourselves and needed
protection. We seek a society that does not foster immoral actions, in order to protect the members of society like
ourselves. We feel and internalize various plights and pains of others in this process, and develop a true morality.
American revolutionary and President Thomas Jefferson put it well when he wrote in an 1814 letter, “Nature [has]
implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us
irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.”

Though I am sure this will mean little to a "deist" it is useful to those who at one time tried to find god but realized that the effort was too intellectually dishonest for them to ultimately accept. I think, Everwill, if you are really interested in learning about this and not just baiting the less conservative folk here, you might do well to read some of this material. http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thebgma/BGMA.pdf

::This is exactly my point, but I don't want to jam it down the throats of our resident atheists. Although they don't yet realize it, if you are a moral atheist, you are not an atheist at all, but rather you are a [[deist]]. The slippery slope is: once you realize you are a deist, you begin the search through religions to find a deeper meaning of life and learn more about the true nature of God. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:53, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:But that's just it--I am not a deist because I do not accept there is a god that needs to exist. If that means you are going to call me an atheist, fine, whatever, but otherwise there is no reason to be condescending about "poor little atheists." It just isn't necessary. We feel, if I may be so bold, that ''you'' are the one who is lost. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:14, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin this statement so far as I can tell doesn't seem to based upon reason but rather upon faith. As Thomas Jefferson (a deist) said, “Nature [has] implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.” In your "Nature" means "good luck" or at the very difference "luck". I don't see any difference between "good luck" and God. You think these are unrelated concepts, but I'm not sure why. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

If I sound condescending it is because you are no different from a fundamentalist muslim. That is you refuse to critically examine your belief set objectively. To answer hypothetical questions will lead you in a direction you refuse to go. You demand that others prove the unprovable as evidence that there is a God. Understand this: we agree that God is neither a flying spaghetti monster, nor a bearded old man laying on a cloud. Relax, I understand your position completely, because I've been where you are. It's okay. Each finds his own path in due time.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe there is a reason it is "unprovable." Truth be told, I think what passes for "good luck" is also random. Just as the rest of universe, this computer I'm typing on and the bowl of Cheerios I had for breakfast. It occurred through chance that this came about--not by a bearded man in the sky waving a wand. If you are looking for fantasy, watch Harry Potter or read the bible. I live in a world of facts and evidence and am content to do so until my lamp is extinguished. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I really have no idea what Harry Potter or the Bible has to do with the central question. After all this talking I have discerned (with much difficulty) that you attribute all that we see to "good luck". I call it "God" but I agree completely that whether it's just good luck or whether it is God this realization does not change reality. Other than that we are in complete agreement. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Good, we agree that god is a delusion based on random chance and superstition in the ill-informed mind. Glad to hear that, too. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

No. We agree that your misinformed characterization of the word "God" is the based on your perceptions about what you think God is. Since we agree that the universe is the product of luck, henceforth I will refer to the guiding force behind the universe as Luck so as to not offend your belief-set.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

''Don't you love how the Truth flows like water? No matter where you damn it up, it will still find the way. This is the miracle of Luck to me.'' [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:05, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

good lord this is boring.... [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

How 'bout I say "you win" and you evangelize someone else? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's "reasoning" for you ... heh ... [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, you win by attrition. Congrats. Now, I'll go back to not going to churc and telling school children there is no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Funny, you took the words right out of my mouth. ;-) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So, in fact this is not attrition or victory (I was never trying to win). Rather the discussion is at an end because you have refused to expand the boundaries of your perceptions. You came here believing that god was a myth and you continue to believe that god is a myth. You refuse to examine the implications of this possibility: myths are myths, but God is something else entirely. The thing you call Luck, I call God. That's called finding common ground. Your current problem is your very fearful of where that common ground might take you. It might shatter your arrogantly held belief-set.

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Which Religion is the true Religion?==

::You havea copy of the Bible in God's handwriting? Or you beleive that every step from initial writing, through every translation throughout time has been divinely guided to lay out His message clearly? So, which translation is the divinely guided one? And if He were so inclined to so specifically direct the writing ans subsequent translation of a book, might he not have made it a bit clearer which translation is correct, and which parts of the Bible can be taken literally and which are metaphors? You claim to know the difference... I've never seen that footnote anywhere in the Bible. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

This statement has nothing to do with this discussion. The arguments about "which translation" and "God's handwriting" are filed under "Which religion is the true religion?" and they have no bearing on whether atheism vs. deism. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The copies and translations of the Bible are very accurate, and accurate enough to know what God was saying. And the phrase "every translation through time" is quite misleading, as mot current English Bibles have been translated directly from the original languages, i.e. a one-step translation. It couldn't get much better than that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not prepared to defend the Bible as the "word of God", but I think it's an important question to examine, but I think it's a pointless discussion with those who haven't realized that there is a God. All your Bible proves to them is that someone wrote something a long time ago. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, but I am not someone who denies the existence of God, just one who does not accept that the Bible is literal truth. I personally beleive it to be mostly metaphorical, with some history thrown in, though I'd still never use it for a primary history source, even on mundane topics (i.e. who ruled where at what time... etc...) [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I am pretty much in agreement with you QNA. I'm willing to allow the possibility that Phil Rayment's opinions about the Bible is correct. At the same time, I doubt he's right about that. On the other hand, I think that denying the existance of God is silly. However, arguing the nature of God is a worthwhile endeavor. The Bible and other texts are useful in this exercise because we can learn a great deal from those who have gone before us and who have already had these same arguments.

::::I will say without equivocation that the "God doesn't exist because I don't believe in bearded guys in the clouds with a magic wand" is pretty much an argument made from a posiition of ignorance about what most knowledgeable people think about God and the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Good Luck==
Since all of the universe occurred out of good luck (according to Flippin), can we humans influence Luck? Should we attempt to commune with Luck? Do you think that hundreds of thousands of years ago, men (equally smart) pondered these same questions (since they didn't have a TV to occupied their evenings). Do you think luck, or perhaps Luck, resulted in the strange coincidence that after many generations the consensus view in every culture and society has always been that we can affect our luck by a combination of worshipping Luck and doing good things? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::No no no no no no no. The universe came to be the way it is due to the laws of physics etc, that so far have been proven to be as true as anything can be and apply to the universe exceedingly well. Add to this the theory of evolution, and yes there are one or two holes there, but soon we will have filled them all. The process of life is an attempt to discover things. You may say that we believe that we came here due to luck however i do not believe this to be true. We came here because of a reason that i do not know. However i have faith that i will not remain ignorant forever, and that soon we will know and we need not invoke luck or god to describe how we got here.

::I sympathise with you because of your above description of how you came to be a deist, however there are a few things that you might need to consider again. Firstly that just because we dont know something does not mean that we will always not know it. Look at the progress science has made over the past 500 years. We have gone from believing that the earth is at the centre of the universe and that the world is only 6000 years old, to the earth being just one planet revolving around an unremarkable star and is over 4 billion years old. Consider what we may discover in the next 500 years as our technology continues to progress and we begin to explore space outside the playground of the solar system. I would not be surprised if within my lifetime, we have an explanation for how life started and a reason for the big bang that does not rely on some higher being.

::As an aside i think that to say that as you grow older you grow wiser is slightly misguided. Yes a some people do because they have more experience and they have the foresight to use that to plan there future. However a large part of the human population does not use this experience at all, and simply assumes that they know best because they are older not because they are wiser. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:27, 27 April 2007

What's the difference between what you just said and what I just said? You wrote, "The universe came to be the way it is due to the laws of physics etc, that so far have been proven to be as true as anything can be and apply to the universe exceedingly well." Okay. we agree. So the universe is ordered. It has laws. How did the "laws" come about? Did the protons and electrons elect a neutron who decided what laws everyone should follow? I guess these laws are and always have been. I guess we were just lucky to have the Laws of Physics.

As an aside I find this assertion amusing, "As an aside i think that to say that as you grow older you grow wiser is slightly misguided." I'm not so much suprised that someone who believes there is more wisdom in youth than in age doubts the foundations of the philosophies that provided his every waking and sleeping daily need. I wish I were that naive again. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:21, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

We, as in humanity, do not know why the laws of physics happen to be the way they are. Maybe there was no choice, and for the universe to have come into existence these laws must have been the way they are. Or maybe there are other explanations. We simply do not know, however again, this admission of lack of knowledge does not mean that I decide that therefore God must be the answer. I simply accept that I do not know everything and then I attempt to find out why such things are the way they are. I do not think that we were lucky to have the laws of physics, I am confident that there is a solid scientific reason that does not allow any greater sentience to have a hand in things and that this reason will become evident in the not to distant future.

I do not think there is more wisdom in youth than in age. That is the reason I said 'slightly misguided'. Not totally misguided and not completely idiotic. Just that there are old people who are not wise just as there are young people who are. I do not claim to be one of those young people, I am not wise in any sense, although I do hope to learn from my experiences and others and thus become wise. However many people do not use experience in this way and so do not become wise, just as some people pick up on things quickly and are. I do not doubt the foundations of the philosophies that provide me with such. I doubt the philsophies of Thomas Aquinas, St Anselm and any that have agreed with these two charlatans parading themselves as philosophers.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:52, 28 April 2007

Debate:Is religion morally wrong?

2007-04-28T06:53:27Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Good Luck */

{{debate}}
==Yes==
anything that teaches young children to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question, and then teaches them that anyone who does not believe what they do is wrong and needs to have their immortal soul 'saved' is morally wrong. as well as that, waging wars against "non-believers" or "infidels" and killing thousands of millions of people, puts religion in the morally wrong category. as in interesting aside, the link to this debate is actually titled "is athiesm morally wrong?" which may need to be fixed. --[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30 (EDT)
: Done. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::''Wha' ...?'' Anyone who thinks that religion teaches one "to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question" just plain doesn't understand any religion to which I have ever been exposed. However, I'm pretty sure I can guess why your so confused.

::There is a belief, which is generally held by most religions and most people over the age of 30, that human nature is constant. Moral codes, philosophy and religion are built upon assumptions about the constants of human nature. In this way, moral codes are similar to alegbra. Algebra is built upon a foundation of unchanging constants. Math is unchanging. Human nature is unchanging. Therefore, each generation doesn't need to reinvent algebra. Similarly, each generation needn't rediscover the reason that people devised certain moral codes which were based upon countless generations of knowledge about human nature and where then incorporated into religion and philosophy.

::This does not mean that the field of mathemics should cease to expand. This does not mean that curiosity is bad. This means that we already know that 1+1=2. We already know what happens to civilizations and societies where wild sexual activities are encouraged. This does not mean that we stop digging up fossils. This does mean that we don't kill unborn children to expiriment on them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::(wow, first ever post on a debate page!) Everwill, I would argue that human nature '''is''' changing and most certainly can't be likened to algebra. Algebra is indeed definite. It always follows the same rules reagrdless of the complexity of the problem. Surely, you can't say that human nature is like that? The scale of variation is unimaginable!

:::Also, in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher. Or, they are taught in a slanted view, which distorts the truth. All this because those parents or teachers seem afraid that their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught! That '''is''' morally wrong. The choice should be the child's not the elders'. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a reason that William Shakespeare's dramas, King David's tribulations & and the Andy Griffith show (how's that for a unexpected twist?) are timeless stories that affect us in the same way as when they affected those to whom these stories were first told. They affect us all the same way because human nature does not change. The truth is we all love, hate, breath, live and die. The human condition is infinitely variable, but human nature is constant. Of course, there are countless examples of this simple and plainly evident truth. I'm quite sure I'm not the first one to tell you that human nature is the same. In fact, this truth is the foundation of our concepts of equality and our freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

::I don't want to spend a lot of time defending something that is an elemental and accepted truth spanning time, civilizations and belief systems. This is because I'm not sure whether you're denying the fact that human nature is universal because you are ignorant (unlikely) or because you are intellectually dishonesty (my guess). In either case, it would consume far too much time to explain to you the definition of human nature to your liking. But I what I can posit in reply is an answer to your simple question: there are absolutes in morality, just as there are absolutes in algebra. For example, murder is always wrong. There is no compromise in this principle.

::''As a quick aside I must note that I always find it humorous when people (usually liberals) stereotype the upbringing found in fundamentalist religious groups.''

::To your point, it is true that "in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." But guess what, you've just proven my point. This is because, EVERY SINGLE human that ever reached adulthood was "brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." '''DUH!'''

::It is possible that your theory is true. Perhaps, teachers and parents want to shield children from outside influences because "their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught!" But who do you think is most likely to have the child's best interests at heart? I would presume that a child's parents and that child's teachers want what is best for the child. I think you are implying that the pornographers, salesmen, MTV, rappers, strangers and passerby's---all of whom the child might find more interesting (and more permissive) than the parents and teachers---are better for the child? You think it's better that the child find out (the hard way) the lessons which the parents and grandparents into the mists of history, have already found out? Preposterous. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not argueing that modern celebrities are the way forwards by any means. The messages put forward by that group does not teach very good lessons for kids (or adults!). I'm merely pointing out that the near brainwashing of the young by their parents and teachers with regards religious teaching is also wrong and can teach a child "bad" things. An example would be homosexuality. Kids in religious families who think they might be gay receive no support from parents who believe that homosexuality is bad, simply because it is the parents belief. Surely a parents love for their child should come before their religion?

:::I am not being intellectually dishonest, just ignorant (ha like thats any better!). What I thought you meant by human nature isn't what is used in the definitions I found on the internet. I took human nature to be the general world viewpoint held by each individual person; where there is substantial difference!

:::I think argueing that children should accept what their parents tell them because they have learnt it from their experience is flawed. Every person has a different PoV so will experience things differently. If a child recieves all their advice from a parent who sees the world entirely differently to them, what will that child think of themselves? Is that fair on the child? A parent should be there for guidance, yes, but not for absolute teaching. To relate this to religion: religion is a predetermined set of "rules" that followers must stick to. Choosing a religion (and its rules) is a personal choice. Parents will naturally try to enforce their beliefs and rules on their children, thereby removing their choice to religion and actions, which is removing their freedom to be themselves. Surely that is a terrible wrong to do to that child? I am not argueing that children should be given no rules, nothing of the sort. I am merely saying that the rules given to a child by their parents should not be based on the religion of the parent(s) as that is a moral wrong to that child. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I see. By your logic the child should have rules and the rules should come from the parent (sort of) but the parent shouldn't base the rule structure or belief set upon something found in religion. Instead, you believe that religion must be by a higher and more correct authority. And just who is that authority? ''Will & Grace''? Madonna & Britney? Who is this higher and more perfect authority? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to enjoy mentioning celebrities...perhaps they have affected you more than you think. Their ability to corrupt is unbounded! I don't know what you mean by "religion must be by a higher and more correct authority". I am merely argueing for separation of of religious doctrine from a child's upbringing. Yes, make a child aware of their parents belief, why they believe it, etc., but don't "force it down their necks" or make them feel bad for "not believing". That is what I find to be morally wrong about religion: the automatic assumption of parents that their children should follow in their beliefs. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

a childs parents should bring up their children to be open to new ideas and to trust their senses and logic in ideological matters. religion of any kind does not allow this to be taught to children. as well as this, many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is a false characterization of religion, perhaps based in ignorance. Every major religion teaches personal accountability and free will. Therefore, religion encourages children (and everyone else) to "trust their senses and logic in ideological matters." Religion is a framework to assist in decision making. Religion does not take personal responsiblity or logic from anyone. (Perhaps you should read a bit of C.S. Lewis or Thomas Aquinas to better acquaint yourself with the value of logic to the Christian mind.)

::You state (no caps and no punctuation are all yours): "many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are." Who knows better what the child's best interests are? The media? The government? The child? Who?

::I'm glad we're having this discussion, mostly because it's apparent that you are the victim of the propaganda of another religion. You're repeating the mantra of the liberal religion, which teaches that all religions are equal and there are no moral boundaries. Your religion might be the "one true" religion, but I doubt it.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

The childs best interests are known only by the child itself. I do not mean to say that no parents ever get it right, or wrong, however what is in the childs best interests is not to foist a belief system on him/her without letting him/her have any choice or free will in the matter. The majority of religions (liberal or fundamentalist) do not encourage children to take advantage of their natural curiosity and explore all the possibilities of logic and science, as they see science as a threat to their belief system. Just as an example, the enactment of hell that occurs in an American state led by Pastor Ted Roberts which attempts to scare children into beliveing in God by scaring them with the sheer horror of the act. This would be dismissed as simply a fringe sect, however the supporters of this pastor, in his home state (i apologise for not knowing which state this is) number around 3 million. This is only one example of the methods used by religious leaders to force children into mindlessly believing what they are told. Another example is the muslim state of Saudi Arabia, where simply being of another faith or of no faith at all, is punishable by beheading. Note the similar use of fear tactics in both cases here. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:54, 19 April 2007

::What you're trying to say makes sounds ridiculous to me, but perhaps this is because we have not agreed to what the meaning of the word "child" is. Please allow me to insert a few definitions so that I don't miss your point and vice-versa.

:::* ward --- someone incapable of making personal decisions for some reason or another. There are several types of ward:
::::* child --- This individual cannot make personal decisions because they have not reached maturity (generally 17 and under). Children might step into traffic. Children might drink poison. Children can be cultivated into giving sexual favors to pedofiles. For all these reasons and many more, "parents" (''defined below'') make decisions for parents.
::::** mental defective --- This individual has poor reasoning skills or does not understand reality. For this reason "parents" or care-takers must make decisions for the mental defective
::::** sick or enfermed --- This individual might be in a coma. This individual might be extremely sick or otherwise unable to communicate. Thus, caretakers or "parents" must make decisions for this individual.

:::* parent --- one (ideally of two) individuals responsible for the care and nuturing of a ward or child

:::* adult --- An individual who is mentally competant and mature and thus has the free will to make any decisions they want so long as they don't violate the laws of the community where they reside.

::Children, and in fact, all other wards, need people to care for them and to make decisions for them. I'm quite sure there are a good many teenagers who would agree with your ridiculous notion that children make should make their own decisions, but most adults and most parents today (and throughout history) have come to agree that it is both unwise and unsafe to grant complete and total freewill to children (perhaps most especially teenagers). This is because children don't alwasy make good decisions. Children are easily swayed and they don't have the normal defenses of doubt and fear of strangers to protect them.

::This is a plain, simple and accepted truth. I'm not sure what possible connection that has to anything Ted Roberts ever said or did. Whether Ted Roberts or Jeffrey Dahmer or Hitler is a bogeyman or not, that doesn't change the fact that children need parents. I guess what you'll have to accept is that some parents will raise children who don't agree with your beliefs. I'm quite comfortable with the fact that not all parents or people agree with me. I much too busy and quite frankly don't feel the need to tell other people how to raise their children. I doubt you have any idea what any of the parents in former Pastor Robert's church are teaching their children. I thought liberals believed in tolerance and diversity? Why can't you tolerate their differences and celebrate their Christian diversity?

::What would you like to see in Saudi Arabia, a crackdown on parents? Do you want to take the children from their parents and raise them yourself? Have you ever considered the possiblity that the concept (called "fascism") of imposing your values upon others is wrong-heaed and evil? Don't you think Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live? Are you trying to suggest that the US should invade Saudi Arabia and replace the mullahs with ACLU? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No i am not attempting to say much of that, i think that you are right in that i have misunderstood the point that you were making. I do apologise for that. What i would like to say in regards to your previous point, is that while i agree that parents should have the role in making decisions for their children (with an increasing amount of input from the child as they grow older) at the same time, they should not force their beliefs onto their children and, where possible, educate them enough so that they have the intelligence and a high enough level or reasoning to be able to make their own decision in matters of faith and belief. While a lot of parents do this, i believe that the majority don't, although i am willing and hoping to be proven wrong. I do belive in tolerance and diversity, but that is what my main problem with religion is. Religion tends to preach the opposite of this, generally against other faiths but also against homosexuals and other groups that seem to break the rules of their faith. I do think that Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live, however i think that maybe a lot do not want to live the way they do, and that another large number would not want to live that way, if they were not devout muslims. I honestly think the US should keep out of the middle east in general, as the problems it has caused there seem to be greater then the amount solved, however that is not the topic on discussion here. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:56, 20 April 2007

:This debate title seems to be relatively unfocussed, but the debate itself seems to have settled down into a focussed discussion of whether or not it is morally right for religions to pass on their codifications, conventions and beliefs to their children in a manner which could be construed as 'indoctrination'. [[Richard Dawkins]] makes the point that it would not be acceptable in today's society to label children as 'a Democrat Child' or 'a Republican child', nor to set up schools which say that we are going to only teach 'Democrat' values in this school, and to only honour Democrats. However, it does appear to be acceptable to have 'catholic' scools, catholic, muslim and hindu children. Why is this? Any Religion and or Political Stance, when it comes down to it are idealogies, and have many parallels in the way they are dogmatic about the way that adherents should behave. They both present strong arguments as to the way that you should treat knowledge, evidence, and all present a very biased world view. This is fine if you are an adult, and you understand the rules, and you know that this is the way the world works, and that you have a choice about whether to question or to belive at all; but if you are an uimpressionable youngester you could be scarred for life: 'Give me a child until he is seven...."

There is a very strong argument to say that we should NOT allow people to present contraversial points of view to children AS IF these were uncontestable facts. This, after all, is the arguments of the creationists against evolution. They maintain children should be exposed to both points of view. However, I cannot imagine that any catholic school would suggest teaching that God may or may not exist, and allowing children to experience both the sacrament and the indoctrination ceremony of freemasons, and asking them to compare & contrast!--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 04:18, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Thankyou Felix for articulating what i was attempting to say, and i apologise again to Everwill for not wording my arguement very clearly. Having attended an anglican school till i was 13, i never was fully concious that they did not present their teachings as anything other then indisputable fact and that we were expected to believe that without question. The other thing that struck me was that i was never allowed to avoid communion on the basis that i was an atheist, while one of my friends who was jewish was excused. It was almost as if they rathered that we believed in a god, even if it is a slightly different set of beliefs that come attached, than that we had no beliefs at all. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30, 20 April 2007

::Bolly, it sounds like you're trying to impose your own parental issues on others. I understand that you thought you were an atheist and yoru parents wanted to impose their theistic beliefs on you. The fact is, they have every right to impose these theistic beliefs on you. After you come of age, you can think or do anything you like. It would appear that they weren't too oppressive and it would appear they were quite open-minded because they raised an atheist. It would appear that you are the one who is oppressive because you want to raise other children to think like you. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:15, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

No, my parents are both atheists as well, the only reason i went to that school was because it was the best school in the area. However adults do not have the right to impose their theistic beliefs on their children, just as they have no right to impose their political ideologies on them. Children are trusting of their parents because in the majority of situations their parents are doing what is best for them. What i believe parents should do is to raise their children to be open minded about belief regardless of their own beliefs. Therefore any parents should educate their children about different faiths (including atheism although it is not really a faith) in a totally balanced and fair manner with no predjudice. This allows children to make up their own mind about their own personal beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:48, 21 April 2007

::Ever wonder why the religious school was the best school in the area? Have you ever once considered the possibility that this school was better because the religious school wasn't attempting to relearn the lessons of the past? This school already had a functioning set of moral codes and they didn't need to wander through the maze of pitfalls in our new ACLU-friendly world of multi-culturalist moral equivelancy? Or perhaps you think the school was better because of dumb luck?

::As defined above, adults do not have the right to impose their beliefs on children. However, ''parents'' have a right (and more importantly a duty) to impose their beliefs on children. Parents should educate their children in the way that feels best to them.

::But what you fail to comprehend is that '''anything''' you teach children is a view point. You're just upset because you want everyone else to teach your view point. Your viewpoint embraces moral equivalism and the belief that all religions are equal. That is a viewpoint. It may or may not be valid, but the fact is, it is a viewpoint. It is just another value-set. It may or may not be more valid than the values of another parent. That's an argument that can be had, but it's not at issue here.

::The issue is that you want other parents to teach their children what you believe. Furthermore, you think it's immoral that they won't teach their children your values. Don't you think that's a little silly? Do you think you're any different from the fundamentalist Christians who are upset because you're not teaching your child about Jesus? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 05:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Imposing values on other people's children==

Yes i did think about why my school was the best school in the area. The reason was that it was the richest, as it was a private school and charged massive fees for attendance. And its moral codes are almost indistinguishable from the school i attended after, which was an international college and had no religious affiliation. No adults do not have a right to impose their beliefs on children. Parents also do not have this right. To impose a personal belief on a trusting child is not morally right. Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe. I believe that all parents should teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice. Up until a certain age, say 13, children cannot believe in anything purely because it makes sense to them and, if allowed by their parents, many children do make up their own religion for a while or switch repeatedly between religions until they reach a point of maturity where they can make a choice based upon what they have learned. Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:37, 21 April 2007

::You absolutely don't make any sense. I always think ''ad hominem'' attacks are inappropriate, so I hope I don't sound like I'm attacking you, but based upon the evidence (spelling, grammatical & punctuation errors) I'm beginning to doubt your claim that your private school was the best in the area. Furthermore, I doubt that the religious indoctrination in your school was oppressive based upon the fact that you obviously attended the school, but don't share the school's values. I can't help but tell you that once again you have posted something which does not make logical sense.

::You wrote:
:::"''Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism.''"
::Of course exploiting anyone (most especially children) is never morally right. This is because according to Merriam Webster Online "exploit" means "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <''exploiting migrant farm workers''>". But you haven't laid even a meager basis for this wild accusation. Who are you accusing of exploiting children and for what gain? Are you trying to say that parents are exploiting their own children? What do parents gain from that?

::You write,
:::"''Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe.''"
::In the first sentence you describe your "beliefs" (which is just a different term for your "religion") and furthermore you demand that parents teach their children your values. In the second sentence you state the exact opposite. Perhaps the silliest thing you imply is that it is somehow dangerous or bad to trust your parents and teachers. If one can't trust ones parents or teachers, then who can one trust?

::I very seriously doubt you have learned much if anything through this process you describe above. I doubt you have tested how the world works to verify the claims of teachers and parents. For example, I'm pretty sure you trusted your Driver's Education teacher when he told you that "green means go". You didn't feel the need to experiment with driving on red first. I doubt you ever verified any claims made in the DMV Manual by using the scientific method and a double-blind study. I'm pretty sure that you trust that when you flip a light switch and turn on the boob-tube that electrons will serve your will and pleasure. But, I doubt you have actually flown a kite in a thunderstorm to verify that electricity exists. By the same token, I doubt you need to violate any of the Ten Commandments to agree that these simple laws are for the benefit of all of humanity. I'm sure you agree that children don't need to experiment with adultery, murder or lying. They're better off just taking their parents' word that these are bad things.

::The reason you agree is because it's just plain silly to waste time verifying every claim of trusted parents and teachers. Therefore, the issue for you is not that "children need to reason things on their own".

::The real issue for you is that you are an atheistic evangelist and you are frustrated because some people aren't open to receiving your message. You are frustrated because some people trust their parents more than they trust you.

::Buck up, trooper. You should satisfy yourself with the many victories of the secular progressive agenda. For example, traditional parents were forced to allow people like you to ban prayer and religious discussion from our schools. This should satisfy you. Now you can safely raise your children without fear that they will overhear a prayer and thus they might accidentally become infected with religion. You have successfully had the 10 Commandments removed from many courtrooms. Be happy because you've already won all you can logically win.

::The only thing left for you is to take away more freedom from others to practice their religion and teach their religion to their children. You're not satisfied with leaving them to do what they want to do. Instead, you want to teach other people's children to force parents (and I quote) to "''teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice.''" Why do you feel the need to force other people not to talk about religion until the child is thirteen?

::My guess is that you believe this because you can't seem to understand that your personal opinion about religion '''is''' just another religion. I'm quite sure that you are trying to be a good person. I'm quite sure that you want to teach other people your religion because you want what's best for the child. But in America we have a concept called "Freedom of Religion". Because of our Freedom of Religion, you are prohibited from ramming your value-set down the throats of other people's children.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I admit you have quite easily picked out some flaws in the way i have argued my point, and you are right in about that paragraph where i contradict myself. I shall attempt to explain myself more clearly. I do not think all children should be taught my beliefs. That is the most important part. My beliefs are of the atheistic kind, as you already know. What i think is that children should not be indoctrinated into any religion or set of beliefs. If the person chooses at a later date to be a christian or muslim or atheist, good on them. But, to come to your point on how we trust what certain people tell us about certain things, like the driving instructor when it comes to driving and so on, children trust their parents. That is because the vast majority of parents do have their childrens best interests in mind all the time. However some do use this trust, often without intending to, to teach their child to believe what they believe about God, or lack thereof (you are right about exploiting, it was the wrong word to use in that situation). My arguement in a nutshell: Children should have freedom of religion. What i mean by that is that they should not be influenced by their parents. Because many people do not have freedom of religion, in America or elsewhere (i should point out that freedom of religion is part of the Australian constitution as well) as they did not realise they had a choice. They have always been brought up to believe that Christianity was right, or that Islam was right, etc. and because it is from their parents whom they trust, they do not question this, and they are often denied the tools with which to apply logic to religious arguements.

Just as an aside to my main point, the ten commandments aren't actually such a great set of morals to live by. The very first commandment violates freedom of religion : thou shalt worship no other god but me. Also, according to the commandments, disrespecting your parents results in being stoned to death. And to compound it, thou shalt not kill, does not apply to people who are not the same religion as you. When taken the way they were intended, they aren't such a good set of morals to live by. [[User:Bolly Ottihw:Bolly Ottihw]] 14:57, 23 April 2007
::I won't waste time defending the Ten Commandments, something I belive to be a foundation of everything good in Western Civilization. The courts have agreed to remove the Ten Commandments from public life and I am not in a position to change the law, so I obey the law.

::But I will repeat the following in the hopes that you might understand this concept. Your opinion about religion, in other words "your personal definition of freedom of religion" is just another religion. It is clear that you want other parents to teach your definition of "freedom of religion" to other children.

::It may offend your sensibilities, but some people don't agree with your opinions about religion. In American, they don't have to agree with you. They can believe whatever they want. Thus, most American parents teach their children that America is a free country, where people can believe whatever they want. Further, they teach their children their own family's values and religion. Some people are Baptists or Muslims or Hindus. Some people (like you) prefer like to teach their children to sample a hodgepodge of all religions so that they will better understand atheism. That is their right. Please don't take it away from them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Selective application of logic==
Isn't it amusing that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age, but the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, i disagree (although of course i would, i am a so-called liberal). I think that the reason is that there are facts about sex and that religion is more hazy, in that there is very little proof on both sides of the arguement, and it becomes philosophical which is harder for a child to deal with. However i think that sex education should start at around age 13, which is about the same time i think children should start to seriously consider their religion or beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 15:03, 23 April 2007

You disagree with what? You disagree with:
::* The assertion that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age;
::* The assertion that the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age;
::* With the idea of teaching children family values;
::* With the idea of teaching children regilious values;
::* With the idea that sex education should be postponed;
::* All of the above;
::* Something else?

You don't make much sense to me.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Aside from the fact that you've ignored the bulk of what Bolly wrote and focused mainly on a fairly trivial thing that he said, you seem to think that "we" (being us liberal bods) are applying selective logic by saying we should teach about "sex" and not religion. In fact, by your reasoning, "you" (being the conservative bunch) are applying the same selective logic by saying that we should teach religion but not teach "sex". A horrible dilemma for you, don't you think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::1. I've not ignored anything anyone said. Please explain.

::2. I'm sorry that I've seemed to confuse you. Please allow me to explain my interpretation of the conservative position on the education of sex and the education of religion.
:::* One should teach children family values, morals and religion at an early age. This is for the child's benefit and for the benefit of mankind. (As an adult they can do whatever they would like to do, provided they don't break the law.)
:::* Regarding sex, the conservative position is that it is desirable to prolong the child's innocence by postponing sex education as long as possible.
::I'm sorry if this flavor of common sense offends you. Furthermore, I'm sorry but I can't begin to understand why this common sense would support in any way the ridiculous notion that "religion is morally wrong" by ''any'' definition of "religion" as posted below by another editor. As best as I can figure from the poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled statements above here's what I suppose the liberal position is:
:::* One should not teach children about religion because religion is evil. They won't come to realize how evil religion is until they reach 13 to 25 (commonly known as the Age of Rebellion). As a quick aside, it is a universal truth that the older people become, the wiser they become. I wonder why churches are full of old people?
:::* One should teach children about sex as soon as they are old enough to masturbate. This is because masturbation is healthy and can lead to an active and enjoyable sex life. It's important for children to understand the dangers of STD's and how to avoid pregnancy through the use of pills and condoms. Furthermore, all children should be aware if a little girl wants want an abortion, she can safely get an abortion without her parent's ever even knowing that she was pregnant. In this way she can continue with the lifestyle of her choosing without parents invading her right to privacy. If a child has a child and ends up dependent on the parents or the system, it's the conservative's fault for not talking about birth control more.
::Please correct me if I've mistated the liberal position.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You ignored the fact that Bolly made a valid point about the definition of fact and religion, and the age at which children should be educated about "sex".

:::Secondly, you say yourself that the statements written above are "poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled" and then go on to derive a definition from them!? Surely a better course of action would have been to take the definition from some credible source? As to what you have said, I would agree with most of what you define the conservative view to be, apart from teaching children a specific religion at an early age. I suppose it comes down to setting an age where innocence is lost (and I doubt many are naive enough to think that that is the age of consent). People under the age of 16 will have sex (not all, but some) and if no sex education is available for them, what sort of experiences will they have? Is it not better that from a certain age (and I would say that 13 is a good age for this to start) children are introduced to the idea of safe sex, with few (and preferably one) partner(s)?

:::You're right though, we have divulged from the debate topic, but this is an interesting tangent to the debate which I would very much like to continue if you care to carry on? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::For the second time, I'm ignoring Bolly's "valid point" because I have no clue what you are talking about. I didn't read any valid point which wasn't addressed ''ad nauseum'' already. Please read the dialogue to this point if you are confused as to why I think it's ridiculous (and invalid) to demand that other people teach their children ''your'' values. I've already explained why this is ridiculous above.

::I attempted to derive a definition from Bolly's statement only to appease your pretense of indignation when you accused me of ignoring Bolly's alleged "points". By your reaction, I'm now assuming that you just haven't read the entire argument yet and that you concur, Bolly made no points in the gibberish above. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

My point was that i think that children should be educated about sex and religion at the same age. This is because it is the age where both become major issues for children growing up. Please do explain how this is hard to understand, and how this is a selective application of logic. (I apologise for my poor grammar, it is because i write my line or thought and arguement down the same way i would say it out loud) [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:42, 24 April 2007

::You don't need to keep writing the same thing over and over and over. We already understand your opinion about how ''you think'' things should be. You've made that quite clear.

::What you still don't seem to understand is that you don't have the right to tell other people how to live, nor do you have the right to teach other children your beliefs. That's pretty self-centered. You're self-centered nature is further evidenced by the fact that you admission that you would prefer to force others to spend their precious time deciphering your cryptic musings directly from your stream of consciousness, rather than taking the time and effort to write coherent sentences with good spelling and grammar. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Age at which sex education should be taught==

Regarding the interesting tangent: to what particularly are you referring? Are you trying to debate the age at which sex education should be imposed upon children?

This is a complicated issue because there are several related factors. Most churches teach that sex outside of marriage is adultery, a sin and a mistake. But it is my personal opinion, that church and religion is a guideline and the morals espoused therein are ideals. Ideally one never lies. Ideally one never commits adultery. But here in the real world, there are a good many liars and adulterers (myself included in both counts). Additionally, most parents think that sex under the age of 18 is a mistake. Most everyone agrees that sex under the age of 16 is a mistake. Does it happen in the real world? Yes it happens. Beyond the basic biological functions of sex, sexuality is about morality. Certainly every child over the age of 13 should be taught something about the biology of sex. But what of the morality of the sex, the politics of sex and the religious or spiritual aspects of sex? These are much more complicated and personal issues and these issues should be handled within the family.

I think it's important to teach young teens "where babies come from." I think it's important to leave discussions about homosexuality, adultery and abortion to the family and church. But my original point is not that I presume to know how or when to push sex education. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:What i find interesting is that you assume that the church knows more about homosexuality than homosexuals. And regarding this, the church brings 2000 year old arguements to this subject without considering how it applies in todays society. In the past homosexuality would not have been profitable as it would not have benifited the tribe in anyway compared to heterosexual sex. In this age, there is no lack of benefit from not having children and so there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. The other thing i disagree with is that here is a religious aspect to sex. Sex should be a coupling between two people who share a great love between each other. Again, that doesnt always happen, however it is essential that children learn this at the same time they learn about the biological side of sex. [[Bolly ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:47, 24 April 2007

::Of course, that's your opinion and your entitled to it. You've got a right to live your life however you want. For me the choice is obvious. On one hand I have 2000 to 10000 years of wisdom. On the other hand, there's some dude on the Internet {{strike personal remark|who doesn't know how to write proper English, but }} who claims to know more than the Church, and Thomas Aquinas. All I ask is that you let others live their lives the way they want. Is that too much to ask? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Did you just make a personal remark? (I should block your account for 1 second. ;-)

I apologize if I offended anyone. I don't believe in ''ad hominem'' attacks. I think they are rude and pointless. However, if someone admits that they don't write properly in a forum where writing is the only means of communication, then they have openned the door to commentary by others. I'm quite sure you're just kidding anyway, I hope this doesn't sound too stern. I'm just tired right now. I was up late, up early and I'm facing a long day. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Atheists have it all figured out ... ==
My point above in ''Selective application of logic'' is that it looks very hypocritical for liberals to want to teach children about sex as young as possible, but the same crowd doesn't want to teach children religion until after they are suspectible to corruption and experimentation.

What amateur philosophers like Bolly don't seem to understand is that theologians, philosophers and generations of people with more time on their hands than all of us have already put a great deal of effort and experimentation into evolving a set of moral codes and sound religious creeds. Bolly is naive enough to expect the unreasonable notion that any '''one''' man can compete with the thoughts and knowledge of countless generations who have gone before him. He honestly thinks he can invent a personal philosophy and religious-code based upon his individual experiences. He believes that his own personal philosophy can rival the combined thoughts of generations of philosophers and theologians.

/begin rant: We as modern humans don't have to invent medicine, or geology, or build a TV set and write computer code. That's already been done by others! We can stand on their shoulders. Can you imagine how silly and presumptive it sounds to those former atheists like myself when they read that Bolly thinks he knows how the universe works and that he can definitively say that he understands the nature of God?

Bolly doesn't know the first thing about God or philosophy, but he wants to teach other people's children his credo of experiment with all religions and then become an atheist. I know why [[Thomas Aquinas]] and [[Socrates]] and even [[Aleister Crowley]] are famous (or infamous as the case may be), but I don't know why Bolly presumes to know what's best for other people's children. /end rant.

You don't have to invent moral codes or laws or waste time experimenting with life's dead-ends. You can look up the answer in the book of your choice and things will be so much easier for you.

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I have explained that it is not hypocritical, as i believe they should be taught at the same age, neither
before the other.

I am not naive enough to think that i can rival any of the great philosophers in logic and philosophy, however i dont think i would have any trouble outthinking Thomas Aquinas, for example. The reason for this is that he (and others like him) used their religious credibility to establish themselves as philosophical geniuses when in fact, he was not much smarter then anyone of the time, and certainly not smarter then the average uni graduate today. This can be amply demonstrated by his '5 proofs' of gods existence which are more full of holes than a swiss cheese.

To compare moral codes to medicing or geology is not an adequate comparison. The basic ideas of medicine and geology are based on sound proof and will not change much within the next thousand years. On the other hand, moral codes are always changing depending on the society that they are employed by. Look at the change in opinion about non-caucasian people over the past 200 years! only 100 years ago it was considered the height of stupidity to consider an african american the equal of a white man, yet today, even though there is still far to much prejudice in the world, it is generally accepted that there is no difference between any of the races of humanity. The great thinkers of one age would be considered backwards and redundant if they were transported in time to today.

I do not presume to know the nature of god. I do know, within myself, that god does not exist and i am content with that knowledge. You say you were an atheist, i would like to know what converted you to christianity.

No you do not need to waste time experimenting with dead ends, however because i believe in freedom of religion, i think it would only be fair that children are shown all the alternative modes of beliefs.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:00, 24 April 2007

::Fine. Show your children and leave others alone.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== This is an invalid question ==

I've stayed away from the debates on Conservapedia, and this one is an example of why. I'm only here now because I was asked for my input.

The problem with the question is that "religion" is not defined. On my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment#.22Religion.22 Wikipedia user page] I've listed some of the main ways that the word "religion" is used:
{{QuoteBox|
# A set of beliefs on which one bases one's life
# Belief in a deity or deities (e.g. Christianity is a religion)
# A particular set of rituals (e.g. He is practising his religion)
# A particular broad set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Christian, Muslim, or Hindu?)
# A particular narrower set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Methodist, Baptist, or Catholic?) }}

I further say there:
{{QuoteBox|No. 2 is, in my opinion, an arbitrary subset of No. 1. People believe in multiples gods (polytheism), everything-is-god (pantheism), one god (monotheism) or no god (atheism). Pantheism and atheism don't fit into definition No. 2, yet to consider them somehow "different" is arbitrary and self-serving ... . Thus I use definition No. 1 in preference to No. 2, and argue that atheism (and related views such as secular humanism) are religions, every bit as much as Christianity is. The difference is simply how many gods one believes in.}}

So if "religion" is a worldview (or ''ideology'' if you prefer), then it follows that ''everybody has one'', by its very nature and definition. How can one then ask if it is morally wrong?

Of course the person who asked the question obviously didn't have that definition in mind. But which one did he have?

To a Christian, Christianity is No. 1: a core set of beliefs on which one bases one's life. I would hope that it is obvious even to atheists that one cannot help but base one's actions on one's beliefs. So in that sense, "religion" comes before children, because when dealing with children, one ''must'' deal with them according to one's beliefs. That is why everyone, even atheists, do so.

To an atheist (who conveniently would not describe atheism as a religion), "religion" is a "optional extra". And on that basis, clearly children's welfare should come before "optional extra" beliefs.

To recap, the problem here is that there is no definition of what is intended by "religion" in this question, let alone any actual agreement by opposing viewpoints.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

This is dead-on correct. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

We do not 'conveniently' choose not to describe atheism as a religion. Atheism is defined as : a lack of belief. Lack of belief is not a religion. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:02, 24 April 2007

:Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is an ardent ''belief'' that there is no God. And even ignoring that point, you ''do'' have core beliefs, which can be considered your worldview/ideology/religion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:23, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is. When split up: A-Theism. no-belief. I do not ardently believe god does not exist. I dont think god exists. If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic.

I do have core beliefs. That does not consitute religion except in your definition. And i would argue that that is not religion, that is simply morality dressed up. My worldview is not my ideology or religion, because it would be a really weird religion compared to the main ones around today.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:57, 24 April 2007

:According to the Oxford dictionary[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk], the "atheism" means "the belief that God does not exist". The prefix "a-" can mean "without", but it can also mean "not", and "theism" is a reference to God, not just belief. Not all atheists hold their belief in no god as strongly, but for many atheists, it is a ''belief'' in no god.
:It is not "my definition". It is one of several dictionary definitions. The rest of your last two sentences don't make sense. You have not explained how atheism is not a religion yet Christianity is. As I quoted myself above, any such distinction is arbitrary and self-serving.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Bolly says, ''If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic. '' Evidence for God lies around us in all directions and in all things. (See other topics herein for a few examples.) The reason you don't see evidence of God is your picture of God has nothing to do with what God is about. God is not some magical being. God is not flying spaghetti. God does not defy logic. God is logic. In your mind the great machine of the univers happened out of sheer luck. What's the difference between sheer luck and God? Aren't they the same thing? Hopefully I can give you a clue where to find God by telling you where to look.

God is in the details. The electrons are busy doing their thing. The subatomic particles are inside the protons hard at work doing whatever they do to make matter do what it does. Complex chains of molecules describe how to build a human being more efficiently than any code written by any programmer.

God is in the everyday. God is in the mother who cares for her child. God is in the man who jumps into freezing water to save a stranger. God is in the reason you feel good when you do good things, even when they aren't fun.

God is in the grandeur. God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time.

God is everywhere, everywhere but where you're looking. You're looking for god to do something other than what the universe already does. You're presumption is that the universe is fantastic, wonderfully complicated, a well-oiled machine, but you expect something over and above all of this. ''Yeah the universe is vastly complicate, but what have you done for me lately?''

The naivety of the atheist lies in the belief that the universe itself is not evidence of God. By Bolly's definition, God is only evidenced by something beyond the atheist's explanation and comprehension. By this definition you'll never find God, because if you could comprehended the magical proof of God and God could be explained, then it would not longer be magical and no longer beyond comprehension! [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely it is enough to gaze upon the vastness and awe inspring vistas of the universe without having to attribute it to some other being. Your above definition of god: "God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time." seems to me to be more naive then my atheism. You are simply defining the universe but replacing it with god.

I would like to see some of this 'proof' of gods existence for so far i have seen nothing that comes remotely close to convincing me that god exists. On the other hand, there is no need for god in this world. Science has come very close to completly shut out godly influence in the creation of life and the universe.

The universe has not come about out of sheer luck. The strong and weak nuclear force, gravity and quantum theory all allow us to model the creation of stars, planets and black holes in a purely logical manner. If you wish to call that logic and those laws 'God' then you are free to do so. But then god is not a being who can be worshipped or who answers prayers or makes miracles. Then God simply becomes another name for the universe with no added baggage of being the creator. I trust that this dismisses your last point about the magical proof of god. You are welcome to call the universe what you will, however don't expect many people to address prayers to the law of gravity.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:50, 26 April 2007

:::I understand what you say, but I don't think that's what you mean. What you are actually saying is that you have defined your image of God and unless God conforms to your idea of what God means/is and then someone else proves to you that idea is true, then you will not believe in God. Have you considered the possibility that what you thought of as God is just a magical bogeyman? Have you considered the possibility that God is something else entirely than what you thought as a child and later realized was preposterous when you grew up? What we teach children about God is drastically simplified for their consumption. It up to you to purse the truth of God after you realize there is no magical bogeyman. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why Atheism is ridiculous==
Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "God" is another word for "everything." God equals everything. Everthing is God. To deny that "God" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if God is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does God (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does God have a plan? Or is Everything (''i.e.'' God) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies. Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstien included) believe that time is an illusion and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or God) is sentient. God has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:That's not the God I know. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::As a godless, atheistic, morally-bankrupt existentialist, I have to say I disagree with this "assessment." If I am to take what you say at face value I come to the immediate conclusion that atheism is still correct. If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....

:::I think of the universe this way: I don't know how it came to be, but I assume it was a chemical and physical event, not supernatural. I know that this "stuff" doesn't have to have a plan in order to exist. There need not be a man in the sky to protect me from everything. I don't need to pray to something that I will succeed in life because there is no one listening. But, I'm not sad about this, I don't feel alone or unloved by the big ol' scary universe. Rather, I feel emboldened to take moral actions when I can.

:::Camus is my hero. His basic equation boils down to this: once a person realizes that there is no god they have two choices--suicide or a "faith flight." That is, if one accepts the religious view of things. If Camus is correct, and existence does indeed precede essence, then there is a third choice, the philosophy of moral action. Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.

:::Now, since I don't believe everything has a plan, and that I have a moral obligation to help my fellow man (and woman), I have an obligation to come to sites like this and try to fix them. Not by including so-called "liberal bias." Rather, the point is to make sure truth trumps propaganda. Wether I like it or not, I have a duty to help fix this garbage. I liken it to watching a child roll their tricycle toward the street. You, the adult, are standing there and you can see a truck bearing down on the child. Do you try and help her, or do you pray? I must take action and this website affords me a chance to help everybody. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You have mistaken my meaning, despite repeating exactly what I said:

::''If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....''

This is indeed exactly what I meant. So in fact, there is a god. The question is God sentient or not. Does God have thoughts, plans, etc. Or is the universe a jumble of meaningless matter that is and always was. A tangental thought to ponder: auantum mechancics seem to suggest that reality can change depending on the observer.

For those who say "this is not the God I know". Indeed it is the God you. Here's the line of logic:

::1. God = Everything
::2. Therefore God exists. (And the corrollary, atheism is ridiculous.)
::3. Now there is a choice: one can choose to believe that God is sentient; or one can deny the sentience of God despite overwhelming of evidence to the contrary.
::4. Then, if God is sentient then what can we mortals know of God? Where will we find His truths? We might find them in science. We find them in religion. We each find out own personal truth in different ways.

If you make it to step 4, the arguement becomes which religion is best. Which truth makes the most sense to you. Christians, Buddhists, Islamist, they all have their own personal arguments. I won't waste time debating religion when atheists are in the room. It's pointless, because they haven't made the logical step to 3.

If your mind doesn't make the leap to step 3, there is no point in discussing morals. In fact, it's ridiculous to postulate morals or philosophy because the universe is meaningless. For those who are at this point in personal growth: thine only commandment is ''do what thou wilt''. It is pointless to do anything other than that which makes you happy if you get to step 2 but don't make the jump to step 3. However, if you can comprehend step two but don't believe in 3 then all this poppycock about morals and goodness is ridiculous. Furthermore, when an atheist discusses morals and philosophy it only only serves to prove there is a God. This is because the atheist's spirit (which he doesn't believe believe exists) nags and naws at him like the quite voices of angels.

If you make it to step one but can't make it to step 2, then you are a) either incapable of higher thought; or b) intellectually dishonest because you fear where this argument leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, what you are trying to do, in logic, is referred to as an [[enthymeme]]. However, your argument does not work. First, you must show HOW god equals everything. Otherwise you can say anything. Thus:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

:::But you tried to do something else. You tried to insert statements as if they are quantifiable terms. Sort of like saying, "E = mc2" ''Well what do those letters mean?'' "Elephants equal mustard and cows times themselves." You've defined nothing except a lack of basic logical principles.

Being intellectually dishonest would be if I said, well, "god likes strawberries more than cherries." When you ask ''why'' I'll say "because they taste better." Asserting your opinion as fact is what makes it less than true. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin, why do you care if a child rides into traffic on a tricycle? What do you gain if she is saved? What do you lose if she dies? It sounds a lot like your a theist to me. You obviously think the universe has some meaning or some order. If the universe has order and meaning then it only follows that you believe the universe is God. The next step to make is to find out where God best reveals his truth. You think that his truth is best revealed in the philosophical musings of your hero Camus. Camus wrote your Bible. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::It might be difficult to understand but I did not say that god=toast. I agree that God is not toast. Is "Everything" that is to say the universe as a whole sentient or not? Simple question. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:50, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Furthermore, by your example:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

By your definition, then it would be possible to know the true nature of toast. We pretty well already know how to make toast. It's a silly diversion from the question you are afraid to ask yourself. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

No it isn't. I have already asked myself--for years--if there is a god. I have come to the conclusion ther very likely isn't. I am not an atheist (they are 100% sure) but I sit at about 99.9% sure. I have diverted nothing--being intellectually honest with myself meant I had to realize there was no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:As the one who said, "this is not the God I know", I reject the first point in the line of logic, that God equals everything. I am a monotheist, not a pantheist. God ''made'' the universe, He ''isn't'' the universe.
:Flippin, your counter-logic is wrong. Everwill's logic skipped a step. His logic was:
::1. God = Everything
::1A. We know that everything exists.
::2. Therefore God exists.

:So in order to match Everwill's argument from logic, your counter logic should have been:
::1. god = toast
::1A. we know that toast exists
::2. therefore god exists.
:But you got point 2 back to front.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Phil,

So as I understand it you think God is outside of the universe? God is apart from the universe. God is not everywhere at all times, rather he is somewhere else. Where is that somewhere else and what reason have you to believe (other than blind faith) that somewhere else exists? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:God is a spiritual being. He is "outside" the universe—a physical place—in the sense that He is not part of it. But being an omnipresent spiritual being He is not confined to a physical place, so He is not outside in a geographical sense. He is everywhere at once, but not synonymous with the universe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that God is not "confined" to anything. But I'm not sure there's any value to arguing the fine differences between "everything", the universe and God. We're not philosophers, and others have explored this better than we can. I think there is some value to helping atheists understand why the question is not whether God exist or not. The real question is whether God is an omnipresent sentience or not. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Everwill, your argument that god = everything is preposterous. Firstly, i do not agree with the first statement you make, that god is everything. I would like some hard proof, or at least a convincing argument that god equals everything before the first premise of your argument.

If, for arguements sake, we assume that your first premise is correct, then the only question is, as you say, whether everything (or god) is sentient? Again, you can say so, however i want proof. I have yet to see a plan in the universe or everything. According to the current predictions by astronomers and physcists, the universe is set to expand for an idefinete period and that eventually all the stars will run out of hydrogen and go out, and that everything will spread further and further apart at faster and faster speeds until the universe tears itself apart. Can you explain the plan in this? It displays all the theories about gravity, dark matter, quantum theory and strong and weak nuclear forces. There is nothing to show an added level of intelligence in this everything.

Please do not assume that your first premise is correct until you show some evidence for this, otherwise your argument is entirely invalid.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:06, 26 April 2007

:::You must have made things pretty difficult for your alegbra teacher. The teacher presents the following:

::::''x + 1 = 2''
::::''X is'' unknown.
::::''Solve for X.''

:::To which you reply, "Prove that X is unknown and a mathematical value. X is a letter and has no value, thus algebra is entirely invalid."

:::Hopefully you see how silly your reply is, but I'll grant you that I may have given you too much credit above. Perhaps the concept is a little too complicated for you to understand as I presented above. I'll try harder.

:::If the word "God" is synomous with "everything" then I assume you believe God exists. If the word "God" means "magical bogeyman who meddles in the affairs of mankind" then I assume we agree that God does not exist. In the framework of the argument above, God means everything.

:::Now I'll put that aside and try to explain the concept without using words that offend your sensibilities. The universe shows organization and complexity beyond any single human's comprehension at every level. The components of a cell, atomic structures, galactic structures, geological structures, biologal structures. It's vastly intricate, interconnected and complicated. The universe functions like an immense machine and so far as we can tell, it will continue to function for quite some time and it functioned long ago.

:::With this knowledge one has to make a leap of faith, and science has taught us that the simple solution is usually the right solution. The simple solution is that the universe is organization implies design, design implies designer. The only other plausible choice is that the everything that every happens, happened or will happened is the result of something that makes a lottery ticket or a lightning strike look like a easy money and a daily occurence. Now, I respect your right to belive that, but I think it's sort of naive.

:::So you think the universe is randomness. I think the universe has order. Now to work back into the definitions presented above. I think God has order. You think God is randomness. Whether we call it God, the universe or everything, it makes no difference. I'm not trying to take away your right to believe what you want. I'm not trying to tell you to go to church. I'm just trying to find a common ground on which we can agree. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Alright, now i understand the point you were making. I do not agree with it, however i see now where you are coming from.

The reason that the whole of the universe is so incomprehensible to us, is because we evolved on a scale where the only distances that mattered were a couple of hundred kilometres to about a centimetre. That was all that was needed to survive as homo erectus in a hostile world. It was not necessary for us to be able to understand a cell or an atom or a star. The complex machinery that is our brain is not built for such things as the universe or quantum theory. This is why it is so hard to comprehend.

The simple solution is the right solution in the majority of cases, however the simple solution in this case is not one of design. Darwin has already shown that while animals and plants may look designed they are in fact the end result of a massive series of gene mutations and adaptations. In this case, there is no designer and thus your point that organization implies design implies designer is proved wrong in the case of natural life. Simply because there is no such explanation for how the universe has come to be in such a way does not mean that there is no explanation that does not need to attribute it to a designer. Just think that 300 years ago, noone thought that something complex could come from something less complex as it balked common sense. However our common sense only applies to simple, mundane everyday things, not the huge distances and complexities of space or an atom.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:56, 27 April 2007

==Is Atheism Ridiculous?==
::::On what basis do can you decide that something is "moral"? If I saw a truck bearing down on a child, I would try and help her, because God loves her and He would want me to help, and I would be praying at the same time. But why would you help her? From an atheistic point of view, she is just an accidental combination of a bunch of chemicals facing a life of suffering, disease, and ultimate death. What's the point in helping? Why not just let chance shortcut the process and save her all those years of pain? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:24, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Because I feel an obligation to help her, as I said. Saying it is moral means nothing. It is the action one takes. I believe that it is right to keep someone alive rather than kill them (what the above example allows for). If I let her die, she cannot make her own decisions--I am taking away her inalienable right to decide her own fate, if you will. I have no right to hurt someone else--that takes away from their right to choose how they will spend their existence.

::Yes, she is accidental, as are you and me, but I have no right to infringe on the rights of a sentient human being by allowing them to die. Standing by and watching her die would make me just as guilty as putting a gun to her head and pulling the trigger. Morality is based on this single point: existence precedes essence. We are all responsible for our own choices with regard to how they affect others.

::I don't need a religion to tell me that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Just another quick note--don't you think you have an obligation to do something outside of a god's wrath? When you say "because god loves her" you tacitly give up the responsibility for taking action. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Yes, you feel an obligation to help her. But why? I'd say that it's because you've been raised in a country with a Christian heritage and have absorbed some of its values. But I'm asking what basis atheism provides for that. Why do you feel that it is "right". What if I "feel" differently? Who is right and who is wrong? Where did her "inalienable right to decide her own fate" come from? Does she in fact have such a right? I assert that you ''do'' need a religion—or more specifically, God—to tell you that, because atheism can't.
:::::I fail to see how I'm giving up responsibility for taking action. On the contrary, it's because God loves her that I have that responsibility.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::You know, atheism has almost nothing to do with it. I don't think about, or believe in god the way you don't believe (I assume) in the flying spaghetti monster.

::But saying that "because god loves her...I have a responsibility" is equivalent to saying, "I'll go to Grandma's because it makes Mom happy." It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you.

::Finally, that "right to exist" could also be thought of as a prohibition against her death. That comes from the notion that even though our very existence is absurd, I don't have a right to decide how you will affect it. To throw my hands up and say "but who is right and who is wrong" is just reducing the argument to multiplicity, and thus relativism.

::I guess what I'm saying is I don't have a right to decide for that child so I will save her and let her make her own choice. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:::"''It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you''". On the contrary, I have ''decided'' to do what God would like, rather than do something for a selfish reason of it being something that ''I'' would like.
:::You say that the "right to exist" comes from the notion that you don't have a right to decide how you will affect it, yet by saving the girl you ''have'' decided to affect things. Yes, throwing your hands up is relativism, but the opposite of relatives is absolutes, and absolutes only come from God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes exactly, you have decided what god would like. Other people can have a different understanding, people such as Adolf Hitler who decided that god thought it was right that he should kill all jews, as they were "christ killers". Or the young man who shot a doctor who practised abortions because "god would have wanted me to do it". The fact that you have to interpret a book to decide your morals means that several different people can gain different moral codes from the same book, while there are very few people who would disagree that wanton killings would lead to society fracturing. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:17, 26 April 2007

::Adolf Hitler was an atheist. Beyond this factual error, I don't understand your point. We all decide what god would like. (It's call concept called ''free will''.) The underlying philosophy and truths found in all major religions are the same. Is this an accident? I suppose you would answer yes. In fact, the entire universe and everything that led to this moment is one collossal accident that happened for your benefit. Children have no idea what their parents endure to provide for them. In the same way the atheist scoffs at the mysteries of the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:03, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ottihw, no, I haven't decided what God would like. I have ''learnt'' what God would like be reading what He has told us. Everwill is correct that Hitler was an atheist, but I disagree that we can all gain different morals from the Bible. That is in effect saying that words have no meaning, so we can choose to understand them any way we want. Should I choose to understand your words any way I want, or should I presume that we are both using the same convention of English (in this case) language and that you mean what you've said? Besides, if you and I can both derive different morals from reading the Bible, how is it any better if we ''don't'' read the Bible? Surely that would mean even ''less'' restraint on what we choose our morals to be? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Which is another way of saying that Phil is a "strict constructionist" when it comes to the Bible. I think the mullahs in Iran (though they use a different book) agree with him in this way. I'm more of a deconstructionist and have more doubts about the Bible being the "Word of God". I think God's Words are way too complicated for one man or one book to describe. However, I would agree on 99% of the big picture with Phil and probably with the so-called atheists in here. That to me is evidence of God. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:47, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I happen to believe that God is clever enough to put things in words that we can understand. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

God is very clever indeed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:You havea copy of the Bible in God's handwriting? Or you beleive that every step from initial writing, through every translation throughout time has been divinely guided to lay out His message clearly? So, which translation is the divinely guided one? And if He were so inclined to so specifically direct the writing ans subsequent translation of a book, might he not have made it a bit clearer which translation is correct, and which parts of the Bible can be taken literally and which are metaphors? You claim to know the difference... I've never seen that footnote anywhere in the Bible. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The copies and translations of the Bible are very accurate, and accurate enough to know what God was saying. And the phrase "every translation through time" is quite misleading, as mot current English Bibles have been translated directly from the original languages, i.e. a one-step translation. It couldn't get much better than that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

(copied below).

: Standard non-answer... How do you know they are accurate, which version? The differences are quite spectacular at times. Not to mention that even if one accepts your "one-step translation" proposition we are talking (in the case of Genesis) about an account put down long after the event itself (even by your time scale), and then translated from languages with enough nuances to allow for all these different translations that arise today... Not to mention that the "accurate enough to know what God was saying" ignores the reality that if people debate it to the degree we do today, it sure doesn't seem so crystal clear... I say the the story of Genesis clearly reads like a parable or metaphor... you believe it is clearly meant to be taken literally, though you allow that some portions of the Bible are not literal... I was asking for the magic footnote that tells us which is which? [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::That was not a non-answer; it made valid points. The differences are not that spectacular. Why don't you accept the "one-step translation"? Look in almost any modern version and it will tell you that it was translated from the original languages. I tend to subscribe to the belief that Genesis was originally written in sections by the people that witnessed the events (e.g. Adam himself) and Moses compiled those handed-down written histories into the book of Genesis.
::People debate the Bible to the degree that they do because some people will do anything to avoid the implications of what it is teaching, including calling black white (actually, calling six days billions of years). But that doesn't mean that the text is ambiguous, just that some people will not take it at face value.
::Parable and metaphor have particular linguistic characteristics, and Genesis doesn't have those characteristics, so it is not parable nor metaphor (on the whole; some bits may be). You determine which is which by the language, just as you do in everyday life. If I said that "it's raining cats and dogs", would you wonder if I was being literal or not?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Please do not parade that old falsehood that Hitler was an atheist. He was brought up a roman catholic, he made several references to God in his speeches and almost everyone who was close to him described him as a 'good practising catholic'. To call him an atheist is in complete denial of all the facts that surround him.

The reason that people can draw different morals from the bible is simple. The bible has been written by hundreds of authors over 900 years, many of whom described the same story in different ways and the vast majority were not written down until many years after the even they were describing. And of course, in the way of any community effort, the book has been 'improved' by several authors down the years, in different languages and often by people who had no idea about the event they were writing about. To call this text "the word of god" and to attempt to draw a single conclusion from this is just plain ridiculous. Why not have a look yourself, and look for the amount of contradictions and just plain weirdness in there.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:13, 27 April 2007

:Please do not parade that old falsehood that Hitler was a Christian. Despite being raised as a Catholic and making out that he was invoking God in his speeches, he realised that the churches would never go along with his policies and planned on eliminating them[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/464].
:I can understand your scepticism towards the Bible, given your view on how it was written. But I reject your views on how it was written. Sure, it was written by quite a few different authors (but not "hundreds"), but under the guidance of God, so it had a single ultimate author. The vast majority was written by eyewitnesses, and the vast majority of the rest by people who knew the eyewitnesses. The Jews respected the Scriptures as God's Word and would not dare alter it, so it was generally not "improved" by other authors (the exceptions being things like authors close to the original authors anyway, as in Joshua writing the final part of Moses' Deuteronomy). And there are no contradictions; at the very least none that can be conclusively shown to be contradictions. Any "weirdness" is likely to be from you not understanding the customs of the time, etc.
:Now I'm sure you will reject most of what I've just said, but the point is that your ''conclusion'' about it's trustworthiness is based on your ''belief'' about how it came to be, yet you present that belief as though it was accepted or self-evident truth. It is neither self-evident nor is it accepted by a lot of people.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:56, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

There is not hard evidence on whether Hitler was in fact religious. The Vatican was a great ally to him in many cases and Goebbals and Himmler both wrote that he was a practising catholic. He refered to himself as the hand of God in many speeches. On the other hand he said things such as "Christianity is the greatest evil the world has seen since the Black Plague". Historians think that he was a Christain until around 1940 where he converted to agnostiscism or atheism. The main point is that most of his plans and programs had begun well before this such as the holocaust and the complete indoctrination of German children with his propoganda (almost like churches today). As an aside he could still be christian while disliking the church.

There is a point on which we cannot be reconciled. You believe that god guided the writing of the bible, i don't believe he exists and therefore that the writers were often flying by the seat of their pants as they wrote. However to deny that there were 'improvements' is a little bit ignorant. As an example, the story of the ressurection was not written until over 200 years after Jesus's death.

There are many contradictions in the bible, not the least of which come in the story of the birth of Jesus. John writes in his gospel that several of his followers were surprised that Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem, while of course, Mark and Luke write that he was born there. However while Mark has Mary and Joseph always having lived there, Luke gets them there by refering to a census of Israel by the Romans that results in Joseph having to return to his home town. Unfortunately for Luke, the records show that the census occured in 6 AD, after King Herod's death. As well as this, there are gospels that the church decided to leave out of the final version of the bible, including the gospels of Judas, Bartholomew, Nicodemus and Mary Magdalen. What was wrong with these gospels that was right with the four that were chosen? May it have been to the fact that some of them do not portray such a saintly image of Jesus as the others? The gospel of Thomas has stories of a young Jesus abusing his powers by turning his friends into goats or mud into sparrows.

My conclusion about its trustworthiness is based upon the facts that i have read that show that the bible is not such an accurate account after all. And if the writers were guided by god, then how could they have gotten some historical facts so wrong? The creation of the world, Noahs arc, the birth of Jesus, the ressurection and so on. This I think exposes exactly how innacurate the bible is as any sort of record or source of morals.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:35, 28 April 2007

==Questions and Answers==
Plato showed how in a debate one asks questions so that the debaters can pursue the truth together rather than being adversaries. So what I can't understand is why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests? Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you? Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share? Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?

To be more specific you say ''Because I feel an obligation to help her''. What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? Will she pay you? What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

So here are my questions:

::''"Why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests?"''

:::* Atheist says: I might ask you the same thing. I have no short-term interest in this child's death. I have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer).
:::* Theist replies, because there is something, perhaps a spirit or a god, that imparts to ever soul the knowledge of good from evil and right from wrong. Doing evil moves you further from god and thus it does not feel good to do evil (''even when it feels good to do evil''!) This is a shorthand way of saying that when you commit acts which are pleasurable but evil, you feel shallow and empty inside. On the other hand, when one commit acts of kindness without any payback of any kind, one feels good inside. This is something most humans learn as they progress into maturity. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::''"Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you?"''

:::* Atheist says: Two parts there: I wouldn't murder a child--as I said--so what is there to feel guilty about? If no one would punish me presupposes I have done this act, so the question is invalidated by the former.
:::* Theist replies, I should hope you wouldn't murder a child, but your reply ducks the obvious answer. Of course I wouldn't murder a child to get what I wanted, but if I did murder a child to get what I wanted I would feel guilty. What causes that feeling of guilty? Is that not proof of a spiritual aspect of life?

::''"Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share?"''

:::* Atheist say: It certainly could be. ''"Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?"'' Reason allows me to discern right from wrong, as I said above. I am compelled to act according to this obligation to help others and not let them have their choice made by another.
:::* Theist says, what is this "reason" you are talking about in an athistic universe. Without God or morality, what is the difference between good and evil or right and wrong? From an atheistic (i.e. Satanic) POV right and wrong are silly concepts. "Good" is just an excuse to chump the strong from their rightful place at the top of the food chain. Don't you agree?

''"What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? <s>Will she pay you?</s> What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?"''

:::* Atheist says: Okay, now you're getting to the meat of the matter. I am obligated by this sense of everyone's right to exist. I have no more right to take you're life than I do to steal your bike. Not that those two are equal, but the line of demarcation is the same. It is only selfish in the sense that I ''gain'' when this child is allowed to grow up and make her own choices. If, in the process, I am killed, then I have served my principles. If she dies, then I took moral action and can feel good about my effort. However, if I let her die I am as guilty as any of those Nazi guards at Aushwitz who said ''"I was only following orders."''
:::* Theist replies: your answer implies the existence of God even if you can't see the forest for all the trees. Why does everyone have a right to exist? Because you said so? That makes no sense in your concept of reality. What if my country elects a leader, for the purposes of illustration let's call him ''Adolf Hitler''. Our leader through legal government manuevers manages to establish a process to eliminate what he sees as a cancer on our nation. By your reasoning that leader has a moral imperative to kill Jews BECAUSE he thinks it's best for the nation. From the theist stand-point, we believe that all life is precious, most especially human life. Therefore it doesn't matter what logic, rationale or legal manuevers Hitler makes, killing is wrong.

Atheist summary: As long as you have a choice, to defer your morality to a god, or priest or whatever you ask for figiveness is to shirk your duty to society--that being to think for yourself. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Theist summary: No one ever defers any choices to anyone ever. Each individual is always responsible for his own actions and choices. To clear up your confusion: a theist defers his choices to a priest about as much as a judge in a court room defers his choices to his first year law professor. Religion is a tool to help us understand God. Religion and religious leaders do not speak for God. An "atheist" who follows a moral code is just a theist who doesn't know much about his God because he's too afraid to trust others. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:In point of fact here, I have said I am not an atheist, I am more properly called an agnostic. An atheist, by definition, holds that they have the answer--that there is no god. As an agnostic I am open to the idea that a god exists, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Please don't refer to me as an atheist--it is a different thing altogether. Also, in addition to agnosticism, I am an existentialist--so you could also use that term if you like.

:Finally, I don't have a god-belief so I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done. I do things that I reason are beneficial to society, e.g. actions that foster growth, development and change. I abhor stifling debate and that seems to be the purpose of religion as it is used most of the time. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm comfortable with my approach to all questions. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

You claim that "I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done". You do things because a little voice inside your head tells you to do things? Who is that little voice?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't have a "little voice." That is superstition. I use reason. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

It's easy to dodge the obvious with semantics. There is absolutely no question you (and all human beings) have a "little voice", that's not a superstition, that's a fact. The argument is about what is the driving force behind that little voice.

You claim that you simply rationalize everything out through the use of reason, and you are perhaps superior to moral codes found in religion. For example, you won't kill the little child because as you say you "have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer)." But if killing the little child would give you a billion dollars, you would kill the child because of the risk versus reward principle found in rationalization. The odds of that little girl inventing a cure for cancer are pretty remote. Furthermore, you might not ever contract cancer. But with a billion dollars you could finance a health care system that would further benefit you and those you deem worthy. That's "reason" at work and to you way of thinking that's much better than silly and archaic notions like "good" or "evil". [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think you have more of a stake in believing that a "non-believer" would like to kill a child for some kind of gain. I don't see it that way. I don't think there is anything that would make me kill a child. That's silly.
::Also, I don't have a "little voice" in my head. People who do I deem to be psychotic or lying. Simple as that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

A hypothetical argument takes a certain statement as an assumption and attempts to analyze it. You seem to be (perhaps intentionally) misunderstanding the hypothetical in the form in which it is presented. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend like you really don't understand because of inability to communicate.

Let's change the hypothetical slightly, you state there there is nothing that would make you kill a child. Why would you never kill a child? I understand that you base this decision on reason, but I don't understand the basis of your reason. Is your reason based upon moral codes? Aren't "moral codes" just superstition to help supress the will of the strong? Is your "reason" based upon what most helps society or is your reason based upon what most helps you? Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?

As the wise philospher Camus/Flippin says, ''Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.'' This is all well and good if one is perfect reasonable. But what about people who are unreasonable and who devise a meaning of life exemplified by people like Hitler, Jim Jones, Jeffery Dahmer, Stalin, and Charles Manson? By what right can we impose our value-system upon them?

By the same token, should each individual have the right, nay the duty, to devise his own code of laws and not wait for some legistlature or society to impose those laws upon them? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
.
==Trying to parse some of this==
:Since I consider myself a good communicator I will try and communicate with you.

:Okay, you said: "Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?" How could one do anything that helped society that didn't help oneself? Maybe I should try and explain that by asking is there really anything that one can do that helps society, yet hurts the self? If one takes an action that helps society, like picking up garbage alongside the road, does not that act help society? And if we agree that it does, how is one harmed by it?

:A reasonable person might say that the individual could get a sunburn. The individual could be hit by a truck. These are true statements, but the probability of these things happening is low (for the truck) and not that dangerous (for a sunburn). But what is the value of picking up debris left by less reasonable citizenry? Do we not gain as a society by having less trash by the roadside?

:A reasonable person might also say, yes, but must I pick up all the debris along the roadside? My answer would be no. The responsibility for cleaning up roadsides is spread equally between us all. We have a shared responsibility to do this because it helps the individual ''and'' the society.

:Now, you also mention examples like Hitler who reasoned that murdering Jews would benefit him. But is Hitler an example of a reasonable man? Honestly? Hitler was more likely sociopathic, which is a disorder that affects one's ability to reason. If we rely on reason to tell us that what is of the greatest benefit for society is of the greatest benefit for the individual, then opposing someone like Hitler, or another damaged person, is reasonable. Thus, we not only have a right to oppose them, we have an obligation to oppose them. Just as we have an obligation to oppose trash on the roadways.

:I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children? Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

:Finally, why do you feel the need to paint me as something less than moral? I have explained this repeatedly yet you do not understand. Is the failure to communicate really mine then? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not trying to paint you as immoral. I've said repeatedly I think you are moral. But I'm trying to work withing your framework to understand the truth (according to you) and I'm trying to understand the source of your morality. Where (according to you) does moral authority flow from?

I thought you said that morals comes from "reason". But as you describe it it seems that morals don't come from "reason", but from your rationalizations. I don't understand why you think your rationlizations are any more valid than the rationalizations of any other person? Of course, millions of Germans agreed with Hitler's rationalization. They were not '''all''' sociopaths. I assume that we agree their rationalization was flawed, but why is it flawed? This seems to indicate that there is some higher moral authority than rationalization. Is there some absolute code of moral authority, or were the Germans simply wrong because they lost the war? What does it matter if they were morally wrong anyway? That was in the past. There is no spiritual world and there is no God. Today is a new day. This is a new minute.

I think you're trying to claim that certain rationalizations is more valid than other rationalizations. If some rationalization is more valid than others, then why don't we as humans attempt to find the true source of the best rationalization possible and then follow that reasoning? If that is not a religion, what is that?

Secondly, I suppose I find it difficult to believe that anyone does anything simply because of "reasoning" alone. In my experince people do good things because it makes them feel good, not because they rationalized and reasoned away the degree of goodness vs. the effort required. Like every other human being, you sometimes do some bad things. After the commission of these acts of badness, why do you feel ''guilty''? If the ends justify the means there shoudl be no such thing as guilt.

Thirdly, what is the point of morality? Who cares? Why not take from the system whatever you can whenever you can. Your actions will not stop the world from spinning. You will not stop the stupid morons who worship the flying spaghetti monster, so why not exploit them? Then you can better use their resources, since you have a higher level of rationalization? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::# Rationalization seems to make the unreasonable, reasonable. That is what religion is for.
:::# Reason, as I have stated serves as a guide. It then becomes automatic.
:::# What you describe are the acts of a person that is unreasonable. I have addressed that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

What you haven't address is this: who defines what is reasonable? The guy with the biggest gun? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==The Theist answers==
Here are my answers to your questions:

The theistic-denier states:

::I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children?

I can think of many incidents of killing children which would benefit society. Our society could harvest children from poverty-stricken regions where resources are depleted and food-shortages are chronic. This is good for the environment and greatly reduces the chance that their children will suffer from famine. Then we could use those children to reseach cancer, AIDs and other diseases. Rather than working on cadavers, young doctors could practice their trade on these children. Then we could pulverize the remains and feed them to hogs. This would provide more food for other people. If you are opposed to killing (because of some fear of the mythic god) you could just enslave the children instead. We have plenty of jobs they can do which will help society more than some miserable existence in a barren wasteland.

Working strictly from a framework of reason and rationalization, why not kill children to better serve society? Furthermore, of course, this rational begs the question: why is the society of any importance at all? Why is "society" any bigger than the individual?

::Please, as one human being to another, it is much easier if you call me an agnostic--which is what I am. I don't call you a gods-worshipper, or whatever. (Jesusfreak I know is a popular perjorative that I don't use either. I am trying to be respectful.) I don't fear god--that isn't the reason to do/not do anything. I don't want anyone to kill me, so I don't kill others. Religion gives those who don't know why they do things a reason to say why they did. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Additionally, the "agnostic" asks:

::Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

Please understand that at this point, I'm not trying to prove to you my point of view. I'm trying to understand your point of view. So, while I believe that faith is the strongest barrier to crime that I know of, I won't bother to explain why I think this to you because you are clearly more enlightened than I. You've advance beyond the need for some silly god-figure.

What I would like to know is; what is your barrier to crime in the atheistic framework? It appears (based on my example above) that it is something other than reasoning, because I've proven how killing children can be good for society.

I'd be more than happy to answer why God allows suffering in the universe, but the answer to that question is pointless if we don't agree that God exists. Let's not waste time. Hypothetically, I'm agreeing with your argument that the fact that there is suffering in the universe is evidence that there is no god. Let's proceed along your path and see where it leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Religious faith is no more a barrier to crime than atheistic, or agnostic, moral reasoning. In Toronto sometime in the 70's the police went on strike. It took two hours for the first bank to be robbed, and at then end of the strike $3 million worth of damage had been done to shops and almost every bank in the city had been robbed. The vast majority of people who were arrested as a result of the crimes were religious. I'm not suggesting that therefore religion encourages crime, it just shows that it isn't such a barrier to crime as you would think. There is also anecdotal evidence that there are very few atheists and agnostics in prison compared to christians.

:The agnostic and atheistic framework is different from what you seem to think. The value of life is the most important part of my beliefs. This is not because of god or the bible, this is simply because those were the morals that i was brought up with and because they make the most logical sense. If life was not valued, then mass murders would be common and unnoticed as greedy people killed and stole to take what they wanted. This would lead to the breakdown of society as a whole. That is why enslaving and killing third world children is wrong, as they have exactly the same right to life that i do.

:This moral framework is far more effective as a crime barrier because people who use it have thought about why they think things are right and wrong from their own POV. Your framework comes from a book that was writtn 2000 years ago, and therefore not all its morals are up to date with the changing zeitgeist. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 26 April 2007

::You don't advance the argument by pointing to facts that don't answer my questions. This is what I call the ''magician's argument''. The magician's argument goes as follows: there is nothing in the hat therefore the rabbit from the hat must be magic. I don't care about your claims about religion of criminals. I'd like to have answers to my questions. As best as I can see your answer to my hypotheical question is to deny the framework of my hypothetical question. I can only assume that you refuse to answer this line of question undermines your belief set and that's why you won't answer.

::BTW, the reason I am pursuing this line of questions is not because I don't understand the atheistic point of view. I understand the false premises of atheism quite well. This is because for many years, I was an atheist. As I matured I came to realized just how much I didn't know. I still don't know what I don't know, but as the arrogance of youth recedes I begin to know how much I don't know. Thus, I realized atheism was naive and foolish, so I became an agnostic. Since that time, I learned more and came to believe that I am probably a [[deist]] but my search for truth continues. I may yet get more specific in my religious beliefs as I further mature. I will point out to you that it is a universal truth that as we get older we get wiser. It is not a coincidence that churches are full of old people. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:52, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what your point is here. Could you state, in just a sentence or two, what your hypothetical that we are ignoring is? Also, we may need to archive some of this (which I don't know how to do yet.) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:08, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The hypothetical (previously stated in a wildly exaggerated example) is: if in truth "reason" is your only guide and if in fact there is no soul, no spiritual world and no God, why do you do good things that don't follow reason? Why don't you do "bad" things that have perfectly good rationale? Your answer to the second question was: devise a better hypothetical because my reasoning is arbitrary and supports whatever rational I choose to follow. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Question==
Do you believe that there is absolute moral truth? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Please define an absolute moral truth? [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:08, 26 April 2007

==A place for a few more answers==

From the Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist:

"We have evolved the ability to empathize, to share the motivations and feelings of those around us. From this, we
have gained the ability to sympathize with the plight of others, to understand what may be causing them distress or
pain, and to wish, for their sake, that their suffering would stop. Armed with this sympathy, we act in a moral way to
prevent the distress and suffering of others. Our opinions on what constitutes a moral course of action may differ, but
the underlying sympathy is the same."

"With sympathy for others and recognition of the similarities between people, we each build an internal code of the
morality of our actions. We seek to protect innocent children, for we were once children ourselves and needed
protection. We seek a society that does not foster immoral actions, in order to protect the members of society like
ourselves. We feel and internalize various plights and pains of others in this process, and develop a true morality.
American revolutionary and President Thomas Jefferson put it well when he wrote in an 1814 letter, “Nature [has]
implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us
irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.”

Though I am sure this will mean little to a "deist" it is useful to those who at one time tried to find god but realized that the effort was too intellectually dishonest for them to ultimately accept. I think, Everwill, if you are really interested in learning about this and not just baiting the less conservative folk here, you might do well to read some of this material. http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thebgma/BGMA.pdf

::This is exactly my point, but I don't want to jam it down the throats of our resident atheists. Although they don't yet realize it, if you are a moral atheist, you are not an atheist at all, but rather you are a [[deist]]. The slippery slope is: once you realize you are a deist, you begin the search through religions to find a deeper meaning of life and learn more about the true nature of God. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:53, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:But that's just it--I am not a deist because I do not accept there is a god that needs to exist. If that means you are going to call me an atheist, fine, whatever, but otherwise there is no reason to be condescending about "poor little atheists." It just isn't necessary. We feel, if I may be so bold, that ''you'' are the one who is lost. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:14, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin this statement so far as I can tell doesn't seem to based upon reason but rather upon faith. As Thomas Jefferson (a deist) said, “Nature [has] implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.” In your "Nature" means "good luck" or at the very difference "luck". I don't see any difference between "good luck" and God. You think these are unrelated concepts, but I'm not sure why. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

If I sound condescending it is because you are no different from a fundamentalist muslim. That is you refuse to critically examine your belief set objectively. To answer hypothetical questions will lead you in a direction you refuse to go. You demand that others prove the unprovable as evidence that there is a God. Understand this: we agree that God is neither a flying spaghetti monster, nor a bearded old man laying on a cloud. Relax, I understand your position completely, because I've been where you are. It's okay. Each finds his own path in due time.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe there is a reason it is "unprovable." Truth be told, I think what passes for "good luck" is also random. Just as the rest of universe, this computer I'm typing on and the bowl of Cheerios I had for breakfast. It occurred through chance that this came about--not by a bearded man in the sky waving a wand. If you are looking for fantasy, watch Harry Potter or read the bible. I live in a world of facts and evidence and am content to do so until my lamp is extinguished. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I really have no idea what Harry Potter or the Bible has to do with the central question. After all this talking I have discerned (with much difficulty) that you attribute all that we see to "good luck". I call it "God" but I agree completely that whether it's just good luck or whether it is God this realization does not change reality. Other than that we are in complete agreement. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Good, we agree that god is a delusion based on random chance and superstition in the ill-informed mind. Glad to hear that, too. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

No. We agree that your misinformed characterization of the word "God" is the based on your perceptions about what you think God is. Since we agree that the universe is the product of luck, henceforth I will refer to the guiding force behind the universe as Luck so as to not offend your belief-set.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

''Don't you love how the Truth flows like water? No matter where you damn it up, it will still find the way. This is the miracle of Luck to me.'' [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:05, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

good lord this is boring.... [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

How 'bout I say "you win" and you evangelize someone else? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's "reasoning" for you ... heh ... [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, you win by attrition. Congrats. Now, I'll go back to not going to churc and telling school children there is no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Funny, you took the words right out of my mouth. ;-) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So, in fact this is not attrition or victory (I was never trying to win). Rather the discussion is at an end because you have refused to expand the boundaries of your perceptions. You came here believing that god was a myth and you continue to believe that god is a myth. You refuse to examine the implications of this possibility: myths are myths, but God is something else entirely. The thing you call Luck, I call God. That's called finding common ground. Your current problem is your very fearful of where that common ground might take you. It might shatter your arrogantly held belief-set.

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Which Religion is the true Religion?==

::You havea copy of the Bible in God's handwriting? Or you beleive that every step from initial writing, through every translation throughout time has been divinely guided to lay out His message clearly? So, which translation is the divinely guided one? And if He were so inclined to so specifically direct the writing ans subsequent translation of a book, might he not have made it a bit clearer which translation is correct, and which parts of the Bible can be taken literally and which are metaphors? You claim to know the difference... I've never seen that footnote anywhere in the Bible. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

This statement has nothing to do with this discussion. The arguments about "which translation" and "God's handwriting" are filed under "Which religion is the true religion?" and they have no bearing on whether atheism vs. deism. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The copies and translations of the Bible are very accurate, and accurate enough to know what God was saying. And the phrase "every translation through time" is quite misleading, as mot current English Bibles have been translated directly from the original languages, i.e. a one-step translation. It couldn't get much better than that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not prepared to defend the Bible as the "word of God", but I think it's an important question to examine, but I think it's a pointless discussion with those who haven't realized that there is a God. All your Bible proves to them is that someone wrote something a long time ago. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, but I am not someone who denies the existence of God, just one who does not accept that the Bible is literal truth. I personally beleive it to be mostly metaphorical, with some history thrown in, though I'd still never use it for a primary history source, even on mundane topics (i.e. who ruled where at what time... etc...) [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I am pretty much in agreement with you QNA. I'm willing to allow the possibility that Phil Rayment's opinions about the Bible is correct. At the same time, I doubt he's right about that. On the other hand, I think that denying the existance of God is silly. However, arguing the nature of God is a worthwhile endeavor. The Bible and other texts are useful in this exercise because we can learn a great deal from those who have gone before us and who have already had these same arguments.

::::I will say without equivocation that the "God doesn't exist because I don't believe in bearded guys in the clouds with a magic wand" is pretty much an argument made from a posiition of ignorance about what most knowledgeable people think about God and the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Good Luck==
Since all of the universe occurred out of good luck (according to Flippin), can we humans influence Luck? Should we attempt to commune with Luck? Do you think that hundreds of thousands of years ago, men (equally smart) pondered these same questions (since they didn't have a TV to occupied their evenings). Do you think luck, or perhaps Luck, resulted in the strange coincidence that after many generations the consensus view in every culture and society has always been that we can affect our luck by a combination of worshipping Luck and doing good things? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::No no no no no no no. The universe came to be the way it is due to the laws of physics etc, that so far have been proven to be as true as anything can be and apply to the universe exceedingly well. Add to this the theory of evolution, and yes there are one or two holes there, but soon we will have filled them all. The process of life is an attempt to discover things. You may say that we believe that we came here due to luck however i do not believe this to be true. We came here because of a reason that i do not know. However i have faith that i will not remain ignorant forever, and that soon we will know and we need not invoke luck or god to describe how we got here.

::I sympathise with you because of your above description of how you came to be a deist, however there are a few things that you might need to consider again. Firstly that just because we dont know something does not mean that we will always not know it. Look at the progress science has made over the past 500 years. We have gone from believing that the earth is at the centre of the universe and that the world is only 6000 years old, to the earth being just one planet revolving around an unremarkable star and is over 4 billion years old. Consider what we may discover in the next 500 years as our technology continues to progress and we begin to explore space outside the playground of the solar system. I would not be surprised if within my lifetime, we have an explanation for how life started and a reason for the big bang that does not rely on some higher being.

::As an aside i think that to say that as you grow older you grow wiser is slightly misguided. Yes a some people do because they have more experience and they have the foresight to use that to plan there future. However a large part of the human population does not use this experience at all, and simply assumes that they know best because they are older not because they are wiser. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:27, 27 April 2007

What's the difference between what you just said and what I just said? You wrote, "The universe came to be the way it is due to the laws of physics etc, that so far have been proven to be as true as anything can be and apply to the universe exceedingly well." Okay. we agree. So the universe is ordered. It has laws. How did the "laws" come about? Did the protons and electrons elect a neutron who decided what laws everyone should follow? I guess these laws are and always have been. I guess we were just lucky to have the Laws of Physics.

As an aside I find this assertion amusing, "As an aside i think that to say that as you grow older you grow wiser is slightly misguided." I'm not so much suprised that someone who believes there is more wisdom in youth than in age doubts the foundations of the philosophies that provided his every waking and sleeping daily need. I wish I were that naive again. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:21, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

We, as in humanity, do not know why the laws of physics happen to be the way they are. Maybe there was no choice, and for the universe to have come into existence these laws must have been the way they are. Or maybe there are other explanations. We simply do not know, however again, this admission of lack of knowledge does not mean that I decide that therefore God must be the answer. I simply accept that I do not know everything and then I attempt to find out why such things are the way they are. I do not think that we were lucky to have the laws of physics, I am confident that there is a solid scientific reason that does not allow any greater sentience to have a hand in things and that this reason will become evident in the not to distant future.

I do not think there is more wisdom in youth than in age. That is the reason I said 'slightly misguided'. Not totally misguided and not completely idiotic. Just that there are old people who are not wise just as there are young people who are. I do not claim to be one of those young people, I am not wise in any sense, although I do hope to learn from my experiences and others and thus become wise. However many people do not use experience in this way and so do not become wise, just as some people pick up on things quickly and are. I do not doubt the foundations of the philosophies that provide me with such. I doubt the philsophies of Thomas Aquinas, St Anselm and any that have agreed with these two charlatans parading themselves as philosophers.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:52, 28 April 2007

Debate:Is religion morally wrong?

2007-04-28T06:36:44Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Is Atheism Ridiculous? */

{{debate}}
==Yes==
anything that teaches young children to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question, and then teaches them that anyone who does not believe what they do is wrong and needs to have their immortal soul 'saved' is morally wrong. as well as that, waging wars against "non-believers" or "infidels" and killing thousands of millions of people, puts religion in the morally wrong category. as in interesting aside, the link to this debate is actually titled "is athiesm morally wrong?" which may need to be fixed. --[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30 (EDT)
: Done. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::''Wha' ...?'' Anyone who thinks that religion teaches one "to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question" just plain doesn't understand any religion to which I have ever been exposed. However, I'm pretty sure I can guess why your so confused.

::There is a belief, which is generally held by most religions and most people over the age of 30, that human nature is constant. Moral codes, philosophy and religion are built upon assumptions about the constants of human nature. In this way, moral codes are similar to alegbra. Algebra is built upon a foundation of unchanging constants. Math is unchanging. Human nature is unchanging. Therefore, each generation doesn't need to reinvent algebra. Similarly, each generation needn't rediscover the reason that people devised certain moral codes which were based upon countless generations of knowledge about human nature and where then incorporated into religion and philosophy.

::This does not mean that the field of mathemics should cease to expand. This does not mean that curiosity is bad. This means that we already know that 1+1=2. We already know what happens to civilizations and societies where wild sexual activities are encouraged. This does not mean that we stop digging up fossils. This does mean that we don't kill unborn children to expiriment on them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::(wow, first ever post on a debate page!) Everwill, I would argue that human nature '''is''' changing and most certainly can't be likened to algebra. Algebra is indeed definite. It always follows the same rules reagrdless of the complexity of the problem. Surely, you can't say that human nature is like that? The scale of variation is unimaginable!

:::Also, in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher. Or, they are taught in a slanted view, which distorts the truth. All this because those parents or teachers seem afraid that their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught! That '''is''' morally wrong. The choice should be the child's not the elders'. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a reason that William Shakespeare's dramas, King David's tribulations & and the Andy Griffith show (how's that for a unexpected twist?) are timeless stories that affect us in the same way as when they affected those to whom these stories were first told. They affect us all the same way because human nature does not change. The truth is we all love, hate, breath, live and die. The human condition is infinitely variable, but human nature is constant. Of course, there are countless examples of this simple and plainly evident truth. I'm quite sure I'm not the first one to tell you that human nature is the same. In fact, this truth is the foundation of our concepts of equality and our freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

::I don't want to spend a lot of time defending something that is an elemental and accepted truth spanning time, civilizations and belief systems. This is because I'm not sure whether you're denying the fact that human nature is universal because you are ignorant (unlikely) or because you are intellectually dishonesty (my guess). In either case, it would consume far too much time to explain to you the definition of human nature to your liking. But I what I can posit in reply is an answer to your simple question: there are absolutes in morality, just as there are absolutes in algebra. For example, murder is always wrong. There is no compromise in this principle.

::''As a quick aside I must note that I always find it humorous when people (usually liberals) stereotype the upbringing found in fundamentalist religious groups.''

::To your point, it is true that "in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." But guess what, you've just proven my point. This is because, EVERY SINGLE human that ever reached adulthood was "brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." '''DUH!'''

::It is possible that your theory is true. Perhaps, teachers and parents want to shield children from outside influences because "their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught!" But who do you think is most likely to have the child's best interests at heart? I would presume that a child's parents and that child's teachers want what is best for the child. I think you are implying that the pornographers, salesmen, MTV, rappers, strangers and passerby's---all of whom the child might find more interesting (and more permissive) than the parents and teachers---are better for the child? You think it's better that the child find out (the hard way) the lessons which the parents and grandparents into the mists of history, have already found out? Preposterous. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not argueing that modern celebrities are the way forwards by any means. The messages put forward by that group does not teach very good lessons for kids (or adults!). I'm merely pointing out that the near brainwashing of the young by their parents and teachers with regards religious teaching is also wrong and can teach a child "bad" things. An example would be homosexuality. Kids in religious families who think they might be gay receive no support from parents who believe that homosexuality is bad, simply because it is the parents belief. Surely a parents love for their child should come before their religion?

:::I am not being intellectually dishonest, just ignorant (ha like thats any better!). What I thought you meant by human nature isn't what is used in the definitions I found on the internet. I took human nature to be the general world viewpoint held by each individual person; where there is substantial difference!

:::I think argueing that children should accept what their parents tell them because they have learnt it from their experience is flawed. Every person has a different PoV so will experience things differently. If a child recieves all their advice from a parent who sees the world entirely differently to them, what will that child think of themselves? Is that fair on the child? A parent should be there for guidance, yes, but not for absolute teaching. To relate this to religion: religion is a predetermined set of "rules" that followers must stick to. Choosing a religion (and its rules) is a personal choice. Parents will naturally try to enforce their beliefs and rules on their children, thereby removing their choice to religion and actions, which is removing their freedom to be themselves. Surely that is a terrible wrong to do to that child? I am not argueing that children should be given no rules, nothing of the sort. I am merely saying that the rules given to a child by their parents should not be based on the religion of the parent(s) as that is a moral wrong to that child. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I see. By your logic the child should have rules and the rules should come from the parent (sort of) but the parent shouldn't base the rule structure or belief set upon something found in religion. Instead, you believe that religion must be by a higher and more correct authority. And just who is that authority? ''Will & Grace''? Madonna & Britney? Who is this higher and more perfect authority? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to enjoy mentioning celebrities...perhaps they have affected you more than you think. Their ability to corrupt is unbounded! I don't know what you mean by "religion must be by a higher and more correct authority". I am merely argueing for separation of of religious doctrine from a child's upbringing. Yes, make a child aware of their parents belief, why they believe it, etc., but don't "force it down their necks" or make them feel bad for "not believing". That is what I find to be morally wrong about religion: the automatic assumption of parents that their children should follow in their beliefs. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

a childs parents should bring up their children to be open to new ideas and to trust their senses and logic in ideological matters. religion of any kind does not allow this to be taught to children. as well as this, many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is a false characterization of religion, perhaps based in ignorance. Every major religion teaches personal accountability and free will. Therefore, religion encourages children (and everyone else) to "trust their senses and logic in ideological matters." Religion is a framework to assist in decision making. Religion does not take personal responsiblity or logic from anyone. (Perhaps you should read a bit of C.S. Lewis or Thomas Aquinas to better acquaint yourself with the value of logic to the Christian mind.)

::You state (no caps and no punctuation are all yours): "many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are." Who knows better what the child's best interests are? The media? The government? The child? Who?

::I'm glad we're having this discussion, mostly because it's apparent that you are the victim of the propaganda of another religion. You're repeating the mantra of the liberal religion, which teaches that all religions are equal and there are no moral boundaries. Your religion might be the "one true" religion, but I doubt it.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

The childs best interests are known only by the child itself. I do not mean to say that no parents ever get it right, or wrong, however what is in the childs best interests is not to foist a belief system on him/her without letting him/her have any choice or free will in the matter. The majority of religions (liberal or fundamentalist) do not encourage children to take advantage of their natural curiosity and explore all the possibilities of logic and science, as they see science as a threat to their belief system. Just as an example, the enactment of hell that occurs in an American state led by Pastor Ted Roberts which attempts to scare children into beliveing in God by scaring them with the sheer horror of the act. This would be dismissed as simply a fringe sect, however the supporters of this pastor, in his home state (i apologise for not knowing which state this is) number around 3 million. This is only one example of the methods used by religious leaders to force children into mindlessly believing what they are told. Another example is the muslim state of Saudi Arabia, where simply being of another faith or of no faith at all, is punishable by beheading. Note the similar use of fear tactics in both cases here. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:54, 19 April 2007

::What you're trying to say makes sounds ridiculous to me, but perhaps this is because we have not agreed to what the meaning of the word "child" is. Please allow me to insert a few definitions so that I don't miss your point and vice-versa.

:::* ward --- someone incapable of making personal decisions for some reason or another. There are several types of ward:
::::* child --- This individual cannot make personal decisions because they have not reached maturity (generally 17 and under). Children might step into traffic. Children might drink poison. Children can be cultivated into giving sexual favors to pedofiles. For all these reasons and many more, "parents" (''defined below'') make decisions for parents.
::::** mental defective --- This individual has poor reasoning skills or does not understand reality. For this reason "parents" or care-takers must make decisions for the mental defective
::::** sick or enfermed --- This individual might be in a coma. This individual might be extremely sick or otherwise unable to communicate. Thus, caretakers or "parents" must make decisions for this individual.

:::* parent --- one (ideally of two) individuals responsible for the care and nuturing of a ward or child

:::* adult --- An individual who is mentally competant and mature and thus has the free will to make any decisions they want so long as they don't violate the laws of the community where they reside.

::Children, and in fact, all other wards, need people to care for them and to make decisions for them. I'm quite sure there are a good many teenagers who would agree with your ridiculous notion that children make should make their own decisions, but most adults and most parents today (and throughout history) have come to agree that it is both unwise and unsafe to grant complete and total freewill to children (perhaps most especially teenagers). This is because children don't alwasy make good decisions. Children are easily swayed and they don't have the normal defenses of doubt and fear of strangers to protect them.

::This is a plain, simple and accepted truth. I'm not sure what possible connection that has to anything Ted Roberts ever said or did. Whether Ted Roberts or Jeffrey Dahmer or Hitler is a bogeyman or not, that doesn't change the fact that children need parents. I guess what you'll have to accept is that some parents will raise children who don't agree with your beliefs. I'm quite comfortable with the fact that not all parents or people agree with me. I much too busy and quite frankly don't feel the need to tell other people how to raise their children. I doubt you have any idea what any of the parents in former Pastor Robert's church are teaching their children. I thought liberals believed in tolerance and diversity? Why can't you tolerate their differences and celebrate their Christian diversity?

::What would you like to see in Saudi Arabia, a crackdown on parents? Do you want to take the children from their parents and raise them yourself? Have you ever considered the possiblity that the concept (called "fascism") of imposing your values upon others is wrong-heaed and evil? Don't you think Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live? Are you trying to suggest that the US should invade Saudi Arabia and replace the mullahs with ACLU? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No i am not attempting to say much of that, i think that you are right in that i have misunderstood the point that you were making. I do apologise for that. What i would like to say in regards to your previous point, is that while i agree that parents should have the role in making decisions for their children (with an increasing amount of input from the child as they grow older) at the same time, they should not force their beliefs onto their children and, where possible, educate them enough so that they have the intelligence and a high enough level or reasoning to be able to make their own decision in matters of faith and belief. While a lot of parents do this, i believe that the majority don't, although i am willing and hoping to be proven wrong. I do belive in tolerance and diversity, but that is what my main problem with religion is. Religion tends to preach the opposite of this, generally against other faiths but also against homosexuals and other groups that seem to break the rules of their faith. I do think that Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live, however i think that maybe a lot do not want to live the way they do, and that another large number would not want to live that way, if they were not devout muslims. I honestly think the US should keep out of the middle east in general, as the problems it has caused there seem to be greater then the amount solved, however that is not the topic on discussion here. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:56, 20 April 2007

:This debate title seems to be relatively unfocussed, but the debate itself seems to have settled down into a focussed discussion of whether or not it is morally right for religions to pass on their codifications, conventions and beliefs to their children in a manner which could be construed as 'indoctrination'. [[Richard Dawkins]] makes the point that it would not be acceptable in today's society to label children as 'a Democrat Child' or 'a Republican child', nor to set up schools which say that we are going to only teach 'Democrat' values in this school, and to only honour Democrats. However, it does appear to be acceptable to have 'catholic' scools, catholic, muslim and hindu children. Why is this? Any Religion and or Political Stance, when it comes down to it are idealogies, and have many parallels in the way they are dogmatic about the way that adherents should behave. They both present strong arguments as to the way that you should treat knowledge, evidence, and all present a very biased world view. This is fine if you are an adult, and you understand the rules, and you know that this is the way the world works, and that you have a choice about whether to question or to belive at all; but if you are an uimpressionable youngester you could be scarred for life: 'Give me a child until he is seven...."

There is a very strong argument to say that we should NOT allow people to present contraversial points of view to children AS IF these were uncontestable facts. This, after all, is the arguments of the creationists against evolution. They maintain children should be exposed to both points of view. However, I cannot imagine that any catholic school would suggest teaching that God may or may not exist, and allowing children to experience both the sacrament and the indoctrination ceremony of freemasons, and asking them to compare & contrast!--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 04:18, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Thankyou Felix for articulating what i was attempting to say, and i apologise again to Everwill for not wording my arguement very clearly. Having attended an anglican school till i was 13, i never was fully concious that they did not present their teachings as anything other then indisputable fact and that we were expected to believe that without question. The other thing that struck me was that i was never allowed to avoid communion on the basis that i was an atheist, while one of my friends who was jewish was excused. It was almost as if they rathered that we believed in a god, even if it is a slightly different set of beliefs that come attached, than that we had no beliefs at all. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30, 20 April 2007

::Bolly, it sounds like you're trying to impose your own parental issues on others. I understand that you thought you were an atheist and yoru parents wanted to impose their theistic beliefs on you. The fact is, they have every right to impose these theistic beliefs on you. After you come of age, you can think or do anything you like. It would appear that they weren't too oppressive and it would appear they were quite open-minded because they raised an atheist. It would appear that you are the one who is oppressive because you want to raise other children to think like you. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:15, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

No, my parents are both atheists as well, the only reason i went to that school was because it was the best school in the area. However adults do not have the right to impose their theistic beliefs on their children, just as they have no right to impose their political ideologies on them. Children are trusting of their parents because in the majority of situations their parents are doing what is best for them. What i believe parents should do is to raise their children to be open minded about belief regardless of their own beliefs. Therefore any parents should educate their children about different faiths (including atheism although it is not really a faith) in a totally balanced and fair manner with no predjudice. This allows children to make up their own mind about their own personal beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:48, 21 April 2007

::Ever wonder why the religious school was the best school in the area? Have you ever once considered the possibility that this school was better because the religious school wasn't attempting to relearn the lessons of the past? This school already had a functioning set of moral codes and they didn't need to wander through the maze of pitfalls in our new ACLU-friendly world of multi-culturalist moral equivelancy? Or perhaps you think the school was better because of dumb luck?

::As defined above, adults do not have the right to impose their beliefs on children. However, ''parents'' have a right (and more importantly a duty) to impose their beliefs on children. Parents should educate their children in the way that feels best to them.

::But what you fail to comprehend is that '''anything''' you teach children is a view point. You're just upset because you want everyone else to teach your view point. Your viewpoint embraces moral equivalism and the belief that all religions are equal. That is a viewpoint. It may or may not be valid, but the fact is, it is a viewpoint. It is just another value-set. It may or may not be more valid than the values of another parent. That's an argument that can be had, but it's not at issue here.

::The issue is that you want other parents to teach their children what you believe. Furthermore, you think it's immoral that they won't teach their children your values. Don't you think that's a little silly? Do you think you're any different from the fundamentalist Christians who are upset because you're not teaching your child about Jesus? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 05:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Imposing values on other people's children==

Yes i did think about why my school was the best school in the area. The reason was that it was the richest, as it was a private school and charged massive fees for attendance. And its moral codes are almost indistinguishable from the school i attended after, which was an international college and had no religious affiliation. No adults do not have a right to impose their beliefs on children. Parents also do not have this right. To impose a personal belief on a trusting child is not morally right. Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe. I believe that all parents should teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice. Up until a certain age, say 13, children cannot believe in anything purely because it makes sense to them and, if allowed by their parents, many children do make up their own religion for a while or switch repeatedly between religions until they reach a point of maturity where they can make a choice based upon what they have learned. Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:37, 21 April 2007

::You absolutely don't make any sense. I always think ''ad hominem'' attacks are inappropriate, so I hope I don't sound like I'm attacking you, but based upon the evidence (spelling, grammatical & punctuation errors) I'm beginning to doubt your claim that your private school was the best in the area. Furthermore, I doubt that the religious indoctrination in your school was oppressive based upon the fact that you obviously attended the school, but don't share the school's values. I can't help but tell you that once again you have posted something which does not make logical sense.

::You wrote:
:::"''Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism.''"
::Of course exploiting anyone (most especially children) is never morally right. This is because according to Merriam Webster Online "exploit" means "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <''exploiting migrant farm workers''>". But you haven't laid even a meager basis for this wild accusation. Who are you accusing of exploiting children and for what gain? Are you trying to say that parents are exploiting their own children? What do parents gain from that?

::You write,
:::"''Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe.''"
::In the first sentence you describe your "beliefs" (which is just a different term for your "religion") and furthermore you demand that parents teach their children your values. In the second sentence you state the exact opposite. Perhaps the silliest thing you imply is that it is somehow dangerous or bad to trust your parents and teachers. If one can't trust ones parents or teachers, then who can one trust?

::I very seriously doubt you have learned much if anything through this process you describe above. I doubt you have tested how the world works to verify the claims of teachers and parents. For example, I'm pretty sure you trusted your Driver's Education teacher when he told you that "green means go". You didn't feel the need to experiment with driving on red first. I doubt you ever verified any claims made in the DMV Manual by using the scientific method and a double-blind study. I'm pretty sure that you trust that when you flip a light switch and turn on the boob-tube that electrons will serve your will and pleasure. But, I doubt you have actually flown a kite in a thunderstorm to verify that electricity exists. By the same token, I doubt you need to violate any of the Ten Commandments to agree that these simple laws are for the benefit of all of humanity. I'm sure you agree that children don't need to experiment with adultery, murder or lying. They're better off just taking their parents' word that these are bad things.

::The reason you agree is because it's just plain silly to waste time verifying every claim of trusted parents and teachers. Therefore, the issue for you is not that "children need to reason things on their own".

::The real issue for you is that you are an atheistic evangelist and you are frustrated because some people aren't open to receiving your message. You are frustrated because some people trust their parents more than they trust you.

::Buck up, trooper. You should satisfy yourself with the many victories of the secular progressive agenda. For example, traditional parents were forced to allow people like you to ban prayer and religious discussion from our schools. This should satisfy you. Now you can safely raise your children without fear that they will overhear a prayer and thus they might accidentally become infected with religion. You have successfully had the 10 Commandments removed from many courtrooms. Be happy because you've already won all you can logically win.

::The only thing left for you is to take away more freedom from others to practice their religion and teach their religion to their children. You're not satisfied with leaving them to do what they want to do. Instead, you want to teach other people's children to force parents (and I quote) to "''teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice.''" Why do you feel the need to force other people not to talk about religion until the child is thirteen?

::My guess is that you believe this because you can't seem to understand that your personal opinion about religion '''is''' just another religion. I'm quite sure that you are trying to be a good person. I'm quite sure that you want to teach other people your religion because you want what's best for the child. But in America we have a concept called "Freedom of Religion". Because of our Freedom of Religion, you are prohibited from ramming your value-set down the throats of other people's children.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I admit you have quite easily picked out some flaws in the way i have argued my point, and you are right in about that paragraph where i contradict myself. I shall attempt to explain myself more clearly. I do not think all children should be taught my beliefs. That is the most important part. My beliefs are of the atheistic kind, as you already know. What i think is that children should not be indoctrinated into any religion or set of beliefs. If the person chooses at a later date to be a christian or muslim or atheist, good on them. But, to come to your point on how we trust what certain people tell us about certain things, like the driving instructor when it comes to driving and so on, children trust their parents. That is because the vast majority of parents do have their childrens best interests in mind all the time. However some do use this trust, often without intending to, to teach their child to believe what they believe about God, or lack thereof (you are right about exploiting, it was the wrong word to use in that situation). My arguement in a nutshell: Children should have freedom of religion. What i mean by that is that they should not be influenced by their parents. Because many people do not have freedom of religion, in America or elsewhere (i should point out that freedom of religion is part of the Australian constitution as well) as they did not realise they had a choice. They have always been brought up to believe that Christianity was right, or that Islam was right, etc. and because it is from their parents whom they trust, they do not question this, and they are often denied the tools with which to apply logic to religious arguements.

Just as an aside to my main point, the ten commandments aren't actually such a great set of morals to live by. The very first commandment violates freedom of religion : thou shalt worship no other god but me. Also, according to the commandments, disrespecting your parents results in being stoned to death. And to compound it, thou shalt not kill, does not apply to people who are not the same religion as you. When taken the way they were intended, they aren't such a good set of morals to live by. [[User:Bolly Ottihw:Bolly Ottihw]] 14:57, 23 April 2007
::I won't waste time defending the Ten Commandments, something I belive to be a foundation of everything good in Western Civilization. The courts have agreed to remove the Ten Commandments from public life and I am not in a position to change the law, so I obey the law.

::But I will repeat the following in the hopes that you might understand this concept. Your opinion about religion, in other words "your personal definition of freedom of religion" is just another religion. It is clear that you want other parents to teach your definition of "freedom of religion" to other children.

::It may offend your sensibilities, but some people don't agree with your opinions about religion. In American, they don't have to agree with you. They can believe whatever they want. Thus, most American parents teach their children that America is a free country, where people can believe whatever they want. Further, they teach their children their own family's values and religion. Some people are Baptists or Muslims or Hindus. Some people (like you) prefer like to teach their children to sample a hodgepodge of all religions so that they will better understand atheism. That is their right. Please don't take it away from them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Selective application of logic==
Isn't it amusing that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age, but the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, i disagree (although of course i would, i am a so-called liberal). I think that the reason is that there are facts about sex and that religion is more hazy, in that there is very little proof on both sides of the arguement, and it becomes philosophical which is harder for a child to deal with. However i think that sex education should start at around age 13, which is about the same time i think children should start to seriously consider their religion or beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 15:03, 23 April 2007

You disagree with what? You disagree with:
::* The assertion that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age;
::* The assertion that the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age;
::* With the idea of teaching children family values;
::* With the idea of teaching children regilious values;
::* With the idea that sex education should be postponed;
::* All of the above;
::* Something else?

You don't make much sense to me.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Aside from the fact that you've ignored the bulk of what Bolly wrote and focused mainly on a fairly trivial thing that he said, you seem to think that "we" (being us liberal bods) are applying selective logic by saying we should teach about "sex" and not religion. In fact, by your reasoning, "you" (being the conservative bunch) are applying the same selective logic by saying that we should teach religion but not teach "sex". A horrible dilemma for you, don't you think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::1. I've not ignored anything anyone said. Please explain.

::2. I'm sorry that I've seemed to confuse you. Please allow me to explain my interpretation of the conservative position on the education of sex and the education of religion.
:::* One should teach children family values, morals and religion at an early age. This is for the child's benefit and for the benefit of mankind. (As an adult they can do whatever they would like to do, provided they don't break the law.)
:::* Regarding sex, the conservative position is that it is desirable to prolong the child's innocence by postponing sex education as long as possible.
::I'm sorry if this flavor of common sense offends you. Furthermore, I'm sorry but I can't begin to understand why this common sense would support in any way the ridiculous notion that "religion is morally wrong" by ''any'' definition of "religion" as posted below by another editor. As best as I can figure from the poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled statements above here's what I suppose the liberal position is:
:::* One should not teach children about religion because religion is evil. They won't come to realize how evil religion is until they reach 13 to 25 (commonly known as the Age of Rebellion). As a quick aside, it is a universal truth that the older people become, the wiser they become. I wonder why churches are full of old people?
:::* One should teach children about sex as soon as they are old enough to masturbate. This is because masturbation is healthy and can lead to an active and enjoyable sex life. It's important for children to understand the dangers of STD's and how to avoid pregnancy through the use of pills and condoms. Furthermore, all children should be aware if a little girl wants want an abortion, she can safely get an abortion without her parent's ever even knowing that she was pregnant. In this way she can continue with the lifestyle of her choosing without parents invading her right to privacy. If a child has a child and ends up dependent on the parents or the system, it's the conservative's fault for not talking about birth control more.
::Please correct me if I've mistated the liberal position.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You ignored the fact that Bolly made a valid point about the definition of fact and religion, and the age at which children should be educated about "sex".

:::Secondly, you say yourself that the statements written above are "poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled" and then go on to derive a definition from them!? Surely a better course of action would have been to take the definition from some credible source? As to what you have said, I would agree with most of what you define the conservative view to be, apart from teaching children a specific religion at an early age. I suppose it comes down to setting an age where innocence is lost (and I doubt many are naive enough to think that that is the age of consent). People under the age of 16 will have sex (not all, but some) and if no sex education is available for them, what sort of experiences will they have? Is it not better that from a certain age (and I would say that 13 is a good age for this to start) children are introduced to the idea of safe sex, with few (and preferably one) partner(s)?

:::You're right though, we have divulged from the debate topic, but this is an interesting tangent to the debate which I would very much like to continue if you care to carry on? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::For the second time, I'm ignoring Bolly's "valid point" because I have no clue what you are talking about. I didn't read any valid point which wasn't addressed ''ad nauseum'' already. Please read the dialogue to this point if you are confused as to why I think it's ridiculous (and invalid) to demand that other people teach their children ''your'' values. I've already explained why this is ridiculous above.

::I attempted to derive a definition from Bolly's statement only to appease your pretense of indignation when you accused me of ignoring Bolly's alleged "points". By your reaction, I'm now assuming that you just haven't read the entire argument yet and that you concur, Bolly made no points in the gibberish above. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

My point was that i think that children should be educated about sex and religion at the same age. This is because it is the age where both become major issues for children growing up. Please do explain how this is hard to understand, and how this is a selective application of logic. (I apologise for my poor grammar, it is because i write my line or thought and arguement down the same way i would say it out loud) [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:42, 24 April 2007

::You don't need to keep writing the same thing over and over and over. We already understand your opinion about how ''you think'' things should be. You've made that quite clear.

::What you still don't seem to understand is that you don't have the right to tell other people how to live, nor do you have the right to teach other children your beliefs. That's pretty self-centered. You're self-centered nature is further evidenced by the fact that you admission that you would prefer to force others to spend their precious time deciphering your cryptic musings directly from your stream of consciousness, rather than taking the time and effort to write coherent sentences with good spelling and grammar. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Age at which sex education should be taught==

Regarding the interesting tangent: to what particularly are you referring? Are you trying to debate the age at which sex education should be imposed upon children?

This is a complicated issue because there are several related factors. Most churches teach that sex outside of marriage is adultery, a sin and a mistake. But it is my personal opinion, that church and religion is a guideline and the morals espoused therein are ideals. Ideally one never lies. Ideally one never commits adultery. But here in the real world, there are a good many liars and adulterers (myself included in both counts). Additionally, most parents think that sex under the age of 18 is a mistake. Most everyone agrees that sex under the age of 16 is a mistake. Does it happen in the real world? Yes it happens. Beyond the basic biological functions of sex, sexuality is about morality. Certainly every child over the age of 13 should be taught something about the biology of sex. But what of the morality of the sex, the politics of sex and the religious or spiritual aspects of sex? These are much more complicated and personal issues and these issues should be handled within the family.

I think it's important to teach young teens "where babies come from." I think it's important to leave discussions about homosexuality, adultery and abortion to the family and church. But my original point is not that I presume to know how or when to push sex education. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:What i find interesting is that you assume that the church knows more about homosexuality than homosexuals. And regarding this, the church brings 2000 year old arguements to this subject without considering how it applies in todays society. In the past homosexuality would not have been profitable as it would not have benifited the tribe in anyway compared to heterosexual sex. In this age, there is no lack of benefit from not having children and so there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. The other thing i disagree with is that here is a religious aspect to sex. Sex should be a coupling between two people who share a great love between each other. Again, that doesnt always happen, however it is essential that children learn this at the same time they learn about the biological side of sex. [[Bolly ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:47, 24 April 2007

::Of course, that's your opinion and your entitled to it. You've got a right to live your life however you want. For me the choice is obvious. On one hand I have 2000 to 10000 years of wisdom. On the other hand, there's some dude on the Internet {{strike personal remark|who doesn't know how to write proper English, but }} who claims to know more than the Church, and Thomas Aquinas. All I ask is that you let others live their lives the way they want. Is that too much to ask? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Did you just make a personal remark? (I should block your account for 1 second. ;-)

I apologize if I offended anyone. I don't believe in ''ad hominem'' attacks. I think they are rude and pointless. However, if someone admits that they don't write properly in a forum where writing is the only means of communication, then they have openned the door to commentary by others. I'm quite sure you're just kidding anyway, I hope this doesn't sound too stern. I'm just tired right now. I was up late, up early and I'm facing a long day. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Atheists have it all figured out ... ==
My point above in ''Selective application of logic'' is that it looks very hypocritical for liberals to want to teach children about sex as young as possible, but the same crowd doesn't want to teach children religion until after they are suspectible to corruption and experimentation.

What amateur philosophers like Bolly don't seem to understand is that theologians, philosophers and generations of people with more time on their hands than all of us have already put a great deal of effort and experimentation into evolving a set of moral codes and sound religious creeds. Bolly is naive enough to expect the unreasonable notion that any '''one''' man can compete with the thoughts and knowledge of countless generations who have gone before him. He honestly thinks he can invent a personal philosophy and religious-code based upon his individual experiences. He believes that his own personal philosophy can rival the combined thoughts of generations of philosophers and theologians.

/begin rant: We as modern humans don't have to invent medicine, or geology, or build a TV set and write computer code. That's already been done by others! We can stand on their shoulders. Can you imagine how silly and presumptive it sounds to those former atheists like myself when they read that Bolly thinks he knows how the universe works and that he can definitively say that he understands the nature of God?

Bolly doesn't know the first thing about God or philosophy, but he wants to teach other people's children his credo of experiment with all religions and then become an atheist. I know why [[Thomas Aquinas]] and [[Socrates]] and even [[Aleister Crowley]] are famous (or infamous as the case may be), but I don't know why Bolly presumes to know what's best for other people's children. /end rant.

You don't have to invent moral codes or laws or waste time experimenting with life's dead-ends. You can look up the answer in the book of your choice and things will be so much easier for you.

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I have explained that it is not hypocritical, as i believe they should be taught at the same age, neither
before the other.

I am not naive enough to think that i can rival any of the great philosophers in logic and philosophy, however i dont think i would have any trouble outthinking Thomas Aquinas, for example. The reason for this is that he (and others like him) used their religious credibility to establish themselves as philosophical geniuses when in fact, he was not much smarter then anyone of the time, and certainly not smarter then the average uni graduate today. This can be amply demonstrated by his '5 proofs' of gods existence which are more full of holes than a swiss cheese.

To compare moral codes to medicing or geology is not an adequate comparison. The basic ideas of medicine and geology are based on sound proof and will not change much within the next thousand years. On the other hand, moral codes are always changing depending on the society that they are employed by. Look at the change in opinion about non-caucasian people over the past 200 years! only 100 years ago it was considered the height of stupidity to consider an african american the equal of a white man, yet today, even though there is still far to much prejudice in the world, it is generally accepted that there is no difference between any of the races of humanity. The great thinkers of one age would be considered backwards and redundant if they were transported in time to today.

I do not presume to know the nature of god. I do know, within myself, that god does not exist and i am content with that knowledge. You say you were an atheist, i would like to know what converted you to christianity.

No you do not need to waste time experimenting with dead ends, however because i believe in freedom of religion, i think it would only be fair that children are shown all the alternative modes of beliefs.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:00, 24 April 2007

::Fine. Show your children and leave others alone.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== This is an invalid question ==

I've stayed away from the debates on Conservapedia, and this one is an example of why. I'm only here now because I was asked for my input.

The problem with the question is that "religion" is not defined. On my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment#.22Religion.22 Wikipedia user page] I've listed some of the main ways that the word "religion" is used:
{{QuoteBox|
# A set of beliefs on which one bases one's life
# Belief in a deity or deities (e.g. Christianity is a religion)
# A particular set of rituals (e.g. He is practising his religion)
# A particular broad set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Christian, Muslim, or Hindu?)
# A particular narrower set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Methodist, Baptist, or Catholic?) }}

I further say there:
{{QuoteBox|No. 2 is, in my opinion, an arbitrary subset of No. 1. People believe in multiples gods (polytheism), everything-is-god (pantheism), one god (monotheism) or no god (atheism). Pantheism and atheism don't fit into definition No. 2, yet to consider them somehow "different" is arbitrary and self-serving ... . Thus I use definition No. 1 in preference to No. 2, and argue that atheism (and related views such as secular humanism) are religions, every bit as much as Christianity is. The difference is simply how many gods one believes in.}}

So if "religion" is a worldview (or ''ideology'' if you prefer), then it follows that ''everybody has one'', by its very nature and definition. How can one then ask if it is morally wrong?

Of course the person who asked the question obviously didn't have that definition in mind. But which one did he have?

To a Christian, Christianity is No. 1: a core set of beliefs on which one bases one's life. I would hope that it is obvious even to atheists that one cannot help but base one's actions on one's beliefs. So in that sense, "religion" comes before children, because when dealing with children, one ''must'' deal with them according to one's beliefs. That is why everyone, even atheists, do so.

To an atheist (who conveniently would not describe atheism as a religion), "religion" is a "optional extra". And on that basis, clearly children's welfare should come before "optional extra" beliefs.

To recap, the problem here is that there is no definition of what is intended by "religion" in this question, let alone any actual agreement by opposing viewpoints.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

This is dead-on correct. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

We do not 'conveniently' choose not to describe atheism as a religion. Atheism is defined as : a lack of belief. Lack of belief is not a religion. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:02, 24 April 2007

:Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is an ardent ''belief'' that there is no God. And even ignoring that point, you ''do'' have core beliefs, which can be considered your worldview/ideology/religion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:23, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is. When split up: A-Theism. no-belief. I do not ardently believe god does not exist. I dont think god exists. If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic.

I do have core beliefs. That does not consitute religion except in your definition. And i would argue that that is not religion, that is simply morality dressed up. My worldview is not my ideology or religion, because it would be a really weird religion compared to the main ones around today.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:57, 24 April 2007

:According to the Oxford dictionary[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk], the "atheism" means "the belief that God does not exist". The prefix "a-" can mean "without", but it can also mean "not", and "theism" is a reference to God, not just belief. Not all atheists hold their belief in no god as strongly, but for many atheists, it is a ''belief'' in no god.
:It is not "my definition". It is one of several dictionary definitions. The rest of your last two sentences don't make sense. You have not explained how atheism is not a religion yet Christianity is. As I quoted myself above, any such distinction is arbitrary and self-serving.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Bolly says, ''If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic. '' Evidence for God lies around us in all directions and in all things. (See other topics herein for a few examples.) The reason you don't see evidence of God is your picture of God has nothing to do with what God is about. God is not some magical being. God is not flying spaghetti. God does not defy logic. God is logic. In your mind the great machine of the univers happened out of sheer luck. What's the difference between sheer luck and God? Aren't they the same thing? Hopefully I can give you a clue where to find God by telling you where to look.

God is in the details. The electrons are busy doing their thing. The subatomic particles are inside the protons hard at work doing whatever they do to make matter do what it does. Complex chains of molecules describe how to build a human being more efficiently than any code written by any programmer.

God is in the everyday. God is in the mother who cares for her child. God is in the man who jumps into freezing water to save a stranger. God is in the reason you feel good when you do good things, even when they aren't fun.

God is in the grandeur. God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time.

God is everywhere, everywhere but where you're looking. You're looking for god to do something other than what the universe already does. You're presumption is that the universe is fantastic, wonderfully complicated, a well-oiled machine, but you expect something over and above all of this. ''Yeah the universe is vastly complicate, but what have you done for me lately?''

The naivety of the atheist lies in the belief that the universe itself is not evidence of God. By Bolly's definition, God is only evidenced by something beyond the atheist's explanation and comprehension. By this definition you'll never find God, because if you could comprehended the magical proof of God and God could be explained, then it would not longer be magical and no longer beyond comprehension! [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely it is enough to gaze upon the vastness and awe inspring vistas of the universe without having to attribute it to some other being. Your above definition of god: "God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time." seems to me to be more naive then my atheism. You are simply defining the universe but replacing it with god.

I would like to see some of this 'proof' of gods existence for so far i have seen nothing that comes remotely close to convincing me that god exists. On the other hand, there is no need for god in this world. Science has come very close to completly shut out godly influence in the creation of life and the universe.

The universe has not come about out of sheer luck. The strong and weak nuclear force, gravity and quantum theory all allow us to model the creation of stars, planets and black holes in a purely logical manner. If you wish to call that logic and those laws 'God' then you are free to do so. But then god is not a being who can be worshipped or who answers prayers or makes miracles. Then God simply becomes another name for the universe with no added baggage of being the creator. I trust that this dismisses your last point about the magical proof of god. You are welcome to call the universe what you will, however don't expect many people to address prayers to the law of gravity.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:50, 26 April 2007

:::I understand what you say, but I don't think that's what you mean. What you are actually saying is that you have defined your image of God and unless God conforms to your idea of what God means/is and then someone else proves to you that idea is true, then you will not believe in God. Have you considered the possibility that what you thought of as God is just a magical bogeyman? Have you considered the possibility that God is something else entirely than what you thought as a child and later realized was preposterous when you grew up? What we teach children about God is drastically simplified for their consumption. It up to you to purse the truth of God after you realize there is no magical bogeyman. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why Atheism is ridiculous==
Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "God" is another word for "everything." God equals everything. Everthing is God. To deny that "God" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if God is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does God (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does God have a plan? Or is Everything (''i.e.'' God) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies. Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstien included) believe that time is an illusion and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or God) is sentient. God has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:That's not the God I know. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::As a godless, atheistic, morally-bankrupt existentialist, I have to say I disagree with this "assessment." If I am to take what you say at face value I come to the immediate conclusion that atheism is still correct. If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....

:::I think of the universe this way: I don't know how it came to be, but I assume it was a chemical and physical event, not supernatural. I know that this "stuff" doesn't have to have a plan in order to exist. There need not be a man in the sky to protect me from everything. I don't need to pray to something that I will succeed in life because there is no one listening. But, I'm not sad about this, I don't feel alone or unloved by the big ol' scary universe. Rather, I feel emboldened to take moral actions when I can.

:::Camus is my hero. His basic equation boils down to this: once a person realizes that there is no god they have two choices--suicide or a "faith flight." That is, if one accepts the religious view of things. If Camus is correct, and existence does indeed precede essence, then there is a third choice, the philosophy of moral action. Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.

:::Now, since I don't believe everything has a plan, and that I have a moral obligation to help my fellow man (and woman), I have an obligation to come to sites like this and try to fix them. Not by including so-called "liberal bias." Rather, the point is to make sure truth trumps propaganda. Wether I like it or not, I have a duty to help fix this garbage. I liken it to watching a child roll their tricycle toward the street. You, the adult, are standing there and you can see a truck bearing down on the child. Do you try and help her, or do you pray? I must take action and this website affords me a chance to help everybody. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You have mistaken my meaning, despite repeating exactly what I said:

::''If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....''

This is indeed exactly what I meant. So in fact, there is a god. The question is God sentient or not. Does God have thoughts, plans, etc. Or is the universe a jumble of meaningless matter that is and always was. A tangental thought to ponder: auantum mechancics seem to suggest that reality can change depending on the observer.

For those who say "this is not the God I know". Indeed it is the God you. Here's the line of logic:

::1. God = Everything
::2. Therefore God exists. (And the corrollary, atheism is ridiculous.)
::3. Now there is a choice: one can choose to believe that God is sentient; or one can deny the sentience of God despite overwhelming of evidence to the contrary.
::4. Then, if God is sentient then what can we mortals know of God? Where will we find His truths? We might find them in science. We find them in religion. We each find out own personal truth in different ways.

If you make it to step 4, the arguement becomes which religion is best. Which truth makes the most sense to you. Christians, Buddhists, Islamist, they all have their own personal arguments. I won't waste time debating religion when atheists are in the room. It's pointless, because they haven't made the logical step to 3.

If your mind doesn't make the leap to step 3, there is no point in discussing morals. In fact, it's ridiculous to postulate morals or philosophy because the universe is meaningless. For those who are at this point in personal growth: thine only commandment is ''do what thou wilt''. It is pointless to do anything other than that which makes you happy if you get to step 2 but don't make the jump to step 3. However, if you can comprehend step two but don't believe in 3 then all this poppycock about morals and goodness is ridiculous. Furthermore, when an atheist discusses morals and philosophy it only only serves to prove there is a God. This is because the atheist's spirit (which he doesn't believe believe exists) nags and naws at him like the quite voices of angels.

If you make it to step one but can't make it to step 2, then you are a) either incapable of higher thought; or b) intellectually dishonest because you fear where this argument leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, what you are trying to do, in logic, is referred to as an [[enthymeme]]. However, your argument does not work. First, you must show HOW god equals everything. Otherwise you can say anything. Thus:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

:::But you tried to do something else. You tried to insert statements as if they are quantifiable terms. Sort of like saying, "E = mc2" ''Well what do those letters mean?'' "Elephants equal mustard and cows times themselves." You've defined nothing except a lack of basic logical principles.

Being intellectually dishonest would be if I said, well, "god likes strawberries more than cherries." When you ask ''why'' I'll say "because they taste better." Asserting your opinion as fact is what makes it less than true. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin, why do you care if a child rides into traffic on a tricycle? What do you gain if she is saved? What do you lose if she dies? It sounds a lot like your a theist to me. You obviously think the universe has some meaning or some order. If the universe has order and meaning then it only follows that you believe the universe is God. The next step to make is to find out where God best reveals his truth. You think that his truth is best revealed in the philosophical musings of your hero Camus. Camus wrote your Bible. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::It might be difficult to understand but I did not say that god=toast. I agree that God is not toast. Is "Everything" that is to say the universe as a whole sentient or not? Simple question. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:50, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Furthermore, by your example:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

By your definition, then it would be possible to know the true nature of toast. We pretty well already know how to make toast. It's a silly diversion from the question you are afraid to ask yourself. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

No it isn't. I have already asked myself--for years--if there is a god. I have come to the conclusion ther very likely isn't. I am not an atheist (they are 100% sure) but I sit at about 99.9% sure. I have diverted nothing--being intellectually honest with myself meant I had to realize there was no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:As the one who said, "this is not the God I know", I reject the first point in the line of logic, that God equals everything. I am a monotheist, not a pantheist. God ''made'' the universe, He ''isn't'' the universe.
:Flippin, your counter-logic is wrong. Everwill's logic skipped a step. His logic was:
::1. God = Everything
::1A. We know that everything exists.
::2. Therefore God exists.

:So in order to match Everwill's argument from logic, your counter logic should have been:
::1. god = toast
::1A. we know that toast exists
::2. therefore god exists.
:But you got point 2 back to front.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Phil,

So as I understand it you think God is outside of the universe? God is apart from the universe. God is not everywhere at all times, rather he is somewhere else. Where is that somewhere else and what reason have you to believe (other than blind faith) that somewhere else exists? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:God is a spiritual being. He is "outside" the universe—a physical place—in the sense that He is not part of it. But being an omnipresent spiritual being He is not confined to a physical place, so He is not outside in a geographical sense. He is everywhere at once, but not synonymous with the universe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that God is not "confined" to anything. But I'm not sure there's any value to arguing the fine differences between "everything", the universe and God. We're not philosophers, and others have explored this better than we can. I think there is some value to helping atheists understand why the question is not whether God exist or not. The real question is whether God is an omnipresent sentience or not. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Everwill, your argument that god = everything is preposterous. Firstly, i do not agree with the first statement you make, that god is everything. I would like some hard proof, or at least a convincing argument that god equals everything before the first premise of your argument.

If, for arguements sake, we assume that your first premise is correct, then the only question is, as you say, whether everything (or god) is sentient? Again, you can say so, however i want proof. I have yet to see a plan in the universe or everything. According to the current predictions by astronomers and physcists, the universe is set to expand for an idefinete period and that eventually all the stars will run out of hydrogen and go out, and that everything will spread further and further apart at faster and faster speeds until the universe tears itself apart. Can you explain the plan in this? It displays all the theories about gravity, dark matter, quantum theory and strong and weak nuclear forces. There is nothing to show an added level of intelligence in this everything.

Please do not assume that your first premise is correct until you show some evidence for this, otherwise your argument is entirely invalid.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:06, 26 April 2007

:::You must have made things pretty difficult for your alegbra teacher. The teacher presents the following:

::::''x + 1 = 2''
::::''X is'' unknown.
::::''Solve for X.''

:::To which you reply, "Prove that X is unknown and a mathematical value. X is a letter and has no value, thus algebra is entirely invalid."

:::Hopefully you see how silly your reply is, but I'll grant you that I may have given you too much credit above. Perhaps the concept is a little too complicated for you to understand as I presented above. I'll try harder.

:::If the word "God" is synomous with "everything" then I assume you believe God exists. If the word "God" means "magical bogeyman who meddles in the affairs of mankind" then I assume we agree that God does not exist. In the framework of the argument above, God means everything.

:::Now I'll put that aside and try to explain the concept without using words that offend your sensibilities. The universe shows organization and complexity beyond any single human's comprehension at every level. The components of a cell, atomic structures, galactic structures, geological structures, biologal structures. It's vastly intricate, interconnected and complicated. The universe functions like an immense machine and so far as we can tell, it will continue to function for quite some time and it functioned long ago.

:::With this knowledge one has to make a leap of faith, and science has taught us that the simple solution is usually the right solution. The simple solution is that the universe is organization implies design, design implies designer. The only other plausible choice is that the everything that every happens, happened or will happened is the result of something that makes a lottery ticket or a lightning strike look like a easy money and a daily occurence. Now, I respect your right to belive that, but I think it's sort of naive.

:::So you think the universe is randomness. I think the universe has order. Now to work back into the definitions presented above. I think God has order. You think God is randomness. Whether we call it God, the universe or everything, it makes no difference. I'm not trying to take away your right to believe what you want. I'm not trying to tell you to go to church. I'm just trying to find a common ground on which we can agree. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Alright, now i understand the point you were making. I do not agree with it, however i see now where you are coming from.

The reason that the whole of the universe is so incomprehensible to us, is because we evolved on a scale where the only distances that mattered were a couple of hundred kilometres to about a centimetre. That was all that was needed to survive as homo erectus in a hostile world. It was not necessary for us to be able to understand a cell or an atom or a star. The complex machinery that is our brain is not built for such things as the universe or quantum theory. This is why it is so hard to comprehend.

The simple solution is the right solution in the majority of cases, however the simple solution in this case is not one of design. Darwin has already shown that while animals and plants may look designed they are in fact the end result of a massive series of gene mutations and adaptations. In this case, there is no designer and thus your point that organization implies design implies designer is proved wrong in the case of natural life. Simply because there is no such explanation for how the universe has come to be in such a way does not mean that there is no explanation that does not need to attribute it to a designer. Just think that 300 years ago, noone thought that something complex could come from something less complex as it balked common sense. However our common sense only applies to simple, mundane everyday things, not the huge distances and complexities of space or an atom.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:56, 27 April 2007

==Is Atheism Ridiculous?==
::::On what basis do can you decide that something is "moral"? If I saw a truck bearing down on a child, I would try and help her, because God loves her and He would want me to help, and I would be praying at the same time. But why would you help her? From an atheistic point of view, she is just an accidental combination of a bunch of chemicals facing a life of suffering, disease, and ultimate death. What's the point in helping? Why not just let chance shortcut the process and save her all those years of pain? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:24, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Because I feel an obligation to help her, as I said. Saying it is moral means nothing. It is the action one takes. I believe that it is right to keep someone alive rather than kill them (what the above example allows for). If I let her die, she cannot make her own decisions--I am taking away her inalienable right to decide her own fate, if you will. I have no right to hurt someone else--that takes away from their right to choose how they will spend their existence.

::Yes, she is accidental, as are you and me, but I have no right to infringe on the rights of a sentient human being by allowing them to die. Standing by and watching her die would make me just as guilty as putting a gun to her head and pulling the trigger. Morality is based on this single point: existence precedes essence. We are all responsible for our own choices with regard to how they affect others.

::I don't need a religion to tell me that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Just another quick note--don't you think you have an obligation to do something outside of a god's wrath? When you say "because god loves her" you tacitly give up the responsibility for taking action. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Yes, you feel an obligation to help her. But why? I'd say that it's because you've been raised in a country with a Christian heritage and have absorbed some of its values. But I'm asking what basis atheism provides for that. Why do you feel that it is "right". What if I "feel" differently? Who is right and who is wrong? Where did her "inalienable right to decide her own fate" come from? Does she in fact have such a right? I assert that you ''do'' need a religion—or more specifically, God—to tell you that, because atheism can't.
:::::I fail to see how I'm giving up responsibility for taking action. On the contrary, it's because God loves her that I have that responsibility.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::You know, atheism has almost nothing to do with it. I don't think about, or believe in god the way you don't believe (I assume) in the flying spaghetti monster.

::But saying that "because god loves her...I have a responsibility" is equivalent to saying, "I'll go to Grandma's because it makes Mom happy." It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you.

::Finally, that "right to exist" could also be thought of as a prohibition against her death. That comes from the notion that even though our very existence is absurd, I don't have a right to decide how you will affect it. To throw my hands up and say "but who is right and who is wrong" is just reducing the argument to multiplicity, and thus relativism.

::I guess what I'm saying is I don't have a right to decide for that child so I will save her and let her make her own choice. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:::"''It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you''". On the contrary, I have ''decided'' to do what God would like, rather than do something for a selfish reason of it being something that ''I'' would like.
:::You say that the "right to exist" comes from the notion that you don't have a right to decide how you will affect it, yet by saving the girl you ''have'' decided to affect things. Yes, throwing your hands up is relativism, but the opposite of relatives is absolutes, and absolutes only come from God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes exactly, you have decided what god would like. Other people can have a different understanding, people such as Adolf Hitler who decided that god thought it was right that he should kill all jews, as they were "christ killers". Or the young man who shot a doctor who practised abortions because "god would have wanted me to do it". The fact that you have to interpret a book to decide your morals means that several different people can gain different moral codes from the same book, while there are very few people who would disagree that wanton killings would lead to society fracturing. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:17, 26 April 2007

::Adolf Hitler was an atheist. Beyond this factual error, I don't understand your point. We all decide what god would like. (It's call concept called ''free will''.) The underlying philosophy and truths found in all major religions are the same. Is this an accident? I suppose you would answer yes. In fact, the entire universe and everything that led to this moment is one collossal accident that happened for your benefit. Children have no idea what their parents endure to provide for them. In the same way the atheist scoffs at the mysteries of the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:03, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ottihw, no, I haven't decided what God would like. I have ''learnt'' what God would like be reading what He has told us. Everwill is correct that Hitler was an atheist, but I disagree that we can all gain different morals from the Bible. That is in effect saying that words have no meaning, so we can choose to understand them any way we want. Should I choose to understand your words any way I want, or should I presume that we are both using the same convention of English (in this case) language and that you mean what you've said? Besides, if you and I can both derive different morals from reading the Bible, how is it any better if we ''don't'' read the Bible? Surely that would mean even ''less'' restraint on what we choose our morals to be? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Which is another way of saying that Phil is a "strict constructionist" when it comes to the Bible. I think the mullahs in Iran (though they use a different book) agree with him in this way. I'm more of a deconstructionist and have more doubts about the Bible being the "Word of God". I think God's Words are way too complicated for one man or one book to describe. However, I would agree on 99% of the big picture with Phil and probably with the so-called atheists in here. That to me is evidence of God. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:47, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I happen to believe that God is clever enough to put things in words that we can understand. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

God is very clever indeed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:You havea copy of the Bible in God's handwriting? Or you beleive that every step from initial writing, through every translation throughout time has been divinely guided to lay out His message clearly? So, which translation is the divinely guided one? And if He were so inclined to so specifically direct the writing ans subsequent translation of a book, might he not have made it a bit clearer which translation is correct, and which parts of the Bible can be taken literally and which are metaphors? You claim to know the difference... I've never seen that footnote anywhere in the Bible. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The copies and translations of the Bible are very accurate, and accurate enough to know what God was saying. And the phrase "every translation through time" is quite misleading, as mot current English Bibles have been translated directly from the original languages, i.e. a one-step translation. It couldn't get much better than that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

(copied below).

: Standard non-answer... How do you know they are accurate, which version? The differences are quite spectacular at times. Not to mention that even if one accepts your "one-step translation" proposition we are talking (in the case of Genesis) about an account put down long after the event itself (even by your time scale), and then translated from languages with enough nuances to allow for all these different translations that arise today... Not to mention that the "accurate enough to know what God was saying" ignores the reality that if people debate it to the degree we do today, it sure doesn't seem so crystal clear... I say the the story of Genesis clearly reads like a parable or metaphor... you believe it is clearly meant to be taken literally, though you allow that some portions of the Bible are not literal... I was asking for the magic footnote that tells us which is which? [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::That was not a non-answer; it made valid points. The differences are not that spectacular. Why don't you accept the "one-step translation"? Look in almost any modern version and it will tell you that it was translated from the original languages. I tend to subscribe to the belief that Genesis was originally written in sections by the people that witnessed the events (e.g. Adam himself) and Moses compiled those handed-down written histories into the book of Genesis.
::People debate the Bible to the degree that they do because some people will do anything to avoid the implications of what it is teaching, including calling black white (actually, calling six days billions of years). But that doesn't mean that the text is ambiguous, just that some people will not take it at face value.
::Parable and metaphor have particular linguistic characteristics, and Genesis doesn't have those characteristics, so it is not parable nor metaphor (on the whole; some bits may be). You determine which is which by the language, just as you do in everyday life. If I said that "it's raining cats and dogs", would you wonder if I was being literal or not?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Please do not parade that old falsehood that Hitler was an atheist. He was brought up a roman catholic, he made several references to God in his speeches and almost everyone who was close to him described him as a 'good practising catholic'. To call him an atheist is in complete denial of all the facts that surround him.

The reason that people can draw different morals from the bible is simple. The bible has been written by hundreds of authors over 900 years, many of whom described the same story in different ways and the vast majority were not written down until many years after the even they were describing. And of course, in the way of any community effort, the book has been 'improved' by several authors down the years, in different languages and often by people who had no idea about the event they were writing about. To call this text "the word of god" and to attempt to draw a single conclusion from this is just plain ridiculous. Why not have a look yourself, and look for the amount of contradictions and just plain weirdness in there.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:13, 27 April 2007

:Please do not parade that old falsehood that Hitler was a Christian. Despite being raised as a Catholic and making out that he was invoking God in his speeches, he realised that the churches would never go along with his policies and planned on eliminating them[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/464].
:I can understand your scepticism towards the Bible, given your view on how it was written. But I reject your views on how it was written. Sure, it was written by quite a few different authors (but not "hundreds"), but under the guidance of God, so it had a single ultimate author. The vast majority was written by eyewitnesses, and the vast majority of the rest by people who knew the eyewitnesses. The Jews respected the Scriptures as God's Word and would not dare alter it, so it was generally not "improved" by other authors (the exceptions being things like authors close to the original authors anyway, as in Joshua writing the final part of Moses' Deuteronomy). And there are no contradictions; at the very least none that can be conclusively shown to be contradictions. Any "weirdness" is likely to be from you not understanding the customs of the time, etc.
:Now I'm sure you will reject most of what I've just said, but the point is that your ''conclusion'' about it's trustworthiness is based on your ''belief'' about how it came to be, yet you present that belief as though it was accepted or self-evident truth. It is neither self-evident nor is it accepted by a lot of people.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:56, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

There is not hard evidence on whether Hitler was in fact religious. The Vatican was a great ally to him in many cases and Goebbals and Himmler both wrote that he was a practising catholic. He refered to himself as the hand of God in many speeches. On the other hand he said things such as "Christianity is the greatest evil the world has seen since the Black Plague". Historians think that he was a Christain until around 1940 where he converted to agnostiscism or atheism. The main point is that most of his plans and programs had begun well before this such as the holocaust and the complete indoctrination of German children with his propoganda (almost like churches today). As an aside he could still be christian while disliking the church.

There is a point on which we cannot be reconciled. You believe that god guided the writing of the bible, i don't believe he exists and therefore that the writers were often flying by the seat of their pants as they wrote. However to deny that there were 'improvements' is a little bit ignorant. As an example, the story of the ressurection was not written until over 200 years after Jesus's death.

There are many contradictions in the bible, not the least of which come in the story of the birth of Jesus. John writes in his gospel that several of his followers were surprised that Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem, while of course, Mark and Luke write that he was born there. However while Mark has Mary and Joseph always having lived there, Luke gets them there by refering to a census of Israel by the Romans that results in Joseph having to return to his home town. Unfortunately for Luke, the records show that the census occured in 6 AD, after King Herod's death. As well as this, there are gospels that the church decided to leave out of the final version of the bible, including the gospels of Judas, Bartholomew, Nicodemus and Mary Magdalen. What was wrong with these gospels that was right with the four that were chosen? May it have been to the fact that some of them do not portray such a saintly image of Jesus as the others? The gospel of Thomas has stories of a young Jesus abusing his powers by turning his friends into goats or mud into sparrows.

My conclusion about its trustworthiness is based upon the facts that i have read that show that the bible is not such an accurate account after all. And if the writers were guided by god, then how could they have gotten some historical facts so wrong? The creation of the world, Noahs arc, the birth of Jesus, the ressurection and so on. This I think exposes exactly how innacurate the bible is as any sort of record or source of morals.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:35, 28 April 2007

==Questions and Answers==
Plato showed how in a debate one asks questions so that the debaters can pursue the truth together rather than being adversaries. So what I can't understand is why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests? Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you? Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share? Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?

To be more specific you say ''Because I feel an obligation to help her''. What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? Will she pay you? What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

So here are my questions:

::''"Why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests?"''

:::* Atheist says: I might ask you the same thing. I have no short-term interest in this child's death. I have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer).
:::* Theist replies, because there is something, perhaps a spirit or a god, that imparts to ever soul the knowledge of good from evil and right from wrong. Doing evil moves you further from god and thus it does not feel good to do evil (''even when it feels good to do evil''!) This is a shorthand way of saying that when you commit acts which are pleasurable but evil, you feel shallow and empty inside. On the other hand, when one commit acts of kindness without any payback of any kind, one feels good inside. This is something most humans learn as they progress into maturity. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::''"Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you?"''

:::* Atheist says: Two parts there: I wouldn't murder a child--as I said--so what is there to feel guilty about? If no one would punish me presupposes I have done this act, so the question is invalidated by the former.
:::* Theist replies, I should hope you wouldn't murder a child, but your reply ducks the obvious answer. Of course I wouldn't murder a child to get what I wanted, but if I did murder a child to get what I wanted I would feel guilty. What causes that feeling of guilty? Is that not proof of a spiritual aspect of life?

::''"Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share?"''

:::* Atheist say: It certainly could be. ''"Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?"'' Reason allows me to discern right from wrong, as I said above. I am compelled to act according to this obligation to help others and not let them have their choice made by another.
:::* Theist says, what is this "reason" you are talking about in an athistic universe. Without God or morality, what is the difference between good and evil or right and wrong? From an atheistic (i.e. Satanic) POV right and wrong are silly concepts. "Good" is just an excuse to chump the strong from their rightful place at the top of the food chain. Don't you agree?

''"What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? <s>Will she pay you?</s> What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?"''

:::* Atheist says: Okay, now you're getting to the meat of the matter. I am obligated by this sense of everyone's right to exist. I have no more right to take you're life than I do to steal your bike. Not that those two are equal, but the line of demarcation is the same. It is only selfish in the sense that I ''gain'' when this child is allowed to grow up and make her own choices. If, in the process, I am killed, then I have served my principles. If she dies, then I took moral action and can feel good about my effort. However, if I let her die I am as guilty as any of those Nazi guards at Aushwitz who said ''"I was only following orders."''
:::* Theist replies: your answer implies the existence of God even if you can't see the forest for all the trees. Why does everyone have a right to exist? Because you said so? That makes no sense in your concept of reality. What if my country elects a leader, for the purposes of illustration let's call him ''Adolf Hitler''. Our leader through legal government manuevers manages to establish a process to eliminate what he sees as a cancer on our nation. By your reasoning that leader has a moral imperative to kill Jews BECAUSE he thinks it's best for the nation. From the theist stand-point, we believe that all life is precious, most especially human life. Therefore it doesn't matter what logic, rationale or legal manuevers Hitler makes, killing is wrong.

Atheist summary: As long as you have a choice, to defer your morality to a god, or priest or whatever you ask for figiveness is to shirk your duty to society--that being to think for yourself. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Theist summary: No one ever defers any choices to anyone ever. Each individual is always responsible for his own actions and choices. To clear up your confusion: a theist defers his choices to a priest about as much as a judge in a court room defers his choices to his first year law professor. Religion is a tool to help us understand God. Religion and religious leaders do not speak for God. An "atheist" who follows a moral code is just a theist who doesn't know much about his God because he's too afraid to trust others. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:In point of fact here, I have said I am not an atheist, I am more properly called an agnostic. An atheist, by definition, holds that they have the answer--that there is no god. As an agnostic I am open to the idea that a god exists, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Please don't refer to me as an atheist--it is a different thing altogether. Also, in addition to agnosticism, I am an existentialist--so you could also use that term if you like.

:Finally, I don't have a god-belief so I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done. I do things that I reason are beneficial to society, e.g. actions that foster growth, development and change. I abhor stifling debate and that seems to be the purpose of religion as it is used most of the time. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm comfortable with my approach to all questions. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

You claim that "I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done". You do things because a little voice inside your head tells you to do things? Who is that little voice?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't have a "little voice." That is superstition. I use reason. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

It's easy to dodge the obvious with semantics. There is absolutely no question you (and all human beings) have a "little voice", that's not a superstition, that's a fact. The argument is about what is the driving force behind that little voice.

You claim that you simply rationalize everything out through the use of reason, and you are perhaps superior to moral codes found in religion. For example, you won't kill the little child because as you say you "have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer)." But if killing the little child would give you a billion dollars, you would kill the child because of the risk versus reward principle found in rationalization. The odds of that little girl inventing a cure for cancer are pretty remote. Furthermore, you might not ever contract cancer. But with a billion dollars you could finance a health care system that would further benefit you and those you deem worthy. That's "reason" at work and to you way of thinking that's much better than silly and archaic notions like "good" or "evil". [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think you have more of a stake in believing that a "non-believer" would like to kill a child for some kind of gain. I don't see it that way. I don't think there is anything that would make me kill a child. That's silly.
::Also, I don't have a "little voice" in my head. People who do I deem to be psychotic or lying. Simple as that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

A hypothetical argument takes a certain statement as an assumption and attempts to analyze it. You seem to be (perhaps intentionally) misunderstanding the hypothetical in the form in which it is presented. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend like you really don't understand because of inability to communicate.

Let's change the hypothetical slightly, you state there there is nothing that would make you kill a child. Why would you never kill a child? I understand that you base this decision on reason, but I don't understand the basis of your reason. Is your reason based upon moral codes? Aren't "moral codes" just superstition to help supress the will of the strong? Is your "reason" based upon what most helps society or is your reason based upon what most helps you? Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?

As the wise philospher Camus/Flippin says, ''Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.'' This is all well and good if one is perfect reasonable. But what about people who are unreasonable and who devise a meaning of life exemplified by people like Hitler, Jim Jones, Jeffery Dahmer, Stalin, and Charles Manson? By what right can we impose our value-system upon them?

By the same token, should each individual have the right, nay the duty, to devise his own code of laws and not wait for some legistlature or society to impose those laws upon them? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
.
==Trying to parse some of this==
:Since I consider myself a good communicator I will try and communicate with you.

:Okay, you said: "Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?" How could one do anything that helped society that didn't help oneself? Maybe I should try and explain that by asking is there really anything that one can do that helps society, yet hurts the self? If one takes an action that helps society, like picking up garbage alongside the road, does not that act help society? And if we agree that it does, how is one harmed by it?

:A reasonable person might say that the individual could get a sunburn. The individual could be hit by a truck. These are true statements, but the probability of these things happening is low (for the truck) and not that dangerous (for a sunburn). But what is the value of picking up debris left by less reasonable citizenry? Do we not gain as a society by having less trash by the roadside?

:A reasonable person might also say, yes, but must I pick up all the debris along the roadside? My answer would be no. The responsibility for cleaning up roadsides is spread equally between us all. We have a shared responsibility to do this because it helps the individual ''and'' the society.

:Now, you also mention examples like Hitler who reasoned that murdering Jews would benefit him. But is Hitler an example of a reasonable man? Honestly? Hitler was more likely sociopathic, which is a disorder that affects one's ability to reason. If we rely on reason to tell us that what is of the greatest benefit for society is of the greatest benefit for the individual, then opposing someone like Hitler, or another damaged person, is reasonable. Thus, we not only have a right to oppose them, we have an obligation to oppose them. Just as we have an obligation to oppose trash on the roadways.

:I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children? Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

:Finally, why do you feel the need to paint me as something less than moral? I have explained this repeatedly yet you do not understand. Is the failure to communicate really mine then? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not trying to paint you as immoral. I've said repeatedly I think you are moral. But I'm trying to work withing your framework to understand the truth (according to you) and I'm trying to understand the source of your morality. Where (according to you) does moral authority flow from?

I thought you said that morals comes from "reason". But as you describe it it seems that morals don't come from "reason", but from your rationalizations. I don't understand why you think your rationlizations are any more valid than the rationalizations of any other person? Of course, millions of Germans agreed with Hitler's rationalization. They were not '''all''' sociopaths. I assume that we agree their rationalization was flawed, but why is it flawed? This seems to indicate that there is some higher moral authority than rationalization. Is there some absolute code of moral authority, or were the Germans simply wrong because they lost the war? What does it matter if they were morally wrong anyway? That was in the past. There is no spiritual world and there is no God. Today is a new day. This is a new minute.

I think you're trying to claim that certain rationalizations is more valid than other rationalizations. If some rationalization is more valid than others, then why don't we as humans attempt to find the true source of the best rationalization possible and then follow that reasoning? If that is not a religion, what is that?

Secondly, I suppose I find it difficult to believe that anyone does anything simply because of "reasoning" alone. In my experince people do good things because it makes them feel good, not because they rationalized and reasoned away the degree of goodness vs. the effort required. Like every other human being, you sometimes do some bad things. After the commission of these acts of badness, why do you feel ''guilty''? If the ends justify the means there shoudl be no such thing as guilt.

Thirdly, what is the point of morality? Who cares? Why not take from the system whatever you can whenever you can. Your actions will not stop the world from spinning. You will not stop the stupid morons who worship the flying spaghetti monster, so why not exploit them? Then you can better use their resources, since you have a higher level of rationalization? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::# Rationalization seems to make the unreasonable, reasonable. That is what religion is for.
:::# Reason, as I have stated serves as a guide. It then becomes automatic.
:::# What you describe are the acts of a person that is unreasonable. I have addressed that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

What you haven't address is this: who defines what is reasonable? The guy with the biggest gun? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==The Theist answers==
Here are my answers to your questions:

The theistic-denier states:

::I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children?

I can think of many incidents of killing children which would benefit society. Our society could harvest children from poverty-stricken regions where resources are depleted and food-shortages are chronic. This is good for the environment and greatly reduces the chance that their children will suffer from famine. Then we could use those children to reseach cancer, AIDs and other diseases. Rather than working on cadavers, young doctors could practice their trade on these children. Then we could pulverize the remains and feed them to hogs. This would provide more food for other people. If you are opposed to killing (because of some fear of the mythic god) you could just enslave the children instead. We have plenty of jobs they can do which will help society more than some miserable existence in a barren wasteland.

Working strictly from a framework of reason and rationalization, why not kill children to better serve society? Furthermore, of course, this rational begs the question: why is the society of any importance at all? Why is "society" any bigger than the individual?

::Please, as one human being to another, it is much easier if you call me an agnostic--which is what I am. I don't call you a gods-worshipper, or whatever. (Jesusfreak I know is a popular perjorative that I don't use either. I am trying to be respectful.) I don't fear god--that isn't the reason to do/not do anything. I don't want anyone to kill me, so I don't kill others. Religion gives those who don't know why they do things a reason to say why they did. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Additionally, the "agnostic" asks:

::Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

Please understand that at this point, I'm not trying to prove to you my point of view. I'm trying to understand your point of view. So, while I believe that faith is the strongest barrier to crime that I know of, I won't bother to explain why I think this to you because you are clearly more enlightened than I. You've advance beyond the need for some silly god-figure.

What I would like to know is; what is your barrier to crime in the atheistic framework? It appears (based on my example above) that it is something other than reasoning, because I've proven how killing children can be good for society.

I'd be more than happy to answer why God allows suffering in the universe, but the answer to that question is pointless if we don't agree that God exists. Let's not waste time. Hypothetically, I'm agreeing with your argument that the fact that there is suffering in the universe is evidence that there is no god. Let's proceed along your path and see where it leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Religious faith is no more a barrier to crime than atheistic, or agnostic, moral reasoning. In Toronto sometime in the 70's the police went on strike. It took two hours for the first bank to be robbed, and at then end of the strike $3 million worth of damage had been done to shops and almost every bank in the city had been robbed. The vast majority of people who were arrested as a result of the crimes were religious. I'm not suggesting that therefore religion encourages crime, it just shows that it isn't such a barrier to crime as you would think. There is also anecdotal evidence that there are very few atheists and agnostics in prison compared to christians.

:The agnostic and atheistic framework is different from what you seem to think. The value of life is the most important part of my beliefs. This is not because of god or the bible, this is simply because those were the morals that i was brought up with and because they make the most logical sense. If life was not valued, then mass murders would be common and unnoticed as greedy people killed and stole to take what they wanted. This would lead to the breakdown of society as a whole. That is why enslaving and killing third world children is wrong, as they have exactly the same right to life that i do.

:This moral framework is far more effective as a crime barrier because people who use it have thought about why they think things are right and wrong from their own POV. Your framework comes from a book that was writtn 2000 years ago, and therefore not all its morals are up to date with the changing zeitgeist. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 26 April 2007

::You don't advance the argument by pointing to facts that don't answer my questions. This is what I call the ''magician's argument''. The magician's argument goes as follows: there is nothing in the hat therefore the rabbit from the hat must be magic. I don't care about your claims about religion of criminals. I'd like to have answers to my questions. As best as I can see your answer to my hypotheical question is to deny the framework of my hypothetical question. I can only assume that you refuse to answer this line of question undermines your belief set and that's why you won't answer.

::BTW, the reason I am pursuing this line of questions is not because I don't understand the atheistic point of view. I understand the false premises of atheism quite well. This is because for many years, I was an atheist. As I matured I came to realized just how much I didn't know. I still don't know what I don't know, but as the arrogance of youth recedes I begin to know how much I don't know. Thus, I realized atheism was naive and foolish, so I became an agnostic. Since that time, I learned more and came to believe that I am probably a [[deist]] but my search for truth continues. I may yet get more specific in my religious beliefs as I further mature. I will point out to you that it is a universal truth that as we get older we get wiser. It is not a coincidence that churches are full of old people. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:52, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what your point is here. Could you state, in just a sentence or two, what your hypothetical that we are ignoring is? Also, we may need to archive some of this (which I don't know how to do yet.) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:08, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The hypothetical (previously stated in a wildly exaggerated example) is: if in truth "reason" is your only guide and if in fact there is no soul, no spiritual world and no God, why do you do good things that don't follow reason? Why don't you do "bad" things that have perfectly good rationale? Your answer to the second question was: devise a better hypothetical because my reasoning is arbitrary and supports whatever rational I choose to follow. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Question==
Do you believe that there is absolute moral truth? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Please define an absolute moral truth? [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:08, 26 April 2007

==A place for a few more answers==

From the Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist:

"We have evolved the ability to empathize, to share the motivations and feelings of those around us. From this, we
have gained the ability to sympathize with the plight of others, to understand what may be causing them distress or
pain, and to wish, for their sake, that their suffering would stop. Armed with this sympathy, we act in a moral way to
prevent the distress and suffering of others. Our opinions on what constitutes a moral course of action may differ, but
the underlying sympathy is the same."

"With sympathy for others and recognition of the similarities between people, we each build an internal code of the
morality of our actions. We seek to protect innocent children, for we were once children ourselves and needed
protection. We seek a society that does not foster immoral actions, in order to protect the members of society like
ourselves. We feel and internalize various plights and pains of others in this process, and develop a true morality.
American revolutionary and President Thomas Jefferson put it well when he wrote in an 1814 letter, “Nature [has]
implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us
irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.”

Though I am sure this will mean little to a "deist" it is useful to those who at one time tried to find god but realized that the effort was too intellectually dishonest for them to ultimately accept. I think, Everwill, if you are really interested in learning about this and not just baiting the less conservative folk here, you might do well to read some of this material. http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thebgma/BGMA.pdf

::This is exactly my point, but I don't want to jam it down the throats of our resident atheists. Although they don't yet realize it, if you are a moral atheist, you are not an atheist at all, but rather you are a [[deist]]. The slippery slope is: once you realize you are a deist, you begin the search through religions to find a deeper meaning of life and learn more about the true nature of God. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:53, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:But that's just it--I am not a deist because I do not accept there is a god that needs to exist. If that means you are going to call me an atheist, fine, whatever, but otherwise there is no reason to be condescending about "poor little atheists." It just isn't necessary. We feel, if I may be so bold, that ''you'' are the one who is lost. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:14, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin this statement so far as I can tell doesn't seem to based upon reason but rather upon faith. As Thomas Jefferson (a deist) said, “Nature [has] implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.” In your "Nature" means "good luck" or at the very difference "luck". I don't see any difference between "good luck" and God. You think these are unrelated concepts, but I'm not sure why. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

If I sound condescending it is because you are no different from a fundamentalist muslim. That is you refuse to critically examine your belief set objectively. To answer hypothetical questions will lead you in a direction you refuse to go. You demand that others prove the unprovable as evidence that there is a God. Understand this: we agree that God is neither a flying spaghetti monster, nor a bearded old man laying on a cloud. Relax, I understand your position completely, because I've been where you are. It's okay. Each finds his own path in due time.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe there is a reason it is "unprovable." Truth be told, I think what passes for "good luck" is also random. Just as the rest of universe, this computer I'm typing on and the bowl of Cheerios I had for breakfast. It occurred through chance that this came about--not by a bearded man in the sky waving a wand. If you are looking for fantasy, watch Harry Potter or read the bible. I live in a world of facts and evidence and am content to do so until my lamp is extinguished. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I really have no idea what Harry Potter or the Bible has to do with the central question. After all this talking I have discerned (with much difficulty) that you attribute all that we see to "good luck". I call it "God" but I agree completely that whether it's just good luck or whether it is God this realization does not change reality. Other than that we are in complete agreement. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Good, we agree that god is a delusion based on random chance and superstition in the ill-informed mind. Glad to hear that, too. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

No. We agree that your misinformed characterization of the word "God" is the based on your perceptions about what you think God is. Since we agree that the universe is the product of luck, henceforth I will refer to the guiding force behind the universe as Luck so as to not offend your belief-set.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

''Don't you love how the Truth flows like water? No matter where you damn it up, it will still find the way. This is the miracle of Luck to me.'' [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:05, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

good lord this is boring.... [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

How 'bout I say "you win" and you evangelize someone else? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's "reasoning" for you ... heh ... [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, you win by attrition. Congrats. Now, I'll go back to not going to churc and telling school children there is no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Funny, you took the words right out of my mouth. ;-) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So, in fact this is not attrition or victory (I was never trying to win). Rather the discussion is at an end because you have refused to expand the boundaries of your perceptions. You came here believing that god was a myth and you continue to believe that god is a myth. You refuse to examine the implications of this possibility: myths are myths, but God is something else entirely. The thing you call Luck, I call God. That's called finding common ground. Your current problem is your very fearful of where that common ground might take you. It might shatter your arrogantly held belief-set.

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Which Religion is the true Religion?==

::You havea copy of the Bible in God's handwriting? Or you beleive that every step from initial writing, through every translation throughout time has been divinely guided to lay out His message clearly? So, which translation is the divinely guided one? And if He were so inclined to so specifically direct the writing ans subsequent translation of a book, might he not have made it a bit clearer which translation is correct, and which parts of the Bible can be taken literally and which are metaphors? You claim to know the difference... I've never seen that footnote anywhere in the Bible. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

This statement has nothing to do with this discussion. The arguments about "which translation" and "God's handwriting" are filed under "Which religion is the true religion?" and they have no bearing on whether atheism vs. deism. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The copies and translations of the Bible are very accurate, and accurate enough to know what God was saying. And the phrase "every translation through time" is quite misleading, as mot current English Bibles have been translated directly from the original languages, i.e. a one-step translation. It couldn't get much better than that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not prepared to defend the Bible as the "word of God", but I think it's an important question to examine, but I think it's a pointless discussion with those who haven't realized that there is a God. All your Bible proves to them is that someone wrote something a long time ago. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, but I am not someone who denies the existence of God, just one who does not accept that the Bible is literal truth. I personally beleive it to be mostly metaphorical, with some history thrown in, though I'd still never use it for a primary history source, even on mundane topics (i.e. who ruled where at what time... etc...) [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I am pretty much in agreement with you QNA. I'm willing to allow the possibility that Phil Rayment's opinions about the Bible is correct. At the same time, I doubt he's right about that. On the other hand, I think that denying the existance of God is silly. However, arguing the nature of God is a worthwhile endeavor. The Bible and other texts are useful in this exercise because we can learn a great deal from those who have gone before us and who have already had these same arguments.

::::I will say without equivocation that the "God doesn't exist because I don't believe in bearded guys in the clouds with a magic wand" is pretty much an argument made from a posiition of ignorance about what most knowledgeable people think about God and the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Good Luck==
Since all of the universe occurred out of good luck (according to Flippin), can we humans influence Luck? Should we attempt to commune with Luck? Do you think that hundreds of thousands of years ago, men (equally smart) pondered these same questions (since they didn't have a TV to occupied their evenings). Do you think luck, or perhaps Luck, resulted in the strange coincidence that after many generations the consensus view in every culture and society has always been that we can affect our luck by a combination of worshipping Luck and doing good things? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::No no no no no no no. The universe came to be the way it is due to the laws of physics etc, that so far have been proven to be as true as anything can be and apply to the universe exceedingly well. Add to this the theory of evolution, and yes there are one or two holes there, but soon we will have filled them all. The process of life is an attempt to discover things. You may say that we believe that we came here due to luck however i do not believe this to be true. We came here because of a reason that i do not know. However i have faith that i will not remain ignorant forever, and that soon we will know and we need not invoke luck or god to describe how we got here.

::I sympathise with you because of your above description of how you came to be a deist, however there are a few things that you might need to consider again. Firstly that just because we dont know something does not mean that we will always not know it. Look at the progress science has made over the past 500 years. We have gone from believing that the earth is at the centre of the universe and that the world is only 6000 years old, to the earth being just one planet revolving around an unremarkable star and is over 4 billion years old. Consider what we may discover in the next 500 years as our technology continues to progress and we begin to explore space outside the playground of the solar system. I would not be surprised if within my lifetime, we have an explanation for how life started and a reason for the big bang that does not rely on some higher being.

::As an aside i think that to say that as you grow older you grow wiser is slightly misguided. Yes a some people do because they have more experience and they have the foresight to use that to plan there future. However a large part of the human population does not use this experience at all, and simply assumes that they know best because they are older not because they are wiser. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:27, 27 April 2007

What's the difference between what you just said and what I just said? You wrote, "The universe came to be the way it is due to the laws of physics etc, that so far have been proven to be as true as anything can be and apply to the universe exceedingly well." Okay. we agree. So the universe is ordered. It has laws. How did the "laws" come about? Did the protons and electrons elect a neutron who decided what laws everyone should follow? I guess these laws are and always have been. I guess we were just lucky to have the Laws of Physics.

As an aside I find this assertion amusing, "As an aside i think that to say that as you grow older you grow wiser is slightly misguided." I'm not so much suprised that someone who believes there is more wisdom in youth than in age doubts the foundations of the philosophies that provided his every waking and sleeping daily need. I wish I were that naive again. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:21, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is religion morally wrong?

2007-04-27T07:27:06Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Good Luck */

{{debate}}
==Yes==
anything that teaches young children to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question, and then teaches them that anyone who does not believe what they do is wrong and needs to have their immortal soul 'saved' is morally wrong. as well as that, waging wars against "non-believers" or "infidels" and killing thousands of millions of people, puts religion in the morally wrong category. as in interesting aside, the link to this debate is actually titled "is athiesm morally wrong?" which may need to be fixed. --[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30 (EDT)
: Done. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::''Wha' ...?'' Anyone who thinks that religion teaches one "to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question" just plain doesn't understand any religion to which I have ever been exposed. However, I'm pretty sure I can guess why your so confused.

::There is a belief, which is generally held by most religions and most people over the age of 30, that human nature is constant. Moral codes, philosophy and religion are built upon assumptions about the constants of human nature. In this way, moral codes are similar to alegbra. Algebra is built upon a foundation of unchanging constants. Math is unchanging. Human nature is unchanging. Therefore, each generation doesn't need to reinvent algebra. Similarly, each generation needn't rediscover the reason that people devised certain moral codes which were based upon countless generations of knowledge about human nature and where then incorporated into religion and philosophy.

::This does not mean that the field of mathemics should cease to expand. This does not mean that curiosity is bad. This means that we already know that 1+1=2. We already know what happens to civilizations and societies where wild sexual activities are encouraged. This does not mean that we stop digging up fossils. This does mean that we don't kill unborn children to expiriment on them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::(wow, first ever post on a debate page!) Everwill, I would argue that human nature '''is''' changing and most certainly can't be likened to algebra. Algebra is indeed definite. It always follows the same rules reagrdless of the complexity of the problem. Surely, you can't say that human nature is like that? The scale of variation is unimaginable!

:::Also, in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher. Or, they are taught in a slanted view, which distorts the truth. All this because those parents or teachers seem afraid that their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught! That '''is''' morally wrong. The choice should be the child's not the elders'. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a reason that William Shakespeare's dramas, King David's tribulations & and the Andy Griffith show (how's that for a unexpected twist?) are timeless stories that affect us in the same way as when they affected those to whom these stories were first told. They affect us all the same way because human nature does not change. The truth is we all love, hate, breath, live and die. The human condition is infinitely variable, but human nature is constant. Of course, there are countless examples of this simple and plainly evident truth. I'm quite sure I'm not the first one to tell you that human nature is the same. In fact, this truth is the foundation of our concepts of equality and our freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

::I don't want to spend a lot of time defending something that is an elemental and accepted truth spanning time, civilizations and belief systems. This is because I'm not sure whether you're denying the fact that human nature is universal because you are ignorant (unlikely) or because you are intellectually dishonesty (my guess). In either case, it would consume far too much time to explain to you the definition of human nature to your liking. But I what I can posit in reply is an answer to your simple question: there are absolutes in morality, just as there are absolutes in algebra. For example, murder is always wrong. There is no compromise in this principle.

::''As a quick aside I must note that I always find it humorous when people (usually liberals) stereotype the upbringing found in fundamentalist religious groups.''

::To your point, it is true that "in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." But guess what, you've just proven my point. This is because, EVERY SINGLE human that ever reached adulthood was "brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." '''DUH!'''

::It is possible that your theory is true. Perhaps, teachers and parents want to shield children from outside influences because "their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught!" But who do you think is most likely to have the child's best interests at heart? I would presume that a child's parents and that child's teachers want what is best for the child. I think you are implying that the pornographers, salesmen, MTV, rappers, strangers and passerby's---all of whom the child might find more interesting (and more permissive) than the parents and teachers---are better for the child? You think it's better that the child find out (the hard way) the lessons which the parents and grandparents into the mists of history, have already found out? Preposterous. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not argueing that modern celebrities are the way forwards by any means. The messages put forward by that group does not teach very good lessons for kids (or adults!). I'm merely pointing out that the near brainwashing of the young by their parents and teachers with regards religious teaching is also wrong and can teach a child "bad" things. An example would be homosexuality. Kids in religious families who think they might be gay receive no support from parents who believe that homosexuality is bad, simply because it is the parents belief. Surely a parents love for their child should come before their religion?

:::I am not being intellectually dishonest, just ignorant (ha like thats any better!). What I thought you meant by human nature isn't what is used in the definitions I found on the internet. I took human nature to be the general world viewpoint held by each individual person; where there is substantial difference!

:::I think argueing that children should accept what their parents tell them because they have learnt it from their experience is flawed. Every person has a different PoV so will experience things differently. If a child recieves all their advice from a parent who sees the world entirely differently to them, what will that child think of themselves? Is that fair on the child? A parent should be there for guidance, yes, but not for absolute teaching. To relate this to religion: religion is a predetermined set of "rules" that followers must stick to. Choosing a religion (and its rules) is a personal choice. Parents will naturally try to enforce their beliefs and rules on their children, thereby removing their choice to religion and actions, which is removing their freedom to be themselves. Surely that is a terrible wrong to do to that child? I am not argueing that children should be given no rules, nothing of the sort. I am merely saying that the rules given to a child by their parents should not be based on the religion of the parent(s) as that is a moral wrong to that child. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I see. By your logic the child should have rules and the rules should come from the parent (sort of) but the parent shouldn't base the rule structure or belief set upon something found in religion. Instead, you believe that religion must be by a higher and more correct authority. And just who is that authority? ''Will & Grace''? Madonna & Britney? Who is this higher and more perfect authority? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to enjoy mentioning celebrities...perhaps they have affected you more than you think. Their ability to corrupt is unbounded! I don't know what you mean by "religion must be by a higher and more correct authority". I am merely argueing for separation of of religious doctrine from a child's upbringing. Yes, make a child aware of their parents belief, why they believe it, etc., but don't "force it down their necks" or make them feel bad for "not believing". That is what I find to be morally wrong about religion: the automatic assumption of parents that their children should follow in their beliefs. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

a childs parents should bring up their children to be open to new ideas and to trust their senses and logic in ideological matters. religion of any kind does not allow this to be taught to children. as well as this, many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is a false characterization of religion, perhaps based in ignorance. Every major religion teaches personal accountability and free will. Therefore, religion encourages children (and everyone else) to "trust their senses and logic in ideological matters." Religion is a framework to assist in decision making. Religion does not take personal responsiblity or logic from anyone. (Perhaps you should read a bit of C.S. Lewis or Thomas Aquinas to better acquaint yourself with the value of logic to the Christian mind.)

::You state (no caps and no punctuation are all yours): "many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are." Who knows better what the child's best interests are? The media? The government? The child? Who?

::I'm glad we're having this discussion, mostly because it's apparent that you are the victim of the propaganda of another religion. You're repeating the mantra of the liberal religion, which teaches that all religions are equal and there are no moral boundaries. Your religion might be the "one true" religion, but I doubt it.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

The childs best interests are known only by the child itself. I do not mean to say that no parents ever get it right, or wrong, however what is in the childs best interests is not to foist a belief system on him/her without letting him/her have any choice or free will in the matter. The majority of religions (liberal or fundamentalist) do not encourage children to take advantage of their natural curiosity and explore all the possibilities of logic and science, as they see science as a threat to their belief system. Just as an example, the enactment of hell that occurs in an American state led by Pastor Ted Roberts which attempts to scare children into beliveing in God by scaring them with the sheer horror of the act. This would be dismissed as simply a fringe sect, however the supporters of this pastor, in his home state (i apologise for not knowing which state this is) number around 3 million. This is only one example of the methods used by religious leaders to force children into mindlessly believing what they are told. Another example is the muslim state of Saudi Arabia, where simply being of another faith or of no faith at all, is punishable by beheading. Note the similar use of fear tactics in both cases here. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:54, 19 April 2007

::What you're trying to say makes sounds ridiculous to me, but perhaps this is because we have not agreed to what the meaning of the word "child" is. Please allow me to insert a few definitions so that I don't miss your point and vice-versa.

:::* ward --- someone incapable of making personal decisions for some reason or another. There are several types of ward:
::::* child --- This individual cannot make personal decisions because they have not reached maturity (generally 17 and under). Children might step into traffic. Children might drink poison. Children can be cultivated into giving sexual favors to pedofiles. For all these reasons and many more, "parents" (''defined below'') make decisions for parents.
::::** mental defective --- This individual has poor reasoning skills or does not understand reality. For this reason "parents" or care-takers must make decisions for the mental defective
::::** sick or enfermed --- This individual might be in a coma. This individual might be extremely sick or otherwise unable to communicate. Thus, caretakers or "parents" must make decisions for this individual.

:::* parent --- one (ideally of two) individuals responsible for the care and nuturing of a ward or child

:::* adult --- An individual who is mentally competant and mature and thus has the free will to make any decisions they want so long as they don't violate the laws of the community where they reside.

::Children, and in fact, all other wards, need people to care for them and to make decisions for them. I'm quite sure there are a good many teenagers who would agree with your ridiculous notion that children make should make their own decisions, but most adults and most parents today (and throughout history) have come to agree that it is both unwise and unsafe to grant complete and total freewill to children (perhaps most especially teenagers). This is because children don't alwasy make good decisions. Children are easily swayed and they don't have the normal defenses of doubt and fear of strangers to protect them.

::This is a plain, simple and accepted truth. I'm not sure what possible connection that has to anything Ted Roberts ever said or did. Whether Ted Roberts or Jeffrey Dahmer or Hitler is a bogeyman or not, that doesn't change the fact that children need parents. I guess what you'll have to accept is that some parents will raise children who don't agree with your beliefs. I'm quite comfortable with the fact that not all parents or people agree with me. I much too busy and quite frankly don't feel the need to tell other people how to raise their children. I doubt you have any idea what any of the parents in former Pastor Robert's church are teaching their children. I thought liberals believed in tolerance and diversity? Why can't you tolerate their differences and celebrate their Christian diversity?

::What would you like to see in Saudi Arabia, a crackdown on parents? Do you want to take the children from their parents and raise them yourself? Have you ever considered the possiblity that the concept (called "fascism") of imposing your values upon others is wrong-heaed and evil? Don't you think Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live? Are you trying to suggest that the US should invade Saudi Arabia and replace the mullahs with ACLU? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No i am not attempting to say much of that, i think that you are right in that i have misunderstood the point that you were making. I do apologise for that. What i would like to say in regards to your previous point, is that while i agree that parents should have the role in making decisions for their children (with an increasing amount of input from the child as they grow older) at the same time, they should not force their beliefs onto their children and, where possible, educate them enough so that they have the intelligence and a high enough level or reasoning to be able to make their own decision in matters of faith and belief. While a lot of parents do this, i believe that the majority don't, although i am willing and hoping to be proven wrong. I do belive in tolerance and diversity, but that is what my main problem with religion is. Religion tends to preach the opposite of this, generally against other faiths but also against homosexuals and other groups that seem to break the rules of their faith. I do think that Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live, however i think that maybe a lot do not want to live the way they do, and that another large number would not want to live that way, if they were not devout muslims. I honestly think the US should keep out of the middle east in general, as the problems it has caused there seem to be greater then the amount solved, however that is not the topic on discussion here. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:56, 20 April 2007

:This debate title seems to be relatively unfocussed, but the debate itself seems to have settled down into a focussed discussion of whether or not it is morally right for religions to pass on their codifications, conventions and beliefs to their children in a manner which could be construed as 'indoctrination'. [[Richard Dawkins]] makes the point that it would not be acceptable in today's society to label children as 'a Democrat Child' or 'a Republican child', nor to set up schools which say that we are going to only teach 'Democrat' values in this school, and to only honour Democrats. However, it does appear to be acceptable to have 'catholic' scools, catholic, muslim and hindu children. Why is this? Any Religion and or Political Stance, when it comes down to it are idealogies, and have many parallels in the way they are dogmatic about the way that adherents should behave. They both present strong arguments as to the way that you should treat knowledge, evidence, and all present a very biased world view. This is fine if you are an adult, and you understand the rules, and you know that this is the way the world works, and that you have a choice about whether to question or to belive at all; but if you are an uimpressionable youngester you could be scarred for life: 'Give me a child until he is seven...."

There is a very strong argument to say that we should NOT allow people to present contraversial points of view to children AS IF these were uncontestable facts. This, after all, is the arguments of the creationists against evolution. They maintain children should be exposed to both points of view. However, I cannot imagine that any catholic school would suggest teaching that God may or may not exist, and allowing children to experience both the sacrament and the indoctrination ceremony of freemasons, and asking them to compare & contrast!--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 04:18, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Thankyou Felix for articulating what i was attempting to say, and i apologise again to Everwill for not wording my arguement very clearly. Having attended an anglican school till i was 13, i never was fully concious that they did not present their teachings as anything other then indisputable fact and that we were expected to believe that without question. The other thing that struck me was that i was never allowed to avoid communion on the basis that i was an atheist, while one of my friends who was jewish was excused. It was almost as if they rathered that we believed in a god, even if it is a slightly different set of beliefs that come attached, than that we had no beliefs at all. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30, 20 April 2007

::Bolly, it sounds like you're trying to impose your own parental issues on others. I understand that you thought you were an atheist and yoru parents wanted to impose their theistic beliefs on you. The fact is, they have every right to impose these theistic beliefs on you. After you come of age, you can think or do anything you like. It would appear that they weren't too oppressive and it would appear they were quite open-minded because they raised an atheist. It would appear that you are the one who is oppressive because you want to raise other children to think like you. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:15, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

No, my parents are both atheists as well, the only reason i went to that school was because it was the best school in the area. However adults do not have the right to impose their theistic beliefs on their children, just as they have no right to impose their political ideologies on them. Children are trusting of their parents because in the majority of situations their parents are doing what is best for them. What i believe parents should do is to raise their children to be open minded about belief regardless of their own beliefs. Therefore any parents should educate their children about different faiths (including atheism although it is not really a faith) in a totally balanced and fair manner with no predjudice. This allows children to make up their own mind about their own personal beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:48, 21 April 2007

::Ever wonder why the religious school was the best school in the area? Have you ever once considered the possibility that this school was better because the religious school wasn't attempting to relearn the lessons of the past? This school already had a functioning set of moral codes and they didn't need to wander through the maze of pitfalls in our new ACLU-friendly world of multi-culturalist moral equivelancy? Or perhaps you think the school was better because of dumb luck?

::As defined above, adults do not have the right to impose their beliefs on children. However, ''parents'' have a right (and more importantly a duty) to impose their beliefs on children. Parents should educate their children in the way that feels best to them.

::But what you fail to comprehend is that '''anything''' you teach children is a view point. You're just upset because you want everyone else to teach your view point. Your viewpoint embraces moral equivalism and the belief that all religions are equal. That is a viewpoint. It may or may not be valid, but the fact is, it is a viewpoint. It is just another value-set. It may or may not be more valid than the values of another parent. That's an argument that can be had, but it's not at issue here.

::The issue is that you want other parents to teach their children what you believe. Furthermore, you think it's immoral that they won't teach their children your values. Don't you think that's a little silly? Do you think you're any different from the fundamentalist Christians who are upset because you're not teaching your child about Jesus? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 05:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Imposing values on other people's children==

Yes i did think about why my school was the best school in the area. The reason was that it was the richest, as it was a private school and charged massive fees for attendance. And its moral codes are almost indistinguishable from the school i attended after, which was an international college and had no religious affiliation. No adults do not have a right to impose their beliefs on children. Parents also do not have this right. To impose a personal belief on a trusting child is not morally right. Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe. I believe that all parents should teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice. Up until a certain age, say 13, children cannot believe in anything purely because it makes sense to them and, if allowed by their parents, many children do make up their own religion for a while or switch repeatedly between religions until they reach a point of maturity where they can make a choice based upon what they have learned. Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:37, 21 April 2007

::You absolutely don't make any sense. I always think ''ad hominem'' attacks are inappropriate, so I hope I don't sound like I'm attacking you, but based upon the evidence (spelling, grammatical & punctuation errors) I'm beginning to doubt your claim that your private school was the best in the area. Furthermore, I doubt that the religious indoctrination in your school was oppressive based upon the fact that you obviously attended the school, but don't share the school's values. I can't help but tell you that once again you have posted something which does not make logical sense.

::You wrote:
:::"''Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism.''"
::Of course exploiting anyone (most especially children) is never morally right. This is because according to Merriam Webster Online "exploit" means "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <''exploiting migrant farm workers''>". But you haven't laid even a meager basis for this wild accusation. Who are you accusing of exploiting children and for what gain? Are you trying to say that parents are exploiting their own children? What do parents gain from that?

::You write,
:::"''Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe.''"
::In the first sentence you describe your "beliefs" (which is just a different term for your "religion") and furthermore you demand that parents teach their children your values. In the second sentence you state the exact opposite. Perhaps the silliest thing you imply is that it is somehow dangerous or bad to trust your parents and teachers. If one can't trust ones parents or teachers, then who can one trust?

::I very seriously doubt you have learned much if anything through this process you describe above. I doubt you have tested how the world works to verify the claims of teachers and parents. For example, I'm pretty sure you trusted your Driver's Education teacher when he told you that "green means go". You didn't feel the need to experiment with driving on red first. I doubt you ever verified any claims made in the DMV Manual by using the scientific method and a double-blind study. I'm pretty sure that you trust that when you flip a light switch and turn on the boob-tube that electrons will serve your will and pleasure. But, I doubt you have actually flown a kite in a thunderstorm to verify that electricity exists. By the same token, I doubt you need to violate any of the Ten Commandments to agree that these simple laws are for the benefit of all of humanity. I'm sure you agree that children don't need to experiment with adultery, murder or lying. They're better off just taking their parents' word that these are bad things.

::The reason you agree is because it's just plain silly to waste time verifying every claim of trusted parents and teachers. Therefore, the issue for you is not that "children need to reason things on their own".

::The real issue for you is that you are an atheistic evangelist and you are frustrated because some people aren't open to receiving your message. You are frustrated because some people trust their parents more than they trust you.

::Buck up, trooper. You should satisfy yourself with the many victories of the secular progressive agenda. For example, traditional parents were forced to allow people like you to ban prayer and religious discussion from our schools. This should satisfy you. Now you can safely raise your children without fear that they will overhear a prayer and thus they might accidentally become infected with religion. You have successfully had the 10 Commandments removed from many courtrooms. Be happy because you've already won all you can logically win.

::The only thing left for you is to take away more freedom from others to practice their religion and teach their religion to their children. You're not satisfied with leaving them to do what they want to do. Instead, you want to teach other people's children to force parents (and I quote) to "''teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice.''" Why do you feel the need to force other people not to talk about religion until the child is thirteen?

::My guess is that you believe this because you can't seem to understand that your personal opinion about religion '''is''' just another religion. I'm quite sure that you are trying to be a good person. I'm quite sure that you want to teach other people your religion because you want what's best for the child. But in America we have a concept called "Freedom of Religion". Because of our Freedom of Religion, you are prohibited from ramming your value-set down the throats of other people's children.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I admit you have quite easily picked out some flaws in the way i have argued my point, and you are right in about that paragraph where i contradict myself. I shall attempt to explain myself more clearly. I do not think all children should be taught my beliefs. That is the most important part. My beliefs are of the atheistic kind, as you already know. What i think is that children should not be indoctrinated into any religion or set of beliefs. If the person chooses at a later date to be a christian or muslim or atheist, good on them. But, to come to your point on how we trust what certain people tell us about certain things, like the driving instructor when it comes to driving and so on, children trust their parents. That is because the vast majority of parents do have their childrens best interests in mind all the time. However some do use this trust, often without intending to, to teach their child to believe what they believe about God, or lack thereof (you are right about exploiting, it was the wrong word to use in that situation). My arguement in a nutshell: Children should have freedom of religion. What i mean by that is that they should not be influenced by their parents. Because many people do not have freedom of religion, in America or elsewhere (i should point out that freedom of religion is part of the Australian constitution as well) as they did not realise they had a choice. They have always been brought up to believe that Christianity was right, or that Islam was right, etc. and because it is from their parents whom they trust, they do not question this, and they are often denied the tools with which to apply logic to religious arguements.

Just as an aside to my main point, the ten commandments aren't actually such a great set of morals to live by. The very first commandment violates freedom of religion : thou shalt worship no other god but me. Also, according to the commandments, disrespecting your parents results in being stoned to death. And to compound it, thou shalt not kill, does not apply to people who are not the same religion as you. When taken the way they were intended, they aren't such a good set of morals to live by. [[User:Bolly Ottihw:Bolly Ottihw]] 14:57, 23 April 2007
::I won't waste time defending the Ten Commandments, something I belive to be a foundation of everything good in Western Civilization. The courts have agreed to remove the Ten Commandments from public life and I am not in a position to change the law, so I obey the law.

::But I will repeat the following in the hopes that you might understand this concept. Your opinion about religion, in other words "your personal definition of freedom of religion" is just another religion. It is clear that you want other parents to teach your definition of "freedom of religion" to other children.

::It may offend your sensibilities, but some people don't agree with your opinions about religion. In American, they don't have to agree with you. They can believe whatever they want. Thus, most American parents teach their children that America is a free country, where people can believe whatever they want. Further, they teach their children their own family's values and religion. Some people are Baptists or Muslims or Hindus. Some people (like you) prefer like to teach their children to sample a hodgepodge of all religions so that they will better understand atheism. That is their right. Please don't take it away from them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Selective application of logic==
Isn't it amusing that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age, but the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, i disagree (although of course i would, i am a so-called liberal). I think that the reason is that there are facts about sex and that religion is more hazy, in that there is very little proof on both sides of the arguement, and it becomes philosophical which is harder for a child to deal with. However i think that sex education should start at around age 13, which is about the same time i think children should start to seriously consider their religion or beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 15:03, 23 April 2007

You disagree with what? You disagree with:
::* The assertion that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age;
::* The assertion that the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age;
::* With the idea of teaching children family values;
::* With the idea of teaching children regilious values;
::* With the idea that sex education should be postponed;
::* All of the above;
::* Something else?

You don't make much sense to me.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Aside from the fact that you've ignored the bulk of what Bolly wrote and focused mainly on a fairly trivial thing that he said, you seem to think that "we" (being us liberal bods) are applying selective logic by saying we should teach about "sex" and not religion. In fact, by your reasoning, "you" (being the conservative bunch) are applying the same selective logic by saying that we should teach religion but not teach "sex". A horrible dilemma for you, don't you think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::1. I've not ignored anything anyone said. Please explain.

::2. I'm sorry that I've seemed to confuse you. Please allow me to explain my interpretation of the conservative position on the education of sex and the education of religion.
:::* One should teach children family values, morals and religion at an early age. This is for the child's benefit and for the benefit of mankind. (As an adult they can do whatever they would like to do, provided they don't break the law.)
:::* Regarding sex, the conservative position is that it is desirable to prolong the child's innocence by postponing sex education as long as possible.
::I'm sorry if this flavor of common sense offends you. Furthermore, I'm sorry but I can't begin to understand why this common sense would support in any way the ridiculous notion that "religion is morally wrong" by ''any'' definition of "religion" as posted below by another editor. As best as I can figure from the poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled statements above here's what I suppose the liberal position is:
:::* One should not teach children about religion because religion is evil. They won't come to realize how evil religion is until they reach 13 to 25 (commonly known as the Age of Rebellion). As a quick aside, it is a universal truth that the older people become, the wiser they become. I wonder why churches are full of old people?
:::* One should teach children about sex as soon as they are old enough to masturbate. This is because masturbation is healthy and can lead to an active and enjoyable sex life. It's important for children to understand the dangers of STD's and how to avoid pregnancy through the use of pills and condoms. Furthermore, all children should be aware if a little girl wants want an abortion, she can safely get an abortion without her parent's ever even knowing that she was pregnant. In this way she can continue with the lifestyle of her choosing without parents invading her right to privacy. If a child has a child and ends up dependent on the parents or the system, it's the conservative's fault for not talking about birth control more.
::Please correct me if I've mistated the liberal position.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You ignored the fact that Bolly made a valid point about the definition of fact and religion, and the age at which children should be educated about "sex".

:::Secondly, you say yourself that the statements written above are "poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled" and then go on to derive a definition from them!? Surely a better course of action would have been to take the definition from some credible source? As to what you have said, I would agree with most of what you define the conservative view to be, apart from teaching children a specific religion at an early age. I suppose it comes down to setting an age where innocence is lost (and I doubt many are naive enough to think that that is the age of consent). People under the age of 16 will have sex (not all, but some) and if no sex education is available for them, what sort of experiences will they have? Is it not better that from a certain age (and I would say that 13 is a good age for this to start) children are introduced to the idea of safe sex, with few (and preferably one) partner(s)?

:::You're right though, we have divulged from the debate topic, but this is an interesting tangent to the debate which I would very much like to continue if you care to carry on? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::For the second time, I'm ignoring Bolly's "valid point" because I have no clue what you are talking about. I didn't read any valid point which wasn't addressed ''ad nauseum'' already. Please read the dialogue to this point if you are confused as to why I think it's ridiculous (and invalid) to demand that other people teach their children ''your'' values. I've already explained why this is ridiculous above.

::I attempted to derive a definition from Bolly's statement only to appease your pretense of indignation when you accused me of ignoring Bolly's alleged "points". By your reaction, I'm now assuming that you just haven't read the entire argument yet and that you concur, Bolly made no points in the gibberish above. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

My point was that i think that children should be educated about sex and religion at the same age. This is because it is the age where both become major issues for children growing up. Please do explain how this is hard to understand, and how this is a selective application of logic. (I apologise for my poor grammar, it is because i write my line or thought and arguement down the same way i would say it out loud) [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:42, 24 April 2007

::You don't need to keep writing the same thing over and over and over. We already understand your opinion about how ''you think'' things should be. You've made that quite clear.

::What you still don't seem to understand is that you don't have the right to tell other people how to live, nor do you have the right to teach other children your beliefs. That's pretty self-centered. You're self-centered nature is further evidenced by the fact that you admission that you would prefer to force others to spend their precious time deciphering your cryptic musings directly from your stream of consciousness, rather than taking the time and effort to write coherent sentences with good spelling and grammar. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Age at which sex education should be taught==

Regarding the interesting tangent: to what particularly are you referring? Are you trying to debate the age at which sex education should be imposed upon children?

This is a complicated issue because there are several related factors. Most churches teach that sex outside of marriage is adultery, a sin and a mistake. But it is my personal opinion, that church and religion is a guideline and the morals espoused therein are ideals. Ideally one never lies. Ideally one never commits adultery. But here in the real world, there are a good many liars and adulterers (myself included in both counts). Additionally, most parents think that sex under the age of 18 is a mistake. Most everyone agrees that sex under the age of 16 is a mistake. Does it happen in the real world? Yes it happens. Beyond the basic biological functions of sex, sexuality is about morality. Certainly every child over the age of 13 should be taught something about the biology of sex. But what of the morality of the sex, the politics of sex and the religious or spiritual aspects of sex? These are much more complicated and personal issues and these issues should be handled within the family.

I think it's important to teach young teens "where babies come from." I think it's important to leave discussions about homosexuality, adultery and abortion to the family and church. But my original point is not that I presume to know how or when to push sex education. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:What i find interesting is that you assume that the church knows more about homosexuality than homosexuals. And regarding this, the church brings 2000 year old arguements to this subject without considering how it applies in todays society. In the past homosexuality would not have been profitable as it would not have benifited the tribe in anyway compared to heterosexual sex. In this age, there is no lack of benefit from not having children and so there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. The other thing i disagree with is that here is a religious aspect to sex. Sex should be a coupling between two people who share a great love between each other. Again, that doesnt always happen, however it is essential that children learn this at the same time they learn about the biological side of sex. [[Bolly ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:47, 24 April 2007

::Of course, that's your opinion and your entitled to it. You've got a right to live your life however you want. For me the choice is obvious. On one hand I have 2000 to 10000 years of wisdom. On the other hand, there's some dude on the Internet {{strike personal remark|who doesn't know how to write proper English, but }} who claims to know more than the Church, and Thomas Aquinas. All I ask is that you let others live their lives the way they want. Is that too much to ask? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Did you just make a personal remark? (I should block your account for 1 second. ;-)

I apologize if I offended anyone. I don't believe in ''ad hominem'' attacks. I think they are rude and pointless. However, if someone admits that they don't write properly in a forum where writing is the only means of communication, then they have openned the door to commentary by others. I'm quite sure you're just kidding anyway, I hope this doesn't sound too stern. I'm just tired right now. I was up late, up early and I'm facing a long day. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Atheists have it all figured out ... ==
My point above in ''Selective application of logic'' is that it looks very hypocritical for liberals to want to teach children about sex as young as possible, but the same crowd doesn't want to teach children religion until after they are suspectible to corruption and experimentation.

What amateur philosophers like Bolly don't seem to understand is that theologians, philosophers and generations of people with more time on their hands than all of us have already put a great deal of effort and experimentation into evolving a set of moral codes and sound religious creeds. Bolly is naive enough to expect the unreasonable notion that any '''one''' man can compete with the thoughts and knowledge of countless generations who have gone before him. He honestly thinks he can invent a personal philosophy and religious-code based upon his individual experiences. He believes that his own personal philosophy can rival the combined thoughts of generations of philosophers and theologians.

/begin rant: We as modern humans don't have to invent medicine, or geology, or build a TV set and write computer code. That's already been done by others! We can stand on their shoulders. Can you imagine how silly and presumptive it sounds to those former atheists like myself when they read that Bolly thinks he knows how the universe works and that he can definitively say that he understands the nature of God?

Bolly doesn't know the first thing about God or philosophy, but he wants to teach other people's children his credo of experiment with all religions and then become an atheist. I know why [[Thomas Aquinas]] and [[Socrates]] and even [[Aleister Crowley]] are famous (or infamous as the case may be), but I don't know why Bolly presumes to know what's best for other people's children. /end rant.

You don't have to invent moral codes or laws or waste time experimenting with life's dead-ends. You can look up the answer in the book of your choice and things will be so much easier for you.

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I have explained that it is not hypocritical, as i believe they should be taught at the same age, neither
before the other.

I am not naive enough to think that i can rival any of the great philosophers in logic and philosophy, however i dont think i would have any trouble outthinking Thomas Aquinas, for example. The reason for this is that he (and others like him) used their religious credibility to establish themselves as philosophical geniuses when in fact, he was not much smarter then anyone of the time, and certainly not smarter then the average uni graduate today. This can be amply demonstrated by his '5 proofs' of gods existence which are more full of holes than a swiss cheese.

To compare moral codes to medicing or geology is not an adequate comparison. The basic ideas of medicine and geology are based on sound proof and will not change much within the next thousand years. On the other hand, moral codes are always changing depending on the society that they are employed by. Look at the change in opinion about non-caucasian people over the past 200 years! only 100 years ago it was considered the height of stupidity to consider an african american the equal of a white man, yet today, even though there is still far to much prejudice in the world, it is generally accepted that there is no difference between any of the races of humanity. The great thinkers of one age would be considered backwards and redundant if they were transported in time to today.

I do not presume to know the nature of god. I do know, within myself, that god does not exist and i am content with that knowledge. You say you were an atheist, i would like to know what converted you to christianity.

No you do not need to waste time experimenting with dead ends, however because i believe in freedom of religion, i think it would only be fair that children are shown all the alternative modes of beliefs.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:00, 24 April 2007

::Fine. Show your children and leave others alone.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== This is an invalid question ==

I've stayed away from the debates on Conservapedia, and this one is an example of why. I'm only here now because I was asked for my input.

The problem with the question is that "religion" is not defined. On my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment#.22Religion.22 Wikipedia user page] I've listed some of the main ways that the word "religion" is used:
{{QuoteBox|
# A set of beliefs on which one bases one's life
# Belief in a deity or deities (e.g. Christianity is a religion)
# A particular set of rituals (e.g. He is practising his religion)
# A particular broad set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Christian, Muslim, or Hindu?)
# A particular narrower set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Methodist, Baptist, or Catholic?) }}

I further say there:
{{QuoteBox|No. 2 is, in my opinion, an arbitrary subset of No. 1. People believe in multiples gods (polytheism), everything-is-god (pantheism), one god (monotheism) or no god (atheism). Pantheism and atheism don't fit into definition No. 2, yet to consider them somehow "different" is arbitrary and self-serving ... . Thus I use definition No. 1 in preference to No. 2, and argue that atheism (and related views such as secular humanism) are religions, every bit as much as Christianity is. The difference is simply how many gods one believes in.}}

So if "religion" is a worldview (or ''ideology'' if you prefer), then it follows that ''everybody has one'', by its very nature and definition. How can one then ask if it is morally wrong?

Of course the person who asked the question obviously didn't have that definition in mind. But which one did he have?

To a Christian, Christianity is No. 1: a core set of beliefs on which one bases one's life. I would hope that it is obvious even to atheists that one cannot help but base one's actions on one's beliefs. So in that sense, "religion" comes before children, because when dealing with children, one ''must'' deal with them according to one's beliefs. That is why everyone, even atheists, do so.

To an atheist (who conveniently would not describe atheism as a religion), "religion" is a "optional extra". And on that basis, clearly children's welfare should come before "optional extra" beliefs.

To recap, the problem here is that there is no definition of what is intended by "religion" in this question, let alone any actual agreement by opposing viewpoints.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

This is dead-on correct. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

We do not 'conveniently' choose not to describe atheism as a religion. Atheism is defined as : a lack of belief. Lack of belief is not a religion. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:02, 24 April 2007

:Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is an ardent ''belief'' that there is no God. And even ignoring that point, you ''do'' have core beliefs, which can be considered your worldview/ideology/religion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:23, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is. When split up: A-Theism. no-belief. I do not ardently believe god does not exist. I dont think god exists. If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic.

I do have core beliefs. That does not consitute religion except in your definition. And i would argue that that is not religion, that is simply morality dressed up. My worldview is not my ideology or religion, because it would be a really weird religion compared to the main ones around today.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:57, 24 April 2007

:According to the Oxford dictionary[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk], the "atheism" means "the belief that God does not exist". The prefix "a-" can mean "without", but it can also mean "not", and "theism" is a reference to God, not just belief. Not all atheists hold their belief in no god as strongly, but for many atheists, it is a ''belief'' in no god.
:It is not "my definition". It is one of several dictionary definitions. The rest of your last two sentences don't make sense. You have not explained how atheism is not a religion yet Christianity is. As I quoted myself above, any such distinction is arbitrary and self-serving.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Bolly says, ''If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic. '' Evidence for God lies around us in all directions and in all things. (See other topics herein for a few examples.) The reason you don't see evidence of God is your picture of God has nothing to do with what God is about. God is not some magical being. God is not flying spaghetti. God does not defy logic. God is logic. In your mind the great machine of the univers happened out of sheer luck. What's the difference between sheer luck and God? Aren't they the same thing? Hopefully I can give you a clue where to find God by telling you where to look.

God is in the details. The electrons are busy doing their thing. The subatomic particles are inside the protons hard at work doing whatever they do to make matter do what it does. Complex chains of molecules describe how to build a human being more efficiently than any code written by any programmer.

God is in the everyday. God is in the mother who cares for her child. God is in the man who jumps into freezing water to save a stranger. God is in the reason you feel good when you do good things, even when they aren't fun.

God is in the grandeur. God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time.

God is everywhere, everywhere but where you're looking. You're looking for god to do something other than what the universe already does. You're presumption is that the universe is fantastic, wonderfully complicated, a well-oiled machine, but you expect something over and above all of this. ''Yeah the universe is vastly complicate, but what have you done for me lately?''

The naivety of the atheist lies in the belief that the universe itself is not evidence of God. By Bolly's definition, God is only evidenced by something beyond the atheist's explanation and comprehension. By this definition you'll never find God, because if you could comprehended the magical proof of God and God could be explained, then it would not longer be magical and no longer beyond comprehension! [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely it is enough to gaze upon the vastness and awe inspring vistas of the universe without having to attribute it to some other being. Your above definition of god: "God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time." seems to me to be more naive then my atheism. You are simply defining the universe but replacing it with god.

I would like to see some of this 'proof' of gods existence for so far i have seen nothing that comes remotely close to convincing me that god exists. On the other hand, there is no need for god in this world. Science has come very close to completly shut out godly influence in the creation of life and the universe.

The universe has not come about out of sheer luck. The strong and weak nuclear force, gravity and quantum theory all allow us to model the creation of stars, planets and black holes in a purely logical manner. If you wish to call that logic and those laws 'God' then you are free to do so. But then god is not a being who can be worshipped or who answers prayers or makes miracles. Then God simply becomes another name for the universe with no added baggage of being the creator. I trust that this dismisses your last point about the magical proof of god. You are welcome to call the universe what you will, however don't expect many people to address prayers to the law of gravity.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:50, 26 April 2007

:::I understand what you say, but I don't think that's what you mean. What you are actually saying is that you have defined your image of God and unless God conforms to your idea of what God means/is and then someone else proves to you that idea is true, then you will not believe in God. Have you considered the possibility that what you thought of as God is just a magical bogeyman? Have you considered the possibility that God is something else entirely than what you thought as a child and later realized was preposterous when you grew up? What we teach children about God is drastically simplified for their consumption. It up to you to purse the truth of God after you realize there is no magical bogeyman. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why Atheism is ridiculous==
Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "God" is another word for "everything." God equals everything. Everthing is God. To deny that "God" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if God is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does God (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does God have a plan? Or is Everything (''i.e.'' God) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies. Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstien included) believe that time is an illusion and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or God) is sentient. God has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:That's not the God I know. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::As a godless, atheistic, morally-bankrupt existentialist, I have to say I disagree with this "assessment." If I am to take what you say at face value I come to the immediate conclusion that atheism is still correct. If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....

:::I think of the universe this way: I don't know how it came to be, but I assume it was a chemical and physical event, not supernatural. I know that this "stuff" doesn't have to have a plan in order to exist. There need not be a man in the sky to protect me from everything. I don't need to pray to something that I will succeed in life because there is no one listening. But, I'm not sad about this, I don't feel alone or unloved by the big ol' scary universe. Rather, I feel emboldened to take moral actions when I can.

:::Camus is my hero. His basic equation boils down to this: once a person realizes that there is no god they have two choices--suicide or a "faith flight." That is, if one accepts the religious view of things. If Camus is correct, and existence does indeed precede essence, then there is a third choice, the philosophy of moral action. Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.

:::Now, since I don't believe everything has a plan, and that I have a moral obligation to help my fellow man (and woman), I have an obligation to come to sites like this and try to fix them. Not by including so-called "liberal bias." Rather, the point is to make sure truth trumps propaganda. Wether I like it or not, I have a duty to help fix this garbage. I liken it to watching a child roll their tricycle toward the street. You, the adult, are standing there and you can see a truck bearing down on the child. Do you try and help her, or do you pray? I must take action and this website affords me a chance to help everybody. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You have mistaken my meaning, despite repeating exactly what I said:

::''If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....''

This is indeed exactly what I meant. So in fact, there is a god. The question is God sentient or not. Does God have thoughts, plans, etc. Or is the universe a jumble of meaningless matter that is and always was. A tangental thought to ponder: auantum mechancics seem to suggest that reality can change depending on the observer.

For those who say "this is not the God I know". Indeed it is the God you. Here's the line of logic:

::1. God = Everything
::2. Therefore God exists. (And the corrollary, atheism is ridiculous.)
::3. Now there is a choice: one can choose to believe that God is sentient; or one can deny the sentience of God despite overwhelming of evidence to the contrary.
::4. Then, if God is sentient then what can we mortals know of God? Where will we find His truths? We might find them in science. We find them in religion. We each find out own personal truth in different ways.

If you make it to step 4, the arguement becomes which religion is best. Which truth makes the most sense to you. Christians, Buddhists, Islamist, they all have their own personal arguments. I won't waste time debating religion when atheists are in the room. It's pointless, because they haven't made the logical step to 3.

If your mind doesn't make the leap to step 3, there is no point in discussing morals. In fact, it's ridiculous to postulate morals or philosophy because the universe is meaningless. For those who are at this point in personal growth: thine only commandment is ''do what thou wilt''. It is pointless to do anything other than that which makes you happy if you get to step 2 but don't make the jump to step 3. However, if you can comprehend step two but don't believe in 3 then all this poppycock about morals and goodness is ridiculous. Furthermore, when an atheist discusses morals and philosophy it only only serves to prove there is a God. This is because the atheist's spirit (which he doesn't believe believe exists) nags and naws at him like the quite voices of angels.

If you make it to step one but can't make it to step 2, then you are a) either incapable of higher thought; or b) intellectually dishonest because you fear where this argument leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, what you are trying to do, in logic, is referred to as an [[enthymeme]]. However, your argument does not work. First, you must show HOW god equals everything. Otherwise you can say anything. Thus:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

:::But you tried to do something else. You tried to insert statements as if they are quantifiable terms. Sort of like saying, "E = mc2" ''Well what do those letters mean?'' "Elephants equal mustard and cows times themselves." You've defined nothing except a lack of basic logical principles.

Being intellectually dishonest would be if I said, well, "god likes strawberries more than cherries." When you ask ''why'' I'll say "because they taste better." Asserting your opinion as fact is what makes it less than true. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin, why do you care if a child rides into traffic on a tricycle? What do you gain if she is saved? What do you lose if she dies? It sounds a lot like your a theist to me. You obviously think the universe has some meaning or some order. If the universe has order and meaning then it only follows that you believe the universe is God. The next step to make is to find out where God best reveals his truth. You think that his truth is best revealed in the philosophical musings of your hero Camus. Camus wrote your Bible. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::It might be difficult to understand but I did not say that god=toast. I agree that God is not toast. Is "Everything" that is to say the universe as a whole sentient or not? Simple question. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:50, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Furthermore, by your example:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

By your definition, then it would be possible to know the true nature of toast. We pretty well already know how to make toast. It's a silly diversion from the question you are afraid to ask yourself. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

No it isn't. I have already asked myself--for years--if there is a god. I have come to the conclusion ther very likely isn't. I am not an atheist (they are 100% sure) but I sit at about 99.9% sure. I have diverted nothing--being intellectually honest with myself meant I had to realize there was no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:As the one who said, "this is not the God I know", I reject the first point in the line of logic, that God equals everything. I am a monotheist, not a pantheist. God ''made'' the universe, He ''isn't'' the universe.
:Flippin, your counter-logic is wrong. Everwill's logic skipped a step. His logic was:
::1. God = Everything
::1A. We know that everything exists.
::2. Therefore God exists.

:So in order to match Everwill's argument from logic, your counter logic should have been:
::1. god = toast
::1A. we know that toast exists
::2. therefore god exists.
:But you got point 2 back to front.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Phil,

So as I understand it you think God is outside of the universe? God is apart from the universe. God is not everywhere at all times, rather he is somewhere else. Where is that somewhere else and what reason have you to believe (other than blind faith) that somewhere else exists? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:God is a spiritual being. He is "outside" the universe—a physical place—in the sense that He is not part of it. But being an omnipresent spiritual being He is not confined to a physical place, so He is not outside in a geographical sense. He is everywhere at once, but not synonymous with the universe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that God is not "confined" to anything. But I'm not sure there's any value to arguing the fine differences between "everything", the universe and God. We're not philosophers, and others have explored this better than we can. I think there is some value to helping atheists understand why the question is not whether God exist or not. The real question is whether God is an omnipresent sentience or not. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Everwill, your argument that god = everything is preposterous. Firstly, i do not agree with the first statement you make, that god is everything. I would like some hard proof, or at least a convincing argument that god equals everything before the first premise of your argument.

If, for arguements sake, we assume that your first premise is correct, then the only question is, as you say, whether everything (or god) is sentient? Again, you can say so, however i want proof. I have yet to see a plan in the universe or everything. According to the current predictions by astronomers and physcists, the universe is set to expand for an idefinete period and that eventually all the stars will run out of hydrogen and go out, and that everything will spread further and further apart at faster and faster speeds until the universe tears itself apart. Can you explain the plan in this? It displays all the theories about gravity, dark matter, quantum theory and strong and weak nuclear forces. There is nothing to show an added level of intelligence in this everything.

Please do not assume that your first premise is correct until you show some evidence for this, otherwise your argument is entirely invalid.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:06, 26 April 2007

:::You must have made things pretty difficult for your alegbra teacher. The teacher presents the following:

::::''x + 1 = 2''
::::''X is'' unknown.
::::''Solve for X.''

:::To which you reply, "Prove that X is unknown and a mathematical value. X is a letter and has no value, thus algebra is entirely invalid."

:::Hopefully you see how silly your reply is, but I'll grant you that I may have given you too much credit above. Perhaps the concept is a little too complicated for you to understand as I presented above. I'll try harder.

:::If the word "God" is synomous with "everything" then I assume you believe God exists. If the word "God" means "magical bogeyman who meddles in the affairs of mankind" then I assume we agree that God does not exist. In the framework of the argument above, God means everything.

:::Now I'll put that aside and try to explain the concept without using words that offend your sensibilities. The universe shows organization and complexity beyond any single human's comprehension at every level. The components of a cell, atomic structures, galactic structures, geological structures, biologal structures. It's vastly intricate, interconnected and complicated. The universe functions like an immense machine and so far as we can tell, it will continue to function for quite some time and it functioned long ago.

:::With this knowledge one has to make a leap of faith, and science has taught us that the simple solution is usually the right solution. The simple solution is that the universe is organization implies design, design implies designer. The only other plausible choice is that the everything that every happens, happened or will happened is the result of something that makes a lottery ticket or a lightning strike look like a easy money and a daily occurence. Now, I respect your right to belive that, but I think it's sort of naive.

:::So you think the universe is randomness. I think the universe has order. Now to work back into the definitions presented above. I think God has order. You think God is randomness. Whether we call it God, the universe or everything, it makes no difference. I'm not trying to take away your right to believe what you want. I'm not trying to tell you to go to church. I'm just trying to find a common ground on which we can agree. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Alright, now i understand the point you were making. I do not agree with it, however i see now where you are coming from.

The reason that the whole of the universe is so incomprehensible to us, is because we evolved on a scale where the only distances that mattered were a couple of hundred kilometres to about a centimetre. That was all that was needed to survive as homo erectus in a hostile world. It was not necessary for us to be able to understand a cell or an atom or a star. The complex machinery that is our brain is not built for such things as the universe or quantum theory. This is why it is so hard to comprehend.

The simple solution is the right solution in the majority of cases, however the simple solution in this case is not one of design. Darwin has already shown that while animals and plants may look designed they are in fact the end result of a massive series of gene mutations and adaptations. In this case, there is no designer and thus your point that organization implies design implies designer is proved wrong in the case of natural life. Simply because there is no such explanation for how the universe has come to be in such a way does not mean that there is no explanation that does not need to attribute it to a designer. Just think that 300 years ago, noone thought that something complex could come from something less complex as it balked common sense. However our common sense only applies to simple, mundane everyday things, not the huge distances and complexities of space or an atom.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:56, 27 April 2007

==Is Atheism Ridiculous?==
::::On what basis do can you decide that something is "moral"? If I saw a truck bearing down on a child, I would try and help her, because God loves her and He would want me to help, and I would be praying at the same time. But why would you help her? From an atheistic point of view, she is just an accidental combination of a bunch of chemicals facing a life of suffering, disease, and ultimate death. What's the point in helping? Why not just let chance shortcut the process and save her all those years of pain? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:24, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Because I feel an obligation to help her, as I said. Saying it is moral means nothing. It is the action one takes. I believe that it is right to keep someone alive rather than kill them (what the above example allows for). If I let her die, she cannot make her own decisions--I am taking away her inalienable right to decide her own fate, if you will. I have no right to hurt someone else--that takes away from their right to choose how they will spend their existence.

::Yes, she is accidental, as are you and me, but I have no right to infringe on the rights of a sentient human being by allowing them to die. Standing by and watching her die would make me just as guilty as putting a gun to her head and pulling the trigger. Morality is based on this single point: existence precedes essence. We are all responsible for our own choices with regard to how they affect others.

::I don't need a religion to tell me that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Just another quick note--don't you think you have an obligation to do something outside of a god's wrath? When you say "because god loves her" you tacitly give up the responsibility for taking action. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Yes, you feel an obligation to help her. But why? I'd say that it's because you've been raised in a country with a Christian heritage and have absorbed some of its values. But I'm asking what basis atheism provides for that. Why do you feel that it is "right". What if I "feel" differently? Who is right and who is wrong? Where did her "inalienable right to decide her own fate" come from? Does she in fact have such a right? I assert that you ''do'' need a religion—or more specifically, God—to tell you that, because atheism can't.
:::::I fail to see how I'm giving up responsibility for taking action. On the contrary, it's because God loves her that I have that responsibility.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::You know, atheism has almost nothing to do with it. I don't think about, or believe in god the way you don't believe (I assume) in the flying spaghetti monster.

::But saying that "because god loves her...I have a responsibility" is equivalent to saying, "I'll go to Grandma's because it makes Mom happy." It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you.

::Finally, that "right to exist" could also be thought of as a prohibition against her death. That comes from the notion that even though our very existence is absurd, I don't have a right to decide how you will affect it. To throw my hands up and say "but who is right and who is wrong" is just reducing the argument to multiplicity, and thus relativism.

::I guess what I'm saying is I don't have a right to decide for that child so I will save her and let her make her own choice. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:::"''It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you''". On the contrary, I have ''decided'' to do what God would like, rather than do something for a selfish reason of it being something that ''I'' would like.
:::You say that the "right to exist" comes from the notion that you don't have a right to decide how you will affect it, yet by saving the girl you ''have'' decided to affect things. Yes, throwing your hands up is relativism, but the opposite of relatives is absolutes, and absolutes only come from God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes exactly, you have decided what god would like. Other people can have a different understanding, people such as Adolf Hitler who decided that god thought it was right that he should kill all jews, as they were "christ killers". Or the young man who shot a doctor who practised abortions because "god would have wanted me to do it". The fact that you have to interpret a book to decide your morals means that several different people can gain different moral codes from the same book, while there are very few people who would disagree that wanton killings would lead to society fracturing. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:17, 26 April 2007

::Adolf Hitler was an atheist. Beyond this factual error, I don't understand your point. We all decide what god would like. (It's call concept called ''free will''.) The underlying philosophy and truths found in all major religions are the same. Is this an accident? I suppose you would answer yes. In fact, the entire universe and everything that led to this moment is one collossal accident that happened for your benefit. Children have no idea what their parents endure to provide for them. In the same way the atheist scoffs at the mysteries of the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:03, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ottihw, no, I haven't decided what God would like. I have ''learnt'' what God would like be reading what He has told us. Everwill is correct that Hitler was an atheist, but I disagree that we can all gain different morals from the Bible. That is in effect saying that words have no meaning, so we can choose to understand them any way we want. Should I choose to understand your words any way I want, or should I presume that we are both using the same convention of English (in this case) language and that you mean what you've said? Besides, if you and I can both derive different morals from reading the Bible, how is it any better if we ''don't'' read the Bible? Surely that would mean even ''less'' restraint on what we choose our morals to be? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Which is another way of saying that Phil is a "strict constructionist" when it comes to the Bible. I think the mullahs in Iran (though they use a different book) agree with him in this way. I'm more of a deconstructionist and have more doubts about the Bible being the "Word of God". I think God's Words are way too complicated for one man or one book to describe. However, I would agree on 99% of the big picture with Phil and probably with the so-called atheists in here. That to me is evidence of God. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:47, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I happen to believe that God is clever enough to put things in words that we can understand. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

God is very clever indeed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:You havea copy of the Bible in God's handwriting? Or you beleive that every step from initial writing, through every translation throughout time has been divinely guided to lay out His message clearly? So, which translation is the divinely guided one? And if He were so inclined to so specifically direct the writing ans subsequent translation of a book, might he not have made it a bit clearer which translation is correct, and which parts of the Bible can be taken literally and which are metaphors? You claim to know the difference... I've never seen that footnote anywhere in the Bible. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The copies and translations of the Bible are very accurate, and accurate enough to know what God was saying. And the phrase "every translation through time" is quite misleading, as mot current English Bibles have been translated directly from the original languages, i.e. a one-step translation. It couldn't get much better than that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

(copied below).

: Standard non-answer... How do you know they are accurate, which version? The differences are quite spectacular at times. Not to mention that even if one accepts your "one-step translation" proposition we are talking (in the case of Genesis) about an account put down long after the event itself (even by your time scale), and then translated from languages with enough nuances to allow for all these different translations that arise today... Not to mention that the "accurate enough to know what God was saying" ignores the reality that if people debate it to the degree we do today, it sure doesn't seem so crystal clear... I say the the story of Genesis clearly reads like a parable or metaphor... you believe it is clearly meant to be taken literally, though you allow that some portions of the Bible are not literal... I was asking for the magic footnote that tells us which is which? [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::That was not a non-answer; it made valid points. The differences are not that spectacular. Why don't you accept the "one-step translation"? Look in almost any modern version and it will tell you that it was translated from the original languages. I tend to subscribe to the belief that Genesis was originally written in sections by the people that witnessed the events (e.g. Adam himself) and Moses compiled those handed-down written histories into the book of Genesis.
::People debate the Bible to the degree that they do because some people will do anything to avoid the implications of what it is teaching, including calling black white (actually, calling six days billions of years). But that doesn't mean that the text is ambiguous, just that some people will not take it at face value.
::Parable and metaphor have particular linguistic characteristics, and Genesis doesn't have those characteristics, so it is not parable nor metaphor (on the whole; some bits may be). You determine which is which by the language, just as you do in everyday life. If I said that "it's raining cats and dogs", would you wonder if I was being literal or not?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Please do not parade that old falsehood that Hitler was an atheist. He was brought up a roman catholic, he made several references to God in his speeches and almost everyone who was close to him described him as a 'good practising catholic'. To call him an atheist is in complete denial of all the facts that surround him.

The reason that people can draw different morals from the bible is simple. The bible has been written by hundreds of authors over 900 years, many of whom described the same story in different ways and the vast majority were not written down until many years after the even they were describing. And of course, in the way of any community effort, the book has been 'improved' by several authors down the years, in different languages and often by people who had no idea about the event they were writing about. To call this text "the word of god" and to attempt to draw a single conclusion from this is just plain ridiculous. Why not have a look yourself, and look for the amount of contradictions and just plain weirdness in there.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:13, 27 April 2007

==Questions and Answers==
Plato showed how in a debate one asks questions so that the debaters can pursue the truth together rather than being adversaries. So what I can't understand is why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests? Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you? Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share? Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?

To be more specific you say ''Because I feel an obligation to help her''. What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? Will she pay you? What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

So here are my questions:

::''"Why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests?"''

:::* Atheist says: I might ask you the same thing. I have no short-term interest in this child's death. I have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer).
:::* Theist replies, because there is something, perhaps a spirit or a god, that imparts to ever soul the knowledge of good from evil and right from wrong. Doing evil moves you further from god and thus it does not feel good to do evil (''even when it feels good to do evil''!) This is a shorthand way of saying that when you commit acts which are pleasurable but evil, you feel shallow and empty inside. On the other hand, when one commit acts of kindness without any payback of any kind, one feels good inside. This is something most humans learn as they progress into maturity. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::''"Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you?"''

:::* Atheist says: Two parts there: I wouldn't murder a child--as I said--so what is there to feel guilty about? If no one would punish me presupposes I have done this act, so the question is invalidated by the former.
:::* Theist replies, I should hope you wouldn't murder a child, but your reply ducks the obvious answer. Of course I wouldn't murder a child to get what I wanted, but if I did murder a child to get what I wanted I would feel guilty. What causes that feeling of guilty? Is that not proof of a spiritual aspect of life?

::''"Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share?"''

:::* Atheist say: It certainly could be. ''"Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?"'' Reason allows me to discern right from wrong, as I said above. I am compelled to act according to this obligation to help others and not let them have their choice made by another.
:::* Theist says, what is this "reason" you are talking about in an athistic universe. Without God or morality, what is the difference between good and evil or right and wrong? From an atheistic (i.e. Satanic) POV right and wrong are silly concepts. "Good" is just an excuse to chump the strong from their rightful place at the top of the food chain. Don't you agree?

''"What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? <s>Will she pay you?</s> What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?"''

:::* Atheist says: Okay, now you're getting to the meat of the matter. I am obligated by this sense of everyone's right to exist. I have no more right to take you're life than I do to steal your bike. Not that those two are equal, but the line of demarcation is the same. It is only selfish in the sense that I ''gain'' when this child is allowed to grow up and make her own choices. If, in the process, I am killed, then I have served my principles. If she dies, then I took moral action and can feel good about my effort. However, if I let her die I am as guilty as any of those Nazi guards at Aushwitz who said ''"I was only following orders."''
:::* Theist replies: your answer implies the existence of God even if you can't see the forest for all the trees. Why does everyone have a right to exist? Because you said so? That makes no sense in your concept of reality. What if my country elects a leader, for the purposes of illustration let's call him ''Adolf Hitler''. Our leader through legal government manuevers manages to establish a process to eliminate what he sees as a cancer on our nation. By your reasoning that leader has a moral imperative to kill Jews BECAUSE he thinks it's best for the nation. From the theist stand-point, we believe that all life is precious, most especially human life. Therefore it doesn't matter what logic, rationale or legal manuevers Hitler makes, killing is wrong.

Atheist summary: As long as you have a choice, to defer your morality to a god, or priest or whatever you ask for figiveness is to shirk your duty to society--that being to think for yourself. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Theist summary: No one ever defers any choices to anyone ever. Each individual is always responsible for his own actions and choices. To clear up your confusion: a theist defers his choices to a priest about as much as a judge in a court room defers his choices to his first year law professor. Religion is a tool to help us understand God. Religion and religious leaders do not speak for God. An "atheist" who follows a moral code is just a theist who doesn't know much about his God because he's too afraid to trust others. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:In point of fact here, I have said I am not an atheist, I am more properly called an agnostic. An atheist, by definition, holds that they have the answer--that there is no god. As an agnostic I am open to the idea that a god exists, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Please don't refer to me as an atheist--it is a different thing altogether. Also, in addition to agnosticism, I am an existentialist--so you could also use that term if you like.

:Finally, I don't have a god-belief so I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done. I do things that I reason are beneficial to society, e.g. actions that foster growth, development and change. I abhor stifling debate and that seems to be the purpose of religion as it is used most of the time. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm comfortable with my approach to all questions. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

You claim that "I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done". You do things because a little voice inside your head tells you to do things? Who is that little voice?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't have a "little voice." That is superstition. I use reason. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

It's easy to dodge the obvious with semantics. There is absolutely no question you (and all human beings) have a "little voice", that's not a superstition, that's a fact. The argument is about what is the driving force behind that little voice.

You claim that you simply rationalize everything out through the use of reason, and you are perhaps superior to moral codes found in religion. For example, you won't kill the little child because as you say you "have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer)." But if killing the little child would give you a billion dollars, you would kill the child because of the risk versus reward principle found in rationalization. The odds of that little girl inventing a cure for cancer are pretty remote. Furthermore, you might not ever contract cancer. But with a billion dollars you could finance a health care system that would further benefit you and those you deem worthy. That's "reason" at work and to you way of thinking that's much better than silly and archaic notions like "good" or "evil". [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think you have more of a stake in believing that a "non-believer" would like to kill a child for some kind of gain. I don't see it that way. I don't think there is anything that would make me kill a child. That's silly.
::Also, I don't have a "little voice" in my head. People who do I deem to be psychotic or lying. Simple as that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

A hypothetical argument takes a certain statement as an assumption and attempts to analyze it. You seem to be (perhaps intentionally) misunderstanding the hypothetical in the form in which it is presented. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend like you really don't understand because of inability to communicate.

Let's change the hypothetical slightly, you state there there is nothing that would make you kill a child. Why would you never kill a child? I understand that you base this decision on reason, but I don't understand the basis of your reason. Is your reason based upon moral codes? Aren't "moral codes" just superstition to help supress the will of the strong? Is your "reason" based upon what most helps society or is your reason based upon what most helps you? Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?

As the wise philospher Camus/Flippin says, ''Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.'' This is all well and good if one is perfect reasonable. But what about people who are unreasonable and who devise a meaning of life exemplified by people like Hitler, Jim Jones, Jeffery Dahmer, Stalin, and Charles Manson? By what right can we impose our value-system upon them?

By the same token, should each individual have the right, nay the duty, to devise his own code of laws and not wait for some legistlature or society to impose those laws upon them? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
.
==Trying to parse some of this==
:Since I consider myself a good communicator I will try and communicate with you.

:Okay, you said: "Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?" How could one do anything that helped society that didn't help oneself? Maybe I should try and explain that by asking is there really anything that one can do that helps society, yet hurts the self? If one takes an action that helps society, like picking up garbage alongside the road, does not that act help society? And if we agree that it does, how is one harmed by it?

:A reasonable person might say that the individual could get a sunburn. The individual could be hit by a truck. These are true statements, but the probability of these things happening is low (for the truck) and not that dangerous (for a sunburn). But what is the value of picking up debris left by less reasonable citizenry? Do we not gain as a society by having less trash by the roadside?

:A reasonable person might also say, yes, but must I pick up all the debris along the roadside? My answer would be no. The responsibility for cleaning up roadsides is spread equally between us all. We have a shared responsibility to do this because it helps the individual ''and'' the society.

:Now, you also mention examples like Hitler who reasoned that murdering Jews would benefit him. But is Hitler an example of a reasonable man? Honestly? Hitler was more likely sociopathic, which is a disorder that affects one's ability to reason. If we rely on reason to tell us that what is of the greatest benefit for society is of the greatest benefit for the individual, then opposing someone like Hitler, or another damaged person, is reasonable. Thus, we not only have a right to oppose them, we have an obligation to oppose them. Just as we have an obligation to oppose trash on the roadways.

:I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children? Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

:Finally, why do you feel the need to paint me as something less than moral? I have explained this repeatedly yet you do not understand. Is the failure to communicate really mine then? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not trying to paint you as immoral. I've said repeatedly I think you are moral. But I'm trying to work withing your framework to understand the truth (according to you) and I'm trying to understand the source of your morality. Where (according to you) does moral authority flow from?

I thought you said that morals comes from "reason". But as you describe it it seems that morals don't come from "reason", but from your rationalizations. I don't understand why you think your rationlizations are any more valid than the rationalizations of any other person? Of course, millions of Germans agreed with Hitler's rationalization. They were not '''all''' sociopaths. I assume that we agree their rationalization was flawed, but why is it flawed? This seems to indicate that there is some higher moral authority than rationalization. Is there some absolute code of moral authority, or were the Germans simply wrong because they lost the war? What does it matter if they were morally wrong anyway? That was in the past. There is no spiritual world and there is no God. Today is a new day. This is a new minute.

I think you're trying to claim that certain rationalizations is more valid than other rationalizations. If some rationalization is more valid than others, then why don't we as humans attempt to find the true source of the best rationalization possible and then follow that reasoning? If that is not a religion, what is that?

Secondly, I suppose I find it difficult to believe that anyone does anything simply because of "reasoning" alone. In my experince people do good things because it makes them feel good, not because they rationalized and reasoned away the degree of goodness vs. the effort required. Like every other human being, you sometimes do some bad things. After the commission of these acts of badness, why do you feel ''guilty''? If the ends justify the means there shoudl be no such thing as guilt.

Thirdly, what is the point of morality? Who cares? Why not take from the system whatever you can whenever you can. Your actions will not stop the world from spinning. You will not stop the stupid morons who worship the flying spaghetti monster, so why not exploit them? Then you can better use their resources, since you have a higher level of rationalization? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::# Rationalization seems to make the unreasonable, reasonable. That is what religion is for.
:::# Reason, as I have stated serves as a guide. It then becomes automatic.
:::# What you describe are the acts of a person that is unreasonable. I have addressed that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

What you haven't address is this: who defines what is reasonable? The guy with the biggest gun? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==The Theist answers==
Here are my answers to your questions:

The theistic-denier states:

::I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children?

I can think of many incidents of killing children which would benefit society. Our society could harvest children from poverty-stricken regions where resources are depleted and food-shortages are chronic. This is good for the environment and greatly reduces the chance that their children will suffer from famine. Then we could use those children to reseach cancer, AIDs and other diseases. Rather than working on cadavers, young doctors could practice their trade on these children. Then we could pulverize the remains and feed them to hogs. This would provide more food for other people. If you are opposed to killing (because of some fear of the mythic god) you could just enslave the children instead. We have plenty of jobs they can do which will help society more than some miserable existence in a barren wasteland.

Working strictly from a framework of reason and rationalization, why not kill children to better serve society? Furthermore, of course, this rational begs the question: why is the society of any importance at all? Why is "society" any bigger than the individual?

::Please, as one human being to another, it is much easier if you call me an agnostic--which is what I am. I don't call you a gods-worshipper, or whatever. (Jesusfreak I know is a popular perjorative that I don't use either. I am trying to be respectful.) I don't fear god--that isn't the reason to do/not do anything. I don't want anyone to kill me, so I don't kill others. Religion gives those who don't know why they do things a reason to say why they did. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Additionally, the "agnostic" asks:

::Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

Please understand that at this point, I'm not trying to prove to you my point of view. I'm trying to understand your point of view. So, while I believe that faith is the strongest barrier to crime that I know of, I won't bother to explain why I think this to you because you are clearly more enlightened than I. You've advance beyond the need for some silly god-figure.

What I would like to know is; what is your barrier to crime in the atheistic framework? It appears (based on my example above) that it is something other than reasoning, because I've proven how killing children can be good for society.

I'd be more than happy to answer why God allows suffering in the universe, but the answer to that question is pointless if we don't agree that God exists. Let's not waste time. Hypothetically, I'm agreeing with your argument that the fact that there is suffering in the universe is evidence that there is no god. Let's proceed along your path and see where it leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Religious faith is no more a barrier to crime than atheistic, or agnostic, moral reasoning. In Toronto sometime in the 70's the police went on strike. It took two hours for the first bank to be robbed, and at then end of the strike $3 million worth of damage had been done to shops and almost every bank in the city had been robbed. The vast majority of people who were arrested as a result of the crimes were religious. I'm not suggesting that therefore religion encourages crime, it just shows that it isn't such a barrier to crime as you would think. There is also anecdotal evidence that there are very few atheists and agnostics in prison compared to christians.

:The agnostic and atheistic framework is different from what you seem to think. The value of life is the most important part of my beliefs. This is not because of god or the bible, this is simply because those were the morals that i was brought up with and because they make the most logical sense. If life was not valued, then mass murders would be common and unnoticed as greedy people killed and stole to take what they wanted. This would lead to the breakdown of society as a whole. That is why enslaving and killing third world children is wrong, as they have exactly the same right to life that i do.

:This moral framework is far more effective as a crime barrier because people who use it have thought about why they think things are right and wrong from their own POV. Your framework comes from a book that was writtn 2000 years ago, and therefore not all its morals are up to date with the changing zeitgeist. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 26 April 2007

::You don't advance the argument by pointing to facts that don't answer my questions. This is what I call the ''magician's argument''. The magician's argument goes as follows: there is nothing in the hat therefore the rabbit from the hat must be magic. I don't care about your claims about religion of criminals. I'd like to have answers to my questions. As best as I can see your answer to my hypotheical question is to deny the framework of my hypothetical question. I can only assume that you refuse to answer this line of question undermines your belief set and that's why you won't answer.

::BTW, the reason I am pursuing this line of questions is not because I don't understand the atheistic point of view. I understand the false premises of atheism quite well. This is because for many years, I was an atheist. As I matured I came to realized just how much I didn't know. I still don't know what I don't know, but as the arrogance of youth recedes I begin to know how much I don't know. Thus, I realized atheism was naive and foolish, so I became an agnostic. Since that time, I learned more and came to believe that I am probably a [[deist]] but my search for truth continues. I may yet get more specific in my religious beliefs as I further mature. I will point out to you that it is a universal truth that as we get older we get wiser. It is not a coincidence that churches are full of old people. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:52, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what your point is here. Could you state, in just a sentence or two, what your hypothetical that we are ignoring is? Also, we may need to archive some of this (which I don't know how to do yet.) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:08, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The hypothetical (previously stated in a wildly exaggerated example) is: if in truth "reason" is your only guide and if in fact there is no soul, no spiritual world and no God, why do you do good things that don't follow reason? Why don't you do "bad" things that have perfectly good rationale? Your answer to the second question was: devise a better hypothetical because my reasoning is arbitrary and supports whatever rational I choose to follow. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Question==
Do you believe that there is absolute moral truth? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Please define an absolute moral truth? [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:08, 26 April 2007

==A place for a few more answers==

From the Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist:

"We have evolved the ability to empathize, to share the motivations and feelings of those around us. From this, we
have gained the ability to sympathize with the plight of others, to understand what may be causing them distress or
pain, and to wish, for their sake, that their suffering would stop. Armed with this sympathy, we act in a moral way to
prevent the distress and suffering of others. Our opinions on what constitutes a moral course of action may differ, but
the underlying sympathy is the same."

"With sympathy for others and recognition of the similarities between people, we each build an internal code of the
morality of our actions. We seek to protect innocent children, for we were once children ourselves and needed
protection. We seek a society that does not foster immoral actions, in order to protect the members of society like
ourselves. We feel and internalize various plights and pains of others in this process, and develop a true morality.
American revolutionary and President Thomas Jefferson put it well when he wrote in an 1814 letter, “Nature [has]
implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us
irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.”

Though I am sure this will mean little to a "deist" it is useful to those who at one time tried to find god but realized that the effort was too intellectually dishonest for them to ultimately accept. I think, Everwill, if you are really interested in learning about this and not just baiting the less conservative folk here, you might do well to read some of this material. http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thebgma/BGMA.pdf

::This is exactly my point, but I don't want to jam it down the throats of our resident atheists. Although they don't yet realize it, if you are a moral atheist, you are not an atheist at all, but rather you are a [[deist]]. The slippery slope is: once you realize you are a deist, you begin the search through religions to find a deeper meaning of life and learn more about the true nature of God. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:53, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:But that's just it--I am not a deist because I do not accept there is a god that needs to exist. If that means you are going to call me an atheist, fine, whatever, but otherwise there is no reason to be condescending about "poor little atheists." It just isn't necessary. We feel, if I may be so bold, that ''you'' are the one who is lost. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:14, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin this statement so far as I can tell doesn't seem to based upon reason but rather upon faith. As Thomas Jefferson (a deist) said, “Nature [has] implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.” In your "Nature" means "good luck" or at the very difference "luck". I don't see any difference between "good luck" and God. You think these are unrelated concepts, but I'm not sure why. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

If I sound condescending it is because you are no different from a fundamentalist muslim. That is you refuse to critically examine your belief set objectively. To answer hypothetical questions will lead you in a direction you refuse to go. You demand that others prove the unprovable as evidence that there is a God. Understand this: we agree that God is neither a flying spaghetti monster, nor a bearded old man laying on a cloud. Relax, I understand your position completely, because I've been where you are. It's okay. Each finds his own path in due time.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe there is a reason it is "unprovable." Truth be told, I think what passes for "good luck" is also random. Just as the rest of universe, this computer I'm typing on and the bowl of Cheerios I had for breakfast. It occurred through chance that this came about--not by a bearded man in the sky waving a wand. If you are looking for fantasy, watch Harry Potter or read the bible. I live in a world of facts and evidence and am content to do so until my lamp is extinguished. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I really have no idea what Harry Potter or the Bible has to do with the central question. After all this talking I have discerned (with much difficulty) that you attribute all that we see to "good luck". I call it "God" but I agree completely that whether it's just good luck or whether it is God this realization does not change reality. Other than that we are in complete agreement. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Good, we agree that god is a delusion based on random chance and superstition in the ill-informed mind. Glad to hear that, too. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

No. We agree that your misinformed characterization of the word "God" is the based on your perceptions about what you think God is. Since we agree that the universe is the product of luck, henceforth I will refer to the guiding force behind the universe as Luck so as to not offend your belief-set.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

''Don't you love how the Truth flows like water? No matter where you damn it up, it will still find the way. This is the miracle of Luck to me.'' [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:05, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

good lord this is boring.... [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

How 'bout I say "you win" and you evangelize someone else? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's "reasoning" for you ... heh ... [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, you win by attrition. Congrats. Now, I'll go back to not going to churc and telling school children there is no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Funny, you took the words right out of my mouth. ;-) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So, in fact this is not attrition or victory (I was never trying to win). Rather the discussion is at an end because you have refused to expand the boundaries of your perceptions. You came here believing that god was a myth and you continue to believe that god is a myth. You refuse to examine the implications of this possibility: myths are myths, but God is something else entirely. The thing you call Luck, I call God. That's called finding common ground. Your current problem is your very fearful of where that common ground might take you. It might shatter your arrogantly held belief-set.

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Which Religion is the true Religion?==

::You havea copy of the Bible in God's handwriting? Or you beleive that every step from initial writing, through every translation throughout time has been divinely guided to lay out His message clearly? So, which translation is the divinely guided one? And if He were so inclined to so specifically direct the writing ans subsequent translation of a book, might he not have made it a bit clearer which translation is correct, and which parts of the Bible can be taken literally and which are metaphors? You claim to know the difference... I've never seen that footnote anywhere in the Bible. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

This statement has nothing to do with this discussion. The arguments about "which translation" and "God's handwriting" are filed under "Which religion is the true religion?" and they have no bearing on whether atheism vs. deism. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The copies and translations of the Bible are very accurate, and accurate enough to know what God was saying. And the phrase "every translation through time" is quite misleading, as mot current English Bibles have been translated directly from the original languages, i.e. a one-step translation. It couldn't get much better than that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not prepared to defend the Bible as the "word of God", but I think it's an important question to examine, but I think it's a pointless discussion with those who haven't realized that there is a God. All your Bible proves to them is that someone wrote something a long time ago. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, but I am not someone who denies the existence of God, just one who does not accept that the Bible is literal truth. I personally beleive it to be mostly metaphorical, with some history thrown in, though I'd still never use it for a primary history source, even on mundane topics (i.e. who ruled where at what time... etc...) [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I am pretty much in agreement with you QNA. I'm willing to allow the possibility that Phil Rayment's opinions about the Bible is correct. At the same time, I doubt he's right about that. On the other hand, I think that denying the existance of God is silly. However, arguing the nature of God is a worthwhile endeavor. The Bible and other texts are useful in this exercise because we can learn a great deal from those who have gone before us and who have already had these same arguments.

::::I will say without equivocation that the "God doesn't exist because I don't believe in bearded guys in the clouds with a magic wand" is pretty much an argument made from a posiition of ignorance about what most knowledgeable people think about God and the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Good Luck==
Since all of the universe occurred out of good luck (according to Flippin), can we humans influence Luck? Should we attempt to commune with Luck? Do you think that hundreds of thousands of years ago, men (equally smart) pondered these same questions (since they didn't have a TV to occupied their evenings). Do you think luck, or perhaps Luck, resulted in the strange coincidence that after many generations the consensus view in every culture and society has always been that we can affect our luck by a combination of worshipping Luck and doing good things? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

No no no no no no no. The universe came to be the way it is due to the laws of physics etc, that so far have been proven to be as true as anything can be and apply to the universe exceedingly well. Add to this the theory of evolution, and yes there are one or two holes there, but soon we will have filled them all. The process of life is an attempt to discover things. You may say that we believe that we came here due to luck however i do not believe this to be true. We came here because of a reason that i do not know. However i have faith that i will not remain ignorant forever, and that soon we will know and we need not invoke luck or god to describe how we got here.

I sympathise with you because of your above description of how you came to be a deist, however there are a few things that you might need to consider again. Firstly that just because we dont know something does not mean that we will always not know it. Look at the progress science has made over the past 500 years. We have gone from believing that the earth is at the centre of the universe and that the world is only 6000 years old, to the earth being just one planet revolving around an unremarkable star and is over 4 billion years old. Consider what we may discover in the next 500 years as our technology continues to progress and we begin to explore space outside the playground of the solar system. I would not be surprised if within my lifetime, we have an explanation for how life started and a reason for the big bang that does not rely on some higher being.

As an aside i think that to say that as you grow older you grow wiser is slightly misguided. Yes a some people do because they have more experience and they have the foresight to use that to plan there future. However a large part of the human population does not use this experience at all, and simply assumes that they know best because they are older not because they are wiser.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:27, 27 April 2007

Debate:Is religion morally wrong?

2007-04-27T07:13:54Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Is Atheism Ridiculous? */

{{debate}}
==Yes==
anything that teaches young children to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question, and then teaches them that anyone who does not believe what they do is wrong and needs to have their immortal soul 'saved' is morally wrong. as well as that, waging wars against "non-believers" or "infidels" and killing thousands of millions of people, puts religion in the morally wrong category. as in interesting aside, the link to this debate is actually titled "is athiesm morally wrong?" which may need to be fixed. --[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30 (EDT)
: Done. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::''Wha' ...?'' Anyone who thinks that religion teaches one "to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question" just plain doesn't understand any religion to which I have ever been exposed. However, I'm pretty sure I can guess why your so confused.

::There is a belief, which is generally held by most religions and most people over the age of 30, that human nature is constant. Moral codes, philosophy and religion are built upon assumptions about the constants of human nature. In this way, moral codes are similar to alegbra. Algebra is built upon a foundation of unchanging constants. Math is unchanging. Human nature is unchanging. Therefore, each generation doesn't need to reinvent algebra. Similarly, each generation needn't rediscover the reason that people devised certain moral codes which were based upon countless generations of knowledge about human nature and where then incorporated into religion and philosophy.

::This does not mean that the field of mathemics should cease to expand. This does not mean that curiosity is bad. This means that we already know that 1+1=2. We already know what happens to civilizations and societies where wild sexual activities are encouraged. This does not mean that we stop digging up fossils. This does mean that we don't kill unborn children to expiriment on them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::(wow, first ever post on a debate page!) Everwill, I would argue that human nature '''is''' changing and most certainly can't be likened to algebra. Algebra is indeed definite. It always follows the same rules reagrdless of the complexity of the problem. Surely, you can't say that human nature is like that? The scale of variation is unimaginable!

:::Also, in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher. Or, they are taught in a slanted view, which distorts the truth. All this because those parents or teachers seem afraid that their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught! That '''is''' morally wrong. The choice should be the child's not the elders'. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a reason that William Shakespeare's dramas, King David's tribulations & and the Andy Griffith show (how's that for a unexpected twist?) are timeless stories that affect us in the same way as when they affected those to whom these stories were first told. They affect us all the same way because human nature does not change. The truth is we all love, hate, breath, live and die. The human condition is infinitely variable, but human nature is constant. Of course, there are countless examples of this simple and plainly evident truth. I'm quite sure I'm not the first one to tell you that human nature is the same. In fact, this truth is the foundation of our concepts of equality and our freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

::I don't want to spend a lot of time defending something that is an elemental and accepted truth spanning time, civilizations and belief systems. This is because I'm not sure whether you're denying the fact that human nature is universal because you are ignorant (unlikely) or because you are intellectually dishonesty (my guess). In either case, it would consume far too much time to explain to you the definition of human nature to your liking. But I what I can posit in reply is an answer to your simple question: there are absolutes in morality, just as there are absolutes in algebra. For example, murder is always wrong. There is no compromise in this principle.

::''As a quick aside I must note that I always find it humorous when people (usually liberals) stereotype the upbringing found in fundamentalist religious groups.''

::To your point, it is true that "in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." But guess what, you've just proven my point. This is because, EVERY SINGLE human that ever reached adulthood was "brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." '''DUH!'''

::It is possible that your theory is true. Perhaps, teachers and parents want to shield children from outside influences because "their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught!" But who do you think is most likely to have the child's best interests at heart? I would presume that a child's parents and that child's teachers want what is best for the child. I think you are implying that the pornographers, salesmen, MTV, rappers, strangers and passerby's---all of whom the child might find more interesting (and more permissive) than the parents and teachers---are better for the child? You think it's better that the child find out (the hard way) the lessons which the parents and grandparents into the mists of history, have already found out? Preposterous. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not argueing that modern celebrities are the way forwards by any means. The messages put forward by that group does not teach very good lessons for kids (or adults!). I'm merely pointing out that the near brainwashing of the young by their parents and teachers with regards religious teaching is also wrong and can teach a child "bad" things. An example would be homosexuality. Kids in religious families who think they might be gay receive no support from parents who believe that homosexuality is bad, simply because it is the parents belief. Surely a parents love for their child should come before their religion?

:::I am not being intellectually dishonest, just ignorant (ha like thats any better!). What I thought you meant by human nature isn't what is used in the definitions I found on the internet. I took human nature to be the general world viewpoint held by each individual person; where there is substantial difference!

:::I think argueing that children should accept what their parents tell them because they have learnt it from their experience is flawed. Every person has a different PoV so will experience things differently. If a child recieves all their advice from a parent who sees the world entirely differently to them, what will that child think of themselves? Is that fair on the child? A parent should be there for guidance, yes, but not for absolute teaching. To relate this to religion: religion is a predetermined set of "rules" that followers must stick to. Choosing a religion (and its rules) is a personal choice. Parents will naturally try to enforce their beliefs and rules on their children, thereby removing their choice to religion and actions, which is removing their freedom to be themselves. Surely that is a terrible wrong to do to that child? I am not argueing that children should be given no rules, nothing of the sort. I am merely saying that the rules given to a child by their parents should not be based on the religion of the parent(s) as that is a moral wrong to that child. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I see. By your logic the child should have rules and the rules should come from the parent (sort of) but the parent shouldn't base the rule structure or belief set upon something found in religion. Instead, you believe that religion must be by a higher and more correct authority. And just who is that authority? ''Will & Grace''? Madonna & Britney? Who is this higher and more perfect authority? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to enjoy mentioning celebrities...perhaps they have affected you more than you think. Their ability to corrupt is unbounded! I don't know what you mean by "religion must be by a higher and more correct authority". I am merely argueing for separation of of religious doctrine from a child's upbringing. Yes, make a child aware of their parents belief, why they believe it, etc., but don't "force it down their necks" or make them feel bad for "not believing". That is what I find to be morally wrong about religion: the automatic assumption of parents that their children should follow in their beliefs. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

a childs parents should bring up their children to be open to new ideas and to trust their senses and logic in ideological matters. religion of any kind does not allow this to be taught to children. as well as this, many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is a false characterization of religion, perhaps based in ignorance. Every major religion teaches personal accountability and free will. Therefore, religion encourages children (and everyone else) to "trust their senses and logic in ideological matters." Religion is a framework to assist in decision making. Religion does not take personal responsiblity or logic from anyone. (Perhaps you should read a bit of C.S. Lewis or Thomas Aquinas to better acquaint yourself with the value of logic to the Christian mind.)

::You state (no caps and no punctuation are all yours): "many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are." Who knows better what the child's best interests are? The media? The government? The child? Who?

::I'm glad we're having this discussion, mostly because it's apparent that you are the victim of the propaganda of another religion. You're repeating the mantra of the liberal religion, which teaches that all religions are equal and there are no moral boundaries. Your religion might be the "one true" religion, but I doubt it.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

The childs best interests are known only by the child itself. I do not mean to say that no parents ever get it right, or wrong, however what is in the childs best interests is not to foist a belief system on him/her without letting him/her have any choice or free will in the matter. The majority of religions (liberal or fundamentalist) do not encourage children to take advantage of their natural curiosity and explore all the possibilities of logic and science, as they see science as a threat to their belief system. Just as an example, the enactment of hell that occurs in an American state led by Pastor Ted Roberts which attempts to scare children into beliveing in God by scaring them with the sheer horror of the act. This would be dismissed as simply a fringe sect, however the supporters of this pastor, in his home state (i apologise for not knowing which state this is) number around 3 million. This is only one example of the methods used by religious leaders to force children into mindlessly believing what they are told. Another example is the muslim state of Saudi Arabia, where simply being of another faith or of no faith at all, is punishable by beheading. Note the similar use of fear tactics in both cases here. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:54, 19 April 2007

::What you're trying to say makes sounds ridiculous to me, but perhaps this is because we have not agreed to what the meaning of the word "child" is. Please allow me to insert a few definitions so that I don't miss your point and vice-versa.

:::* ward --- someone incapable of making personal decisions for some reason or another. There are several types of ward:
::::* child --- This individual cannot make personal decisions because they have not reached maturity (generally 17 and under). Children might step into traffic. Children might drink poison. Children can be cultivated into giving sexual favors to pedofiles. For all these reasons and many more, "parents" (''defined below'') make decisions for parents.
::::** mental defective --- This individual has poor reasoning skills or does not understand reality. For this reason "parents" or care-takers must make decisions for the mental defective
::::** sick or enfermed --- This individual might be in a coma. This individual might be extremely sick or otherwise unable to communicate. Thus, caretakers or "parents" must make decisions for this individual.

:::* parent --- one (ideally of two) individuals responsible for the care and nuturing of a ward or child

:::* adult --- An individual who is mentally competant and mature and thus has the free will to make any decisions they want so long as they don't violate the laws of the community where they reside.

::Children, and in fact, all other wards, need people to care for them and to make decisions for them. I'm quite sure there are a good many teenagers who would agree with your ridiculous notion that children make should make their own decisions, but most adults and most parents today (and throughout history) have come to agree that it is both unwise and unsafe to grant complete and total freewill to children (perhaps most especially teenagers). This is because children don't alwasy make good decisions. Children are easily swayed and they don't have the normal defenses of doubt and fear of strangers to protect them.

::This is a plain, simple and accepted truth. I'm not sure what possible connection that has to anything Ted Roberts ever said or did. Whether Ted Roberts or Jeffrey Dahmer or Hitler is a bogeyman or not, that doesn't change the fact that children need parents. I guess what you'll have to accept is that some parents will raise children who don't agree with your beliefs. I'm quite comfortable with the fact that not all parents or people agree with me. I much too busy and quite frankly don't feel the need to tell other people how to raise their children. I doubt you have any idea what any of the parents in former Pastor Robert's church are teaching their children. I thought liberals believed in tolerance and diversity? Why can't you tolerate their differences and celebrate their Christian diversity?

::What would you like to see in Saudi Arabia, a crackdown on parents? Do you want to take the children from their parents and raise them yourself? Have you ever considered the possiblity that the concept (called "fascism") of imposing your values upon others is wrong-heaed and evil? Don't you think Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live? Are you trying to suggest that the US should invade Saudi Arabia and replace the mullahs with ACLU? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No i am not attempting to say much of that, i think that you are right in that i have misunderstood the point that you were making. I do apologise for that. What i would like to say in regards to your previous point, is that while i agree that parents should have the role in making decisions for their children (with an increasing amount of input from the child as they grow older) at the same time, they should not force their beliefs onto their children and, where possible, educate them enough so that they have the intelligence and a high enough level or reasoning to be able to make their own decision in matters of faith and belief. While a lot of parents do this, i believe that the majority don't, although i am willing and hoping to be proven wrong. I do belive in tolerance and diversity, but that is what my main problem with religion is. Religion tends to preach the opposite of this, generally against other faiths but also against homosexuals and other groups that seem to break the rules of their faith. I do think that Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live, however i think that maybe a lot do not want to live the way they do, and that another large number would not want to live that way, if they were not devout muslims. I honestly think the US should keep out of the middle east in general, as the problems it has caused there seem to be greater then the amount solved, however that is not the topic on discussion here. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:56, 20 April 2007

:This debate title seems to be relatively unfocussed, but the debate itself seems to have settled down into a focussed discussion of whether or not it is morally right for religions to pass on their codifications, conventions and beliefs to their children in a manner which could be construed as 'indoctrination'. [[Richard Dawkins]] makes the point that it would not be acceptable in today's society to label children as 'a Democrat Child' or 'a Republican child', nor to set up schools which say that we are going to only teach 'Democrat' values in this school, and to only honour Democrats. However, it does appear to be acceptable to have 'catholic' scools, catholic, muslim and hindu children. Why is this? Any Religion and or Political Stance, when it comes down to it are idealogies, and have many parallels in the way they are dogmatic about the way that adherents should behave. They both present strong arguments as to the way that you should treat knowledge, evidence, and all present a very biased world view. This is fine if you are an adult, and you understand the rules, and you know that this is the way the world works, and that you have a choice about whether to question or to belive at all; but if you are an uimpressionable youngester you could be scarred for life: 'Give me a child until he is seven...."

There is a very strong argument to say that we should NOT allow people to present contraversial points of view to children AS IF these were uncontestable facts. This, after all, is the arguments of the creationists against evolution. They maintain children should be exposed to both points of view. However, I cannot imagine that any catholic school would suggest teaching that God may or may not exist, and allowing children to experience both the sacrament and the indoctrination ceremony of freemasons, and asking them to compare & contrast!--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 04:18, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Thankyou Felix for articulating what i was attempting to say, and i apologise again to Everwill for not wording my arguement very clearly. Having attended an anglican school till i was 13, i never was fully concious that they did not present their teachings as anything other then indisputable fact and that we were expected to believe that without question. The other thing that struck me was that i was never allowed to avoid communion on the basis that i was an atheist, while one of my friends who was jewish was excused. It was almost as if they rathered that we believed in a god, even if it is a slightly different set of beliefs that come attached, than that we had no beliefs at all. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30, 20 April 2007

::Bolly, it sounds like you're trying to impose your own parental issues on others. I understand that you thought you were an atheist and yoru parents wanted to impose their theistic beliefs on you. The fact is, they have every right to impose these theistic beliefs on you. After you come of age, you can think or do anything you like. It would appear that they weren't too oppressive and it would appear they were quite open-minded because they raised an atheist. It would appear that you are the one who is oppressive because you want to raise other children to think like you. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:15, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

No, my parents are both atheists as well, the only reason i went to that school was because it was the best school in the area. However adults do not have the right to impose their theistic beliefs on their children, just as they have no right to impose their political ideologies on them. Children are trusting of their parents because in the majority of situations their parents are doing what is best for them. What i believe parents should do is to raise their children to be open minded about belief regardless of their own beliefs. Therefore any parents should educate their children about different faiths (including atheism although it is not really a faith) in a totally balanced and fair manner with no predjudice. This allows children to make up their own mind about their own personal beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:48, 21 April 2007

::Ever wonder why the religious school was the best school in the area? Have you ever once considered the possibility that this school was better because the religious school wasn't attempting to relearn the lessons of the past? This school already had a functioning set of moral codes and they didn't need to wander through the maze of pitfalls in our new ACLU-friendly world of multi-culturalist moral equivelancy? Or perhaps you think the school was better because of dumb luck?

::As defined above, adults do not have the right to impose their beliefs on children. However, ''parents'' have a right (and more importantly a duty) to impose their beliefs on children. Parents should educate their children in the way that feels best to them.

::But what you fail to comprehend is that '''anything''' you teach children is a view point. You're just upset because you want everyone else to teach your view point. Your viewpoint embraces moral equivalism and the belief that all religions are equal. That is a viewpoint. It may or may not be valid, but the fact is, it is a viewpoint. It is just another value-set. It may or may not be more valid than the values of another parent. That's an argument that can be had, but it's not at issue here.

::The issue is that you want other parents to teach their children what you believe. Furthermore, you think it's immoral that they won't teach their children your values. Don't you think that's a little silly? Do you think you're any different from the fundamentalist Christians who are upset because you're not teaching your child about Jesus? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 05:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Imposing values on other people's children==

Yes i did think about why my school was the best school in the area. The reason was that it was the richest, as it was a private school and charged massive fees for attendance. And its moral codes are almost indistinguishable from the school i attended after, which was an international college and had no religious affiliation. No adults do not have a right to impose their beliefs on children. Parents also do not have this right. To impose a personal belief on a trusting child is not morally right. Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe. I believe that all parents should teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice. Up until a certain age, say 13, children cannot believe in anything purely because it makes sense to them and, if allowed by their parents, many children do make up their own religion for a while or switch repeatedly between religions until they reach a point of maturity where they can make a choice based upon what they have learned. Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:37, 21 April 2007

::You absolutely don't make any sense. I always think ''ad hominem'' attacks are inappropriate, so I hope I don't sound like I'm attacking you, but based upon the evidence (spelling, grammatical & punctuation errors) I'm beginning to doubt your claim that your private school was the best in the area. Furthermore, I doubt that the religious indoctrination in your school was oppressive based upon the fact that you obviously attended the school, but don't share the school's values. I can't help but tell you that once again you have posted something which does not make logical sense.

::You wrote:
:::"''Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism.''"
::Of course exploiting anyone (most especially children) is never morally right. This is because according to Merriam Webster Online "exploit" means "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <''exploiting migrant farm workers''>". But you haven't laid even a meager basis for this wild accusation. Who are you accusing of exploiting children and for what gain? Are you trying to say that parents are exploiting their own children? What do parents gain from that?

::You write,
:::"''Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe.''"
::In the first sentence you describe your "beliefs" (which is just a different term for your "religion") and furthermore you demand that parents teach their children your values. In the second sentence you state the exact opposite. Perhaps the silliest thing you imply is that it is somehow dangerous or bad to trust your parents and teachers. If one can't trust ones parents or teachers, then who can one trust?

::I very seriously doubt you have learned much if anything through this process you describe above. I doubt you have tested how the world works to verify the claims of teachers and parents. For example, I'm pretty sure you trusted your Driver's Education teacher when he told you that "green means go". You didn't feel the need to experiment with driving on red first. I doubt you ever verified any claims made in the DMV Manual by using the scientific method and a double-blind study. I'm pretty sure that you trust that when you flip a light switch and turn on the boob-tube that electrons will serve your will and pleasure. But, I doubt you have actually flown a kite in a thunderstorm to verify that electricity exists. By the same token, I doubt you need to violate any of the Ten Commandments to agree that these simple laws are for the benefit of all of humanity. I'm sure you agree that children don't need to experiment with adultery, murder or lying. They're better off just taking their parents' word that these are bad things.

::The reason you agree is because it's just plain silly to waste time verifying every claim of trusted parents and teachers. Therefore, the issue for you is not that "children need to reason things on their own".

::The real issue for you is that you are an atheistic evangelist and you are frustrated because some people aren't open to receiving your message. You are frustrated because some people trust their parents more than they trust you.

::Buck up, trooper. You should satisfy yourself with the many victories of the secular progressive agenda. For example, traditional parents were forced to allow people like you to ban prayer and religious discussion from our schools. This should satisfy you. Now you can safely raise your children without fear that they will overhear a prayer and thus they might accidentally become infected with religion. You have successfully had the 10 Commandments removed from many courtrooms. Be happy because you've already won all you can logically win.

::The only thing left for you is to take away more freedom from others to practice their religion and teach their religion to their children. You're not satisfied with leaving them to do what they want to do. Instead, you want to teach other people's children to force parents (and I quote) to "''teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice.''" Why do you feel the need to force other people not to talk about religion until the child is thirteen?

::My guess is that you believe this because you can't seem to understand that your personal opinion about religion '''is''' just another religion. I'm quite sure that you are trying to be a good person. I'm quite sure that you want to teach other people your religion because you want what's best for the child. But in America we have a concept called "Freedom of Religion". Because of our Freedom of Religion, you are prohibited from ramming your value-set down the throats of other people's children.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I admit you have quite easily picked out some flaws in the way i have argued my point, and you are right in about that paragraph where i contradict myself. I shall attempt to explain myself more clearly. I do not think all children should be taught my beliefs. That is the most important part. My beliefs are of the atheistic kind, as you already know. What i think is that children should not be indoctrinated into any religion or set of beliefs. If the person chooses at a later date to be a christian or muslim or atheist, good on them. But, to come to your point on how we trust what certain people tell us about certain things, like the driving instructor when it comes to driving and so on, children trust their parents. That is because the vast majority of parents do have their childrens best interests in mind all the time. However some do use this trust, often without intending to, to teach their child to believe what they believe about God, or lack thereof (you are right about exploiting, it was the wrong word to use in that situation). My arguement in a nutshell: Children should have freedom of religion. What i mean by that is that they should not be influenced by their parents. Because many people do not have freedom of religion, in America or elsewhere (i should point out that freedom of religion is part of the Australian constitution as well) as they did not realise they had a choice. They have always been brought up to believe that Christianity was right, or that Islam was right, etc. and because it is from their parents whom they trust, they do not question this, and they are often denied the tools with which to apply logic to religious arguements.

Just as an aside to my main point, the ten commandments aren't actually such a great set of morals to live by. The very first commandment violates freedom of religion : thou shalt worship no other god but me. Also, according to the commandments, disrespecting your parents results in being stoned to death. And to compound it, thou shalt not kill, does not apply to people who are not the same religion as you. When taken the way they were intended, they aren't such a good set of morals to live by. [[User:Bolly Ottihw:Bolly Ottihw]] 14:57, 23 April 2007
::I won't waste time defending the Ten Commandments, something I belive to be a foundation of everything good in Western Civilization. The courts have agreed to remove the Ten Commandments from public life and I am not in a position to change the law, so I obey the law.

::But I will repeat the following in the hopes that you might understand this concept. Your opinion about religion, in other words "your personal definition of freedom of religion" is just another religion. It is clear that you want other parents to teach your definition of "freedom of religion" to other children.

::It may offend your sensibilities, but some people don't agree with your opinions about religion. In American, they don't have to agree with you. They can believe whatever they want. Thus, most American parents teach their children that America is a free country, where people can believe whatever they want. Further, they teach their children their own family's values and religion. Some people are Baptists or Muslims or Hindus. Some people (like you) prefer like to teach their children to sample a hodgepodge of all religions so that they will better understand atheism. That is their right. Please don't take it away from them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Selective application of logic==
Isn't it amusing that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age, but the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, i disagree (although of course i would, i am a so-called liberal). I think that the reason is that there are facts about sex and that religion is more hazy, in that there is very little proof on both sides of the arguement, and it becomes philosophical which is harder for a child to deal with. However i think that sex education should start at around age 13, which is about the same time i think children should start to seriously consider their religion or beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 15:03, 23 April 2007

You disagree with what? You disagree with:
::* The assertion that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age;
::* The assertion that the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age;
::* With the idea of teaching children family values;
::* With the idea of teaching children regilious values;
::* With the idea that sex education should be postponed;
::* All of the above;
::* Something else?

You don't make much sense to me.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Aside from the fact that you've ignored the bulk of what Bolly wrote and focused mainly on a fairly trivial thing that he said, you seem to think that "we" (being us liberal bods) are applying selective logic by saying we should teach about "sex" and not religion. In fact, by your reasoning, "you" (being the conservative bunch) are applying the same selective logic by saying that we should teach religion but not teach "sex". A horrible dilemma for you, don't you think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::1. I've not ignored anything anyone said. Please explain.

::2. I'm sorry that I've seemed to confuse you. Please allow me to explain my interpretation of the conservative position on the education of sex and the education of religion.
:::* One should teach children family values, morals and religion at an early age. This is for the child's benefit and for the benefit of mankind. (As an adult they can do whatever they would like to do, provided they don't break the law.)
:::* Regarding sex, the conservative position is that it is desirable to prolong the child's innocence by postponing sex education as long as possible.
::I'm sorry if this flavor of common sense offends you. Furthermore, I'm sorry but I can't begin to understand why this common sense would support in any way the ridiculous notion that "religion is morally wrong" by ''any'' definition of "religion" as posted below by another editor. As best as I can figure from the poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled statements above here's what I suppose the liberal position is:
:::* One should not teach children about religion because religion is evil. They won't come to realize how evil religion is until they reach 13 to 25 (commonly known as the Age of Rebellion). As a quick aside, it is a universal truth that the older people become, the wiser they become. I wonder why churches are full of old people?
:::* One should teach children about sex as soon as they are old enough to masturbate. This is because masturbation is healthy and can lead to an active and enjoyable sex life. It's important for children to understand the dangers of STD's and how to avoid pregnancy through the use of pills and condoms. Furthermore, all children should be aware if a little girl wants want an abortion, she can safely get an abortion without her parent's ever even knowing that she was pregnant. In this way she can continue with the lifestyle of her choosing without parents invading her right to privacy. If a child has a child and ends up dependent on the parents or the system, it's the conservative's fault for not talking about birth control more.
::Please correct me if I've mistated the liberal position.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You ignored the fact that Bolly made a valid point about the definition of fact and religion, and the age at which children should be educated about "sex".

:::Secondly, you say yourself that the statements written above are "poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled" and then go on to derive a definition from them!? Surely a better course of action would have been to take the definition from some credible source? As to what you have said, I would agree with most of what you define the conservative view to be, apart from teaching children a specific religion at an early age. I suppose it comes down to setting an age where innocence is lost (and I doubt many are naive enough to think that that is the age of consent). People under the age of 16 will have sex (not all, but some) and if no sex education is available for them, what sort of experiences will they have? Is it not better that from a certain age (and I would say that 13 is a good age for this to start) children are introduced to the idea of safe sex, with few (and preferably one) partner(s)?

:::You're right though, we have divulged from the debate topic, but this is an interesting tangent to the debate which I would very much like to continue if you care to carry on? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::For the second time, I'm ignoring Bolly's "valid point" because I have no clue what you are talking about. I didn't read any valid point which wasn't addressed ''ad nauseum'' already. Please read the dialogue to this point if you are confused as to why I think it's ridiculous (and invalid) to demand that other people teach their children ''your'' values. I've already explained why this is ridiculous above.

::I attempted to derive a definition from Bolly's statement only to appease your pretense of indignation when you accused me of ignoring Bolly's alleged "points". By your reaction, I'm now assuming that you just haven't read the entire argument yet and that you concur, Bolly made no points in the gibberish above. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

My point was that i think that children should be educated about sex and religion at the same age. This is because it is the age where both become major issues for children growing up. Please do explain how this is hard to understand, and how this is a selective application of logic. (I apologise for my poor grammar, it is because i write my line or thought and arguement down the same way i would say it out loud) [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:42, 24 April 2007

::You don't need to keep writing the same thing over and over and over. We already understand your opinion about how ''you think'' things should be. You've made that quite clear.

::What you still don't seem to understand is that you don't have the right to tell other people how to live, nor do you have the right to teach other children your beliefs. That's pretty self-centered. You're self-centered nature is further evidenced by the fact that you admission that you would prefer to force others to spend their precious time deciphering your cryptic musings directly from your stream of consciousness, rather than taking the time and effort to write coherent sentences with good spelling and grammar. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Age at which sex education should be taught==

Regarding the interesting tangent: to what particularly are you referring? Are you trying to debate the age at which sex education should be imposed upon children?

This is a complicated issue because there are several related factors. Most churches teach that sex outside of marriage is adultery, a sin and a mistake. But it is my personal opinion, that church and religion is a guideline and the morals espoused therein are ideals. Ideally one never lies. Ideally one never commits adultery. But here in the real world, there are a good many liars and adulterers (myself included in both counts). Additionally, most parents think that sex under the age of 18 is a mistake. Most everyone agrees that sex under the age of 16 is a mistake. Does it happen in the real world? Yes it happens. Beyond the basic biological functions of sex, sexuality is about morality. Certainly every child over the age of 13 should be taught something about the biology of sex. But what of the morality of the sex, the politics of sex and the religious or spiritual aspects of sex? These are much more complicated and personal issues and these issues should be handled within the family.

I think it's important to teach young teens "where babies come from." I think it's important to leave discussions about homosexuality, adultery and abortion to the family and church. But my original point is not that I presume to know how or when to push sex education. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:What i find interesting is that you assume that the church knows more about homosexuality than homosexuals. And regarding this, the church brings 2000 year old arguements to this subject without considering how it applies in todays society. In the past homosexuality would not have been profitable as it would not have benifited the tribe in anyway compared to heterosexual sex. In this age, there is no lack of benefit from not having children and so there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. The other thing i disagree with is that here is a religious aspect to sex. Sex should be a coupling between two people who share a great love between each other. Again, that doesnt always happen, however it is essential that children learn this at the same time they learn about the biological side of sex. [[Bolly ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:47, 24 April 2007

::Of course, that's your opinion and your entitled to it. You've got a right to live your life however you want. For me the choice is obvious. On one hand I have 2000 to 10000 years of wisdom. On the other hand, there's some dude on the Internet {{strike personal remark|who doesn't know how to write proper English, but }} who claims to know more than the Church, and Thomas Aquinas. All I ask is that you let others live their lives the way they want. Is that too much to ask? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Did you just make a personal remark? (I should block your account for 1 second. ;-)

I apologize if I offended anyone. I don't believe in ''ad hominem'' attacks. I think they are rude and pointless. However, if someone admits that they don't write properly in a forum where writing is the only means of communication, then they have openned the door to commentary by others. I'm quite sure you're just kidding anyway, I hope this doesn't sound too stern. I'm just tired right now. I was up late, up early and I'm facing a long day. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Atheists have it all figured out ... ==
My point above in ''Selective application of logic'' is that it looks very hypocritical for liberals to want to teach children about sex as young as possible, but the same crowd doesn't want to teach children religion until after they are suspectible to corruption and experimentation.

What amateur philosophers like Bolly don't seem to understand is that theologians, philosophers and generations of people with more time on their hands than all of us have already put a great deal of effort and experimentation into evolving a set of moral codes and sound religious creeds. Bolly is naive enough to expect the unreasonable notion that any '''one''' man can compete with the thoughts and knowledge of countless generations who have gone before him. He honestly thinks he can invent a personal philosophy and religious-code based upon his individual experiences. He believes that his own personal philosophy can rival the combined thoughts of generations of philosophers and theologians.

/begin rant: We as modern humans don't have to invent medicine, or geology, or build a TV set and write computer code. That's already been done by others! We can stand on their shoulders. Can you imagine how silly and presumptive it sounds to those former atheists like myself when they read that Bolly thinks he knows how the universe works and that he can definitively say that he understands the nature of God?

Bolly doesn't know the first thing about God or philosophy, but he wants to teach other people's children his credo of experiment with all religions and then become an atheist. I know why [[Thomas Aquinas]] and [[Socrates]] and even [[Aleister Crowley]] are famous (or infamous as the case may be), but I don't know why Bolly presumes to know what's best for other people's children. /end rant.

You don't have to invent moral codes or laws or waste time experimenting with life's dead-ends. You can look up the answer in the book of your choice and things will be so much easier for you.

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I have explained that it is not hypocritical, as i believe they should be taught at the same age, neither
before the other.

I am not naive enough to think that i can rival any of the great philosophers in logic and philosophy, however i dont think i would have any trouble outthinking Thomas Aquinas, for example. The reason for this is that he (and others like him) used their religious credibility to establish themselves as philosophical geniuses when in fact, he was not much smarter then anyone of the time, and certainly not smarter then the average uni graduate today. This can be amply demonstrated by his '5 proofs' of gods existence which are more full of holes than a swiss cheese.

To compare moral codes to medicing or geology is not an adequate comparison. The basic ideas of medicine and geology are based on sound proof and will not change much within the next thousand years. On the other hand, moral codes are always changing depending on the society that they are employed by. Look at the change in opinion about non-caucasian people over the past 200 years! only 100 years ago it was considered the height of stupidity to consider an african american the equal of a white man, yet today, even though there is still far to much prejudice in the world, it is generally accepted that there is no difference between any of the races of humanity. The great thinkers of one age would be considered backwards and redundant if they were transported in time to today.

I do not presume to know the nature of god. I do know, within myself, that god does not exist and i am content with that knowledge. You say you were an atheist, i would like to know what converted you to christianity.

No you do not need to waste time experimenting with dead ends, however because i believe in freedom of religion, i think it would only be fair that children are shown all the alternative modes of beliefs.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:00, 24 April 2007

::Fine. Show your children and leave others alone.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== This is an invalid question ==

I've stayed away from the debates on Conservapedia, and this one is an example of why. I'm only here now because I was asked for my input.

The problem with the question is that "religion" is not defined. On my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment#.22Religion.22 Wikipedia user page] I've listed some of the main ways that the word "religion" is used:
{{QuoteBox|
# A set of beliefs on which one bases one's life
# Belief in a deity or deities (e.g. Christianity is a religion)
# A particular set of rituals (e.g. He is practising his religion)
# A particular broad set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Christian, Muslim, or Hindu?)
# A particular narrower set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Methodist, Baptist, or Catholic?) }}

I further say there:
{{QuoteBox|No. 2 is, in my opinion, an arbitrary subset of No. 1. People believe in multiples gods (polytheism), everything-is-god (pantheism), one god (monotheism) or no god (atheism). Pantheism and atheism don't fit into definition No. 2, yet to consider them somehow "different" is arbitrary and self-serving ... . Thus I use definition No. 1 in preference to No. 2, and argue that atheism (and related views such as secular humanism) are religions, every bit as much as Christianity is. The difference is simply how many gods one believes in.}}

So if "religion" is a worldview (or ''ideology'' if you prefer), then it follows that ''everybody has one'', by its very nature and definition. How can one then ask if it is morally wrong?

Of course the person who asked the question obviously didn't have that definition in mind. But which one did he have?

To a Christian, Christianity is No. 1: a core set of beliefs on which one bases one's life. I would hope that it is obvious even to atheists that one cannot help but base one's actions on one's beliefs. So in that sense, "religion" comes before children, because when dealing with children, one ''must'' deal with them according to one's beliefs. That is why everyone, even atheists, do so.

To an atheist (who conveniently would not describe atheism as a religion), "religion" is a "optional extra". And on that basis, clearly children's welfare should come before "optional extra" beliefs.

To recap, the problem here is that there is no definition of what is intended by "religion" in this question, let alone any actual agreement by opposing viewpoints.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

This is dead-on correct. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

We do not 'conveniently' choose not to describe atheism as a religion. Atheism is defined as : a lack of belief. Lack of belief is not a religion. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:02, 24 April 2007

:Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is an ardent ''belief'' that there is no God. And even ignoring that point, you ''do'' have core beliefs, which can be considered your worldview/ideology/religion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:23, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is. When split up: A-Theism. no-belief. I do not ardently believe god does not exist. I dont think god exists. If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic.

I do have core beliefs. That does not consitute religion except in your definition. And i would argue that that is not religion, that is simply morality dressed up. My worldview is not my ideology or religion, because it would be a really weird religion compared to the main ones around today.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:57, 24 April 2007

:According to the Oxford dictionary[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk], the "atheism" means "the belief that God does not exist". The prefix "a-" can mean "without", but it can also mean "not", and "theism" is a reference to God, not just belief. Not all atheists hold their belief in no god as strongly, but for many atheists, it is a ''belief'' in no god.
:It is not "my definition". It is one of several dictionary definitions. The rest of your last two sentences don't make sense. You have not explained how atheism is not a religion yet Christianity is. As I quoted myself above, any such distinction is arbitrary and self-serving.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Bolly says, ''If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic. '' Evidence for God lies around us in all directions and in all things. (See other topics herein for a few examples.) The reason you don't see evidence of God is your picture of God has nothing to do with what God is about. God is not some magical being. God is not flying spaghetti. God does not defy logic. God is logic. In your mind the great machine of the univers happened out of sheer luck. What's the difference between sheer luck and God? Aren't they the same thing? Hopefully I can give you a clue where to find God by telling you where to look.

God is in the details. The electrons are busy doing their thing. The subatomic particles are inside the protons hard at work doing whatever they do to make matter do what it does. Complex chains of molecules describe how to build a human being more efficiently than any code written by any programmer.

God is in the everyday. God is in the mother who cares for her child. God is in the man who jumps into freezing water to save a stranger. God is in the reason you feel good when you do good things, even when they aren't fun.

God is in the grandeur. God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time.

God is everywhere, everywhere but where you're looking. You're looking for god to do something other than what the universe already does. You're presumption is that the universe is fantastic, wonderfully complicated, a well-oiled machine, but you expect something over and above all of this. ''Yeah the universe is vastly complicate, but what have you done for me lately?''

The naivety of the atheist lies in the belief that the universe itself is not evidence of God. By Bolly's definition, God is only evidenced by something beyond the atheist's explanation and comprehension. By this definition you'll never find God, because if you could comprehended the magical proof of God and God could be explained, then it would not longer be magical and no longer beyond comprehension! [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely it is enough to gaze upon the vastness and awe inspring vistas of the universe without having to attribute it to some other being. Your above definition of god: "God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time." seems to me to be more naive then my atheism. You are simply defining the universe but replacing it with god.

I would like to see some of this 'proof' of gods existence for so far i have seen nothing that comes remotely close to convincing me that god exists. On the other hand, there is no need for god in this world. Science has come very close to completly shut out godly influence in the creation of life and the universe.

The universe has not come about out of sheer luck. The strong and weak nuclear force, gravity and quantum theory all allow us to model the creation of stars, planets and black holes in a purely logical manner. If you wish to call that logic and those laws 'God' then you are free to do so. But then god is not a being who can be worshipped or who answers prayers or makes miracles. Then God simply becomes another name for the universe with no added baggage of being the creator. I trust that this dismisses your last point about the magical proof of god. You are welcome to call the universe what you will, however don't expect many people to address prayers to the law of gravity.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:50, 26 April 2007

:::I understand what you say, but I don't think that's what you mean. What you are actually saying is that you have defined your image of God and unless God conforms to your idea of what God means/is and then someone else proves to you that idea is true, then you will not believe in God. Have you considered the possibility that what you thought of as God is just a magical bogeyman? Have you considered the possibility that God is something else entirely than what you thought as a child and later realized was preposterous when you grew up? What we teach children about God is drastically simplified for their consumption. It up to you to purse the truth of God after you realize there is no magical bogeyman. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why Atheism is ridiculous==
Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "God" is another word for "everything." God equals everything. Everthing is God. To deny that "God" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if God is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does God (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does God have a plan? Or is Everything (''i.e.'' God) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies. Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstien included) believe that time is an illusion and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or God) is sentient. God has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:That's not the God I know. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::As a godless, atheistic, morally-bankrupt existentialist, I have to say I disagree with this "assessment." If I am to take what you say at face value I come to the immediate conclusion that atheism is still correct. If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....

:::I think of the universe this way: I don't know how it came to be, but I assume it was a chemical and physical event, not supernatural. I know that this "stuff" doesn't have to have a plan in order to exist. There need not be a man in the sky to protect me from everything. I don't need to pray to something that I will succeed in life because there is no one listening. But, I'm not sad about this, I don't feel alone or unloved by the big ol' scary universe. Rather, I feel emboldened to take moral actions when I can.

:::Camus is my hero. His basic equation boils down to this: once a person realizes that there is no god they have two choices--suicide or a "faith flight." That is, if one accepts the religious view of things. If Camus is correct, and existence does indeed precede essence, then there is a third choice, the philosophy of moral action. Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.

:::Now, since I don't believe everything has a plan, and that I have a moral obligation to help my fellow man (and woman), I have an obligation to come to sites like this and try to fix them. Not by including so-called "liberal bias." Rather, the point is to make sure truth trumps propaganda. Wether I like it or not, I have a duty to help fix this garbage. I liken it to watching a child roll their tricycle toward the street. You, the adult, are standing there and you can see a truck bearing down on the child. Do you try and help her, or do you pray? I must take action and this website affords me a chance to help everybody. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You have mistaken my meaning, despite repeating exactly what I said:

::''If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....''

This is indeed exactly what I meant. So in fact, there is a god. The question is God sentient or not. Does God have thoughts, plans, etc. Or is the universe a jumble of meaningless matter that is and always was. A tangental thought to ponder: auantum mechancics seem to suggest that reality can change depending on the observer.

For those who say "this is not the God I know". Indeed it is the God you. Here's the line of logic:

::1. God = Everything
::2. Therefore God exists. (And the corrollary, atheism is ridiculous.)
::3. Now there is a choice: one can choose to believe that God is sentient; or one can deny the sentience of God despite overwhelming of evidence to the contrary.
::4. Then, if God is sentient then what can we mortals know of God? Where will we find His truths? We might find them in science. We find them in religion. We each find out own personal truth in different ways.

If you make it to step 4, the arguement becomes which religion is best. Which truth makes the most sense to you. Christians, Buddhists, Islamist, they all have their own personal arguments. I won't waste time debating religion when atheists are in the room. It's pointless, because they haven't made the logical step to 3.

If your mind doesn't make the leap to step 3, there is no point in discussing morals. In fact, it's ridiculous to postulate morals or philosophy because the universe is meaningless. For those who are at this point in personal growth: thine only commandment is ''do what thou wilt''. It is pointless to do anything other than that which makes you happy if you get to step 2 but don't make the jump to step 3. However, if you can comprehend step two but don't believe in 3 then all this poppycock about morals and goodness is ridiculous. Furthermore, when an atheist discusses morals and philosophy it only only serves to prove there is a God. This is because the atheist's spirit (which he doesn't believe believe exists) nags and naws at him like the quite voices of angels.

If you make it to step one but can't make it to step 2, then you are a) either incapable of higher thought; or b) intellectually dishonest because you fear where this argument leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, what you are trying to do, in logic, is referred to as an [[enthymeme]]. However, your argument does not work. First, you must show HOW god equals everything. Otherwise you can say anything. Thus:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

:::But you tried to do something else. You tried to insert statements as if they are quantifiable terms. Sort of like saying, "E = mc2" ''Well what do those letters mean?'' "Elephants equal mustard and cows times themselves." You've defined nothing except a lack of basic logical principles.

Being intellectually dishonest would be if I said, well, "god likes strawberries more than cherries." When you ask ''why'' I'll say "because they taste better." Asserting your opinion as fact is what makes it less than true. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin, why do you care if a child rides into traffic on a tricycle? What do you gain if she is saved? What do you lose if she dies? It sounds a lot like your a theist to me. You obviously think the universe has some meaning or some order. If the universe has order and meaning then it only follows that you believe the universe is God. The next step to make is to find out where God best reveals his truth. You think that his truth is best revealed in the philosophical musings of your hero Camus. Camus wrote your Bible. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::It might be difficult to understand but I did not say that god=toast. I agree that God is not toast. Is "Everything" that is to say the universe as a whole sentient or not? Simple question. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:50, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Furthermore, by your example:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

By your definition, then it would be possible to know the true nature of toast. We pretty well already know how to make toast. It's a silly diversion from the question you are afraid to ask yourself. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

No it isn't. I have already asked myself--for years--if there is a god. I have come to the conclusion ther very likely isn't. I am not an atheist (they are 100% sure) but I sit at about 99.9% sure. I have diverted nothing--being intellectually honest with myself meant I had to realize there was no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:As the one who said, "this is not the God I know", I reject the first point in the line of logic, that God equals everything. I am a monotheist, not a pantheist. God ''made'' the universe, He ''isn't'' the universe.
:Flippin, your counter-logic is wrong. Everwill's logic skipped a step. His logic was:
::1. God = Everything
::1A. We know that everything exists.
::2. Therefore God exists.

:So in order to match Everwill's argument from logic, your counter logic should have been:
::1. god = toast
::1A. we know that toast exists
::2. therefore god exists.
:But you got point 2 back to front.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Phil,

So as I understand it you think God is outside of the universe? God is apart from the universe. God is not everywhere at all times, rather he is somewhere else. Where is that somewhere else and what reason have you to believe (other than blind faith) that somewhere else exists? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:God is a spiritual being. He is "outside" the universe—a physical place—in the sense that He is not part of it. But being an omnipresent spiritual being He is not confined to a physical place, so He is not outside in a geographical sense. He is everywhere at once, but not synonymous with the universe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that God is not "confined" to anything. But I'm not sure there's any value to arguing the fine differences between "everything", the universe and God. We're not philosophers, and others have explored this better than we can. I think there is some value to helping atheists understand why the question is not whether God exist or not. The real question is whether God is an omnipresent sentience or not. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Everwill, your argument that god = everything is preposterous. Firstly, i do not agree with the first statement you make, that god is everything. I would like some hard proof, or at least a convincing argument that god equals everything before the first premise of your argument.

If, for arguements sake, we assume that your first premise is correct, then the only question is, as you say, whether everything (or god) is sentient? Again, you can say so, however i want proof. I have yet to see a plan in the universe or everything. According to the current predictions by astronomers and physcists, the universe is set to expand for an idefinete period and that eventually all the stars will run out of hydrogen and go out, and that everything will spread further and further apart at faster and faster speeds until the universe tears itself apart. Can you explain the plan in this? It displays all the theories about gravity, dark matter, quantum theory and strong and weak nuclear forces. There is nothing to show an added level of intelligence in this everything.

Please do not assume that your first premise is correct until you show some evidence for this, otherwise your argument is entirely invalid.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:06, 26 April 2007

:::You must have made things pretty difficult for your alegbra teacher. The teacher presents the following:

::::''x + 1 = 2''
::::''X is'' unknown.
::::''Solve for X.''

:::To which you reply, "Prove that X is unknown and a mathematical value. X is a letter and has no value, thus algebra is entirely invalid."

:::Hopefully you see how silly your reply is, but I'll grant you that I may have given you too much credit above. Perhaps the concept is a little too complicated for you to understand as I presented above. I'll try harder.

:::If the word "God" is synomous with "everything" then I assume you believe God exists. If the word "God" means "magical bogeyman who meddles in the affairs of mankind" then I assume we agree that God does not exist. In the framework of the argument above, God means everything.

:::Now I'll put that aside and try to explain the concept without using words that offend your sensibilities. The universe shows organization and complexity beyond any single human's comprehension at every level. The components of a cell, atomic structures, galactic structures, geological structures, biologal structures. It's vastly intricate, interconnected and complicated. The universe functions like an immense machine and so far as we can tell, it will continue to function for quite some time and it functioned long ago.

:::With this knowledge one has to make a leap of faith, and science has taught us that the simple solution is usually the right solution. The simple solution is that the universe is organization implies design, design implies designer. The only other plausible choice is that the everything that every happens, happened or will happened is the result of something that makes a lottery ticket or a lightning strike look like a easy money and a daily occurence. Now, I respect your right to belive that, but I think it's sort of naive.

:::So you think the universe is randomness. I think the universe has order. Now to work back into the definitions presented above. I think God has order. You think God is randomness. Whether we call it God, the universe or everything, it makes no difference. I'm not trying to take away your right to believe what you want. I'm not trying to tell you to go to church. I'm just trying to find a common ground on which we can agree. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Alright, now i understand the point you were making. I do not agree with it, however i see now where you are coming from.

The reason that the whole of the universe is so incomprehensible to us, is because we evolved on a scale where the only distances that mattered were a couple of hundred kilometres to about a centimetre. That was all that was needed to survive as homo erectus in a hostile world. It was not necessary for us to be able to understand a cell or an atom or a star. The complex machinery that is our brain is not built for such things as the universe or quantum theory. This is why it is so hard to comprehend.

The simple solution is the right solution in the majority of cases, however the simple solution in this case is not one of design. Darwin has already shown that while animals and plants may look designed they are in fact the end result of a massive series of gene mutations and adaptations. In this case, there is no designer and thus your point that organization implies design implies designer is proved wrong in the case of natural life. Simply because there is no such explanation for how the universe has come to be in such a way does not mean that there is no explanation that does not need to attribute it to a designer. Just think that 300 years ago, noone thought that something complex could come from something less complex as it balked common sense. However our common sense only applies to simple, mundane everyday things, not the huge distances and complexities of space or an atom.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:56, 27 April 2007

==Is Atheism Ridiculous?==
::::On what basis do can you decide that something is "moral"? If I saw a truck bearing down on a child, I would try and help her, because God loves her and He would want me to help, and I would be praying at the same time. But why would you help her? From an atheistic point of view, she is just an accidental combination of a bunch of chemicals facing a life of suffering, disease, and ultimate death. What's the point in helping? Why not just let chance shortcut the process and save her all those years of pain? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:24, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Because I feel an obligation to help her, as I said. Saying it is moral means nothing. It is the action one takes. I believe that it is right to keep someone alive rather than kill them (what the above example allows for). If I let her die, she cannot make her own decisions--I am taking away her inalienable right to decide her own fate, if you will. I have no right to hurt someone else--that takes away from their right to choose how they will spend their existence.

::Yes, she is accidental, as are you and me, but I have no right to infringe on the rights of a sentient human being by allowing them to die. Standing by and watching her die would make me just as guilty as putting a gun to her head and pulling the trigger. Morality is based on this single point: existence precedes essence. We are all responsible for our own choices with regard to how they affect others.

::I don't need a religion to tell me that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Just another quick note--don't you think you have an obligation to do something outside of a god's wrath? When you say "because god loves her" you tacitly give up the responsibility for taking action. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Yes, you feel an obligation to help her. But why? I'd say that it's because you've been raised in a country with a Christian heritage and have absorbed some of its values. But I'm asking what basis atheism provides for that. Why do you feel that it is "right". What if I "feel" differently? Who is right and who is wrong? Where did her "inalienable right to decide her own fate" come from? Does she in fact have such a right? I assert that you ''do'' need a religion—or more specifically, God—to tell you that, because atheism can't.
:::::I fail to see how I'm giving up responsibility for taking action. On the contrary, it's because God loves her that I have that responsibility.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::You know, atheism has almost nothing to do with it. I don't think about, or believe in god the way you don't believe (I assume) in the flying spaghetti monster.

::But saying that "because god loves her...I have a responsibility" is equivalent to saying, "I'll go to Grandma's because it makes Mom happy." It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you.

::Finally, that "right to exist" could also be thought of as a prohibition against her death. That comes from the notion that even though our very existence is absurd, I don't have a right to decide how you will affect it. To throw my hands up and say "but who is right and who is wrong" is just reducing the argument to multiplicity, and thus relativism.

::I guess what I'm saying is I don't have a right to decide for that child so I will save her and let her make her own choice. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:::"''It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you''". On the contrary, I have ''decided'' to do what God would like, rather than do something for a selfish reason of it being something that ''I'' would like.
:::You say that the "right to exist" comes from the notion that you don't have a right to decide how you will affect it, yet by saving the girl you ''have'' decided to affect things. Yes, throwing your hands up is relativism, but the opposite of relatives is absolutes, and absolutes only come from God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes exactly, you have decided what god would like. Other people can have a different understanding, people such as Adolf Hitler who decided that god thought it was right that he should kill all jews, as they were "christ killers". Or the young man who shot a doctor who practised abortions because "god would have wanted me to do it". The fact that you have to interpret a book to decide your morals means that several different people can gain different moral codes from the same book, while there are very few people who would disagree that wanton killings would lead to society fracturing. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:17, 26 April 2007

::Adolf Hitler was an atheist. Beyond this factual error, I don't understand your point. We all decide what god would like. (It's call concept called ''free will''.) The underlying philosophy and truths found in all major religions are the same. Is this an accident? I suppose you would answer yes. In fact, the entire universe and everything that led to this moment is one collossal accident that happened for your benefit. Children have no idea what their parents endure to provide for them. In the same way the atheist scoffs at the mysteries of the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:03, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ottihw, no, I haven't decided what God would like. I have ''learnt'' what God would like be reading what He has told us. Everwill is correct that Hitler was an atheist, but I disagree that we can all gain different morals from the Bible. That is in effect saying that words have no meaning, so we can choose to understand them any way we want. Should I choose to understand your words any way I want, or should I presume that we are both using the same convention of English (in this case) language and that you mean what you've said? Besides, if you and I can both derive different morals from reading the Bible, how is it any better if we ''don't'' read the Bible? Surely that would mean even ''less'' restraint on what we choose our morals to be? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Which is another way of saying that Phil is a "strict constructionist" when it comes to the Bible. I think the mullahs in Iran (though they use a different book) agree with him in this way. I'm more of a deconstructionist and have more doubts about the Bible being the "Word of God". I think God's Words are way too complicated for one man or one book to describe. However, I would agree on 99% of the big picture with Phil and probably with the so-called atheists in here. That to me is evidence of God. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:47, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I happen to believe that God is clever enough to put things in words that we can understand. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

God is very clever indeed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:You havea copy of the Bible in God's handwriting? Or you beleive that every step from initial writing, through every translation throughout time has been divinely guided to lay out His message clearly? So, which translation is the divinely guided one? And if He were so inclined to so specifically direct the writing ans subsequent translation of a book, might he not have made it a bit clearer which translation is correct, and which parts of the Bible can be taken literally and which are metaphors? You claim to know the difference... I've never seen that footnote anywhere in the Bible. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The copies and translations of the Bible are very accurate, and accurate enough to know what God was saying. And the phrase "every translation through time" is quite misleading, as mot current English Bibles have been translated directly from the original languages, i.e. a one-step translation. It couldn't get much better than that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

(copied below).

: Standard non-answer... How do you know they are accurate, which version? The differences are quite spectacular at times. Not to mention that even if one accepts your "one-step translation" proposition we are talking (in the case of Genesis) about an account put down long after the event itself (even by your time scale), and then translated from languages with enough nuances to allow for all these different translations that arise today... Not to mention that the "accurate enough to know what God was saying" ignores the reality that if people debate it to the degree we do today, it sure doesn't seem so crystal clear... I say the the story of Genesis clearly reads like a parable or metaphor... you believe it is clearly meant to be taken literally, though you allow that some portions of the Bible are not literal... I was asking for the magic footnote that tells us which is which? [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::That was not a non-answer; it made valid points. The differences are not that spectacular. Why don't you accept the "one-step translation"? Look in almost any modern version and it will tell you that it was translated from the original languages. I tend to subscribe to the belief that Genesis was originally written in sections by the people that witnessed the events (e.g. Adam himself) and Moses compiled those handed-down written histories into the book of Genesis.
::People debate the Bible to the degree that they do because some people will do anything to avoid the implications of what it is teaching, including calling black white (actually, calling six days billions of years). But that doesn't mean that the text is ambiguous, just that some people will not take it at face value.
::Parable and metaphor have particular linguistic characteristics, and Genesis doesn't have those characteristics, so it is not parable nor metaphor (on the whole; some bits may be). You determine which is which by the language, just as you do in everyday life. If I said that "it's raining cats and dogs", would you wonder if I was being literal or not?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Please do not parade that old falsehood that Hitler was an atheist. He was brought up a roman catholic, he made several references to God in his speeches and almost everyone who was close to him described him as a 'good practising catholic'. To call him an atheist is in complete denial of all the facts that surround him.

The reason that people can draw different morals from the bible is simple. The bible has been written by hundreds of authors over 900 years, many of whom described the same story in different ways and the vast majority were not written down until many years after the even they were describing. And of course, in the way of any community effort, the book has been 'improved' by several authors down the years, in different languages and often by people who had no idea about the event they were writing about. To call this text "the word of god" and to attempt to draw a single conclusion from this is just plain ridiculous. Why not have a look yourself, and look for the amount of contradictions and just plain weirdness in there.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:13, 27 April 2007

==Questions and Answers==
Plato showed how in a debate one asks questions so that the debaters can pursue the truth together rather than being adversaries. So what I can't understand is why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests? Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you? Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share? Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?

To be more specific you say ''Because I feel an obligation to help her''. What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? Will she pay you? What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

So here are my questions:

::''"Why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests?"''

:::* Atheist says: I might ask you the same thing. I have no short-term interest in this child's death. I have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer).
:::* Theist replies, because there is something, perhaps a spirit or a god, that imparts to ever soul the knowledge of good from evil and right from wrong. Doing evil moves you further from god and thus it does not feel good to do evil (''even when it feels good to do evil''!) This is a shorthand way of saying that when you commit acts which are pleasurable but evil, you feel shallow and empty inside. On the other hand, when one commit acts of kindness without any payback of any kind, one feels good inside. This is something most humans learn as they progress into maturity. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::''"Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you?"''

:::* Atheist says: Two parts there: I wouldn't murder a child--as I said--so what is there to feel guilty about? If no one would punish me presupposes I have done this act, so the question is invalidated by the former.
:::* Theist replies, I should hope you wouldn't murder a child, but your reply ducks the obvious answer. Of course I wouldn't murder a child to get what I wanted, but if I did murder a child to get what I wanted I would feel guilty. What causes that feeling of guilty? Is that not proof of a spiritual aspect of life?

::''"Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share?"''

:::* Atheist say: It certainly could be. ''"Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?"'' Reason allows me to discern right from wrong, as I said above. I am compelled to act according to this obligation to help others and not let them have their choice made by another.
:::* Theist says, what is this "reason" you are talking about in an athistic universe. Without God or morality, what is the difference between good and evil or right and wrong? From an atheistic (i.e. Satanic) POV right and wrong are silly concepts. "Good" is just an excuse to chump the strong from their rightful place at the top of the food chain. Don't you agree?

''"What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? <s>Will she pay you?</s> What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?"''

:::* Atheist says: Okay, now you're getting to the meat of the matter. I am obligated by this sense of everyone's right to exist. I have no more right to take you're life than I do to steal your bike. Not that those two are equal, but the line of demarcation is the same. It is only selfish in the sense that I ''gain'' when this child is allowed to grow up and make her own choices. If, in the process, I am killed, then I have served my principles. If she dies, then I took moral action and can feel good about my effort. However, if I let her die I am as guilty as any of those Nazi guards at Aushwitz who said ''"I was only following orders."''
:::* Theist replies: your answer implies the existence of God even if you can't see the forest for all the trees. Why does everyone have a right to exist? Because you said so? That makes no sense in your concept of reality. What if my country elects a leader, for the purposes of illustration let's call him ''Adolf Hitler''. Our leader through legal government manuevers manages to establish a process to eliminate what he sees as a cancer on our nation. By your reasoning that leader has a moral imperative to kill Jews BECAUSE he thinks it's best for the nation. From the theist stand-point, we believe that all life is precious, most especially human life. Therefore it doesn't matter what logic, rationale or legal manuevers Hitler makes, killing is wrong.

Atheist summary: As long as you have a choice, to defer your morality to a god, or priest or whatever you ask for figiveness is to shirk your duty to society--that being to think for yourself. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Theist summary: No one ever defers any choices to anyone ever. Each individual is always responsible for his own actions and choices. To clear up your confusion: a theist defers his choices to a priest about as much as a judge in a court room defers his choices to his first year law professor. Religion is a tool to help us understand God. Religion and religious leaders do not speak for God. An "atheist" who follows a moral code is just a theist who doesn't know much about his God because he's too afraid to trust others. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:In point of fact here, I have said I am not an atheist, I am more properly called an agnostic. An atheist, by definition, holds that they have the answer--that there is no god. As an agnostic I am open to the idea that a god exists, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Please don't refer to me as an atheist--it is a different thing altogether. Also, in addition to agnosticism, I am an existentialist--so you could also use that term if you like.

:Finally, I don't have a god-belief so I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done. I do things that I reason are beneficial to society, e.g. actions that foster growth, development and change. I abhor stifling debate and that seems to be the purpose of religion as it is used most of the time. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm comfortable with my approach to all questions. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

You claim that "I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done". You do things because a little voice inside your head tells you to do things? Who is that little voice?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't have a "little voice." That is superstition. I use reason. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

It's easy to dodge the obvious with semantics. There is absolutely no question you (and all human beings) have a "little voice", that's not a superstition, that's a fact. The argument is about what is the driving force behind that little voice.

You claim that you simply rationalize everything out through the use of reason, and you are perhaps superior to moral codes found in religion. For example, you won't kill the little child because as you say you "have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer)." But if killing the little child would give you a billion dollars, you would kill the child because of the risk versus reward principle found in rationalization. The odds of that little girl inventing a cure for cancer are pretty remote. Furthermore, you might not ever contract cancer. But with a billion dollars you could finance a health care system that would further benefit you and those you deem worthy. That's "reason" at work and to you way of thinking that's much better than silly and archaic notions like "good" or "evil". [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think you have more of a stake in believing that a "non-believer" would like to kill a child for some kind of gain. I don't see it that way. I don't think there is anything that would make me kill a child. That's silly.
::Also, I don't have a "little voice" in my head. People who do I deem to be psychotic or lying. Simple as that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

A hypothetical argument takes a certain statement as an assumption and attempts to analyze it. You seem to be (perhaps intentionally) misunderstanding the hypothetical in the form in which it is presented. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend like you really don't understand because of inability to communicate.

Let's change the hypothetical slightly, you state there there is nothing that would make you kill a child. Why would you never kill a child? I understand that you base this decision on reason, but I don't understand the basis of your reason. Is your reason based upon moral codes? Aren't "moral codes" just superstition to help supress the will of the strong? Is your "reason" based upon what most helps society or is your reason based upon what most helps you? Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?

As the wise philospher Camus/Flippin says, ''Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.'' This is all well and good if one is perfect reasonable. But what about people who are unreasonable and who devise a meaning of life exemplified by people like Hitler, Jim Jones, Jeffery Dahmer, Stalin, and Charles Manson? By what right can we impose our value-system upon them?

By the same token, should each individual have the right, nay the duty, to devise his own code of laws and not wait for some legistlature or society to impose those laws upon them? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
.
==Trying to parse some of this==
:Since I consider myself a good communicator I will try and communicate with you.

:Okay, you said: "Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?" How could one do anything that helped society that didn't help oneself? Maybe I should try and explain that by asking is there really anything that one can do that helps society, yet hurts the self? If one takes an action that helps society, like picking up garbage alongside the road, does not that act help society? And if we agree that it does, how is one harmed by it?

:A reasonable person might say that the individual could get a sunburn. The individual could be hit by a truck. These are true statements, but the probability of these things happening is low (for the truck) and not that dangerous (for a sunburn). But what is the value of picking up debris left by less reasonable citizenry? Do we not gain as a society by having less trash by the roadside?

:A reasonable person might also say, yes, but must I pick up all the debris along the roadside? My answer would be no. The responsibility for cleaning up roadsides is spread equally between us all. We have a shared responsibility to do this because it helps the individual ''and'' the society.

:Now, you also mention examples like Hitler who reasoned that murdering Jews would benefit him. But is Hitler an example of a reasonable man? Honestly? Hitler was more likely sociopathic, which is a disorder that affects one's ability to reason. If we rely on reason to tell us that what is of the greatest benefit for society is of the greatest benefit for the individual, then opposing someone like Hitler, or another damaged person, is reasonable. Thus, we not only have a right to oppose them, we have an obligation to oppose them. Just as we have an obligation to oppose trash on the roadways.

:I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children? Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

:Finally, why do you feel the need to paint me as something less than moral? I have explained this repeatedly yet you do not understand. Is the failure to communicate really mine then? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not trying to paint you as immoral. I've said repeatedly I think you are moral. But I'm trying to work withing your framework to understand the truth (according to you) and I'm trying to understand the source of your morality. Where (according to you) does moral authority flow from?

I thought you said that morals comes from "reason". But as you describe it it seems that morals don't come from "reason", but from your rationalizations. I don't understand why you think your rationlizations are any more valid than the rationalizations of any other person? Of course, millions of Germans agreed with Hitler's rationalization. They were not '''all''' sociopaths. I assume that we agree their rationalization was flawed, but why is it flawed? This seems to indicate that there is some higher moral authority than rationalization. Is there some absolute code of moral authority, or were the Germans simply wrong because they lost the war? What does it matter if they were morally wrong anyway? That was in the past. There is no spiritual world and there is no God. Today is a new day. This is a new minute.

I think you're trying to claim that certain rationalizations is more valid than other rationalizations. If some rationalization is more valid than others, then why don't we as humans attempt to find the true source of the best rationalization possible and then follow that reasoning? If that is not a religion, what is that?

Secondly, I suppose I find it difficult to believe that anyone does anything simply because of "reasoning" alone. In my experince people do good things because it makes them feel good, not because they rationalized and reasoned away the degree of goodness vs. the effort required. Like every other human being, you sometimes do some bad things. After the commission of these acts of badness, why do you feel ''guilty''? If the ends justify the means there shoudl be no such thing as guilt.

Thirdly, what is the point of morality? Who cares? Why not take from the system whatever you can whenever you can. Your actions will not stop the world from spinning. You will not stop the stupid morons who worship the flying spaghetti monster, so why not exploit them? Then you can better use their resources, since you have a higher level of rationalization? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::# Rationalization seems to make the unreasonable, reasonable. That is what religion is for.
:::# Reason, as I have stated serves as a guide. It then becomes automatic.
:::# What you describe are the acts of a person that is unreasonable. I have addressed that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

What you haven't address is this: who defines what is reasonable? The guy with the biggest gun? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==The Theist answers==
Here are my answers to your questions:

The theistic-denier states:

::I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children?

I can think of many incidents of killing children which would benefit society. Our society could harvest children from poverty-stricken regions where resources are depleted and food-shortages are chronic. This is good for the environment and greatly reduces the chance that their children will suffer from famine. Then we could use those children to reseach cancer, AIDs and other diseases. Rather than working on cadavers, young doctors could practice their trade on these children. Then we could pulverize the remains and feed them to hogs. This would provide more food for other people. If you are opposed to killing (because of some fear of the mythic god) you could just enslave the children instead. We have plenty of jobs they can do which will help society more than some miserable existence in a barren wasteland.

Working strictly from a framework of reason and rationalization, why not kill children to better serve society? Furthermore, of course, this rational begs the question: why is the society of any importance at all? Why is "society" any bigger than the individual?

::Please, as one human being to another, it is much easier if you call me an agnostic--which is what I am. I don't call you a gods-worshipper, or whatever. (Jesusfreak I know is a popular perjorative that I don't use either. I am trying to be respectful.) I don't fear god--that isn't the reason to do/not do anything. I don't want anyone to kill me, so I don't kill others. Religion gives those who don't know why they do things a reason to say why they did. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Additionally, the "agnostic" asks:

::Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

Please understand that at this point, I'm not trying to prove to you my point of view. I'm trying to understand your point of view. So, while I believe that faith is the strongest barrier to crime that I know of, I won't bother to explain why I think this to you because you are clearly more enlightened than I. You've advance beyond the need for some silly god-figure.

What I would like to know is; what is your barrier to crime in the atheistic framework? It appears (based on my example above) that it is something other than reasoning, because I've proven how killing children can be good for society.

I'd be more than happy to answer why God allows suffering in the universe, but the answer to that question is pointless if we don't agree that God exists. Let's not waste time. Hypothetically, I'm agreeing with your argument that the fact that there is suffering in the universe is evidence that there is no god. Let's proceed along your path and see where it leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Religious faith is no more a barrier to crime than atheistic, or agnostic, moral reasoning. In Toronto sometime in the 70's the police went on strike. It took two hours for the first bank to be robbed, and at then end of the strike $3 million worth of damage had been done to shops and almost every bank in the city had been robbed. The vast majority of people who were arrested as a result of the crimes were religious. I'm not suggesting that therefore religion encourages crime, it just shows that it isn't such a barrier to crime as you would think. There is also anecdotal evidence that there are very few atheists and agnostics in prison compared to christians.

:The agnostic and atheistic framework is different from what you seem to think. The value of life is the most important part of my beliefs. This is not because of god or the bible, this is simply because those were the morals that i was brought up with and because they make the most logical sense. If life was not valued, then mass murders would be common and unnoticed as greedy people killed and stole to take what they wanted. This would lead to the breakdown of society as a whole. That is why enslaving and killing third world children is wrong, as they have exactly the same right to life that i do.

:This moral framework is far more effective as a crime barrier because people who use it have thought about why they think things are right and wrong from their own POV. Your framework comes from a book that was writtn 2000 years ago, and therefore not all its morals are up to date with the changing zeitgeist. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 26 April 2007

::You don't advance the argument by pointing to facts that don't answer my questions. This is what I call the ''magician's argument''. The magician's argument goes as follows: there is nothing in the hat therefore the rabbit from the hat must be magic. I don't care about your claims about religion of criminals. I'd like to have answers to my questions. As best as I can see your answer to my hypotheical question is to deny the framework of my hypothetical question. I can only assume that you refuse to answer this line of question undermines your belief set and that's why you won't answer.

::BTW, the reason I am pursuing this line of questions is not because I don't understand the atheistic point of view. I understand the false premises of atheism quite well. This is because for many years, I was an atheist. As I matured I came to realized just how much I didn't know. I still don't know what I don't know, but as the arrogance of youth recedes I begin to know how much I don't know. Thus, I realized atheism was naive and foolish, so I became an agnostic. Since that time, I learned more and came to believe that I am probably a [[deist]] but my search for truth continues. I may yet get more specific in my religious beliefs as I further mature. I will point out to you that it is a universal truth that as we get older we get wiser. It is not a coincidence that churches are full of old people. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:52, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what your point is here. Could you state, in just a sentence or two, what your hypothetical that we are ignoring is? Also, we may need to archive some of this (which I don't know how to do yet.) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:08, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The hypothetical (previously stated in a wildly exaggerated example) is: if in truth "reason" is your only guide and if in fact there is no soul, no spiritual world and no God, why do you do good things that don't follow reason? Why don't you do "bad" things that have perfectly good rationale? Your answer to the second question was: devise a better hypothetical because my reasoning is arbitrary and supports whatever rational I choose to follow. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Question==
Do you believe that there is absolute moral truth? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Please define an absolute moral truth? [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:08, 26 April 2007

==A place for a few more answers==

From the Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist:

"We have evolved the ability to empathize, to share the motivations and feelings of those around us. From this, we
have gained the ability to sympathize with the plight of others, to understand what may be causing them distress or
pain, and to wish, for their sake, that their suffering would stop. Armed with this sympathy, we act in a moral way to
prevent the distress and suffering of others. Our opinions on what constitutes a moral course of action may differ, but
the underlying sympathy is the same."

"With sympathy for others and recognition of the similarities between people, we each build an internal code of the
morality of our actions. We seek to protect innocent children, for we were once children ourselves and needed
protection. We seek a society that does not foster immoral actions, in order to protect the members of society like
ourselves. We feel and internalize various plights and pains of others in this process, and develop a true morality.
American revolutionary and President Thomas Jefferson put it well when he wrote in an 1814 letter, “Nature [has]
implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us
irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.”

Though I am sure this will mean little to a "deist" it is useful to those who at one time tried to find god but realized that the effort was too intellectually dishonest for them to ultimately accept. I think, Everwill, if you are really interested in learning about this and not just baiting the less conservative folk here, you might do well to read some of this material. http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thebgma/BGMA.pdf

::This is exactly my point, but I don't want to jam it down the throats of our resident atheists. Although they don't yet realize it, if you are a moral atheist, you are not an atheist at all, but rather you are a [[deist]]. The slippery slope is: once you realize you are a deist, you begin the search through religions to find a deeper meaning of life and learn more about the true nature of God. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:53, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:But that's just it--I am not a deist because I do not accept there is a god that needs to exist. If that means you are going to call me an atheist, fine, whatever, but otherwise there is no reason to be condescending about "poor little atheists." It just isn't necessary. We feel, if I may be so bold, that ''you'' are the one who is lost. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:14, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin this statement so far as I can tell doesn't seem to based upon reason but rather upon faith. As Thomas Jefferson (a deist) said, “Nature [has] implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.” In your "Nature" means "good luck" or at the very difference "luck". I don't see any difference between "good luck" and God. You think these are unrelated concepts, but I'm not sure why. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

If I sound condescending it is because you are no different from a fundamentalist muslim. That is you refuse to critically examine your belief set objectively. To answer hypothetical questions will lead you in a direction you refuse to go. You demand that others prove the unprovable as evidence that there is a God. Understand this: we agree that God is neither a flying spaghetti monster, nor a bearded old man laying on a cloud. Relax, I understand your position completely, because I've been where you are. It's okay. Each finds his own path in due time.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe there is a reason it is "unprovable." Truth be told, I think what passes for "good luck" is also random. Just as the rest of universe, this computer I'm typing on and the bowl of Cheerios I had for breakfast. It occurred through chance that this came about--not by a bearded man in the sky waving a wand. If you are looking for fantasy, watch Harry Potter or read the bible. I live in a world of facts and evidence and am content to do so until my lamp is extinguished. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I really have no idea what Harry Potter or the Bible has to do with the central question. After all this talking I have discerned (with much difficulty) that you attribute all that we see to "good luck". I call it "God" but I agree completely that whether it's just good luck or whether it is God this realization does not change reality. Other than that we are in complete agreement. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Good, we agree that god is a delusion based on random chance and superstition in the ill-informed mind. Glad to hear that, too. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

No. We agree that your misinformed characterization of the word "God" is the based on your perceptions about what you think God is. Since we agree that the universe is the product of luck, henceforth I will refer to the guiding force behind the universe as Luck so as to not offend your belief-set.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

''Don't you love how the Truth flows like water? No matter where you damn it up, it will still find the way. This is the miracle of Luck to me.'' [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:05, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

good lord this is boring.... [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

How 'bout I say "you win" and you evangelize someone else? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's "reasoning" for you ... heh ... [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, you win by attrition. Congrats. Now, I'll go back to not going to churc and telling school children there is no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Funny, you took the words right out of my mouth. ;-) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So, in fact this is not attrition or victory (I was never trying to win). Rather the discussion is at an end because you have refused to expand the boundaries of your perceptions. You came here believing that god was a myth and you continue to believe that god is a myth. You refuse to examine the implications of this possibility: myths are myths, but God is something else entirely. The thing you call Luck, I call God. That's called finding common ground. Your current problem is your very fearful of where that common ground might take you. It might shatter your arrogantly held belief-set.

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Which Religion is the true Religion?==

::You havea copy of the Bible in God's handwriting? Or you beleive that every step from initial writing, through every translation throughout time has been divinely guided to lay out His message clearly? So, which translation is the divinely guided one? And if He were so inclined to so specifically direct the writing ans subsequent translation of a book, might he not have made it a bit clearer which translation is correct, and which parts of the Bible can be taken literally and which are metaphors? You claim to know the difference... I've never seen that footnote anywhere in the Bible. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

This statement has nothing to do with this discussion. The arguments about "which translation" and "God's handwriting" are filed under "Which religion is the true religion?" and they have no bearing on whether atheism vs. deism. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The copies and translations of the Bible are very accurate, and accurate enough to know what God was saying. And the phrase "every translation through time" is quite misleading, as mot current English Bibles have been translated directly from the original languages, i.e. a one-step translation. It couldn't get much better than that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not prepared to defend the Bible as the "word of God", but I think it's an important question to examine, but I think it's a pointless discussion with those who haven't realized that there is a God. All your Bible proves to them is that someone wrote something a long time ago. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, but I am not someone who denies the existence of God, just one who does not accept that the Bible is literal truth. I personally beleive it to be mostly metaphorical, with some history thrown in, though I'd still never use it for a primary history source, even on mundane topics (i.e. who ruled where at what time... etc...) [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I am pretty much in agreement with you QNA. I'm willing to allow the possibility that Phil Rayment's opinions about the Bible is correct. At the same time, I doubt he's right about that. On the other hand, I think that denying the existance of God is silly. However, arguing the nature of God is a worthwhile endeavor. The Bible and other texts are useful in this exercise because we can learn a great deal from those who have gone before us and who have already had these same arguments.

::::I will say without equivocation that the "God doesn't exist because I don't believe in bearded guys in the clouds with a magic wand" is pretty much an argument made from a posiition of ignorance about what most knowledgeable people think about God and the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Good Luck==
Since all of the universe occurred out of good luck (according to Flippin), can we humans influence Luck? Should we attempt to commune with Luck? Do you think that hundreds of thousands of years ago, men (equally smart) pondered these same questions (since they didn't have a TV to occupied their evenings). Do you think luck, or perhaps Luck, resulted in the strange coincidence that after many generations the consensus view in every culture and society has always been that we can affect our luck by a combination of worshipping Luck and doing good things? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is religion morally wrong?

2007-04-27T06:57:19Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Why Atheism is ridiculous */

{{debate}}
==Yes==
anything that teaches young children to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question, and then teaches them that anyone who does not believe what they do is wrong and needs to have their immortal soul 'saved' is morally wrong. as well as that, waging wars against "non-believers" or "infidels" and killing thousands of millions of people, puts religion in the morally wrong category. as in interesting aside, the link to this debate is actually titled "is athiesm morally wrong?" which may need to be fixed. --[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30 (EDT)
: Done. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::''Wha' ...?'' Anyone who thinks that religion teaches one "to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question" just plain doesn't understand any religion to which I have ever been exposed. However, I'm pretty sure I can guess why your so confused.

::There is a belief, which is generally held by most religions and most people over the age of 30, that human nature is constant. Moral codes, philosophy and religion are built upon assumptions about the constants of human nature. In this way, moral codes are similar to alegbra. Algebra is built upon a foundation of unchanging constants. Math is unchanging. Human nature is unchanging. Therefore, each generation doesn't need to reinvent algebra. Similarly, each generation needn't rediscover the reason that people devised certain moral codes which were based upon countless generations of knowledge about human nature and where then incorporated into religion and philosophy.

::This does not mean that the field of mathemics should cease to expand. This does not mean that curiosity is bad. This means that we already know that 1+1=2. We already know what happens to civilizations and societies where wild sexual activities are encouraged. This does not mean that we stop digging up fossils. This does mean that we don't kill unborn children to expiriment on them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::(wow, first ever post on a debate page!) Everwill, I would argue that human nature '''is''' changing and most certainly can't be likened to algebra. Algebra is indeed definite. It always follows the same rules reagrdless of the complexity of the problem. Surely, you can't say that human nature is like that? The scale of variation is unimaginable!

:::Also, in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher. Or, they are taught in a slanted view, which distorts the truth. All this because those parents or teachers seem afraid that their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught! That '''is''' morally wrong. The choice should be the child's not the elders'. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a reason that William Shakespeare's dramas, King David's tribulations & and the Andy Griffith show (how's that for a unexpected twist?) are timeless stories that affect us in the same way as when they affected those to whom these stories were first told. They affect us all the same way because human nature does not change. The truth is we all love, hate, breath, live and die. The human condition is infinitely variable, but human nature is constant. Of course, there are countless examples of this simple and plainly evident truth. I'm quite sure I'm not the first one to tell you that human nature is the same. In fact, this truth is the foundation of our concepts of equality and our freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

::I don't want to spend a lot of time defending something that is an elemental and accepted truth spanning time, civilizations and belief systems. This is because I'm not sure whether you're denying the fact that human nature is universal because you are ignorant (unlikely) or because you are intellectually dishonesty (my guess). In either case, it would consume far too much time to explain to you the definition of human nature to your liking. But I what I can posit in reply is an answer to your simple question: there are absolutes in morality, just as there are absolutes in algebra. For example, murder is always wrong. There is no compromise in this principle.

::''As a quick aside I must note that I always find it humorous when people (usually liberals) stereotype the upbringing found in fundamentalist religious groups.''

::To your point, it is true that "in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." But guess what, you've just proven my point. This is because, EVERY SINGLE human that ever reached adulthood was "brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." '''DUH!'''

::It is possible that your theory is true. Perhaps, teachers and parents want to shield children from outside influences because "their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught!" But who do you think is most likely to have the child's best interests at heart? I would presume that a child's parents and that child's teachers want what is best for the child. I think you are implying that the pornographers, salesmen, MTV, rappers, strangers and passerby's---all of whom the child might find more interesting (and more permissive) than the parents and teachers---are better for the child? You think it's better that the child find out (the hard way) the lessons which the parents and grandparents into the mists of history, have already found out? Preposterous. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not argueing that modern celebrities are the way forwards by any means. The messages put forward by that group does not teach very good lessons for kids (or adults!). I'm merely pointing out that the near brainwashing of the young by their parents and teachers with regards religious teaching is also wrong and can teach a child "bad" things. An example would be homosexuality. Kids in religious families who think they might be gay receive no support from parents who believe that homosexuality is bad, simply because it is the parents belief. Surely a parents love for their child should come before their religion?

:::I am not being intellectually dishonest, just ignorant (ha like thats any better!). What I thought you meant by human nature isn't what is used in the definitions I found on the internet. I took human nature to be the general world viewpoint held by each individual person; where there is substantial difference!

:::I think argueing that children should accept what their parents tell them because they have learnt it from their experience is flawed. Every person has a different PoV so will experience things differently. If a child recieves all their advice from a parent who sees the world entirely differently to them, what will that child think of themselves? Is that fair on the child? A parent should be there for guidance, yes, but not for absolute teaching. To relate this to religion: religion is a predetermined set of "rules" that followers must stick to. Choosing a religion (and its rules) is a personal choice. Parents will naturally try to enforce their beliefs and rules on their children, thereby removing their choice to religion and actions, which is removing their freedom to be themselves. Surely that is a terrible wrong to do to that child? I am not argueing that children should be given no rules, nothing of the sort. I am merely saying that the rules given to a child by their parents should not be based on the religion of the parent(s) as that is a moral wrong to that child. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I see. By your logic the child should have rules and the rules should come from the parent (sort of) but the parent shouldn't base the rule structure or belief set upon something found in religion. Instead, you believe that religion must be by a higher and more correct authority. And just who is that authority? ''Will & Grace''? Madonna & Britney? Who is this higher and more perfect authority? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to enjoy mentioning celebrities...perhaps they have affected you more than you think. Their ability to corrupt is unbounded! I don't know what you mean by "religion must be by a higher and more correct authority". I am merely argueing for separation of of religious doctrine from a child's upbringing. Yes, make a child aware of their parents belief, why they believe it, etc., but don't "force it down their necks" or make them feel bad for "not believing". That is what I find to be morally wrong about religion: the automatic assumption of parents that their children should follow in their beliefs. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

a childs parents should bring up their children to be open to new ideas and to trust their senses and logic in ideological matters. religion of any kind does not allow this to be taught to children. as well as this, many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is a false characterization of religion, perhaps based in ignorance. Every major religion teaches personal accountability and free will. Therefore, religion encourages children (and everyone else) to "trust their senses and logic in ideological matters." Religion is a framework to assist in decision making. Religion does not take personal responsiblity or logic from anyone. (Perhaps you should read a bit of C.S. Lewis or Thomas Aquinas to better acquaint yourself with the value of logic to the Christian mind.)

::You state (no caps and no punctuation are all yours): "many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are." Who knows better what the child's best interests are? The media? The government? The child? Who?

::I'm glad we're having this discussion, mostly because it's apparent that you are the victim of the propaganda of another religion. You're repeating the mantra of the liberal religion, which teaches that all religions are equal and there are no moral boundaries. Your religion might be the "one true" religion, but I doubt it.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

The childs best interests are known only by the child itself. I do not mean to say that no parents ever get it right, or wrong, however what is in the childs best interests is not to foist a belief system on him/her without letting him/her have any choice or free will in the matter. The majority of religions (liberal or fundamentalist) do not encourage children to take advantage of their natural curiosity and explore all the possibilities of logic and science, as they see science as a threat to their belief system. Just as an example, the enactment of hell that occurs in an American state led by Pastor Ted Roberts which attempts to scare children into beliveing in God by scaring them with the sheer horror of the act. This would be dismissed as simply a fringe sect, however the supporters of this pastor, in his home state (i apologise for not knowing which state this is) number around 3 million. This is only one example of the methods used by religious leaders to force children into mindlessly believing what they are told. Another example is the muslim state of Saudi Arabia, where simply being of another faith or of no faith at all, is punishable by beheading. Note the similar use of fear tactics in both cases here. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:54, 19 April 2007

::What you're trying to say makes sounds ridiculous to me, but perhaps this is because we have not agreed to what the meaning of the word "child" is. Please allow me to insert a few definitions so that I don't miss your point and vice-versa.

:::* ward --- someone incapable of making personal decisions for some reason or another. There are several types of ward:
::::* child --- This individual cannot make personal decisions because they have not reached maturity (generally 17 and under). Children might step into traffic. Children might drink poison. Children can be cultivated into giving sexual favors to pedofiles. For all these reasons and many more, "parents" (''defined below'') make decisions for parents.
::::** mental defective --- This individual has poor reasoning skills or does not understand reality. For this reason "parents" or care-takers must make decisions for the mental defective
::::** sick or enfermed --- This individual might be in a coma. This individual might be extremely sick or otherwise unable to communicate. Thus, caretakers or "parents" must make decisions for this individual.

:::* parent --- one (ideally of two) individuals responsible for the care and nuturing of a ward or child

:::* adult --- An individual who is mentally competant and mature and thus has the free will to make any decisions they want so long as they don't violate the laws of the community where they reside.

::Children, and in fact, all other wards, need people to care for them and to make decisions for them. I'm quite sure there are a good many teenagers who would agree with your ridiculous notion that children make should make their own decisions, but most adults and most parents today (and throughout history) have come to agree that it is both unwise and unsafe to grant complete and total freewill to children (perhaps most especially teenagers). This is because children don't alwasy make good decisions. Children are easily swayed and they don't have the normal defenses of doubt and fear of strangers to protect them.

::This is a plain, simple and accepted truth. I'm not sure what possible connection that has to anything Ted Roberts ever said or did. Whether Ted Roberts or Jeffrey Dahmer or Hitler is a bogeyman or not, that doesn't change the fact that children need parents. I guess what you'll have to accept is that some parents will raise children who don't agree with your beliefs. I'm quite comfortable with the fact that not all parents or people agree with me. I much too busy and quite frankly don't feel the need to tell other people how to raise their children. I doubt you have any idea what any of the parents in former Pastor Robert's church are teaching their children. I thought liberals believed in tolerance and diversity? Why can't you tolerate their differences and celebrate their Christian diversity?

::What would you like to see in Saudi Arabia, a crackdown on parents? Do you want to take the children from their parents and raise them yourself? Have you ever considered the possiblity that the concept (called "fascism") of imposing your values upon others is wrong-heaed and evil? Don't you think Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live? Are you trying to suggest that the US should invade Saudi Arabia and replace the mullahs with ACLU? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No i am not attempting to say much of that, i think that you are right in that i have misunderstood the point that you were making. I do apologise for that. What i would like to say in regards to your previous point, is that while i agree that parents should have the role in making decisions for their children (with an increasing amount of input from the child as they grow older) at the same time, they should not force their beliefs onto their children and, where possible, educate them enough so that they have the intelligence and a high enough level or reasoning to be able to make their own decision in matters of faith and belief. While a lot of parents do this, i believe that the majority don't, although i am willing and hoping to be proven wrong. I do belive in tolerance and diversity, but that is what my main problem with religion is. Religion tends to preach the opposite of this, generally against other faiths but also against homosexuals and other groups that seem to break the rules of their faith. I do think that Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live, however i think that maybe a lot do not want to live the way they do, and that another large number would not want to live that way, if they were not devout muslims. I honestly think the US should keep out of the middle east in general, as the problems it has caused there seem to be greater then the amount solved, however that is not the topic on discussion here. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:56, 20 April 2007

:This debate title seems to be relatively unfocussed, but the debate itself seems to have settled down into a focussed discussion of whether or not it is morally right for religions to pass on their codifications, conventions and beliefs to their children in a manner which could be construed as 'indoctrination'. [[Richard Dawkins]] makes the point that it would not be acceptable in today's society to label children as 'a Democrat Child' or 'a Republican child', nor to set up schools which say that we are going to only teach 'Democrat' values in this school, and to only honour Democrats. However, it does appear to be acceptable to have 'catholic' scools, catholic, muslim and hindu children. Why is this? Any Religion and or Political Stance, when it comes down to it are idealogies, and have many parallels in the way they are dogmatic about the way that adherents should behave. They both present strong arguments as to the way that you should treat knowledge, evidence, and all present a very biased world view. This is fine if you are an adult, and you understand the rules, and you know that this is the way the world works, and that you have a choice about whether to question or to belive at all; but if you are an uimpressionable youngester you could be scarred for life: 'Give me a child until he is seven...."

There is a very strong argument to say that we should NOT allow people to present contraversial points of view to children AS IF these were uncontestable facts. This, after all, is the arguments of the creationists against evolution. They maintain children should be exposed to both points of view. However, I cannot imagine that any catholic school would suggest teaching that God may or may not exist, and allowing children to experience both the sacrament and the indoctrination ceremony of freemasons, and asking them to compare & contrast!--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 04:18, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Thankyou Felix for articulating what i was attempting to say, and i apologise again to Everwill for not wording my arguement very clearly. Having attended an anglican school till i was 13, i never was fully concious that they did not present their teachings as anything other then indisputable fact and that we were expected to believe that without question. The other thing that struck me was that i was never allowed to avoid communion on the basis that i was an atheist, while one of my friends who was jewish was excused. It was almost as if they rathered that we believed in a god, even if it is a slightly different set of beliefs that come attached, than that we had no beliefs at all. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30, 20 April 2007

::Bolly, it sounds like you're trying to impose your own parental issues on others. I understand that you thought you were an atheist and yoru parents wanted to impose their theistic beliefs on you. The fact is, they have every right to impose these theistic beliefs on you. After you come of age, you can think or do anything you like. It would appear that they weren't too oppressive and it would appear they were quite open-minded because they raised an atheist. It would appear that you are the one who is oppressive because you want to raise other children to think like you. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:15, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

No, my parents are both atheists as well, the only reason i went to that school was because it was the best school in the area. However adults do not have the right to impose their theistic beliefs on their children, just as they have no right to impose their political ideologies on them. Children are trusting of their parents because in the majority of situations their parents are doing what is best for them. What i believe parents should do is to raise their children to be open minded about belief regardless of their own beliefs. Therefore any parents should educate their children about different faiths (including atheism although it is not really a faith) in a totally balanced and fair manner with no predjudice. This allows children to make up their own mind about their own personal beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:48, 21 April 2007

::Ever wonder why the religious school was the best school in the area? Have you ever once considered the possibility that this school was better because the religious school wasn't attempting to relearn the lessons of the past? This school already had a functioning set of moral codes and they didn't need to wander through the maze of pitfalls in our new ACLU-friendly world of multi-culturalist moral equivelancy? Or perhaps you think the school was better because of dumb luck?

::As defined above, adults do not have the right to impose their beliefs on children. However, ''parents'' have a right (and more importantly a duty) to impose their beliefs on children. Parents should educate their children in the way that feels best to them.

::But what you fail to comprehend is that '''anything''' you teach children is a view point. You're just upset because you want everyone else to teach your view point. Your viewpoint embraces moral equivalism and the belief that all religions are equal. That is a viewpoint. It may or may not be valid, but the fact is, it is a viewpoint. It is just another value-set. It may or may not be more valid than the values of another parent. That's an argument that can be had, but it's not at issue here.

::The issue is that you want other parents to teach their children what you believe. Furthermore, you think it's immoral that they won't teach their children your values. Don't you think that's a little silly? Do you think you're any different from the fundamentalist Christians who are upset because you're not teaching your child about Jesus? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 05:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Imposing values on other people's children==

Yes i did think about why my school was the best school in the area. The reason was that it was the richest, as it was a private school and charged massive fees for attendance. And its moral codes are almost indistinguishable from the school i attended after, which was an international college and had no religious affiliation. No adults do not have a right to impose their beliefs on children. Parents also do not have this right. To impose a personal belief on a trusting child is not morally right. Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe. I believe that all parents should teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice. Up until a certain age, say 13, children cannot believe in anything purely because it makes sense to them and, if allowed by their parents, many children do make up their own religion for a while or switch repeatedly between religions until they reach a point of maturity where they can make a choice based upon what they have learned. Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:37, 21 April 2007

::You absolutely don't make any sense. I always think ''ad hominem'' attacks are inappropriate, so I hope I don't sound like I'm attacking you, but based upon the evidence (spelling, grammatical & punctuation errors) I'm beginning to doubt your claim that your private school was the best in the area. Furthermore, I doubt that the religious indoctrination in your school was oppressive based upon the fact that you obviously attended the school, but don't share the school's values. I can't help but tell you that once again you have posted something which does not make logical sense.

::You wrote:
:::"''Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism.''"
::Of course exploiting anyone (most especially children) is never morally right. This is because according to Merriam Webster Online "exploit" means "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <''exploiting migrant farm workers''>". But you haven't laid even a meager basis for this wild accusation. Who are you accusing of exploiting children and for what gain? Are you trying to say that parents are exploiting their own children? What do parents gain from that?

::You write,
:::"''Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe.''"
::In the first sentence you describe your "beliefs" (which is just a different term for your "religion") and furthermore you demand that parents teach their children your values. In the second sentence you state the exact opposite. Perhaps the silliest thing you imply is that it is somehow dangerous or bad to trust your parents and teachers. If one can't trust ones parents or teachers, then who can one trust?

::I very seriously doubt you have learned much if anything through this process you describe above. I doubt you have tested how the world works to verify the claims of teachers and parents. For example, I'm pretty sure you trusted your Driver's Education teacher when he told you that "green means go". You didn't feel the need to experiment with driving on red first. I doubt you ever verified any claims made in the DMV Manual by using the scientific method and a double-blind study. I'm pretty sure that you trust that when you flip a light switch and turn on the boob-tube that electrons will serve your will and pleasure. But, I doubt you have actually flown a kite in a thunderstorm to verify that electricity exists. By the same token, I doubt you need to violate any of the Ten Commandments to agree that these simple laws are for the benefit of all of humanity. I'm sure you agree that children don't need to experiment with adultery, murder or lying. They're better off just taking their parents' word that these are bad things.

::The reason you agree is because it's just plain silly to waste time verifying every claim of trusted parents and teachers. Therefore, the issue for you is not that "children need to reason things on their own".

::The real issue for you is that you are an atheistic evangelist and you are frustrated because some people aren't open to receiving your message. You are frustrated because some people trust their parents more than they trust you.

::Buck up, trooper. You should satisfy yourself with the many victories of the secular progressive agenda. For example, traditional parents were forced to allow people like you to ban prayer and religious discussion from our schools. This should satisfy you. Now you can safely raise your children without fear that they will overhear a prayer and thus they might accidentally become infected with religion. You have successfully had the 10 Commandments removed from many courtrooms. Be happy because you've already won all you can logically win.

::The only thing left for you is to take away more freedom from others to practice their religion and teach their religion to their children. You're not satisfied with leaving them to do what they want to do. Instead, you want to teach other people's children to force parents (and I quote) to "''teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice.''" Why do you feel the need to force other people not to talk about religion until the child is thirteen?

::My guess is that you believe this because you can't seem to understand that your personal opinion about religion '''is''' just another religion. I'm quite sure that you are trying to be a good person. I'm quite sure that you want to teach other people your religion because you want what's best for the child. But in America we have a concept called "Freedom of Religion". Because of our Freedom of Religion, you are prohibited from ramming your value-set down the throats of other people's children.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I admit you have quite easily picked out some flaws in the way i have argued my point, and you are right in about that paragraph where i contradict myself. I shall attempt to explain myself more clearly. I do not think all children should be taught my beliefs. That is the most important part. My beliefs are of the atheistic kind, as you already know. What i think is that children should not be indoctrinated into any religion or set of beliefs. If the person chooses at a later date to be a christian or muslim or atheist, good on them. But, to come to your point on how we trust what certain people tell us about certain things, like the driving instructor when it comes to driving and so on, children trust their parents. That is because the vast majority of parents do have their childrens best interests in mind all the time. However some do use this trust, often without intending to, to teach their child to believe what they believe about God, or lack thereof (you are right about exploiting, it was the wrong word to use in that situation). My arguement in a nutshell: Children should have freedom of religion. What i mean by that is that they should not be influenced by their parents. Because many people do not have freedom of religion, in America or elsewhere (i should point out that freedom of religion is part of the Australian constitution as well) as they did not realise they had a choice. They have always been brought up to believe that Christianity was right, or that Islam was right, etc. and because it is from their parents whom they trust, they do not question this, and they are often denied the tools with which to apply logic to religious arguements.

Just as an aside to my main point, the ten commandments aren't actually such a great set of morals to live by. The very first commandment violates freedom of religion : thou shalt worship no other god but me. Also, according to the commandments, disrespecting your parents results in being stoned to death. And to compound it, thou shalt not kill, does not apply to people who are not the same religion as you. When taken the way they were intended, they aren't such a good set of morals to live by. [[User:Bolly Ottihw:Bolly Ottihw]] 14:57, 23 April 2007
::I won't waste time defending the Ten Commandments, something I belive to be a foundation of everything good in Western Civilization. The courts have agreed to remove the Ten Commandments from public life and I am not in a position to change the law, so I obey the law.

::But I will repeat the following in the hopes that you might understand this concept. Your opinion about religion, in other words "your personal definition of freedom of religion" is just another religion. It is clear that you want other parents to teach your definition of "freedom of religion" to other children.

::It may offend your sensibilities, but some people don't agree with your opinions about religion. In American, they don't have to agree with you. They can believe whatever they want. Thus, most American parents teach their children that America is a free country, where people can believe whatever they want. Further, they teach their children their own family's values and religion. Some people are Baptists or Muslims or Hindus. Some people (like you) prefer like to teach their children to sample a hodgepodge of all religions so that they will better understand atheism. That is their right. Please don't take it away from them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Selective application of logic==
Isn't it amusing that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age, but the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, i disagree (although of course i would, i am a so-called liberal). I think that the reason is that there are facts about sex and that religion is more hazy, in that there is very little proof on both sides of the arguement, and it becomes philosophical which is harder for a child to deal with. However i think that sex education should start at around age 13, which is about the same time i think children should start to seriously consider their religion or beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 15:03, 23 April 2007

You disagree with what? You disagree with:
::* The assertion that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age;
::* The assertion that the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age;
::* With the idea of teaching children family values;
::* With the idea of teaching children regilious values;
::* With the idea that sex education should be postponed;
::* All of the above;
::* Something else?

You don't make much sense to me.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Aside from the fact that you've ignored the bulk of what Bolly wrote and focused mainly on a fairly trivial thing that he said, you seem to think that "we" (being us liberal bods) are applying selective logic by saying we should teach about "sex" and not religion. In fact, by your reasoning, "you" (being the conservative bunch) are applying the same selective logic by saying that we should teach religion but not teach "sex". A horrible dilemma for you, don't you think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::1. I've not ignored anything anyone said. Please explain.

::2. I'm sorry that I've seemed to confuse you. Please allow me to explain my interpretation of the conservative position on the education of sex and the education of religion.
:::* One should teach children family values, morals and religion at an early age. This is for the child's benefit and for the benefit of mankind. (As an adult they can do whatever they would like to do, provided they don't break the law.)
:::* Regarding sex, the conservative position is that it is desirable to prolong the child's innocence by postponing sex education as long as possible.
::I'm sorry if this flavor of common sense offends you. Furthermore, I'm sorry but I can't begin to understand why this common sense would support in any way the ridiculous notion that "religion is morally wrong" by ''any'' definition of "religion" as posted below by another editor. As best as I can figure from the poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled statements above here's what I suppose the liberal position is:
:::* One should not teach children about religion because religion is evil. They won't come to realize how evil religion is until they reach 13 to 25 (commonly known as the Age of Rebellion). As a quick aside, it is a universal truth that the older people become, the wiser they become. I wonder why churches are full of old people?
:::* One should teach children about sex as soon as they are old enough to masturbate. This is because masturbation is healthy and can lead to an active and enjoyable sex life. It's important for children to understand the dangers of STD's and how to avoid pregnancy through the use of pills and condoms. Furthermore, all children should be aware if a little girl wants want an abortion, she can safely get an abortion without her parent's ever even knowing that she was pregnant. In this way she can continue with the lifestyle of her choosing without parents invading her right to privacy. If a child has a child and ends up dependent on the parents or the system, it's the conservative's fault for not talking about birth control more.
::Please correct me if I've mistated the liberal position.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You ignored the fact that Bolly made a valid point about the definition of fact and religion, and the age at which children should be educated about "sex".

:::Secondly, you say yourself that the statements written above are "poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled" and then go on to derive a definition from them!? Surely a better course of action would have been to take the definition from some credible source? As to what you have said, I would agree with most of what you define the conservative view to be, apart from teaching children a specific religion at an early age. I suppose it comes down to setting an age where innocence is lost (and I doubt many are naive enough to think that that is the age of consent). People under the age of 16 will have sex (not all, but some) and if no sex education is available for them, what sort of experiences will they have? Is it not better that from a certain age (and I would say that 13 is a good age for this to start) children are introduced to the idea of safe sex, with few (and preferably one) partner(s)?

:::You're right though, we have divulged from the debate topic, but this is an interesting tangent to the debate which I would very much like to continue if you care to carry on? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::For the second time, I'm ignoring Bolly's "valid point" because I have no clue what you are talking about. I didn't read any valid point which wasn't addressed ''ad nauseum'' already. Please read the dialogue to this point if you are confused as to why I think it's ridiculous (and invalid) to demand that other people teach their children ''your'' values. I've already explained why this is ridiculous above.

::I attempted to derive a definition from Bolly's statement only to appease your pretense of indignation when you accused me of ignoring Bolly's alleged "points". By your reaction, I'm now assuming that you just haven't read the entire argument yet and that you concur, Bolly made no points in the gibberish above. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

My point was that i think that children should be educated about sex and religion at the same age. This is because it is the age where both become major issues for children growing up. Please do explain how this is hard to understand, and how this is a selective application of logic. (I apologise for my poor grammar, it is because i write my line or thought and arguement down the same way i would say it out loud) [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:42, 24 April 2007

::You don't need to keep writing the same thing over and over and over. We already understand your opinion about how ''you think'' things should be. You've made that quite clear.

::What you still don't seem to understand is that you don't have the right to tell other people how to live, nor do you have the right to teach other children your beliefs. That's pretty self-centered. You're self-centered nature is further evidenced by the fact that you admission that you would prefer to force others to spend their precious time deciphering your cryptic musings directly from your stream of consciousness, rather than taking the time and effort to write coherent sentences with good spelling and grammar. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Age at which sex education should be taught==

Regarding the interesting tangent: to what particularly are you referring? Are you trying to debate the age at which sex education should be imposed upon children?

This is a complicated issue because there are several related factors. Most churches teach that sex outside of marriage is adultery, a sin and a mistake. But it is my personal opinion, that church and religion is a guideline and the morals espoused therein are ideals. Ideally one never lies. Ideally one never commits adultery. But here in the real world, there are a good many liars and adulterers (myself included in both counts). Additionally, most parents think that sex under the age of 18 is a mistake. Most everyone agrees that sex under the age of 16 is a mistake. Does it happen in the real world? Yes it happens. Beyond the basic biological functions of sex, sexuality is about morality. Certainly every child over the age of 13 should be taught something about the biology of sex. But what of the morality of the sex, the politics of sex and the religious or spiritual aspects of sex? These are much more complicated and personal issues and these issues should be handled within the family.

I think it's important to teach young teens "where babies come from." I think it's important to leave discussions about homosexuality, adultery and abortion to the family and church. But my original point is not that I presume to know how or when to push sex education. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:What i find interesting is that you assume that the church knows more about homosexuality than homosexuals. And regarding this, the church brings 2000 year old arguements to this subject without considering how it applies in todays society. In the past homosexuality would not have been profitable as it would not have benifited the tribe in anyway compared to heterosexual sex. In this age, there is no lack of benefit from not having children and so there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. The other thing i disagree with is that here is a religious aspect to sex. Sex should be a coupling between two people who share a great love between each other. Again, that doesnt always happen, however it is essential that children learn this at the same time they learn about the biological side of sex. [[Bolly ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:47, 24 April 2007

::Of course, that's your opinion and your entitled to it. You've got a right to live your life however you want. For me the choice is obvious. On one hand I have 2000 to 10000 years of wisdom. On the other hand, there's some dude on the Internet {{strike personal remark|who doesn't know how to write proper English, but }} who claims to know more than the Church, and Thomas Aquinas. All I ask is that you let others live their lives the way they want. Is that too much to ask? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Did you just make a personal remark? (I should block your account for 1 second. ;-)

I apologize if I offended anyone. I don't believe in ''ad hominem'' attacks. I think they are rude and pointless. However, if someone admits that they don't write properly in a forum where writing is the only means of communication, then they have openned the door to commentary by others. I'm quite sure you're just kidding anyway, I hope this doesn't sound too stern. I'm just tired right now. I was up late, up early and I'm facing a long day. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Atheists have it all figured out ... ==
My point above in ''Selective application of logic'' is that it looks very hypocritical for liberals to want to teach children about sex as young as possible, but the same crowd doesn't want to teach children religion until after they are suspectible to corruption and experimentation.

What amateur philosophers like Bolly don't seem to understand is that theologians, philosophers and generations of people with more time on their hands than all of us have already put a great deal of effort and experimentation into evolving a set of moral codes and sound religious creeds. Bolly is naive enough to expect the unreasonable notion that any '''one''' man can compete with the thoughts and knowledge of countless generations who have gone before him. He honestly thinks he can invent a personal philosophy and religious-code based upon his individual experiences. He believes that his own personal philosophy can rival the combined thoughts of generations of philosophers and theologians.

/begin rant: We as modern humans don't have to invent medicine, or geology, or build a TV set and write computer code. That's already been done by others! We can stand on their shoulders. Can you imagine how silly and presumptive it sounds to those former atheists like myself when they read that Bolly thinks he knows how the universe works and that he can definitively say that he understands the nature of God?

Bolly doesn't know the first thing about God or philosophy, but he wants to teach other people's children his credo of experiment with all religions and then become an atheist. I know why [[Thomas Aquinas]] and [[Socrates]] and even [[Aleister Crowley]] are famous (or infamous as the case may be), but I don't know why Bolly presumes to know what's best for other people's children. /end rant.

You don't have to invent moral codes or laws or waste time experimenting with life's dead-ends. You can look up the answer in the book of your choice and things will be so much easier for you.

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I have explained that it is not hypocritical, as i believe they should be taught at the same age, neither
before the other.

I am not naive enough to think that i can rival any of the great philosophers in logic and philosophy, however i dont think i would have any trouble outthinking Thomas Aquinas, for example. The reason for this is that he (and others like him) used their religious credibility to establish themselves as philosophical geniuses when in fact, he was not much smarter then anyone of the time, and certainly not smarter then the average uni graduate today. This can be amply demonstrated by his '5 proofs' of gods existence which are more full of holes than a swiss cheese.

To compare moral codes to medicing or geology is not an adequate comparison. The basic ideas of medicine and geology are based on sound proof and will not change much within the next thousand years. On the other hand, moral codes are always changing depending on the society that they are employed by. Look at the change in opinion about non-caucasian people over the past 200 years! only 100 years ago it was considered the height of stupidity to consider an african american the equal of a white man, yet today, even though there is still far to much prejudice in the world, it is generally accepted that there is no difference between any of the races of humanity. The great thinkers of one age would be considered backwards and redundant if they were transported in time to today.

I do not presume to know the nature of god. I do know, within myself, that god does not exist and i am content with that knowledge. You say you were an atheist, i would like to know what converted you to christianity.

No you do not need to waste time experimenting with dead ends, however because i believe in freedom of religion, i think it would only be fair that children are shown all the alternative modes of beliefs.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:00, 24 April 2007

::Fine. Show your children and leave others alone.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== This is an invalid question ==

I've stayed away from the debates on Conservapedia, and this one is an example of why. I'm only here now because I was asked for my input.

The problem with the question is that "religion" is not defined. On my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment#.22Religion.22 Wikipedia user page] I've listed some of the main ways that the word "religion" is used:
{{QuoteBox|
# A set of beliefs on which one bases one's life
# Belief in a deity or deities (e.g. Christianity is a religion)
# A particular set of rituals (e.g. He is practising his religion)
# A particular broad set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Christian, Muslim, or Hindu?)
# A particular narrower set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Methodist, Baptist, or Catholic?) }}

I further say there:
{{QuoteBox|No. 2 is, in my opinion, an arbitrary subset of No. 1. People believe in multiples gods (polytheism), everything-is-god (pantheism), one god (monotheism) or no god (atheism). Pantheism and atheism don't fit into definition No. 2, yet to consider them somehow "different" is arbitrary and self-serving ... . Thus I use definition No. 1 in preference to No. 2, and argue that atheism (and related views such as secular humanism) are religions, every bit as much as Christianity is. The difference is simply how many gods one believes in.}}

So if "religion" is a worldview (or ''ideology'' if you prefer), then it follows that ''everybody has one'', by its very nature and definition. How can one then ask if it is morally wrong?

Of course the person who asked the question obviously didn't have that definition in mind. But which one did he have?

To a Christian, Christianity is No. 1: a core set of beliefs on which one bases one's life. I would hope that it is obvious even to atheists that one cannot help but base one's actions on one's beliefs. So in that sense, "religion" comes before children, because when dealing with children, one ''must'' deal with them according to one's beliefs. That is why everyone, even atheists, do so.

To an atheist (who conveniently would not describe atheism as a religion), "religion" is a "optional extra". And on that basis, clearly children's welfare should come before "optional extra" beliefs.

To recap, the problem here is that there is no definition of what is intended by "religion" in this question, let alone any actual agreement by opposing viewpoints.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

This is dead-on correct. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

We do not 'conveniently' choose not to describe atheism as a religion. Atheism is defined as : a lack of belief. Lack of belief is not a religion. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:02, 24 April 2007

:Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is an ardent ''belief'' that there is no God. And even ignoring that point, you ''do'' have core beliefs, which can be considered your worldview/ideology/religion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:23, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is. When split up: A-Theism. no-belief. I do not ardently believe god does not exist. I dont think god exists. If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic.

I do have core beliefs. That does not consitute religion except in your definition. And i would argue that that is not religion, that is simply morality dressed up. My worldview is not my ideology or religion, because it would be a really weird religion compared to the main ones around today.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:57, 24 April 2007

:According to the Oxford dictionary[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk], the "atheism" means "the belief that God does not exist". The prefix "a-" can mean "without", but it can also mean "not", and "theism" is a reference to God, not just belief. Not all atheists hold their belief in no god as strongly, but for many atheists, it is a ''belief'' in no god.
:It is not "my definition". It is one of several dictionary definitions. The rest of your last two sentences don't make sense. You have not explained how atheism is not a religion yet Christianity is. As I quoted myself above, any such distinction is arbitrary and self-serving.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Bolly says, ''If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic. '' Evidence for God lies around us in all directions and in all things. (See other topics herein for a few examples.) The reason you don't see evidence of God is your picture of God has nothing to do with what God is about. God is not some magical being. God is not flying spaghetti. God does not defy logic. God is logic. In your mind the great machine of the univers happened out of sheer luck. What's the difference between sheer luck and God? Aren't they the same thing? Hopefully I can give you a clue where to find God by telling you where to look.

God is in the details. The electrons are busy doing their thing. The subatomic particles are inside the protons hard at work doing whatever they do to make matter do what it does. Complex chains of molecules describe how to build a human being more efficiently than any code written by any programmer.

God is in the everyday. God is in the mother who cares for her child. God is in the man who jumps into freezing water to save a stranger. God is in the reason you feel good when you do good things, even when they aren't fun.

God is in the grandeur. God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time.

God is everywhere, everywhere but where you're looking. You're looking for god to do something other than what the universe already does. You're presumption is that the universe is fantastic, wonderfully complicated, a well-oiled machine, but you expect something over and above all of this. ''Yeah the universe is vastly complicate, but what have you done for me lately?''

The naivety of the atheist lies in the belief that the universe itself is not evidence of God. By Bolly's definition, God is only evidenced by something beyond the atheist's explanation and comprehension. By this definition you'll never find God, because if you could comprehended the magical proof of God and God could be explained, then it would not longer be magical and no longer beyond comprehension! [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely it is enough to gaze upon the vastness and awe inspring vistas of the universe without having to attribute it to some other being. Your above definition of god: "God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time." seems to me to be more naive then my atheism. You are simply defining the universe but replacing it with god.

I would like to see some of this 'proof' of gods existence for so far i have seen nothing that comes remotely close to convincing me that god exists. On the other hand, there is no need for god in this world. Science has come very close to completly shut out godly influence in the creation of life and the universe.

The universe has not come about out of sheer luck. The strong and weak nuclear force, gravity and quantum theory all allow us to model the creation of stars, planets and black holes in a purely logical manner. If you wish to call that logic and those laws 'God' then you are free to do so. But then god is not a being who can be worshipped or who answers prayers or makes miracles. Then God simply becomes another name for the universe with no added baggage of being the creator. I trust that this dismisses your last point about the magical proof of god. You are welcome to call the universe what you will, however don't expect many people to address prayers to the law of gravity.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:50, 26 April 2007

:::I understand what you say, but I don't think that's what you mean. What you are actually saying is that you have defined your image of God and unless God conforms to your idea of what God means/is and then someone else proves to you that idea is true, then you will not believe in God. Have you considered the possibility that what you thought of as God is just a magical bogeyman? Have you considered the possibility that God is something else entirely than what you thought as a child and later realized was preposterous when you grew up? What we teach children about God is drastically simplified for their consumption. It up to you to purse the truth of God after you realize there is no magical bogeyman. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why Atheism is ridiculous==
Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "God" is another word for "everything." God equals everything. Everthing is God. To deny that "God" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if God is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does God (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does God have a plan? Or is Everything (''i.e.'' God) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies. Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstien included) believe that time is an illusion and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or God) is sentient. God has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:That's not the God I know. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::As a godless, atheistic, morally-bankrupt existentialist, I have to say I disagree with this "assessment." If I am to take what you say at face value I come to the immediate conclusion that atheism is still correct. If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....

:::I think of the universe this way: I don't know how it came to be, but I assume it was a chemical and physical event, not supernatural. I know that this "stuff" doesn't have to have a plan in order to exist. There need not be a man in the sky to protect me from everything. I don't need to pray to something that I will succeed in life because there is no one listening. But, I'm not sad about this, I don't feel alone or unloved by the big ol' scary universe. Rather, I feel emboldened to take moral actions when I can.

:::Camus is my hero. His basic equation boils down to this: once a person realizes that there is no god they have two choices--suicide or a "faith flight." That is, if one accepts the religious view of things. If Camus is correct, and existence does indeed precede essence, then there is a third choice, the philosophy of moral action. Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.

:::Now, since I don't believe everything has a plan, and that I have a moral obligation to help my fellow man (and woman), I have an obligation to come to sites like this and try to fix them. Not by including so-called "liberal bias." Rather, the point is to make sure truth trumps propaganda. Wether I like it or not, I have a duty to help fix this garbage. I liken it to watching a child roll their tricycle toward the street. You, the adult, are standing there and you can see a truck bearing down on the child. Do you try and help her, or do you pray? I must take action and this website affords me a chance to help everybody. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You have mistaken my meaning, despite repeating exactly what I said:

::''If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....''

This is indeed exactly what I meant. So in fact, there is a god. The question is God sentient or not. Does God have thoughts, plans, etc. Or is the universe a jumble of meaningless matter that is and always was. A tangental thought to ponder: auantum mechancics seem to suggest that reality can change depending on the observer.

For those who say "this is not the God I know". Indeed it is the God you. Here's the line of logic:

::1. God = Everything
::2. Therefore God exists. (And the corrollary, atheism is ridiculous.)
::3. Now there is a choice: one can choose to believe that God is sentient; or one can deny the sentience of God despite overwhelming of evidence to the contrary.
::4. Then, if God is sentient then what can we mortals know of God? Where will we find His truths? We might find them in science. We find them in religion. We each find out own personal truth in different ways.

If you make it to step 4, the arguement becomes which religion is best. Which truth makes the most sense to you. Christians, Buddhists, Islamist, they all have their own personal arguments. I won't waste time debating religion when atheists are in the room. It's pointless, because they haven't made the logical step to 3.

If your mind doesn't make the leap to step 3, there is no point in discussing morals. In fact, it's ridiculous to postulate morals or philosophy because the universe is meaningless. For those who are at this point in personal growth: thine only commandment is ''do what thou wilt''. It is pointless to do anything other than that which makes you happy if you get to step 2 but don't make the jump to step 3. However, if you can comprehend step two but don't believe in 3 then all this poppycock about morals and goodness is ridiculous. Furthermore, when an atheist discusses morals and philosophy it only only serves to prove there is a God. This is because the atheist's spirit (which he doesn't believe believe exists) nags and naws at him like the quite voices of angels.

If you make it to step one but can't make it to step 2, then you are a) either incapable of higher thought; or b) intellectually dishonest because you fear where this argument leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, what you are trying to do, in logic, is referred to as an [[enthymeme]]. However, your argument does not work. First, you must show HOW god equals everything. Otherwise you can say anything. Thus:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

:::But you tried to do something else. You tried to insert statements as if they are quantifiable terms. Sort of like saying, "E = mc2" ''Well what do those letters mean?'' "Elephants equal mustard and cows times themselves." You've defined nothing except a lack of basic logical principles.

Being intellectually dishonest would be if I said, well, "god likes strawberries more than cherries." When you ask ''why'' I'll say "because they taste better." Asserting your opinion as fact is what makes it less than true. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin, why do you care if a child rides into traffic on a tricycle? What do you gain if she is saved? What do you lose if she dies? It sounds a lot like your a theist to me. You obviously think the universe has some meaning or some order. If the universe has order and meaning then it only follows that you believe the universe is God. The next step to make is to find out where God best reveals his truth. You think that his truth is best revealed in the philosophical musings of your hero Camus. Camus wrote your Bible. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::It might be difficult to understand but I did not say that god=toast. I agree that God is not toast. Is "Everything" that is to say the universe as a whole sentient or not? Simple question. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:50, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Furthermore, by your example:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

By your definition, then it would be possible to know the true nature of toast. We pretty well already know how to make toast. It's a silly diversion from the question you are afraid to ask yourself. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

No it isn't. I have already asked myself--for years--if there is a god. I have come to the conclusion ther very likely isn't. I am not an atheist (they are 100% sure) but I sit at about 99.9% sure. I have diverted nothing--being intellectually honest with myself meant I had to realize there was no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:As the one who said, "this is not the God I know", I reject the first point in the line of logic, that God equals everything. I am a monotheist, not a pantheist. God ''made'' the universe, He ''isn't'' the universe.
:Flippin, your counter-logic is wrong. Everwill's logic skipped a step. His logic was:
::1. God = Everything
::1A. We know that everything exists.
::2. Therefore God exists.

:So in order to match Everwill's argument from logic, your counter logic should have been:
::1. god = toast
::1A. we know that toast exists
::2. therefore god exists.
:But you got point 2 back to front.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Phil,

So as I understand it you think God is outside of the universe? God is apart from the universe. God is not everywhere at all times, rather he is somewhere else. Where is that somewhere else and what reason have you to believe (other than blind faith) that somewhere else exists? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:God is a spiritual being. He is "outside" the universe—a physical place—in the sense that He is not part of it. But being an omnipresent spiritual being He is not confined to a physical place, so He is not outside in a geographical sense. He is everywhere at once, but not synonymous with the universe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that God is not "confined" to anything. But I'm not sure there's any value to arguing the fine differences between "everything", the universe and God. We're not philosophers, and others have explored this better than we can. I think there is some value to helping atheists understand why the question is not whether God exist or not. The real question is whether God is an omnipresent sentience or not. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Everwill, your argument that god = everything is preposterous. Firstly, i do not agree with the first statement you make, that god is everything. I would like some hard proof, or at least a convincing argument that god equals everything before the first premise of your argument.

If, for arguements sake, we assume that your first premise is correct, then the only question is, as you say, whether everything (or god) is sentient? Again, you can say so, however i want proof. I have yet to see a plan in the universe or everything. According to the current predictions by astronomers and physcists, the universe is set to expand for an idefinete period and that eventually all the stars will run out of hydrogen and go out, and that everything will spread further and further apart at faster and faster speeds until the universe tears itself apart. Can you explain the plan in this? It displays all the theories about gravity, dark matter, quantum theory and strong and weak nuclear forces. There is nothing to show an added level of intelligence in this everything.

Please do not assume that your first premise is correct until you show some evidence for this, otherwise your argument is entirely invalid.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:06, 26 April 2007

:::You must have made things pretty difficult for your alegbra teacher. The teacher presents the following:

::::''x + 1 = 2''
::::''X is'' unknown.
::::''Solve for X.''

:::To which you reply, "Prove that X is unknown and a mathematical value. X is a letter and has no value, thus algebra is entirely invalid."

:::Hopefully you see how silly your reply is, but I'll grant you that I may have given you too much credit above. Perhaps the concept is a little too complicated for you to understand as I presented above. I'll try harder.

:::If the word "God" is synomous with "everything" then I assume you believe God exists. If the word "God" means "magical bogeyman who meddles in the affairs of mankind" then I assume we agree that God does not exist. In the framework of the argument above, God means everything.

:::Now I'll put that aside and try to explain the concept without using words that offend your sensibilities. The universe shows organization and complexity beyond any single human's comprehension at every level. The components of a cell, atomic structures, galactic structures, geological structures, biologal structures. It's vastly intricate, interconnected and complicated. The universe functions like an immense machine and so far as we can tell, it will continue to function for quite some time and it functioned long ago.

:::With this knowledge one has to make a leap of faith, and science has taught us that the simple solution is usually the right solution. The simple solution is that the universe is organization implies design, design implies designer. The only other plausible choice is that the everything that every happens, happened or will happened is the result of something that makes a lottery ticket or a lightning strike look like a easy money and a daily occurence. Now, I respect your right to belive that, but I think it's sort of naive.

:::So you think the universe is randomness. I think the universe has order. Now to work back into the definitions presented above. I think God has order. You think God is randomness. Whether we call it God, the universe or everything, it makes no difference. I'm not trying to take away your right to believe what you want. I'm not trying to tell you to go to church. I'm just trying to find a common ground on which we can agree. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Alright, now i understand the point you were making. I do not agree with it, however i see now where you are coming from.

The reason that the whole of the universe is so incomprehensible to us, is because we evolved on a scale where the only distances that mattered were a couple of hundred kilometres to about a centimetre. That was all that was needed to survive as homo erectus in a hostile world. It was not necessary for us to be able to understand a cell or an atom or a star. The complex machinery that is our brain is not built for such things as the universe or quantum theory. This is why it is so hard to comprehend.

The simple solution is the right solution in the majority of cases, however the simple solution in this case is not one of design. Darwin has already shown that while animals and plants may look designed they are in fact the end result of a massive series of gene mutations and adaptations. In this case, there is no designer and thus your point that organization implies design implies designer is proved wrong in the case of natural life. Simply because there is no such explanation for how the universe has come to be in such a way does not mean that there is no explanation that does not need to attribute it to a designer. Just think that 300 years ago, noone thought that something complex could come from something less complex as it balked common sense. However our common sense only applies to simple, mundane everyday things, not the huge distances and complexities of space or an atom.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:56, 27 April 2007

==Is Atheism Ridiculous?==
::::On what basis do can you decide that something is "moral"? If I saw a truck bearing down on a child, I would try and help her, because God loves her and He would want me to help, and I would be praying at the same time. But why would you help her? From an atheistic point of view, she is just an accidental combination of a bunch of chemicals facing a life of suffering, disease, and ultimate death. What's the point in helping? Why not just let chance shortcut the process and save her all those years of pain? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:24, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Because I feel an obligation to help her, as I said. Saying it is moral means nothing. It is the action one takes. I believe that it is right to keep someone alive rather than kill them (what the above example allows for). If I let her die, she cannot make her own decisions--I am taking away her inalienable right to decide her own fate, if you will. I have no right to hurt someone else--that takes away from their right to choose how they will spend their existence.

::Yes, she is accidental, as are you and me, but I have no right to infringe on the rights of a sentient human being by allowing them to die. Standing by and watching her die would make me just as guilty as putting a gun to her head and pulling the trigger. Morality is based on this single point: existence precedes essence. We are all responsible for our own choices with regard to how they affect others.

::I don't need a religion to tell me that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Just another quick note--don't you think you have an obligation to do something outside of a god's wrath? When you say "because god loves her" you tacitly give up the responsibility for taking action. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Yes, you feel an obligation to help her. But why? I'd say that it's because you've been raised in a country with a Christian heritage and have absorbed some of its values. But I'm asking what basis atheism provides for that. Why do you feel that it is "right". What if I "feel" differently? Who is right and who is wrong? Where did her "inalienable right to decide her own fate" come from? Does she in fact have such a right? I assert that you ''do'' need a religion—or more specifically, God—to tell you that, because atheism can't.
:::::I fail to see how I'm giving up responsibility for taking action. On the contrary, it's because God loves her that I have that responsibility.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::You know, atheism has almost nothing to do with it. I don't think about, or believe in god the way you don't believe (I assume) in the flying spaghetti monster.

::But saying that "because god loves her...I have a responsibility" is equivalent to saying, "I'll go to Grandma's because it makes Mom happy." It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you.

::Finally, that "right to exist" could also be thought of as a prohibition against her death. That comes from the notion that even though our very existence is absurd, I don't have a right to decide how you will affect it. To throw my hands up and say "but who is right and who is wrong" is just reducing the argument to multiplicity, and thus relativism.

::I guess what I'm saying is I don't have a right to decide for that child so I will save her and let her make her own choice. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:::"''It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you''". On the contrary, I have ''decided'' to do what God would like, rather than do something for a selfish reason of it being something that ''I'' would like.
:::You say that the "right to exist" comes from the notion that you don't have a right to decide how you will affect it, yet by saving the girl you ''have'' decided to affect things. Yes, throwing your hands up is relativism, but the opposite of relatives is absolutes, and absolutes only come from God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes exactly, you have decided what god would like. Other people can have a different understanding, people such as Adolf Hitler who decided that god thought it was right that he should kill all jews, as they were "christ killers". Or the young man who shot a doctor who practised abortions because "god would have wanted me to do it". The fact that you have to interpret a book to decide your morals means that several different people can gain different moral codes from the same book, while there are very few people who would disagree that wanton killings would lead to society fracturing. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:17, 26 April 2007

::Adolf Hitler was an atheist. Beyond this factual error, I don't understand your point. We all decide what god would like. (It's call concept called ''free will''.) The underlying philosophy and truths found in all major religions are the same. Is this an accident? I suppose you would answer yes. In fact, the entire universe and everything that led to this moment is one collossal accident that happened for your benefit. Children have no idea what their parents endure to provide for them. In the same way the atheist scoffs at the mysteries of the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:03, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ottihw, no, I haven't decided what God would like. I have ''learnt'' what God would like be reading what He has told us. Everwill is correct that Hitler was an atheist, but I disagree that we can all gain different morals from the Bible. That is in effect saying that words have no meaning, so we can choose to understand them any way we want. Should I choose to understand your words any way I want, or should I presume that we are both using the same convention of English (in this case) language and that you mean what you've said? Besides, if you and I can both derive different morals from reading the Bible, how is it any better if we ''don't'' read the Bible? Surely that would mean even ''less'' restraint on what we choose our morals to be? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Which is another way of saying that Phil is a "strict constructionist" when it comes to the Bible. I think the mullahs in Iran (though they use a different book) agree with him in this way. I'm more of a deconstructionist and have more doubts about the Bible being the "Word of God". I think God's Words are way too complicated for one man or one book to describe. However, I would agree on 99% of the big picture with Phil and probably with the so-called atheists in here. That to me is evidence of God. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:47, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I happen to believe that God is clever enough to put things in words that we can understand. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

God is very clever indeed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:You havea copy of the Bible in God's handwriting? Or you beleive that every step from initial writing, through every translation throughout time has been divinely guided to lay out His message clearly? So, which translation is the divinely guided one? And if He were so inclined to so specifically direct the writing ans subsequent translation of a book, might he not have made it a bit clearer which translation is correct, and which parts of the Bible can be taken literally and which are metaphors? You claim to know the difference... I've never seen that footnote anywhere in the Bible. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The copies and translations of the Bible are very accurate, and accurate enough to know what God was saying. And the phrase "every translation through time" is quite misleading, as mot current English Bibles have been translated directly from the original languages, i.e. a one-step translation. It couldn't get much better than that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

(copied below).

: Standard non-answer... How do you know they are accurate, which version? The differences are quite spectacular at times. Not to mention that even if one accepts your "one-step translation" proposition we are talking (in the case of Genesis) about an account put down long after the event itself (even by your time scale), and then translated from languages with enough nuances to allow for all these different translations that arise today... Not to mention that the "accurate enough to know what God was saying" ignores the reality that if people debate it to the degree we do today, it sure doesn't seem so crystal clear... I say the the story of Genesis clearly reads like a parable or metaphor... you believe it is clearly meant to be taken literally, though you allow that some portions of the Bible are not literal... I was asking for the magic footnote that tells us which is which? [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::That was not a non-answer; it made valid points. The differences are not that spectacular. Why don't you accept the "one-step translation"? Look in almost any modern version and it will tell you that it was translated from the original languages. I tend to subscribe to the belief that Genesis was originally written in sections by the people that witnessed the events (e.g. Adam himself) and Moses compiled those handed-down written histories into the book of Genesis.
::People debate the Bible to the degree that they do because some people will do anything to avoid the implications of what it is teaching, including calling black white (actually, calling six days billions of years). But that doesn't mean that the text is ambiguous, just that some people will not take it at face value.
::Parable and metaphor have particular linguistic characteristics, and Genesis doesn't have those characteristics, so it is not parable nor metaphor (on the whole; some bits may be). You determine which is which by the language, just as you do in everyday life. If I said that "it's raining cats and dogs", would you wonder if I was being literal or not?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

==Questions and Answers==
Plato showed how in a debate one asks questions so that the debaters can pursue the truth together rather than being adversaries. So what I can't understand is why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests? Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you? Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share? Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?

To be more specific you say ''Because I feel an obligation to help her''. What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? Will she pay you? What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

So here are my questions:

::''"Why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests?"''

:::* Atheist says: I might ask you the same thing. I have no short-term interest in this child's death. I have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer).
:::* Theist replies, because there is something, perhaps a spirit or a god, that imparts to ever soul the knowledge of good from evil and right from wrong. Doing evil moves you further from god and thus it does not feel good to do evil (''even when it feels good to do evil''!) This is a shorthand way of saying that when you commit acts which are pleasurable but evil, you feel shallow and empty inside. On the other hand, when one commit acts of kindness without any payback of any kind, one feels good inside. This is something most humans learn as they progress into maturity. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::''"Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you?"''

:::* Atheist says: Two parts there: I wouldn't murder a child--as I said--so what is there to feel guilty about? If no one would punish me presupposes I have done this act, so the question is invalidated by the former.
:::* Theist replies, I should hope you wouldn't murder a child, but your reply ducks the obvious answer. Of course I wouldn't murder a child to get what I wanted, but if I did murder a child to get what I wanted I would feel guilty. What causes that feeling of guilty? Is that not proof of a spiritual aspect of life?

::''"Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share?"''

:::* Atheist say: It certainly could be. ''"Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?"'' Reason allows me to discern right from wrong, as I said above. I am compelled to act according to this obligation to help others and not let them have their choice made by another.
:::* Theist says, what is this "reason" you are talking about in an athistic universe. Without God or morality, what is the difference between good and evil or right and wrong? From an atheistic (i.e. Satanic) POV right and wrong are silly concepts. "Good" is just an excuse to chump the strong from their rightful place at the top of the food chain. Don't you agree?

''"What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? <s>Will she pay you?</s> What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?"''

:::* Atheist says: Okay, now you're getting to the meat of the matter. I am obligated by this sense of everyone's right to exist. I have no more right to take you're life than I do to steal your bike. Not that those two are equal, but the line of demarcation is the same. It is only selfish in the sense that I ''gain'' when this child is allowed to grow up and make her own choices. If, in the process, I am killed, then I have served my principles. If she dies, then I took moral action and can feel good about my effort. However, if I let her die I am as guilty as any of those Nazi guards at Aushwitz who said ''"I was only following orders."''
:::* Theist replies: your answer implies the existence of God even if you can't see the forest for all the trees. Why does everyone have a right to exist? Because you said so? That makes no sense in your concept of reality. What if my country elects a leader, for the purposes of illustration let's call him ''Adolf Hitler''. Our leader through legal government manuevers manages to establish a process to eliminate what he sees as a cancer on our nation. By your reasoning that leader has a moral imperative to kill Jews BECAUSE he thinks it's best for the nation. From the theist stand-point, we believe that all life is precious, most especially human life. Therefore it doesn't matter what logic, rationale or legal manuevers Hitler makes, killing is wrong.

Atheist summary: As long as you have a choice, to defer your morality to a god, or priest or whatever you ask for figiveness is to shirk your duty to society--that being to think for yourself. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Theist summary: No one ever defers any choices to anyone ever. Each individual is always responsible for his own actions and choices. To clear up your confusion: a theist defers his choices to a priest about as much as a judge in a court room defers his choices to his first year law professor. Religion is a tool to help us understand God. Religion and religious leaders do not speak for God. An "atheist" who follows a moral code is just a theist who doesn't know much about his God because he's too afraid to trust others. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:In point of fact here, I have said I am not an atheist, I am more properly called an agnostic. An atheist, by definition, holds that they have the answer--that there is no god. As an agnostic I am open to the idea that a god exists, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Please don't refer to me as an atheist--it is a different thing altogether. Also, in addition to agnosticism, I am an existentialist--so you could also use that term if you like.

:Finally, I don't have a god-belief so I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done. I do things that I reason are beneficial to society, e.g. actions that foster growth, development and change. I abhor stifling debate and that seems to be the purpose of religion as it is used most of the time. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm comfortable with my approach to all questions. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

You claim that "I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done". You do things because a little voice inside your head tells you to do things? Who is that little voice?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't have a "little voice." That is superstition. I use reason. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

It's easy to dodge the obvious with semantics. There is absolutely no question you (and all human beings) have a "little voice", that's not a superstition, that's a fact. The argument is about what is the driving force behind that little voice.

You claim that you simply rationalize everything out through the use of reason, and you are perhaps superior to moral codes found in religion. For example, you won't kill the little child because as you say you "have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer)." But if killing the little child would give you a billion dollars, you would kill the child because of the risk versus reward principle found in rationalization. The odds of that little girl inventing a cure for cancer are pretty remote. Furthermore, you might not ever contract cancer. But with a billion dollars you could finance a health care system that would further benefit you and those you deem worthy. That's "reason" at work and to you way of thinking that's much better than silly and archaic notions like "good" or "evil". [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think you have more of a stake in believing that a "non-believer" would like to kill a child for some kind of gain. I don't see it that way. I don't think there is anything that would make me kill a child. That's silly.
::Also, I don't have a "little voice" in my head. People who do I deem to be psychotic or lying. Simple as that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

A hypothetical argument takes a certain statement as an assumption and attempts to analyze it. You seem to be (perhaps intentionally) misunderstanding the hypothetical in the form in which it is presented. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend like you really don't understand because of inability to communicate.

Let's change the hypothetical slightly, you state there there is nothing that would make you kill a child. Why would you never kill a child? I understand that you base this decision on reason, but I don't understand the basis of your reason. Is your reason based upon moral codes? Aren't "moral codes" just superstition to help supress the will of the strong? Is your "reason" based upon what most helps society or is your reason based upon what most helps you? Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?

As the wise philospher Camus/Flippin says, ''Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.'' This is all well and good if one is perfect reasonable. But what about people who are unreasonable and who devise a meaning of life exemplified by people like Hitler, Jim Jones, Jeffery Dahmer, Stalin, and Charles Manson? By what right can we impose our value-system upon them?

By the same token, should each individual have the right, nay the duty, to devise his own code of laws and not wait for some legistlature or society to impose those laws upon them? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
.
==Trying to parse some of this==
:Since I consider myself a good communicator I will try and communicate with you.

:Okay, you said: "Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?" How could one do anything that helped society that didn't help oneself? Maybe I should try and explain that by asking is there really anything that one can do that helps society, yet hurts the self? If one takes an action that helps society, like picking up garbage alongside the road, does not that act help society? And if we agree that it does, how is one harmed by it?

:A reasonable person might say that the individual could get a sunburn. The individual could be hit by a truck. These are true statements, but the probability of these things happening is low (for the truck) and not that dangerous (for a sunburn). But what is the value of picking up debris left by less reasonable citizenry? Do we not gain as a society by having less trash by the roadside?

:A reasonable person might also say, yes, but must I pick up all the debris along the roadside? My answer would be no. The responsibility for cleaning up roadsides is spread equally between us all. We have a shared responsibility to do this because it helps the individual ''and'' the society.

:Now, you also mention examples like Hitler who reasoned that murdering Jews would benefit him. But is Hitler an example of a reasonable man? Honestly? Hitler was more likely sociopathic, which is a disorder that affects one's ability to reason. If we rely on reason to tell us that what is of the greatest benefit for society is of the greatest benefit for the individual, then opposing someone like Hitler, or another damaged person, is reasonable. Thus, we not only have a right to oppose them, we have an obligation to oppose them. Just as we have an obligation to oppose trash on the roadways.

:I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children? Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

:Finally, why do you feel the need to paint me as something less than moral? I have explained this repeatedly yet you do not understand. Is the failure to communicate really mine then? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not trying to paint you as immoral. I've said repeatedly I think you are moral. But I'm trying to work withing your framework to understand the truth (according to you) and I'm trying to understand the source of your morality. Where (according to you) does moral authority flow from?

I thought you said that morals comes from "reason". But as you describe it it seems that morals don't come from "reason", but from your rationalizations. I don't understand why you think your rationlizations are any more valid than the rationalizations of any other person? Of course, millions of Germans agreed with Hitler's rationalization. They were not '''all''' sociopaths. I assume that we agree their rationalization was flawed, but why is it flawed? This seems to indicate that there is some higher moral authority than rationalization. Is there some absolute code of moral authority, or were the Germans simply wrong because they lost the war? What does it matter if they were morally wrong anyway? That was in the past. There is no spiritual world and there is no God. Today is a new day. This is a new minute.

I think you're trying to claim that certain rationalizations is more valid than other rationalizations. If some rationalization is more valid than others, then why don't we as humans attempt to find the true source of the best rationalization possible and then follow that reasoning? If that is not a religion, what is that?

Secondly, I suppose I find it difficult to believe that anyone does anything simply because of "reasoning" alone. In my experince people do good things because it makes them feel good, not because they rationalized and reasoned away the degree of goodness vs. the effort required. Like every other human being, you sometimes do some bad things. After the commission of these acts of badness, why do you feel ''guilty''? If the ends justify the means there shoudl be no such thing as guilt.

Thirdly, what is the point of morality? Who cares? Why not take from the system whatever you can whenever you can. Your actions will not stop the world from spinning. You will not stop the stupid morons who worship the flying spaghetti monster, so why not exploit them? Then you can better use their resources, since you have a higher level of rationalization? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::# Rationalization seems to make the unreasonable, reasonable. That is what religion is for.
:::# Reason, as I have stated serves as a guide. It then becomes automatic.
:::# What you describe are the acts of a person that is unreasonable. I have addressed that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

What you haven't address is this: who defines what is reasonable? The guy with the biggest gun? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==The Theist answers==
Here are my answers to your questions:

The theistic-denier states:

::I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children?

I can think of many incidents of killing children which would benefit society. Our society could harvest children from poverty-stricken regions where resources are depleted and food-shortages are chronic. This is good for the environment and greatly reduces the chance that their children will suffer from famine. Then we could use those children to reseach cancer, AIDs and other diseases. Rather than working on cadavers, young doctors could practice their trade on these children. Then we could pulverize the remains and feed them to hogs. This would provide more food for other people. If you are opposed to killing (because of some fear of the mythic god) you could just enslave the children instead. We have plenty of jobs they can do which will help society more than some miserable existence in a barren wasteland.

Working strictly from a framework of reason and rationalization, why not kill children to better serve society? Furthermore, of course, this rational begs the question: why is the society of any importance at all? Why is "society" any bigger than the individual?

::Please, as one human being to another, it is much easier if you call me an agnostic--which is what I am. I don't call you a gods-worshipper, or whatever. (Jesusfreak I know is a popular perjorative that I don't use either. I am trying to be respectful.) I don't fear god--that isn't the reason to do/not do anything. I don't want anyone to kill me, so I don't kill others. Religion gives those who don't know why they do things a reason to say why they did. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Additionally, the "agnostic" asks:

::Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

Please understand that at this point, I'm not trying to prove to you my point of view. I'm trying to understand your point of view. So, while I believe that faith is the strongest barrier to crime that I know of, I won't bother to explain why I think this to you because you are clearly more enlightened than I. You've advance beyond the need for some silly god-figure.

What I would like to know is; what is your barrier to crime in the atheistic framework? It appears (based on my example above) that it is something other than reasoning, because I've proven how killing children can be good for society.

I'd be more than happy to answer why God allows suffering in the universe, but the answer to that question is pointless if we don't agree that God exists. Let's not waste time. Hypothetically, I'm agreeing with your argument that the fact that there is suffering in the universe is evidence that there is no god. Let's proceed along your path and see where it leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Religious faith is no more a barrier to crime than atheistic, or agnostic, moral reasoning. In Toronto sometime in the 70's the police went on strike. It took two hours for the first bank to be robbed, and at then end of the strike $3 million worth of damage had been done to shops and almost every bank in the city had been robbed. The vast majority of people who were arrested as a result of the crimes were religious. I'm not suggesting that therefore religion encourages crime, it just shows that it isn't such a barrier to crime as you would think. There is also anecdotal evidence that there are very few atheists and agnostics in prison compared to christians.

:The agnostic and atheistic framework is different from what you seem to think. The value of life is the most important part of my beliefs. This is not because of god or the bible, this is simply because those were the morals that i was brought up with and because they make the most logical sense. If life was not valued, then mass murders would be common and unnoticed as greedy people killed and stole to take what they wanted. This would lead to the breakdown of society as a whole. That is why enslaving and killing third world children is wrong, as they have exactly the same right to life that i do.

:This moral framework is far more effective as a crime barrier because people who use it have thought about why they think things are right and wrong from their own POV. Your framework comes from a book that was writtn 2000 years ago, and therefore not all its morals are up to date with the changing zeitgeist. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 26 April 2007

::You don't advance the argument by pointing to facts that don't answer my questions. This is what I call the ''magician's argument''. The magician's argument goes as follows: there is nothing in the hat therefore the rabbit from the hat must be magic. I don't care about your claims about religion of criminals. I'd like to have answers to my questions. As best as I can see your answer to my hypotheical question is to deny the framework of my hypothetical question. I can only assume that you refuse to answer this line of question undermines your belief set and that's why you won't answer.

::BTW, the reason I am pursuing this line of questions is not because I don't understand the atheistic point of view. I understand the false premises of atheism quite well. This is because for many years, I was an atheist. As I matured I came to realized just how much I didn't know. I still don't know what I don't know, but as the arrogance of youth recedes I begin to know how much I don't know. Thus, I realized atheism was naive and foolish, so I became an agnostic. Since that time, I learned more and came to believe that I am probably a [[deist]] but my search for truth continues. I may yet get more specific in my religious beliefs as I further mature. I will point out to you that it is a universal truth that as we get older we get wiser. It is not a coincidence that churches are full of old people. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:52, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what your point is here. Could you state, in just a sentence or two, what your hypothetical that we are ignoring is? Also, we may need to archive some of this (which I don't know how to do yet.) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:08, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The hypothetical (previously stated in a wildly exaggerated example) is: if in truth "reason" is your only guide and if in fact there is no soul, no spiritual world and no God, why do you do good things that don't follow reason? Why don't you do "bad" things that have perfectly good rationale? Your answer to the second question was: devise a better hypothetical because my reasoning is arbitrary and supports whatever rational I choose to follow. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Question==
Do you believe that there is absolute moral truth? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Please define an absolute moral truth? [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:08, 26 April 2007

==A place for a few more answers==

From the Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist:

"We have evolved the ability to empathize, to share the motivations and feelings of those around us. From this, we
have gained the ability to sympathize with the plight of others, to understand what may be causing them distress or
pain, and to wish, for their sake, that their suffering would stop. Armed with this sympathy, we act in a moral way to
prevent the distress and suffering of others. Our opinions on what constitutes a moral course of action may differ, but
the underlying sympathy is the same."

"With sympathy for others and recognition of the similarities between people, we each build an internal code of the
morality of our actions. We seek to protect innocent children, for we were once children ourselves and needed
protection. We seek a society that does not foster immoral actions, in order to protect the members of society like
ourselves. We feel and internalize various plights and pains of others in this process, and develop a true morality.
American revolutionary and President Thomas Jefferson put it well when he wrote in an 1814 letter, “Nature [has]
implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us
irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.”

Though I am sure this will mean little to a "deist" it is useful to those who at one time tried to find god but realized that the effort was too intellectually dishonest for them to ultimately accept. I think, Everwill, if you are really interested in learning about this and not just baiting the less conservative folk here, you might do well to read some of this material. http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thebgma/BGMA.pdf

::This is exactly my point, but I don't want to jam it down the throats of our resident atheists. Although they don't yet realize it, if you are a moral atheist, you are not an atheist at all, but rather you are a [[deist]]. The slippery slope is: once you realize you are a deist, you begin the search through religions to find a deeper meaning of life and learn more about the true nature of God. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:53, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:But that's just it--I am not a deist because I do not accept there is a god that needs to exist. If that means you are going to call me an atheist, fine, whatever, but otherwise there is no reason to be condescending about "poor little atheists." It just isn't necessary. We feel, if I may be so bold, that ''you'' are the one who is lost. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:14, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin this statement so far as I can tell doesn't seem to based upon reason but rather upon faith. As Thomas Jefferson (a deist) said, “Nature [has] implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.” In your "Nature" means "good luck" or at the very difference "luck". I don't see any difference between "good luck" and God. You think these are unrelated concepts, but I'm not sure why. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

If I sound condescending it is because you are no different from a fundamentalist muslim. That is you refuse to critically examine your belief set objectively. To answer hypothetical questions will lead you in a direction you refuse to go. You demand that others prove the unprovable as evidence that there is a God. Understand this: we agree that God is neither a flying spaghetti monster, nor a bearded old man laying on a cloud. Relax, I understand your position completely, because I've been where you are. It's okay. Each finds his own path in due time.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe there is a reason it is "unprovable." Truth be told, I think what passes for "good luck" is also random. Just as the rest of universe, this computer I'm typing on and the bowl of Cheerios I had for breakfast. It occurred through chance that this came about--not by a bearded man in the sky waving a wand. If you are looking for fantasy, watch Harry Potter or read the bible. I live in a world of facts and evidence and am content to do so until my lamp is extinguished. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I really have no idea what Harry Potter or the Bible has to do with the central question. After all this talking I have discerned (with much difficulty) that you attribute all that we see to "good luck". I call it "God" but I agree completely that whether it's just good luck or whether it is God this realization does not change reality. Other than that we are in complete agreement. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Good, we agree that god is a delusion based on random chance and superstition in the ill-informed mind. Glad to hear that, too. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

No. We agree that your misinformed characterization of the word "God" is the based on your perceptions about what you think God is. Since we agree that the universe is the product of luck, henceforth I will refer to the guiding force behind the universe as Luck so as to not offend your belief-set.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

''Don't you love how the Truth flows like water? No matter where you damn it up, it will still find the way. This is the miracle of Luck to me.'' [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:05, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

good lord this is boring.... [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

How 'bout I say "you win" and you evangelize someone else? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's "reasoning" for you ... heh ... [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, you win by attrition. Congrats. Now, I'll go back to not going to churc and telling school children there is no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Funny, you took the words right out of my mouth. ;-) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So, in fact this is not attrition or victory (I was never trying to win). Rather the discussion is at an end because you have refused to expand the boundaries of your perceptions. You came here believing that god was a myth and you continue to believe that god is a myth. You refuse to examine the implications of this possibility: myths are myths, but God is something else entirely. The thing you call Luck, I call God. That's called finding common ground. Your current problem is your very fearful of where that common ground might take you. It might shatter your arrogantly held belief-set.

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Which Religion is the true Religion?==

::You havea copy of the Bible in God's handwriting? Or you beleive that every step from initial writing, through every translation throughout time has been divinely guided to lay out His message clearly? So, which translation is the divinely guided one? And if He were so inclined to so specifically direct the writing ans subsequent translation of a book, might he not have made it a bit clearer which translation is correct, and which parts of the Bible can be taken literally and which are metaphors? You claim to know the difference... I've never seen that footnote anywhere in the Bible. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

This statement has nothing to do with this discussion. The arguments about "which translation" and "God's handwriting" are filed under "Which religion is the true religion?" and they have no bearing on whether atheism vs. deism. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The copies and translations of the Bible are very accurate, and accurate enough to know what God was saying. And the phrase "every translation through time" is quite misleading, as mot current English Bibles have been translated directly from the original languages, i.e. a one-step translation. It couldn't get much better than that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not prepared to defend the Bible as the "word of God", but I think it's an important question to examine, but I think it's a pointless discussion with those who haven't realized that there is a God. All your Bible proves to them is that someone wrote something a long time ago. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, but I am not someone who denies the existence of God, just one who does not accept that the Bible is literal truth. I personally beleive it to be mostly metaphorical, with some history thrown in, though I'd still never use it for a primary history source, even on mundane topics (i.e. who ruled where at what time... etc...) [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I am pretty much in agreement with you QNA. I'm willing to allow the possibility that Phil Rayment's opinions about the Bible is correct. At the same time, I doubt he's right about that. On the other hand, I think that denying the existance of God is silly. However, arguing the nature of God is a worthwhile endeavor. The Bible and other texts are useful in this exercise because we can learn a great deal from those who have gone before us and who have already had these same arguments.

::::I will say without equivocation that the "God doesn't exist because I don't believe in bearded guys in the clouds with a magic wand" is pretty much an argument made from a posiition of ignorance about what most knowledgeable people think about God and the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Good Luck==
Since all of the universe occurred out of good luck (according to Flippin), can we humans influence Luck? Should we attempt to commune with Luck? Do you think that hundreds of thousands of years ago, men (equally smart) pondered these same questions (since they didn't have a TV to occupied their evenings). Do you think luck, or perhaps Luck, resulted in the strange coincidence that after many generations the consensus view in every culture and society has always been that we can affect our luck by a combination of worshipping Luck and doing good things? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is religion morally wrong?

2007-04-26T11:09:06Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Question */

{{debate}}
==Yes==
anything that teaches young children to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question, and then teaches them that anyone who does not believe what they do is wrong and needs to have their immortal soul 'saved' is morally wrong. as well as that, waging wars against "non-believers" or "infidels" and killing thousands of millions of people, puts religion in the morally wrong category. as in interesting aside, the link to this debate is actually titled "is athiesm morally wrong?" which may need to be fixed. --[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30 (EDT)
: Done. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::''Wha' ...?'' Anyone who thinks that religion teaches one "to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question" just plain doesn't understand any religion to which I have ever been exposed. However, I'm pretty sure I can guess why your so confused.

::There is a belief, which is generally held by most religions and most people over the age of 30, that human nature is constant. Moral codes, philosophy and religion are built upon assumptions about the constants of human nature. In this way, moral codes are similar to alegbra. Algebra is built upon a foundation of unchanging constants. Math is unchanging. Human nature is unchanging. Therefore, each generation doesn't need to reinvent algebra. Similarly, each generation needn't rediscover the reason that people devised certain moral codes which were based upon countless generations of knowledge about human nature and where then incorporated into religion and philosophy.

::This does not mean that the field of mathemics should cease to expand. This does not mean that curiosity is bad. This means that we already know that 1+1=2. We already know what happens to civilizations and societies where wild sexual activities are encouraged. This does not mean that we stop digging up fossils. This does mean that we don't kill unborn children to expiriment on them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::(wow, first ever post on a debate page!) Everwill, I would argue that human nature '''is''' changing and most certainly can't be likened to algebra. Algebra is indeed definite. It always follows the same rules reagrdless of the complexity of the problem. Surely, you can't say that human nature is like that? The scale of variation is unimaginable!

:::Also, in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher. Or, they are taught in a slanted view, which distorts the truth. All this because those parents or teachers seem afraid that their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught! That '''is''' morally wrong. The choice should be the child's not the elders'. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a reason that William Shakespeare's dramas, King David's tribulations & and the Andy Griffith show (how's that for a unexpected twist?) are timeless stories that affect us in the same way as when they affected those to whom these stories were first told. They affect us all the same way because human nature does not change. The truth is we all love, hate, breath, live and die. The human condition is infinitely variable, but human nature is constant. Of course, there are countless examples of this simple and plainly evident truth. I'm quite sure I'm not the first one to tell you that human nature is the same. In fact, this truth is the foundation of our concepts of equality and our freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

::I don't want to spend a lot of time defending something that is an elemental and accepted truth spanning time, civilizations and belief systems. This is because I'm not sure whether you're denying the fact that human nature is universal because you are ignorant (unlikely) or because you are intellectually dishonesty (my guess). In either case, it would consume far too much time to explain to you the definition of human nature to your liking. But I what I can posit in reply is an answer to your simple question: there are absolutes in morality, just as there are absolutes in algebra. For example, murder is always wrong. There is no compromise in this principle.

::''As a quick aside I must note that I always find it humorous when people (usually liberals) stereotype the upbringing found in fundamentalist religious groups.''

::To your point, it is true that "in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." But guess what, you've just proven my point. This is because, EVERY SINGLE human that ever reached adulthood was "brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." '''DUH!'''

::It is possible that your theory is true. Perhaps, teachers and parents want to shield children from outside influences because "their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught!" But who do you think is most likely to have the child's best interests at heart? I would presume that a child's parents and that child's teachers want what is best for the child. I think you are implying that the pornographers, salesmen, MTV, rappers, strangers and passerby's---all of whom the child might find more interesting (and more permissive) than the parents and teachers---are better for the child? You think it's better that the child find out (the hard way) the lessons which the parents and grandparents into the mists of history, have already found out? Preposterous. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not argueing that modern celebrities are the way forwards by any means. The messages put forward by that group does not teach very good lessons for kids (or adults!). I'm merely pointing out that the near brainwashing of the young by their parents and teachers with regards religious teaching is also wrong and can teach a child "bad" things. An example would be homosexuality. Kids in religious families who think they might be gay receive no support from parents who believe that homosexuality is bad, simply because it is the parents belief. Surely a parents love for their child should come before their religion?

:::I am not being intellectually dishonest, just ignorant (ha like thats any better!). What I thought you meant by human nature isn't what is used in the definitions I found on the internet. I took human nature to be the general world viewpoint held by each individual person; where there is substantial difference!

:::I think argueing that children should accept what their parents tell them because they have learnt it from their experience is flawed. Every person has a different PoV so will experience things differently. If a child recieves all their advice from a parent who sees the world entirely differently to them, what will that child think of themselves? Is that fair on the child? A parent should be there for guidance, yes, but not for absolute teaching. To relate this to religion: religion is a predetermined set of "rules" that followers must stick to. Choosing a religion (and its rules) is a personal choice. Parents will naturally try to enforce their beliefs and rules on their children, thereby removing their choice to religion and actions, which is removing their freedom to be themselves. Surely that is a terrible wrong to do to that child? I am not argueing that children should be given no rules, nothing of the sort. I am merely saying that the rules given to a child by their parents should not be based on the religion of the parent(s) as that is a moral wrong to that child. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I see. By your logic the child should have rules and the rules should come from the parent (sort of) but the parent shouldn't base the rule structure or belief set upon something found in religion. Instead, you believe that religion must be by a higher and more correct authority. And just who is that authority? ''Will & Grace''? Madonna & Britney? Who is this higher and more perfect authority? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to enjoy mentioning celebrities...perhaps they have affected you more than you think. Their ability to corrupt is unbounded! I don't know what you mean by "religion must be by a higher and more correct authority". I am merely argueing for separation of of religious doctrine from a child's upbringing. Yes, make a child aware of their parents belief, why they believe it, etc., but don't "force it down their necks" or make them feel bad for "not believing". That is what I find to be morally wrong about religion: the automatic assumption of parents that their children should follow in their beliefs. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

a childs parents should bring up their children to be open to new ideas and to trust their senses and logic in ideological matters. religion of any kind does not allow this to be taught to children. as well as this, many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is a false characterization of religion, perhaps based in ignorance. Every major religion teaches personal accountability and free will. Therefore, religion encourages children (and everyone else) to "trust their senses and logic in ideological matters." Religion is a framework to assist in decision making. Religion does not take personal responsiblity or logic from anyone. (Perhaps you should read a bit of C.S. Lewis or Thomas Aquinas to better acquaint yourself with the value of logic to the Christian mind.)

::You state (no caps and no punctuation are all yours): "many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are." Who knows better what the child's best interests are? The media? The government? The child? Who?

::I'm glad we're having this discussion, mostly because it's apparent that you are the victim of the propaganda of another religion. You're repeating the mantra of the liberal religion, which teaches that all religions are equal and there are no moral boundaries. Your religion might be the "one true" religion, but I doubt it.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

The childs best interests are known only by the child itself. I do not mean to say that no parents ever get it right, or wrong, however what is in the childs best interests is not to foist a belief system on him/her without letting him/her have any choice or free will in the matter. The majority of religions (liberal or fundamentalist) do not encourage children to take advantage of their natural curiosity and explore all the possibilities of logic and science, as they see science as a threat to their belief system. Just as an example, the enactment of hell that occurs in an American state led by Pastor Ted Roberts which attempts to scare children into beliveing in God by scaring them with the sheer horror of the act. This would be dismissed as simply a fringe sect, however the supporters of this pastor, in his home state (i apologise for not knowing which state this is) number around 3 million. This is only one example of the methods used by religious leaders to force children into mindlessly believing what they are told. Another example is the muslim state of Saudi Arabia, where simply being of another faith or of no faith at all, is punishable by beheading. Note the similar use of fear tactics in both cases here. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:54, 19 April 2007

::What you're trying to say makes sounds ridiculous to me, but perhaps this is because we have not agreed to what the meaning of the word "child" is. Please allow me to insert a few definitions so that I don't miss your point and vice-versa.

:::* ward --- someone incapable of making personal decisions for some reason or another. There are several types of ward:
::::* child --- This individual cannot make personal decisions because they have not reached maturity (generally 17 and under). Children might step into traffic. Children might drink poison. Children can be cultivated into giving sexual favors to pedofiles. For all these reasons and many more, "parents" (''defined below'') make decisions for parents.
::::** mental defective --- This individual has poor reasoning skills or does not understand reality. For this reason "parents" or care-takers must make decisions for the mental defective
::::** sick or enfermed --- This individual might be in a coma. This individual might be extremely sick or otherwise unable to communicate. Thus, caretakers or "parents" must make decisions for this individual.

:::* parent --- one (ideally of two) individuals responsible for the care and nuturing of a ward or child

:::* adult --- An individual who is mentally competant and mature and thus has the free will to make any decisions they want so long as they don't violate the laws of the community where they reside.

::Children, and in fact, all other wards, need people to care for them and to make decisions for them. I'm quite sure there are a good many teenagers who would agree with your ridiculous notion that children make should make their own decisions, but most adults and most parents today (and throughout history) have come to agree that it is both unwise and unsafe to grant complete and total freewill to children (perhaps most especially teenagers). This is because children don't alwasy make good decisions. Children are easily swayed and they don't have the normal defenses of doubt and fear of strangers to protect them.

::This is a plain, simple and accepted truth. I'm not sure what possible connection that has to anything Ted Roberts ever said or did. Whether Ted Roberts or Jeffrey Dahmer or Hitler is a bogeyman or not, that doesn't change the fact that children need parents. I guess what you'll have to accept is that some parents will raise children who don't agree with your beliefs. I'm quite comfortable with the fact that not all parents or people agree with me. I much too busy and quite frankly don't feel the need to tell other people how to raise their children. I doubt you have any idea what any of the parents in former Pastor Robert's church are teaching their children. I thought liberals believed in tolerance and diversity? Why can't you tolerate their differences and celebrate their Christian diversity?

::What would you like to see in Saudi Arabia, a crackdown on parents? Do you want to take the children from their parents and raise them yourself? Have you ever considered the possiblity that the concept (called "fascism") of imposing your values upon others is wrong-heaed and evil? Don't you think Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live? Are you trying to suggest that the US should invade Saudi Arabia and replace the mullahs with ACLU? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No i am not attempting to say much of that, i think that you are right in that i have misunderstood the point that you were making. I do apologise for that. What i would like to say in regards to your previous point, is that while i agree that parents should have the role in making decisions for their children (with an increasing amount of input from the child as they grow older) at the same time, they should not force their beliefs onto their children and, where possible, educate them enough so that they have the intelligence and a high enough level or reasoning to be able to make their own decision in matters of faith and belief. While a lot of parents do this, i believe that the majority don't, although i am willing and hoping to be proven wrong. I do belive in tolerance and diversity, but that is what my main problem with religion is. Religion tends to preach the opposite of this, generally against other faiths but also against homosexuals and other groups that seem to break the rules of their faith. I do think that Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live, however i think that maybe a lot do not want to live the way they do, and that another large number would not want to live that way, if they were not devout muslims. I honestly think the US should keep out of the middle east in general, as the problems it has caused there seem to be greater then the amount solved, however that is not the topic on discussion here. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:56, 20 April 2007

:This debate title seems to be relatively unfocussed, but the debate itself seems to have settled down into a focussed discussion of whether or not it is morally right for religions to pass on their codifications, conventions and beliefs to their children in a manner which could be construed as 'indoctrination'. [[Richard Dawkins]] makes the point that it would not be acceptable in today's society to label children as 'a Democrat Child' or 'a Republican child', nor to set up schools which say that we are going to only teach 'Democrat' values in this school, and to only honour Democrats. However, it does appear to be acceptable to have 'catholic' scools, catholic, muslim and hindu children. Why is this? Any Religion and or Political Stance, when it comes down to it are idealogies, and have many parallels in the way they are dogmatic about the way that adherents should behave. They both present strong arguments as to the way that you should treat knowledge, evidence, and all present a very biased world view. This is fine if you are an adult, and you understand the rules, and you know that this is the way the world works, and that you have a choice about whether to question or to belive at all; but if you are an uimpressionable youngester you could be scarred for life: 'Give me a child until he is seven...."

There is a very strong argument to say that we should NOT allow people to present contraversial points of view to children AS IF these were uncontestable facts. This, after all, is the arguments of the creationists against evolution. They maintain children should be exposed to both points of view. However, I cannot imagine that any catholic school would suggest teaching that God may or may not exist, and allowing children to experience both the sacrament and the indoctrination ceremony of freemasons, and asking them to compare & contrast!--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 04:18, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Thankyou Felix for articulating what i was attempting to say, and i apologise again to Everwill for not wording my arguement very clearly. Having attended an anglican school till i was 13, i never was fully concious that they did not present their teachings as anything other then indisputable fact and that we were expected to believe that without question. The other thing that struck me was that i was never allowed to avoid communion on the basis that i was an atheist, while one of my friends who was jewish was excused. It was almost as if they rathered that we believed in a god, even if it is a slightly different set of beliefs that come attached, than that we had no beliefs at all. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30, 20 April 2007

::Bolly, it sounds like you're trying to impose your own parental issues on others. I understand that you thought you were an atheist and yoru parents wanted to impose their theistic beliefs on you. The fact is, they have every right to impose these theistic beliefs on you. After you come of age, you can think or do anything you like. It would appear that they weren't too oppressive and it would appear they were quite open-minded because they raised an atheist. It would appear that you are the one who is oppressive because you want to raise other children to think like you. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:15, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

No, my parents are both atheists as well, the only reason i went to that school was because it was the best school in the area. However adults do not have the right to impose their theistic beliefs on their children, just as they have no right to impose their political ideologies on them. Children are trusting of their parents because in the majority of situations their parents are doing what is best for them. What i believe parents should do is to raise their children to be open minded about belief regardless of their own beliefs. Therefore any parents should educate their children about different faiths (including atheism although it is not really a faith) in a totally balanced and fair manner with no predjudice. This allows children to make up their own mind about their own personal beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:48, 21 April 2007

::Ever wonder why the religious school was the best school in the area? Have you ever once considered the possibility that this school was better because the religious school wasn't attempting to relearn the lessons of the past? This school already had a functioning set of moral codes and they didn't need to wander through the maze of pitfalls in our new ACLU-friendly world of multi-culturalist moral equivelancy? Or perhaps you think the school was better because of dumb luck?

::As defined above, adults do not have the right to impose their beliefs on children. However, ''parents'' have a right (and more importantly a duty) to impose their beliefs on children. Parents should educate their children in the way that feels best to them.

::But what you fail to comprehend is that '''anything''' you teach children is a view point. You're just upset because you want everyone else to teach your view point. Your viewpoint embraces moral equivalism and the belief that all religions are equal. That is a viewpoint. It may or may not be valid, but the fact is, it is a viewpoint. It is just another value-set. It may or may not be more valid than the values of another parent. That's an argument that can be had, but it's not at issue here.

::The issue is that you want other parents to teach their children what you believe. Furthermore, you think it's immoral that they won't teach their children your values. Don't you think that's a little silly? Do you think you're any different from the fundamentalist Christians who are upset because you're not teaching your child about Jesus? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 05:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Imposing values on other people's children==

Yes i did think about why my school was the best school in the area. The reason was that it was the richest, as it was a private school and charged massive fees for attendance. And its moral codes are almost indistinguishable from the school i attended after, which was an international college and had no religious affiliation. No adults do not have a right to impose their beliefs on children. Parents also do not have this right. To impose a personal belief on a trusting child is not morally right. Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe. I believe that all parents should teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice. Up until a certain age, say 13, children cannot believe in anything purely because it makes sense to them and, if allowed by their parents, many children do make up their own religion for a while or switch repeatedly between religions until they reach a point of maturity where they can make a choice based upon what they have learned. Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:37, 21 April 2007

::You absolutely don't make any sense. I always think ''ad hominem'' attacks are inappropriate, so I hope I don't sound like I'm attacking you, but based upon the evidence (spelling, grammatical & punctuation errors) I'm beginning to doubt your claim that your private school was the best in the area. Furthermore, I doubt that the religious indoctrination in your school was oppressive based upon the fact that you obviously attended the school, but don't share the school's values. I can't help but tell you that once again you have posted something which does not make logical sense.

::You wrote:
:::"''Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism.''"
::Of course exploiting anyone (most especially children) is never morally right. This is because according to Merriam Webster Online "exploit" means "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <''exploiting migrant farm workers''>". But you haven't laid even a meager basis for this wild accusation. Who are you accusing of exploiting children and for what gain? Are you trying to say that parents are exploiting their own children? What do parents gain from that?

::You write,
:::"''Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe.''"
::In the first sentence you describe your "beliefs" (which is just a different term for your "religion") and furthermore you demand that parents teach their children your values. In the second sentence you state the exact opposite. Perhaps the silliest thing you imply is that it is somehow dangerous or bad to trust your parents and teachers. If one can't trust ones parents or teachers, then who can one trust?

::I very seriously doubt you have learned much if anything through this process you describe above. I doubt you have tested how the world works to verify the claims of teachers and parents. For example, I'm pretty sure you trusted your Driver's Education teacher when he told you that "green means go". You didn't feel the need to experiment with driving on red first. I doubt you ever verified any claims made in the DMV Manual by using the scientific method and a double-blind study. I'm pretty sure that you trust that when you flip a light switch and turn on the boob-tube that electrons will serve your will and pleasure. But, I doubt you have actually flown a kite in a thunderstorm to verify that electricity exists. By the same token, I doubt you need to violate any of the Ten Commandments to agree that these simple laws are for the benefit of all of humanity. I'm sure you agree that children don't need to experiment with adultery, murder or lying. They're better off just taking their parents' word that these are bad things.

::The reason you agree is because it's just plain silly to waste time verifying every claim of trusted parents and teachers. Therefore, the issue for you is not that "children need to reason things on their own".

::The real issue for you is that you are an atheistic evangelist and you are frustrated because some people aren't open to receiving your message. You are frustrated because some people trust their parents more than they trust you.

::Buck up, trooper. You should satisfy yourself with the many victories of the secular progressive agenda. For example, traditional parents were forced to allow people like you to ban prayer and religious discussion from our schools. This should satisfy you. Now you can safely raise your children without fear that they will overhear a prayer and thus they might accidentally become infected with religion. You have successfully had the 10 Commandments removed from many courtrooms. Be happy because you've already won all you can logically win.

::The only thing left for you is to take away more freedom from others to practice their religion and teach their religion to their children. You're not satisfied with leaving them to do what they want to do. Instead, you want to teach other people's children to force parents (and I quote) to "''teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice.''" Why do you feel the need to force other people not to talk about religion until the child is thirteen?

::My guess is that you believe this because you can't seem to understand that your personal opinion about religion '''is''' just another religion. I'm quite sure that you are trying to be a good person. I'm quite sure that you want to teach other people your religion because you want what's best for the child. But in America we have a concept called "Freedom of Religion". Because of our Freedom of Religion, you are prohibited from ramming your value-set down the throats of other people's children.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I admit you have quite easily picked out some flaws in the way i have argued my point, and you are right in about that paragraph where i contradict myself. I shall attempt to explain myself more clearly. I do not think all children should be taught my beliefs. That is the most important part. My beliefs are of the atheistic kind, as you already know. What i think is that children should not be indoctrinated into any religion or set of beliefs. If the person chooses at a later date to be a christian or muslim or atheist, good on them. But, to come to your point on how we trust what certain people tell us about certain things, like the driving instructor when it comes to driving and so on, children trust their parents. That is because the vast majority of parents do have their childrens best interests in mind all the time. However some do use this trust, often without intending to, to teach their child to believe what they believe about God, or lack thereof (you are right about exploiting, it was the wrong word to use in that situation). My arguement in a nutshell: Children should have freedom of religion. What i mean by that is that they should not be influenced by their parents. Because many people do not have freedom of religion, in America or elsewhere (i should point out that freedom of religion is part of the Australian constitution as well) as they did not realise they had a choice. They have always been brought up to believe that Christianity was right, or that Islam was right, etc. and because it is from their parents whom they trust, they do not question this, and they are often denied the tools with which to apply logic to religious arguements.

Just as an aside to my main point, the ten commandments aren't actually such a great set of morals to live by. The very first commandment violates freedom of religion : thou shalt worship no other god but me. Also, according to the commandments, disrespecting your parents results in being stoned to death. And to compound it, thou shalt not kill, does not apply to people who are not the same religion as you. When taken the way they were intended, they aren't such a good set of morals to live by. [[User:Bolly Ottihw:Bolly Ottihw]] 14:57, 23 April 2007
::I won't waste time defending the Ten Commandments, something I belive to be a foundation of everything good in Western Civilization. The courts have agreed to remove the Ten Commandments from public life and I am not in a position to change the law, so I obey the law.

::But I will repeat the following in the hopes that you might understand this concept. Your opinion about religion, in other words "your personal definition of freedom of religion" is just another religion. It is clear that you want other parents to teach your definition of "freedom of religion" to other children.

::It may offend your sensibilities, but some people don't agree with your opinions about religion. In American, they don't have to agree with you. They can believe whatever they want. Thus, most American parents teach their children that America is a free country, where people can believe whatever they want. Further, they teach their children their own family's values and religion. Some people are Baptists or Muslims or Hindus. Some people (like you) prefer like to teach their children to sample a hodgepodge of all religions so that they will better understand atheism. That is their right. Please don't take it away from them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Selective application of logic==
Isn't it amusing that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age, but the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, i disagree (although of course i would, i am a so-called liberal). I think that the reason is that there are facts about sex and that religion is more hazy, in that there is very little proof on both sides of the arguement, and it becomes philosophical which is harder for a child to deal with. However i think that sex education should start at around age 13, which is about the same time i think children should start to seriously consider their religion or beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 15:03, 23 April 2007

You disagree with what? You disagree with:
::* The assertion that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age;
::* The assertion that the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age;
::* With the idea of teaching children family values;
::* With the idea of teaching children regilious values;
::* With the idea that sex education should be postponed;
::* All of the above;
::* Something else?

You don't make much sense to me.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Aside from the fact that you've ignored the bulk of what Bolly wrote and focused mainly on a fairly trivial thing that he said, you seem to think that "we" (being us liberal bods) are applying selective logic by saying we should teach about "sex" and not religion. In fact, by your reasoning, "you" (being the conservative bunch) are applying the same selective logic by saying that we should teach religion but not teach "sex". A horrible dilemma for you, don't you think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::1. I've not ignored anything anyone said. Please explain.

::2. I'm sorry that I've seemed to confuse you. Please allow me to explain my interpretation of the conservative position on the education of sex and the education of religion.
:::* One should teach children family values, morals and religion at an early age. This is for the child's benefit and for the benefit of mankind. (As an adult they can do whatever they would like to do, provided they don't break the law.)
:::* Regarding sex, the conservative position is that it is desirable to prolong the child's innocence by postponing sex education as long as possible.
::I'm sorry if this flavor of common sense offends you. Furthermore, I'm sorry but I can't begin to understand why this common sense would support in any way the ridiculous notion that "religion is morally wrong" by ''any'' definition of "religion" as posted below by another editor. As best as I can figure from the poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled statements above here's what I suppose the liberal position is:
:::* One should not teach children about religion because religion is evil. They won't come to realize how evil religion is until they reach 13 to 25 (commonly known as the Age of Rebellion). As a quick aside, it is a universal truth that the older people become, the wiser they become. I wonder why churches are full of old people?
:::* One should teach children about sex as soon as they are old enough to masturbate. This is because masturbation is healthy and can lead to an active and enjoyable sex life. It's important for children to understand the dangers of STD's and how to avoid pregnancy through the use of pills and condoms. Furthermore, all children should be aware if a little girl wants want an abortion, she can safely get an abortion without her parent's ever even knowing that she was pregnant. In this way she can continue with the lifestyle of her choosing without parents invading her right to privacy. If a child has a child and ends up dependent on the parents or the system, it's the conservative's fault for not talking about birth control more.
::Please correct me if I've mistated the liberal position.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You ignored the fact that Bolly made a valid point about the definition of fact and religion, and the age at which children should be educated about "sex".

:::Secondly, you say yourself that the statements written above are "poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled" and then go on to derive a definition from them!? Surely a better course of action would have been to take the definition from some credible source? As to what you have said, I would agree with most of what you define the conservative view to be, apart from teaching children a specific religion at an early age. I suppose it comes down to setting an age where innocence is lost (and I doubt many are naive enough to think that that is the age of consent). People under the age of 16 will have sex (not all, but some) and if no sex education is available for them, what sort of experiences will they have? Is it not better that from a certain age (and I would say that 13 is a good age for this to start) children are introduced to the idea of safe sex, with few (and preferably one) partner(s)?

:::You're right though, we have divulged from the debate topic, but this is an interesting tangent to the debate which I would very much like to continue if you care to carry on? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::For the second time, I'm ignoring Bolly's "valid point" because I have no clue what you are talking about. I didn't read any valid point which wasn't addressed ''ad nauseum'' already. Please read the dialogue to this point if you are confused as to why I think it's ridiculous (and invalid) to demand that other people teach their children ''your'' values. I've already explained why this is ridiculous above.

::I attempted to derive a definition from Bolly's statement only to appease your pretense of indignation when you accused me of ignoring Bolly's alleged "points". By your reaction, I'm now assuming that you just haven't read the entire argument yet and that you concur, Bolly made no points in the gibberish above. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

My point was that i think that children should be educated about sex and religion at the same age. This is because it is the age where both become major issues for children growing up. Please do explain how this is hard to understand, and how this is a selective application of logic. (I apologise for my poor grammar, it is because i write my line or thought and arguement down the same way i would say it out loud) [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:42, 24 April 2007

::You don't need to keep writing the same thing over and over and over. We already understand your opinion about how ''you think'' things should be. You've made that quite clear.

::What you still don't seem to understand is that you don't have the right to tell other people how to live, nor do you have the right to teach other children your beliefs. That's pretty self-centered. You're self-centered nature is further evidenced by the fact that you admission that you would prefer to force others to spend their precious time deciphering your cryptic musings directly from your stream of consciousness, rather than taking the time and effort to write coherent sentences with good spelling and grammar. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Age at which sex education should be taught==

Regarding the interesting tangent: to what particularly are you referring? Are you trying to debate the age at which sex education should be imposed upon children?

This is a complicated issue because there are several related factors. Most churches teach that sex outside of marriage is adultery, a sin and a mistake. But it is my personal opinion, that church and religion is a guideline and the morals espoused therein are ideals. Ideally one never lies. Ideally one never commits adultery. But here in the real world, there are a good many liars and adulterers (myself included in both counts). Additionally, most parents think that sex under the age of 18 is a mistake. Most everyone agrees that sex under the age of 16 is a mistake. Does it happen in the real world? Yes it happens. Beyond the basic biological functions of sex, sexuality is about morality. Certainly every child over the age of 13 should be taught something about the biology of sex. But what of the morality of the sex, the politics of sex and the religious or spiritual aspects of sex? These are much more complicated and personal issues and these issues should be handled within the family.

I think it's important to teach young teens "where babies come from." I think it's important to leave discussions about homosexuality, adultery and abortion to the family and church. But my original point is not that I presume to know how or when to push sex education. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:What i find interesting is that you assume that the church knows more about homosexuality than homosexuals. And regarding this, the church brings 2000 year old arguements to this subject without considering how it applies in todays society. In the past homosexuality would not have been profitable as it would not have benifited the tribe in anyway compared to heterosexual sex. In this age, there is no lack of benefit from not having children and so there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. The other thing i disagree with is that here is a religious aspect to sex. Sex should be a coupling between two people who share a great love between each other. Again, that doesnt always happen, however it is essential that children learn this at the same time they learn about the biological side of sex. [[Bolly ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:47, 24 April 2007

::Of course, that's your opinion and your entitled to it. You've got a right to live your life however you want. For me the choice is obvious. On one hand I have 2000 to 10000 years of wisdom. On the other hand, there's some dude on the Internet {{strike personal remark|who doesn't know how to write proper English, but }} who claims to know more than the Church, and Thomas Aquinas. All I ask is that you let others live their lives the way they want. Is that too much to ask? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Did you just make a personal remark? (I should block your account for 1 second. ;-)

I apologize if I offended anyone. I don't believe in ''ad hominem'' attacks. I think they are rude and pointless. However, if someone admits that they don't write properly in a forum where writing is the only means of communication, then they have openned the door to commentary by others. I'm quite sure you're just kidding anyway, I hope this doesn't sound too stern. I'm just tired right now. I was up late, up early and I'm facing a long day. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Atheists have it all figured out ... ==
My point above in ''Selective application of logic'' is that it looks very hypocritical for liberals to want to teach children about sex as young as possible, but the same crowd doesn't want to teach children religion until after they are suspectible to corruption and experimentation.

What amateur philosophers like Bolly don't seem to understand is that theologians, philosophers and generations of people with more time on their hands than all of us have already put a great deal of effort and experimentation into evolving a set of moral codes and sound religious creeds. Bolly is naive enough to expect the unreasonable notion that any '''one''' man can compete with the thoughts and knowledge of countless generations who have gone before him. He honestly thinks he can invent a personal philosophy and religious-code based upon his individual experiences. He believes that his own personal philosophy can rival the combined thoughts of generations of philosophers and theologians.

/begin rant: We as modern humans don't have to invent medicine, or geology, or build a TV set and write computer code. That's already been done by others! We can stand on their shoulders. Can you imagine how silly and presumptive it sounds to those former atheists like myself when they read that Bolly thinks he knows how the universe works and that he can definitively say that he understands the nature of God?

Bolly doesn't know the first thing about God or philosophy, but he wants to teach other people's children his credo of experiment with all religions and then become an atheist. I know why [[Thomas Aquinas]] and [[Socrates]] and even [[Aleister Crowley]] are famous (or infamous as the case may be), but I don't know why Bolly presumes to know what's best for other people's children. /end rant.

You don't have to invent moral codes or laws or waste time experimenting with life's dead-ends. You can look up the answer in the book of your choice and things will be so much easier for you.

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I have explained that it is not hypocritical, as i believe they should be taught at the same age, neither
before the other.

I am not naive enough to think that i can rival any of the great philosophers in logic and philosophy, however i dont think i would have any trouble outthinking Thomas Aquinas, for example. The reason for this is that he (and others like him) used their religious credibility to establish themselves as philosophical geniuses when in fact, he was not much smarter then anyone of the time, and certainly not smarter then the average uni graduate today. This can be amply demonstrated by his '5 proofs' of gods existence which are more full of holes than a swiss cheese.

To compare moral codes to medicing or geology is not an adequate comparison. The basic ideas of medicine and geology are based on sound proof and will not change much within the next thousand years. On the other hand, moral codes are always changing depending on the society that they are employed by. Look at the change in opinion about non-caucasian people over the past 200 years! only 100 years ago it was considered the height of stupidity to consider an african american the equal of a white man, yet today, even though there is still far to much prejudice in the world, it is generally accepted that there is no difference between any of the races of humanity. The great thinkers of one age would be considered backwards and redundant if they were transported in time to today.

I do not presume to know the nature of god. I do know, within myself, that god does not exist and i am content with that knowledge. You say you were an atheist, i would like to know what converted you to christianity.

No you do not need to waste time experimenting with dead ends, however because i believe in freedom of religion, i think it would only be fair that children are shown all the alternative modes of beliefs.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:00, 24 April 2007

::Fine. Show your children and leave others alone.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== This is an invalid question ==

I've stayed away from the debates on Conservapedia, and this one is an example of why. I'm only here now because I was asked for my input.

The problem with the question is that "religion" is not defined. On my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment#.22Religion.22 Wikipedia user page] I've listed some of the main ways that the word "religion" is used:
{{QuoteBox|
# A set of beliefs on which one bases one's life
# Belief in a deity or deities (e.g. Christianity is a religion)
# A particular set of rituals (e.g. He is practising his religion)
# A particular broad set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Christian, Muslim, or Hindu?)
# A particular narrower set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Methodist, Baptist, or Catholic?) }}

I further say there:
{{QuoteBox|No. 2 is, in my opinion, an arbitrary subset of No. 1. People believe in multiples gods (polytheism), everything-is-god (pantheism), one god (monotheism) or no god (atheism). Pantheism and atheism don't fit into definition No. 2, yet to consider them somehow "different" is arbitrary and self-serving ... . Thus I use definition No. 1 in preference to No. 2, and argue that atheism (and related views such as secular humanism) are religions, every bit as much as Christianity is. The difference is simply how many gods one believes in.}}

So if "religion" is a worldview (or ''ideology'' if you prefer), then it follows that ''everybody has one'', by its very nature and definition. How can one then ask if it is morally wrong?

Of course the person who asked the question obviously didn't have that definition in mind. But which one did he have?

To a Christian, Christianity is No. 1: a core set of beliefs on which one bases one's life. I would hope that it is obvious even to atheists that one cannot help but base one's actions on one's beliefs. So in that sense, "religion" comes before children, because when dealing with children, one ''must'' deal with them according to one's beliefs. That is why everyone, even atheists, do so.

To an atheist (who conveniently would not describe atheism as a religion), "religion" is a "optional extra". And on that basis, clearly children's welfare should come before "optional extra" beliefs.

To recap, the problem here is that there is no definition of what is intended by "religion" in this question, let alone any actual agreement by opposing viewpoints.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

This is dead-on correct. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

We do not 'conveniently' choose not to describe atheism as a religion. Atheism is defined as : a lack of belief. Lack of belief is not a religion. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:02, 24 April 2007

:Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is an ardent ''belief'' that there is no God. And even ignoring that point, you ''do'' have core beliefs, which can be considered your worldview/ideology/religion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:23, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is. When split up: A-Theism. no-belief. I do not ardently believe god does not exist. I dont think god exists. If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic.

I do have core beliefs. That does not consitute religion except in your definition. And i would argue that that is not religion, that is simply morality dressed up. My worldview is not my ideology or religion, because it would be a really weird religion compared to the main ones around today.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:57, 24 April 2007

:According to the Oxford dictionary[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk], the "atheism" means "the belief that God does not exist". The prefix "a-" can mean "without", but it can also mean "not", and "theism" is a reference to God, not just belief. Not all atheists hold their belief in no god as strongly, but for many atheists, it is a ''belief'' in no god.
:It is not "my definition". It is one of several dictionary definitions. The rest of your last two sentences don't make sense. You have not explained how atheism is not a religion yet Christianity is. As I quoted myself above, any such distinction is arbitrary and self-serving.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Bolly says, ''If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic. '' Evidence for God lies around us in all directions and in all things. (See other topics herein for a few examples.) The reason you don't see evidence of God is your picture of God has nothing to do with what God is about. God is not some magical being. God is not flying spaghetti. God does not defy logic. God is logic. In your mind the great machine of the univers happened out of sheer luck. What's the difference between sheer luck and God? Aren't they the same thing? Hopefully I can give you a clue where to find God by telling you where to look.

God is in the details. The electrons are busy doing their thing. The subatomic particles are inside the protons hard at work doing whatever they do to make matter do what it does. Complex chains of molecules describe how to build a human being more efficiently than any code written by any programmer.

God is in the everyday. God is in the mother who cares for her child. God is in the man who jumps into freezing water to save a stranger. God is in the reason you feel good when you do good things, even when they aren't fun.

God is in the grandeur. God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time.

God is everywhere, everywhere but where you're looking. You're looking for god to do something other than what the universe already does. You're presumption is that the universe is fantastic, wonderfully complicated, a well-oiled machine, but you expect something over and above all of this. ''Yeah the universe is vastly complicate, but what have you done for me lately?''

The naivety of the atheist lies in the belief that the universe itself is not evidence of God. By Bolly's definition, God is only evidenced by something beyond the atheist's explanation and comprehension. By this definition you'll never find God, because if you could comprehended the magical proof of God and God could be explained, then it would not longer be magical and no longer beyond comprehension! [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely it is enough to gaze upon the vastness and awe inspring vistas of the universe without having to attribute it to some other being. Your above definition of god: "God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time." seems to me to be more naive then my atheism. You are simply defining the universe but replacing it with god.

I would like to see some of this 'proof' of gods existence for so far i have seen nothing that comes remotely close to convincing me that god exists. On the other hand, there is no need for god in this world. Science has come very close to completly shut out godly influence in the creation of life and the universe.

The universe has not come about out of sheer luck. The strong and weak nuclear force, gravity and quantum theory all allow us to model the creation of stars, planets and black holes in a purely logical manner. If you wish to call that logic and those laws 'God' then you are free to do so. But then god is not a being who can be worshipped or who answers prayers or makes miracles. Then God simply becomes another name for the universe with no added baggage of being the creator. I trust that this dismisses your last point about the magical proof of god. You are welcome to call the universe what you will, however don't expect many people to address prayers to the law of gravity.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:50, 26 April 2007

==Why Atheism is ridiculous==
Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "God" is another word for "everything." God equals everything. Everthing is God. To deny that "God" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if God is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does God (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does God have a plan? Or is Everything (''i.e.'' God) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies. Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstien included) believe that time is an illusion and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or God) is sentient. God has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:That's not the God I know. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::As a godless, atheistic, morally-bankrupt existentialist, I have to say I disagree with this "assessment." If I am to take what you say at face value I come to the immediate conclusion that atheism is still correct. If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....

:::I think of the universe this way: I don't know how it came to be, but I assume it was a chemical and physical event, not supernatural. I know that this "stuff" doesn't have to have a plan in order to exist. There need not be a man in the sky to protect me from everything. I don't need to pray to something that I will succeed in life because there is no one listening. But, I'm not sad about this, I don't feel alone or unloved by the big ol' scary universe. Rather, I feel emboldened to take moral actions when I can.

:::Camus is my hero. His basic equation boils down to this: once a person realizes that there is no god they have two choices--suicide or a "faith flight." That is, if one accepts the religious view of things. If Camus is correct, and existence does indeed precede essence, then there is a third choice, the philosophy of moral action. Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.

:::Now, since I don't believe everything has a plan, and that I have a moral obligation to help my fellow man (and woman), I have an obligation to come to sites like this and try to fix them. Not by including so-called "liberal bias." Rather, the point is to make sure truth trumps propaganda. Wether I like it or not, I have a duty to help fix this garbage. I liken it to watching a child roll their tricycle toward the street. You, the adult, are standing there and you can see a truck bearing down on the child. Do you try and help her, or do you pray? I must take action and this website affords me a chance to help everybody. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You have mistaken my meaning, despite repeating exactly what I said:

::''If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....''

This is indeed exactly what I meant. So in fact, there is a god. The question is God sentient or not. Does God have thoughts, plans, etc. Or is the universe a jumble of meaningless matter that is and always was. A tangental thought to ponder: auantum mechancics seem to suggest that reality can change depending on the observer.

For those who say "this is not the God I know". Indeed it is the God you. Here's the line of logic:

::1. God = Everything
::2. Therefore God exists. (And the corrollary, atheism is ridiculous.)
::3. Now there is a choice: one can choose to believe that God is sentient; or one can deny the sentience of God despite overwhelming of evidence to the contrary.
::4. Then, if God is sentient then what can we mortals know of God? Where will we find His truths? We might find them in science. We find them in religion. We each find out own personal truth in different ways.

If you make it to step 4, the arguement becomes which religion is best. Which truth makes the most sense to you. Christians, Buddhists, Islamist, they all have their own personal arguments. I won't waste time debating religion when atheists are in the room. It's pointless, because they haven't made the logical step to 3.

If your mind doesn't make the leap to step 3, there is no point in discussing morals. In fact, it's ridiculous to postulate morals or philosophy because the universe is meaningless. For those who are at this point in personal growth: thine only commandment is ''do what thou wilt''. It is pointless to do anything other than that which makes you happy if you get to step 2 but don't make the jump to step 3. However, if you can comprehend step two but don't believe in 3 then all this poppycock about morals and goodness is ridiculous. Furthermore, when an atheist discusses morals and philosophy it only only serves to prove there is a God. This is because the atheist's spirit (which he doesn't believe believe exists) nags and naws at him like the quite voices of angels.

If you make it to step one but can't make it to step 2, then you are a) either incapable of higher thought; or b) intellectually dishonest because you fear where this argument leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, what you are trying to do, in logic, is referred to as an [[enthymeme]]. However, your argument does not work. First, you must show HOW god equals everything. Otherwise you can say anything. Thus:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

:::But you tried to do something else. You tried to insert statements as if they are quantifiable terms. Sort of like saying, "E = mc2" ''Well what do those letters mean?'' "Elephants equal mustard and cows times themselves." You've defined nothing except a lack of basic logical principles.

Being intellectually dishonest would be if I said, well, "god likes strawberries more than cherries." When you ask ''why'' I'll say "because they taste better." Asserting your opinion as fact is what makes it less than true. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin, why do you care if a child rides into traffic on a tricycle? What do you gain if she is saved? What do you lose if she dies? It sounds a lot like your a theist to me. You obviously think the universe has some meaning or some order. If the universe has order and meaning then it only follows that you believe the universe is God. The next step to make is to find out where God best reveals his truth. You think that his truth is best revealed in the philosophical musings of your hero Camus. Camus wrote your Bible. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::It might be difficult to understand but I did not say that god=toast. I agree that God is not toast. Is "Everything" that is to say the universe as a whole sentient or not? Simple question. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:50, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Furthermore, by your example:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

By your definition, then it would be possible to know the true nature of toast. We pretty well already know how to make toast. It's a silly diversion from the question you are afraid to ask yourself. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

No it isn't. I have already asked myself--for years--if there is a god. I have come to the conclusion ther very likely isn't. I am not an atheist (they are 100% sure) but I sit at about 99.9% sure. I have diverted nothing--being intellectually honest with myself meant I had to realize there was no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:As the one who said, "this is not the God I know", I reject the first point in the line of logic, that God equals everything. I am a monotheist, not a pantheist. God ''made'' the universe, He ''isn't'' the universe.
:Flippin, your counter-logic is wrong. Everwill's logic skipped a step. His logic was:
::1. God = Everything
::1A. We know that everything exists.
::2. Therefore God exists.

:So in order to match Everwill's argument from logic, your counter logic should have been:
::1. god = toast
::1A. we know that toast exists
::2. therefore god exists.
:But you got point 2 back to front.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Phil,

So as I understand it you think God is outside of the universe? God is apart from the universe. God is not everywhere at all times, rather he is somewhere else. Where is that somewhere else and what reason have you to believe (other than blind faith) that somewhere else exists? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:God is a spiritual being. He is "outside" the universe—a physical place—in the sense that He is not part of it. But being an omnipresent spiritual being He is not confined to a physical place, so He is not outside in a geographical sense. He is everywhere at once, but not synonymous with the universe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that God is not "confined" to anything. But I'm not sure there's any value to arguing the fine differences between "everything", the universe and God. We're not philosophers, and others have explored this better than we can. I think there is some value to helping atheists understand why the question is not whether God exist or not. The real question is whether God is an omnipresent sentience or not. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Everwill, your argument that god = everything is preposterous. Firstly, i do not agree with the first statement you make, that god is everything. I would like some hard proof, or at least a convincing argument that god equals everything before the first premise of your argument.

If, for arguements sake, we assume that your first premise is correct, then the only question is, as you say, whether everything (or god) is sentient? Again, you can say so, however i want proof. I have yet to see a plan in the universe or everything. According to the current predictions by astronomers and physcists, the universe is set to expand for an idefinete period and that eventually all the stars will run out of hydrogen and go out, and that everything will spread further and further apart at faster and faster speeds until the universe tears itself apart. Can you explain the plan in this? It displays all the theories about gravity, dark matter, quantum theory and strong and weak nuclear forces. There is nothing to show an added level of intelligence in this everything.

Please do not assume that your first premise is correct until you show some evidence for this, otherwise your argument is entirely invalid.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:06, 26 April 2007

==Is Atheism Ridiculous?==
::::On what basis do can you decide that something is "moral"? If I saw a truck bearing down on a child, I would try and help her, because God loves her and He would want me to help, and I would be praying at the same time. But why would you help her? From an atheistic point of view, she is just an accidental combination of a bunch of chemicals facing a life of suffering, disease, and ultimate death. What's the point in helping? Why not just let chance shortcut the process and save her all those years of pain? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:24, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Because I feel an obligation to help her, as I said. Saying it is moral means nothing. It is the action one takes. I believe that it is right to keep someone alive rather than kill them (what the above example allows for). If I let her die, she cannot make her own decisions--I am taking away her inalienable right to decide her own fate, if you will. I have no right to hurt someone else--that takes away from their right to choose how they will spend their existence.

::Yes, she is accidental, as are you and me, but I have no right to infringe on the rights of a sentient human being by allowing them to die. Standing by and watching her die would make me just as guilty as putting a gun to her head and pulling the trigger. Morality is based on this single point: existence precedes essence. We are all responsible for our own choices with regard to how they affect others.

::I don't need a religion to tell me that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Just another quick note--don't you think you have an obligation to do something outside of a god's wrath? When you say "because god loves her" you tacitly give up the responsibility for taking action. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Yes, you feel an obligation to help her. But why? I'd say that it's because you've been raised in a country with a Christian heritage and have absorbed some of its values. But I'm asking what basis atheism provides for that. Why do you feel that it is "right". What if I "feel" differently? Who is right and who is wrong? Where did her "inalienable right to decide her own fate" come from? Does she in fact have such a right? I assert that you ''do'' need a religion—or more specifically, God—to tell you that, because atheism can't.
:::::I fail to see how I'm giving up responsibility for taking action. On the contrary, it's because God loves her that I have that responsibility.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::You know, atheism has almost nothing to do with it. I don't think about, or believe in god the way you don't believe (I assume) in the flying spaghetti monster.

::But saying that "because god loves her...I have a responsibility" is equivalent to saying, "I'll go to Grandma's because it makes Mom happy." It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you.

::Finally, that "right to exist" could also be thought of as a prohibition against her death. That comes from the notion that even though our very existence is absurd, I don't have a right to decide how you will affect it. To throw my hands up and say "but who is right and who is wrong" is just reducing the argument to multiplicity, and thus relativism.

::I guess what I'm saying is I don't have a right to decide for that child so I will save her and let her make her own choice. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:::"''It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you''". On the contrary, I have ''decided'' to do what God would like, rather than do something for a selfish reason of it being something that ''I'' would like.
:::You say that the "right to exist" comes from the notion that you don't have a right to decide how you will affect it, yet by saving the girl you ''have'' decided to affect things. Yes, throwing your hands up is relativism, but the opposite of relatives is absolutes, and absolutes only come from God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes exactly, you have decided what god would like. Other people can have a different understanding, people such as Adolf Hitler who decided that god thought it was right that he should kill all jews, as they were "christ killers". Or the young man who shot a doctor who practised abortions because "god would have wanted me to do it". The fact that you have to interpret a book to decide your morals means that several different people can gain different moral codes from the same book, while there are very few people who would disagree that wanton killings would lead to society fracturing. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:17, 26 April 2007

==Questions and Answers==
Plato showed how in a debate one asks questions so that the debaters can pursue the truth together rather than being adversaries. So what I can't understand is why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests? Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you? Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share? Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?

To be more specific you say ''Because I feel an obligation to help her''. What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? Will she pay you? What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

So here are my questions:

::''"Why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests?"''

:::* Atheist says: I might ask you the same thing. I have no short-term interest in this child's death. I have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer).
:::* Theist replies, because there is something, perhaps a spirit or a god, that imparts to ever soul the knowledge of good from evil and right from wrong. Doing evil moves you further from god and thus it does not feel good to do evil (''even when it feels good to do evil''!) This is a shorthand way of saying that when you commit acts which are pleasurable but evil, you feel shallow and empty inside. On the other hand, when one commit acts of kindness without any payback of any kind, one feels good inside. This is something most humans learn as they progress into maturity. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::''"Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you?"''

:::* Atheist says: Two parts there: I wouldn't murder a child--as I said--so what is there to feel guilty about? If no one would punish me presupposes I have done this act, so the question is invalidated by the former.
:::* Theist replies, I should hope you wouldn't murder a child, but your reply ducks the obvious answer. Of course I wouldn't murder a child to get what I wanted, but if I did murder a child to get what I wanted I would feel guilty. What causes that feeling of guilty? Is that not proof of a spiritual aspect of life?

::''"Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share?"''

:::* Atheist say: It certainly could be. ''"Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?"'' Reason allows me to discern right from wrong, as I said above. I am compelled to act according to this obligation to help others and not let them have their choice made by another.
:::* Theist says, what is this "reason" you are talking about in an athistic universe. Without God or morality, what is the difference between good and evil or right and wrong? From an atheistic (i.e. Satanic) POV right and wrong are silly concepts. "Good" is just an excuse to chump the strong from their rightful place at the top of the food chain. Don't you agree?

''"What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? <s>Will she pay you?</s> What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?"''

:::* Atheist says: Okay, now you're getting to the meat of the matter. I am obligated by this sense of everyone's right to exist. I have no more right to take you're life than I do to steal your bike. Not that those two are equal, but the line of demarcation is the same. It is only selfish in the sense that I ''gain'' when this child is allowed to grow up and make her own choices. If, in the process, I am killed, then I have served my principles. If she dies, then I took moral action and can feel good about my effort. However, if I let her die I am as guilty as any of those Nazi guards at Aushwitz who said ''"I was only following orders."''
:::* Theist replies: your answer implies the existence of God even if you can't see the forest for all the trees. Why does everyone have a right to exist? Because you said so? That makes no sense in your concept of reality. What if my country elects a leader, for the purposes of illustration let's call him ''Adolf Hitler''. Our leader through legal government manuevers manages to establish a process to eliminate what he sees as a cancer on our nation. By your reasoning that leader has a moral imperative to kill Jews BECAUSE he thinks it's best for the nation. From the theist stand-point, we believe that all life is precious, most especially human life. Therefore it doesn't matter what logic, rationale or legal manuevers Hitler makes, killing is wrong.

Atheist summary: As long as you have a choice, to defer your morality to a god, or priest or whatever you ask for figiveness is to shirk your duty to society--that being to think for yourself. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Theist summary: No one ever defers any choices to anyone ever. Each individual is always responsible for his own actions and choices. To clear up your confusion: a theist defers his choices to a priest about as much as a judge in a court room defers his choices to his first year law professor. Religion is a tool to help us understand God. Religion and religious leaders do not speak for God. An "atheist" who follows a moral code is just a theist who doesn't know much about his God because he's too afraid to trust others. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:In point of fact here, I have said I am not an atheist, I am more properly called an agnostic. An atheist, by definition, holds that they have the answer--that there is no god. As an agnostic I am open to the idea that a god exists, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Please don't refer to me as an atheist--it is a different thing altogether. Also, in addition to agnosticism, I am an existentialist--so you could also use that term if you like.

:Finally, I don't have a god-belief so I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done. I do things that I reason are beneficial to society, e.g. actions that foster growth, development and change. I abhor stifling debate and that seems to be the purpose of religion as it is used most of the time. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm comfortable with my approach to all questions. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

You claim that "I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done". You do things because a little voice inside your head tells you to do things? Who is that little voice?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't have a "little voice." That is superstition. I use reason. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

It's easy to dodge the obvious with semantics. There is absolutely no question you (and all human beings) have a "little voice", that's not a superstition, that's a fact. The argument is about what is the driving force behind that little voice.

You claim that you simply rationalize everything out through the use of reason, and you are perhaps superior to moral codes found in religion. For example, you won't kill the little child because as you say you "have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer)." But if killing the little child would give you a billion dollars, you would kill the child because of the risk versus reward principle found in rationalization. The odds of that little girl inventing a cure for cancer are pretty remote. Furthermore, you might not ever contract cancer. But with a billion dollars you could finance a health care system that would further benefit you and those you deem worthy. That's "reason" at work and to you way of thinking that's much better than silly and archaic notions like "good" or "evil". [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think you have more of a stake in believing that a "non-believer" would like to kill a child for some kind of gain. I don't see it that way. I don't think there is anything that would make me kill a child. That's silly.
::Also, I don't have a "little voice" in my head. People who do I deem to be psychotic or lying. Simple as that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

A hypothetical argument takes a certain statement as an assumption and attempts to analyze it. You seem to be (perhaps intentionally) misunderstanding the hypothetical in the form in which it is presented. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend like you really don't understand because of inability to communicate.

Let's change the hypothetical slightly, you state there there is nothing that would make you kill a child. Why would you never kill a child? I understand that you base this decision on reason, but I don't understand the basis of your reason. Is your reason based upon moral codes? Aren't "moral codes" just superstition to help supress the will of the strong? Is your "reason" based upon what most helps society or is your reason based upon what most helps you? Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?

As the wise philospher Camus/Flippin says, ''Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.'' This is all well and good if one is perfect reasonable. But what about people who are unreasonable and who devise a meaning of life exemplified by people like Hitler, Jim Jones, Jeffery Dahmer, Stalin, and Charles Manson? By what right can we impose our value-system upon them?

By the same token, should each individual have the right, nay the duty, to devise his own code of laws and not wait for some legistlature or society to impose those laws upon them? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
.
==Trying to parse some of this==
:Since I consider myself a good communicator I will try and communicate with you.

:Okay, you said: "Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?" How could one do anything that helped society that didn't help oneself? Maybe I should try and explain that by asking is there really anything that one can do that helps society, yet hurts the self? If one takes an action that helps society, like picking up garbage alongside the road, does not that act help society? And if we agree that it does, how is one harmed by it?

:A reasonable person might say that the individual could get a sunburn. The individual could be hit by a truck. These are true statements, but the probability of these things happening is low (for the truck) and not that dangerous (for a sunburn). But what is the value of picking up debris left by less reasonable citizenry? Do we not gain as a society by having less trash by the roadside?

:A reasonable person might also say, yes, but must I pick up all the debris along the roadside? My answer would be no. The responsibility for cleaning up roadsides is spread equally between us all. We have a shared responsibility to do this because it helps the individual ''and'' the society.

:Now, you also mention examples like Hitler who reasoned that murdering Jews would benefit him. But is Hitler an example of a reasonable man? Honestly? Hitler was more likely sociopathic, which is a disorder that affects one's ability to reason. If we rely on reason to tell us that what is of the greatest benefit for society is of the greatest benefit for the individual, then opposing someone like Hitler, or another damaged person, is reasonable. Thus, we not only have a right to oppose them, we have an obligation to oppose them. Just as we have an obligation to oppose trash on the roadways.

:I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children? Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

:Finally, why do you feel the need to paint me as something less than moral? I have explained this repeatedly yet you do not understand. Is the failure to communicate really mine then? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not trying to paint you as immoral. I've said repeatedly I think you are moral. But I'm trying to work withing your framework to understand the truth (according to you) and I'm trying to understand the source of your morality. Where (according to you) does moral authority flow from?

I thought you said that morals comes from "reason". But as you describe it it seems that morals don't come from "reason", but from your rationalizations. I don't understand why you think your rationlizations are any more valid than the rationalizations of any other person? Of course, millions of Germans agreed with Hitler's rationalization. They were not '''all''' sociopaths. I assume that we agree their rationalization was flawed, but why is it flawed? This seems to indicate that there is some higher moral authority than rationalization. Is there some absolute code of moral authority, or were the Germans simply wrong because they lost the war? What does it matter if they were morally wrong anyway? That was in the past. There is no spiritual world and there is no God. Today is a new day. This is a new minute.

I think you're trying to claim that certain rationalizations is more valid than other rationalizations. If some rationalization is more valid than others, then why don't we as humans attempt to find the true source of the best rationalization possible and then follow that reasoning? If that is not a religion, what is that?

Secondly, I suppose I find it difficult to believe that anyone does anything simply because of "reasoning" alone. In my experince people do good things because it makes them feel good, not because they rationalized and reasoned away the degree of goodness vs. the effort required. Like every other human being, you sometimes do some bad things. After the commission of these acts of badness, why do you feel ''guilty''? If the ends justify the means there shoudl be no such thing as guilt.

Thirdly, what is the point of morality? Who cares? Why not take from the system whatever you can whenever you can. Your actions will not stop the world from spinning. You will not stop the stupid morons who worship the flying spaghetti monster, so why not exploit them? Then you can better use their resources, since you have a higher level of rationalization? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::# Rationalization seems to make the unreasonable, reasonable. That is what religion is for.
:::# Reason, as I have stated serves as a guide. It then becomes automatic.
:::# What you describe are the acts of a person that is unreasonable. I have addressed that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

What you haven't address is this: who defines what is reasonable? The guy with the biggest gun? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==The Theist answers==
Here are my answers to your questions:

The theistic-denier states:

::I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children?

I can think of many incidents of killing children which would benefit society. Our society could harvest children from poverty-stricken regions where resources are depleted and food-shortages are chronic. This is good for the environment and greatly reduces the chance that their children will suffer from famine. Then we could use those children to reseach cancer, AIDs and other diseases. Rather than working on cadavers, young doctors could practice their trade on these children. Then we could pulverize the remains and feed them to hogs. This would provide more food for other people. If you are opposed to killing (because of some fear of the mythic god) you could just enslave the children instead. We have plenty of jobs they can do which will help society more than some miserable existence in a barren wasteland.

Working strictly from a framework of reason and rationalization, why not kill children to better serve society? Furthermore, of course, this rational begs the question: why is the society of any importance at all? Why is "society" any bigger than the individual?

::Please, as one human being to another, it is much easier if you call me an agnostic--which is what I am. I don't call you a gods-worshipper, or whatever. (Jesusfreak I know is a popular perjorative that I don't use either. I am trying to be respectful.) I don't fear god--that isn't the reason to do/not do anything. I don't want anyone to kill me, so I don't kill others. Religion gives those who don't know why they do things a reason to say why they did. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Additionally, the "agnostic" asks:

::Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

Please understand that at this point, I'm not trying to prove to you my point of view. I'm trying to understand your point of view. So, while I believe that faith is the strongest barrier to crime that I know of, I won't bother to explain why I think this to you because you are clearly more enlightened than I. You've advance beyond the need for some silly god-figure.

What I would like to know is; what is your barrier to crime in the atheistic framework? It appears (based on my example above) that it is something other than reasoning, because I've proven how killing children can be good for society.

I'd be more than happy to answer why God allows suffering in the universe, but the answer to that question is pointless if we don't agree that God exists. Let's not waste time. Hypothetically, I'm agreeing with your argument that the fact that there is suffering in the universe is evidence that there is no god. Let's proceed along your path and see where it leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Religious faith is no more a barrier to crime than atheistic, or agnostic, moral reasoning. In Toronto sometime in the 70's the police went on strike. It took two hours for the first bank to be robbed, and at then end of the strike $3 million worth of damage had been done to shops and almost every bank in the city had been robbed. The vast majority of people who were arrested as a result of the crimes were religious. I'm not suggesting that therefore religion encourages crime, it just shows that it isn't such a barrier to crime as you would think. There is also anecdotal evidence that there are very few atheists and agnostics in prison compared to christians.

The agnostic and atheistic framework is different from what you seem to think. The value of life is the most important part of my beliefs. This is not because of god or the bible, this is simply because those were the morals that i was brought up with and because they make the most logical sense. If life was not valued, then mass murders would be common and unnoticed as greedy people killed and stole to take what they wanted. This would lead to the breakdown of society as a whole. That is why enslaving and killing third world children is wrong, as they have exactly the same right to life that i do.

This moral framework is far more effective as a crime barrier because people who use it have thought about why they think things are right and wrong from their own POV. Your framework comes from a book that was writtn 2000 years ago, and therefore not all its morals are up to date with the changing zeitgeist. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 26 April 2007

==Question==
Do you believe that there is absolute moral truth? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Please define an absolute moral truth? [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:08, 26 April 2007

Debate:Is religion morally wrong?

2007-04-26T11:07:38Z

Bolly Ottihw: /* Why Atheism is ridiculous */

{{debate}}
==Yes==
anything that teaches young children to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question, and then teaches them that anyone who does not believe what they do is wrong and needs to have their immortal soul 'saved' is morally wrong. as well as that, waging wars against "non-believers" or "infidels" and killing thousands of millions of people, puts religion in the morally wrong category. as in interesting aside, the link to this debate is actually titled "is athiesm morally wrong?" which may need to be fixed. --[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30 (EDT)
: Done. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::''Wha' ...?'' Anyone who thinks that religion teaches one "to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question" just plain doesn't understand any religion to which I have ever been exposed. However, I'm pretty sure I can guess why your so confused.

::There is a belief, which is generally held by most religions and most people over the age of 30, that human nature is constant. Moral codes, philosophy and religion are built upon assumptions about the constants of human nature. In this way, moral codes are similar to alegbra. Algebra is built upon a foundation of unchanging constants. Math is unchanging. Human nature is unchanging. Therefore, each generation doesn't need to reinvent algebra. Similarly, each generation needn't rediscover the reason that people devised certain moral codes which were based upon countless generations of knowledge about human nature and where then incorporated into religion and philosophy.

::This does not mean that the field of mathemics should cease to expand. This does not mean that curiosity is bad. This means that we already know that 1+1=2. We already know what happens to civilizations and societies where wild sexual activities are encouraged. This does not mean that we stop digging up fossils. This does mean that we don't kill unborn children to expiriment on them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::(wow, first ever post on a debate page!) Everwill, I would argue that human nature '''is''' changing and most certainly can't be likened to algebra. Algebra is indeed definite. It always follows the same rules reagrdless of the complexity of the problem. Surely, you can't say that human nature is like that? The scale of variation is unimaginable!

:::Also, in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher. Or, they are taught in a slanted view, which distorts the truth. All this because those parents or teachers seem afraid that their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught! That '''is''' morally wrong. The choice should be the child's not the elders'. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a reason that William Shakespeare's dramas, King David's tribulations & and the Andy Griffith show (how's that for a unexpected twist?) are timeless stories that affect us in the same way as when they affected those to whom these stories were first told. They affect us all the same way because human nature does not change. The truth is we all love, hate, breath, live and die. The human condition is infinitely variable, but human nature is constant. Of course, there are countless examples of this simple and plainly evident truth. I'm quite sure I'm not the first one to tell you that human nature is the same. In fact, this truth is the foundation of our concepts of equality and our freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

::I don't want to spend a lot of time defending something that is an elemental and accepted truth spanning time, civilizations and belief systems. This is because I'm not sure whether you're denying the fact that human nature is universal because you are ignorant (unlikely) or because you are intellectually dishonesty (my guess). In either case, it would consume far too much time to explain to you the definition of human nature to your liking. But I what I can posit in reply is an answer to your simple question: there are absolutes in morality, just as there are absolutes in algebra. For example, murder is always wrong. There is no compromise in this principle.

::''As a quick aside I must note that I always find it humorous when people (usually liberals) stereotype the upbringing found in fundamentalist religious groups.''

::To your point, it is true that "in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." But guess what, you've just proven my point. This is because, EVERY SINGLE human that ever reached adulthood was "brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." '''DUH!'''

::It is possible that your theory is true. Perhaps, teachers and parents want to shield children from outside influences because "their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught!" But who do you think is most likely to have the child's best interests at heart? I would presume that a child's parents and that child's teachers want what is best for the child. I think you are implying that the pornographers, salesmen, MTV, rappers, strangers and passerby's---all of whom the child might find more interesting (and more permissive) than the parents and teachers---are better for the child? You think it's better that the child find out (the hard way) the lessons which the parents and grandparents into the mists of history, have already found out? Preposterous. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not argueing that modern celebrities are the way forwards by any means. The messages put forward by that group does not teach very good lessons for kids (or adults!). I'm merely pointing out that the near brainwashing of the young by their parents and teachers with regards religious teaching is also wrong and can teach a child "bad" things. An example would be homosexuality. Kids in religious families who think they might be gay receive no support from parents who believe that homosexuality is bad, simply because it is the parents belief. Surely a parents love for their child should come before their religion?

:::I am not being intellectually dishonest, just ignorant (ha like thats any better!). What I thought you meant by human nature isn't what is used in the definitions I found on the internet. I took human nature to be the general world viewpoint held by each individual person; where there is substantial difference!

:::I think argueing that children should accept what their parents tell them because they have learnt it from their experience is flawed. Every person has a different PoV so will experience things differently. If a child recieves all their advice from a parent who sees the world entirely differently to them, what will that child think of themselves? Is that fair on the child? A parent should be there for guidance, yes, but not for absolute teaching. To relate this to religion: religion is a predetermined set of "rules" that followers must stick to. Choosing a religion (and its rules) is a personal choice. Parents will naturally try to enforce their beliefs and rules on their children, thereby removing their choice to religion and actions, which is removing their freedom to be themselves. Surely that is a terrible wrong to do to that child? I am not argueing that children should be given no rules, nothing of the sort. I am merely saying that the rules given to a child by their parents should not be based on the religion of the parent(s) as that is a moral wrong to that child. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I see. By your logic the child should have rules and the rules should come from the parent (sort of) but the parent shouldn't base the rule structure or belief set upon something found in religion. Instead, you believe that religion must be by a higher and more correct authority. And just who is that authority? ''Will & Grace''? Madonna & Britney? Who is this higher and more perfect authority? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to enjoy mentioning celebrities...perhaps they have affected you more than you think. Their ability to corrupt is unbounded! I don't know what you mean by "religion must be by a higher and more correct authority". I am merely argueing for separation of of religious doctrine from a child's upbringing. Yes, make a child aware of their parents belief, why they believe it, etc., but don't "force it down their necks" or make them feel bad for "not believing". That is what I find to be morally wrong about religion: the automatic assumption of parents that their children should follow in their beliefs. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

a childs parents should bring up their children to be open to new ideas and to trust their senses and logic in ideological matters. religion of any kind does not allow this to be taught to children. as well as this, many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is a false characterization of religion, perhaps based in ignorance. Every major religion teaches personal accountability and free will. Therefore, religion encourages children (and everyone else) to "trust their senses and logic in ideological matters." Religion is a framework to assist in decision making. Religion does not take personal responsiblity or logic from anyone. (Perhaps you should read a bit of C.S. Lewis or Thomas Aquinas to better acquaint yourself with the value of logic to the Christian mind.)

::You state (no caps and no punctuation are all yours): "many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are." Who knows better what the child's best interests are? The media? The government? The child? Who?

::I'm glad we're having this discussion, mostly because it's apparent that you are the victim of the propaganda of another religion. You're repeating the mantra of the liberal religion, which teaches that all religions are equal and there are no moral boundaries. Your religion might be the "one true" religion, but I doubt it.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

The childs best interests are known only by the child itself. I do not mean to say that no parents ever get it right, or wrong, however what is in the childs best interests is not to foist a belief system on him/her without letting him/her have any choice or free will in the matter. The majority of religions (liberal or fundamentalist) do not encourage children to take advantage of their natural curiosity and explore all the possibilities of logic and science, as they see science as a threat to their belief system. Just as an example, the enactment of hell that occurs in an American state led by Pastor Ted Roberts which attempts to scare children into beliveing in God by scaring them with the sheer horror of the act. This would be dismissed as simply a fringe sect, however the supporters of this pastor, in his home state (i apologise for not knowing which state this is) number around 3 million. This is only one example of the methods used by religious leaders to force children into mindlessly believing what they are told. Another example is the muslim state of Saudi Arabia, where simply being of another faith or of no faith at all, is punishable by beheading. Note the similar use of fear tactics in both cases here. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:54, 19 April 2007

::What you're trying to say makes sounds ridiculous to me, but perhaps this is because we have not agreed to what the meaning of the word "child" is. Please allow me to insert a few definitions so that I don't miss your point and vice-versa.

:::* ward --- someone incapable of making personal decisions for some reason or another. There are several types of ward:
::::* child --- This individual cannot make personal decisions because they have not reached maturity (generally 17 and under). Children might step into traffic. Children might drink poison. Children can be cultivated into giving sexual favors to pedofiles. For all these reasons and many more, "parents" (''defined below'') make decisions for parents.
::::** mental defective --- This individual has poor reasoning skills or does not understand reality. For this reason "parents" or care-takers must make decisions for the mental defective
::::** sick or enfermed --- This individual might be in a coma. This individual might be extremely sick or otherwise unable to communicate. Thus, caretakers or "parents" must make decisions for this individual.

:::* parent --- one (ideally of two) individuals responsible for the care and nuturing of a ward or child

:::* adult --- An individual who is mentally competant and mature and thus has the free will to make any decisions they want so long as they don't violate the laws of the community where they reside.

::Children, and in fact, all other wards, need people to care for them and to make decisions for them. I'm quite sure there are a good many teenagers who would agree with your ridiculous notion that children make should make their own decisions, but most adults and most parents today (and throughout history) have come to agree that it is both unwise and unsafe to grant complete and total freewill to children (perhaps most especially teenagers). This is because children don't alwasy make good decisions. Children are easily swayed and they don't have the normal defenses of doubt and fear of strangers to protect them.

::This is a plain, simple and accepted truth. I'm not sure what possible connection that has to anything Ted Roberts ever said or did. Whether Ted Roberts or Jeffrey Dahmer or Hitler is a bogeyman or not, that doesn't change the fact that children need parents. I guess what you'll have to accept is that some parents will raise children who don't agree with your beliefs. I'm quite comfortable with the fact that not all parents or people agree with me. I much too busy and quite frankly don't feel the need to tell other people how to raise their children. I doubt you have any idea what any of the parents in former Pastor Robert's church are teaching their children. I thought liberals believed in tolerance and diversity? Why can't you tolerate their differences and celebrate their Christian diversity?

::What would you like to see in Saudi Arabia, a crackdown on parents? Do you want to take the children from their parents and raise them yourself? Have you ever considered the possiblity that the concept (called "fascism") of imposing your values upon others is wrong-heaed and evil? Don't you think Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live? Are you trying to suggest that the US should invade Saudi Arabia and replace the mullahs with ACLU? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No i am not attempting to say much of that, i think that you are right in that i have misunderstood the point that you were making. I do apologise for that. What i would like to say in regards to your previous point, is that while i agree that parents should have the role in making decisions for their children (with an increasing amount of input from the child as they grow older) at the same time, they should not force their beliefs onto their children and, where possible, educate them enough so that they have the intelligence and a high enough level or reasoning to be able to make their own decision in matters of faith and belief. While a lot of parents do this, i believe that the majority don't, although i am willing and hoping to be proven wrong. I do belive in tolerance and diversity, but that is what my main problem with religion is. Religion tends to preach the opposite of this, generally against other faiths but also against homosexuals and other groups that seem to break the rules of their faith. I do think that Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live, however i think that maybe a lot do not want to live the way they do, and that another large number would not want to live that way, if they were not devout muslims. I honestly think the US should keep out of the middle east in general, as the problems it has caused there seem to be greater then the amount solved, however that is not the topic on discussion here. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:56, 20 April 2007

:This debate title seems to be relatively unfocussed, but the debate itself seems to have settled down into a focussed discussion of whether or not it is morally right for religions to pass on their codifications, conventions and beliefs to their children in a manner which could be construed as 'indoctrination'. [[Richard Dawkins]] makes the point that it would not be acceptable in today's society to label children as 'a Democrat Child' or 'a Republican child', nor to set up schools which say that we are going to only teach 'Democrat' values in this school, and to only honour Democrats. However, it does appear to be acceptable to have 'catholic' scools, catholic, muslim and hindu children. Why is this? Any Religion and or Political Stance, when it comes down to it are idealogies, and have many parallels in the way they are dogmatic about the way that adherents should behave. They both present strong arguments as to the way that you should treat knowledge, evidence, and all present a very biased world view. This is fine if you are an adult, and you understand the rules, and you know that this is the way the world works, and that you have a choice about whether to question or to belive at all; but if you are an uimpressionable youngester you could be scarred for life: 'Give me a child until he is seven...."

There is a very strong argument to say that we should NOT allow people to present contraversial points of view to children AS IF these were uncontestable facts. This, after all, is the arguments of the creationists against evolution. They maintain children should be exposed to both points of view. However, I cannot imagine that any catholic school would suggest teaching that God may or may not exist, and allowing children to experience both the sacrament and the indoctrination ceremony of freemasons, and asking them to compare & contrast!--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 04:18, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Thankyou Felix for articulating what i was attempting to say, and i apologise again to Everwill for not wording my arguement very clearly. Having attended an anglican school till i was 13, i never was fully concious that they did not present their teachings as anything other then indisputable fact and that we were expected to believe that without question. The other thing that struck me was that i was never allowed to avoid communion on the basis that i was an atheist, while one of my friends who was jewish was excused. It was almost as if they rathered that we believed in a god, even if it is a slightly different set of beliefs that come attached, than that we had no beliefs at all. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30, 20 April 2007

::Bolly, it sounds like you're trying to impose your own parental issues on others. I understand that you thought you were an atheist and yoru parents wanted to impose their theistic beliefs on you. The fact is, they have every right to impose these theistic beliefs on you. After you come of age, you can think or do anything you like. It would appear that they weren't too oppressive and it would appear they were quite open-minded because they raised an atheist. It would appear that you are the one who is oppressive because you want to raise other children to think like you. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:15, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

No, my parents are both atheists as well, the only reason i went to that school was because it was the best school in the area. However adults do not have the right to impose their theistic beliefs on their children, just as they have no right to impose their political ideologies on them. Children are trusting of their parents because in the majority of situations their parents are doing what is best for them. What i believe parents should do is to raise their children to be open minded about belief regardless of their own beliefs. Therefore any parents should educate their children about different faiths (including atheism although it is not really a faith) in a totally balanced and fair manner with no predjudice. This allows children to make up their own mind about their own personal beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:48, 21 April 2007

::Ever wonder why the religious school was the best school in the area? Have you ever once considered the possibility that this school was better because the religious school wasn't attempting to relearn the lessons of the past? This school already had a functioning set of moral codes and they didn't need to wander through the maze of pitfalls in our new ACLU-friendly world of multi-culturalist moral equivelancy? Or perhaps you think the school was better because of dumb luck?

::As defined above, adults do not have the right to impose their beliefs on children. However, ''parents'' have a right (and more importantly a duty) to impose their beliefs on children. Parents should educate their children in the way that feels best to them.

::But what you fail to comprehend is that '''anything''' you teach children is a view point. You're just upset because you want everyone else to teach your view point. Your viewpoint embraces moral equivalism and the belief that all religions are equal. That is a viewpoint. It may or may not be valid, but the fact is, it is a viewpoint. It is just another value-set. It may or may not be more valid than the values of another parent. That's an argument that can be had, but it's not at issue here.

::The issue is that you want other parents to teach their children what you believe. Furthermore, you think it's immoral that they won't teach their children your values. Don't you think that's a little silly? Do you think you're any different from the fundamentalist Christians who are upset because you're not teaching your child about Jesus? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 05:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Imposing values on other people's children==

Yes i did think about why my school was the best school in the area. The reason was that it was the richest, as it was a private school and charged massive fees for attendance. And its moral codes are almost indistinguishable from the school i attended after, which was an international college and had no religious affiliation. No adults do not have a right to impose their beliefs on children. Parents also do not have this right. To impose a personal belief on a trusting child is not morally right. Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe. I believe that all parents should teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice. Up until a certain age, say 13, children cannot believe in anything purely because it makes sense to them and, if allowed by their parents, many children do make up their own religion for a while or switch repeatedly between religions until they reach a point of maturity where they can make a choice based upon what they have learned. Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:37, 21 April 2007

::You absolutely don't make any sense. I always think ''ad hominem'' attacks are inappropriate, so I hope I don't sound like I'm attacking you, but based upon the evidence (spelling, grammatical & punctuation errors) I'm beginning to doubt your claim that your private school was the best in the area. Furthermore, I doubt that the religious indoctrination in your school was oppressive based upon the fact that you obviously attended the school, but don't share the school's values. I can't help but tell you that once again you have posted something which does not make logical sense.

::You wrote:
:::"''Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism.''"
::Of course exploiting anyone (most especially children) is never morally right. This is because according to Merriam Webster Online "exploit" means "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <''exploiting migrant farm workers''>". But you haven't laid even a meager basis for this wild accusation. Who are you accusing of exploiting children and for what gain? Are you trying to say that parents are exploiting their own children? What do parents gain from that?

::You write,
:::"''Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe.''"
::In the first sentence you describe your "beliefs" (which is just a different term for your "religion") and furthermore you demand that parents teach their children your values. In the second sentence you state the exact opposite. Perhaps the silliest thing you imply is that it is somehow dangerous or bad to trust your parents and teachers. If one can't trust ones parents or teachers, then who can one trust?

::I very seriously doubt you have learned much if anything through this process you describe above. I doubt you have tested how the world works to verify the claims of teachers and parents. For example, I'm pretty sure you trusted your Driver's Education teacher when he told you that "green means go". You didn't feel the need to experiment with driving on red first. I doubt you ever verified any claims made in the DMV Manual by using the scientific method and a double-blind study. I'm pretty sure that you trust that when you flip a light switch and turn on the boob-tube that electrons will serve your will and pleasure. But, I doubt you have actually flown a kite in a thunderstorm to verify that electricity exists. By the same token, I doubt you need to violate any of the Ten Commandments to agree that these simple laws are for the benefit of all of humanity. I'm sure you agree that children don't need to experiment with adultery, murder or lying. They're better off just taking their parents' word that these are bad things.

::The reason you agree is because it's just plain silly to waste time verifying every claim of trusted parents and teachers. Therefore, the issue for you is not that "children need to reason things on their own".

::The real issue for you is that you are an atheistic evangelist and you are frustrated because some people aren't open to receiving your message. You are frustrated because some people trust their parents more than they trust you.

::Buck up, trooper. You should satisfy yourself with the many victories of the secular progressive agenda. For example, traditional parents were forced to allow people like you to ban prayer and religious discussion from our schools. This should satisfy you. Now you can safely raise your children without fear that they will overhear a prayer and thus they might accidentally become infected with religion. You have successfully had the 10 Commandments removed from many courtrooms. Be happy because you've already won all you can logically win.

::The only thing left for you is to take away more freedom from others to practice their religion and teach their religion to their children. You're not satisfied with leaving them to do what they want to do. Instead, you want to teach other people's children to force parents (and I quote) to "''teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice.''" Why do you feel the need to force other people not to talk about religion until the child is thirteen?

::My guess is that you believe this because you can't seem to understand that your personal opinion about religion '''is''' just another religion. I'm quite sure that you are trying to be a good person. I'm quite sure that you want to teach other people your religion because you want what's best for the child. But in America we have a concept called "Freedom of Religion". Because of our Freedom of Religion, you are prohibited from ramming your value-set down the throats of other people's children.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I admit you have quite easily picked out some flaws in the way i have argued my point, and you are right in about that paragraph where i contradict myself. I shall attempt to explain myself more clearly. I do not think all children should be taught my beliefs. That is the most important part. My beliefs are of the atheistic kind, as you already know. What i think is that children should not be indoctrinated into any religion or set of beliefs. If the person chooses at a later date to be a christian or muslim or atheist, good on them. But, to come to your point on how we trust what certain people tell us about certain things, like the driving instructor when it comes to driving and so on, children trust their parents. That is because the vast majority of parents do have their childrens best interests in mind all the time. However some do use this trust, often without intending to, to teach their child to believe what they believe about God, or lack thereof (you are right about exploiting, it was the wrong word to use in that situation). My arguement in a nutshell: Children should have freedom of religion. What i mean by that is that they should not be influenced by their parents. Because many people do not have freedom of religion, in America or elsewhere (i should point out that freedom of religion is part of the Australian constitution as well) as they did not realise they had a choice. They have always been brought up to believe that Christianity was right, or that Islam was right, etc. and because it is from their parents whom they trust, they do not question this, and they are often denied the tools with which to apply logic to religious arguements.

Just as an aside to my main point, the ten commandments aren't actually such a great set of morals to live by. The very first commandment violates freedom of religion : thou shalt worship no other god but me. Also, according to the commandments, disrespecting your parents results in being stoned to death. And to compound it, thou shalt not kill, does not apply to people who are not the same religion as you. When taken the way they were intended, they aren't such a good set of morals to live by. [[User:Bolly Ottihw:Bolly Ottihw]] 14:57, 23 April 2007
::I won't waste time defending the Ten Commandments, something I belive to be a foundation of everything good in Western Civilization. The courts have agreed to remove the Ten Commandments from public life and I am not in a position to change the law, so I obey the law.

::But I will repeat the following in the hopes that you might understand this concept. Your opinion about religion, in other words "your personal definition of freedom of religion" is just another religion. It is clear that you want other parents to teach your definition of "freedom of religion" to other children.

::It may offend your sensibilities, but some people don't agree with your opinions about religion. In American, they don't have to agree with you. They can believe whatever they want. Thus, most American parents teach their children that America is a free country, where people can believe whatever they want. Further, they teach their children their own family's values and religion. Some people are Baptists or Muslims or Hindus. Some people (like you) prefer like to teach their children to sample a hodgepodge of all religions so that they will better understand atheism. That is their right. Please don't take it away from them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Selective application of logic==
Isn't it amusing that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age, but the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, i disagree (although of course i would, i am a so-called liberal). I think that the reason is that there are facts about sex and that religion is more hazy, in that there is very little proof on both sides of the arguement, and it becomes philosophical which is harder for a child to deal with. However i think that sex education should start at around age 13, which is about the same time i think children should start to seriously consider their religion or beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 15:03, 23 April 2007

You disagree with what? You disagree with:
::* The assertion that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age;
::* The assertion that the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age;
::* With the idea of teaching children family values;
::* With the idea of teaching children regilious values;
::* With the idea that sex education should be postponed;
::* All of the above;
::* Something else?

You don't make much sense to me.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Aside from the fact that you've ignored the bulk of what Bolly wrote and focused mainly on a fairly trivial thing that he said, you seem to think that "we" (being us liberal bods) are applying selective logic by saying we should teach about "sex" and not religion. In fact, by your reasoning, "you" (being the conservative bunch) are applying the same selective logic by saying that we should teach religion but not teach "sex". A horrible dilemma for you, don't you think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::1. I've not ignored anything anyone said. Please explain.

::2. I'm sorry that I've seemed to confuse you. Please allow me to explain my interpretation of the conservative position on the education of sex and the education of religion.
:::* One should teach children family values, morals and religion at an early age. This is for the child's benefit and for the benefit of mankind. (As an adult they can do whatever they would like to do, provided they don't break the law.)
:::* Regarding sex, the conservative position is that it is desirable to prolong the child's innocence by postponing sex education as long as possible.
::I'm sorry if this flavor of common sense offends you. Furthermore, I'm sorry but I can't begin to understand why this common sense would support in any way the ridiculous notion that "religion is morally wrong" by ''any'' definition of "religion" as posted below by another editor. As best as I can figure from the poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled statements above here's what I suppose the liberal position is:
:::* One should not teach children about religion because religion is evil. They won't come to realize how evil religion is until they reach 13 to 25 (commonly known as the Age of Rebellion). As a quick aside, it is a universal truth that the older people become, the wiser they become. I wonder why churches are full of old people?
:::* One should teach children about sex as soon as they are old enough to masturbate. This is because masturbation is healthy and can lead to an active and enjoyable sex life. It's important for children to understand the dangers of STD's and how to avoid pregnancy through the use of pills and condoms. Furthermore, all children should be aware if a little girl wants want an abortion, she can safely get an abortion without her parent's ever even knowing that she was pregnant. In this way she can continue with the lifestyle of her choosing without parents invading her right to privacy. If a child has a child and ends up dependent on the parents or the system, it's the conservative's fault for not talking about birth control more.
::Please correct me if I've mistated the liberal position.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You ignored the fact that Bolly made a valid point about the definition of fact and religion, and the age at which children should be educated about "sex".

:::Secondly, you say yourself that the statements written above are "poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled" and then go on to derive a definition from them!? Surely a better course of action would have been to take the definition from some credible source? As to what you have said, I would agree with most of what you define the conservative view to be, apart from teaching children a specific religion at an early age. I suppose it comes down to setting an age where innocence is lost (and I doubt many are naive enough to think that that is the age of consent). People under the age of 16 will have sex (not all, but some) and if no sex education is available for them, what sort of experiences will they have? Is it not better that from a certain age (and I would say that 13 is a good age for this to start) children are introduced to the idea of safe sex, with few (and preferably one) partner(s)?

:::You're right though, we have divulged from the debate topic, but this is an interesting tangent to the debate which I would very much like to continue if you care to carry on? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::For the second time, I'm ignoring Bolly's "valid point" because I have no clue what you are talking about. I didn't read any valid point which wasn't addressed ''ad nauseum'' already. Please read the dialogue to this point if you are confused as to why I think it's ridiculous (and invalid) to demand that other people teach their children ''your'' values. I've already explained why this is ridiculous above.

::I attempted to derive a definition from Bolly's statement only to appease your pretense of indignation when you accused me of ignoring Bolly's alleged "points". By your reaction, I'm now assuming that you just haven't read the entire argument yet and that you concur, Bolly made no points in the gibberish above. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

My point was that i think that children should be educated about sex and religion at the same age. This is because it is the age where both become major issues for children growing up. Please do explain how this is hard to understand, and how this is a selective application of logic. (I apologise for my poor grammar, it is because i write my line or thought and arguement down the same way i would say it out loud) [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:42, 24 April 2007

::You don't need to keep writing the same thing over and over and over. We already understand your opinion about how ''you think'' things should be. You've made that quite clear.

::What you still don't seem to understand is that you don't have the right to tell other people how to live, nor do you have the right to teach other children your beliefs. That's pretty self-centered. You're self-centered nature is further evidenced by the fact that you admission that you would prefer to force others to spend their precious time deciphering your cryptic musings directly from your stream of consciousness, rather than taking the time and effort to write coherent sentences with good spelling and grammar. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Age at which sex education should be taught==

Regarding the interesting tangent: to what particularly are you referring? Are you trying to debate the age at which sex education should be imposed upon children?

This is a complicated issue because there are several related factors. Most churches teach that sex outside of marriage is adultery, a sin and a mistake. But it is my personal opinion, that church and religion is a guideline and the morals espoused therein are ideals. Ideally one never lies. Ideally one never commits adultery. But here in the real world, there are a good many liars and adulterers (myself included in both counts). Additionally, most parents think that sex under the age of 18 is a mistake. Most everyone agrees that sex under the age of 16 is a mistake. Does it happen in the real world? Yes it happens. Beyond the basic biological functions of sex, sexuality is about morality. Certainly every child over the age of 13 should be taught something about the biology of sex. But what of the morality of the sex, the politics of sex and the religious or spiritual aspects of sex? These are much more complicated and personal issues and these issues should be handled within the family.

I think it's important to teach young teens "where babies come from." I think it's important to leave discussions about homosexuality, adultery and abortion to the family and church. But my original point is not that I presume to know how or when to push sex education. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:What i find interesting is that you assume that the church knows more about homosexuality than homosexuals. And regarding this, the church brings 2000 year old arguements to this subject without considering how it applies in todays society. In the past homosexuality would not have been profitable as it would not have benifited the tribe in anyway compared to heterosexual sex. In this age, there is no lack of benefit from not having children and so there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. The other thing i disagree with is that here is a religious aspect to sex. Sex should be a coupling between two people who share a great love between each other. Again, that doesnt always happen, however it is essential that children learn this at the same time they learn about the biological side of sex. [[Bolly ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:47, 24 April 2007

::Of course, that's your opinion and your entitled to it. You've got a right to live your life however you want. For me the choice is obvious. On one hand I have 2000 to 10000 years of wisdom. On the other hand, there's some dude on the Internet {{strike personal remark|who doesn't know how to write proper English, but }} who claims to know more than the Church, and Thomas Aquinas. All I ask is that you let others live their lives the way they want. Is that too much to ask? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Did you just make a personal remark? (I should block your account for 1 second. ;-)

I apologize if I offended anyone. I don't believe in ''ad hominem'' attacks. I think they are rude and pointless. However, if someone admits that they don't write properly in a forum where writing is the only means of communication, then they have openned the door to commentary by others. I'm quite sure you're just kidding anyway, I hope this doesn't sound too stern. I'm just tired right now. I was up late, up early and I'm facing a long day. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Atheists have it all figured out ... ==
My point above in ''Selective application of logic'' is that it looks very hypocritical for liberals to want to teach children about sex as young as possible, but the same crowd doesn't want to teach children religion until after they are suspectible to corruption and experimentation.

What amateur philosophers like Bolly don't seem to understand is that theologians, philosophers and generations of people with more time on their hands than all of us have already put a great deal of effort and experimentation into evolving a set of moral codes and sound religious creeds. Bolly is naive enough to expect the unreasonable notion that any '''one''' man can compete with the thoughts and knowledge of countless generations who have gone before him. He honestly thinks he can invent a personal philosophy and religious-code based upon his individual experiences. He believes that his own personal philosophy can rival the combined thoughts of generations of philosophers and theologians.

/begin rant: We as modern humans don't have to invent medicine, or geology, or build a TV set and write computer code. That's already been done by others! We can stand on their shoulders. Can you imagine how silly and presumptive it sounds to those former atheists like myself when they read that Bolly thinks he knows how the universe works and that he can definitively say that he understands the nature of God?

Bolly doesn't know the first thing about God or philosophy, but he wants to teach other people's children his credo of experiment with all religions and then become an atheist. I know why [[Thomas Aquinas]] and [[Socrates]] and even [[Aleister Crowley]] are famous (or infamous as the case may be), but I don't know why Bolly presumes to know what's best for other people's children. /end rant.

You don't have to invent moral codes or laws or waste time experimenting with life's dead-ends. You can look up the answer in the book of your choice and things will be so much easier for you.

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I have explained that it is not hypocritical, as i believe they should be taught at the same age, neither
before the other.

I am not naive enough to think that i can rival any of the great philosophers in logic and philosophy, however i dont think i would have any trouble outthinking Thomas Aquinas, for example. The reason for this is that he (and others like him) used their religious credibility to establish themselves as philosophical geniuses when in fact, he was not much smarter then anyone of the time, and certainly not smarter then the average uni graduate today. This can be amply demonstrated by his '5 proofs' of gods existence which are more full of holes than a swiss cheese.

To compare moral codes to medicing or geology is not an adequate comparison. The basic ideas of medicine and geology are based on sound proof and will not change much within the next thousand years. On the other hand, moral codes are always changing depending on the society that they are employed by. Look at the change in opinion about non-caucasian people over the past 200 years! only 100 years ago it was considered the height of stupidity to consider an african american the equal of a white man, yet today, even though there is still far to much prejudice in the world, it is generally accepted that there is no difference between any of the races of humanity. The great thinkers of one age would be considered backwards and redundant if they were transported in time to today.

I do not presume to know the nature of god. I do know, within myself, that god does not exist and i am content with that knowledge. You say you were an atheist, i would like to know what converted you to christianity.

No you do not need to waste time experimenting with dead ends, however because i believe in freedom of religion, i think it would only be fair that children are shown all the alternative modes of beliefs.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:00, 24 April 2007

::Fine. Show your children and leave others alone.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== This is an invalid question ==

I've stayed away from the debates on Conservapedia, and this one is an example of why. I'm only here now because I was asked for my input.

The problem with the question is that "religion" is not defined. On my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment#.22Religion.22 Wikipedia user page] I've listed some of the main ways that the word "religion" is used:
{{QuoteBox|
# A set of beliefs on which one bases one's life
# Belief in a deity or deities (e.g. Christianity is a religion)
# A particular set of rituals (e.g. He is practising his religion)
# A particular broad set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Christian, Muslim, or Hindu?)
# A particular narrower set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Methodist, Baptist, or Catholic?) }}

I further say there:
{{QuoteBox|No. 2 is, in my opinion, an arbitrary subset of No. 1. People believe in multiples gods (polytheism), everything-is-god (pantheism), one god (monotheism) or no god (atheism). Pantheism and atheism don't fit into definition No. 2, yet to consider them somehow "different" is arbitrary and self-serving ... . Thus I use definition No. 1 in preference to No. 2, and argue that atheism (and related views such as secular humanism) are religions, every bit as much as Christianity is. The difference is simply how many gods one believes in.}}

So if "religion" is a worldview (or ''ideology'' if you prefer), then it follows that ''everybody has one'', by its very nature and definition. How can one then ask if it is morally wrong?

Of course the person who asked the question obviously didn't have that definition in mind. But which one did he have?

To a Christian, Christianity is No. 1: a core set of beliefs on which one bases one's life. I would hope that it is obvious even to atheists that one cannot help but base one's actions on one's beliefs. So in that sense, "religion" comes before children, because when dealing with children, one ''must'' deal with them according to one's beliefs. That is why everyone, even atheists, do so.

To an atheist (who conveniently would not describe atheism as a religion), "religion" is a "optional extra". And on that basis, clearly children's welfare should come before "optional extra" beliefs.

To recap, the problem here is that there is no definition of what is intended by "religion" in this question, let alone any actual agreement by opposing viewpoints.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

This is dead-on correct. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

We do not 'conveniently' choose not to describe atheism as a religion. Atheism is defined as : a lack of belief. Lack of belief is not a religion. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:02, 24 April 2007

:Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is an ardent ''belief'' that there is no God. And even ignoring that point, you ''do'' have core beliefs, which can be considered your worldview/ideology/religion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:23, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is. When split up: A-Theism. no-belief. I do not ardently believe god does not exist. I dont think god exists. If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic.

I do have core beliefs. That does not consitute religion except in your definition. And i would argue that that is not religion, that is simply morality dressed up. My worldview is not my ideology or religion, because it would be a really weird religion compared to the main ones around today.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:57, 24 April 2007

:According to the Oxford dictionary[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk], the "atheism" means "the belief that God does not exist". The prefix "a-" can mean "without", but it can also mean "not", and "theism" is a reference to God, not just belief. Not all atheists hold their belief in no god as strongly, but for many atheists, it is a ''belief'' in no god.
:It is not "my definition". It is one of several dictionary definitions. The rest of your last two sentences don't make sense. You have not explained how atheism is not a religion yet Christianity is. As I quoted myself above, any such distinction is arbitrary and self-serving.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Bolly says, ''If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic. '' Evidence for God lies around us in all directions and in all things. (See other topics herein for a few examples.) The reason you don't see evidence of God is your picture of God has nothing to do with what God is about. God is not some magical being. God is not flying spaghetti. God does not defy logic. God is logic. In your mind the great machine of the univers happened out of sheer luck. What's the difference between sheer luck and God? Aren't they the same thing? Hopefully I can give you a clue where to find God by telling you where to look.

God is in the details. The electrons are busy doing their thing. The subatomic particles are inside the protons hard at work doing whatever they do to make matter do what it does. Complex chains of molecules describe how to build a human being more efficiently than any code written by any programmer.

God is in the everyday. God is in the mother who cares for her child. God is in the man who jumps into freezing water to save a stranger. God is in the reason you feel good when you do good things, even when they aren't fun.

God is in the grandeur. God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time.

God is everywhere, everywhere but where you're looking. You're looking for god to do something other than what the universe already does. You're presumption is that the universe is fantastic, wonderfully complicated, a well-oiled machine, but you expect something over and above all of this. ''Yeah the universe is vastly complicate, but what have you done for me lately?''

The naivety of the atheist lies in the belief that the universe itself is not evidence of God. By Bolly's definition, God is only evidenced by something beyond the atheist's explanation and comprehension. By this definition you'll never find God, because if you could comprehended the magical proof of God and God could be explained, then it would not longer be magical and no longer beyond comprehension! [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely it is enough to gaze upon the vastness and awe inspring vistas of the universe without having to attribute it to some other being. Your above definition of god: "God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time." seems to me to be more naive then my atheism. You are simply defining the universe but replacing it with god.

I would like to see some of this 'proof' of gods existence for so far i have seen nothing that comes remotely close to convincing me that god exists. On the other hand, there is no need for god in this world. Science has come very close to completly shut out godly influence in the creation of life and the universe.

The universe has not come about out of sheer luck. The strong and weak nuclear force, gravity and quantum theory all allow us to model the creation of stars, planets and black holes in a purely logical manner. If you wish to call that logic and those laws 'God' then you are free to do so. But then god is not a being who can be worshipped or who answers prayers or makes miracles. Then God simply becomes another name for the universe with no added baggage of being the creator. I trust that this dismisses your last point about the magical proof of god. You are welcome to call the universe what you will, however don't expect many people to address prayers to the law of gravity.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:50, 26 April 2007

==Why Atheism is ridiculous==
Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "God" is another word for "everything." God equals everything. Everthing is God. To deny that "God" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if God is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does God (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does God have a plan? Or is Everything (''i.e.'' God) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies. Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstien included) believe that time is an illusion and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or God) is sentient. God has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:That's not the God I know. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::As a godless, atheistic, morally-bankrupt existentialist, I have to say I disagree with this "assessment." If I am to take what you say at face value I come to the immediate conclusion that atheism is still correct. If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....

:::I think of the universe this way: I don't know how it came to be, but I assume it was a chemical and physical event, not supernatural. I know that this "stuff" doesn't have to have a plan in order to exist. There need not be a man in the sky to protect me from everything. I don't need to pray to something that I will succeed in life because there is no one listening. But, I'm not sad about this, I don't feel alone or unloved by the big ol' scary universe. Rather, I feel emboldened to take moral actions when I can.

:::Camus is my hero. His basic equation boils down to this: once a person realizes that there is no god they have two choices--suicide or a "faith flight." That is, if one accepts the religious view of things. If Camus is correct, and existence does indeed precede essence, then there is a third choice, the philosophy of moral action. Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.

:::Now, since I don't believe everything has a plan, and that I have a moral obligation to help my fellow man (and woman), I have an obligation to come to sites like this and try to fix them. Not by including so-called "liberal bias." Rather, the point is to make sure truth trumps propaganda. Wether I like it or not, I have a duty to help fix this garbage. I liken it to watching a child roll their tricycle toward the street. You, the adult, are standing there and you can see a truck bearing down on the child. Do you try and help her, or do you pray? I must take action and this website affords me a chance to help everybody. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You have mistaken my meaning, despite repeating exactly what I said:

::''If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....''

This is indeed exactly what I meant. So in fact, there is a god. The question is God sentient or not. Does God have thoughts, plans, etc. Or is the universe a jumble of meaningless matter that is and always was. A tangental thought to ponder: auantum mechancics seem to suggest that reality can change depending on the observer.

For those who say "this is not the God I know". Indeed it is the God you. Here's the line of logic:

::1. God = Everything
::2. Therefore God exists. (And the corrollary, atheism is ridiculous.)
::3. Now there is a choice: one can choose to believe that God is sentient; or one can deny the sentience of God despite overwhelming of evidence to the contrary.
::4. Then, if God is sentient then what can we mortals know of God? Where will we find His truths? We might find them in science. We find them in religion. We each find out own personal truth in different ways.

If you make it to step 4, the arguement becomes which religion is best. Which truth makes the most sense to you. Christians, Buddhists, Islamist, they all have their own personal arguments. I won't waste time debating religion when atheists are in the room. It's pointless, because they haven't made the logical step to 3.

If your mind doesn't make the leap to step 3, there is no point in discussing morals. In fact, it's ridiculous to postulate morals or philosophy because the universe is meaningless. For those who are at this point in personal growth: thine only commandment is ''do what thou wilt''. It is pointless to do anything other than that which makes you happy if you get to step 2 but don't make the jump to step 3. However, if you can comprehend step two but don't believe in 3 then all this poppycock about morals and goodness is ridiculous. Furthermore, when an atheist discusses morals and philosophy it only only serves to prove there is a God. This is because the atheist's spirit (which he doesn't believe believe exists) nags and naws at him like the quite voices of angels.

If you make it to step one but can't make it to step 2, then you are a) either incapable of higher thought; or b) intellectually dishonest because you fear where this argument leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, what you are trying to do, in logic, is referred to as an [[enthymeme]]. However, your argument does not work. First, you must show HOW god equals everything. Otherwise you can say anything. Thus:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

:::But you tried to do something else. You tried to insert statements as if they are quantifiable terms. Sort of like saying, "E = mc2" ''Well what do those letters mean?'' "Elephants equal mustard and cows times themselves." You've defined nothing except a lack of basic logical principles.

Being intellectually dishonest would be if I said, well, "god likes strawberries more than cherries." When you ask ''why'' I'll say "because they taste better." Asserting your opinion as fact is what makes it less than true. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin, why do you care if a child rides into traffic on a tricycle? What do you gain if she is saved? What do you lose if she dies? It sounds a lot like your a theist to me. You obviously think the universe has some meaning or some order. If the universe has order and meaning then it only follows that you believe the universe is God. The next step to make is to find out where God best reveals his truth. You think that his truth is best revealed in the philosophical musings of your hero Camus. Camus wrote your Bible. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::It might be difficult to understand but I did not say that god=toast. I agree that God is not toast. Is "Everything" that is to say the universe as a whole sentient or not? Simple question. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:50, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Furthermore, by your example:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

By your definition, then it would be possible to know the true nature of toast. We pretty well already know how to make toast. It's a silly diversion from the question you are afraid to ask yourself. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

No it isn't. I have already asked myself--for years--if there is a god. I have come to the conclusion ther very likely isn't. I am not an atheist (they are 100% sure) but I sit at about 99.9% sure. I have diverted nothing--being intellectually honest with myself meant I had to realize there was no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:As the one who said, "this is not the God I know", I reject the first point in the line of logic, that God equals everything. I am a monotheist, not a pantheist. God ''made'' the universe, He ''isn't'' the universe.
:Flippin, your counter-logic is wrong. Everwill's logic skipped a step. His logic was:
::1. God = Everything
::1A. We know that everything exists.
::2. Therefore God exists.

:So in order to match Everwill's argument from logic, your counter logic should have been:
::1. god = toast
::1A. we know that toast exists
::2. therefore god exists.
:But you got point 2 back to front.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Phil,

So as I understand it you think God is outside of the universe? God is apart from the universe. God is not everywhere at all times, rather he is somewhere else. Where is that somewhere else and what reason have you to believe (other than blind faith) that somewhere else exists? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:God is a spiritual being. He is "outside" the universe—a physical place—in the sense that He is not part of it. But being an omnipresent spiritual being He is not confined to a physical place, so He is not outside in a geographical sense. He is everywhere at once, but not synonymous with the universe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that God is not "confined" to anything. But I'm not sure there's any value to arguing the fine differences between "everything", the universe and God. We're not philosophers, and others have explored this better than we can. I think there is some value to helping atheists understand why the question is not whether God exist or not. The real question is whether God is an omnipresent sentience or not. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Everwill, your argument that god = everything is preposterous. Firstly, i do not agree with the first statement you make, that god is everything. I would like some hard proof, or at least a convincing argument that god equals everything before the first premise of your argument.

If, for arguements sake, we assume that your first premise is correct, then the only question is, as you say, whether everything (or god) is sentient? Again, you can say so, however i want proof. I have yet to see a plan in the universe or everything. According to the current predictions by astronomers and physcists, the universe is set to expand for an idefinete period and that eventually all the stars will run out of hydrogen and go out, and that everything will spread further and further apart at faster and faster speeds until the universe tears itself apart. Can you explain the plan in this? It displays all the theories about gravity, dark matter, quantum theory and strong and weak nuclear forces. There is nothing to show an added level of intelligence in this everything.

Please do not assume that your first premise is correct until you show some evidence for this, otherwise your argument is entirely invalid.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:06, 26 April 2007

==Is Atheism Ridiculous?==
::::On what basis do can you decide that something is "moral"? If I saw a truck bearing down on a child, I would try and help her, because God loves her and He would want me to help, and I would be praying at the same time. But why would you help her? From an atheistic point of view, she is just an accidental combination of a bunch of chemicals facing a life of suffering, disease, and ultimate death. What's the point in helping? Why not just let chance shortcut the process and save her all those years of pain? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:24, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Because I feel an obligation to help her, as I said. Saying it is moral means nothing. It is the action one takes. I believe that it is right to keep someone alive rather than kill them (what the above example allows for). If I let her die, she cannot make her own decisions--I am taking away her inalienable right to decide her own fate, if you will. I have no right to hurt someone else--that takes away from their right to choose how they will spend their existence.

::Yes, she is accidental, as are you and me, but I have no right to infringe on the rights of a sentient human being by allowing them to die. Standing by and watching her die would make me just as guilty as putting a gun to her head and pulling the trigger. Morality is based on this single point: existence precedes essence. We are all responsible for our own choices with regard to how they affect others.

::I don't need a religion to tell me that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Just another quick note--don't you think you have an obligation to do something outside of a god's wrath? When you say "because god loves her" you tacitly give up the responsibility for taking action. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Yes, you feel an obligation to help her. But why? I'd say that it's because you've been raised in a country with a Christian heritage and have absorbed some of its values. But I'm asking what basis atheism provides for that. Why do you feel that it is "right". What if I "feel" differently? Who is right and who is wrong? Where did her "inalienable right to decide her own fate" come from? Does she in fact have such a right? I assert that you ''do'' need a religion—or more specifically, God—to tell you that, because atheism can't.
:::::I fail to see how I'm giving up responsibility for taking action. On the contrary, it's because God loves her that I have that responsibility.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::You know, atheism has almost nothing to do with it. I don't think about, or believe in god the way you don't believe (I assume) in the flying spaghetti monster.

::But saying that "because god loves her...I have a responsibility" is equivalent to saying, "I'll go to Grandma's because it makes Mom happy." It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you.

::Finally, that "right to exist" could also be thought of as a prohibition against her death. That comes from the notion that even though our very existence is absurd, I don't have a right to decide how you will affect it. To throw my hands up and say "but who is right and who is wrong" is just reducing the argument to multiplicity, and thus relativism.

::I guess what I'm saying is I don't have a right to decide for that child so I will save her and let her make her own choice. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:::"''It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you''". On the contrary, I have ''decided'' to do what God would like, rather than do something for a selfish reason of it being something that ''I'' would like.
:::You say that the "right to exist" comes from the notion that you don't have a right to decide how you will affect it, yet by saving the girl you ''have'' decided to affect things. Yes, throwing your hands up is relativism, but the opposite of relatives is absolutes, and absolutes only come from God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes exactly, you have decided what god would like. Other people can have a different understanding, people such as Adolf Hitler who decided that god thought it was right that he should kill all jews, as they were "christ killers". Or the young man who shot a doctor who practised abortions because "god would have wanted me to do it". The fact that you have to interpret a book to decide your morals means that several different people can gain different moral codes from the same book, while there are very few people who would disagree that wanton killings would lead to society fracturing. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:17, 26 April 2007

==Questions and Answers==
Plato showed how in a debate one asks questions so that the debaters can pursue the truth together rather than being adversaries. So what I can't understand is why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests? Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you? Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share? Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?

To be more specific you say ''Because I feel an obligation to help her''. What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? Will she pay you? What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

So here are my questions:

::''"Why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests?"''

:::* Atheist says: I might ask you the same thing. I have no short-term interest in this child's death. I have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer).
:::* Theist replies, because there is something, perhaps a spirit or a god, that imparts to ever soul the knowledge of good from evil and right from wrong. Doing evil moves you further from god and thus it does not feel good to do evil (''even when it feels good to do evil''!) This is a shorthand way of saying that when you commit acts which are pleasurable but evil, you feel shallow and empty inside. On the other hand, when one commit acts of kindness without any payback of any kind, one feels good inside. This is something most humans learn as they progress into maturity. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::''"Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you?"''

:::* Atheist says: Two parts there: I wouldn't murder a child--as I said--so what is there to feel guilty about? If no one would punish me presupposes I have done this act, so the question is invalidated by the former.
:::* Theist replies, I should hope you wouldn't murder a child, but your reply ducks the obvious answer. Of course I wouldn't murder a child to get what I wanted, but if I did murder a child to get what I wanted I would feel guilty. What causes that feeling of guilty? Is that not proof of a spiritual aspect of life?

::''"Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share?"''

:::* Atheist say: It certainly could be. ''"Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?"'' Reason allows me to discern right from wrong, as I said above. I am compelled to act according to this obligation to help others and not let them have their choice made by another.
:::* Theist says, what is this "reason" you are talking about in an athistic universe. Without God or morality, what is the difference between good and evil or right and wrong? From an atheistic (i.e. Satanic) POV right and wrong are silly concepts. "Good" is just an excuse to chump the strong from their rightful place at the top of the food chain. Don't you agree?

''"What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? <s>Will she pay you?</s> What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?"''

:::* Atheist says: Okay, now you're getting to the meat of the matter. I am obligated by this sense of everyone's right to exist. I have no more right to take you're life than I do to steal your bike. Not that those two are equal, but the line of demarcation is the same. It is only selfish in the sense that I ''gain'' when this child is allowed to grow up and make her own choices. If, in the process, I am killed, then I have served my principles. If she dies, then I took moral action and can feel good about my effort. However, if I let her die I am as guilty as any of those Nazi guards at Aushwitz who said ''"I was only following orders."''
:::* Theist replies: your answer implies the existence of God even if you can't see the forest for all the trees. Why does everyone have a right to exist? Because you said so? That makes no sense in your concept of reality. What if my country elects a leader, for the purposes of illustration let's call him ''Adolf Hitler''. Our leader through legal government manuevers manages to establish a process to eliminate what he sees as a cancer on our nation. By your reasoning that leader has a moral imperative to kill Jews BECAUSE he thinks it's best for the nation. From the theist stand-point, we believe that all life is precious, most especially human life. Therefore it doesn't matter what logic, rationale or legal manuevers Hitler makes, killing is wrong.

Atheist summary: As long as you have a choice, to defer your morality to a god, or priest or whatever you ask for figiveness is to shirk your duty to society--that being to think for yourself. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Theist summary: No one ever defers any choices to anyone ever. Each individual is always responsible for his own actions and choices. To clear up your confusion: a theist defers his choices to a priest about as much as a judge in a court room defers his choices to his first year law professor. Religion is a tool to help us understand God. Religion and religious leaders do not speak for God. An "atheist" who follows a moral code is just a theist who doesn't know much about his God because he's too afraid to trust others. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:In point of fact here, I have said I am not an atheist, I am more properly called an agnostic. An atheist, by definition, holds that they have the answer--that there is no god. As an agnostic I am open to the idea that a god exists, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Please don't refer to me as an atheist--it is a different thing altogether. Also, in addition to agnosticism, I am an existentialist--so you could also use that term if you like.

:Finally, I don't have a god-belief so I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done. I do things that I reason are beneficial to society, e.g. actions that foster growth, development and change. I abhor stifling debate and that seems to be the purpose of religion as it is used most of the time. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm comfortable with my approach to all questions. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

You claim that "I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done". You do things because a little voice inside your head tells you to do things? Who is that little voice?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't have a "little voice." That is superstition. I use reason. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

It's easy to dodge the obvious with semantics. There is absolutely no question you (and all human beings) have a "little voice", that's not a superstition, that's a fact. The argument is about what is the driving force behind that little voice.

You claim that you simply rationalize everything out through the use of reason, and you are perhaps superior to moral codes found in religion. For example, you won't kill the little child because as you say you "have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer)." But if killing the little child would give you a billion dollars, you would kill the child because of the risk versus reward principle found in rationalization. The odds of that little girl inventing a cure for cancer are pretty remote. Furthermore, you might not ever contract cancer. But with a billion dollars you could finance a health care system that would further benefit you and those you deem worthy. That's "reason" at work and to you way of thinking that's much better than silly and archaic notions like "good" or "evil". [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think you have more of a stake in believing that a "non-believer" would like to kill a child for some kind of gain. I don't see it that way. I don't think there is anything that would make me kill a child. That's silly.
::Also, I don't have a "little voice" in my head. People who do I deem to be psychotic or lying. Simple as that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

A hypothetical argument takes a certain statement as an assumption and attempts to analyze it. You seem to be (perhaps intentionally) misunderstanding the hypothetical in the form in which it is presented. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend like you really don't understand because of inability to communicate.

Let's change the hypothetical slightly, you state there there is nothing that would make you kill a child. Why would you never kill a child? I understand that you base this decision on reason, but I don't understand the basis of your reason. Is your reason based upon moral codes? Aren't "moral codes" just superstition to help supress the will of the strong? Is your "reason" based upon what most helps society or is your reason based upon what most helps you? Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?

As the wise philospher Camus/Flippin says, ''Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.'' This is all well and good if one is perfect reasonable. But what about people who are unreasonable and who devise a meaning of life exemplified by people like Hitler, Jim Jones, Jeffery Dahmer, Stalin, and Charles Manson? By what right can we impose our value-system upon them?

By the same token, should each individual have the right, nay the duty, to devise his own code of laws and not wait for some legistlature or society to impose those laws upon them? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
.
==Trying to parse some of this==
:Since I consider myself a good communicator I will try and communicate with you.

:Okay, you said: "Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?" How could one do anything that helped society that didn't help oneself? Maybe I should try and explain that by asking is there really anything that one can do that helps society, yet hurts the self? If one takes an action that helps society, like picking up garbage alongside the road, does not that act help society? And if we agree that it does, how is one harmed by it?

:A reasonable person might say that the individual could get a sunburn. The individual could be hit by a truck. These are true statements, but the probability of these things happening is low (for the truck) and not that dangerous (for a sunburn). But what is the value of picking up debris left by less reasonable citizenry? Do we not gain as a society by having less trash by the roadside?

:A reasonable person might also say, yes, but must I pick up all the debris along the roadside? My answer would be no. The responsibility for cleaning up roadsides is spread equally between us all. We have a shared responsibility to do this because it helps the individual ''and'' the society.

:Now, you also mention examples like Hitler who reasoned that murdering Jews would benefit him. But is Hitler an example of a reasonable man? Honestly? Hitler was more likely sociopathic, which is a disorder that affects one's ability to reason. If we rely on reason to tell us that what is of the greatest benefit for society is of the greatest benefit for the individual, then opposing someone like Hitler, or another damaged person, is reasonable. Thus, we not only have a right to oppose them, we have an obligation to oppose them. Just as we have an obligation to oppose trash on the roadways.

:I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children? Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

:Finally, why do you feel the need to paint me as something less than moral? I have explained this repeatedly yet you do not understand. Is the failure to communicate really mine then? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not trying to paint you as immoral. I've said repeatedly I think you are moral. But I'm trying to work withing your framework to understand the truth (according to you) and I'm trying to understand the source of your morality. Where (according to you) does moral authority flow from?

I thought you said that morals comes from "reason". But as you describe it it seems that morals don't come from "reason", but from your rationalizations. I don't understand why you think your rationlizations are any more valid than the rationalizations of any other person? Of course, millions of Germans agreed with Hitler's rationalization. They were not '''all''' sociopaths. I assume that we agree their rationalization was flawed, but why is it flawed? This seems to indicate that there is some higher moral authority than rationalization. Is there some absolute code of moral authority, or were the Germans simply wrong because they lost the war? What does it matter if they were morally wrong anyway? That was in the past. There is no spiritual world and there is no God. Today is a new day. This is a new minute.

I think you're trying to claim that certain rationalizations is more valid than other rationalizations. If some rationalization is more valid than others, then why don't we as humans attempt to find the true source of the best rationalization possible and then follow that reasoning? If that is not a religion, what is that?

Secondly, I suppose I find it difficult to believe that anyone does anything simply because of "reasoning" alone. In my experince people do good things because it makes them feel good, not because they rationalized and reasoned away the degree of goodness vs. the effort required. Like every other human being, you sometimes do some bad things. After the commission of these acts of badness, why do you feel ''guilty''? If the ends justify the means there shoudl be no such thing as guilt.

Thirdly, what is the point of morality? Who cares? Why not take from the system whatever you can whenever you can. Your actions will not stop the world from spinning. You will not stop the stupid morons who worship the flying spaghetti monster, so why not exploit them? Then you can better use their resources, since you have a higher level of rationalization? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::# Rationalization seems to make the unreasonable, reasonable. That is what religion is for.
:::# Reason, as I have stated serves as a guide. It then becomes automatic.
:::# What you describe are the acts of a person that is unreasonable. I have addressed that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

What you haven't address is this: who defines what is reasonable? The guy with the biggest gun? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==The Theist answers==
Here are my answers to your questions:

The theistic-denier states:

::I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children?

I can think of many incidents of killing children which would benefit society. Our society could harvest children from poverty-stricken regions where resources are depleted and food-shortages are chronic. This is good for the environment and greatly reduces the chance that their children will suffer from famine. Then we could use those children to reseach cancer, AIDs and other diseases. Rather than working on cadavers, young doctors could practice their trade on these children. Then we could pulverize the remains and feed them to hogs. This would provide more food for other people. If you are opposed to killing (because of some fear of the mythic god) you could just enslave the children instead. We have plenty of jobs they can do which will help society more than some miserable existence in a barren wasteland.

Working strictly from a framework of reason and rationalization, why not kill children to better serve society? Furthermore, of course, this rational begs the question: why is the society of any importance at all? Why is "society" any bigger than the individual?

::Please, as one human being to another, it is much easier if you call me an agnostic--which is what I am. I don't call you a gods-worshipper, or whatever. (Jesusfreak I know is a popular perjorative that I don't use either. I am trying to be respectful.) I don't fear god--that isn't the reason to do/not do anything. I don't want anyone to kill me, so I don't kill others. Religion gives those who don't know why they do things a reason to say why they did. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Additionally, the "agnostic" asks:

::Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

Please understand that at this point, I'm not trying to prove to you my point of view. I'm trying to understand your point of view. So, while I believe that faith is the strongest barrier to crime that I know of, I won't bother to explain why I think this to you because you are clearly more enlightened than I. You've advance beyond the need for some silly god-figure.

What I would like to know is; what is your barrier to crime in the atheistic framework? It appears (based on my example above) that it is something other than reasoning, because I've proven how killing children can be good for society.

I'd be more than happy to answer why God allows suffering in the universe, but the answer to that question is pointless if we don't agree that God exists. Let's not waste time. Hypothetically, I'm agreeing with your argument that the fact that there is suffering in the universe is evidence that there is no god. Let's proceed along your path and see where it leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Religious faith is no more a barrier to crime than atheistic, or agnostic, moral reasoning. In Toronto sometime in the 70's the police went on strike. It took two hours for the first bank to be robbed, and at then end of the strike $3 million worth of damage had been done to shops and almost every bank in the city had been robbed. The vast majority of people who were arrested as a result of the crimes were religious. I'm not suggesting that therefore religion encourages crime, it just shows that it isn't such a barrier to crime as you would think. There is also anecdotal evidence that there are very few atheists and agnostics in prison compared to christians.

The agnostic and atheistic framework is different from what you seem to think. The value of life is the most important part of my beliefs. This is not because of god or the bible, this is simply because those were the morals that i was brought up with and because they make the most logical sense. If life was not valued, then mass murders would be common and unnoticed as greedy people killed and stole to take what they wanted. This would lead to the breakdown of society as a whole. That is why enslaving and killing third world children is wrong, as they have exactly the same right to life that i do.

This moral framework is far more effective as a crime barrier because people who use it have thought about why they think things are right and wrong from their own POV. Your framework comes from a book that was writtn 2000 years ago, and therefore not all its morals are up to date with the changing zeitgeist. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 26 April 2007

==Question==
Do you believe that there is absolute moral truth? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)