Big earthquake hit Haiti, lots of suffering and death. Just a matter of time before a christian leader says it was because god was upset about homosexuality.

I do not deny that statement Dub. Belief in a god has steadily declined in America and continues to do so.
.
Whats your point? If society were in some sort of state of decay due to lack of religion we would be able to observe some sort of behavioral difference between christians and the general population - we can't.
.
If anything religion in the world is the source of evil. Think about the conflicts going on in the world right now. When you wiat to get your full body scan in the airport they are not screening for athiests my friend.

dub..., can you verify that it was ever here?

For example: was it in Europe in the '30s and '40s, you know, the Holocaust.

Can you verify that statement?

Dub - thats funny - you make it sound like if we don't teach our children chrisianity we will be amazed and suprised at how bad they turn out.
.
Unfortunatly for the point you are attempting to make people have been raising children without god for some time now, and statistically there is not much difference between that population and the christian one. In fact when it comes to teen pregnancy and divorce rate - christians have higher rates.
.
As far as morals go if I wanted my children to have morals that would result in them committing mass murder, rape, slavery, and general cruelty, I would hand them a bible.

dub...., american prisons are loaded with christians. American prisons are over crowded do to recidivism (repeat offenders).

This is because when christianity broke off from Judaism, it became a mentality of: show your respect for god by praying and forgiving yourself, as opposed to Judaism which was a mentality of: show your respect for god by the way you actually lived your life.

Not to mention how billnewbie's "proof" of god would be thrown out of court.

The reality is that no one would invest one cent into a God based business. No one. When the God lovers get sick, do they go to church to pray? No , they go to the secular hospital that relies on science to actually cure people. Even religions support secular hospitals and don't tell people to pray. God is not a growth industry: unless you can become more ignorant.

Let me guess, none of the god lovers have more than a high school education?

Those tiresome J.E.R.K.s, always going and abusing our country's privileges and freedom... I had a sneaking suspicion that ProudFighter11 was a member.

I too take the stand that the comment was not approved not was it endorsed.

Correct. That comes straight from the mouth of the Janesville Eradication of Religion Klub. ;^)

The preceding announcement has not been approved by the Janesville Area Alliance of Atheists. Accordingly, the JAAA condemns such sentiments.

'fun surfaced a month or so ago while a small cabal of some of the more inarticulate believers found themselves on the ropes. Given that 'fun's chronic echolalia is merely another manifestation of inarticulation, he or she is likely one of the cabal.

I'm definitely not 'fun. And I can't figure out if he or she hates me or loves me.

I'm not necessarily a fan of fun. Which brings up the question: Who's fun? One of your fans, fan?

True, I am a fan who's fun but I'm not a 'fan who's 'fun.

Correct. What's on second. Who's on first. (Anyway, fan, the party to whom I was speaking was fun. While you may be fun, fan, you're not actually fun, fan.)

Anyone who claims that oppressive actions toward religion are taking place in this country is speaking from paranoia. A close reading of the story above reveals that such oppression is exclusive to non-democratic nations. The special irony in all this is: theocracy -the religious rule of a nation, which is a rule that is antithetical to democracy- is of the same oppressive mentality that is faulted in the story above!!!!

It's interesting how these comments took a religious turn, when this article is about the ability of people to speak safely to their religious beliefs. This a civil issue.
This is much like the early United States, protecting religion FROM government, not government from religion. Today many people of faith believe that Judeo-Christianity is part of government, when it was expressed at times. Read 'American Gospel' or 'Founding Faith' to hear
what kind of religion our Founding Fathers really believed.

What's on second.

Is this the party to whom I am speaking?

Matthew 10:34-37

[Jesus says] Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.

Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me

Who are you responding to?

Who's on first.

Who are you talking to?

No, but I should have, but I wanted to keep it short.

Who are you responding to?

True.
But did you question why I would put (what you perceive to be) my own words into quotations? Or why it might have been followed by the response: "Ahh, and yet you still refuse to address gazettefan directly."?

This was at the beginning of your recent post:

"From the list below posted on Jan 5, 2010 at 9:01 a.m."

I'm the one who posted at that time on that date.

Not you, am I?

Who are you talking to?

"Is there any evidence to support the contention that 'such instances may have occurred (you've chosen to vaguely cite none in specific), it is not systemic, and would be rare.' or am I the only one required to provide documentation for such rhetorical generalities?"
.
Then you admit you've offered rhetorical generalities?
Are you seriously going to argue then that teachers telling their students that they believe there is no God (which you've yet to shown to be either oppressive or indoctrinating) is systemically common within public schools? Because if you're not, then you're just playing devil's advocate to spite me. No thank you.
.
"Darwin did in fact come to reject the existence of God."
.
The Christian God, yes.
.
"Darwin rejected intelligent design, not just Christianity."
.
Are you implying that one must accept the notion of ID to accept the possibility of a God?
.
"And though many scientists do not rule out the existence of a Creator, most atheists..."
.
I'm going to stop your strawman right there. Thanks.
.
"The lack of any organized design that has come into being by itself is itself the fact."
.
You've admitted that you're not even aware if there is any evidence that no one has ever observed any organizing process within Nature. Absence of proof is not proof of absence... isn’t that what you’ve been arguing (before this point, of course)?
.
"That could be true if we didn’t already know why women bleed when they menstruate. But we do know why they bleed. It is the result of the design of their reproductive organs, a design that suggests a designer."
.
Yes, it "could be true" (as you prefer to phrase it, "an inconclusive conclusion") that there is a God like the one ID postulates due to our observance of natural designs, just like it "could be true" that menstruating women are substantially injured due to our observance of the loss of blood and physical discomfort. But we do know why menstruating women actually bleed, don't we? And it's not due to the reason that their symptoms would have... implied, is it? No. But you might have picked up on that had you not dismissed my assertion that correlation does not imply causation, a rhetorical fallacy dependent in the belief of ID.

"And that such a personal God must be a fictitious creation of the personal minds"
.
Yes, a Creator of all cannot be an exclusive personal God to some, and so such a figure would indeed have been the fictitious creation of those personal minds that wish a god for their "team."
.
"Imagine that, not only life from lifelessness"
.
Both science and religion acknowledge this natural occurrence.
.
"but thought from thoughtlessness, emotion from emotionlessness, morality from the amoral. Now that seems far fetched to me."
.
Then you've never witnessed a pregnancy result in a birth of a baby who develops into personhood. It's truly not so far fetched a concept, as it is the concept of creation itself.
Speaking of, mere mortal (mostly unintelligent) creatures here on this planet hold the very power to create life themselves. And often it is done without a design; a plan; a clear intent. Often, life is conceived from a mistake, an impulse. Often, life is unwanted. We witness this in nature.
Therefore, if we are to derive our knowledge of what God is through what we observe in nature, despite observing beautiful and complex designs, is it not possible that those designs originated by accident? That the Creator didn't expect or want what has become "life" in general? It's no less valid than deducing, through implication, that the Creator is a careful designer.
.
"When a teacher voices an opinion in class, it’s more than just a person stating a belief. It’s an authority figure stating a belief."
.
Redundant; already acknowledged.
.
"Therefore, to express opinions from a teacher’s superior position to the inferior student is to indoctrinate, not teach."
.
I thought it was oppression, but now it's indoctrination (the forcing of an unquestionable doctrine upon another)? Which of these is this hypothetically shared opinion hypothetically doing to these hypothetical children in this hyperbolic scenario?
.
"But I wonder, if the same teacher expresses a religious conviction, would the concerns raised by atheists about that shared opinion be so easily dismissed?"
.
I wonder.
Since it's me you're discussing the issue with, you can infer my opinion on such a reversal by reading my comment that it would have to be shown that, “although a teacher would be unjustly using her place of authority to voice her opinion, the shared opinion subjugated or burdened a child.” Again, I ask you, can you show that the shared opinion itself is what has caused the subjugation or burden, rather than the teacher's inherent authority over students that exists regardless of whether opinions are being shared?

"From the list below posted on Jan 5, 2010 at 9:01 a.m."
.
Ahh, and yet you still refuse to address gazettefan directly.
I don’t address posters individually either.
Oh, wait...
.
"None that I can find. Do you know of any?"
.
Interesting that you argue it is invalid to dismiss God without proof otherwise, while at the same time admitting that you have no evidence that no one has ever observed any organizing process within Nature, despite making that very claim.
.
"This is what I wrote, 'Did the Nazis think it was oppression when they implemented their 'Final Solution'? No, they convinced themselves that what they were doing was justice.' The Nazis were acting on a distorted notion of justice born of their rationalizations. Oppression is an unjust act. The Nazis were self-convinced that their actions were justified."
.
One does not need to acknowledge that their actions are unjust to realize that they are oppressive.
That is why I wrote, "Nazis and slavery/segregation supporters most certainly DID realize that what they were doing was oppression; they made no bones about the fact that their actions were for THEMSELVES and not out of pity or a sense of justice for their victims, whom they could barely hide their openly public displays of repulsion for."
.
"So you’re contending that God could only be a kind of celestial battery..."
.
No, I believe I simply argued that it is invalid to discount the possibility of a Creator in general, while being valid to discount the depictions of deities by man-made religions as THE true depiction of that possible Creator. I’ve gone into no further detail, and you’re purely speculating.
.
"...without thought or direction"
.
Where have I indicated this?
.
"that He could not be a person."
.
No, a god cannot inherently be a true, pure human. Appear in the form of one? I can't say. But a "person" is defined by their humanity, and therefore too the mortal limits this presents.

No, prounion, you're not my minion; but I hope I'm your Caucasian.

GF - no offense but I thought you were my minion. Andre is it possible we could both be co-minions? But then I guess we would have had to pledge minionhood so someone or something? Hmmm the devil is a figment of imagination, so he won't work.
.
Best just to leave well enough alone - ok - I am GF's minion. Minion of logic, reason, and biblical scholarship.

Something interesting going on at this blog:

http://www.gazettextra.com/weblogs/gen-x...

andre...., are you sure that the last paragraph in your 9:48a post doesn't apply to billnewbie? -"long winded...circles." Go easy on him. Or to yourself?

And as prounion pointed out, your claim that I haven't proved my point has yet to be proved by you. Get back to work!!!

20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

Bill the newer version of the bible translates this to the slave getting back up after a couple of days aka recovering from the beating. Thats no problem god says - because the slave is the beater's property. But owners should not beat their slaves to death. This is where morality comes from? Any luck finding the passages where god says THOU SHALT NOT OWN OTHER HUMANS BEACAUSE THAT IS MORALLY WRONG? Or is the best we can do one that says you will get in trouble if you beat a slave to death, but just beating them unconscious for a couple fo days is ok - you own them afetr all.

billnewbie, you are the Johnny Cochran of scripture.

Hey, billnewbie, Shakespearean, I can't believe you passed up the alliteration of "Baloney Boulevard."

Indentured servitude also applies to what you quoted from Leviticus, Prounion. You’re just so blinded by your contempt of anything Christian that you can’t or won’t see it.

For proof of that contempt, look at your mischaracterization of what you quoted from Exodus about being able to beat a “slave” to death as long as he lingers a day or two. How does one gauge a beating so that the victim dies at least a day later? Who could be so precise? And what’s the risk to the person who administers the beating if he should miscalculate? When you can honestly answer these questions you may be able to come to the conclusion that this law was meant to assess intent. It can be argued that the loss of value to the bondholder is not enough punishment for unintentionally causing the death of his bondsman, but it’s nonsense to claim that such a person is getting away with intentional murder, which would be punishable by death if the beating weren’t gauged correctly.

Yet more proof is your mischaracterization of this from Exodus 21:22 “The context also explains that you can punch a pregnant woman in the gut so that she aborts, just need to settle the matter with money with the husband.” The verse is clear that in these cases there is no intent to harm the woman or unborn child. Here’s the exact quote’ If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. “The harm was caused by carelessness while the men strive (that is, fight), the woman being a bystander. So again, it’s not murder, it’s not an abortion, it’s an accident, a preventable accident. That’s why the one who causes the harm has to go before the judge. Your characterizing it the way you do is disingenuous at the very least, and it suggests a certain desperation.

And again more proof of your contempt blinding your reason. 30 pieces of silver for the loss of a “slave” killed by a bull was a lot of money then. The fine wasn’t just an attempt to reimburse the bondholder’s loss but to provide an incentive to the bull owner to control his bulls. We do things like that today, too. If you accidentally kill someone with your car, you can expect a stiff fine plus a considerable liability in court to reimburse the victim’s family, and it won’t make much difference how old the person was that died, either. And I suspect that if you have a bull that gets away from you and kills someone, the result will be very similar.

Someday you may acquire a respect for context. But obviously, today is not that day.

You certainly are a master of "bombast of baloney" and tunnel vision Gazettefan. And as such, I could take your insulting criticism more seriously if you didn't seem so blind to your own excursions down baloney lane.

andre...., what is it about you that makes you think that pasting my original post has any meaning other than that it emphasizes your lack of progress here? And why are you avoiding the posts that followed? I especially like the one where I say that you concocted something in your mind that has only one quality. The quality of: it can't be disproved. And that you attached the word "god" to that concoction. With your concoction you've painted yourself into a corner.

While I appreciate those posters here who say god can't be disproved, thus rendering your question as nonsensical, I respectfully submit that I have disproved the existence of god. If it is your claim that god is something other than what's been described up to this point in human history, kindly provide that description.

What may help you in your task is to ponder the possibility that your claim that god can not be disproved has its corollary in your responsibility to prove the opposite i.e. that god exists.

Andre as you have not disproven my claim that GF provided you with proof that no god exists.
.
Your other point if a human makes the claim that god is all loving, all knowing, and all powerful they have already evlauated god based on human idea of what is logical and just.

I'd say you expressed it perfectly, whythink. It's about having equal respect for one and others individual right to self-ownership. It's the Golden Rule. (Also, the fundamental premise of libertarianism.)

"prounion, point out his undeniable proof and I'll address it."
.
Golly Andre I guess the burden of proof is on the person making the claim after all.

First, I am a Christian.
.
Personally, I believe I can get all the religion I need at church and at home. I believe my children can also get all the religion they need at church and at home.
I see no reason for relgion to be at/in a public school (the person who said a teacher said "there is no God"...that teacher should be given consequences because there is no place for that either).
.
I don't need a public park to display religious symbols.
.
Those places, organization and others have their own objectives (last I checked religion isn't one of them).
.
Church and home are the places for religion.
.
Now, someone will try to take this out of context. I am not saying those are the ONLY two places for religion. I am talking about organized religion or relgious displays.
.
I don't think this is about restricting religion it is about respecting differences (I know, Janesville hates diversity) and allowing (or doing the best possible to allow) everyone to feel welcome in these places or at these events.
.
Freedom of Religion. To me, that includes no religion at all.

Andre - 30,000 innocent children under the age of 5 die slow painful deaths every day due to a lack of clean drinking water.
.
If god is all powerful and all knowing he not only knows about this misery but could stop it, instead he sits idle, thus not all loving.
.
Take any combination of the three - he cannot posses all three of those properties.

In the meantime Andre - I await your proof that GF did not provide you with the tangible evidence you requested but you are just unable to see it.

Andre - if you want proof that the an all loving, all knowing, all powerful god does not exist I have provided that many times over.
.
You are correct I am unable to prove that god exists if you define god as invisable, undetectable and having no influence over the affairs of the world and humanity.
.
I also cannot prove the non-existance of Russle's celestial tea-pot which resides just out of detectable range out in space.

Faith and reason are antithetical concepts, Bill. I'm not sure if you misunderstand the meaning of one or both but, with the ongoing efforts to rationalize religion around here, I often wonder if you guys (believers) truly understand the concept of faith. If you need to rationalize the basis of your faith-based philosophy, then you lack faith in that basis. Conversely, reality is all I need only to confirm the basis of my philosophy. I don't need faith to reason that 1+1=2. Having "faith in reason" might do well to describe a state of psychosis but not a state of being rational.

In fact Bill I encourage you to read Exodus 21 in its entirety. It goes on to say you can beat a slave to near death, as long as they linger a day or two then no punishment since they are property.
.
The context also explains that you can punch a pregnant woman in the gut so that she aborts, just need to settle the matter with money with the husband.
.
If a bull kills your slave you have 30 pieces of silver coming. (notice how it doesn't say the dollar value is prorated by how many years of service the indentured servant has left at the time the bull gores the slave?).
.
I love context Bill! Especially in the bible.
.
I am sure Jesus made a strong case against slavery though - maybe you can post something from all of those passages?

By indentured servitude I think you mean when talking of a hebrew slave - Exodus 21:2-6
.
Exodus 21:2-6 (New International Version)

Hebrew Servants
2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges. [a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

.
Seem moral to you?

Bill - god directly orders the slaughter of thousands of babies, children, and women. I am not making fun of the concept of context I am simply stating that even though you say its there - you are unable to even summarize it, let alone posting some biblical support for your claim of context.
.
I submit that there is no justification for the spearing of an innocent baby and ask you if you would have carried out god's orders had you been there?
.
"Your characterization of this as slavery is incorrect."
.
Its not mine - its the bible's so maybe its god's. Clearly the passage depicts the slave being passed from generation to generation of owner, not an indentured servitude situation as you claimed.

billnewbie, "the concept of context."?!!! LOL, good one.

How 'bout the bombast of baloney: just making stuff up and just seeing things that do not exist because of tunnel vision.

Ahh, another religious thread.
Let's save ourselves some time here. As an ever helpful BunBun I have the following to assist the faithful and the damned with wear and tear on thier keyboards.
cut and paste the following untill the G staff cuts off comments on this story:
.
"I like God, God is nice."
.
"God does not exist and God is not nice"
.
"yes he does and how could something claimed to not exist be either nice or not nice."
.
"prove he/she/it exists"
.
"prove God does not exist"
.
"you are dumb because I think you are"
.
you can all thank me later.

That's right, Fool_on_the_Hill, faith in reason. Faith that your reason is accurate. Faith that your reason is unaffected by your biases. In short, faith that your reason is trustworthy. All are choices made. All are acts of faith.

Prounion, you again ridicule the concept of context. But context is what gives us a glimplse of God's reasons for his commands concerning the Midianites. And it also gives us a basis for understanding the difference between manservants, bondsmen and slaves. You'll notice that the verses you most recently quoted did not say from whom these bondsmen were bought. Did you know that it was common practice for people to sell themselves into these positions to escape poverty for themselves and their families? Again, these practices were much different from the slavery depicted in "Roots" or even the slavery suffered by the people of Israel at the hand of the Egyptians. An honest, open minded study of the bible and history would reveal these things to you. Your characterization of this as slavery is incorrect.

Bill also would be interested in the passages that condemn slavery since they must be there if that is where the human race gets its morals.

Faith in reason??? C'mon, Bill... (I'm going to let you consider taking that one back.)

The "act" of faith is in the choice, Fool_on_the_Hill. You said it yourself, you choose to act on reason. But to me what that means is that you choose to have faith in reason. Not just any reason, but human reason. And not just any human reason, but your own human reason. In any case, whether one chooses to have faith in God or oneself, it is an act of faith, a choice of where we put our faith. So we are not much different after all.

;~)

Andre can you prove that GF did not already provide you with proof and you just missed it?
.
I submit that he did, you can't prove that he did not. Each of us has an equally valid arguement?
.
Or would I need to provide proof to support my claim, since I made the claim?

Bill found one of my old posts to you that you didn't respond to that addresses the issue of god endorsed slavery vs indentured servitude.

.
OK Bill - enough on the baby murder/slaughter of captured peoples theme. Lets move on to slavery - you mentioned a sort of indentured servatude - did you have any biblical support for that statement? In the meantime - here is one supporting my position that thousands of years ago people supported slavery and thus - god supports slavery:

Leviticus 25:44-46 (King James Version)

44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Passage seems pretty clear that the slave and the slave's kids are passed down from generation to generation.

Please let me know if you dismiss Leviticus as for the Levites only and therefore irrelevant - I'll pull some quotes out of the other passages.

Numbers 31: KJV just for reference Bill:
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Bill - interesting take on the god mandated slaughter of infants in Number 31. So it is not really the context as you previously claimed - which of course the slaughter of thousands of innocent children at spear point is tough/impossible to justify.
.
Looks like now we are back to simple unquestioning support of god's actions, followed by the idea that morals come from him. So if you had been there would you have speared the babies on god's orders?
.
I'll finish reading the rest of your posts before I post actual biblical passages outlining the fact that slavery was endorsed by god, and not the wish it were so indentured servitude you are attempting to present.

andre....., your posts are not truly responsive to the ones that challenge you. You rely solely on baseless insults to fill the white space of the comment rectangle.

andre....., you have refined your concoction to include that god allows horrible things to happen to innocent people. (Actually god is the cause of the horror because he can stop it, but doesn't.) Keep going, andre...., we're getting somewhere.

And you are nothing compared to prounion's scholarship here.

dub...., anyone who trashes Darwin is extremely ignorant. Even your pope accepts Darwin.

bilnewbie., your inability to focus is cause for concern.

"Can the effect of intelligent design be mimicked by an unintelligent force that lacks the ability to design? Is the existence of geometry incidental, even accidental? One could say yes but only as an act of faith."

Perhaps. If one were to make an assertion of accidental causality, then that might be considered faith. However, such faith is consequential only when it has some influential effect on one's life decisions. Specifically, what is my alleged "act" based on having "faith" in a universe of unknown origin? Even if I were to concede here that a belief in string theory is little more than faith, then what is my "act" based on such "faith"? Would scientific evidence for or against string theory have any effect whatsoever on my philosophy of life or practical decisions based on that philosophy? Of course not because such "faith" is of no consequence. On the other hand, the religious follower, by their own admission, bases many if not most important life decisions solely on faith. Religion inspires or even insists on acts of faith. Atheism provides absolutely nothing of the sort. I am not averse to acting on faith because I am atheist --I am atheist because I chose to act on reason instead of faith. This is the essential difference between the believer and the atheist.

If you were going to believe in God --wouldn't you want him to be ruler? Why would you want to believe in a god that was weak? How would that be encouraging?
If you were going to believe in God shouldn't he be supreme? That is the whole point.
A god who allowed humans to be free to make choices. When humans worship God it would be because they were desiring to worship him. He would get the glory not the humans. Sounds god-like to me.
Otherwise the humans are the gods.
We are very free to be religious in the USA. Maybe some are persecuted but that is to be expected.

“"It’s been claimed (yet again) that there is no proof of the supernatural, the realm that God occupies. Is that true?"
.
GREAT question! IS that true? Can you provide ACTUAL examples of people who are claiming that? Is there a specific point of view held by someone present here that you'd like to refute?

From the list below posted on Jan 5, 2010 at 9:01 a.m.
“andre...., the burden is on the believers because their belief is based on god having shown itself supernaturally. Believers are incorrect re: this showing of god. There has never been any direct or indirect evidence of any supernatural event. This is prima facie evidence that god doesn't exist.”

I don’t read every post either.

“"To me it seems obvious that the answer is no since no one has ever observed any such organizing process within Nature."
.
No one has?”

None that I can find. Do you know of any?

“"Sure, the fact that Nature is organized suggests that there is some such process"
.
You just claimed that no one has ever observed any such organizing process within Nature.”

That’s right. That’s why I wrote “the fact that Nature is organized suggests that there is some such process”. A suggestion of such a process is not an observation of the process.

“An aside - Nazis and slavery/segregation supporters most certainly DID realize that what they were doing was oppression; they made no bones about the fact that their actions were for THEMSELVES and not out of pity or a sense of justice for their victims, whom they could barely hide their openly public displays of repulsion for. A "student of history" should know better.”

This is what I wrote, “Did the Nazis think it was oppression when they implemented their “Final Solution”? No, they convinced themselves that what they were doing was justice.” The Nazis were acting on a distorted notion of justice born of their rationalizations. Oppression is an unjust act. The Nazis were self-convinced that their actions were justified.

I also wrote, “Did those who passed the “Jim Crow” laws think they engaged in oppression? No, they were suffering under the delusion that the scientific theory of Eugenics showed that separation of the races for the purposes of racial purity was best for all.” Even to this day the most devote segregationists justify their theories of the separation of the races as being for the good of each race. Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t accept this rationalization, but that is one of the historical justifications that has been used for segregation.

“ "But it is invalid to state 'There is no God.'"
.
"God," aka a creative force/process that originated the universe?
True; it would be invalid.
.
"God," aka a creative fictional character that originated in the minds of men? Not so much...”

So you’re contending that God could only be a kind of celestial battery distributing life creating bolts of energy without thought or direction, that He could not be a person. And that such a personal God must be a fictitious creation of the personal minds that result from that unthinking non-personal life force, either God or nature, that produced us? Imagine that, not only life from lifelessness but thought from thoughtlessness, emotion from emotionlessness, morality from the amoral. Now that seems far fetched to me.

“However, the rising and setting of the Sun in the sky from east to west does imply it orbits the Earth, since we have observed that course daily. So from that we can draw a conclusion, though not a conclusive one, that the Earth is stationary, possibly even at the center of the universe.”

That would be a reasonable conclusion to draw if that were the only evidence that is available. It’s all in the perspective and our assumptions. From our perspective living on the face of the earth, if we assume there is no other perspective, then the sun, moon and stars rise and set. But we also have the perspective of the astronauts and space exploration that provides yet more evidence that leads us to new conclusions. On the other hand, we have no reference point for the center of the universe. So though it seems completely unlikely, there is still an infinitesimal chance that one can assume correctly that the earth happens to be located at the center of the universe, though I doubt that it does. You know, the U.S. Weather Service still, to this day, publishes sunrise and sunset times along with their observations and predictions. Do you think that they are unaware that correlation does not imply causation? Maybe those fools assume that since the sun rises and sets, that implies that something in space is moving and that it appears to be the sun, though they should know that appearances can be deceiving.

“Can you show that, although a teacher would be unjustly using her place of authority to voice her opinion, the shared opinion subjugated or burdened a child?
Though such instances may have occurred (you've chosen to vaguely cite none in specific), it is not systemic, and would be rare.”

When a teacher voices an opinion in class, it’s more than just a person stating a belief. It’s an authority figure stating a belief. As the classroom authority figure, the teacher already has subjugated the student. Therefore, to express opinions from a teacher’s superior position to the inferior student is to indoctrinate, not teach. Of course, if one happens to agree with the teacher’s opinion, one may not be inclined to object or find any harm. But I wonder, if the same teacher expresses a religious conviction, would the concerns raised by atheists about that shared opinion be so easily dismissed?

Is there any evidence to support the contention that "such instances may have occurred (you've chosen to vaguely cite none in specific), it is not systemic, and would be rare.” or am I the only one required to provide documentation for such rhetorical generalities?

“No, the theory of evolution, among others, is not restricted to or dependent upon a disbelief in a God. For example, Darwin did not disbelieve that there could be a God (though he did reject the religion of Christianity as "damnable"). Nor did Einstein. Many scientists who support the theory of evolution do not rule out the existence of a Creator.”

That’s true, but Darwin did in fact come to reject the existence of God. When his collaborator, Charles Lyell, opined that evolution cannot explain the existence of man, his morality and conscience, that God must be responsible for those, Darwin accused Lyell of trying to destroy Darwin’s work. Darwin rejected intelligent design, not just Christianity. And though many scientists do not rule out the existence of a Creator, most atheists embrace evolution as justification for their rejection of God, just as Darwin did.

“ ‘The fact is that there had never been observed any organized design that has come into being by itself.’
.
This is a fact?
Since facts are documented, would you please source documentation for this?”

The lack of any organized design that has come into being by itself is itself the fact. You cannot document something that does not exist. If there were such organized design that had come into being by itself, that could be documented, and presented for rebuttal.

“However, extensive bleeding implies a substantial injury, since we have observed substantial injuries and the resultant blood loss, and possible death. So from that we can draw a conclusion, though not a conclusive one, that menstruating women are substantially injured.”

That could be true if we didn’t already know why women bleed when they menstruate. But we do know why they bleed. It is the result of the design of their reproductive organs, a design that suggests a designer.

I have to agree with you Fool_on_the_Hill. Laws against atheists serving in public office are evidence of religious oppression. They are silly laws indeed.

Can the effect of intelligent design be mimicked by an unintelligent force that lacks the ability to design? Is the existence of geometry incidental, even accidental? One could say yes but only as an act of faith.

Prounion, I know I’ve answered your contention about the “scripture that clearly supports slavery” as well as that changing morality assertion of yours. That you ask these things yet again is proof that you aren’t really interested in my answers, but I’ll answer them once again though I suspect my efforts will be in vain.

Concerning slavery, that which you think is endorsed in the Old Testament laws wasn’t the slavery that you seem to think it was. It was actually indentured servitude. It was for a set period of 7 years with strict laws about the treatment these “manservants” and “maidservants” were to receive. That’s not quite the kind of slavery one reads about in “Roots”. In fact, it’s not slavery at all.

As for changing morals, I pointed out to you that it’s not morality that changes, but the veracity of the rationalizations for it that change. Murder has always been wrong throughout history as has rape, robbery, etc. What’s changed is the acceptance of the rationalizations for such actions. Do you think that slavery was universally accepted as moral? I’m sure the slaves didn’t think so. They understood the immorality of it just as they saw through the rationalizations for it. Those who thought they could justify rape with rationalizations quickly change their tune when their daughters, wives and mothers fall victim to just those sorts of rationalizers. It’s the same old story throughout history of man’s immorality towards man and the clever rationalizations used to justify that immorality. The standards haven’t changed. Neither has the human need to placate the conscience and alleviate the guilt through rationalization.

When I’ve raised the issue of God’s sovereignty before, it was ridiculed. But isn’t sovereignty part of the definition of God? If God doesn’t have authority over what He has created, then He is not God. And that is the major objection most who deny God have of Him. That He claims the authority to set moral standards, the authority to enforce those standards and to prescribe retribution according to His sense of justice. And He doesn’t take excuses.

Originally, this discussion evolved into statements by certain atheists that there is no God with demands for proof of same, otherwise failure to provide such proof would be assumed as acquiescence to that proposition. Now it is moving toward a specific denunciation of the God of the bible by those same atheists who have trouble rebutting my evidence, since it is known that I am a Christian. That’s an interesting change of subject, the reasons for which seem evident to me.

So, some want to know why an omnipotent, benevolent God would allow 6 million Jews and millions of other people to be murdered by the Nazis. They wonder how an omnipotent, benevolent God could order the execution of the children of the defeated Midianites. They have trouble understanding why an omnipotent, benevolent God would inspire she-bears to kill a group of children for an insult to a prophet of God. They don’t get…., again I could go on and on. Of course, the reason such examples are used is to mock the perception of an omnipotent, benevolent God and those who hold it. And in fact, such a simplistic perception of God is erroneous. But the funny thing is that when I and others have corrected that simplistic perception of God, the atheists that ridicule it insist that if there were a God, He would have to be just that kind of a God. That kind of a God is really just an all powerful grandfatherly figure, sort of a celestial day care provider on duty 24/7/365. He would keep us from hurting ourselves, keep us from hurting one another and protect us from the dangers of life and nature. He would never take offense at anything we do that requires retribution any more coercive that a 5 minute time-out. He would want us to be happy, allowing us to do what makes us happy while readily mitigating the consequences of those things we do that make us happy, especially if some of us determine that our happiness demands that we murder 6 million of our fellow humans. What a wonderful God that would be. And if he were all-powerful, he should be able to do all that even though some of it seems contradictory. But since He can’t, or won’t, He couldn’t exist. In short, He’s not the kind of God that they would be if they were god.

But God is much more complicated than that simplistic perception indicates. For instance, if there is a God and He created us then He has sovereignty over us. Sovereignty is what gives God the authority to set moral standards for us as well as the authority to enforce those standards according to His sense of Justice. We could argue about whether God was justified in ordering the execution of the children or the Midianites, but if I am right, that our sense of morality, our moral standards are set by God, the argument is moot. How can we judge the Judge? Not only does He have the absolute right to deal with us as He sees fit, but the standards we try to use to judge Him are His standards.

The UN needs to go... kick their facist asses out of our country. Put an end to their plot for a one world government where the rights that you now enjoy under the constitution will be a thing of the past. Don't believe it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW_u6iyR9...

Whoever controls the money, controls the world.

prounion, thats a good question. I guess things happen for a reason that we will never understand.

"If we evolved from a single cell, where did the single cell come from?"
.
Amino acids are able to form through natural chemical reactions and then organize into proteins. Cells are primarily made of water, protiens, and other molecules. There are numerous scenarios that could account for that first cell (likely prokaryotic), which possibly developed from spontaneously forming, membrane eclosed organic molecules called protobionts.
.
"Billions of people do not support the existence of a man made of baloney."
.
Billions of people do not support the existence of Yaweh.
.
"Nor do any sufficient number of people claim to have seen evidence of evolution."
.
Nor do any sufficient number of people claim to have evidence of Yaweh.
.
"Why is that, why don't we ALL know all about the FACTS of evolution?"
.
Why is that, why don't we ALL know all about the FACTS of Yaweh?
.
That was fun.

"no oppressive actions toward religion? Oh yes there are. Here's one"
.
Seems you forgot to mention that, "at one point the boy said he was actually showing himself on a cross."
Oh.
So the boy and his family are still freely practicing their religion? And the school's concerns weren't about the boy's religion, but because the boy, who explained the figure on the cross was dead, subsequently claimed the figure was himself on the cross?
At most, the school is at fault for involving a counselor and requiring a suspension, but this is not an example of religious oppression. As with your attempt to skew it as religious oppression, the father of the boy in this story was equally reactionary and stated in a TV interview that the school officials were acting on the premise that "there's something wrong with this minority kid. We got to get in his mind." Yes, the father is black, and he played the race card. Just as you've played the religion card. Both being opportunistic hijackings of the issue of an overzealous elementary school administration trying to cover their assets, but which had no ulterior, oppressive motives regarding religion or race. Their ill handling of the situation only bolsters that reality.

"Oppress: to subjugate or burden by unjust use of force or authority."
Can you show that, although a teacher would be unjustly using her place of authority to voice her opinion, the shared opinion subjugated or burdened a child?
Though such instances may have occurred (you've chosen to vaguely cite none in specific), it is not systemic, and would be rare.
An aside - Nazis and slavery/segregation supporters most certainly DID realize that what they were doing was oppression; they made no bones about the fact that their actions were for THEMSELVES and not out of pity or a sense of justice for their victims, whom they could barely hide their openly public displays of repulsion for. A "student of history" should know better.
.
"But it is invalid to state 'There is no God.'"
.
"God," aka a creative force/process that originated the universe?
True; it would be invalid.
.
"God," aka a creative fictional character that originated in the minds of men?
Not so much...
.
"It’s been claimed (yet again) that there is no proof of the supernatural, the realm that God occupies. Is that true?"
.
GREAT question! IS that true? Can you provide ACTUAL examples of people who are claiming that? Is there a specific point of view held by someone present here that you'd like to refute?
.
"To me it seems obvious that the answer is no since no one has ever observed any such organizing process within Nature."
.
No one has?
.
"Sure, the fact that Nature is organized suggests that there is some such process"
.
You just claimed that no one has ever observed any such organizing process within Nature.

"hence the theory of evolution, among others, if one assumes there is no God."
.
No, the theory of evolution, among others, is not restricted to or dependent upon a disbelief in a God. For example, Darwin did not disbelieve that there could be a God (though he did reject the religion of Christianity as "damnable"). Nor did Einstein. Many scientists who support the theory of evolution do not rule out the existence of a Creator.
.
"The fact is that there had never been observed any organized design that has come into being by itself."
.
This is a fact?
Since facts are documented , would you please source documentation for this?
.
"However, organized designs do imply an organizing designer, since we have observed designers and organizers in action and the results of their work. So from that we can draw a conclusion, though not a conclusive one since a lack of evidence is not proof, that there is a God."
.
However, extensive bleeding implies a substantial injury, since we have observed substantial injuries and the resultant blood loss, and possible death. So from that we can draw a conclusion, though not a conclusive one, that menstruating women are substantially injured.
…or…
However, the rising and setting of the Sun in the sky from east to west does imply it orbits the Earth, since we have observed that course daily. So from that we can draw a conclusion, though not a conclusive one, that the Earth is stationary, possibly even at the center of the universe.
.
Correlation does not imply causation.

I’m not sure I believe in the God of the Hebrews and after reading all of the supposedly God-sanctioned carnage of the Old Testament, I’m not sure I want to. But, for all I know, those ancient people got the interpretation of it all wrong or skewed it to fit into their own personal plans.
To me, with all of the design I see in this world, this universe, it would take far more faith for me to be an atheist than it does to believe that if there is design, there is also a designer, a creator. When I see a beautiful piece of art, I never think that it came in to being because it evolved to its present form or was created simply due to a huge explosion somewhere. Instead, I look in awe at the beautiful work and know that someone, somewhere created it. That’s not to say I don’t believe in evolution and the big bang theory. If there is a supreme being, a creator, I would suppose it would have ways, tools if you will, for creating.
Through my life, I’ve believed, I’ve not believed and I’ve always wondered. I, too, wonder how God can be so silent, so distant, so absent from a world that needs some intervention as badly as this one does. And I have doubted God’s existence.
But, I’m not going to base his existence on how many answers to prayer I get or if things in life go my way or not. And I’m not going to demand things of God from a spiteful heart just for the reassurance that he won’t do them so I can smugly say I was right and he really doesn’t exist. I understand the concept of free will and that the evil that is done in this world is done by people who have no qualms about using that gift in selfishly and horribly heinous ways.
Still, it’s hard to justify a good God in the presence of all the evil things that happen to people, animals and the earth, in general. It’s easy to disbelieve God’s goodness, let alone his existence. Not only is God nowhere to be found through all of this, he is silent and he is hidden. So, I guess, for me and millions others, that’s where faith kicks in.
Someone said in a post that being a believer is taking the easy way out...what a joke. From my experience, living a faith-filled life is far more difficult than not doing so. Going through pain, frustration, depression, anger, disappointment and the feeling that sometimes you are serving a God who has gone on a permanent vacation and not losing your faith in the meantime is no easy challenge. But I would rather believe in something than try to fool myself into thinking there is nothing beyond what I can see. And, more importantly, I personally need to have not only faith in my life, but hope.

I believe in the sun even when it is not shining.
I believe in love even when feeling it not.
I believe in God even when He is silent.
Inscription on a cellar wall in Germany
where Jews hid from Nazis.

Since you brought it up, Bill... I consider snowflakes to be evidence of nature's ability to mimic the effect of intelligent design. To my eye, it certainly does appear that each one has been designed, even though they are merely a manifestation of molecular crystalline structure geometry.

Bill, I would say atheists have a pretty darn good case that any law prohibiting atheists from holding public office (sannio's link, below) is a form of religious oppression. (It's also a pretty silly law if you think it through.) That said, we should all be thankful we live in the United States.

Bill still eagerly awaiting the context that would justify the slaughter of male infants captured in battle. (Numbers 31)
.
On another point if a non changing god were determining and instilling non-changing morals - why does right and wrong change through history? This might be a good way for you and I to examine scripture that clearly supports slavery - interested?
.
That same scripture regarding slavery was the moral justification of the Jim Crow laws that you mentioned, FYI.
.

Another way to put it...
The fact that you "feel good" when you help others is genetic. That gene exists today because it was beneficial to the branches of human ancestors that possessed it.

as for morality being "proof" of god...

"genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism. This view explains altruism at the individual level in nature, especially in kin relationships: when an individual sacrifices its own life to protect the lives of kin, it is acting in the interest of its own genes."

"phenomena such as kin selection and eusociality, where organisms act against their individual interests to help related organisms reproduce, can be explained as gene sets "helping" copies of themselves to replicate. Interestingly, the "selfish" actions of genes lead to unselfish actions by organisms."

In other words, morality is a product of natural selection, and actually helps species survive.

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

billnewbie, pad all you want but we didn't forget that you skedaddled on outa because you can't properly respond to citations of scripture.

Anyone who claims that oppressive actions toward religion are taking place in this country is speaking from paranoia. A close reading of the story above reveals that such oppression is exclusive to non-democratic nations. The special irony in all this is: theocracy -the religious rule of a nation, which is a rule that is antithetical to democracy- is of the same oppressive mentality that is faulted in the story above!!!

I offer the following evidence for the existence of God, as well.

Our morality and conscience is also proof of God. I have seen some of the contentions that morality is just a result of evolution, but all have been based on the idea that they exist and that God does not. In other words, since there is no God, morality and conscience's source are evolution. But if morality were evolution’s creation, it would be highly relativistic and flexible, allowing us to do what has to be done to maintain our life, to breed and to protect our offspring which is what we observe in all other creatures. But antithetically, our morality comes with our conscience, an entity that demands that we behave a certain way even if that behavior is counter to our own interests, though we are free to ignore it. In fact, it can also demand that we behave against the interests of those we care about, our families, friends and community. When we ignore our conscience we feel guilt, though the more we ignore it, the less guilt we feel. However, even the most depraved among us invariable appeal to the consciences of others whenever it suits them. That’s how we know we all have a conscience, because when we appeal to the conscience of another (a universal standard of behavior), either that other will change his behavior or rationalize it. He’ll never say, “To hell with your standards” as he may need to appeal to them later when you want to retaliate. Unlike personalities, our conscience is universal among us all. We all know each other has one and we know what it says each other. Yet again proof, though not conclusive proof, of the existence of God.

Here's a little more evidence.

Then there are all those witnesses throughout history who have testified to the existence of the supernatural through their personal observations. We're not just talking about an isolated few here. I realize that those who deny it will say that those witnesses are just nut cases that can be ignored, but is that reasonable? Are they all crazy, ignorant and/or stupid? Are you sure? Whether you can believe their testimony or not, it is still evidence, not conclusive proof, that God and the supernatural exist.

Now let’s consider that natural design with which we are all most familiar, ourselves. In one of Steve Knox’s blogs there was a discussion about the human spirit. Many of the same people that have spoken out here against belief in the supernatural spoke out there as well. It was interesting to see that none of them denied the existence of the human spirit. In fact the implication from what they wrote was clear, that they acknowledge its existence. I’m sure they are all searching right about now for explanations that the human spirit is just a physical, natural phenomenon. But is it? Are our consciousness, our conscience, our personalities, our intelligence and emotions just the result of chemical reactions within the brain? What proof do we have of this? Well, we observe the personality changes that occur in those who suffer brain damage. We’ve even seen what appears to be diminishment in intelligence and unpredictability increases in the emotional state of such victims. But is that proof that these traits are physical, natural occurrences? I postulate that the brain is nothing more than a communications and control center for the human spirit. What proof of this have I? Well, when a person experiences episodes of low brain activity, such as in a comma, still the mind functions, we dream. Those who have had near death experiences relate rather stunning experiences of the human spirit during these times. We know that even in some of the most profound episodes of brain damage that when a way is found to communicate again with the human spirit within, it is remarkably just as it was before the injury. Is any of this conclusive proof? No, but it is evidence, just the same.

On to the evidence for God.

It’s been claimed (yet again) that there is no proof of the supernatural, the realm that God occupies. Is that true? I believe that statement should be amended by the persons who state or embrace it that there is no proof of the supernatural that they’ll accept, because there is much proof of both the supernatural and of God. Take Nature as an example. A while ago I discussed the orderliness of Nature with Fool_on_the_Hill. I asked him then if Nature had organized itself. To me it seems obvious that the answer is no since no one has ever observed any such organizing process within Nature. Sure, the fact that Nature is organized suggests that there is some such process, hence the theory of evolution, among others, if one assumes there is no God. The fact is that there had never been observed any organized design that has come into being by itself. One can believe that there is no designer behind Nature’s designs, but not with even the slightest proof thereof. However, organized designs do imply an organizing designer, since we have observed designers and organizers in action and the results of their work. So from that we can draw a conclusion, though not a conclusive one since a lack of evidence is not proof, that there is a God.

Andre_Linoge is right, it’s nonsense, even antithetical to the scientific process, to claim that no proof is needed by those who state there is no God that there is no God. An absence of proof isn’t prima facie evidence of anything. I read somewhere below that someone claimed that there is no transitional fossil evidence for evolution. Another poster claimed that there is, most of which has yet to be discovered. Of course, the veracity of the transitional fossils that have been found is a subject for debate, but even if one discounts the ones that are claimed to have been found, one cannot say that their will never bee such proof. And while the search for transitional fossils may be one of the largest searches ever for the proverbial needle in a haystack, what remains to be undiscovered cannot be assumed to not exist. But it is valid to base non-belief on the current lack of evidence, or one’s skepticism in the existing evidence, whether we are talking about transitional fossils or God. But a lack of evidence disproves neither. So it is valid to state “I don’t believe there is a God” just as it is valid to state “I believe that God exists”. But it is invalid to state “There is no God”.

When our children in public schools are told that there is no God by teachers that are suppose to teach, not indoctrinate, their students, that is oppression. When public use of public property for religious expression by members of the public is banned, that is oppression. When a cross in the desert erected over 75 years ago as a monument to those who died in WWI is ordered removed as an unacceptable display of religious belief on public property, that is oppression. When..., well, I could go on and on. But what would that prove? That oppression is in the eyes of the beholder. Did the Nazis think it was oppression when they implemented their “Final Solution”? No, they convinced themselves that what they were doing was justice. Did those who passed the “Jim Crow” laws think they engaged in oppression? No, they were suffering under the delusion that the scientific theory of Eugenics showed that separation of the races for the purposes of racial purity was best for all. Oppression then is a relative term to most people. It’s oppression if it happens to me, it may be justice if it happens to you. Is there religious oppression in country? That depends on whether you are being oppressed or not. I doubt that an atheist could be a good judge of that.

I quite agree that theocracy is just as potentially oppressive as the oppression depicted in the story above. (Now that someone has responded and even partially agreed with him, maybe Gazettefan won’t feel the need to re-post his statements ad nauseum! You may say I’m a dreamer….) Being a student of history I can honestly say that such theocracies are always autocratic in nature and as such, susceptible to control by the unscrupulous. Christian based theocracies are no exception. Some of the worse oppressions occurred under the authority of theocratic dictators such as the Popes. That’s what brought forth the Protestant movement. And it is the Protestant movement we ultimately have to thank for or religious freedoms here in this country today.

Anyone who claims that oppressive actions toward religion are taking place in this country is speaking from paranoia. A close reading of the story above reveals that such oppression is exclusive to non-democratic nations. The special irony in all this is: theocracy -the religious rule of a nation, which is a rule that is antithetical to democracy- is of the same oppressive mentality that is faulted in the story above!

Wow. And I thought this article was about the UN and it's measures to restrict religious freedom. Silly me....

Proof of or lack of proof of a god/goddess/idol is not the issue. Neither is evolution or creation.

I do like the comment on animated baloney, though. Humor is needed when reading and responding to these blogs, for sure, as well as a grain of salt.

Let's just hope the UN doesn't place any more unneccessary restrictions on free will in the future.

Let me guess andre, you have never ever taken a science class in your life.

Correct, prounion.

andre....., what you have done is concoct something your mind that has only one quality, that one quality is that it cannot be disproved. Further, you label your concoction as god.

Andre let me see if you can understand - if I were to claim that there was once a man made of magically animated baloney would you be unable to take a side on the issue of such a man's existance because you could not prove that a baloney man does NOT exist?
.
That's one reason the onus is on the person that claims something is real to prove it. The human mind can come up with a trillion nonsense ideas, each on as unreal as the next.

dub...., fossils aren't necessary to prove evolution. Evolution is clearly proved by the study of comparative species.

But if you want more evidence: ponder your vestigial tailbone the next time you're eating a banana.

andre...., the burden is on the believers because their belief is based on god having shown itself supernaturally. Believers are incorrect re: this showing of god. There has never been any direct or indirect evidence of any supernatural event. This is prima facie evidence that god doesn't exist.

So Lucifer is more powerful than god here on earth? Or is god more powerful but stands idle while lucifer kills 30,000 children under the age of 5 each day due to lack of clean drinking water?

darwin1 if you read the Bible it will tell you that Lucifer runs the earth, not God.

Many scientists are believers and you can bet that every one of them has his or her eyes open for scientific evidence of a Supreme Creator. Dr. Francis Collins, for one, would LOVE to find that evidence and, as current head of NIH and former head of the international genome project, the world would hear about his discovery in a heartbeat! The stale conspiracy claim that scientist = atheist is a straw man (lie) aimed to discredit science and the growing body of existing evidence that overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution.

If there was a god, then why did it let 6 million "chosen people" die in the holocaust.

"So how is it then that so many scientists make the claim that there is no god without being able to back that claim up?"
.
Speaking of backing claims up, could you please provide sources showing that "so many (and please quantify "so many"; just wondering) scientists make the claim that there is no god"?
.
"On the other hand, belief in a god is about faith, not science."
.
Absolutely.
Beliefs do not translate when attempting to impose them on science. Yet religion persists in the effort.
.
"Also, if there is a god, why should he/she be held responsible for all the evil that humans do in a world with free will?"
.
Why are parents held responsible for the actions of their children? Any man-made god would be a negligent deadbeat parent of bastards, if real.
.
"So, scientists are actually actively looking for evidence of the existence of a supreme being and just haven't found it yet?"
.
How does one test for a god?
You would think that God would be easy to find. Open, accessible. Is God just toying with us, withholding his acceptance from those who don't live in willfully ignorant servile humility? Imagine if a mother were to hide from her young child in their home, watching the child from a distance so as to not reveal herself, and will only allow the child to be cared for by her if the child expresses a sincere belief that their is no mother to look for because the mother has promised that, on some undefined date, she will return on her own. In the meantime, however, bad things will miraculously occur to the child if he/she doesn't behave, and if they anger the missing mother too much, she will instead be mercilessly vengeful towards the child upon her promised undated return...

So, scientists are actually actively looking for evidence of the existence of a supreme being and just haven't found it yet?

There are thousands of transitional fossils some just haven't been found yet. Just because you are ignorant to their existence doesn't mean they don't - try http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolut...

Scientist don't claim that god doesn't exist they say there is no evidence to support the claim that god exists. Imagine if our court systems required companies to disprove that you weren't harmed by their product instead of the other way around. Talk about job killing.

True, in science the burden of proof is on the claimant. So how is it then that so many scientists make the claim that there is no god without being able to back that claim up? Just wondering.
On the other hand, belief in a god is about faith, not science.
Also, if there is a god, why should he/she be held responsible for all the evil that humans do in a world with free will?

In science, the burden of proof is on the claimant. You claim god exists, it is your responsibility to prove it. Not only do you have to prove it, but you also have to prove that it isn't just a coincidence like so called miracles. Otherwise, you are no different than a snake oil salesman. Notice that they give bibles away. For example, medicines are created and sold based on evolution and genetics, but none that are based on faith except those that are scams and frauds.

"The above sentence reminds of something. It had to do with a pot talking to a kettle."
.
Could you back up that insinuation with evidence? I'd be dissapointed if you were all talk.

Realitybytes, that is why the burden of proof always lies with the beholder.

I don't believe that anybody has offered proof for existance or non-existance. My point was only that it it far more difficult to prove non-existance. Proving existance only requires a single example whereas proving non-existance requires proving an infinite concurrance of non-existance in all possible locations in the universe (even locations we dont know about). The burden of proof needs to be on those that claim there is a god, not on those that claim there is not.

andre_linoge: how do you propose that somebody prove that something does not exist?

To prove that something exists you only need to demonstrate a single example. Grab a video camera and make a video of God turning a rock into a living being.

To prove something doesn't exist you have to simultaneously demonstrate non-existance everywhere in the universe (don't forget to look for god behind that invisible pink unicorn!)

I highly doubt proving or dis-proving G(g)od will be done on the Gazette blog.

The Holiday concert program at our local public high school included nearly as many traditional Christmas songs as generic "holiday" tunes. To my knowledge, no atheists were injured in production.

Ahh "IT" is back to close down another blog post...

Naw... I was being pedantic, GFan. I was referring to the phenomenon, "the tyranny of the majority", which eventually transforms democracies into oligarchies. Throughout most of the Middle East, for example, democracies will almost always elect an Islamic regime. Our Constitution is all that prevents that from happening here. Those other countries currently experiencing religious oppression need to strengthen their constitutions.

Thanks, though, for dedicating your first post ever to me, jumparound. I hope you didn't sign up because of me, too. Flattering!

"Inconvienienttruth, are you a little insecure?"
.
Aren't we all?
.
Or just a very lonely, grumpy person?"
.
No, I'm not.
Given that I've now answered two of your inane questions (condescending assumptions, really), perhaps you can tell me what led you to ask them?
.
"All you do is pick apart others posts"
.
That's not "all" I do...
.
"acting as if you are a god."
.
That's YOUR interpretation then, isn't it? Talk about insecurity...
.
"You were attacking people on the sex pervert board"
.
I don't believe I've ever visited a "sex pervert board". Where have YOU been?
And I only return the favor in such instances of insults, thank you. If someone takes the time to post that they think I'm an idiot, and nothing more of substance than that, I'll be sure to let them know that the feeling's mutual.
My own "attacks" are focused on the fallacious and illogical arguments made by certain others, and some of them aren't too bright and thus choose to call names and hurl insults.
.
"...and defending the perverts."
.
Oh, is that what you thought was going on? What an interesting interpretation of reality.
.
"You have some serious issues sir."
.
Humanity and logic aren't "issues" where I come from.
And more with your assumptions. Am I really a "sir"?

Inconvienienttruth, are you a little insecure? Or just a very lonely, grumpy person? All you do is pick apart others posts, acting as if you are a god. You were attacking people on the sex pervert board, and defending the perverts. You have some serious issues sir.

"I attended 3 sings this season, in 2 different cities, and all 3 different schools; not a single mention of a Christian Holiday."
.
What other holidays WERE mentioned, and in what manner?
.
"I did attend a middle school band concert where 'Wonderfull Christmastime' was played. Plenty about santa, kwnazaa, Hanukah, snow, and winter in general, but zero mention the name of Jesus, or a Christian Holiday."
.
Is not Christmas, a Christian holiday, during "Christmastime"? Do Jews not believe in the same God as Christians? Does Kwanzaa or Hanukkah present any religion/diety in lieu of a Christian god, since your complaint specifically mentions the lack of Jesus, as if he's unfairly the odd duck out of some religious orgy?
You do also realize that Christmas, even centered around the concept of celebrating the birth of Jesus, was and is an appropriated pagan celebration, imposed by the Romans and opposed by many early Christians, so really the modern practice of revolving the holiday around a magical elf really isn't that much of a step down. Less...pretentious...that way.
.
"It proves a turning of tide in our society, that is perfectly evident in our youth, our politics..."
.
True.
.
"...and the current states of chaos in the streets of our cities."
.
Uhh, so because more and more people associate Christmas with commercialism in this country, we "currently" are experiencing "chaos in the streets"?
Drama.

dub....., the definition of theory that applies to evolution is this:

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

The definition of theory as "speculation" does not apply to evolution.

And there's a difference between believing something that you don't know for a fact to be true -like god, and believing that the sun will rise tomorrow, even if behind clouds.

You need to understand that the word "belief" has more than one meaning.

dub...., that hopelessness is your own and you are soothing it with snake oil. The pope approves of evolution and islam is an Abrahamic religion just like christianity is.

meenaw, you speak Pasqual's Wager: believing in god just in case. If you examine your own description of what god can do, you'll discover that god knows what you're up to. Don't you think god is going to be displeased with your gambit?

People who don't believe can take pride in the fact the that they didn't take the easy way out when it comes to appreciating the fullness of the human experience. And if you are right, don't you think god will be merciful toward those who didn't take the easy way out?

dalegribble, since the beginning of the 1900s the rate of homicide (the killing of people by other people, no matter the cause) is 5% of what the homicide rate was prior to 1900. The 5% rate includes ALL the wars of the 20th century and the first ten years of this one.

Your "chaos in the streets" is a product of over-focusing on bad things. Over-focusing on bad things causes the wrongful attribution of increased frequency.

I believe in God. It is by faith. If I am wrong, what have I lost??? For those who don't believe in God, what if you're wrong????

By the way, andre...... I did prove that there is no god; and so did you.

andre...., you are running low on words. Why?

dalegribble, the main thing wrong with your comment is that it isn't true. If it seems true to you, that's only because you can not tolerate that there are a growing number of people in this country who worship something other than christianity. Your sense of oppression is a result of your intolerance backing-up on you.

andre....., how clear does this have to be? If you claim that the onus is on me to disprove something, the burden is on you to describe what it is I'm supposed to disprove.

Yours is the comprehension problem: This is what you don't understand. I assert that god doesn't exist. Intrinsic to my assertion is that there is no evidence of god. Any such evidence would have to abide by all claims of what god is.

If you really examined your question and the motive behind it, you would realize that your intention here has to do with how you are attempting to entertaining yourself with the notion that you are asking a question that can't be answered. You have failed. You didn't think this thing out. Get settled on what it is you really believe. Quit being avoidant.

foolonthehill, if you are saying that an irony of democracy is that an oppressive, non-democratic regime can be voted into office save for the fact that, in the case of our country, a loose application of the word "democracy" includes that we are a constitutional republic and therefor such a regime would be illegal, you are entirely correct.

Now we should brace ourselves for the low-brow insults to follow.

It's only unhappy for those who choose to buckle and don't have the guts to fight for what's right. It's a great year for me!

Agreed, GFan, with one objection. Pure democracies eventually become oppressive in one way or another. Religious freedom of thought and expression can exist only through strict constitutional limitation of religion on political power... and visa versa. We have religious freedom in the United States because we are a constitutional republic, in spite of being a democracy. Those other countries need to get with the program, ASAP!

Anyone who claims that oppressive actions toward religion are taking place in this country is speaking from paranoia. A close reading of the story above reveals that such oppression is exclusive to non-democratic nations. The special irony in all this is: theocracy -the religious rule of a nation, which is a rule that is antithetical to democracy- is of the same oppressive mentality that is faulted in the story above.

"I bet you're a politician."
.
I bet you're not much of a gambler.
.
"Your waffeling of opinion..."
.
Waffling?
And I've done no such thing (as indicated be your curious lack of specifics).
.
"...or what you see as truth/fact"
.
All truths/facts I present here are verifiable as such, and I do not confuse them with opinion, which I also share here.
.
"your wavering on stance in seen from post to post."
.
I've not wavered on any issue I've commented on, and I'd love to see you waste your time failing to prove that ignorant lie of yours to be true.
.
All this ignores that your "mindless, simplistic, shallow, view/opinion/perception," suggesting that to not believe in the man-made deities of organized religions means one has "faith in nothing," amazes me. It is a pretentious false dilemma you've offered, and nothing more.

Your "mindless, simplistic, shallow, view/opinion/perception," suggesting that to not believe in the man-made deities of organized religions means one has "faith in nothing," amazes me. A pretentious false dilemma.

Why isn't this discussion about the article?

andre......, for anyone who describes god as an omnipotent, benevolent being, I provided proof for god's non-existence. Apparently, you describe god differently. Please describe the being you attach to the word god. Such description is necessary for us to discuss whether the thing described exists or not.

If you are unable to provide a description of the being you attach to word "god", this inability possibly stems from your untenable claim that you are neither a believer nor a skeptic. If your claim is tenable, please describe the thought processes of someone who is neither a believer nor a skeptic.

andre...., we've seen your kind before. In a lively dialogue, proof and non-proof are determined or at least entertained by the quality of the presentation.

During the few moments it is taking you to read this post, hundreds of innocent babies, children, and adults have been brutalized and killed by various means. I submit that this is one proof of the non-existence of god. For you to deny that this is proof of god's non-existence, you'll have to commit yourself as to what you mean by god when you use the word "god" -whether or not you believe in god.

andre....., there has never been any direct or indirect evidence of the supernatural. Are you claiming that your god manifested itself with supernatural events? Or is it your stance that your god has not involved itself in the human experience in this way?

If believers didn't use their beliefs to interfere with medical and scientific advancements such as stem cell research there wouldn't be much cause for concern.

Though when conversations dealing with the human experience breakout, believers should expect some heat.

On the non-believers side of the issue, there has never been any direct or indirect evidence of any supernatural events. This hard fact works against the notions of belief.

And non-believers don't freak out, we merely become interested. In my experience on this site, posts of believers deleted by site staff far out-number those of non-believers. Also, I know of five believers who've been entirely banned from this site up against no non-believers banned. Freak out, indeed.

OK Andre - I think we will need to dissagree that Santa's existance and the existance of the christian god are both imaginary and as a result equally difficult to prove, as you put it, that they do not exist.
.
If I change Santa to Allah - will it still be a straw man arguement in your mind?

"Accepted as true" =/= "true". I think we all understand and agree on that.

Any one truth will be consistent with all other truths. This requirement applies to science, mathematics, logic, due process of law and good ol' fashioned everyday common sense.

2dognight....I think you touched a nerve here....the ones that freak out at the mere mention of God...are the one's with the most self doubt and denial.

God bless the USA.

I am wondering why someone who does not believe in God has so much trouble with those who do believe in God.
There are lots of things that one person believes and they other does not and they are not a big deal. Mention God or Jesus and people freak out.
Why? Why does an invitation to hear someone else believes cause such discomfort??

Truth –
Inflected Form(s): plural truths \ˈtrüthz, ˈtrüths\
Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English trēowth fidelity; akin to Old English trēowe faithful — more at TRUE
Date: before 12th century
1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4 capitalized Christian Science : GOD
— in truth : in accordance with fact : ACTUALLY

Excellent point Darius.

Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before.

Liberty can't be taken from us, it can only be given away if we choose to do so! While the weak sit by and watch the world fall apart over petty pride, there are the few that stand for their convictions because those convictions are true and the foundation for a prosperous society. Propaganda is killing this country.

Andre are the santa exists crowd and the santa does not exist crowd are also equally matched?

Non-believers have the edge with truth on their side.

I know Andre, but god is right after Santa on my list of things I need to provide proof of non-existance, so there may be a little bit of a wait.

The United States discriminates too. Here's a link to state constitutions that do so.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateC...

My sky god is the only one out of all of them that is real. Please pass a law that forbids the questioning of the one TRUE god. Questioning the nonsense that the other religions put out - well that's to be expected - they are imaginary after all. How will people find out they are wrong about their god in time to get to heaven if we can't question their crazy beliefs?