Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

First I'd like Lee to prove to me that he exists. How hard could that be? ;)
 

That's funny, but actually there's a serious point hiden in there.

I do believe Lee exists -- on the exact same kind of evidence for God that he dismisses.

I can't see Lee. I can't see God.

I interact with Lee. I interact with God.

I understand only part of what Lee says. Ditto for God.

And as for the "Word of Lee" -- a colloquialism for what we're pretty sure can be generally atrributed to Lee, or perhaps, someone who agrees with him who is writing in his name -- I take it seriously but not all of it literally. Ditto for the "Word of God" when that phrase is used to refer to the Bible proper.

And, I accept the "Word of Lee" as legitimate, albeit confusing, contradictory and at times flatly incorrect as ti is, as reliable evidence of his search for truth and his responses to encountering the Divine from time to time. Ditto for the "Word of God" when used to refer to the Bible.

...

Holy shit. Is Lee God?
 

No. God's name is Howard. You know you've heard it in the Lord's Prayer -- Howard be thy name.
 

Actually, given all of the hoaxes, fake blogs, scams, and sock-puppets rattling around on this series of tubes we call the internet, I'd wager there's much more reliable evidence that God exists than evidence that Lee exists. And I'm serious about that.

I've never heard of anyone who has ever heard of or met Lee. I have however read eye-witness testimony of people who have experienced God's works in the work, and interacted with God Himself in Jesus Christ.

Those testimonies have been written by many different people over a long period of time and are more or less as consistent as we'd expect from witness accounts. Lee's writing is, apparently, just one person (supposedly).

All of the people I respect, admire trust, and love the most in this world also believe that God exists. Yet, none of them vouch for Lee.

Lee contends that praying to God doesn't bring answers. Yet, I've asked Lee all sorts of questions and not gotten any answers from him either. :)
 

works in the world

not

works in the work.
 

No, Trixie, God's name is Art!

Art, in heaven!
 

You know, I think the only evidence of God, actually, is God's effects on people's lives. God God's self can be observed only in the reactions and responses of people, and the rest of all that there is, TO God.

Kinda like those poor souls chained down facing the back wall in Plato's cave.


And even more intriguingly, like Dark Matter:

"In astrophysics and cosmology, dark matter is matter of unknown composition that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be observed directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter."

Awesome. That means the only evidence they have that dark matter exists is indirect. And it sounds like a scienced-up description of Wisdom-Sophia-Logus-Jesus-God. Way cool.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Dark_matter
 

I heard a great interview on NPR's Science Friday with an astronomer some time ago. He was talking about Dark Matter, and was talking about how only ~5% of the universe is the matter we're familiar with. Ira Flatow asked him how we could be so confused about 95% of the matter in the universe, to which the astronomer responded, "Hey, we're right, within an order of magnitude. In astronomy that's a bulls-eye." LOL Funny how they give themselves such an enormous benefit-of-the-doubt, eh? ;)
 

And dark matter makes me think of one of my favorite Scriptures:

"Yet he (God) is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for (probably quoting Epimenides) 'In him we live and move and have our being’ ..."


Acknowledging Paul's limited knowledge of the cosmos, and apparent (but not certain) acceptance of Adam as the first "one man," it's a cool assertion.

Acts: 17

24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for (probably quoting Epimenides) 'In him we live and move and have our being’ ..."
 

Alan: Ha! The bull's-eye is so huge in astronomy because what they're trying to observe apparently is infinite! Which really makes the concept of "measurement" -- necessary to mark off a bull's-eye or to even denote a target -- almost meaningless, doesn't it?

For all the pretension often associated with it, astronomy, I think, will always be the babiest of sciences.


Arrgh! I might have to give up blogging for Lent! Must do chores. Must go to store. Must do stuff!
 

I have in my possession a copy of the most influential National Geographic I have ever read, a synopsis with brilliant photos of the Voyager I fly-by of Saturn. I read and re-read that particular issue until it fell apart, and found a copy, quite by accident, in a flea market in Bowie, MD in December, 1991.

One of the great discoveries of the Voyager fly-by were the so-called Shepherd Moons, two tiny satellites that spun, helix-like, around one another. They were called the Shepherd Moons because their gravitation pull and push seemed to "shepherd" the outermost, thin ring of Saturn. A mission planetary specialist said, and I am quiting from memory, "This violates several laws of orbital mechanics, but these little guys seem to know what they're doing." Anytime someone talks about "the laws of science", I think about the Shepherd Moons, violating all sorts of laws of physics, blissfully unaware of their transgressions.

This, more than anything else, made me want to study philosophy of science. This, more than anything else, makes me a post-modern philosopher of science in the mold of Richard Rorty. This, more than anything else, makes me laugh out loud when people talk about "science" and "evidence" as if they had any idea what in the world they were actually talking about.
 

I think the most coherant and complete messqage we've ever gotten about the identity of God "I am".

Beyond that, it's just our best guesswork.

:-)
 

I think the most coherant and complete messqage we've ever gotten about the identity of God "I am".

Beyond that, it's just our best guesswork.

:-)

I think, ultimately, that's how cosmologists view the universe, too. (At least, that's the view of the one I married.) Unlike many Christians, however, a good scientist doesn't label the unknown "God," fabricate lots of self-serving attributes for it, call it a day, and then try to retaliate against anyone who brings up incontrovertible evidence that refutes those characteristics.
 

SW:

Apreciate the qualifier: Many.

IMHO, "good" Christians don't do thast either. :-)


I think I'll read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" again. It's ben years, but didn't he wend his way to a place in his mind where science and math and rhetoric and religion all collided and became one -- and then he went crazy?

Which is to say, I just don't think segregating the search for truth should be so pigeonholed: sciences looks, philosophy looks, religion look, faith looks. Why can't they all get along?
 

SW said; " I think, ultimately, that's how cosmologists view the universe, too. (At least, that's the view of the one I married.)"

When I was comparing Einstein to Clement of Alexandria I was after that point exactly.

Most people don't understand that Einstein never proved anything nor ever did an experiment. The only difference between he and Clement is that in his branch of Philosophy it is required that your cosmic principles be testable and replicable before belief can be sustained. In Clement's branch William of Occam's razor is most applicable before belief should be awarded.

At that level the parallel parabolic curves of Science and Theology almost touch on the cone of reality but they never can.
 

By the way can anyone actually image the abstractness of the mathmatical priciples that "prove" the amount and kind of matter in the cosmos? That knowledge is based on priciples that are real outside of any agent, essence, or existance anywhere in or out of the cosmos. In my micro-cosmolgy of my belief, I call that A God's law.
 

I think we've forgotten the Law of Duct Tape. There's a dark side, and a shiny side, and it all holds the universe together, somehow. Just depends on which side you're looking at.
 

Well, I'll be damned (so to speak).

Looky here:

http://www.robertpirsig.org/
 

Hi Ed,

How sweet… a whole thread to me. I feel ashamed.

1. Is God?

What? Real? A imaginary friend for those in need? The creator of the universe?

We need a definition of God (and you know it.) However which holy book shall we use and why?

2. Is Lee really an atheist, or even an agnostic? What can we determine by his comments and questions (they are legion)?

Interesting… I would like you to tell me though – atheist or agnostic (surely theist cannot be right?)

As for legion? Which one (or two) do you mean? And I always thought it was nice of Jesus to kill a whole herd of pigs – destroying the livelihood of some poor farmer… and then is chased out of town. Makes me think.

So many posts already on this blog… it will take time to read and respond – but I will try.

Alan wrote:
First I'd like Lee to prove to me that he exists. How hard could that be? ;)

Just have faith my friend… I do not need to prove I exist, since why would you need faith with empirical evidence.

Oh, and by the way – I created the universe just last week, but I gave you all a memory much longer than that…

Prove me wrong.

Must go…

Lee
 

(Snicker)
 

"Must go" make yer rounds!

Re, "I would like you to tell me though – atheist or agnostic ..."

Neither.

Faux skeptic.
 

Oh, Lee, don't pout if not every single one of your legion of questions is not answered or acknowledged. Both tactics are ineffective -- the machine-gun questions, and the pouting. I'll answer ya as I see fit. As will others here. Draw conclusions based on what we engage and don't if you wish, but they won;'t mnean anything except in yer own fevered mind. Some of 'em are throwaways anyway (and you know it). So I'll oblige. :-)
 

Hello, Lee.
 

I notice that Lee doesn't rise to my very real challenge to prove that he exists. Even better, I'd like him to prove to me that I exist. After those measly exercises are over, maybe we can get on about the business of evidence for the existence of God. But I'm guessing -- 100 comments later -- that he'll still be avoiding my questions. ;)

"Unlike many Christians, however, a good scientist doesn't label the unknown "God," fabricate lots of self-serving attributes for it, call it a day, and then try to retaliate against anyone who brings up incontrovertible evidence that refutes those characteristics."

Nope, they don't. this particular Christian, Scientist (notice the all-important comma there) generally assumes I f***ed up yet again. LOL. Fortunately for chemists, we get to throw away the bazillions of molecules that stubbornly refuse to do our bidding, forming all sorts of impurities, and side reactions, and tar in the bottom of the flask, and we call it "purification." And yet, throwing away 20% of your sample (or leaving it on the column) is A-OK! (Can anyone imagine a social scientist getting away with this?) Amazing the lengths we scientists will go to cut each other some slack. Yet "many" scientists don't do the same for people of faith.

"Oh, and by the way – I created the universe just last week, but I gave you all a memory much longer than that…

Prove me wrong."

Assuming light doesn't have a memory, it takes, I've been told, something like 10 thousand years for light from the center of the sun to reach the surface. Thus the universe, or our little part of it is at least that old. Don't bore us with parlor tricks; spend more time answering our real questions of you. For if you're not polite enough to do that, why should we engage?
 

Lee, re: "How sweet… a whole thread to me."

No, to you and God.

Lee, meet God.

God, meet Lee.
 

Hello, Lee.
 

Hello, Lee.
 

Hello, Lee.
 

We are that we are.
 

We love you, Lee.
 

ER wrote:
No, to you and God.

Damn... so I'm second to God now.

Oh well... it is an improvement.

Lee
 

Believe in Lee, He is my one true prophet. Do not test Lee, this is against my command.

I am your God, listen to me.

Yours, best wishes

God
 

Tell us answers, Lee!
 

Lee, I know you are looking for me. I have watched you post your thoughts across the world with no other thought than to torment the simple believers who profess me. I have listend as you shared you latest little victories with those you believe to your friends. I know what pleasure all that gives you, but still I see that small spark of me that still glows within you. Your true desire know the real me is contained in the need to cause pain to others, to control them, to manipulate them. Hoping beyond hope that one of them will show you what it all means. Lee only you can do that.
Not even the one I have typing this knows how to help you. It is your inner light, it is up to you. I will wait.
 

ER wrote:

You know, I think the only evidence of God, actually, is God's effects on people's lives.

How can you test it is God that is making a difference (and which one Hara Kristina?) How would the observations be different if God didn't exist, but people still believed in God (an non-existent imagery friend)?

Re: Dark Matter
That means the only evidence they have that dark matter exists is indirect.

Is this a problem?

And you consider the measurement of electromagnetic waves to be direct evidence – good.

BTW How do we know the mass of the sun? It’s indirectly – by measuring the orbits of the planets around it. Science is good like that – or do you doubt it?

You may (or may not) be interested in something I posted on a friends blog when he was asking why the theory of evolution was being challenged by American school boards more that the theory of gravity. He asked a question relating dark matter and if there had been any measure to confirm them.

…“dark matter” was “invented” to solve an observational issue (The rotation speeds of galaxies – I think the idea was first suggested in the 1930’s (?) that’s testing my history… by a F Zwicky (I cannot remember or spell his first name) – it was either this of our understanding of gravity is wrong on the large scale.

Since Dark matter can only be detected indirectly… via gravitational interactions - and you are questioning your theories on gravity – this could make it difficult to test which idea is right.

However, although the “jury is still out” on this by some physicists… (There are always one or two) there has been at least one observation that supports the idea of dark matter that I am aware of. The one that came to mind straight away (since I heard about “recently”) is detailed on the following link.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html


Lee
 

ER wrote:

For all the pretension often associated with it, astronomy, I think, will always be the babiest of sciences.

I agree since it is the most difficult due to the fact their laboratory is billions of miles away. However, it is built on physics – so it is not all bad.

In astronomy you can have a hundred and one ideas how something might work. Science can debate it all day long – it is only however when the measurements come in is the debate ended.

Since measurements are difficult – it takes time and money.

Here I’ll glad of the US tax payer and NASA for much of this confirmation. Thanks you guys!

===============================

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford wrote:

Re: Saturn’s Shepherd Moons.

"This violates several laws of orbital mechanics, but these little guys seem to know what they're doing."

Out of interest, can you please name one law of “orbital mechanics” that they break?

They never mentioned these law breakers during my degree.

It is true though that the finer details on how they help maintain the ring structure is not yet fully understood – but this is different to saying they “break the laws of physics”

Besides, if you think that is weird – check this out…

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20070327.html

Science has no idea what forms this regular hexagon shape in Saturn’s clouds. You have to admit it looks cool (or am I just sad?)

Do you want to bet it is “unnatural” and will never be explained by physics and is therefore proof of the existence of God? Doubt it, Christians have learnt not to do that anymore with science.

Lee
 

ER wrote
And, I accept the "Word of Lee" as legitimate, albeit confusing, contradictory and at times flatly incorrect as it is,

Maybe I should write a book, I could call it "the bible part II"

Lee
 

ER wrote:
Tell us answers, Lee!

Tell me the questions, and I will answer.

Though you may not like my answers... and my claim they are incomplete. Most of the time, for the harder questions, I will write "I do not know".

However, I've not claimed to be all-knowing have I?

Lee
 

The article didn't mention the specifics. The issue was less the "shepherding" than the peculiarity of their orbit. They actually seemed to spin helix-like around a single track that traversed an outer ring of Saturn.

This is a great non-sequitur, since it was not I who said they violated any physical laws, but an astronomer familiar with what was then current in orbital mechanics. The article, which appeared in 1981, appeared when I was in high school, so forgive me if my knowledge of astrophysics was not up to speed at the time.

To call our descriptions of various natural phenomena "laws" is the height of hubris, as if somehow we've glimpsed something unchanging. Alas, Newton's "laws" no more apply than do those of Lysenko in genetics. Yet, we continue to study them as if they did.

This is the kind of discussion that frustrates me to no end, because while Lee clearly believes what he says, it is also clear (to one who has studied both theology and philosophy of science) that he really has no grasp of what the Christian religion entails, or what science really is, or how it operates. Alan, who is a scientist, has tried to explain, patiently, what that entails, yet we are left with Lee insisting that he actually has a clue what he is talking about.

Again, we are left talking past one another.
 

Anonymous wrote...
Lee, I know you are looking for me. I have watched you post your thoughts across the world with no other thought than to torment the simple believers who profess me.

Shit… it’s god again. At least this time He has chosen to use his real name – “Anonymous”.

I have listend as you shared you latest little victories with those you believe to your friends.

Victories? I didn’t know anyone was keeping score? I also do not remember winning any debate… ever. Though people do walk away from a debate – this is not the same thing as a “victory” now is it?

Also, how could I claim “victory” when I am not trying to win anything?

God, you are slipping…

BTW, now that I have your attention. The bible implies that you are all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing…. Is this true, or is man just making it all up?

I know what pleasure all that gives you, but still I see that small spark of me that still glows within you.

The pleasure here is the debate itself – its not about winning or losing. I am not here to de-convert anyone – and how could my words ever do that?

I would like to understand why people believe though, and why they have chosen one god over another. It is a simple sounding question, but no one has been able to answer it.

So with no evidence for God, and no rational reason to chose one religion over the other…. I will wait. Wait for evidence – I know God could provide it, if He existed.

So, you may be able to see the spark inside of me, but I see nothing of you? Why is that?

Your true desire know the real me is contained in the need to cause pain to others, to control them, to manipulate them.

The desire and need to cause pain to others, to control them, to manipulate them – sorry, which religion are we talking about again here?

Pain? What pain? I am only asking questions here… it is not like I am some Spanish inquisition – now that was in the good old days though, when religion really had control.

And it is God and the bible that commands that we should give up everything to Him… ask no questions, just believe in the word of God. Control? Just look at the control this idea of a god has over people… you can even get people to ignore evidence in science and to fly planes into buildings… just for an irrational belief in an invisible friend which they cannot prove to even their best friends. Now that is mind control… we really must teach more of it to our children so it may continue.

But hey, as I’ve said before – some people need their belief in god, I’ve no problem with that. So long as it does not interfere with me or the rest of the world.

But can Christianity really look at itself and say it is not interfering with the world today making it worse? (OK – there are worse religions, but that is not the point)

Just look at how some are trying to stop evolution being taught in schools, why do people want to stop stem cell research? What is that all about in Africa were the church says you should not wear a condom and as a result AIDS is spreading like wildfire? Why does America seem to want to help out Israel in the Middle East – nothing to do with bible prophecy has it and the end of the world? I’ve not idea of course… but they are interesting questions.

Oh, of course, they are all classic questions from an evil atheist, but that is not a reason to ignore them… think about it for a change. Take responsible for your actions… (I know you would prefer to say it is all God’s way… but can you prove it?)

Hoping beyond hope that one of them will show you what it all means.
And no one has… though some religious people seem really, really happy in their ignorance – that does not make it right.

Lee only you can do that.
Not even the one I have typing this knows how to help you. It is your inner light, it is up to you. I will wait.

If there is a God, he knows where I live… if can call me and provide enough evidence to convince me (subjective or otherwise).

He’s had over 30 years to do it, I’ve been looking hard for the last 15 years…

It is not my fault he does not exist, so please do not pass the blame onto me for not looking in the right way – since the only right way I’ve been told is to believe FIRST in God, and all the evidence will be seen. No, that is not for me. Besides, I know friends where that was just not true.

Thanks, once again… it’s been a pleasure.

Lee
 

Lee, beloved, my son, you said, quoting ER, my beloved: " 'That means the only evidence they have that dark matter exists is indirect.' Is this a problem?"

My ER knows that I that I can be detected only by My effects on others that can be detected, much like My mystifying creation, which humans call "dark matter."

I am Mystery.

I am.
 

Thanks Lee for throwing out that site address. Normally I hate it when someone tries to prove there point by sending you off an a goose chase across the web. But it turns out that it had the primary information about Dark matter and Dark Energy that I was getting from a secondary source.


Chandra is a platform for an X-Ray telescope currently sending back information.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/index.html

Dark Matter: Term used to describe the mass in galaxies and clusters whose existence we infer from rotation curves and other techniques, but which has not been confirmed by observations on any electromagnetic wavelength.
Simply put, dark matter is matter that cannot be seen with any type of telescope, but it can be detected through its gravitational effects. These effects are observed as peculiarities in the orbits of stars and gas in galaxies and galaxy clusters. Astronomers have come to the humbling conclusion that most of the matter in the universe, approximately 80 percent, is in the form of dark matter. Humbling because they do not know what it is. The two known types of dark matter, massive neutrinos and black holes, are thought to be a minor portion of the overall dark matter budget.
Whatever dark matter is, it has shaped the universe as we know it. Without the gravitational pull of dark matter, it is likely that the universe would have remained too smooth to form galaxies, stars, and planets

Dark Energy :
In the past few years, astronomers have observed that the light from stars that exploded billions of years ago is inexplicably faint. The best explanation for this is that they are more distant than originally thought, which implies that the expansion of the universe must be accelerating.
This astonishing result can be explained if the space between galaxies is filled with a mysterious dark energy. Although astrophysicists have no idea what dark energy is, they agree its nature is intimately connected with the nature of space itself.
Dark energy has the nightmarish property that, as the universe expands, it creates more dark energy. How much more is uncertain, but such repulsive behavior could eventually get badly out of hand. The data still allow for the possibility that, several billion years from now, the ever-increasing dark energy could pull space apart so rapidly that galaxy clusters would scatter, followed by the disintegration of individual galaxies such as the Milky Way, then solar systems, until finally matter itself would be shredded by accelerating space. The universe would end in a "big rip."

There are some really great photographs and downloads available on this site.
 

Re, "ask no questions .."

Lee, the Bible does not say this. Some people say the Bible says this, but it doesn't.
 

What the hell, I'm off reading shit on the web and God drops by?
Looks like there may be two of him don't there?
ER, I warned you about farting around on those damn fundamentalist sites. Now look what you've gone and done.
 

Ooooh, DrLoboJo, that "rip" reminds me of that fine book by Scott Adams, "God's Debris."

Check it out, Lee. It's really cool.

Free online edition here:

http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com
/godsdebris/
 

TWO of him?

Looks like a whole passel of Him/Her showed up!
 

Whoa. Did you notice this on the Chandra Chronicles site?? Look at the date!

They have actually done gone and caused a tear in the space-time continuum!


"Black Holes, Dark Matter, and a Possible New Way to Self-Destruct
Dec 17, 2008 The highlights of discoveries made with Chandra in the past year include an exploration of the explosive activity associated with a supermassive black hole, a puzzling concentration of dark matter found in the aftermath of a collision between giant clusters of galaxies and the potential discovery of a new type of supernova. Full Story.
 

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford wrote:
This is a great non-sequitur, since it was not I who said they violated any physical laws, but an astronomer familiar with what was then current in orbital mechanics.

I was interested what the observation was so I could look it up and see what 26 years of research has down.

It might have just been a mismeasure, or a misquote… or better yet – something interesting like the link I gave you. Still no answers to that after all this time.

The article, which appeared in 1981, appeared when I was in high school, so forgive me if my knowledge of astrophysics was not up to speed at the time.

To call our descriptions of various natural phenomena "laws" is the height of hubris, as if somehow we've glimpsed something unchanging.

You are right, they are normally called theories today… the “laws of motion” were named when Newton though God build the whole universe and these “laws” were unchanging.

This is the kind of discussion that frustrates me to no end, because while Lee clearly believes what he says, it is also clear (to one who has studied both theology and philosophy of science) that he really has no grasp of what the Christian religion entails, or what science really is, or how it operates.

I agree with the religion bit 100%, science – well, I have some idea, but I’m no expert, it was 10 years since my degree.

However, I hope you are not going down the path of an Ad hominem

Alan, who is a scientist, has tried to explain, patiently, what that entails, yet we are left with Lee insisting that he actually has a clue what he is talking about.

Where? I must keep missing the important posts… I’ve asked Alan what he would consider as good evidence for God – did I miss the reply? I remember Alan telling me that eye-witness accounts were “empirical evidence”… not so, the accounts/recording are nearly always taken sometime after the event (certainly with the bible), this means the eye-witness is drawing the information from memory. Their memory is subjective and can be changed and influenced by the questions and environment.

Please Alan, anyone – tell me why I am wrong? I obviously have not got a clue – but I am willing to learn and admit I am wrong.

Again, we are left talking past one another.

This is a shame… and it not my intention.

Lee
 

In re the whole dark matter/dark energy business, I would just like to say that this sounds an awful lot like one of those ad hoc theories that scientists often use to shore up holes in current theoretical constructs. Since I first read of "dark matter", and heard a lengthy show on NPR about it, I wondered if the scientists were serious. In essence, what they were saying was this - there just has to be stuff out there, but we can't see it, we can't detect it in any way, so we'll just call it "dark matter".

Part of the problem lies in the refusal of physicists to admit a simple, scary fact - they don't understand what gravity is. Oh, they know it's one of the four elemental forces of nature, along with the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, and the EM force. Indeed, at the subatomic level, gravity is the weakest, least consequential force there is. Yet, unlike its partners, it grows, becoming more powerful the more massive something is. Newton didn't like gravity - too occult, all that "action at a distance" stuff - yet found it (no pun intended) inescapable. We have no idea if gravity is caused by particles (gravitons, to all you Trekkers out there) or waves, or perhaps, like light, sometimes (even simultaneously) both. In short - what the hell is this?

Yet, we have all these "physical laws" about gravity, and they tell scientists that something has to be responsible for various anomalies that are detected. So, we have to postulate "dark matter"; like the "luminiferous ether" that was the necessary medium for light, we may find out in fifty, or a hundred years that physicists today had no idea what in the world they were talking about. Since it is much speculation more than anything else - absolutely no evidence whatsoever is involved here, other than equations that are themselves based on theoretical underpinnings that may or may not have anything to do with the way things really are - I withhold too much speculation on the wonders of dark matter. As our British cousins are wont to say, it sounds a bit dodgy to me.
 

Um ...

Lee: Alan, what do you consider good evidence for God?

Alan: Eyewitness accounts.


Paraphrased thusly, the question is asked and answered.
 

Re, "we can't detect it in any way" (dark matter)

But they say they can detect it, just not by observing it indirectly.

Like wind.

Unless I'm missing something.
 

Has anyone ever written thoughtfully on the problem of good?
 

Lee,
Just so you know,
I Am
listening.

As you said, "There is a part of me that hopes that my questions are so clever that they are "impossible" to answer – but I doubt I have written anything new on any topic so far. (Maybe this is why I write so much – some of it must be good right, by chance alone?)

Oh well… at least I now can get my fix on another forum. I've "debating" with someone who believes that Gen 1 is confirmed by science! You have to laugh – my fav is the person's comparison to the liquid water mentioned in the bible to a super hot dense plasma ball at the start of the universe. Excellent stuff. (Mark would disagree of course - No Big Bang in the bible)

Anyway… I will return – I know my weakness. Where else can I learn so much about the bible?

Lee

I think your time out playing on a Christian thread has very nicely refocused you on the main issue! I totally agree with your post, which is a list of signposts towards the point that the bible is rubbish evidence.

Thanks - not only that… there should be evidence outside the bible – I've asked for this, Mark is trying to provide it, it's just not, well, very convincingly (sorry Mark – but if we are talking about God's evidence, it should not be up to a debate, it should be clear) and therefore the bible provides more questions than answers – unless of course, it was man-made, then there is no surprise.

Cheers, LeeC. I think you were hitting the nail on the head, there.

Hi JC,

What other website is there!? ;) Seriously, which one have you been haunting Christians on lately?

I've sent you a PM (I think) – not sure if I should be posting other forums on the RD site.

It is just a bit of fun – some REAL nutcases… I'm in one "debate" at the moment with someone who still believes in the geocentric model of the solar system (Really!) and that the Earth does not move – well, it says so in the bible so he believes it. The chap is having a bit of a problem explaining stellar parallax at the moment though – poor child.

The standard Christian answer is that God does care about the whole world. That's why Jesus died on the cross, so they say. There's even a verse (among the most popular) that I'm sure you've heard of that they will say suggests this very thing:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

Well – they would say that wouldn't they. It is easy to say – harder to prove.

I don't know about Australia, but the Mormons believe a resurrected Jesus did, in fact, visit North America. In fact, their whole theology is predicated on the idea that North America was settled first by ancient Jews who crossed the sea (the remnants of the lost tribes of Israel, called Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites), and at the resurrection Jesus came and spoke to his "other sheep" (in America, apparently) that he spoke of in John 10:16.

Hi JC,

What other website is there!? ;) Seriously, which one have you been haunting Christians on lately?

I've sent you a PM (I think) – not sure if I should be posting other forums on the RD site.

It is just a bit of fun – some REAL nutcases… I'm in one "debate" at the moment with someone who still believes in the geocentric model of the solar system (Really!) and that the Earth does not move – well, it says so in the bible so he believes it. The chap is having a bit of a problem explaining stellar parallax at the moment though – poor child.

The standard Christian answer is that God does care about the whole world. That's why Jesus died on the cross, so they say. There's even a verse (among the most popular) that I'm sure you've heard of that they will say suggests this very thing:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

Well – they would say that wouldn't they. It is easy to say – harder to prove.

I don't know about Australia, but the Mormons believe a resurrected Jesus did, in fact, visit North America. In fact, their whole theology is predicated on the idea that North America was settled first by ancient Jews who crossed the sea (the remnants of the lost tribes of Israel, called Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites), and at the resurrection Jesus came and spoke to his "other sheep" (in America, apparently) that he spoke of in John 10:16.

Hi JC,

What other website is there!? ;) Seriously, which one have you been haunting Christians on lately?

I've sent you a PM (I think) – not sure if I should be posting other forums on the RD site.

It is just a bit of fun – some REAL nutcases… I'm in one "debate" at the moment with someone who still believes in the geocentric model of the solar system (Really!) and that the Earth does not move – well, it says so in the bible so he believes it. The chap is having a bit of a problem explaining stellar parallax at the moment though – poor child.

The standard Christian answer is that God does care about the whole world. That's why Jesus died on the cross, so they say. There's even a verse (among the most popular) that I'm sure you've heard of that they will say suggests this very thing:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

Well – they would say that wouldn't they. It is easy to say – harder to prove.

I don't know about Australia, but the Mormons believe a resurrected Jesus did, in fact, visit North America. In fact, their whole theology is predicated on the idea that North America was settled first by ancient Jews who crossed the sea (the remnants of the lost tribes of Israel, called Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites), and at the resurrection Jesus came and spoke to his "other sheep" (in America, apparently) that he spoke of in John 10:16.

I've been causing trouble on another "Christian" forum where the writing style is a little different. (So my apologies if this post is a little "different" – it has been a while) Debates there can be short and the Christian faith is a moving target – it is much more "intellectual", in-depth and focused here. (I like it)

However, now I might bring this thread down a level or two (to my level)?

The one thing I have notice debating "on the other side/site" is how "small minded" the bible actually is.

This is just a passing comment – I do not wish to re-direct Mark from the current debate (or the reply Mark is writing to my earlier comments).

I am just wondering if anyone else (other than Mark) has noticed similar within the bible?

If God created the universe, Earth, life and man and all that – why is the bible so focused on a little tribe from Israel? Why does God care about the Earth at all? (The universe is rather BIG)

It is almost like God has a favourite football team or something?
Why isn't God concerned with the WHOLE world if Earth is so important?
Why is God worried about His fans (The Jews/Christians) following other football teams (sorry gods)?
And why does God need His fans (man) to spread God's message?

If God was so great, how come the God of the bible was NOT known in America or Australia for example until the Christians (the fans) got there first?

Something about this God of the bible doesn't seem right – the bible is looking man-made to me?

Cheers

Lee"
 

I could be wrong, Lord know I some times am, but did I just see God stutter?
 

I think so!
 

drlobojo wrote:
Thanks Lee for throwing out that site address. Normally I hate it when someone tries to prove there point by sending you off an a goose chase across the web. But it turns out that it had the primary information about Dark matter and Dark Energy that I was getting from a secondary source.

No problem, if I have it - I will share it. I love physics, but there is so much I do not know.

ER wrote:
Re, "ask no questions .."

Lee, the Bible does not say this. Some people say the Bible says this, but it doesn't.

Fair enough, I'll believe you... you know the bible better than me. Always happy to learn something new.

ER wrote:
Check it out, Lee. It's really cool.

Free online edition here:

Thanks... always like it when it is free… but I'm a slow reader.

So what is it about?

Lee
 

"God's Debris: A Thought Experiment," from Wiki:

God's Debris: A Thought Experiment (ISBN 0-7407-4787-8) is a 2001 novella by Dilbert creator Scott Adams.

God's Debris creates a philosophy based on the idea that the simplest explanation tends to be the best (a corruption of Occam's Razor). It surmises that an omnipotent God annihilated himself in the Big Bang, because an omniscient God would already know everything possible except his own lack of existence, and exists now as the smallest units of matter and the law of probability, or "God's debris", hence the title.

Description
The central character, according to the introduction, knows "everything. Literally everything." Adams, whose knowledge is as incomplete as the next person, got around this by using the aforementioned "simplest explanation" for each concept raised in the book because, while "in this complicated world the simplest explanation is usually dead wrong", a more simple explanation often sounds more right and more convincing than anything complicated.

This character, the Avatar, defines God as primordial matter (like quarks and leptons) and the law of probability. He offers recommendations on everything from an alternative theory for planetary motion to successful recipes for relationships under his system. He proposes that God is currently reassembling himself through the ongoing formation of a collective intelligence in the form of the human race, modern examples of which include the development of the Internet.

However, in the introduction, Adams describes God's Debris as a thought experiment, challenging readers to differentiate its scientifically accepted theories from "creative baloney designed to sound true," and to "Try to figure out what's wrong with the simplest explanation."
 

Anonymous wrote:

Lee,
Just so you know,
I Am
listening.


Oh, I’ve written a lot more than that… it seems you have found my comments at the RD site.

And does this mean I have a fan (certainly a follower?)

Also, does this provide anymore evidence for my existence?

Finally, care to comment on anything that was said there?

The debate you seemed to have cut and pasted from was one I was in with a Christadelphian called Mark – a long dead debate. He tried to prove the bible first via prophecy – a long of time was spent on Tyre if I remember.

It’s here if you like… it went on for a few months…

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,323,The-God-of-the-Bible-is-No-Delusion,Christadelphianorg,page35#comments

Here are some other posts that you seemed to have missed from the RD site…
=============================
RE: I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist
Comment #81705 by LeeC on October 25, 2007 at 4:04 am

I am an atheist because I have not seen any evidence FOR God – For example, the bible speaks of miracles yet there is NO independent evidence for any of them actually happening (and there should be many if the bible was true).

I can also test my beliefs, and I know what evidence would change my views and beliefs.

Science provides a better solution than any religion or belief in God, and any science theory can be proven false (and they tell you how you can do it as well)

How can I prove God false?

Now can you see the difference between my belief in science and the theist faith in God?

I do not have faith because I can test my theories (one way or another). I will also trust my theories (I believe the aeroplane will not fall out of the sky because of my belief in physics – NOT my faith in physics)

In conclusion?

No evidence for God, and no way of proving God false.
(It is a very good meme indeed.)

Lee
============================
RE: Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #81696 by LeeC on October 25, 2007 at 3:50 am

Why is the universe so poorly design from the point of view of man? (The list is HUGE)

OK - we can live nicely here on Earth for a period of time - but if Earth was like Mars or Venus we would not be here asking the questions (the anthropic principle).

That's it... "rare Earth" – but not designed Earth.

Look outside Earth and you see a universe either out to kill us or too far away to be of any interest apart from to Astrophysicist.

The sun is trying it's best to kill us, and will in time. This is not good design, so again... where is the evidence of good design?

Lee
=============================
RE: Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions

Comment #81691 by LeeC on October 25, 2007 at 3:37 am

Science answers the "how" questions – I am glad we can all agree on this, but who said the universe should have a "why" answer?

However, let not fall into the trap with the theist with this type of question on "why" - since religion does not answer either "how" or "why".

Answering a "how" question with only an unknown is an empty and meaningless answer. Unless God can be first explained, any answer involving "God did it" is useless, and creates more questions than answers. (Who made God? What was there before God? What is God? What are the limits of God? etc etc)

And if a theist claims religion answers the "why" questions, then try these:-

Why did God create the universe?
Why did God create such a large universe?
Why did God create man?
Why did God create evil?
Why does God allow suffering?
Why does God require worship?
etc etc

The best you might hear is "It is God's will" or "Who am I to explain the mind of God" and any other such rubbish.

Oh, and lets not forget my favourite:-

Why is there no evidence for any miracles described in any holy book attributed to God?

So, religion can only answer "how" questions with an even greater unknown (i.e. God) and cannot answer even simple "why" questions relating to God and the universe.

Stick with science… it works, and if you do not believe me – test it yourself.

Lee

==========================

No need to reply here… there is a forum at Richard Dawkins for that. Tell me if you reply though so I can take a look…

The debating points listed about can be found if you are interested….

http://richarddawkins.net/cat1_Reason,cat2_Debate-Points

You might also notice that I do some talking over at the Christian forum as well

I'm normally in "General Apologetics"
http://foru.ms/f13

Or "Creation & Evolution" at
http://foru.ms/f70

Though with my time spent here and other blogs, I’ve not had time to comment as much as I use to do.

Not sure what any of this proves… but it shows that my mind and thoughts are fluid and change at a drop of a hat.

Enjoy

Lee
 

"God's Debris", I read that. I remember thinking that Adams had some cool insights but went south on the wierd a bit. But then, Christ, Orphius, Hermes, Apollo, Mithra, Osirus, etc. etc. were all seen as "The Avatar" of God for their time in the "Gnostic" tradition.

By the way Anon-I-Am, what do your comments mean? It is convoluted enough here as it is, how about a translation?

Oh, and Lee, God does have a favorite football team, in America anyway, it is the University of Oklahoma Sooners.
 

ER wrote
"God's Debris: A Thought Experiment," from Wiki:

Thanks for that… I thought I knew the name. Sounds interesting…

Lee
 

drlobojo wrote:
By the way Anon-I-Am, what do your comments mean? It is convoluted enough here as it is, how about a translation?

I don't know, it seems that I have a follower - which is scary, especially when they have already claimed to be God. It is pretty spooky…

Oh, and Lee, God does have a favorite football team, in America anyway, it is the University of Oklahoma Sooners.

Excellent... so only one favourite football team? What about all the other teams?

Lee
 

Re, "God does have a favorite football team, in America anyway, it is the University of Oklahoma Sooners."

Holy shit. I quit. I might have to start ridin' with the Dawkins Gang.
 

I expect a vision in my sleep tonight. My mind is full of this thread; I listened to an old "Isaac Air Freight" album, circa 1980, on my new record player; "Urban Cowboys" and the looooovely Debra Winger are on the other room awakening my 16-year-old angst-ridden inner teen; and my belly is full of chili, friend onion rings and buttermilk; oh, and I haven't had a stiff drink in a full week, and only one cigar. When I see God in my sleep, I WILL be quizzing God about the ou sooners. Yeesh.
 

Lee:
"I don't know, it seems that I have a follower..."

Gee, that's great. One down eleven to go.
 

Although I usually admire drlobojo, I'm afraid the good doctor has led us down the path to SHEER HORRIBLE EVIL!!!

God's favorite team is and always has been now and forever the Cowboys of Oklahoma State University. The Sooners are the devil's ugly children.

Anyone who says differently will be cast into the lake of endless heck with spammers and Republicans at the end of time.
 

If you guys take this Lee guy seriously, you are playing with fire.
 

Mom, I love ya, but once again you show a real inability to "get it."

Does it LOOK like we're taking him seriously?

And, playing with fire? LOL! I think you give him too much credit.
 

Mom2, there is NOTHING that God can't use for God's purposes.

For example: Ever since I put this post up, and gave it the headline "Just Lee and God," I've had that goofy, simple but catchy song by Josh Turner, "Me and God," runnin' through my head.

I like the tune. It's sort of meditative. And it's helped keep me more or less cheerful today despite many excuses I could use to be sad and down.

The Lord, I believe, is a fan of silly country songs that gives rednecks, erudite and otherwise, some simple idea to ruminate in communion with Him.

And I wouldn'ta probably been meditatin' on Him in such a cheerful manner if I hadn'ta put up this post. :-)

This is a country Gospel song, and they were playin' in on the radio. I think that's cool. I just suspend the nitpicking I could do about some of the imagery and I enjoy it:


"Me And God"
(feat. Ralph Stanley)

There ain't nothing that can't be done
By me and God
Ain't nobody gonna come in between me and God
One day we'll live together
Where the angels trod
Me and God

Early in the morning talking it over
Me and God
Late at night talking it over
Me and God
You could say we're like two peas in a pod
Me and God

He's my Father
He's my friend
The beginning
And the end
He rules the world
With a staff and rod
We're a team
Me and God

I am weak and he is strong
Me and God
He forgives me when I'm wrong
Me and God
He's the one I lean on
When life gets hard
Me and God

He's my Father
He's my friend
The beginning
And the end
He rules the world
With a staff and rod
We're a team
Me and God

He rules the world
With a staff and rod
We're a team
Me and God

We're a team
Me and God
 

Here's the song, on YouTube. The cynic in me twitches, wantin' to pick on the cheesy slide show that someone put to it. But I can't.

It's a hymn. It's simple. It's sweet. And hearin' ol Ralph Stanley in there makes me happy all by it itself.

And, I am no more ashamed to say it hits me dead square in the heart than I am ashamed of anything else that I believe, doubt, challenge, cuss or discuss with friends or rank strangers!

Damned if it didn't just now make my eyes leak even!


Thanks, Lee.
 

Ha. Forgot to leave the link.


http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=hv1X8XogLlE
 

Mom2! Woo hoo! This is just for you! Made ME smile. It's liable to make you jump a pew! :-)

http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=-7OhmvAR1yQ
 

So, ER, when will you go back to drinking? You really really really need a snort or five buddy.

Now guys I have it straight from David Boren's wife's Corkey Dogs' groomer's own mouth that the OU Sooners are God's own annointed team.

Teditor, hell, the Cowboys can't even spell God. They think he's Eskimo Joe in a suit of lights.

Mom2 we don't take ER seriously none either.
 

Say ER just re-read some of this stuff. Lee was kind of snarky to some of those guys. Was Lee saying this Anon-I-Am character was a follower, did he mean stalker? Well, so long as he's not in Australia that wouldn't matter much. Once again I keep telling you to stay off of those fundamentalist and Confederate sites you play on.
Next thing you know.... well just heed what I say.
 

Pbbtth!

I LIKE gospel songs! Sue me. I'll have you know I once was a dues-payin' member of rhe National Religious Broadcasters Association.

Dang, if I couldn't suspect my critical thinkin' skills once in a while and just revel in pleasantness, traditional imagery and the culture of my upbringing, well, I'd rather be retarded.

Don't say it.

I think Lee just makes a hobby out of goin' around to random fundie sites to pick fights. I go to a few to find agreement.

And you just called TECH Teditor.

Oh, I plan to be sittin' out with the dogs, Mr. Dickel and a cigar, gettin' some briquets ashed over for a ribeye, at about 3 p.m. Sunday, to be in my recliner with said steak, and a tater, on a tray in my lap about 4:30 p.m., in time for the Cowboys-Giants game.

Lord, for these distilled spirits, this baked spud slathered in butter and this seared slab of cowflesh, may I be truly thankful!
 

And for what it's worth, Lee *does* have a follower.

God believes in Lee.
 

mom2 wrote:-
If you guys take this Lee guy seriously, you are playing with fire.

Interesting on two levels…

Either someone believes that I am having a joke, or that my words are honest and could cause freethought which would be “playing with fire”.

“Don’t listen to that nonsense… that’s the devil talking…”

It’s a great mental defence mechanism your religion has going for it.

Does it LOOK like we're taking him seriously?

And, playing with fire? LOL! I think you give him too much credit.

Of course you don’t take my arguments seriously, thinking could cause problems… better to joke and ignore the problem.

As for credit… you’re right on that – I’m a nobody who knows nothing. I don’t even know God.

ER wrote:
Mom2, there is NOTHING that God can't use for God's purposes.

Amazing…

ER wrote:
For example: Ever since I put this post up, and gave it the headline "Just Lee and God," I've had that goofy, simple but catchy song by Josh Turner, "Me and God," runnin' through my head.

No all that bad then?

Damned if it didn't just now make my eyes leak even!

I more for Slayer, Metallica and Iron Maiden… the devil’s music of course. What else?

drlobojo wrote:
Say ER just re-read some of this stuff. Lee was kind of snarky to some of those guys.

Sorry I was “snarky”, but has everyone here been friendly and “Christian-like” to me?

Was Lee saying this Anon-I-Am character was a follower, did he mean stalker? Well, so long as he's not in Australia that wouldn't matter much. Once again I keep telling you to stay off of those fundamentalist and Confederate sites you play on.
Next thing you know.... well just heed what I say.

Stalker’s and threats? Does it can anymore Christian? You wonder why I was “snarky”?

ER wrote:
I think Lee just makes a hobby out of goin' around to random fundie sites to pick fights. I go to a few to find agreement.

Richard Dawkins and the Christian Forums… how “fundie” is that?

Hobby talking about gods... you are probaly right, but I think about religion more than most - is that a crime?

“pick fights”? No… to debate and discuss. It seems that some here and promoting the “fight” element - not I.

I’ve never seen such behaviour before and I’ve been debating Christians and atheist for around 8 months now on various Christian and non-Christian web sites.

I think it interesting… invite atheists to your blog for a discussion. Insult them, claim that they are “hurting you”, "stalk" and "threaten" them… I’m mean, this is supposed to be a Christian blog… a “nice and friendly religion”…?

Yeah right… as I said, I have learnt something from this blog. It is very, very scary what Christianity and religion can do to you.

ER wrote:
And for what it's worth, Lee *does* have a follower.

God believes in Lee.

From what little I have read in the bible… this would really scare me if I believed in God. What really scares me though are His followers based on what has been written here…

Lee
 

I do believe Lee exists -- on the exact same kind of evidence for God that he dismisses.


What, god writes on your blog - hallelujah

I think this site is a good reason not to take christianity seriously. Seems like questioning is not allowed.
 

Silence....................
 

eternal silence.......
 

Seriuosly guy, if this is christianity, you can stuff it where the sun dont shine - I think you dont seem to respect people the way you should
 

PS erudite redneck ? (yes, the interrogative nature is intended) why do you have B.S twice after your name? Did you have to resit the year?


Can god make 2+2+47 without changing the values or can he make square circles, if he cant, what's so special about him?

Have a nice life and se you in Mormon Hell
 

BTW Lee, you have the patience of a saint - obviously not columba - who murdered people.

You seem to have considerably raised the average IQ of this blog
 

Lee, you can't even keep up with who is talkiognto who in this thread! THAT's why we -- or I, anyway -- don't take you seriously!

And we have been nothing but amiable, albeit somewhat goofy here. If you find offense in it, then, as I said, you are looking for fights with Christians, and you're not only willing to start them, you're willing to make one up!

Jeez Louise.

Re, "Of course you don’t take my arguments seriously, thinking could cause problems… better to joke and ignore the problem."

I defy you to reread this thread and honestly fail to see some fairly serious thought. But I deny that there is a problem. The problem of lack of belief in God, on lack of evidence, is yours, because you deline to accept the evidence we point you to. You are free to do so.

Re, "As for credit… you’re right on that – I’m a nobody who knows nothing. I don’t even know God."

If this is faux hunility, stop. If you really are that down on yourself, get help.

Re, "ER wrote:
Mom2, there is NOTHING that God can't use for God's purposes.

Amazing…"

Yes, as a matter of fact as a matter of faith, it is.

Re, "ER wrote:
For example: Ever since I put this post up, and gave it the headline "Just Lee and God," I've had that goofy, simple but catchy song by Josh Turner, "Me and God," runnin' through my head.

No all that bad then?"

I've not any of this has been bad have I? Having that song in myhead all day was just an uexpected bonus."

Re, "Damned if it didn't just now make my eyes leak even!

I more for Slayer, Metallica and Iron Maiden… the devil’s music of course. What else?"

Bully for you!

Re, "drlobojo wrote:
Say ER just re-read some of this stuff. Lee was kind of snarky to some of those guys."

Sorry I was “snarky”, but has everyone here been friendly and “Christian-like” to me?"

Yes, we have. It doesn't mean we will kiss your ass, though.

Re, "Was Lee saying this Anon-I-Am character was a follower, did he mean stalker? Well, so long as he's not in Australia that wouldn't matter much. Once again I keep telling you to stay off of those fundamentalist and Confederate sites you play on.
Next thing you know.... well just heed what I say."

Stalker’s and threats? Does it can anymore Christian? You wonder why I was “snarky”?

THI is where DrLobojo was addressing ME, not you. Every comment in this thread is not about you. He was telling ME to stay off the fundie thread (and the Confederate-U.S. Civil War threads).

Re, "ER wrote:
I think Lee just makes a hobby out of goin' around to random fundie sites to pick fights. I go to a few to find agreement.

Richard Dawkins and the Christian Forums… how “fundie” is that?"

?? Dawkins is as fundamentalist as they come. I don't know what Christian sites you go to; but we do know from your comments above that Anon found that you DO, despite your distancing yourself from the "raiding parties," DO do some guerrilla commenting, then you go back to your fellows and report in on successes and failures, tactics, and how fun it was. Cool. But why would ya deny it?

Re, "Hobby talking about gods... you are probaly right, but I think about religion more than most - is that a crime?"

No. It is an interesting phenomenon that professed atheists seem to talk about God more than rank-and-file believers do. If I were you, I wouldn't consider that something to brag about.

Re, "“pick fights”? No… to debate and discuss. It seems that some here and promoting the “fight” element - not I."

Oh, I disagree. You can't debate, you won't discuss and you can't keep up with a conversation. It is very frustrating.

Re, "I’ve never seen such behaviour before and I’ve been debating Christians and atheist for around 8 months now on various Christian and non-Christian web sites."

GOOD. Your world has been expanded.

Re, "I think it interesting… invite atheists to your blog for a discussion. Insult them, claim that they are “hurting you”, "stalk" and "threaten" them… I’m mean, this is supposed to be a Christian blog… a “nice and friendly religion”…?"

I invited atheists. I did not say why. Now you know. To size them up. You turned out to be a particularly small version. The "stalk" thing has been explained. There has been no threat. This is NOT a Christian blog. I am a Christian WITH a blog. Boy, you don't pay attention at ALL, do you? "Nice and friendly" -- who the hell told you that? ALL kinds of people are Christians -- and drunks, whores, people with poor personal habits, doubters, sinnrs and losers usually make the best ones, since they have lesser SELVES, and that's the main thing that keeps people from COMMUNION with God. Oh, and recovering fundamentalist, such as myself. Some of them can be real assholes.

Re, "Yeah right… as I said, I have learnt something from this blog. It is very, very scary what Christianity and religion can do to you."

True. It is not for the faint of heart.

Re, "ER wrote:
And for what it's worth, Lee *does* have a follower.

God believes in Lee."


Re, "From what little I have read in the bible… this would really scare me if I believed in God. What really scares me though are His followers based on what has been written here…"

1. Read the Bible before you diss it. That's really a basic. he fact that you haven't is a nother reason for me not to take you seriously -- OR your "arguments," frankly, since you confess to not having enough information in your head to BE taken seriously. Gah. Basi-basic-basic stuff, here.


Oh, on the two "B.S."s --

I have two B.S. degrees.

Now, go away son, ya bother me.
 

Wormwood-Lee: You are to report to the House of Correction for Incompetent Tempters immediately.
 

This is like deliverance

Read the Bible before you diss it.

I've read it - its a laugh -talking snakes and a homo-erotic sacrifice and all. But really, it's just a mis mash of other myths.

I have two B.S. degrees.


Why, did you forget you already have one?

I'll leave you to your moonshine, skunk stew and 14 children. Do you live far from the sea - I hear all you red necks like to wear pillow cases, is that true?

What intellectual capacities do you need to shut off to believe in an invisible magic friend who doesnt appear or talk to you?

Why Do Americans need to put their qualifications after their name - how insecure. (BTW I'm better qualified than you, but dont feel so insecure)
 

It is truly amazing. ER opens a thread, we have a really good, and serious, and sometimes heated, discussion, and a few idiots who actually think (!) they are smarter than anyone else show up and ruin it. They are skunks at a garden party. And not very bright, either.

All those - laughing-atheist-creator-of-homosexual-flies-boss-hogg types who come around here and honestly believe the things they type, are a bunch of small-minded morons, upon whom no time other than dismissal should be wasted.

Of course, ER, this is your blog, and I am presuming much, but, please, don't go away mad, folks. Just, well, you know the rest.

PS: If you want to get in a real pissing contest, boys, come on over to my place.
 

No LeeC, I Am not following you. I Am not a stalker. I Am with you.
I Am you.
 

Re, "Now go away son, ya bother me."

I forget. Hell, people in other parts of the United States don't "get" all my parochial cultural references. Thast's a quote from Foghorn Leghorn, fellow erudite redneck and barnyard rooster in the cartoons. He usually said in impatience with someone who was yapping when he was trying to say or do something unrelated to the yapping.

In any case, sorry about that, Lee.

The ER roadhosue is virtually wide open. I've only bounced that one mouth-breather I mentioned earlier, but not even him permanently.

Re, "I've read it."

Good, then you can diss it honestly.


On qualifications: I've said before, I put those academic credetials up there when I started this blog in the last semester of grad school, the hardest semester of study I've had to date. I was, and am, proud to have accomplished it. But, alas, I am, indeed, insecure despite repeated personal successes and accomplishes in life. Not sure wy that is, but it is. Can't, and don't, speak for Americans in general. Ask them. And, as Geoffrey noted, it IS my blog.
 

This fits, sort of:

"I think personal respect must be earned. However, one can honor an office or position that is occupied by a very dishonorable person. ... Loving someone does not necessarily mean liking them or enjoying their company. ... The point is to wish the person well, not to seek revenge or attempt to do her harm, and (as one is able) to be for that person an agent or channel of God's love which is universal and unconditional (Matt. 5:43-48)."


From Edward Fudge:

(gracEmail) honoring the dishonorable
Edward Fudge
Jan 13, 2008

gracEmail®
Edward Fudge

HONORING THE DISHONORABLE
A gracEmail subscriber writes: "My son-in-law is having a hard time respecting his mother, who left him with his grandparents when he was small until he was a teenager and then took him back to be a 'servant' to her and her new verbally-abusive husband. His grandparents are fine people and taught him Christian values which he practices. He has been a loving husband to my daughter for 15 years. He says he doesn't love or respect his mother, but he continues a relationship with her because he is a Christian and wants to do the right thing. Please tell me your thoughts on the subject of honoring your father and mother."

* * *
I think personal respect must be earned. However, one can honor an office or position that is occupied by a very dishonorable person. If your son-in-law speaks kindly to his mother, neither intends nor does her any harm and seeks by God's strength to forgive the wrongs she has done him, it seems to me he is honoring her position as his mother.

Loving someone does not necessarily mean liking them or enjoying their company. Again the point is to wish the person well, not to seek revenge or attempt to do her harm, and (as one is able) to be for that person an agent or channel of God's love which is universal and unconditional (Matt. 5:43-48).

In view of the past does his mother now want to have a relationship with this son? If so, does she evidence a desire for a healthy relationship or an exploitive one? Are there grandchildren who are part of this picture? Has the mother ever apologized or expressed regret for the way she treated this son? Does your son know any of the circumstances in his mother's own upbringing and background that might help him view her treatment of him in a less heinous light? Without excusing any of his mother's wrong behavior, this situation could provide an opportunity for your noble son-in-law to grow personally. I wish the best for all concerned!

For more on marriage and family, click here.
_______________________

Copyright 2008 by Edward Fudge. Permission hereby given to copy, reprint or redistribute this gracEmail in its entirety (including this copyright notice) and not for financial profit.
 

Hi all,

DO do some guerrilla commenting, then you go back to your fellows and report in on successes and failures, tactics, and how fun it was. Cool. But why would ya deny it?


I did last night comment on this about this blog... but only saying really what I said here in my last comment.

I'll repeat it

What really scares me though are His followers based on what has been written here…

It seems someone took notice. I know with the style who - so I cannot take the credit for them.

Lemmy out of Motorhead wrote...
Lee, you have the patience of a saint - obviously not columba - who murdered people.


Thank you, coming from a true metal God, this means a lot.

Ed,

Should I read the rest of the comments, or have you got pissed off with me and wish me not to return?

Lee
 

Lee,

Who's Ed? If that's a typo, that makes twice. :-) No biggie, but call me ER.

Not pissed, dude. As I tried, but perhaps failed, to make clear in my latest. Got steamed is all. As did you. No biggie, either way.

God is Love. I am a real piss-poor vector for it most of the time.

Hey, if you want to hang around, feel free. But you'll find that I blog about more than you might be interested in. :-) As I said, this is not a Christian blog. I'm a Christian WITH a blog -- and on some days I'm embarrrased so by the right-wing fundie Christian element that I prefer to self-identify as Jesusian.

Speaking of love: I love me a thick steak, and a stiff drink, and a strong maduro. And I am fixin' to go have one of each, but first I have to go buy a package of weenies for Riker, my stepdog, and Bailey, my biological dog.

Later. And, peace.
 

Dang, you all have been busy. I go away and come back to a googleplex of comments. Too many to address really, except I can't resist Foghorn Leghorn and how it really goes.

First it is always the baby chicken hawk who is pestering Foghorn.
Secondly, it is just before the baby-chicken-hawk does something BAD to Foghorn.
Thirdly what he says is: "I say, I say, Now, Go AWAY, son.", and then he brushes him aside.
Forthly then the net falls, the boulder strikes, the dynamite explodes etc..
ER if you can't quote scripture correctly maybe you better not use it.
 

Hi ER,

Sorry about the Ed thing - but if that is my worst typo here I will be surprised. My fingers move faster than my brain… and for a single finger typist, that could be a problem for most - it was not intentional.

Damn… it now brings a song from a certain old TV show into my head involving a horse – that will be in my head all day now.

I’ll be having a busy day at work today, so not many posts from me. This should be my first and last until tonight.

Lee
 

Of course, of course!
 

Well, I may not be God, but I can predict the future! Earlier I wrote, "I notice that Lee doesn't rise to my very real challenge to prove that he exists. Even better, I'd like him to prove to me that I exist. After those measly exercises are over, maybe we can get on about the business of evidence for the existence of God. But I'm guessing -- 100 comments later -- that he'll still be avoiding my questions."

And here we are, with none of my questions addressed. I actually posted the very first comment on this thread with that question.... still ignored. When Lee actually makes an effort to answer questions put to him, I'll make the effort to believe he's serious about a discussion.

Lee writes, "Of course you don’t take my arguments seriously, thinking could cause problems… better to joke and ignore the problem.""

Sheesh...get down off the cross, someone needs the wood. LOL. Who isn't taking things seriously? Care to answer questions put to you, or are you only interested in responding to questions with questions, a rather impolite method of talking past someone?

Geoffrey wrote, "All those - laughing-atheist-creator-of-homosexual-flies-boss-hogg types who come around here and honestly believe the things they type, are a bunch of small-minded morons, upon whom no time other than dismissal should be wasted."

Indeed Geoffrey. Amusing that these "rational" people seem incapable of distinguishing the reasonable people like you, or ER, or trixie, or TECH, etc., from random anonymous meathead fundies. I certainly have no problem distinguishing from rational people like Lee from those morons.

I'll try once again Lee. I notice that Lee doesn't rise to my very real challenge to prove to me that he exists. Even better, I'd like him to prove to me that I exist. After those measly exercises are over, maybe we can get on about the business of evidence for the existence of God. But I'm guessing -- 100 comments later -- that he'll still be avoiding my questions. ;)
 

Alan wrote:
I'll try once again Lee. I notice that Lee doesn't rise to my very real challenge to prove to me that he exists. Even better, I'd like him to prove to me that I exist.

I will try - but no time now.

My first quick (and honest) answer would be that I cannot 100% prove anything. Science certainly doesn’t do this, and for your question, we could really get stuck in philosophy.

To disprove something, in science, I would need a statement from the "claimant" that actually could be falsified.

You know this Alan, you know science probably better than me. Religion does not give me such a falsifiable statement. (Oh, some talk of an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving God – I could be in on a chance with that one – but I doubt you hold with such an illogical and irrational belief as that)

Also, I’m sorry, I have only just noticed that you gave me a response on the other thread RE:” My Mother always taught me that it's impolite to answer a question with a question”.

I did not mean to ignore it… just didn’t honestly see it until now.
(just tell me when it seems I missed something important)

I will return – if we are in a discussion (I might be able to raise myself out of the mud a little to get into a debate, but who knows)

Must go

Lee
 

geoffry

Fish gills! (see waynes world)

Alan

Lee writes to you and responds directly - please show him how god does that in a two way manner and saying we have the bible is not an answere. Ask Lee what his favorite colour is and he will tell you - ask god what his is - SILENCE!

Now, the fact that no one can really prove conclusivly that they exist - any more than you can conclusivly prove the sun will rise tomorrow is more of a problem for you. You are the one making the claim that god exists. Therefore the burden of proof lies with you. So, if you doubt Lee exists - even in a purly philosophical context, you have to doubt god exists, because lets face it, you have not been holding clear twi way conversations with god - like you have been with Lee.

Lee can turn up on your door step if he wants, or you can go to Aus to meet him - Whaen god does that to you or me, then I will believe in him. I find it truly fascinating that people are using the most indirect logic to prove the existence of a god who supposedly wants people to ebyer into a personal relationship with him - a god who's book tells us that "creation" proclaims his glory. All I see is evoloution, brain eating maggots, Ebola meteors hitting the earth, tsunamis, volcanisms and wholesale slaughter that species may survive.
Doubt I'll hang around for the reply, from what I've seen so far, nothing new here - just a lot of non christian christian types that are quick to judge and condem people like Lee who have a genuine interest in knowing the truth.
 

ER wrote:
Lee, you can't even keep up with who is talkiognto who in this thread! THAT's why we -- or I, anyway -- don't take you seriously!

It isn’t easy, but I try… and then mess up anyway.

And we have been nothing but amiable, albeit somewhat goofy here.

“goofy” I do not mind, in theory, but don’t be surprised I do not understand your humour. It is rather strange to me. You are the first “rednecks” I have spoken too (I hope you do not mind me using that term, it is you surname) it isn’t easy to spot a joke or a negative comment directed at me.

If you find offense in it, then, as I said, you are looking for fights with Christians, and you're not only willing to start them, you're willing to make one up!

My only “offence”, if that is the right word, was when started stalking, it was getting really too weird for me, almost a “thread” since where would it stop?

Sorry I misunderstood it – but that is the language divide here we both have to try and understand. (Well, I have at least)

Re, "Of course you don’t take my arguments seriously, thinking could cause problems… better to joke and ignore the problem."

I defy you to reread this thread and honestly fail to see some fairly serious thought.

Some serious thought maybe, until my questions cause problems – then they are ignored (This claim has been made against me as well, I am trying my best to answer all that is put before me. Maybe I am giving you too many questions, but there is only one of me, and many of you guys.)

I’m still waiting for a good example of evidence anyone of you would use to convince someone of your God. That God speaks to people and “interacts” with mankind based on a persons belief and faith in Him and the bible.

And how does a Christian reject Allah or Hara Krista, by what rational reason?

How would a Christian convince a muslin that their religion is wrong and yours is right?
(The fighting of holy wars, though are traditional, is not winning the debate – and is what worries me about religion and what seems to be their ultimate method to resolve an argument.)

The choice of god seems irrational, and so by this definition, no rational reason can be given why to chose one god over another.

Now you will agree some people think their god is important, important enough to follow unconditionally and kill others who do not agree with them – this is scary, and another reason why I want to better understand religion. It is, as you say here, a hobby of mine. (Far better than taking it serious I feel)

Your personal testimonies could be valid as evidence IF they agreed with one another (remember by court of law analogy?) – but there is the problem. Each Christian I have spoken to experiences God differently, speak to a 1000 Christians and you will have a thousand different experiences. Of course, the Christian is happy with this… “This is just how God behaves” – it would not be enough to convince a judge in a court of law, so I see no rational reason to accept it either. (I can hear the cries as I type)

The problem still remains for the Christian though, if God truly existed – there should be bucket loads of evidence (including empirical evidence by the truck load)…

But I deny that there is a problem. The problem of lack of belief in God, on lack of evidence, is yours, because you deline to accept the evidence we point you to. You are free to do so.

It is my problem I agree – and for the world. It is what makes people blow themselves up in the name of their god and to fly into buildings for their religious cause… but you do not seem to understand that (or is it again me misunderstanding faith and religion?)

Re, "As for credit… you’re right on that – I’m a nobody who knows nothing. I don’t even know God."

If this is faux hunility, stop. If you really are that down on yourself, get help.

It was humour… you seem the same problem I have?

Re, "ER wrote:
For example: Ever since I put this post up, and gave it the headline "Just Lee and God," I've had that goofy, simple but catchy song by Josh Turner, "Me and God," runnin' through my head.

No all that bad then?"

I've not any of this has been bad have I? Having that song in myhead all day was just an uexpected bonus."

Again, it was more humour on my part… if you missed it, then you might start to understand how I can misunderstand yours sometimes – I do not do it on purpose

Bully for you!
“And you can’t beat a bit of bully” – English humour from an 80’s TV. I’ve laboured my point now.

Re, "drlobojo wrote:
Say ER just re-read some of this stuff. Lee was kind of snarky to some of those guys."

Sorry I was “snarky”, but has everyone here been friendly and “Christian-like” to me?"

ER wrote:
Yes, we have. It doesn't mean we will kiss your ass, though.

I fart in your general direction…

?? Dawkins is as fundamentalist as they come.

I’ve never understood the “fundamentalist atheist” label aimed at Dawkins et al.

Can someone explain this too me? It is trying to place the position of the atheist into the same camp as the irrational fundamentalist theist? Could be a straw man.

I don't know what Christian sites you go to; but we do know from your comments above that Anon found that you DO, despite your distancing yourself from the "raiding parties," DO do some guerrilla commenting, then you go back to your fellows and report in on successes and failures, tactics, and how fun it was. Cool. But why would ya deny it?

Those comments you(?) found were from 3 or 4 months back I think… I distanced myself from the “raiding parties” because I did not get here based on their idea first, but from another blog linking to Neils. (I stated this clearly on Neil’s site didn’t I?). I also followed your “invite”.

You may also notice from those comments from the RD site that I was doing my own “raids” on Christian sites months before the suggestion on the RD forum last week site.

I enjoy the debate – this is all.

As for “go back to your fellows and report in on successes and failures, tactics, and how fun it was” – yeah, why the hell not? – You guys are doing just that here if you have not noticed. It is a social thing as well you know, so just take a re-read of the opening comments (and title blur) of your own thread “Atheists Gone Wild!”. You love the “game” as you say, as much as the next man… so please, no “holier than thou” preaching… I didn’t think it was your style.

If you want some real fun, why not get your gang and invade an atheist site and debate with your reason and logic showing what “true Christianity” is all about – it could be fun. (And would be only fair) – why not invade RD.net - If that target is too difficult, than try a smaller one - just tell me the place so I can join in)

ER wrote:
No. It is an interesting phenomenon that professed atheists seem to talk about God more than rank-and-file believers do. If I were you, I wouldn't consider that something to brag about.

The old college comment “Those who aren’t getting it talk about sex the most” also comes to mind here. I don’t get God…

Some atheists (or “atheists”) like to check that their beliefs are correct, if this means debating theists then so be it (not all though do this – most will probably just go about their business knowing as much as they need to know).

However since Christians go out of their way to “advertise”… some atheists feel they should do the same. They do not say “atheistism is the way to go for all” (or they shouldn’t) and that you will burn in hell if you don’t, or that we should stop all this religious talk in schools. (Unlike some in the religious camp with evolution)

It does interest me though that some theists do not like to check their faith (or say that they do not need to?) Why is that? Are they afraid they might not find the answers? However, as every “good Christian” knows - It’s OK, if God isn’t speaking to you now, it is probably just a test of your faith – to make you stronger. If you still cannot “feel” God, then maybe you are just not trying hard enough or you are ignoring all the evidence that our lord God has provided…
(Is that enough straw for one statement?)

Oh, I disagree. You can't debate, you won't discuss and you can't keep up with a conversation. It is very frustrating.

I said I like to debate, I never said I was good at it.

I am discussing, most people would have just left the “discussion” here a long time ago. Which bit won’t I discuss?

And as for keeping up with the conversation. Well, the language barrier is causing some problems it would seem, but you have to remember there are a lot more comments from “your side” than one little person like me can hope to reply to.

I have tried to reply to every question and comment of importance – which one’s am I ignoring? (Actually, I just found one that I missed from Alan, but that was in error)

GOOD. Your world has been expanded.

Yep, it sure has – I feared it was the way it was, just hoped it wasn’t true.

I invited atheists. I did not say why. Now you know. To size them up. You turned out to be a particularly small version.

Yep, I’m small – my debating techniques are weak as you say. Still… I’m always trying to better myself.

The "stalk" thing has been explained. There has been no threat.

Phew… just good old redneck humour which I misunderstood. I had visions of nighttime raids with burning crosses… (and there is a fire-ban over here because of the fear of bush fires so I didn’t want any trouble)

This is NOT a Christian blog. I am a Christian WITH a blog. Boy, you don't pay attention at ALL, do you?

If an atheist had a blog talking about atheistism and religion – I think many Christians would call it an “atheist blog”.
You are a Christian with a blog talking about atheistism and religion (here at least)… so I call that a “Christian blog” – though you have a point if most of your blogs are non-religious in nature, but I’ve not been around long enough to know that.

However, it is just another label and I am not going to waste anymore time on it.

"Nice and friendly" -- who the hell told you that?

Well the bible I thought tells you that you should be "Nice and friendly" didn’t it, some bloke got nailed to the cross or something?

ALL kinds of people are Christians -- and drunks, whores, people with poor personal habits, doubters, sinnrs and losers usually make the best ones, since they have lesser SELVES, and that's the main thing that keeps people from COMMUNION with God. Oh, and recovering fundamentalist, such as myself. Some of them can be real assholes.

Can I quote you on this?
(Humour)

A “recovering fundamentalist” – now that is interesting. Was that one of those Young Earth types, or is there more than one type of fundamentalist Christian? What made you change your mind?

True. It is not for the faint of heart.

You are damn right… I hope Jesus and God and not looking for all our sake.

1. Read the Bible before you diss it.

I have, and that is the MAIN reason why I dismiss the bible… it is all written there in black and white. Shame none of it makes sense to me… no that isn’t quite right. Shame the bible only makes sense when I consider it was written by man who did not know any better, and edited together by men who wanted to a religion to suit their own needs (whatever that was). But we don’t want a discussion on the bible just yet do we? If you do, can I “phone a friend”?

[T]he fact that you haven't is a nother reason for me not to take you seriously

I’ve read enough of the bible… it really does go down hill after genesis. Oh and he dies in the end – sorry to give the ending away. The author claims a sequel and a come back, but after 2,000 years the story has got a little old. (Humour again)

-- OR your "arguments," frankly, since you confess to not having enough information in your head to BE taken seriously.

It seems I have enough to cause problems here though. (or to humour you with my ignorance – one or the other)

Oh, on the two "B.S."s --

I have two B.S. degrees.

I never asked the question…. but since you have raised it. What does B.S. stand for? And why two of them?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford wrote...
It is truly amazing. ER opens a thread, we have a really good, and serious, and sometimes heated, discussion, and a few idiots who actually think (!) they are smarter than anyone else show up and ruin it. They are skunks at a garden party. And not very bright, either.

Am I that idiot?

All those - laughing-atheist-creator-of-homosexual-flies-boss-hogg types who come around here and honestly believe the things they type, are a bunch of small-minded morons, upon whom no time other than dismissal should be wasted.

No… I a different idiot it would appear.

PS: If you want to get in a real pissing contest, boys, come on over to my place.

If by “pissing contest” you mean “shouting match” – then it is not really for me.
Though, maybe I am being closed minded, it could do me good to let my hair down and shout abuse for no reasons… but only if no one takes offence. Though no good comes from it.

Anonymous wrote...
No LeeC, I Am not following you. I Am not a stalker. I Am with you.
I Am you.

Am I “sleep typing” now? How the hell does that work?

Most people when they are talking to themselves don’t need to log onto the internet in the middle of the night to post comments to themselves?

God does work in mysterious ways…

Also reminds me of a Twisted Sister song, something like “I AM…. I’m me”

And Anonymous… why don’t you show yourself? Oh – of course, you are God and don’t do things like that. What was I thinking of?

ER wrote
In any case, sorry about that, Lee.

The ER roadhosue is virtually wide open. I've only bounced that one mouth-breather I mentioned earlier, but not even him permanently.

Thanks… from what you have said about me, you merely think I am only a useless debater with no ideas of my own who should not be taken seriously – nothing about being a “mouth-breather” (whatever that is?).

So I will take it as a complement. :)

ER wrote:
"I think personal respect must be earned. However, one can honor an office or position that is occupied by a very dishonorable person. ... Loving someone does not necessarily mean liking them or enjoying their company. ... The point is to wish the person well, not to seek revenge or attempt to do her harm, and (as one is able) to be for that person an agent or channel of God's love which is universal and unconditional (Matt. 5:43-48)."

The bible does have some wise words in it… I never said it didn’t.

The NT is a lot better than the OT – I think. (Although hell for all eternity isn’t really that nice when I come to think about it)

It is a shame Christianity couldn’t reject the OLD and just keep the new (without hell) – but they cannot. It is written.

Not pissed, dude. As I tried, but perhaps failed, to make clear in my latest. Got steamed is all. As did you. No biggie, either way.

I was – sorry. You now how it is, we atheists don’t have any morals and all that.

I had not read that post of yours when I commented this morning – though my friends back as “atheist base camp” found it funny I have a thread dedicated to “me and God” and wanted to join the fun. You should welcome them… they are smarter then me (certainly on the biology and bible front) though until there is more debating about God, the bible and religion I doubt the interest will hold as long as mine. I am very slow to catch on that I am not welcome and need a very strong hint like “Sod off you limey bastard”

Hey, if you want to hang around, feel free. But you'll find that I blog about more than you might be interested in.

It is your blog so you are free to write about what you like. I wander around sites asking questions about God looking for, but not expecting, answers. (The lack of answers suggests something to me, but proves nothing.)

There are many “Christian blogs” out there, and you may notice it is that line of discussion that interests me. That, and debates about science and the cosmos – which I sometimes get out by talking to YEC surprisingly enough. They do at least make me think about science sometimes.

So I might not understand some of your other blog threads, and you might be right with the interest side… once this religion thread is dead, I’m probably move on… though you never know – I might start stalking you guys?

Speaking of love: I love me a thick steak, and a stiff drink, and a strong maduro. And I am fixin' to go have one of each, but first I have to go buy a package of weenies for Riker, my stepdog, and Bailey, my biological dog.

I understand the thick steak and stiff drink… but got lost at maduro and weenies… sorry – what are they again?

Later. And, peace.

Peace

Lee
 

Hi Alan,

Let’s try again… a comment I missed on the other thread.

My Mother always taught me that it's impolite to answer a question with a question. I'm going to sound a bit childish, but frankly I asked you first. And yet, I'm still waiting for examples from you, Lee. Examples that aren't, apparently, going to come. That's fine, of course, you don't owe anything to me, but it does make me question your intentions in this "discussion."

OK, let’s get the childish statements out of the way from both of us so we can move on:-

“I do not have any magically invisible friend that I should be able to prove to others and not expect people to just to trust me – magical beans anyone?”

Said it now…

I actually tried to give you examples Alan for the forms of evidence that I would accept.

Please tell me in what way I have been avoiding your questions?
Empirical evidence you rejected as impossible and should not be expected from God. Fair enough – the best form of evidence (in science’s view) you state is wrong to expect and it is impossible to test God directly anyway.
(Though you have not explained why it would be unreasonable to expect empirically testing of the interactions from God. You surely know about the prayer experiments that failed – was it an unfair test or just that God doesn’t like to be tested?)

Then I said “eye witness accounts” (to the quality expected in a court of law) and you rejected this being both empirical (wrong, the memory is still subjective) and that I placed too many “clauses” onto it. Oh, and that I reject the “best” source of evidence i.e. the bible. To which I have already responded to by saying to accept the bible as evidence we first have to test the quality of its statements and “trust-worthiness”.

You cry foul to that… without good reason. You would not accept just one account for something this important (as I have already mentioned this with examples and analogies)

“Personal testimonies” I could accept, but this is just another form of “eye witness account” type evidence, these still need to be tested against one another to see that they are consistent with one another’s claims.

Also, you have not explained how you reject the personal testimonies and holy books from other religions – it cannot be one rule for your God and religion – then another rule for everything else. It does not work…

Sorry, but unless I actually had any idea of what evidence would convince you, that would be rather difficult now, wouldn't it? You've already said eye-witness accounts are not going to do it.

You must be thinking of some other atheist posting on this thread… no wait – there is only me entering into any debate. (Actually – no I’ve just spotted another one here so maybe you can be mistaken)

Where did I say eye-witness accounts will not “do it”… all I have said is that I will investigate each eye witness claim further.

Why is that wrong? You have not said. Who is avoiding who’s questions here?

Analogy…

Let’s just suppose you have been speaking to someone in the bar/pub, a woman. You just had a quick drink after work or something – nothing more.
When you get home you find the police are waiting for you. It turns out that the woman you have been talking to in the bar accused you of rape. She has an eye witness (a friend of course) saying that you both went outside together and her friend “saw it all” – but too scared to step in.

Well, what should we make of it? Two people have made “personal testimonies” against you. Shall we get out the knives to cut your bollocks(balls) off so you do not do it again?

Or maybe, just maybe – you would like the police to investigate these “eye witness accounts” a little more. Maybe even use some empirical evidence to prove that no sexual intercourse took place between you and the woman?

What do you think? Is investigating eyewitness accounts further wrong here? Of course not… so don’t accuse me of rejecting them just because I want to test them first. You have to explain why you would investigate further for a “simple” crime accusation, but accept on trust (oh no, sorry, faith) other eye witness statements when they are talking about something you believe in i.e. God.

Using those conditions, I'm fairly certain I couldn't even prove to you that Napoleon existed. :)

This is a straw man. I never made such claims.

Besides, history has a lot to say about the man… all believable claims, nothing supernatural that I am aware of. We have both British and French accounts of him to get a good idea of the true nature of the man. I’ve also seen paintings and drawers done in his lifetime – which can be tested empirical to date them – plus even a lock of hair. There are many of these around the world, maybe some form of DNA testing could be done to confirm they are from the same person, plus we could look for descendants and compare their DNA. Also add to this writings of battles that can be found, dug up and investigate.

Nope, a lot of evidence for Napoleon – so here, take some more straw for next time.

So, if you want to claim that you can prove Jesus (the man) go ahead – you should be able to do that.

For the record, I believe someone, maybe called Jesus, existed and walked around and taught “good deeds” – it is not hard to believe that.

Your problem though are the miracle claims – this takes a little more than just proving someone actually existed (which you actually have not done.)

In fact, I'm fairly certain that, given your constraints, I'm unable to prove to you that *I* exist!!

I believe men exist, I believe the internet exists, I believe Christians exist, I believe the sun will rise tomorrow… taking the step that someone called Alan exists and is typing on the internet about Christianity is therefore not a great leap – oh and look, I saw the sun again today… but will the sun rise tomorrow? I have faith on this one.

However, lets stick to the forms of evidence you claim I reject.

See Lee, with respect, it is these inconstancies that make this discussion a bit frustrating. First you write, "I don't think you can prove anything 100% true, merely false (this is what science does - it falsifies theories) Showing a theory is "right" in some examples does not mean it cannot be falsified at a later date." But when you're asked to prove God does not exist -- precisely the type of falsification you describe -- you reply, "You could [ask that], but it is not me who is making the claim that God exists. Now is it?"

Inconstancies? Okay…?

Please tell me how to falsify God. Since I have never seen Him, and don’t believe in Him clearly know nothing about Him – which holy book should I read to get an idea of what God can or cannot do?(and why that book) – I cannot “invent” a condition to falsify God since you will claim that is not “your God” or it does not falsify God because you cannot test God in this way. Your request is more than a “little unfair” to expect me to do.

I made a claim earlier that I can fly by waving my arms up and down… (another point ignored) can you please falsify that please. If you cannot, you may understand the validity of your request and logic.

If I make a claim, I should tell you have to falsify it – you know this Alan, it what people do in science. Why is this wrong?

Of course, who said religion was a science (the ID nutters, but you are one of those, they are not even Christian are they?)

I’ll repeat again as well though, since we are on this topic, how do you know you have the “right God”, the right holy book, how did you reject other religions, and how do you think you could convince a muslin that you are right, and they are wrong?

So you're asking us to prove God exists, while admitting that's impossible, and yet refusing to falsify that statement, while stating falsification is how this should all work.

I am only asking you show God is likely – your God of course. Over all the others past and present. You are making another straw man out of me – come on, you can do better that this.

I am NOT asking for you to prove God 100% (only a god could do that) just that your God is more likely then say… no god, or Hara Krista or Allah, Woden or Zeus?

It is unfair to ask me to falsify something that you claim exists, (it is NOT my claim) but since you will NOT give me a definition or method to falsify – what chance have I got to do it? It is the same reason that it is wrong for me to ask you to falsify my claim that I fly – I can (and would) keep changing the rules all day long, so you will NEVER be able to disprove it.

This is why it is wrong and invalid for you to ask me. This is why YOU have to tell me… the fact that you cannot suggests something to me.

I think this is the popular perception, but it isn't correct. As someone deeply involved in science education, I can tell you that there are entire networks of evangelical Christians who are working to criticize and combat the fundie anti-science agenda. They don't have big names or big money, but they show up faithfully to school board meetings, and state educational hearings.

I thank you… I truly wish you all the luck in the world. Fight the anti-science agenda nutters… they want to take us all back to the Middle Ages and beyond.

Ugh. Can we please for the love of God (heh) not conflate Christianity with faith in God?

Sorry – you are right.

The bible, Christianity and the theistic god are completely different things for me also. This is why I normally look for evidence first for the theistic god, and not talk about a particular god. (You might have noticed that?)

Of course on a Christian blog (sorry, a blog by someone who is a Christian) I may make this mistake, especial when people have talked about the bible as a source of evidence. (Erm…)

I think that, given your friendly attitude here, Lee, which I appreciate, that sort of disingenuousness is not at all helpful. I'm sorry if this is frustrating, but that doesn't excuse lying. We HAVE given evidence, including eye-witness evidence, and I've suggested other sorts of evidence -- that you simply refuse to accept.

Now, now… I’ll accept that I may have built a straw man, and I will take it back and burn it for the rubbish it is, but a “lair” seems a bit strong?

Please be fair with me here, I have always tried to explain my position. You have repeated claims that I have rejected evidence which I have shown is a false accusation against me, since all I said was that I wish to investigate it further. Which may mean the evidence gets rejected (or placed on one side for later discussion), but it will be for a rational reason that I will have explained and justified. (See above and all my previous comments on the subject.)

Please tell me why I am wrong to do this; I have given examples when I might want to investigate further the evidence. Why is it wrong in the examples given (i.e. murder charges, accusations that your wife is cheating on you and claims of rape. Do you want more?)

Why is it wrong to investigate the evidence further for even bigger claim like God?

SO please, less of the mud throwing… it is “not at all helpful” as a wise man once said

The fact that you don't like that evidence because of your personal biases against it, does not mean it doesn't exist, and that we haven't provided it.

Neither does it make it valid because you accept it – this could be a little circle of debate to go round and round on.

The problem you have though is to show I have a “personal bias” against it – you cannot tell the judge “You are just biased against the evidence that proves I didn’t kill that man!!!” Nope… it doesn’t work in a court of law – so tell me why I am wrong to test your evidence further.

It is not me just rejecting it out of hand.

I’ve accepted “eye witness accounts” and “personal testimonies“ as possible forms of evidence – and given an example where you might wamt to investigate further (or not to accept just one account).

You have not rationalised yet why I am wrong on this matter. (Have you? I might have missed another post of yours)

We've got a whole book full of eye-witness accounts. You reject them.

If you are talking about the bible, then please tell me why you reject the Koran?

I will accept the bible as a form of evidence – I said this once already. However, how good this book is has to be tested against other independent sources. Why is that wrong?

We each represent our own stories of faith. You reject them as "subjective" (as if there's any other kind).

You are right, they are subjected. I also don’t remember anyone telling any detail of their own “stories of faith”, but that is not that important right now.

Do you know lots of people have “out of body” and “near death” experiences?

Of course you do… what do you think of them?

I personally will not reject them out of hand… however, neither will I accept them without further investigation (I should just cut and paste this in I’ve said it so many times.) They can be tested, other simplier explanation can be given for their cause.

You know science, then you know the principle of parsimony. I follow this code of thought.

Have you ever taken drugs? (no need to answer) I hear LSD gives some rather strange experiences.

Do these people experience God on drugs or a drug trip? Interesting questions that science can investigate? Do you agree?

You say that evidence does not exist. And then there are other forms of non-empirical evidence such as revelation, which you also reject.

Sorry – I don’t remember saying I rejected “revelation”?

I actually think this would be EXCELLENT evidence for God. Glad you raised it.
(Notice, I have not called anyone a lair)

Any revelation from God could of course be tested by science. The revelation would also have to be something very unexpected and clear. We do not want to “shoehorn” anything here now do we, forcing a poor revelation to “fit” with reality. Very poor form.

Convenient that you reject any evidence that challenges your preconceived notions, eh?


You have to provide some evidence that would hold up in a court of law first… I’m waiting. Do not shout or blame me if I do not like the look of your “magic beans”.

Any sort of evidence provided; you reject. Makes you think? Maybe not.

Frankly I've experienced this exact same sort of fundamentalism from Christians and it's rather amusing to see it from an atheist.

See above… I’ve spoken a lot on this topic now – this whole post is a repeat of previous comments I have made.

I have a “perpetual motion” machine… why don’t you believe me when I tell you it works? You sceptics are all the same… test, test, test – whatever happened to trust? Just send me you money for your share in the investment? You will make millions!!!

1) Eye-witness evidence
2) Revelation
3) Historical accounts
4) Personal accounts

are a few of the types of evidence that have been described in this thread -- all of which you've rejected.

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong…

Look, I’ve got plenty of straw for you if you want to build a really BIG straw man.
(BTW For the historical accounts – I mentioned two descriptions of a battle in history, they may agree on the battle but not the finer important details, which one do you trust anyway? – and you claim that I ignore your points?)

What sort of evidence would it take to demonstrate that my Mom loves me? That seems like a MUCH easier question to answer than questions about God! And yet, you dodge even that question again and again.

Now let me think now… didn’t I mention a hostage situation and a single bullet? Why was my analogy invalid? I have to admit I am getting tired to claims that I ignore your questions. I answer them (Also, didn’t some King in the bible do just such a test on two mother’s who claimed a baby as there own? A test of love? Done by a talking monkey? Not bad for evolution)

If you do not like my answer, then tell me to expand on a point and tell me why I am wrong or not being clear.

Why is my answer a dodge? Some questions are difficult to answer, but that does not mean it was God.

There is much we do not know…

Do you feel hungry? Can you prove it? Do you feel hot? Can you prove it?

Look, if all you were claiming of God was that he “gave you nice feelings” than that would not be so bad (but I’m sure a good doctor could give you some pills that will work better).

No, the Christian is claiming more that just a feeling… a claim that he created the whole universe, life and everything… AND that not only does he listen prayers, but acts upon that. God’s interactions in the world, these claims should and could be empirical tested. You have not stated why this is invalid.

LOL. Lee, you're joking right? You're a physicist, right? As a fellow scientist I shouldn't have to remind you that ALL sources are subjective.

It’s been 10 years since my degree, so I would love to hear you explain how “ALL sources are subjective”.

It’s true that measurements are different, since how do you know your measuring instrument is correct? How do you know your thermometer is giving the right reading? Use another thermometer?

How do you know that one is right… and so on.

However, this is a little different to claim all measurements are subjective?

Or do you mean that theories are just a “best guess” at how the universe works? I agree to that also, but again – subjective?

No, please help me out here... I must misunderstand something

Let's not turn science into an idol to be worshiped, eh? This statement, more than anything else you've written, demonstrates exactly where you're coming from.

I will not worship science… but it works

If someone is ill, I would suggest a doctor rather a prayer - how about you?

Again, I think you've been listening to the fundies waaaaaaay too much.


Which is why I am hear talking to you guys… I agree with you on that.

I wonder how theists “square the circle”… a fundamentalist will ignore the evidence. As a scientist you cannot do that… so I wish to learn.

RE: The video
I think it's a funny critique of fundie theology. Though I always think that serious dissections of all things humorous are a waste of time, it does do a nice job of presenting the atheist view of the fundie mindset. :)

We may agree again… it was funny.

Maybe more a joke against the fundies… but I am still trying to understand where a “moderate” draws the line in the sand.

OK… I’m done.

Is that enough for you Alan to show you that I am NOT trying to ignore you. I am trying to discuss every point?

Must go… it is late.

Lee
 

"Is that enough for you Alan to show you that I am NOT trying to ignore you. I am trying to discuss every point?"

Lots o' words, Lee. No substance.

Again I ask for the fourty-eleventh time: Prove to me that you exist. Prove to me that my Mom loves me. Prove to me that I exist. You dodge around those challenges again.

Here's your most recent attempt at an "answer", Lee: "Now let me think now… didn’t I mention a hostage situation and a single bullet? Why was my analogy invalid? I have to admit I am getting tired to claims that I ignore your questions. [then perhaps you should try to answer them!] I answer them (Also, didn’t some King in the bible do just such a test on two mother’s who claimed a baby as there own? A test of love? Done by a talking monkey? Not bad for evolution)

If you do not like my answer, then tell me to expand on a point and tell me why I am wrong or not being clear.

Why is my answer a dodge? Some questions are difficult to answer, but that does not mean it was God."

Huh. See that? Nothing about answering my challenge anywhere in there. You don't mention a single reason why I should believe you exist, or why I should believe I exist, or why I should believe my Mom loves me.

*yawn*
 

Off topic, so I'll use a separate comment, feel free to ignore this, if you'd like. But I'll throw it out there, just because this is statement is so wrong....

Lee writes, "Or do you mean that theories are just a “best guess” at how the universe works? I agree to that also, but again – subjective?"

You really should look through the literature of feminist, racial, and queer theory critiques of scientific investigation and the construction of scientific theories. Yes .... Scientific theories are always subjective (at best) often downright sexist, racist, and/or homophobic at worst.
 

maduro = a kind of cigar

weenies = franks? hotdogs? poor, thinly ground sausages ...


Sorry. I just can't parse long comments line by line, Lee. Just one thing: I, myself, am not trying to convince the world that God exists, so it actually is not incumbent on me to make the case. As I said, the evidenxce I have is my testimony and my life -- good or bad, take it or leave it.

Oh, one mroe thing: Your conept of the Bibl;e is exactly that of the fundamentalists-literals I argue with all the time -- you just reject it while they accept it. As I say: I take the Bible seriously, but I do not take much of it literally. Nor do most of the people who hang out here.
 

Hey Lee:
I'm a person who doesn't believe in God, Goddess, multiplicity of powers or any sort of creative hand at work in the universe, either.

On the other hand, my views on the subject are my own, and I try to never evangelize about them, as evangelism is one of the sins of organized faith. As far as I can tell, my lack of belief in any of the above things contents me in the same way that a believer's belief does.

I like coming to this blog because the people who comment here tend to examine questions carefully and thoughtfully. When they get going too specifically about the bible, I have to take my leave because I just don't know the source material well enough.

So does that mean I live in an entirely science/rationality governed world? Of course not. I like the fact that there is as much mystery and wonder in the universe as there is, and distrust those who claim that everything has an answer. And when a believer says they're praying for me, I take it as the good thing that it is.

I feel it's wrong that so many of our fundamentalist pals here in the States feel that science is bucking for religious status. It remains, among the best of its practitioners, something that is about questioning assumptions and exploring further...Pretty much the opposite of faith, which brings me to...

The kind of faithful I want to spend my time with DO question things. This means their brains are working, and it's a damn good sign.

But asking for proof of this ineffable thing they believe in is just ridiculous. The point is that these particular people don't have to prove anything to me, as they aren't trotting out this god thing in order to give some sort of authority to why, for instance, they feel they should kill the queers.

I dunno. I just think you're asking the wrong questions. These are the type of people who fully admit that god is something that can't be proved or disproved, and that doesn't change their belief one iota. I believe lots of things people would find counter-intuitive, too.

I never refer to myself as an atheist because it would mean that I'm taking myself too seriously, just as whenever I meet an avowed Satanist, I always ask, "Oh, a Christian, eh?"

Rambling. Sorry.
 

Hi rich bachelor,

Glad to have another atheist onboard.

We seem to agree on many things, and you are winning me over on others.

Damn... late for my train again.

Lee
 

Alan,

I have tried... we are "talking passed" each other. You reject my answers as dodges when I am at least trying. Prove to me water is wet? Oh, and what do you think about my claim of flying?

Also, well you are at it... please describe in words an electron. Particle or wave? Sometimes words just do not work.

Also, I explained my stance on evidence (are you know happy with that?)

Have to go...

Lee
 

Rich, Thanks for bein' a longtime ER lurker, and thanks for decloaking here. :-)

Lee, re: "Sometimes words just do not work." Bingo!
 

Oh, I had to say something about this one. I try to stay off this subject because I feel like I've made my own views clear on this one enough times.

This too: it seems the rest of y'all must have jobs that involve computers or something. I'm just not here often enough.
 

" You reject my answers as dodges when I am at least trying."

Perhaps I missed it somewhere then. Can you please repost your proof that I exist, your proof that you exist, and your proof that my Mom loves me. Thanks.
 

Scientific theories are always subjective (at best) often downright sexist, racist, and/or homophobic at worst.

Are you for real?. How does science prove blacks are inferior - dont confuse twisted politics with scientific method .

BTW calling homosexual Queer is pretty homophobic, but if you want real homophobia, try this :
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." Leviticus 20:13
 

If I were running this show, I'd assign everybody to read William James' Varieties of Religious Experience before we went any further. Brilliant man, that William James, one of the first people to dare to suggest that there was a personal, psychological aspect to religion that might have something to do with how we receive -- or reject -- it.

Anyhow, since I'm not running the show, all I can do is just recommend it and move on.

So ... moving on ... Hi, Lee, how are you? Enjoying the show? First off, I'll agree with you, the Bible doesn't really make any sense. I had to go to seminary to even begin to get a handle on it, and only with a mountainload of biblical scholarship beside me does it even begin to make any sense at all. You can say the same about the Quran or the Dhamapada or any other religious text. While some people can actually read religious texts and get what they want/need out of it, others need some guidance, background, or archeological/historical data from peer-reviewed social science journals to even make a dent in the understanding. I'm not sure if it's worth the thousands of dollars a year and hours of study to you just to read one darn book, but I've found it helpful.

I can say, however, that I was one step away from openly declaring myself to be an atheist before I started seminary. And I'll admit, I began studying religion so I'd be better at deconstructing the arguments of my fundamentalist Christian relatives. It's been rather interesting, because they say nothing will turn you into an atheist faster than a seminary education. But then, those are generally people who start out with the idea of a theistic God that walks with you and talks with you and laughs at all your jokes, only to find out that not only does God not think you're funny, but is a lot funnier than you are! I'm rather interested in seeing where I end up.

Anyway, I applaud you for trying to find out about religion and encourage you to keep questing. Too many religious people and atheists argue from positions of ignorance, and I'm sure you don't want to be one of those. Start with William James. And then you can move on to the various theologies that Alan mentioned above. Christianity isn't just medieval Anselm-and-Aquinas-oriented like so many people believe. I'm rather becoming a fan of postcolonial theologies these days. Some study will give you better questions.
 

Lee, are you too wondering why Alan seems to think that asking you to prove you exist somehow strengthens his case for god - When has god typed on a blog to him? His whole approach is deluded to say the least. If he thinks evidence is relative or what ever, he really is saying he has no evidence that anything exist - especially god. However, by asking the question, he does realise that you exist, and is "logically" trying to make you not exist, then he somehow thinks he can then pull a god out of a magc hat because he has made your existence seem uncertain - yeah, right. Evidence requires something positive, not dishonestly trying to put all forms of evidence on the same level.
You reply to him, god does not, he has nothing to contribute, as simple as that!
 

Befuddled of manchester: That's what it's officially called by the GLBT theologians who created it. They reclaimed the word. It's a theology of liberation from a GLBT -- i.e. queer -- perspective. A Google search will explain it well.
 

Befuddled (how appropos) writes, "BTW calling homosexual Queer is pretty homophobic, "

ROFL. Save the phony indignation. Um, no it really isn't homophobic at all. Queer Theory is the name given to an entire field of exploration these days. WE QUEERS don't mind the appellation at all. Go spout your phony indignation & rampant stupidity at someone else.

Gee, assuming that we Christians would all be straight is an interesting little stereotype & prejudice isn't it? Also, one would think that "rational" atheists wouldn't have such silly prejudices, now would they? Their "reason" must surely tell them that great huge bunches of Christians are LGBT. But you've clearly made the assumption that I'm straight. Now THAT'S homophobic!

Mike writes, "You reply to him, god does not, he has nothing to contribute, as simple as that!"

Well 1) I don't think you have any basis for concluding that God does or does not respond to me, and 2) I have no basis for concluding that "Lee" if that is his real name, is one person or many. In fact, years ago there used to be a clever little computer program that pretended to be a psychoanalyst. I think it was called Eliza, or something like that. You could have quite an interesting and reasonably realistic conversation with this program. So, not sure how I'd know that "Lee" isn't simply the 2.0 version of Eliza. 3) Clearly you've not been on the internet for very long. I can list you blog after blog after blog and numerous websites that I've seen which have turned out to be fake, seen commenter which use numerous pseudonyms in discussions such as this (ie. sockpuppets), or groups of commenters that comment under one name.

So, your only proof that Lee exists is that he responds to me? Well, he doesn't even respond to my questions (Eliza tended to stay on topic more than he does) so I'd say that evidence is pretty pathetic. LOL
 

ER wrote:
Lee, re: "Sometimes words just do not work." Bingo!

But the maths work just fine...

Glad to see more people onboard on this discussion.

Is the advert on Neil's blog working?

Lee
 

If it helps, I'm pretty sure Lee exists. He comments on my blog, other blogs I read, and he's on Facebook.

Unless it's all a trick. Maybe "Lee" is someone playing a joke on me. Maybe "I" am "Lee", trying to convince you that I exist.

Spooky. (Cue Twilight Zone music).
 

I am Lee as you are Lee as you are me and we are all together.

See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly.

I'm crying.
 

Alan,

This is getting silly now…

Alan wrote:
So, your only proof that Lee exists is that he responds to me? Well, he doesn't even respond to my questions

Firstly, as you know, this has not been my “defence”… but since you raised it, how can you say this is a response to your question?
It must be down to your definition, so I need to be clear. Please define “response” and “answer”? I do not want to play word games, so I need to know.

Secondly, how can you know anything exists outside your mind? When you see someone in the street, they could just part of your imagination… this includes the God inside your mind.

Thirdly, how do you know you are not just inside some supercomputer, movie matrix style? You exist, the person in the street exists – but not how you imagine them to do so, they are all wired up inside some tank of fluid for the benefit for some weird alien race (or was it robots… yes, they were robots – but how do I know? Maybe a single shared experience could help?)

You have chosen, rather predicably, to go down the philosophy path when I asked you about/for evidence. Though this is not wrong, it is a path you go down alone (as I said in my 2nd point. You know nothing outside your own head)

I’m no philosopher – most of it is all words to me and makes lousy predictions of the world around us, unlike science, your chosen profession you said. (Do you still teach science BTW?)

The one fact I can give you is Science works!!! (Care to contest that statement?)

You know we have to make assumptions before we can proceed to try and understand the world; the trick is to test these assumptions at all times and to the best of your ability.

I know there are limits to science (as do you)… science stops when we can no longer measure (simple enough).

This is when a philosophy kicks in for me, the “principle of parsimony” (or Occam’s razor). The simplest answer is best. As a scientist, how do you reject this principle, as you have seemed to have done, you have already ignored this question once (and many more, but I cannot count that high. It’s OK, you can keep stating that I do not asking your questions – maybe someone will believe you – God perhaps?)

Look, you know science isn’t very good at getting into the mind and emotions yet and explaining them (your “love” question is an example) but it has shown that drugs can make a difference to our emotions. This suggests that chemical interactions play an important role in them… it is not a full answer, but it is “an” answer – yet you claim I have not answered your question “at all”. But frankly your demands for a “full” answer are rather “unscientific”… and this, I personal feel, is a reason many people turn to a god (any god) for a “full” answer. Yet, as you should know (but will probably ignore let so many other questions), God does not answer anything completely, it merely gives more questions, unless of course you submit to not asking more questions and you “know” the answer stops with God. (Nice defining that is from religion – the buck stops here!)

However seem to rather talk about philosophy than science and evidence (always a great way not to answer a question I feel philosophy – you can talk for hours whether the sun will rise tomorrow, well, depending on where you live – there is a limit if you accept the evidence of your own eyes, but even then… what does it mean?).

But please first, before we go one, just tell me why you reject the “principle of parsimony”?

Lee
PS
I would still like to know how you select one God over another – and how you would convince someone of another faith (i.e. muslim) that your God is right, and there God is wrong.

PPS
Have you thought how you can disprove that I cannot fly by waving my hands up and down? (Assuming of course that I exist and this is a response)

PPPS
What is north of the North Pole?

PPPPS
So King Solomon didn’t demonstrate the love of a mother when he offered to cut in half the baby to share it between the two women? You reject your own bible logic now?
(Again, if you consider I exist, that I am responding to you, and this constitutes an answer to anything… well, it is from the bible so you could read it yourself, in your own mind – and not have to worry about if I or anyone else actually exists outside your mind. But what about the book itself, does that exist? Maybe you wrote it in your mind, just forgot doing it… Problems, Problems… don’t you just love philosophy, I wonder why they even bother to get out of bed in the morning – that’s if the sun rises tomorrow)

The pleasure of the Occam’s razor… cutting out the crap.
 

Hi Jonathan,

I’ve said it before, but I will say it again.

Quetzalcoatl be praised!!!

I’m off for a cup of tea…

Lee
 

Hi Jonathan,

If it helps, I'm pretty sure Lee exists. He comments on my blog, other blogs I read, and he's on Facebook.

Not good enough, “personal testimony” – have you got anyone else to back you up? Besides even I don't believe in me anyone, and I should know... I'm me.

Lee
 

"You have chosen, rather predicably, to go down the philosophy path when I asked you about/for evidence. Though this is not wrong, it is a path you go down alone (as I said in my 2nd point. You know nothing outside your own head) "

Nope, not at all. for the billionth time I asked for EVIDENCE that you exist, that I exist, and that my mother loves me. You've still provided none, not one piece of evidence, other than the supposed second hand testimony from someone claiming to be named "Jonathan." This isn't philosophy, nor is it sophistry. I'm simply asking for the same kind of evidence to prove you exist, as you're supposedly asking for evidence to prove God exists. You are unwilling to provide even reasonably convincing EVIDENCE that you exist -- and unlike you, I'm willing to consider a far wider range of types of evidence.

I've stopped responding to the rest of your rambling, because I find it very impolite of you to refuse to respond to my questions, while trying to answer them with more questions of your own. The fact that you have bad manners doesn't mean I'm unable to answer your questions, and claiming that's the case is a pretty lame, and all-too-obvious rhetorical move. I'm hoping you can do better.

"So King Solomon didn’t demonstrate the love of a mother when he offered to cut in half the baby to share it between the two women? You reject your own bible logic now?"

Oh please. Are we in third grade now? I didn't respond to that question because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the specific example of you giving clear evidence that my Mother loves me. Last time I looked I didn't live in the court of King Solomon. So, if you'd like to provide evidence that actually has something to do with me and my Mother, feel free. But don't make the grade school claim that just because I ignore your tangents that I don't believe the Bible or some such nonsense. Again, I hope you can do better.

"Have you thought how you can disprove that I cannot fly by waving my hands up and down? (Assuming of course that I exist and this is a response)"

Again, continuing to ignore your hypotheticals and analogies until you are polite enough to answer the questions I put to you first. Manners make the man, Lee.

"Not good enough, “personal testimony” – have you got anyone else to back you up? "

At least now you're being consistent. If the personal testimony of all of the witnesses in the Bible isn't enough, then the personal testimony of one blog commenter (how do I know he's not just a sockpuppet?) isn't likely to convince you either. Thank you for being consistent for once.
 

"ut frankly your demands for a “full” answer are rather “unscientific”… and this, I personal feel, is a reason many people turn to a god (any god) for a “full” answer. "

Again, if all you're going to do is make ridiculous claims about my faith from a complete lack of knowledge, then I'm really not interested. You want to paint me as just another fundie so you can easily dismiss me? Fine, be my guest. But let me know that so we can just move on. I don't think I've ever expected a "full" answer (whatever the hell that means) from either faith OR science, which is why I continue to ask questions of both.

I'm not asking for certainty, nor a "full" answer. I'm simply asking for evidence, which you're unwilling to provide.
 

Alan, my mother told me to never feed a stray cat.
 

Hi Alan,

Evidence is a funny thing when you think about it.

...and I will.

Thank you

Back soon.

Lee
 

Alan wrote:
I'm simply asking for evidence, which you're unwilling to provide.


or unable to provide via this internet blog. Maybe it is in this little box I keep under my desk.

Oh yeah... here it is.

You just have to trust me on the quality of the evidence though. But I am happy that your mother loves.

More later when I think about it more.

Lee
 

As much as I appreciate the increase on my hit meter, aren't ya'll tired of goin' round and round yet? :-)
 

"or unable to provide via this internet blog"

Ah...but providing evidence for the existence of God via an internet blog is easier? LOL

"As much as I appreciate the increase on my hit meter, aren't ya'll tired of goin' round and round yet? :-)"

Oh, absolutely. Lee calls his asking for evidence for the existence of God "scientific" while my asking for evidence for the existence of Lee is apparently "philosophy." Interesting, eh?

I'd stop, but given the grade school arguments he's put forth so far (don't you believe the Bible?!), I have no doubt if I just called it quits he'd claim victory ... a common rhetorical trick in these cases: refuse to answer questions until the other person gets frustrated and leaves, then claim victory.

I'm as tired of these tactics as I am of the fundies' -- in fact, they're suspiciously similar.
 

ER wrote:
As much as I appreciate the increase on my hit meter, aren't ya'll tired of goin' round and round yet? :-)

Yes I am in a way – I think there are so many other questions to talk about... but it seems Alan is being patient with me - which I appreciate (thanks!)

However, Alan might be right - I asked for evidence, so I've better understand what it is I am asking for. Though I’m not sure that Alan is 100% correct either – not for someone who follows science.

This is a discussion, I am open minded (I think) – I guess then it just depends on how long Alan’s patience holds out. If both Alan and I keep repeating ourselves I guess we will both have to call it a draw – however let’s see. I still want to respond to Alan’s last comment very soon.

I’ve just had my lunch, and I hope the curry has helped my mind.

Alan,

I noticed the sun came up again this morning… and I’ve got only history and a small understanding of the mechanics to “prove” it will do it again tomorrow.

No evidence as such… as I said, it’s a tough one evidence – I guess I will just have to have faith that it will.

Is this your point about evidence? I do not want to put words into your mouth, just trying to understand what it is you are trying to ask me so we do not keep going around in circles on this evidence. I really do not want dodge or deliberately misunderstand (or to annoy you more than I might already done)

Lee
 

Hi Alan,

I still want to come back to your earlier post, but…

Ah...but providing evidence for the existence of God via an internet blog is easier? LOL

I’m coming around to your point on this…

"As much as I appreciate the increase on my hit meter, aren't ya'll tired of goin' round and round yet? :-)"

Oh, absolutely. Lee calls his asking for evidence for the existence of God "scientific" while my asking for evidence for the existence of Lee is apparently "philosophy." Interesting, eh?

No, your questioning “what is evidence?” is what I am calling philosophy.

Asking for evidence for the existence of Lee is perfectly valid and scientific - I think. Am I wrong?

I'd stop, but given the grade school arguments he's put forth so far (don't you believe the Bible?!), I have no doubt if I just called it quits he'd claim victory ...

Alan, stop if you are bored, it would be a shame (from my point of view) because I am learning new ways of thinking.

My last comment (posted before I read this last one) actually stated my view on the matter – we could just call it a draw? So please, do not lower me too far into the play ground rules on how to win a debate. For me it is not about winning or losing… but learning.

a common rhetorical trick in these cases: refuse to answer questions until the other person gets frustrated and leaves, then claim victory.

I could make a similar case against yourself, a lot of questions are unanswered, however, I try and understand where you are coming from.

I have a meeting to go too

Lee
 

"Asking for evidence for the existence of Lee is perfectly valid and scientific"

Great, I look forward to actually seeing some.
 

Hi Alan,

Great, I look forward to actually seeing some.

Valid to ask, but I'm still thinking how I, a mere talking monkey, could actually do that over the internet?

I will get to reply to your main post today... I will.

Lee
 

Hi Alan,

I guess this is me not responding again? (a little late I know)

I mention philosophy (not that I want to talk about it, I don’t) merely because we seem to be talking about “What is evidence?” rather than the evidence itself. That is all… it is a valid point I feel you make, and yes, we are in great danger (if not already) of going around in circles which I do not want to do… I want to move the debate/discussion forward.

I wonder what would happen if I conceded your point on evidence front? However, I don’t know what it is to be able to do that. Is it that I have to take some evidence on faith?

for the billionth time I asked for EVIDENCE that you exist, that I exist, and that my mother loves me. You've still provided none, not one piece of evidence, other than the supposed second hand testimony from someone claiming to be named "Jonathan."

I gave my position on personal testimony already – it can be accepted if we investigate the validity of it by other means and likelihood of the proposition. (So let’s skip that point for now.)

“EVIDENCE” – that’s the ticket.

Well, simply put I cannot provide the concrete 100% proof/evidence that you are requesting from me. (Oh no, our faith in mankind is shot to pieces!! But I’m not sure your demands are fair and reasonable for such a small claim – on small things we can take a little “faith”? It could be a dirty word this, so I’m just testing it out.)

I can merely suggest ways to test the evidence provided, and suggest how unlikely such a proposition is. (Which I have been doing, yet you are even now probably crying foul again that I am avoiding the question and not answering it. Oh well…)

Taken to the extreme, it does enter into the realms of philosophy – what is real, how do I know you exist and not just part of my imagination? You say this is unfair and wrong? Another time perhaps.

Question again – think of this as me just talking myself, since you do not need to answer it (and will not with your history).
If I kick someone in the bollocks (balls) – how do I know that that person is in pain? They could be faking it? What evidence could they provide me that they are really in pain? Do I really need to kick someone in the bollocks to test if a person feels pain, or can I take it on past experiences and faith that it hurts

It does seem we are having problems with our definitions though. When I speak of “evidence” I am NOT speaking of one single piece of evidence that will conclude 100% something is right… actually, I don’t think that is possible. (I’ve already said this on more than one occasion here)

I think of evidence as pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, if that helps as an analogy. No single piece will display the whole picture, but neither do you need all the pieces to guess it is a “puppy in a basket”.

To this end, I can not prove(with evidence or otherwise) 100% that I exist or you exist or that your mom loves you (have you tried talking to her BTW? Does she return your telephone calls?)

I have NO evidence that will convince you 100%… even if you saw me and touched my wounds, you could still doubt me Thomas (oops, sorry Alan bad joke)

So to a certain degree some things will have to be taken on “faith” then (so I may be starting to agree with you right?).

When I close my eyes I trust on faith that the universe does not suddenly go dark for everyone else – but it might…
When I’m not looking at the moon, I trust on faith that it is still there.

However, how much faith someone should place on the claim being true really does depend how “unlikely” a claim is.

I can see myself typing on this blog now… I can see other people in this office typing on computers. I’ve been and worked in America and seen people over there typing on computers and using the internet…

I will take it on faith then that this is how you are communicating with me now Alan.

Of course, I cannot prove you are really called Alan, or that you live in America – I will take this on trust and faith since it is not that unlikely or important for a blog discussion.

If however you are in a court of law accused of a crime, I’m sure you hope that they demand a little more evidence than that? (It depends on the size of the claim how much trust I put on faith – the more evidence (pieces of the puzzle) I have, the less faith I need.

So Alan… no evidence for my existence apart from the 1001 pieces of a puzzle for a claim not that unlikely.

How much faith do you need?

My atheist friend Jonathan has little faith I’m sure (taken on faith on my part), but faith enough to believe in my existence – though he has never met me “face to face”.

Is he a fool to have so much faith? How much more faith does Jonathan require to believe my claim that I can fly? How much more to believe in God? How much evidence do you have that men can fly by waving there hands up and down? What understanding to we have of gravity, air pressure, the amount of muscle and mass of an average man etc etc to reject such a claim as “unlikely” (but not of course impossible)

So the more evidence and explanation provided, the less faith someone requires.

Am I avoiding the question again?

I've stopped responding to the rest of your rambling, because I find it very impolite of you to refuse to respond to my questions, while trying to answer them with more questions of your own.

More questions arise, I cannot help that… but I am responding to your questions, and answering them the best that I can.

The fact that you have bad manners doesn't mean I'm unable to answer your questions, and claiming that's the case is a pretty lame, and all-too-obvious rhetorical move. I'm hoping you can do better.

I am not trying to be “impolite” or to have “bad manners”… I could show you both so you could see the difference if you like, but what would be the point?

Oh please. Are we in third grade now? I didn't respond to that question because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the specific example of you giving clear evidence that my Mother loves me. Last time I looked I didn't live in the court of King Solomon. So, if you'd like to provide evidence that actually has something to do with me and my Mother, feel free. But don't make the grade school claim that just because I ignore your tangents that I don't believe the Bible or some such nonsense. Again, I hope you can do better.

It was given as an example on how the love of a mother could and has been tested…

I didn’t know this is what they taught in 3rd grade (actually – I have no idea what 3rd grade is when it comes to an age, but with your current style I trust it is an insult to put along “bad manners” and “impolite”…)

I was not testing your bible study classes…

Again, continuing to ignore your hypotheticals and analogies until you are polite enough to answer the questions I put to you first. Manners make the man, Lee.

I feel I have been polite and tried to respond to your questions the best way that I can. As for “manners” – I do the best that I can.

Do you feel though at some point though you might consider my “hypotheticals and analogies” – at least tell me where I am wrong with them so I can improve and better understand?

Of course, only after we have finished discussing you main points and assuming you have the time and inclination to continue discussing further?

At least now you're being consistent. If the personal testimony of all of the witnesses in the Bible isn't enough, then the personal testimony of one blog commenter (how do I know he's not just a sockpuppet?) isn't likely to convince you either. Thank you for being consistent for once.

Bloody big sockpuppet… but I do try and be consistent – give examples when you feel I’m not.

I wrote previously:
But frankly your demands for a “full” answer are rather “unscientific”… and this, I personal feel, is a reason many people turn to a god (any god) for a “full” answer. "

Alan replied:
Again, if all you're going to do is make ridiculous claims about my faith from a complete lack of knowledge, then I'm really not interested. You want to paint me as just another fundie so you can easily dismiss me? Fine, be my guest. But let me know that so we can just move on. I don't think I've ever expected a "full" answer (whatever the hell that means) from either faith OR science, which is why I continue to ask questions of both.

Alan, I didn’t say you, I wrote “I personal feel, is a reason many people…”

You must have noticed by now that I am in the habit asking questions, even to myself, as I go along…

This is NOT an attack on you, or me trying to create a straw man against you. I am really sorry that you felt it was.

It is a hypothesis that would require testing (and tidying up a little)… I do not “try and paint you as just another fundie” – anything but…

talking scripture can be fun, but I thought and hoped we are going beyond that here and I’ve certainly not “easily” dismissed you.

A lot of thought and effort has gone into my replies here (even if you think it is 3rd grade stuff to you, it is hard work for me), if I wanted to just dismiss you and this thread I could have thrown 1001 insults, a 101 straw men arguments and just cleared off – I have not.
(Well, maybe I’m up to around 11 or 12 on the straw man arguments, but I have retracted them when the error in my logic has been highlighted. As for the insults? Well, maybe the quality of my argument is an insult to you, but I do not do that on purpose or any hatred.)

Thanks again for your time.

Lee
 

ROFL. Save the phony indignation. Um, no it really isn't homophobic at all. Queer Theory is the name given to an entire field of exploration these days. WE QUEERS don't mind the appellation at all. Go spout your phony indignation & rampant stupidity at someone else.


Now Alan, you to be saying my indignation is phony, yet I wasn't being indignant (I remember the bible saying something about not judging others - hmmmm).
Now lets type this slowly so you can understand.
You were spouting some rubbish about racist homophobic agendas in science (I note you didn't deal with the rebuttal). I pointed out you were wrong and that your beloved book is down right homophobic (ignored by you). You then bizarrly go on and accuse me of expecting all christians to be straight (Although Fred Felps may want a word with you on that). Given that I actually know gay christians, I have to laugh at your predudiced comment, where you try and make a stereotype of me with out even knowing me. I must say that you are not coming across in a very good light.
I dont see me getting to read anything challenging here. I think you may have some issues that you may need to deal with here.
 

I don't think you have any basis for concluding that God does or does not respond to me, and 2) I have no basis for concluding that "Lee" if that is his real name, is one person or many.

Well Alan, you know that word verification thing you have to enter, that prevents robots posting. So, can we asume that Lee is human?
Your computer program was also found out . Or was it........?

I also remember a verse in the bible saying that God no longer speaks to people directly, because they feared his voice - so, if he does speak directly to you, then it is not the god of the bible - mind yo, he does change hids mind a lot - you know, one minute he hates the world and destroys it, the next we "dies" for it. I must say though, that does not impress me much - a being who knows he is immortal killing himself - to keep himself happy. Now, if a non believer laid down his life for another, that would be something special!
Anyway, I digress, it seems that the question you direct at Lee must ultimately be thrown at your god. If you wish to remain consistent, if you dont believe in Lee, you cant believe in god - and I see no reason to.
I'm also willing to bet that god has never left an emessage for you, and that you dont really believe the posters calling themselves god here really are him.

BTW, If you can also check Lee's vocabulary and thought processes for consistency (He may even have a particular way of mispelling a particular word).
Shame so many different PEOPLE wrote the bible.

Have a nice life, there's nothing to see here - unless you like road kill philosophy from theists
 

I'd say Lee's last comment was his most thoughtful.


Now, Lee, you keep mentioning evidence in a court of law ...

Evidence: "The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law."


From the Federal (U.S.) Rules of Evidence:

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action [that is, the deciding of the case. -- ER] more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.


Now, which standard of proof do you want to use?

Since we're not talking about a crime, "Beyond a reasonable doubt" -- the highest standard --isn't applicable.

The assertion "God is" is more of a tort claim, a civil matter, not criminal. As such. it is decided by a "proponderance of the evidence," which, as Wiki puts it, "is the lowest level, generally thought to be greater than 50%, although numeric approximations are controversial."
 

Scientific proof and legal proof are not the same, in other words.
 

Re, "I also remember a verse in the bible saying that God no longer speaks to people directly, because they feared his voice."

Anybody heard of this?
 

Re, "I dont see me getting to read anything challenging here."

I wouldn't waste any more time here, then. The Internet is a HUGE place. Adios!
 

Hi ER,

I'd say Lee's last comment was his most thoughtful.

Thanks.

It is late here, I was just about sign off, but just a quick comment.

Now, Lee, you keep mentioning evidence in a court of law ...

Yep... it seems a reasonable standard to assess our evidence, one we could all understand. One not set by me or you.

It seems you might be agreeing to this idea?

Now, which standard of proof do you want to use?

I may want to sleep on this one.

However, I do not wish to suggest I think God is a criminal - surely you understand that - but the principle of "court quality evidence" is why I raised it as an example to judge evidence.

However, instead of "crime" think "incredible claim".

Just like if I make a claim that these "magic beans" not all cure all known cancers and make your hair grow back - it also makes you irresistible to the opposite sex.

This is a big claim... and would require a lot of evidence from me before I could sell them as a medicine.

But lets stick to the court of law example for now - I don't wish to confuse matters anymore.

A claim that someone killed another person does not actually seem that big of a claim. It is of course a little more difficult to prove it was one individual that did it.

And this requires the "highest" standard of evidence you say.

I would argue a claim of God making life, the universe and everything is an even BIGGER claim (OK, not a crime, but you are trying to prove someone actually did the “deed”) I would say it requires better evidence than what a murder charge requires. At least in that we have a dead body (or a missing person)

We have a lot of gods to choose from remember, and evidence has yet been provided that the universe was created by anyone.

As I say… it is late… I’ll sleep on it.

Lee
 

As I said, the standards of proof are different for crimeal and civil proceedings. The claim that "God is," I think, is closer to a tort claim. So, sleep on it, but read up a little on burdens of proof and rules of evidence, too. :-)


Re, "We have a lot of gods to choose from remember,"

Actually, I'm going to do a post, when I have even 20 minutes in a row free, on suggestions in Scripture of this very thing.


Re, "and evidence has yet been provided that the universe was created by anyone."

"There you go again," as Ronnie reagan (shudder) used to say. Evidence HAS bene presented. You just deny that it's admissible, to continue the court talk. :-)


BTW: "Shame so many different PEOPLE wrote the bible."

NO! It's not a shame. That is EXACTLY what makes it fascinating to read and study!

Somebody asks me: "Why don't you take the Bible literally?" I say: "Because I've read it!"

That does not mean it is without value.

I really wish y'all would get caught up on how most of the people around this blog regard the Bible, so you'd quit uttering inanities like that "shame" remark.
 

Antitheist: A self define atheist who is mad at a God that doesn't exist because He let them down.
 

"To this end, I can not prove(with evidence or otherwise) 100% that I exist or you exist or that your mom loves you "

Straw man. I didn't ask for 100% proof. I asked for evidence.

"I mention philosophy (not that I want to talk about it, I don’t) merely because we seem to be talking about “What is evidence?” rather than the evidence itself. "

LOL. Are you sure you have a degree in science of some type? Have you ever read a scientific paper? The whole thing is a presentation of EVIDENCE, of the type accepted as reasonable evidence by the community of scholars reading it. There are huge debates about what sorts of evidence are and are not acceptable. That's just part of science. I'm sorry you seem to have missed that part. LOL

Lee writes, "I can see myself typing on this blog now… I can see other people in this office typing on computers. I’ve been and worked in America and seen people over there typing on computers and using the internet… "

Just more personal testimony? That's it? I thought you believed such "evidence" was worthless, or nearly worthless. You certainly don't accept it as evidence from others.

Anything else?

Befuddled wrote, "You were spouting some rubbish about racist homophobic agendas in science ..."

I'd suggest you read pretty much anything by Sandra Harding (particularly her books "The Racial Economy of Science" or "Who's Science?", anything by Donna Haraway, Sarah Traweek, or any of the other excellent critiques of some of the sexism, racism, and homophobia in science. There have been excellent racial, classist, and queer, and particularly feminist critiques of science and so called "objectivity", since at least the mid 1980's. Though it seems pretty clear that criticizing your almighty God Science isn't allowed in your worldview. LOL

Mike write, "I also remember a verse in the bible saying that God no longer speaks to people directly,"

Yawn, let me know when someone finds that verse. ROFL. You'd think if they were going to take the time to post on a blog, they'd at least take the time to actually know what they're posting about.
 

Alan-

"other than the supposed second hand testimony from someone claiming to be named "Jonathan.""

"then the personal testimony of one blog commenter (how do I know he's not just a sockpuppet?)"

This is all rather amusing. Notice I didn't ask if you exist. For all I know you could be an 86 year old Icelandic woman named Frikka.

Anyway, my driving licence says I'm Jonathan, so it must be true.
 

Allan dude, Jonathan says LeeC can be found on Face Book. So if Lee does exist, maybe there would be evidence there.

--Lord of the Flies
 

"Allan dude, Jonathan says LeeC can be found on Face Book. So if Lee does exist, maybe there would be evidence there."

Because Facebook profiles can never be faked, huh? Didn't "Lee" supposedly create his facebook profile? That's just more testimony about himself, which is clearly not the type of evidence Lee accepts. Nice try.
 

Well, if I were going to fake a Face Book page I would use a better picture than that one.

--Lord of the Flies
 

Feedback from Johnathan:

Philip1978 said...
A sock puppet? Wooooooaaaaaaaaahhh, what an insult!

Quetz, I dont know how you are holding together but I guess that's just the measure of what an amazing God you are!
:)
Philip

15 January 2008 14:49


Jonathan said...
Philip-

I will admit that when I read that devastating insult, I was shaken to the very core of my being. I began to question every aspect of my personhood and individuality.

Then I realised the guy is a moron, and everything was ok again!

I guess I AM amazing.

15 January 2008 14:54


Billy said...
Hurrah for Quetz!

Philip, If you go over, try some spoof pseudonyms like Al Coholic or Amanda Huggenkiss.
They dont do anything to dispel the redneck myths.

15 January 2008 15:22


Philip1978 said...
Billy

Was thinking Mike Hunt would be a good one but I see you have already taken that first name Mr Oxlong!

15 January 2008 15:42


Jonathan said...
You could try-

Ivor Biggun

Alotta Fagina

Or the less crude: Mr E.

15 January 2008 15:44


Billy said...
How about Seymour Butts or I P Squint?

15 January 2008 17:08


Philip1978 said...
I think the name Phil McRack will be easy to respond to!! hehe!

15 January 2008 17:20


Billy said...
Philip, I never knew you were a dentist :-)
Reminds me of all those dodgy Bond characters like Octopussy, Xenia Onatop and Agent Goodnight.

I think Alan should change his name over there to Sillius Soddus

15 January 2008 17:30
 

Alan,

Dear me you are in a bit of a muddle aren't you

Before I start wiffling, please understand that any flippant remarks I make are entirely in jest and I have no desire to stomp around being a complete git.

I can verify Lee's existence as much as I can yours, its so sodding easy I just can't believe you need convincing of it.

Its very simple in this day and age, you could phone him up if you had his number, arrange to meet him in a pub and sink a couple of VB Stubbies and have this chat face to face, would that convince you of his existence? Probably not, can't trust the internet these days! :)


Now, lets look at your God - can I actually, physically go and have a beer with him? I doubt it so very much, I couldn't even find out if God was a lager or an ale deity! I could not find out what God's taste in music is.

Funnily enough Lee can tell me all these things quite happily. I bet you he can produce a birth certificate, I bet you he can produce DNA which will prove at least he exists on this planet as that particular human being. Lee was the name given to him by his parents but there is DNA proof that says there is a Lee shaped human on this Earth who is typing to you.


God doesn't have a birth certificate or DNA and the only proof of his existence is, as has been told to you, is the Holy Bible.


Funnily enough the Holy Bible stole so much from Near Eastern Religions I am surprised lawyers were not invented sooner. Just to give you a good couple of examples on that one in case you were thinking I made this up I suggest you go and look up Osiris from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and see how his life mirrors that of Jesus. Or perhaps Mithras, the pagan Roman god who funnily enough shares the same birthday as Jesus amongst other things!
The epic of Gilgamesh is also a good one to hunt for, again, many similarities that would have had the Bible writers sued for blatant plagiarism had they not snotted most of their enemies in wars or threatened to do so if the naughty pagans didn't convert anyway.

See history for further details.


Thing is the Bible was handed down to the Christians mostly though verbal methods before they even bothered to write it all down. Its the most inaccurate mess of books I have ever read and quite frankly is not the best bargaining tool to prove God is here to save you if you are a being a good little Alan shaped christian!


I know you guys have been steering away from the bible as a discussion point but I dont see how you can justify God's existence without it. He is mentioned in it quite a lot! After that its simply a matter of trawling through the Bible and pointing out the howling inaccuracies of words and history til you finally arrive at the point that God had nothing to do with that book.

If God had been there dictating to these people from the start or helped with the multitude of translations he could have done a better job. I am sure for instance he would have prodded King James and said, "Nice try but leave out the Unicorns will you, theres a good King!"

If you want proof of the human being that is typing to you under the name Lee, its provable as I have mentioned above. If you want proof of god, well, thats basically like looking for a molecule of straw in a stack of highly poisonous needles, ie painful, difficult and not very constructive use of time and energy! :)

So Allan, after all that, I think we can prove that Lee exists as a human being on planet Earth as much as you or I do. Is he a God? - I very much doubt it at this point but I encourage him to give it a go if he gets the opportunity, I think he would make a rather good one!

By all means, if your God happens to finally make it as easy as jumping on a plane with a decent DNA kit instead of hiding behind myths, legends and complete obfuscation, rest assured I will be there first to have a pint of Bombardier Ale and discuss god stuff with him, no problems at all.

Cheers and good health to you all!

Phil
 

Hmm I see anonymous has been busy! :)

Come forth silent rogue and reveal thy mischief! Or are you not brave enough?

Phil
 

Wow. I just posted, and lost, a comment where I revealed my experience of Jesus Christ himself -- or, perhaps, the Ground of All Being him/her/itself, which I superimposed my ideas of Jesus onto -- riding with me in my truck as I drove to say goodbye to my dying mom last year. It was as real to me as anyone of you on this thread are.

There were some more details. But Blogger ate it.

It might very well be that the time is not right for y'all to believe. I wouldn't sweat it, either way.
 

Thanks anonymous. Nice to see what these oh-so-friendly and polite folks are really up to. Apparently Jonathan thinks I'm a moron. LOL. BTW, "Sockpuppet" isn't an insult. "A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet." (Wikipedia)

I do find it interesting that these guys don't have a clue what this discussion is about. I simply asked for evidence that Lee would accept, that can be given here in a bunch of blog comments, that he exists, that I exist, and that my Mom loves me. He continues to provide nothing but his own personal testimony. I figured those would work as excellent analogies so that I could finally understand just what sorts of evidence Lee was prepared to accept, here in a bunch of blog comments, for the existence of God (since actually asking him that question about a dozen times got me no where.)

Really kids, this isn't that difficult to follow and understand. Well ... apparently it is, for some.

As for Phil, he writes, "Before I start wiffling, please understand that any flippant remarks I make are entirely in jest and I have no desire to stomp around being a complete git." Too late. Anonymous's post clearly shows what you're all about. As my Dad likes to say, This fish don't rise to cheap bait.

In the immortal words of that great philosopher of our time, Donna Summer: "Enough is enough is enough..." :)
 

Alan-

"Apparently Jonathan thinks I'm a moron"

Are you really unable to tell from the context that it was a joke? If you peruse my blog, you'll find that there are a lot of jokes on there, usually made about each other. If I genuinely thought you were a moron, I would have told you so directly. And I don't, so I haven't.

And does this mean you are now acknowledging that I exist?

Anonymous-

cheers for stopping by my blog! Shame you don't seem to have the courage to admit who you are, choosing instead to cherry-pick whatever seems to cast myself and others in a bad light.
 

Hello all,

Seems people who claim they know me have been busy. Thanks

There could be some good discussions here, but...

Most go

Lee
 

Alan

I think you have the wrong opinion about me and I want to explain

I was merely messing around on Quetz's site, we were all just swapping the most obvious and stupid names for a laugh, nothing more than that.

I think I made it quite clear at the start of the post I was being flippant and that any insults hurled were just me being silly, I really didn't think any of you would take it to heart. As Quetz says, if all it takes is for some idiot to go trawling for one small excerpt on a blog site to make us look bad, I really dont think that is proof enough to start quoting your father at me.

That blog post was a bit of light-hearted humour after we had found out Lee had been called a God - that was it, we were pratting around. As Erudite so perfectly phrase one of his posts to Mom2 - "Does it look like we are taking this seriously?" I thought it was all a bit of a laugh proving Lee exists.


But then Anonymous goes and ruins it all by doing that magnificent detective work - would have been nice if he could spell Jonathan's name properly too but I suppose I can't ask much from someone who wants to remain a coward.

So Alan, I am genuinely sorry if you were offended by all that, I can honestly say I was being silly and meant no harm.

Peace?

Philip
 

Shocker! Evil Atheists use silly names in three in a bed sex romp with the zombies of Darwin and Hitler, therefore their points are invalid!

Actually, do you really think we were being covert, when we expected visitors from this site - just suprised you took so long.

Anonymous, grow some balls! Couple of Guesses - Jimmy or Neil.

Alan
Hmm, Science a god, not laughed at that accusation - today! Nice projection.

I challenged you to show how the scientific method demonstrated that blacks were inferior - not up for it I see.
The likes of Mr downs brought subjectivity into the picture by assuming white men were the pinnacle of evolution, so from the start, that was not using the scientific method. True scientific method is not agensa based. If it is, it is pseudoscience - geat your facts fight - really

Do you concede that the bible doesn't like gays.
Since you appear touchy about this, I will point out that I couldn't care one way or the other what your sexual orientation is, but dot try and tell me the bible is not homophobic - or racist or misogynistic for that matter

Now, I really am off.

PS remember how you all claim to love humour now. Let's face it, if you dont answer questions, how can I take you seriously
 

PS, how should Lee Know if Alan's mother loves him - he doesn't even know her - try a more sensible question.

Now off to bed you naughty boy
 

Philip1978 said...
I think the name Phil McRack will be easy to respond to!! hehe!

15 January 2008 17:20

The Phillip1978 posts on The redneck's site as,

Phil McRack said...
Hmm I see anonymous has been busy! :)

Come forth silent rogue and reveal thy mischief! Or are you not brave enough?

Phil

12:43 PM

Then reverts to Phil 1978 and says,
"That blog post was a bit of light-hearted humour after we had found out Lee had been called a God - that was it, we were pratting around. As Erudite said.... "Does it look like we are taking this seriously?" I thought it was all a bit of a laugh proving Lee exists.
But then Anonymous goes and ruins it all by doing that magnificent detective work - would have been nice if he could spell Jonathan's name properly too but I suppose I can't ask much from someone who wants to remain a coward.

Got caught, then went all miffy on me ...a 29 year old with a forth grade spirit...not sorry ...just sorry you were caught...calling for the coward that out your inner child...Who is that bad bad person?
No person at all.

I Am, the Lord of the Flies, Ba El Zvuv, Lord of Philistines like unto yourselves. Like that Phil, the Lord of Philistines. Your joke is my joke, you tell it, I echo. A mirror I hold.
Here is the buzz, my boys, hear the buzz?

I think I will buzz around with you guyz a while. You have so much promise.

Sorry Alan, but they look like more fun. 99
 

Ohhhhhh-kayyyyyyyyyyy.
 

Out of control . . .

By the way, I can no more prove I exist than I can prove the internet exists. Indeed, it may be the result of a trickster deity. Or perhaps we are all just dreams in Brahma's mind, as he has yet to awaken.

Or, perhaps the entire Universe we created six thousand years ago, with all the light between galaxies already on its way, and billions-of-years-old quasars already cooling their heels, and black holes. Or perhaps it wasn't six thousand years ago, but only six minutes ago, and all our memories were created at the same time, and the five thousand years of recorded human history.

I can't prove that Alan's mother loves him. I can prove that she should, though, because he's just such a good guy.

And I know ER exists, because if he didn't we would have to invent him. Drlobojo, on the other hand is a figment of ER's imagination. I know this because I have never seen them in the same place at the same time.

"Lee" is my mother's middle name (no, I can't prove it), so maybe Lee isn't an Australian man, but my 83-year-old mother, living in upstate New York. She's quite clever, you know (or maybe you don't because I can't prove I have a mother).


Finally, if Descartes was proved to be a fraud would he disappear from history? If a tree falls in a forest, and Helen Keller is the only human being around, does it make a sound?
 

GKS said: "And I know ER exists, because if he didn't we would have to invent him. Drlobojo, on the other hand is a figment of ER's imagination. I know this because I have never seen them in the same place at the same time."


It is real hard to get past that wimp of an ego that calls itself ER and get out long enough to post something on his blessed blog. What I really enjoy is the trips to the shrink when I get to stay out most of the hour and play chess while she and I talk. Best of all, ER has to pay for it.

Very perceptive of you GKS.

Ah, and I see that ER has finally summed up a deamon on his site as well as "multiple?" Gods. Good lord ER you are going to do us harm yet. Did Alan bring that one here?
 

Hi ER,

I'm glad you responded to my post last night (your morning) seriously since everyone else seems to wish to ignore it and play silly games.

I thought we all got over that one? Now I’ve nothing against humour and maybe the discussion needed a bit of a light-hearted break, but can the people here decide if they want a discussion or a shouting match… I cannot be bothered on the latter.

Now, if and when the class has settled down… shall we continue the discussion (with some focused humour of course when required?)
Or would people prefer to continue to ignore the questions and throw mud around all day?

Now my atheists friends do have a valid points to make (and bring some UK humour) but people here ignore Philip's (and others) valid points (well, the valid bit is the point of a discussion) and make quick and easy jokes to ignore the question in hand. OK… we’ve had our fun…

I have been accused all too many times for “not answering” or “not responding”… false accusations if you merely look at this thread and the last. What should be made of the last 10 hours?

So come on Alan et al, respond and answer my comment (a response from me?) from last night.

If not, then we will just have to call it a draw and I will go back to my usual haunt over at Jonathan’s place. At least I will understand the humour.

Well ER, I’ve done my teacher/mother bit lecturing and trying to control the classroom… though it might to considered “crossing the line” from both sides since it has nothing to do with me.

I’ll just leave you all to calm down a little.

Thanks

Lee
 

"I have been accused all too many times for “not answering” or “not responding”… false accusations if you merely look at this thread and the last. What should be made of the last 10 hours?"

I'm willing to believe you think you've answered my questions, but given the difficulty of having a discussion via blog comments, I may have missed them.

Perhaps the problem is one of expectations. See here's how I expect a discussion in blog comment form should go, which by nature has to be serial because of the medium:

Person A asks a question
Person B gives a straightforward answer
Person B then asks a question
Person A gives a straightforward answer

I asked 3 simple questions: 1) prove I exist, 2) prove you exist, and 3) prove my Mom loves me.

You could have responded with:

1) Evidence X
2) Evidence Y
3) Evidence Z

Instead, you choose to answer my questions with questions of your own, prevaricate, and obfuscate ... which becomes even more difficult to understand now with all the straw men, red herrings, and non sequiturs, and particularly the insults from your pals. Then you claim that I'm not answering your questions because I can't, rather than realizing that I don't feel any compulsion to do so if you're not interested in answering mine. It's a clever rhetorical trick, as I pointed out before, but not useful if you're actually interested in discussion, which, as seems obvious from the anonymous posts above, y'all are probably not.

What's amusing is that the clearest answer to my question is to be found on Jonathan's blog where you write, "I can no more prove someone exists and is typing on a blog than the sun will rise tomorrow."

Finally a straight answer to my question!! See how easy that was?! Too bad you didn't bother being honest and posting that about 300 comments ago! ROFL.

Unfortunately, now that we're getting somewhere, the field is pretty muddy from all the insults and snottiness. (Which I also suspect is a tactic ... insult people then when they refuse to participate in a snarkfest, claim victory!) Too bad, because I'd have been happy to have a real conversation.

Go home, claim victory, pat yourself on the backs, put your feet up and have a beer. LOL
 

Hi Alan

I’ll skip to the end first – then I will come back to your earlier comments, if you want me to.

Unfortunately, now that we're getting somewhere, the field is pretty muddy from all the insults and snottiness. (Which I also suspect is a tactic ... insult people then when they refuse to participate in a snarkfest, claim victory!) Too bad, because I'd have been happy to have a real conversation.


So was I – still happy too.

Please point of the insults and snottiness I have aimed at you or to anyone that is anything worse that the “3rd grade, bad manner impolite non-existed entity” that has been aimed at me once or twice?

When it went a “little crazy” last night – I’ve asked for calm from all parties (which is not for me to do, and I feel bad and stupid for doing it)

Go home, claim victory, pat yourself on the backs, put your feet up and have a beer. LOL

Now Alan, you know that is not what I am about… I’m not here for “victory” since who is taking score and would be a referee?

It is a discussion, and since this has not been settle for the last 2,000 years, I hardly think you and I will finalised the argument/debate any time soon now do I? I am discussing for greater understanding, what about you?

I also said if you wanted to end this discussion because you are getting bored, you could do, and I would not “claim victory” - a draw at best. However I feel it is my right to take notes on how the discussion has gone, to think about the main points further, and summarise the debate if I choose. Is that wrong and would you take offence at that?

Hey, you know where I will be writing them if you want to check up on me – you have been there now.

I’m sure you will be more than welcome to add comments there on the “other side of the pond” as if you wish – the humour is a little different in the UK, but hey, I’ve tried and understand the humour here didn’t I – but I will not claim I have “got it” yet.

Lee
 

Hi Alan,

I'm willing to believe you think you've answered my questions, but given the difficulty of having a discussion via blog comments, I may have missed them.

I have certainly spent a lot of time and effort writing my responses. I give examples and analogies to try and help explain my position to clarify my poor English Grammar.

I am not clever enough to give smart, one line answers… maybe in time I will be. Until then, I take 10 sentences where a smart man can respond in 1 – sorry.

If you missed my responses, no problems – I always repeat myself given enough time…

Perhaps the problem is one of expectations. See here's how I expect a discussion in blog comment form should go, which by nature has to be serial because of the medium:

Person A asks a question
Person B gives a straightforward answer
Person B then asks a question
Person A gives a straightforward answer


Now this is a little unfair… and you know. How do you define a “straightforward answer” anyway? It is very easy for a yes or no type question i.e.

Person X : Do you believe a god?
Person Y : Yes!

Easy!!!

How about if we change the question a little and see if can give me a “straightforward” answer.

Person Q: How did you decide your god was the “one true God” rejecting all the others?

Alan answers….?

Not so easy…

Now your question was a little different to this I admit, but my point remains.

I asked 3 simple questions: 1) prove I exist, 2) prove you exist, and 3) prove my Mom loves me.

Come on Alan, these are not simply questions and you know it – since you have chosen them for a reason.

They do not offer a “yes or no” answer, nor can I respond simply as you suggest.

I have answered them the best I can, trying to clarify the question as I do.

You say these are not straightforward answers, why not try and give me a question that offers a straightforward answer then?

Why not go for the “simple” question of “Why are you here?” while you are at it.

Answer: “Because”

How about “Who are you” instead? Nice and easy.


You could have responded with:

1) Evidence X
2) Evidence Y
3) Evidence Z



I could not, as you know – since you will challenge, quite rightly, evidence X, Y and Z… as you have done when I and others have suggested answers. You rejected them, which guessing the point of the question was a valid thing to do. The above of evidence required depends on the size of the claim. How much “faith” is required without such evidence.

What was the “hidden purpose” behind your question – this is what I have asked before? No answer – but it would have helped to move the discussion forward than just repeating the question.

My guess is (and tell when and where I am wrong – this is not the time for straw) that you are trying to suggest that a question like “Prove God exist?” is not a straightforward question where you can supply evidence X, Y and Y.

And yes, you have won me over on this and now I have learnt to try and phrase my questions better when I am asking for evidence for God… but you see, this question still does not go away – merely the wording changes.

What is the evidence for God? Show me the pieces of the puzzle? I can show you pieces of a puzzle for my existence (as has been pointed out by my atheist friends) and though incomplete, you can chose to have “faith” whether or not I actually exist. Is it that important to “prove” my name is “Lee” or “Alan” – no this is just a name – who cares in such a debate. On a murder charge though, you hope they check for names a little more than just having faith they have the right man. Would you agree?

How do you know your mother loves you?

Look at the evidence she has supplied over the years, has it been consistent? Then have faith that you draw the right conclusions based on the evidence. It is not a very large claim, with little importance on the big scheme of things, besides – have you actually defined “love” at any point?

Instead, you choose to answer my questions with questions of your own, prevaricate, and obfuscate ... which becomes even more difficult to understand now with all the straw men, red herrings, and non sequiturs, and particularly the insults from your pals.

I see where this is leading… yes, sorry I try to answer them in full and give you further areas to comment on, to create an opportunity for debate and discussion.

If my answer was just “NO” – if does not give much to the discussion now does it? The debate has been closed. (And someone might want to call me a closed minded fundamentalist atheist – whatever that is)

Then you claim that I'm not answering your questions because I can't, rather than realizing that I don't feel any compulsion to do so if you're not interested in answering mine.

I am interested in answering yours… surely you have seen that? But I did wonder why you do not return the favour and answer some of mine? No matter, you did explain yourself

It's a clever rhetorical trick, as I pointed out before, but not useful if you're actually interested in discussion, which, as seems obvious from the anonymous posts above, y'all are probably not.

Not interesting in discussing? Yeah right… what the hell have I been trying to do all this time? When people slammed the door in my face, it was I who tried to start the discussion again politely.

The only “anonymous posting” I did was at the start of the thread when I had God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit talking to me… oh, and an anonymous God who stalks around the internet.

I reply to one of these jokes, but surely you knew it was me?… now was it you guys doing it, or my atheist friends… I have no idea or care. Though since it occurred before they knew of this post – I know were I would put my money… so stop with the mud throwing… I thought we had moved on from that.

My true comments here have not been anonymous or under a different name.

What's amusing is that the clearest answer to my question is to be found on Jonathan's blog where you write, "I can no more prove someone exists and is typing on a blog than the sun will rise tomorrow."

Well, thank you, you should spend sometime there reading some of the religion debates we have...

However, I am pretty sure I posted an answer rather similar to that just here, on this blog…

Let’s just take a quick look shall we…

Alan wrote:
I'll try once again Lee. I notice that Lee doesn't rise to my very real challenge to prove to me that he exists. Even better, I'd like him to prove to me that I exist.

I will try - but no time now.

My first quick (and honest) answer would be that I cannot 100% prove anything. Science certainly doesn’t do this, and for your question, we could really get stuck in philosophy.

You tell me Alan, was this a straightforward answer? Oh no, I mentioned philosophy – sorry… I was clouding the issue right?

It was as straight an answer as I come think of. I challenge you to tell me why this one line answer from me to your question is wrong, dishonest and not straightforward. Also, tell me why it is not an answer or a response to your question. And, more importantly – how you would answer it better, fuller (in more detail) and more “straightforward”.

Of course, you could have just missed it, no problems – I missed one of your replies, but I came back to it when I found it.

Finally a straight answer to my question!! See how easy that was?! Too bad you didn't bother being honest and posting that about 300 comments ago! ROFL.

See above… your false accusations are only convincing yourself.

Honest? I have been nothing but honest… I said my ideas are fluid, so that they will change. This is the point of a discussion isn’t it? If not, it is just two people shouting different dogma at one another. I want no part of that.

Unfortunately, now that we're getting somewhere, the field is pretty muddy from all the insults and snottiness. (Which I also suspect is a tactic ... insult people then when they refuse to participate in a snarkfest, claim victory!) Too bad, because I'd have been happy to have a real conversation.

Go home, claim victory, pat yourself on the backs, put your feet up and have a beer. LOL

I’ve answered this… and yes it is unfortunately – just when we started to talk about the quality of the evidence as well.

Still… what happens now is up to you.

You can reply if you like or just ignore me. The choice is yours. I will be happy to continue if you want…

Now however, I will thank you for all for their time and effort. I found it educational and even enjoyable towards the end
(though weird at scary at times with Mr Anonymous searching me out – I did not like that. If the person gave their name, that would have been different. You have a right to show I post elsewhere, but not stalking anonymously, that is threatening behaviour in my book)

Anyway… I will wait for a positive reply if someone wishes to continue, if not good luck and enjoy life.

Lee
 

OK… in the hope that we can get back to our previous discussion, if not – just for the record, I want to catch up on comments that I missed.

ER wrote
Scientific proof and legal proof are not the same, in other words.

Is it more right to investigate God using “scientific method” or the “legal system model”? You tell me.

They deal with different “areas”, but they both have a principle and means of judging good and valid evidence. This was my point.

ER wrote:
The claim that "God is," I think, is closer to a tort claim. So, sleep on it, but read up a little on burdens of proof and rules of evidence, too. :-)

I think I do need to read up on “burdens of proof” Since, I thought, the “Burden of proof” rests on the one making the claim? (Like in my examples with me claiming to fly, and the “magic cure-all beans”?)

OK, quick internet search from wiki

Burden of proof (Latin, onus probandi) is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. The Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit explains the rule that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains." For example, a person has to prove that someone is guilty or not guilty (in a criminal case) or liable or not liable (in a civil case) depending on the allegations. More colloquially, burden of proof refers to an obligation in a particular context to defend a position against a prima facie other position.

Now that is interesting… I learn something new everyday?

I will read more from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof when I have more time.

However, I am not placing God on charge of any criminal offence (though there are lots are crimes listed in the bible that God takes a central role. I would of course first have to prove they happened wouldn’t I? I cannot convict someone of a crime that I didn’t have evidence actually happened)

As for “rules of evidence” – again you are right, I’m obviously getting my idea of what is considered evidence in a court of law from Perry Mason – do we know any good lawyers?

Rules of evidence govern whether, when, how, and for what purpose proof of a case may be placed before a trier of fact for consideration.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_evidence

Oh, I like this bit:

Perhaps the most important of the Rules of Evidence is that hearsay testimony is inadmissible.

Well, that rules out the bible eye-witness accounts doesn’t? No matter, I will still accept them if they can be backed up with other independent evidence.

Re, "We have a lot of gods to choose from remember,"
Actually, I'm going to do a post, when I have even 20 minutes in a row free, on suggestions in Scripture of this very thing.

Sounds interesting… may stick around if I’m welcome. Although, as I said, I’m not expert on scripture, I just read it as it is.

Re, "and evidence has yet been provided that the universe was created by anyone."
"There you go again," as Ronnie reagan (shudder) used to say. Evidence HAS bene presented. You just deny that it's admissible, to continue the court talk. :-)

“Objection your honour” (Can I use court talk as well?)

We have not talked about evolution or the Big Bang theory or anything interesting like that yet have we? OK I got a little bit on Dark Matter in, but I believe I still have to prove I exist first before we move on to the good stuff?

ER wrote:
BTW: "Shame so many different PEOPLE wrote the bible."
NO! It's not a shame. That is EXACTLY what makes it fascinating to read and study!
Somebody asks me: "Why don't you take the Bible literally?" I say: "Because I've read it!"
That does not mean it is without value.
I really wish y'all would get caught up on how most of the people around this blog regard the Bible, so you'd quit uttering inanities like that "shame" remark.

The original comment you are replying to was not written by me, but I know I am guilty on using the “shame” remark a lot… is must be a British thing.

Cheers

Lee
 

I Am, the Lord of the Flies, Ba El Zvuv, Lord of Philistines like unto yourselves. Like that Phil, the Lord of Philistines. Your joke is my joke, you tell it, I echo. A mirror I hold.
Here is the buzz, my boys, hear the buzz?


Yes, keep taking the pills, they might start working eventually! Possibly you might want to grow up at some point as well but I leave that to you.

Kind Regards,

Philip
 

drlobojo wrote:
Antitheist: A self define atheist who is mad at a God that doesn't exist because He let them down.

This doesn’t make sense?

Why would anyone be mad at something that they don't believe exist, and since they do not believe in God, how could He have let him down in their eyes?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Alan,

RE: "To this end, I can not prove(with evidence or otherwise) 100% that I exist or you exist or that your mom loves you "

Alan wrote:
Straw man. I didn't ask for 100% proof. I asked for evidence.

And I wrote (I thought) that I cannot provide such evidence to prove this 100%, merely bits of evidence that suggest a conclusion can be made (with a little faith)… and please Alan, pick up that phone and call your mother before it is too late.

Also, I was not making an argument – I was trying to give an answer.

RE: "I mention philosophy (not that I want to talk about it, I don’t) merely because we seem to be talking about “What is evidence?” rather than the evidence itself. "
Alan wrote:
LOL. Are you sure you have a degree in science of some type?

Let me just check… yep, my certificate is there on the wall - Bachelor Of Science(Hons) - Physics with Astrophysics.

Of course I cannot prove the wall or my house exists to you, but it is real enough for me, so that is what matters, after all, I cannot prove you exist anyway… maybe I just made it up, is it important?

Funny really… Should I add this to the list of insults BTW, or was it an honest question?

Have you ever read a scientific paper?

Yep… on physics it would be about 10 years ago, on biology it was just a few weeks ago (not that I understood any of it)

They may talk about the measurements taken, but they will not be asking the question “What is evidence?” at a fundamental level - At least, I don’t remember that… this, I though was done in the philosophy of science – interesting stuff.

The whole thing is a presentation of EVIDENCE, of the type accepted as reasonable evidence by the community of scholars reading it. There are huge debates about what sorts of evidence are and are not acceptable. That's just part of science. I'm sorry you seem to have missed that part. LOL

Now Alan, have you finished attacking your straw man now?

Let’s start again… because maybe I was not clear.

The question “What is evidence?” is a philosophical one for me. What do we mean by evidence and all that?

Most scientists are just happy going about measuring things, and working out what the measurements mean in a physical sense – not a philosophical one.
(Is the world outside my head real? I don’t know – how can I prove it? Move on)

Alan wrote:
Just more personal testimony? That's it? I thought you believed such "evidence" was worthless, or nearly worthless. You certainly don't accept it as evidence from others.

I am beginning to wonder if you actually read anything I write, or just attack your own straw man. You say that I “certainly don't accept it as evidence from others”? Where did you make that one up?

Most of the time it seems I am writing to you saying “I never said that”… however, cut and paste.

“I never said that” again

Let’s take another look at this thread, and see what I have written:

1. “Your personal testimonies could be valid as evidence IF they agreed with one another (remember my court of law analogy?)”

2. “Personal testimonies” I could accept, but this is just another form of “eye witness account” type evidence, these still need to be tested against one another to see that they are consistent with one another’s claims.
Also, you have not explained how you reject the personal testimonies and holy books from other religions – it cannot be one rule for your God and religion – then another rule for everything else. It does not work…

3. I’ve accepted “eye witness accounts” and “personal testimonies“ as possible forms of evidence – and given an example where you might want to investigate further (or not to accept just one account).

4. I gave my position on personal testimony already – it can be accepted if we investigate the validity of it by other means and likelihood of the proposition.


That was just a quick search, so Alan, this is starting to become a little frustrating.

I have been more than polite by “joking off” your accusations and straw man building, but please show a little more respect (to yourself at least).

It is as if you just want me to shout at you, hail abuse and clear off so you can just write me off as another “evil atheist”. I hope this isn’t the case, so I will personally put it down to tiredness and frustration at being “raided” by an atheist hoard (Well, ER did ask for a raid).

I know I can (and have) given “heated responses” here as well… but I hope I have made “amends”.

I’ve told you, if you want me to leave the discussion – just ask, but please stop these blind accusations.

OK - Lecture over…

Let’s move on…

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Anonymous (Lord of the Flies) wrote:
Well, if I were going to fake a Face Book page I would use a better picture than that one.

Well, it is the only face I have, and if you believe what some people say – it is the one God made for me.
(OK, the kicks in the head playing rugby didn’t help much, but what are you going to do? It is what gave me my charm.)

Lee
 

Re, "hearsay testimony is inadmissible.

Well, that rules out the bible eye-witness accounts"

?? Hearsay is one thing; eyewitness accounts are another; unclear what you mean, unless you mean you reject the purported eyewitness accounts in the Bibl;e out of hand because you've alreayd decided they are impossible because there is no God.


Re, "burden of proof." I meant "standards of proof." My bad. That is: "beyond the shadow of a doubt," which is the highest standard; "clear and convincing evidence," which is lesser; or based on a "preponderance of the evidence," which is the lowest standard, reserved, in the U.S., for civil cases, which often boil down to he said-she said types of arguments. Since my position is that science itself is part of Creation, it wouldn't do to use the scientific method, such as it is, to try to prove the existence of God; and since we agree that the type of God we're arguing about is, in some way, a personal one, and that if God exists, then God shares some of the same, albeit on a grander, Godlike scale, some of the same personal attributes as you and I -- that is, since we're discussing a Person here, I think a legal setting and a "preponderance of the evidence" should be the standard.

Yellow-flag caution: Keep questions concise and answers managers. I've had it with the long rambling discourse. This stuff is complex enough without making it worse. If it's worth talking about at all, then let's all show honor to the questions themselves by exercising a little rigor in our thought -- and showing respect for the other -- whether or NOT we fell at a given moment that the other is deserving of respect.

Red flag warning on the petty bickering. All sides! Enough! The delete key is shined up and ready -- but I don't want to. The madness was fun. But, finis!

Lee, you are fricking welcome here unless I say otherwise, so knock off the "if I'm still welcome" stuff.
 

"answers managers" = answers manageable.

Actually, I don't think it's possible to do this.

So, I'll answer the REAL question.

The answer to life, the universe and everything is ...

42.

:-)
 

Hey ER you read The Hitchhiker's Guide? You hoopy frood!
:)

Philip
 

:-)

Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the coolest names, EVER.
 

Its that ancient Orion Mining song that gets me every time

“Oh don’t give me no more of that Old Janx Spirit
No, don’t you give me no more of that Old Janx Spirit
For my head will fly, my tongue will lie, my eyes will fry and I may die
Won’t you pour me one more of that sinful Old Janx Spirit”

:)

Philip
 

HI ER,

Lee, you are fricking welcome here unless I say otherwise, so knock off the "if I'm still welcome" stuff.

Good enough for me. Must just be my insercuity coming out.

And sorry my posts are long, but I've explained this... I'm not that clever

Lee
 

Alan,

Is this thread is dead now?

Just when it was getting interesting as I said.

OK... I will keep popping in to see any new developments.


Lee
 

My assertion that the existence of God, as a Person, is a legal question, requiring proof based on a preponderance of the evidence, remains.

No corpus delictus is required, since the argument is that "God is," not "God is dead."

So, carry on.
 

Excellent… but I need to call my lawyer first.

Busy at work at the moment… I will return when I can.

Lee
 

"Is this thread is dead now?"

Now? LOL I think it was dead about 175 comments ago. :)

Take care!
 

Hi Alan,

Now? LOL I think it was dead about 175 comments ago. :)

Fair enough...

Thanks for your time and effort Alan, I like to think I have learnt something, and that my views have changed a little bit thanks to you.

Not all wasted then.

Cheers

See ya around.

Lee
 

Hi ER,

My assertion that the existence of God, as a Person, is a legal question, requiring proof based on a preponderance of the evidence, remains.

We might agree.

How would you like the discussion to go then?

What claim is being made, and by whom?

It seems to me that it is you are then making a claim (such as “you are a murderer”, and so it would seem in a court of law, that it would be you who would have to present an argument to validity this claim.)

Are you making the claim that God created life, the universe and everything (including morals and the such like?) The Christian, it could be argued, even claims to “know” this God and that all other gods are false.

My position has always been that God could exist, but I have not seen any evidence for Him or, as you would say, I have “rejected” all the evidence put before me – however, the quality of this evidence has never been examined if it would actually be acceptable in a “court of law”. You have said I have rejected this evidence unfairly, I would say it was not “conclusive” at best.

So I make no claim for or on any god… they may, or may not exist - the only claim I make is the “universe is” and that I am trying to understand it the best I can. Science seems to be doing rather well, but of course it does not know everything AND has it limits. (If it cannot be measured, it is not science would be a simple enough description here)

So, my question remains, how would you like the discussion to go from here… if at all?

Thanks

Lee
 

Let me think on it. If so, it'll be a new post. And it might be a day or three. :-)
 

Hi ER,

Excellent... and I think you are right about a new post would be the best place for it.

So we can call this thread - "CLOSED".

Hooray - it was fun.

Lee
 

I know a healer who is expert in Black Magic Treatment you can visit the website: www.holyhealers.com also you can directly contact @ +92-313-5303096 (whatsapp,viber)