Is god real?

Roger, on the AFA forum, posted a link to The Bulletin’s article “Religion: Is God Real?”. A well written piece which covers both sides of the argument. Many religious people ask why atheists are sometimes so vocal and anti-god, and why, if we don’t believe in god, do we talk so much about religion. I think this quote from the article sums it up quite well:

In its most practical form, the argument between atheists and the faithful is about public life and private belief. When you press many atheists, you find they are at their most ferocious and passionate when they think religion is playing too large a role – or any role – in politics or the classrooms or the labs or the courts.

I don’t want to start an argument on whether you think God is real or not, but I would be interested on your opinion of the above quote. Is this what most atheists want, or do you want to get rid of religion completely? Are the religious people happy to keep their beliefs to themselves and stay out of politics, schools, labs and the courts?

As I said on the forum:

You keep religion out of my life, and I’ll stay out of your church.

technorati tags: , , , , ,

Advertisements

38 Comments

Filed under atheism, atheist, beliefs, god, religion

38 responses to “Is god real?

  1. Pingback: Ultimate Atheist Conference « Oz Atheist’s Weblog

  2. I’d call that broadly accurate – I’m not that fussed with what people come to believe privately*, but if they want to force the conclusions it leads them to on everyone else (in classrooms, public health, the law and so on), they better damn well believe I’m not going to sit there silently and shut up; I’m going to loudly ask for evidence to back any claims they make, and for extraordinary claims, expect extraordinary evidence.

    *(as adults – I’m not in favour of indoctrination of children before they’re too young to decide for themselves)

  3. Efrique,
    Good point about the children! That’s where some of the worst ‘damage’ is done.

  4. AV

    What Efrique said–with the part about demanding evidence for claims made, and demanding extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims made–in bold, underline and italics.

    (Though it would be nice if more people favoured critical thinking over magical thinking.

  5. io

    I think Atheism _is_ a form of indoctrination if teached to children. Even militant Atheists like Dawkins admit that they are in essence agnostics because they cant disprove god.

    Furthermore I’m believe that this “atheism versus theism” discussion is just scratching the surface. The discussion in which we should participate in first is “can we find truth or not”.

  6. sugar & spice

    I cannot say I’m an atheist, but I do have to say I am strongly anti-organised-religion, at least with regards to the ones I’ve encountered; the central theme they often hold in common is one of recruitment. The last religious function I attended was a mainstream Christian baptism, and I was appalled. The pastor managed to denigrate three major religions, plus a specific small local town, within the opening ten minutes of the ‘sermon’. A fair portion of the rest of his speech was taken up with recruitment tactics and exhortations for the congregation to go out and bring their friends and family to the next service. This on top of holding a baptism for several children, all too young to understand the idea of ‘informed consent’, let alone provide it. What people believe in private is no business of mine, but it becomes a concern when they are infringing on not only my privacy, but also my own ability to make decisions that have no impact on them (ie. the abortion debate in North America). So, to sum it up, my personal thought is quite in agreement with the quote you provided: I have no interest in forcing people to conform to my beliefs, as long as they do not try to force me to conform to theirs.

  7. I always think it odd that an “atheist” is one who readily rejects the existence of God (even the Christian’s One Creator God).

    I have had many a conversation with “atheist” per se, and have always asked this one question of them… at what time did an “atheist” come to believe beyond a shadow and a doubt, the non-existence of a God? You see, in order for an “atheist to adhere to that position – he/she would have had to already traversed the universes planets, spaces, times, sciences and quandries… in other words, must themselves become a “god”, knowing good from evil, right from wrong and the acceptance or rejection of the existence of a god.

    In short, a pure atheist Does believe in at least one god… self! And, based on that foundation alone – rejects all other approaches to the mysteries of creation, our existence and purpose and his own being.

    How sad a life to live… with no hope for a better future than the dark one created by those who are tenacious enough to defend their own hopelessness.

    There is a God. He has a name. Jesus Christ. He declares that He alone is the hope for all mankind. Good enough for me and mine.

  8. io
    You may have a point IF atheists particularly indoctrinated their children against gods/religion. (Though IMHO there are good reasons to do this, considering some of the negative impact religion can have)

    However, IMHO, their are two types of ‘atheist’ parents:

    1. Those that don’t even consider themselves atheists, they are just not religious. These parents tend to say nothing either way to their children. So no indoctrination there.

    2. Those that are ‘open’ atheists. These parents, generally, teach their children both sides of the story, but they teach the use of critical thinking and questioning ‘beliefs’. It’s more “Here’s the evidence for and against the existence of god(s)” and/or “Use science, logic and reasoning to determine the value of religion”. So not much indoctrination there.

  9. Rev. Peterson Cekemp

    I think keeping the right of having a personal belief is a lot important, but at the same time dangerous; we can’t just force people into freedom (what atheism and agnosticism basically is) because there would be no freedom in that, so we need a scenario where people would have the right to hold its personal beliefs, but nobody’d want that – for example, nobody’d want to take the fantasy of god as real, cause it’s just extremely no-sense. But that’s kind of utopic, huh?

    IN the other hand, we may have problems with the idea of religion – it doesn’t matter if “enlightened” religious people nowadays say we ‘need’ a ‘peaceful’ religion and things like that – it’s bullshit, they’re going to keep on ‘needing’. Not accepting differences is the main (but subtle somehow) idea of most of the religions, the “my god is better than yours” thing. The idea of “I am God’s slave and my mission on Earth is to purify it”, you know? We’ve been having problems like these for too many centuries.

  10. William B

    I’m afraid your ‘logic’ is not very sound.
    It is not essential to become a ‘god’ as you stated to reject the existence of god. The same as I don’t have to become Santa, a fairy, or a leprechaun to reject the existence of Santa, fairies and leprechauns.

    You also don’t have to believe in a god to know right from wrong – a discussion I wont go into here, but check FAQ 1 for a starter.

    How many time do we have to say it, atheists don’t believe in the ‘self as god’ principle. Not believing in god does not necessarily mean that we behold no mysteries, we just approach them all with a rational mind. I sometimes look up at the stars and ‘wonder about it all’, but I don’t have to think “goddidit” to have a purpose in life.

    How much more sad is it to think your only purpose is to serve something that doesn’t exist in the hope of after death going to somewhere that doesn’t exist.

  11. Velvia

    I am not a Bible scholar, nor am I looking to get into an argument with anyone over whether God is real or not either, but I would like to voice my opinion. I serve a living, loving God who sent His Son, Jesus Christ , to die on the cross for my sins. Were it not for His love and divine intervention in my life I would not be here today. God is not a crutch for me to make me feel better about myself or my life, He is my heavenly Father and He is changing me daily. Contrary to today’s popular belief, most Christians are not hatemongers as the media has made them out to be, but human beings just like yourself who want to make the world a better place!

  12. AV

    I always think it odd that an “atheist” is one who readily rejects the existence of God (even the Christian’s One Creator God).

    That’s easy to do when you try to project your own strawman conception of what an atheist is (I fail to see the need for the scare quotes, btw), rather than actually listening to them.

    It’s simply not a question of “rejecting the existence of God,” but rather a lack of belief in God based on the lack of evidence (i.e. empirical evidence–evidence we can all accept regardless of whether we are theists or not) for God’s existence. Do you have such evidence? If so, out with it.

    You see, in order for an “atheist to adhere to that position – he/she would have had to already traversed the universes planets, spaces, times, sciences and quandries… in other words, must themselves become a “god”, knowing good from evil, right from wrong and the acceptance or rejection of the existence of a god.

    Nope. If you claim that God exists, then burden of proof is on you–i.e. it is up to you to substantiate that claim. Atheists–those who lack belief in the existence of God because of the lack of evidence for God’s existence–are not obliged to prove a negative.

    In short, a pure atheist Does believe in at least one god… self! And, based on that foundation alone – rejects all other approaches to the mysteries of creation, our existence and purpose and his own being.

    Strawman. What does your holy book say about bearing false witness, William?

    How sad a life to live… with no hope for a better future than the dark one created by those who are tenacious enough to defend their own hopelessness.

    How sad to live a life passing judgement on people because they aren’t credulous enough to believe what you believe on the basis of zero supporting evidence. And what a waste of time, especially when one could instead be trying to make the most of the only life one can be certain one has.

    See? Two can play at this game!

    There is a God. He has a name. Jesus Christ. He declares that He alone is the hope for all mankind. Good enough for me and mine.

    What a pity.

  13. Peg

    Are the religious people happy to keep their beliefs to themselves and stay out of politics, schools, labs and the courts?

    The problem with this question is it assumes the possibility. As a person of faith (not religion, that is, I believe in salvation through the Deity not through institutions) my relationship with God permeates my whole life as completely as the circulatory system touches every cell in the body. The only way I could keep my “religion” out of politics, schools, labs and courts would be to never show up at all. Which in the case of schools and courts would be illegal, and in the case of politics and labs would be shirking my responsibilities as a citizen of a democracy.

    Next suggestion? :-}

  14. Cricket tragic

    William,

    I would like to answer one of your questions. When did I come to believe in the non-existence of a god? On the day of my birth.

    However, I would suggest that your phrasing is not quite appropriate. I have never believed in a god is more correct, rather than I came to believe in non-existence; hopefully you can see a difference here.

    Some, such as Oz I believe, would if pressed admit that at some stage they were deluded into believing in the existence of a sky god, but that is not the situation for me and many others no doubt. For the same reason I have no recollection of ever believing in Santa Claus. Even as a toddler I was able to use reasoning to conclude that adults were trying to put one over on me!

  15. Hi Peg (and by the way, welcome to all the new readers),

    I think you misunderstood, I’m not questioning that your physical body should be kept out of politics, schools, labs and courts. What I am questioning is would religious people be happy to cease their influence – based on their particular beliefs – on what happens in these places ?

    For instance: stop trying to ban abortions and picketing outside abortion clinics, stop trying to make ID be taught as science, stop trying to ban stem cell research, stop trying to have the Ten Commandments posted in court rooms, stop trying to make all schools hold prayer sessions and have chaplains/ministers as counsellors, etc. etc.

  16. AV

    I think you misunderstood, I’m not questioning that your physical body should be kept out of politics, schools, labs and courts. What I am questioning is would religious people be happy to cease their influence – based on their particular beliefs – on what happens in these places ?

    You see, a religious person would (rightly) object that he or she has no less right to try to influence what happens in these places than anybody else.

    What we should instead call for is for secular liberal democracy to function as it is supposed to function: safeguarding against the privileging of a particular religious belief, safeguarding against the tyranny of the religious over the non-religious, ensuring that church and state remain separate, and ensuring that judicial, legislative and public policy decisions are made on rational and evidential grounds rather than according to religious dogma.

  17. AV
    What I was trying to say, you just said it better.

    cheers

  18. the28

    let’s think it in rationality and scientific way…

    First, could something will be created without the creator?
    The answers is absolutly “no!”, it nonsense. Nothing will be created without the creator, every rational and normal person would think so.

    Earth and all the living things like human is created by random stuff that
    incidently combining and evolving in million of years?
    It nonsense, same like a complicated computer system was created by putting random things and let it be for years, it just nonsense. Latest science also said that earth, ecosystem, animal, human, bug, etc are very complicated things, more and thousand more complicated than most advance super computer ever made. So, in rational way of thinking, it absolutly nonsense to say we or even the universe are created incidently from random things.

    How about Charles Darwin “Origin of Species”?
    Latest science and scientist are mostly say and prove that Origin of Species are prove-less and absolutly not contain true scientific things although it look like. It safe to say that the theory of evolution is a jokes and need to be trashed.

    Than who created the universe and living things on it?
    The most rational and logical answer is GOD has create it.

    What the prove that God is real?
    You, and all things around you, it’s the most rational answer. The logic is same like the carpenter makes table, than we can say that table was created by carpenter, although the table doesn’t have prove that was created by an carpenter, it still must be created by someone.

    Who’s God is the real God?
    The true carpenter is know how the table created. Than the real God is God that know how to create his creation. I can say the real God is Allah, and Islam is the religion that has been perfected for our times. In Islam, way of thinking must be based on rationality and logic, and AlQur’an (that exist for more than 1400 years) containing many scientific things that mostly only can be proved by the latest science, and many new amazing things are wait to be discovered from AlQur’an.

    So, what other religion then makes rational and scientific things can walk together except Islam.

    Please search the information of Islam from the expert, not just from a random author that mostly(i see it) make the reader misunderstand.

  19. AV

    First, could something will be created without the creator?
    The answers is absolutly “no!”, it nonsense. Nothing will be created without the creator, every rational and normal person would think so.

    Circular reasoning. First you must establish that the universe was created. That is, you must substantiate the claim, not merely assert it.

    Nice try, though.

  20. kip

    Is there an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, yet personal God named Jehovah, who created everything in 6 days and talked to Moses from a burning bush?
    No.

  21. Peg

    I think what AV said is correct in theory. There should be no favoritism in schools for any religion or non-religion. The problem is that Christianity is out of fashion these days and Christians are constantly being ridiculed in the media and by celebrities and shouted down in public forums and treated with all manner of disrespect (unless of course they are presidential candidates with mic in hand). Granted the radical fundies don’t help our cause, but there are still a few of us reasonable, thinking Christians around and for the most part our voices aren’t being heard much. Not sexy enough for the evening news I guess…. 😉

    On the specific issues Oz raises: picketing abortion clinics? Abortion clinics aren’t government agencies, they are profit-making ventures, and I don’t see a problem with picketing them if a person believes abortion is wrong… would be equivalent to saying people can’t picket a factory that is polluting the air.

    ID? One theory among many and should be taught as such, not deliberately excluded. Stem cell research? Depends on the source of the stem cells. The Ten Commandments? As I see it the issue is not so much putting them up as taking existing ones down. I see this as sort of a historical kind of thing (at some point in our national history there was a consensus that this was a good thing and people saw fit to put it up). What are we saying by taking them down?

    School prayer sessions? Of course prayer should not be mandated in public schools. By the same token freedom of speech includes religious speech and should not be infringed on. This is one of those subjects where I think the radical fringe of Christianity gets too noisy sometimes and a bit out of line and hurts the cause of the majority of folks. I think it’s enough for Christian students to have the same rights and responsibilities in school as members of the chess club or the football team. That said, I’d also like to see comparative religions courses offered as electives at the high school level so our kids aren’t so hopelessly ignorant of the major religions of world… European schools do a much better job with cross-cultural education, religious or otherwise, than we do.

    And thanks for welcoming us newbies. 🙂

  22. the28

    You right is, i forgot to explain is universe was created?
    back to the rational and scientific thinking, but before that i have to tell some background that i know about why some people think the religion stop mankind from expand science.

    First is myth on religion, yeah mostly myth has made a logical person to be confused. Myth like Zeus, Appolo, God of Sun, etc had very unbelieveable and very unscientific story. For these, please put aside a story in Islam from that group of myth. How about myth in Islam world like Moses split the sea?
    In Islam, we not consider it as Myth, but it’s story of fact from the past. Then i really suprised because recently i watch a documentary movie that explain that latest geographic scientist found that to split the sea really can be explained end really can be happen in that time with a really rational and logical explanation.

    How about myth of prophet Muhammad split the moon?
    It has been explained by NASA, that when Appolo mission found the other fact that structure of the moon is was splited, no doubt about that.

    How can human have such a power?
    In Islam, prophet is normal human, the power is came from Allah, the prophet always ask for help from Allah and Allah accept it and do the job (only Allah can do). But there always be a rational and logical things to be obey (like gravitation, mass, etc), same like a computer game, we can’t do something funny like we play a flying car in Gran Turismo, unless the programmer include the cheat on it.

    I can say the story in Islam will be proved with science, now or later.

    Let’s jump to why was church opposite the idea of sun is the center of our galaxy?
    It’s because the christianity can’t keep their mind on rational and logical thing’s, because that not been told by the religion. It will be a big different if it said to the Moslem scholar(i didn’t say mosque, because Islam never have that kind of organization). Because of that church, many people think religion is opposite to science. But in Islam, to study is same like have religion duty, to get fact is more better than creating beautiful story.

    Is universe was created?
    I can accept that only if the living things and this universe are simple like what Charles Darwin and his friend said. Latest science just can’t be denied, that all living things and existence of the universe are very complicated (DNA, atom, etc), and suprisingly have a great harmony that support each other, all of these things only can be happen if something is purposly create it (in rational and logical terms). In conclusion, the theory of intelegent creation.

    I just can say all of that for now, i wanna take a bath, i smell so stingy now. Ok

    🙂

  23. AV

    Peg:

    ID? One theory among many and should be taught as such, not deliberately excluded.

    It is deliberately excluded–from the science classroom–chiefly for the same reason astrology is excluded. Neither counts as science. The other reason ID is excluded is, as the Dover case established, that it is simply a re-labelling of creationism (a religious doctrine) rather than a scientific theory. Hence to teach it in public schools as science is to violate the Establishment Clause.

    Also see TalkOrigins on what is meant by the term “theory” in the context of science.

    That said, I’d also like to see comparative religions courses offered as electives at the high school level so our kids aren’t so hopelessly ignorant of the major religions of world…

    So would I.

    Daniel Dennett has been a vocal supporter of this idea as well.

    the28:

    In Islam, we not consider it as Myth, but it’s story of fact from the past. Then i really suprised because recently i watch a documentary movie that explain that latest geographic scientist found that to split the sea really can be explained end really can be happen in that time with a really rational and logical explanation.

    Which scientists made this claim, and how did they explain it?

    How about myth of prophet Muhammad split the moon?
    It has been explained by NASA, that when Appolo mission found the other fact that structure of the moon is was splited, no doubt about that.

    The findings of the Apollo mission (e.g. moon rocks) lend weight to the currently-accepted theory that the Moon was formed from the debris resulting from an asteroid impact with a very young Earth. What does this have to do with your Muhammad myth?

    Latest science just can’t be denied, that all living things and existence of the universe are very complicated (DNA, atom, etc), and suprisingly have a great harmony that support each other, all of these things only can be happen if something is purposly create it (in rational and logical terms).

    Argument from incredulity fallacy.

  24. the28

    The findings of the Apollo mission (e.g. moon rocks) lend weight to the currently-accepted theory that the Moon was formed from the debris resulting from an asteroid impact with a very young Earth. —> I don’t make this theory of how moon formed related to “split the moon”, it’s far more different. Because if i’ts related, then the moon just created 1400 years ago(funny). And fact of moon has splited never announce freely in public at that time, it was secret. So commoners like you might be never know, because it’s not taught at school.

    Why Muhammad split the moon has it’s story, in that time some unbeliever ask Muhammad show the prove of his prophecy, Muhammad then beg the help from Allah. And then moon is splited for some time and then combining again. Although the unbeliever see it clearly, they still don’t believe and said that Muhammad is magician that can fool their sight. Now, the unbeliever (some scientist) when examining the Moon accidently found the fact that moon has splited and combining, and yet (once again) they still can’t believe it.

    …in the scientific sense of the word, “theories” explain “facts.”

    So, what’s is the fact of Charles Darwin theory? the fossils? the evolution? Then why fossil of ancient dragonfly(135 million years old) not different from
    modern dragonfly? same goes fossil of honey bee, ant, starfish etc. Also why evolusionist never found a single fossil of transisional animal? like animal of bear before becoming whale

    why scientific things like evolution use fossil that created by combining the other?
    example is piltdown man than found in england at 1912, 40 years later some scientist test the fossil with flourine test and other more test then found that fossil is fake and it are combination of human skull with orang utan jaw. Many more like Nebraska man, Ota Benga ect. But it’s all explain how evolutionist are desperete to prove their theory, but the lie just a lie, and only can be proved by other lie. How can it be Scientific?

    I just say that a lie that always been told or taught(in movies, book, story)will be like a true things. Same like ancient people thinks Zeus, Horus, Athena etc are real and make sense.

  25. AV

    I don’t make this theory of how moon formed related to “split the moon”, it’s far more different. Because if i’ts related, then the moon just created 1400 years ago(funny). And fact of moon has splited never announce freely in public at that time, it was secret. So commoners like you might be never know, because it’s not taught at school.

    How convenient. If your “moon splitting” claim holds any weight, it should be easy for you to provide supporting evidence. (And no–“I saw a documentary once” is not evidence.)

    Why Muhammad split the moon has it’s story

    Before you tell us why Muhammad split the moon, you still have to substantiate your claim that Muhammad split the moon. Nobody is going to accept this claim just because you assert it.

    So, what’s is the fact of Charles Darwin theory?

    Talk Origins FAQ. You’ll find your answers there.

  26. Pingback: God does not exist « Shir ha Shirim Weblog

  27. AV

    Then why fossil of ancient dragonfly(135 million years old) not different from
    modern dragonfly?

    On this topic (relevant TalkOrigins article: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930.html), I was of the understanding that the ancestors of modern dragonflies were at one stage much larger than their modern counterparts, owing to the fact that there was much more oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere. Can you give me more information (i.e. links, references) regarding your “ancient dragonflies were exactly the same as modern dragonflies” thesis?

    Also why evolusionist never found a single fossil of transisional animal?

    Umm . . . transitional fossils have been found. Lots of them: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

    like animal of bear before becoming whale

    Bear becoming whale? Who claims this?

    why scientific things like evolution use fossil that created by combining the other?
    example is piltdown man than found in england at 1912, 40 years later some scientist test the fossil with flourine test and other more test then found that fossil is fake and it are combination of human skull with orang utan jaw. Many more like Nebraska man, Ota Benga ect.

    Relevant TalkOrigins pages:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC001.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC001_1.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC002.html

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove here. You seem to be under the impression that science is just like religion–the uncritical, unquestioning observance of a set of dogmas written down hundreds or thousands of years ago. It isn’t. Evolution has come a long way since Darwin published The Origin of Species, and it doesn’t stand or fall because of the Piltdown hoax, etc.

    But it’s all explain how evolutionist are desperete to prove their theory,

    No, it doesn’t. But if evolution is based on lies, as you claim, you have to give us more to go on than the Piltdown hoax, etc. How are “evolutionists” lying today? And can you please give us something more concrete than hearsay or what you saw on television?

  28. the28

    …modern dragonflies were at one stage much larger than their modern counterparts…—> i don’t think it’s evidance of evolution, just a different development because of different environment. You know, many species have different characteristic although they are same. Easy example is Human: white, black, yellowish, small, big, curly, straight etc.But never be considered as different species although (once again) look different. The case is different if it has becoming fossill, evolusionist may freely to reconstruct it (mostly the appereance), that is what i see.
    like animal of bear before becoming whale —> Charles Darwin said so, maybe you should read his book more carefully.

    How are “evolutionists” lying today?—> with nice, smooth and constant
    propaganda (in my point of view).

    Darwin published The Origin of Species, and it doesn’t stand or fall because
    of the Piltdown hoax, etc.—>because some people make it so, and some
    people just want to know what they want to. And also for reach their ultimate goal: creating “materialistic world” that mostly leading to communisme and chaos. cmiiw

    And can you please give us something more concrete than hearsay or what you saw on television?—> sorry i can’t, i’m not a scientist or people that closely related to it

    I think i don’t have anything to say anymore for now, because i almost reach my limit of my knowledge. But i will say many thank’s for gave me good manner of responds 🙂

    Almost forgot, just one more question, will without believing in God makes mankind life better and gain the true happiness?

  29. AV

    i don’t think it’s evidance of evolution, just a different development because of different environment.

    That’s evolution.

    How are “evolutionists” lying today?—> with nice, smooth and constant
    propaganda (in my point of view).

    Evidence?

    Darwin published The Origin of Species, and it doesn’t stand or fall because
    of the Piltdown hoax, etc.—>because some people make it so, and some
    people just want to know what they want to. And also for reach their ultimate goal: creating “materialistic world” that mostly leading to communisme and chaos.

    You are claiming to know an awful lot about what motivates individuals you have never met. What evidence do you have that communism is the “ultimate goal” of people who accept evolution?

    And can you please give us something more concrete than hearsay or what you saw on television?—> sorry i can’t, i’m not a scientist or people that closely related to it

    And yet you make bold claims about scientists “telling lies.”

  30. the28

    Me: i don’t think it’s evidance of evolution, just a different development
    because of different environment.

    AV: That’s evolution.
    —>The real evolution is change of one species becoming another species(unless the meaning has being changed or “modified”).

    Me: How are “evolutionists” lying today?—> with nice, smooth and constant propaganda (in my point of view).
    AV: Evidence?
    —> Easy, i think one of the “victim” is you.

    AV: You are claiming to know an awful lot about what motivates individuals you have never met. What evidence do you have that communism is the “ultimate goal” of people who accept evolution?
    —> The biggest one example is China

    Me: And can you please give us something more concrete than hearsay or what you saw on television?—> sorry i can’t, i’m not a scientist or people that closely related to it
    AV: And yet you make bold claims about scientists “telling lies.”
    —> Nobody needs to have title scientist to telling between lies and truth, but lies that said by scientist is a very good lie that make it very trustfull (ultimatly by common people).

    Once again, will without believing in God makes mankind life better and gain the true happiness? As additional, in my point it only makes people becoming more materalistic.

    Peace 🙂

  31. the28

    I want to post a comment with topic about 10 notorius darwinist fabrications, but it’s too long, you can see ithere.

  32. AV

    The real evolution is change of one species becoming another species(unless the meaning has being changed or “modified”).

    OK. So what makes you think–or perhaps I should say, can you cite the relevant scientific authority that demonstrates–that the dragonfly-like ancestors of modern dragonflies belong to the same species?

    Easy, i think one of the “victim” is you.

    Why? Because I disagree with you? That makes me a “victim?” It hasn’t taken you long to resort to name-calling.

    The biggest one example is China

    How does China being a Communist state prove that communism is the ultimate goal of people who accept evolution? (Or did you not understand the question?)

    Nobody needs to have title scientist to telling between lies and truth, but lies that said by scientist is a very good lie that make it very trustfull (ultimatly by common people).

    But when you wants to accuse every scientist on the planet that accepts evolution of being liars, you ought to be able to provide sufficient evidence in support of their claim, rather than simply asserting it and expecting others to accept your assertion purely because you say so.

    Once again, will without believing in God makes mankind life better and gain the true happiness?

    I’m happy, and I don’t believe in God.

    I want to post a comment with topic about 10 notorius darwinist fabrications, but it’s too long, you can see ithere.

    That’s nice. But your list of so-called “fabrications” are answered at TalkOrigins and elsewhere on the web. You don’t have to look at them if you don’t want to, but they are there for others to see.

    That’s one of the wonders of the internet, you see. Fact-checking–for those who are not content to have the wool pulled over their eyes by people who make claims like “evolutionists are liars”–in but a mere few mouse-clicks.

    Incidentally, by your own admission you have no scientific qualifications, and certainly none in the field of biology. So why should I take your claims on the topic of evolution seriously anyway?

  33. the28

    I’m sorry if my word maybe has make you angry or mad, maybe because my mother tongue is not English, i have difficult time to choosing the right word that i want to say.

    “Incidentally, by your own admission you have no scientific qualifications, and certainly none in the field of biology. So why should I take your claims on the topic of evolution seriously anyway?” —> Yup, you don’t need take my claims seriously, i just want you to consider it.

    I think i had enough for now, thank’s for the good time 🙂

  34. AV

    I’m sorry if my word maybe has make you angry or mad, maybe because my mother tongue is not English, i have difficult time to choosing the right word that i want to say.

    As an ESL teacher in Japan, I’m happy to have been able to provide you with an opportunity to practice your skills. Debating and operating a blog in the target language requires a high level of competence, and even though I disagree with you on the issues, I’m impressed with your English. 🙂

  35. the28

    Hahaha…, i love this kind of atmosphere, just like on competition.

    Yoroshiku Onegaishimasu 😉

  36. Helper

    i urged people to check this website out
    and atleast after reading other peoples views and experiences can make up there own minds

    http://www.everystudent.com/wires/Godreal.html
    and also follow the links

  37. Helper’s comment has been sitting in my moderation queue for a while, I wasn’t sure if I should approve it or not. I finally got around to reading some of the link and I made up my mind, there’s nothing new or interesting that might make you believe.

  38. AV

    I finally got around to reading some of the link and I made up my mind, there’s nothing new or interesting that might make you believe.

    It does have potential as a case-study in how to engage in bad arguments and slipshod reasoning. I was going to fisk it, but I can’t be bothered–these arguments are churned out ad infinitum, and I’d rather not waste my time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s