Penn Jillette on Libertarianism/Atheism

[MR2-Sooner86]

I don't know, so I'm an atheist libertarian (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/16/jillette.atheist.libertarian/)


I try to claim that I was friends with the genius Richard Feynman. He came to our show a few times and was very complimentary, and I had dinner with him a couple times, and we chatted on the phone several times. I'd call him to get quick tutoring on physics so I could pretend to read his books.

No matter how much I want to brag, it's overstating it to call him a friend. I would never have called him to help me move a couch. I did, however, call him once to ask how we could score some liquid nitrogen for a Letterman spot we wanted to do. He was the only physicist I knew at the time. He explained patiently that he didn't know. He was a theoretical physicist and I needed a hands-on guy, but he'd try to find one for me.

About a half-hour later a physics teacher from a community college in Brooklyn called me and said, "I don't know what kind of practical joke this is, but a Nobel Prize-winning scientist just called me here at the community college, gave me this number, and told me to call Penn of Penn & Teller to help with a Letterman appearance."

I guess that's close to a friend.

My friend Richard Feynman said, "I don't know." I heard him say it several times. He said it just like Harold, the mentally handicapped dishwasher I worked with when I was a young man making minimum wage at Famous Bill's Restaurant in Greenfield, Massachusetts.

"I don't know" is not an apology. There's no shame. It's a simple statement of fact. When Richard Feynman didn't know, he often worked harder than anyone else to find out, but while he didn't know, he said, "I don't know."I like to think I fit in somewhere between my friends Harold and Richard. I don't know. I try to remember to say "I don't know" just the way they both did, as a simple statement of fact. It doesn't always work, but I try.

Last week I was interviewed for Piers Morgan's show (which used to be Larry King's show). Piers beat me up a bit for being an atheist (that's his job) and then beat me up a bit for being a libertarian (also his job). He did this by asking me impossible questions, questions that none of us, Harold, Richard, me, (or Piers), could ever answer.

He started with "How did you get here?" and I started talking about my road to showbiz and atheism and he interrupted and said he meant how the universe was created. I said, "I don't know."

He said, "God," an answer that meant Piers didn't know either, but he had a word for it that was supposed to make me feel left out of his enlightened club.

Then he asked me what we could do to help poor people. I said I donated money, food, medical care, and services and he said, "No," he meant, what could society do to solve the problem of poor people. Again, I was stumped.
He said the government had to do it, which I interpreted as another way of saying he didn't know, but he thought that made me look mean ... even though I do care and do try to help.

What makes me libertarian is what makes me an atheist -- I don't know. If I don't know, I don't believe. I don't know exactly how we got here, and I don't think anyone else does, either. We have some of the pieces of the puzzle and we'll get more, but I'm not going to use faith to fill in the gaps. I'm not going to believe things that TV hosts state without proof. I'll wait for real evidence and then I'll believe.

And I don't think anyone really knows how to help everyone. I don't even know what's best for me. Take my uncertainty about what's best for me and multiply that by every combination of the over 300 million people in the United States and I have no idea what the government should do.

President Obama sure looks and acts way smarter than me, but no one is 2 to the 300 millionth power times smarter than me. No one is even 2 to the 300 millionth times smarter than a squirrel. I sure don't know what to do about an AA+ rating and if we should live beyond our means and about compromise and sacrifice. I have no idea. I'm scared to death of being in debt. I was a street juggler and carny trash -- I couldn't get my debt limit raised, I couldn't even get a debt limit -- my only choice was to live within my means. That's all I understand from my experience, and that's not much.

It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

People try to argue that government isn't really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes. (This is only a thought experiment -- suggesting on CNN.com that someone not pay his or her taxes is probably a federal offense, and I'm a nut, but I'm not crazy.). When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force -- literally, not figuratively.

I don't believe the majority always knows what's best for everyone. The fact that the majority thinks they have a way to get something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority that don't want to pay for it. If you have to use a gun, I don't believe you really know jack. Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It's just ganging up against the weird kid, and I'm always the weird kid.

How did we get here and how do we save everyone? I don't know, but I'm doing the best I can. Sorry Piers, that's all I got.

:pop:

[soonerhubs]

Good read.

[GKeeper316]

but if he'd just let god give him all the answers, then he wouldn't have to keep saying "i don't know" like a big dumb idiot

[AlboSooner]

A lot of things written by someone who doesn't know, but hey in this country those who don't know are in leadership positions most of the time. Atheists have always lacked philosophical depth. An argument of ignorance has no epistemic value what so ever. It's easy to prove you don't know.

[GKeeper316]

Atheists have always lacked philosophical depth.

this is an opinion not based in any fact.

but he's a christian and its on the internet, so it must be true, right?

[Veritas]

Wouldn't he actually be an agnostic?

Atheism says there is no deity. Proclaiming oneself as an atheist is saying "I know there are no gods, or deities, or whatever." Note that I'm not trying to build a straw man there, that's just my understanding of atheism.

Agnosticism, or at least the flavor I subscribe to, says that it's not possible to know or not know if deities exist. So if someone asks me if I believe in God, I say "yes," but that's a belief by choice, not a claim of knowledge. If someone asks me if God exists I say, "I dunno."


It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

People try to argue that government isn't really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes.
Brilliantly stated.

[AlboSooner]

this is an opinion not based in any fact.

but he's a christian and its on the internet, so it must be true, right?
Is this sarcasm?

Having read the Sam Harrises of the world the Dawkinses of the world, the Christofer Hitchens of the world, and listening to Bill Maher's mambo jumbo, there is more than apt evidence that the prophets of atheism have no clue how to make a philosophically sound argument.

The world of skepticsm produced its last great thinker in David Hume, and since Hume it has been downhill.

Both atheism and agnosticism are based on a contradiction. You can't affirm in the negative an absolute, nor can you know that you can't know.

Any statement concerning God is "knowing."

Atheism/ agnosticism are at their very root emotional positions. The bread and butter argument of atheism, which is Epicurius' dilemma, is an emotional argument.

Have talked to MANY atheists, after I scratch the surface, there is always an emotional anchor to their rejectiOn of God. I come from a family full of atheists. Even Huxley, the bulldog of Darwin, admitted to emotional rejection of God.

[StoopTroup]

God is a Mystery and this movement for truth seems pretty silly when he's asked you to have faith and find good in your life and read and follow the many stories of the Bible. We as people continue to reveal our own mistakes and faults and many of us learn to forgive and better our lives and try to help better and improve the lives of those around us.

Some make the claim of Atheism or Agnostic instead of accept that there are Mysterious and unexplainable moments that just require us to have faith until there is something that clearly explains that what God Claimed isnt true in any way shape or form.

[goingoneight]

Wouldn't he actually be an agnostic?

Atheism says there is no deity. Proclaiming oneself as an atheist is saying "I know there are no gods, or deities, or whatever." Note that I'm not trying to build a straw man there, that's just my understanding of atheism.

Agnosticism, or at least the flavor I subscribe to, says that it's not possible to know or not know if deities exist. So if someone asks me if I believe in God, I say "yes," but that's a belief by choice, not a claim of knowledge. If someone asks me if God exists I say, "I dunno."


Brilliantly stated.

Atheists are Agnostics... with balls.

[sooner59]

I'm a fan of deism myself. Whatever happened to deists? Haven't heard from many self-proclaimed deists since the days of Thomas Jefferson.

[tommieharris91]

Both atheism and agnosticism are based on a contradiction. You can't affirm in the negative an absolute, nor can you know that you can't know.


What if you do know? Atheists will reject the possibility of an absolute, and won't ever sway from that position. Agnostics are the ones who are unsure.

[TIMB0B]

I'm a fan of deism myself. Whatever happened to deists? Haven't heard from many self-proclaimed deists since the days of Thomas Jefferson.

I would classify myself as a deist since I don't necessarily subscribe to any religion, however I do believe in prophecies. I don't really know much about it, but did it branch off as part of the reformation?

[GKeeper316]

What if you do know? Atheists will reject the possibility of an absolute, and won't ever sway from that position. Agnostics are the ones who are unsure.

agnostics are not unsure. agnostics believe its impossible to know one way or another. there's a difference.

[GKeeper316]

I would classify myself as a deist since I don't necessarily subscribe to any religion, however I do believe in prophecies. I don't really know much about it, but did it branch off as part of the reformation?

what do you mean?

[sooner59]

Deism really quick:

1. There is a Supreme Creator of the universe.
2. The Creator does not intervene.
3. The Creator has a plan and to intervene would interrupt natural laws.
4. One does not subscribe to particular religions.
5. No prophecies, no miracles.

Here is the wiki:


Deism (Listeni/ˈdiːɪzəm/ US dict: dē′·ĭzm)[1][2] in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is a creation and has a creator. Furthermore, the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe that this god does not alter by (regularly or ever) intervening in the affairs of human life. This idea is also known as the Clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own. Deists believe in the existence of a god without any reliance on revealed religion, religious authority or holy books. Two main forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism.

The earliest known usage in print of the English term "deist" is 1621,[3] and "deism" is first found in a 1675 dictionary.[4][5] Deism became more prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment — especially in Britain, France, Ireland and North America — mostly among those raised as Christians who found they could not believe in supernatural miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity, but who did believe in one God. The Founding Fathers of the United States were heavily influenced by Enlightenment philosophies, and it is generally believed that many of them were deists.[6]

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

I honestly don't know a ton about it. But this gives you an idea.

[OhU1]

Is this sarcasm?

Having read the Sam Harrises of the world the Dawkinses of the world, the Christofer Hitchens of the world, and listening to Bill Maher's mambo jumbo, there is more than apt evidence that the prophets of atheism have no clue how to make a philosophically sound argument.

The world of skepticsm produced its last great thinker in David Hume, and since Hume it has been downhill.

Both atheism and agnosticism are based on a contradiction. You can't affirm in the negative an absolute, nor can you know that you can't know.

Any statement concerning God is "knowing."

Atheism/ agnosticism are at their very root emotional positions. The bread and butter argument of atheism, which is Epicurius' dilemma, is an emotional argument.

Have talked to MANY atheists, after I scratch the surface, there is always an emotional anchor to their rejectiOn of God. I come from a family full of atheists. Even Huxley, the bulldog of Darwin, admitted to emotional rejection of God.

So, there are no people who honestly do not accept the claims of religions? The default out of the womb position for a human being is to believe a supernatural being outside of space and time exists? (or however you define this entity). I don't want to misinterpret what your view may be but that seems to be what your post is driving at.

[TIMB0B]

Deism really quick:

1. There is a Supreme Creator of the universe.
2. The Creator does not intervene.
3. The Creator has a plan and to intervene would interrupt natural laws.
4. One does not subscribe to particular religions.
5. No prophecies, no miracles.



Interesting. According to that list, I'm 80% deist, however wouldn't #3 suggest that prophecies are still possible since they would be deemed as part of the Creator's plan?

[TIMB0B]

what do you mean?

Well, deism has no belief in organized religion, and the great reformation was a break away from organized religion (Catholicism).

[GKeeper316]

Interesting. According to that list, I'm 80% deist, however wouldn't #3 suggest that prophecies are still possible since they would be deemed as part of the Creator's plan?

no. the mere existence of a prophecy would imply that the prophecy was part of the plan, which it couldn't have been since non-intervention is the plan.

[GKeeper316]

Well, deism has no belief in organized religion, and the great reformation was a break away from organized religion (Catholicism).

wrong.

go read up on martin luther.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Having read the Sam Harrises of the world the Dawkinses of the world, the Christofer Hitchens of the world, and listening to Bill Maher's mambo jumbo, there is more than apt evidence that the prophets of atheism have no clue how to make a philosophically sound argument.

Christopher Hitchens makes several good arguments but it depends what exactly the debate is over. I think he does better going after organized religion than a deism vs atheism debate.


The world of skepticsm produced its last great thinker in David Hume, and since Hume it has been downhill.

Disagree but that's because Hume bored me.


Both atheism and agnosticism are based on a contradiction. You can't affirm in the negative an absolute, nor can you know that you can't know.

I went to the Oxford dictionary and for atheism it said, "disbelief in the existence of God or gods." There is no absolute or affirmation on the existence of a higher power.

[Atheism] is not saying, "I do not think there is a God." It is not even saying, "I do not believe there is a God." It is affirming the nonexistence of God. It affirms a negative. (http://www.newswithviews.com/Collins/phillip129.htm)

I disagree with that line of thought. As I pointed out I don't see in the Oxford definition of an "absolute affirmation." I can flip that around and say you can't affirm the absolute in the existence of a god.

If I say I don't believe in Bigfoot, am I saying that I know with 100% absolute certainty that there's no such thing as Bigfoot? No, I'm just saying that I don't believe in Bigfoot from the evidence presented to me.

As for agnostics "knowing that you don't know," I disagree as well.

Again, I went to Oxford and the definition was, "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."

What an agnostic is, is somebody who simply says absolute truth cannot be known.

I know a group of people who believe '71 Nebraska would beat '01 Miami. I know another group of people who believe '01 Miami would beat '71 Nebraska.

We can present cases and evidence for each side. They can both make their arguments but in the end, we'll never know the absolute truth on who would win the game if they played.

Until absolute truth can be obtained, no side can say they have all the answers and know everything.


Any statement concerning God is "knowing."

Knowing what?


Atheism/ agnosticism are at their very root emotional positions. The bread and butter argument of atheism, which is Epicurius' dilemma, is an emotional argument.

Can't the same be said about the religious?

Atheist: How can there be a god if there's evil in the world?
Deist/Theist: How can we have morals without a creator?


Have talked to MANY atheists, after I scratch the surface, there is always an emotional anchor to their rejectiOn of God. I come from a family full of atheists. Even Huxley, the bulldog of Darwin, admitted to emotional rejection of God.

Are you trying to say every non-believer rejects the notion of a higher power because their emotions overpowered their logic and reasoning skills?

[TIMB0B]

wrong.

go read up on martin luther.

No. You tell me since you know.

[GKeeper316]

No. You tell me since you know.

martin luther didn't have a problem with organized religion. he had a problem with the catholic church and its political dominance of most of the world.

[TIMB0B]

martin luther didn't have a problem with organized religion. he had a problem with the catholic church and its political dominance of most of the world.

Against theocracies. Which is why I asked if deism was a branch of the reformation. That is all.

[GKeeper316]

Against theocracies. Which is why I asked if deism was a branch of the reformation. That is all.

no not against theocracies. just the catholic church as an institution.

i don't think you know very much about what the church was back then.

[sooner59]

Interesting. According to that list, I'm 80% deist, however wouldn't #3 suggest that prophecies are still possible since they would be deemed as part of the Creator's plan?

I don't know about deism being part of the reformation. It sort of started in the 1600s. I'm not a scholar on the subject. As far as your question here...I think that prophecy would suggest that either the Creator planned for people to know the plan on their own, or that they were told by the Creator. The second part is forbidden, but the first part, I don't know. I find deism very interesting, but I am no expert on it by any means.

[TIMB0B]

no not against theocracies. just the catholic church as an institution.

i don't think you know very much about what the church was back then.

I don't much care. The Bible is all I need.

[GKeeper316]

I don't much care. The Bible is all I need.

who's bible?

[olevetonahill]

I don't much care. The Bible is all I need.


who's bible?

HIS Bible, Pay Tention :rolleyes:

[AlboSooner]

So, there are no people who honestly do not accept the claims of religions? The default out of the womb position for a human being is to believe a supernatural being outside of space and time exists? (or however you define this entity). I don't want to misinterpret what your view may be but that seems to be what your post is driving at.

I think it's easier to reject religions than to reject God. I dont know that Christian apologists have fully answered to Hume. Hume is difficult to deal with because he came from a Christian home. His skepticism of miracles is hard to respond to.

I do believe-- and I'm biased of course-- that Christianity is the hardest religion to reject, because of Jesus. I've met many atheists who act more Christ like than many Christians. Jesus is the embodiment of all good qualities we like in humanity. Wether be it his love for the poor and sinners, wether be it his rejection of political power and choosing death for us.
I'm sure if we Christians acted more like Jesus, maybe more people would follow him.

[badger]

On a sidenote, they have a very fun show in Las Vegas. If any fellow Christians are worried about being made fun of or anything, it isn't like that at all and they don't bring up their atheism or anything, it's just a fun magic show. I think they slip in some profanity and have a scantily clad assistant at one point, but other than that, kids might like it too. I know there were some in the audience.

[Veritas]

Some make the claim of Atheism or Agnostic instead of accept that there are Mysterious and unexplainable moments that just require us to have faith until there is something that clearly explains that what God Claimed isnt true in any way shape or form.
I'm agnostic. Not a claim I make in public because people tend to flip out and hear "atheist." Do I have knowledge that provides me the capability to say that I know there is a God? Absolutely not. Do I have knowledge that allows me to say there is definitely not a God? Absolutely not.

I'm also a theist. In other words, I've chosen to believe in God regardless of the fact that I cannot know whether that chosen belief is accurate or not. To me, that's faith, right? The substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.

There are mysterious and unexplainable moments, sure. But the very fact that we as humans do not encompass the entirety of universal knowledge means nothing more or less than that those moments are mysterious and unexplainable.

To ascribe anything beyond a gap in our knowledge to these moments is to engage in the same baseless spiritualization that led peoples before ours to create religious cultures around that which they could not explain.

[Barry's_Scowl]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

I have yet to see any extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that a magical being that created the universe and lives in the sky, watching everything we do.

[C&CDean]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

I have yet to see any extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that a magical being that created the universe and lives in the sky, watching everything we do.

So what you're saying is that Carl "billions and billions" Sagan is your god.

Whatever floats your dinghy.

[GrapevineSooner]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

I have yet to see any extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that a magical being that created the universe and lives in the sky, watching everything we do.

I am in the eye in the sky
Looking at you I can read your mind

[KantoSooner]

I'm agnostic. Not a claim I make in public because people tend to flip out and hear "atheist." Do I have knowledge that provides me the capability to say that I know there is a God? Absolutely not. Do I have knowledge that allows me to say there is definitely not a God? Absolutely not.
*********************
Veritas, I use your quote for example only. Nothing personal.

Isn't it phenomenal that in this day and age stating a disbelief or distance from any of an accepted list of religions should open a person to opprobrium, shunning, loss of business opportunities or worse? And yet we know that this is true. Publicly identify as an atheist and you're done as far as politics are concerned and likely have limited your employment opportunities as well. Religions are not benign organizations.

But on the topic of agnosticism vs. atheism, i think it's important to address reason vs. action. I may respect the philosophical niceties of 'I don't know if there is' as opposed to 'I know there isn't'; and there is real meat there in that difference. To me, though, there is also a great deal of reality in what you do and how you act in your daily life. That's what led me to the realization, one day, that although I'd called myself an agnostic for many years, it had been weeks if not months since I'd had reference to any deity or organized religion. It seemed silly to continue to label myself something in theoretical nicety that I had clearly abandoned in daily practice.

[Barry's_Scowl]

So what you're saying is that Carl "billions and billions" Sagan is your god.

Whatever floats your dinghy.

Here, I got one of these for you.

http://politicaljesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/jumptoconclusions2xk14.jpg

Despite what AlboSooner thinks, there have been many great skeptics since Hume, and Carl Sagan was among the best. I think his quote about extraordinary claims covers a lot of what people don't understand, like the idea of a god,mysticism, superstition, UFOS, etc.

[Barry's_Scowl]

I am in the eye in the sky
Looking at you I can read your mind

Sauron?

[GrapevineSooner]

Sauron?

No, Alan Parsons.

[achiro]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

I have yet to see any extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim that a bunch of random events came together to create life and that that life then able to evolve to what we have today.

FIFY

[Barry's_Scowl]

FIFY ...and that that life then able to evolve to what we have today.

No, you completely muddled it, incomprehensible grammar errors aside.

There is a multitude of scientific evidence that supports evolution.

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010/06/the_laryngeal_nerve_of_the_gir.php

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

This is a very small sample of the evidence.

Did you read the OP? Just because you don't know the answer to something does not make that answer "God".

[achiro]

No, you completely muddled it, incomprehensible grammar errors aside.

There is a multitude of scientific evidence that supports evolution.

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010/06/the_laryngeal_nerve_of_the_gir.php

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

This is a very small sample of the evidence.

Did you read the OP? Just because you don't know the answer to something does not make that answer "God".

Oooh grammar smack. :rolleyes: God forbid I get in a hurry while typing on my phone.

I see no "extraordinary evidence" there.

[Barry's_Scowl]

Oooh grammar smack. :rolleyes: God forbid I get in a hurry while typing on my phone.

I see no "extraordinary evidence" there.

So you read all of that information in 26 minutes on your phone and determined that, in spite of the overwhelming scientific data, it does not support the idea that life evolved on Earth through an incredibly long and - yes - exceptional process...

The claim that the universe was created by a god and he watches us and intervenes in human lives is an incredibly extraordinary claim. I provided evidence to support my side. I'd like to see some data that supports yours.

[achiro]

I provided evidence to support my side.

No you didn't.

[Barry's_Scowl]

No you didn't.

Okay. What would it take, besides scientific and academic studies, for you to accept something as evidence as evolution?

Maybe your opposable thumbs?

[GKeeper316]

Okay. What would it take, besides scientific and academic studies, for you to accept something as evidence as evolution?

Maybe your opposable thumbs?

dude... don't even bother. trying to get the christians on this board to use logic and reason is like trying to herd squirrels... maybe rewarding if you can do it, but mostly not worth the effort.

[pphilfran]

For the most part I try to stay out of these discussions...I can't find a way to use a chart...

But why do some find it so difficult to believe in a God...while you instantly believe that a small limitless mass somehow became critical and exploded...and that explosion made everything we see...

[tommieharris91]

Okay. What would it take, besides scientific and academic studies, for you to accept something as evidence as evolution?

Maybe your opposable thumbs?

You realize you're talking to a chiropractor, right?

[achiro]

Okay. What would it take, besides scientific and academic studies, for you to accept something as evidence as evolution?

Maybe your opposable thumbs?

Evidence of evolution is one thing, evolution from single cell to what we have now in the time frame available, THAT would take "extraordinary evidence" that you don't have.

[Ike]

For the most part I try to stay out of these discussions...I can't find a way to use a chart...

But why do some find it so difficult to believe in a God...while you instantly believe that a small limitless mass somehow became critical and exploded...and that explosion made everything we see...

Accepting the notion of a big bang is much less a belief than an acceptance that this is the best we have with the data we can collect. Better data may lead us to better conclusions. There are several conditions that could be met that would cause me to reject the big bang. Thus far, none of those have been met. Are there conditions that could occur that would cause a believer to reject the idea of God?

[achiro]

You realize you're talking to a chiropractor, right?

Your point?

[Barry's_Scowl]

For the most part I try to stay out of these discussions...I can't find a way to use a chart...

But why do some find it so difficult to believe in a God...while you instantly believe that a small limitless mass somehow became critical and exploded...and that explosion made everything we see...

I didn't instantly believe in the Big Bang. I was raised as a Baptist. It look a lot of questions and a lot of reading.

I don't think it's difficult to believe in God. When I did, it was incredibly easy. If I didn't understand something, the answer was "God did it". It's much more difficult to question what you're told from birth and then work to find the answers.

[Barry's_Scowl]

Evidence of evolution is one thing, evolution from single cell to what we have now in the time frame available, THAT would take "extraordinary evidence" that you don't have.

It's the evidence that I just ****ing showed you. I'm still waiting for your evidence.

[The Maestro]

For the most part I try to stay out of these discussions...I can't find a way to use a chart...

But why do some find it so difficult to believe in a God...while you instantly believe that a small limitless mass somehow became critical and exploded...and that explosion made everything we see...

The only reason you believe in God is because of a book written a long, long time ago that someone introduced to you. It was written before what it said could be proven or substantiated and the key character in this book that connects you to God was not written about until 40 years after he was no longer here...and their sharp minds remembered every detail...well, except that all four books about him had major flaws in their recap of his death, burial and resurrection.

What about all the other books of religion you find laughably wrong and flawed? Why is your Bible right but theirs are wrong?

[pphilfran]

Accepting the notion of a big bang is much less a belief than an acceptance that this is the best we have with the data we can collect. Better data may lead us to better conclusions. There are several conditions that could be met that would cause me to reject the big bang. Thus far, none of those have been met. Are there conditions that could occur that would cause a believer to reject the idea of God?

But you easily accept the fact (theory) that something incredibly small created everything we see...that takes quite a leap in faith...(yes, I do believe in evolution)

It really doesn't take much of a leap to say that a being was the one that cause the mass to explode...

And since it is nearly impossible to comprehend today it is fair to say that people 2000 years ago would not have any possible way to understand...so the Bible was written in simple terms and time frames...

i will now sit on the sidelines and watch....

:pop:

[Barry's_Scowl]

You realize you're talking to a chiropractor, right?


Your point?

HAHAHA! Okay, it's all snapping into focus now.

That snake oil - how is it with stains?

http://ecdn0.hark.com/images/000/001/691/1691/original.jpg

[GKeeper316]

i'm tellin you scowl, you're wasting your time. you will never convince a christian he is wrong using logic and reason. because faith is so much easier than logic and reason. faith hardly requires any effort at all, really.

[The Maestro]

The thing to me is this--if you could gather evidence that proved evolution, big bang of some sort, etc...most christians would still reject it and believe in God...cause they want to. So, therefore, it ain't worth arguing. Minds aren't getting changed. You have to be like I was and discover it for yourself.

[Barry's_Scowl]

i'm tellin you scowl, you're wasting your time. you will never convince a christian he is wrong using logic and reason. because faith is so much easier than logic and reason. faith hardly requires any effort at all, really.

You are totally right.

Achiro, I am now ready to accept Jesus into my heart.

[achiro]

HAHAHA! Okay, it's all snapping into focus now.

That snake oil - how is it with stains?

http://ecdn0.hark.com/images/000/001/691/1691/original.jpg


You are totally right.

Achiro, I am now ready to accept Jesus into my heart.

OK so now it's on to personal attacks and sarcasm. Great tactic when your argument has no merit.

[Ike]

But you easily accept the fact (theory) that something incredibly small created everything we see...that takes quite a leap in faith...(yes, I do believe in evolution)

It really doesn't take much of a leap to say that a being was the one that cause the mass to explode...

And since it is nearly impossible to comprehend today it is fair to say that people 2000 years ago would not have any possible way to understand...so the Bible was written in simple terms and time frames...

i will now sit on the sidelines and watch....

:pop:

I don't think I'd call it a leap of faith. The physical universe is full of surprises. We know there are things about the universe that we don't yet know. We also know that there are some incredible things that actually happen in the lab that we would have previously said are impossible (for instance, by taking 2 really small things and banging them together at really high energies, we can create 2 or more things that are bigger than the 2 input particles. Example: The top quark was discovered in proton-antiproton collisions. The top quark has a mass that is about 175 times larger than the proton mass. 110 years ago, it would have been said that such an interaction was absolutely impossible) Weird **** happens at the smallest levels. Knowing that (and other properties of the universe, like the fact that it's expanding) makes the idea of the big bang less a leap of faith and more a reasonable educated guess. As to what caused such a bang...Nobody knows. If you'd like to insert a supernatural being there, that's about as valid as any other idea for how it happened. We just don't know enough to say.

[Barry's_Scowl]

OK so now it's on to personal attacks and sarcasm. Great tactic when your argument has no merit.

My argument had merit and you repeatedly ignored it. It was like playing handball against the curtains.

Your resistance became comical, so I became comical.

If you're ready to discuss like gentlemen, I'm still waiting on some evidence from you.

[Veritas]

This is headed nowhere good. Nice work Christian, atheist, and agnostic retards.