If you can believe it, we can laugh at it!
Ah Penn, you’ve done it again. Thanks for being so erudite and accurate. The theists must hate you.
Oh James, you idiot! You fool! If God didn’t exist then who rote The Bible? Turn and face Him and you will Know. Why you remain so igmorant? Like a baby or a native you are. If God will forgave you then you will not burn forever! Turn and face the lord you stupid idiot.
Im pretty sure it was man who wrote the bible and I’m also pretty sure Penn is 100 percent correct in those statements. I don’t care if others believe in god do your thing but personally I don’t believe in any of that. Facts are facts so if you have proof there is a god and proof those stories in the bible are true then show us and I’m sure me and james will convert right now
Prove that it was god and not man that wrote the bible. Or prove that any of the stories from the bible are true. Do that and Im sure me and james will convert right now
I’m pretty sure this guy is fucking with you. Just so you know, Mr. Patterson.
The sad part is that there’s people actually that stupid though..
Typical judgemental “Christian” statement if I ever heard one… Not to mention the top quality education. Once again, typical. The less educated one is, the more likely they will believe in the invisible man.
I read something the other day saying that the more educated countries in Europe have the highest population of non-believers, and countries where people have little or nothing at all when it comes to education tend to have the highest populations of believers.
I’m pretty sure you’re the idiot. Where’s proof that god “rote” the bible? Science has been proven time and time again, and your blind faith hasn’t been. Just because he doesn’t believe, it doesn’t make him ignorant or any more dumb than someone else is. Trying to find out who wrote the bible is like finding big foot. I know I’m not going to waste my time with “turning and facing the lord” because I haven’t had any reason to in my life. Go force your beliefs on someone who is as simple minded as you.
Wow guys… never heard of trolling I take it? Do yourself a favor, go google “trolling” and realize that ALifeInChrist was trolling you, no one could be that stupid.
At least… I hope no one could be that stupid.
<a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law" title="RationalWiki" says:
Poe's Law is an axiom suggesting that it's difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between parodies of religious or other fundamentalism and its genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane. For example, some conservatives consider noted homophobe Fred Phelps to be so over-the-top that they argue he's a "deep cover liberal" trying to discredit more mainstream homophobes.
Oh Christ. Please learn to spell and capitalize correctly. You come across as a stupid idiot. Unless, of course, you were being sarcastic, and if that’s the case, you fooled me.
…God didn’t create the bible….his “people” did. if your going to be a religious asshole. do it right.
Turn and face the lord? Which way did he go? Oh wait, my friend found him in Prison… Let’s see, that’s South. So face South, then what?
Haha hilarious :-)
God “wrote” the bible?
WRONG! Men wrote the bible and even re-wrote it a few times, making tons of “creative edits” based on the political horizon of the day. The founding church fathers going so far as to insert questionable “facts” into the works of various historians centuries after the fact, just to “prove” what’s never been proven; even the existence of Jesus, is questioned because so much of what was once seen as evidence, has been proven bogus.
So no, “God did not write the Bible”. The bulk of the old Testament comes from older Babylonian and Egyptian mythos and parables and yes, that includes the whole Moses thing. . . 7-days of creation predate the Hebrew adoption of the tale by over 1,500 years, proof is found in the Indus Valley on cave drawings. The Psalms credited to David (who’s existence is likewise questioned) are almost word for word the same praises credited to King Akenautin of Egypt — the original monotheist.
There’s so much more that we could look at, but it all points to the very same thing GOD DID NOT WRITE THE BIBLE. The Bible is a compilation of plagiarized legends, wisdom parables and myths taken from throughout the Holy LANDS of the Indies & middle east. So please stop misrepresenting the things you promote, it’s against the 10 commandments.
I hope he is just joking. I mean it seems like he is but you never know
Correct me if i am wrong but i do believe the bible
was written 400 years AFTER the so called crucifiction.
so i think we all know who is the naive stupid idiot..
I believe Penn to be 100% correct.The only place any god exists
is in the minds of poor demented fools.
Your superior ignorance is rank; and it smells to heaven! Typical creationist rant; running around in circles chasing your head up your ass, while praying for forgiveness for performing sodomy on yourself.
Xxx xxx. Xxx xxxxxx, xxx and be xxxxxxxx.
Admin note: A valid point, perhaps, but just too impolite. Please try again, Zo.
AlifeInChrist… Why you so quick to judge and say hurtful things? Christ like? I don’t think you are. If you think are, than I wouldn’t praise your God or be proud of yourself.
Alifeinchrist i strongly suspect you are a troll, if not then i pitty your worthless existance.
It’s funny how your calling him ignorant when you are being completely ignorant by not seeing why he doesn’t beleive in your personal god. He is being completely accurate. Also, men wrote the bible and men have been writing nonsense, fairy tails and fiction forever. Your the idiot, sir.
does this guy give english lesson too?
Your question shouldn’t be, “If God didn’t exist then who rote The Bible?” but if some god wrote the bible, why is the Jewish bible, the Protestant bible and the catholic bible all different? Are there several different gods or maybe, just maybe, god is a figment of man’s imagination used to help man deal with his/her own mortality?
Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors — a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place. But is it possible that the problem is worse than that — that the Bible actually contains lies?
Most people wouldn’t put it that way, since the Bible is, after all, sacred Scripture for millions on our planet. But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle — Peter, Paul or James — knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html
Typical christian reply. First, bad spelling. FYI, it’s “wrote” not “rote”
Then personal attacks. Why am I ignorant? Because I tell the truth and can prove everything I post? Can you prove anything?
Then the usual threat of burning in hell. If you babble believers had any facts or logic to present, you would not need threats.
I am not a stupid idiot, as you second personal attack asserts. Your post demonstrates that you are none too smart. You accept as true that for which there is not a shred of evidence for it and even much evidence against it. How smart s that?
For example, there is no evidence that you jesus ever existed. Here is a quote from a biblical scholar holding a responsible position at a university.
As stated by Dr. Bart Ehrman, Professor of religious studies at the University of North Caroline, Chapel Hill, NC said, “In the entire first Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet. His name never appears in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence. Zero! Zip references!”
Over the last 50 years or so, I have asked many christian people to furnish a contemporary account of the biblical jesus. What I have earned is that very few of you know what is meant by “contemporary”.
That doesn’t surprise me in the least.
You fool god did not write the bible. It was put together from a bunch of ancient scrips and the new testiment was picked out by emperor consitne or however you spell it
Actually quite the opposite. What I hate is seeing such hatred being spewed forth toward people us Christians are supposed to love. For that I apologize James. I think ALifeInChrist has some lessons on how treat other human beings as well as a be a loving christian. I’m pretty sure Jesus never said to call people stupid idiots. Maybe I missed that part…lol. Anyways back to the subject matter! Penn offers a great point! If there was every trace of every religion wiped out from the face of the earth and all lets say all the current followers are electroshocked to lose all memory of what they’ve learned, then religion would certainly take a different turn! Ultimately it would spin about and make new religions as we’ve seen develop recently with scientology and the spaghetti monster, or it would remain true. Now the only reason it would and could remain true if 100% all documents and evidence of religion was removed previously, is if God is real. Of course hundreds have tried this in the past, and quite a few have succeeded. You should read the bible sometime (if you haven’t)! Many religions, cults, and cultures were taken over and wiped out in those days. Some were assimilated, others destroyed. Even most recently some people have tried to wipe out whole religions but have failed. It’s hard to do such a thing, but an interesting idea. Yet it’s a strong opinion he has to say god doesn’t exist, but yet I feel he doesn’t have proof to back it up by claiming such a statement. It’s just an interesting idea.
That is…If it wasn’t a Troll. If it was then lol, whatev. If it wasn’t then….yeah…
Well said. That’s all.
IDC what you say Penn, the flying spaghetti monster still boiled for your sins.
Ah, Steve. May your life be touched by his noodly appendage.
When religious fanatics burned the Library of Alexandria, in Egypt it took several hundred years to rediscover algebra. But, rediscovered it was.
Unfortunately I think it is wrong. The bible was actually written in a way that is easy to brain wash the un-illuminated. It is actually a tracing of the Sun’s trek across the sky and through out the solar system. Check out this forbidden knowledge site. http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/ancient-civilizations/astrotheology.html
Talking religion a religious person is like playing Chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are at Chess the pigeon will knock over the Chess pieces, shit all over the board and act like they won the game!
Best comment ever.
yea but he’s still a dick about his hardcore libertarian beliefs…as far as saying religion would not manifest itself in the same way in most likely wrong. science has stated we are predisposition for religious beliefs and there is a correlation between mild schizophrenia and a belief in religion…chances are human nature with this pre-programed desired to have faith would get on the same path again…but simply with different characters in different stories…but ultimately the same, as all religion is 51% the same.
That’s what he was saying when he said “there may be some other nonsense in its place but not that exact nonsense”,lolzer
Haha, whatever helps you sleep at night^
I believe that was Penn’s point, read the quote again.
While I agree with his conclusion, there is a flaw in the logic he presents here. The argument he describes goes towards proving that religiosity is flawed, not that God does not exist. If all religions are incorrect in terms of mythos that actually has no bearing on whether God actually does or does not exist. The burden of proof it what it really comes down to. Believers bear that burden.
That’s exactly what he said you dickhead
Shawn, you like to throw around buzzwords like “predisposition” and yet you use them in the incorrect form. You obviously don’t really know what you’re talking about and are just parroting “science” for the sake of trying to sound credible. Why I would agree that human beings exhibit a predisposition to believe in religion, I completely disagree with your idea that there is a correlation between mild schizophrenia and belief in religion. If that was the truth then do not ALL human beings have mild schizophrenia because they ALL have a predisposition to believe in religion? I would like to see the article or facts that say that religious beliefs= mild schizophrenia.
Again Shawn, your final point is just an agreement with what pen said. The whole point of it is that theists nowadays believe wholeheartedly in THEIR brand of religion to the point that saying all other religions are incorrect. This means they are specifically buying into the ideas of their religion. For christians that would be that jesus christ walked the earth as the son of God; for Muslims that would mean that Muhammad was a prophet of god. They believe, not in God solely, but in God and those other things. The belief in god is not the thing that Pen is making a point to say would be different, that is fundamental to all religions, the part that isn’t fundamental is the part that human beings “made up” (other than the people who believe God was made up too, but they kinda go hand in hand).
Either way it’s an interesting quote.
The vocal minority of believers must not be allowed to over-shout the voice of reason by default.
I do not agree with the “new-atheist” movement that seeks to suppress all religion despite being a poster-boy for the role (former Christian from a relatively fundamentalist denomination). Without religion we would have a significantly fractured and dysfunctional society.
I *do* believe that the role of religion needs an overhaul. It no longer informs correctly of our relationship to the rest of the world we live in either as an explanation of natural events and processes, or as an effective purveyor of culture.
The convergence of many cultures as well as the preponderance of naturalistic evidence to explain our existence has painted traditional religions into a corner and threatened them.
This means that we have to single out and critique the conservative demagogues when they make arguments from purely emotional or illogical standpoints with all due vitriol, but at the same time we must be careful that we do not drive their flocks before us as enemies – they are at best unwitting pawns.
Providing an alternative method to pursue a bonding tradition which is at the same time fulfilling to the needs and desires of those who seek religion to fill a role in their lives, while at the same time open to new knowledge which can be demonstrated by reason and evidence to be correct is vital.
Those who seek a religious narrative do so for a variety of personal reasons which are perfectly valid and *should* be respected. PLEASE NOTE: The *reasons* are valid and should be respected, but not necessarily the beliefs themselves. Understand that distinction and your inevitable interactions with Fundies will go much more smoothly.
Sometimes its okay not to be right, and sometimes its perfectly okay for someone else not to be either.
Very well said, indeed!!
Amen to that! Let’s keep Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and God. All these critturs serve a purpose for some people at some time. Little kids need angels to watch over them in dark bedrooms. And it’s so much easier to say to a widow, “He’s in a better place,” than to just say, “That’s all she wrote!” Religion smooths over lots of things…but nobody really believes any of it…except maybe fundamentalists.
The idea that science would be rediscovered exactly as it was is ludicrous: do we expect that humans would tackle the same problems if history turned out differently? Or interpret empirical evidence the same way? This assumes that all people experience things exactly the same. Maybe mathematics would be rediscovered similarly though, as this isn’t something for which experience is necessary
yes everything yes would come out the same; because no matter where you are
c=186,000 mps pi=3.1414569 H=1.007 etc.
Like! Hey! Why don’t I have “Like” buttons on here?
How come theist call me arrogant when I question there delusions?
If god exists, I pray to you, delete this website right now.
… 1 point atheists!
As an agnostic atheist I don’t believe in a god or higher power of any kind, but nevertheless keep my mind open to the possibility that such might exist.
I choose this route mostly because I’m merely an ugly bag of mostly water and neither I nor the collective scientific knowledge of our entire civilization can state with certainty that we can know everything about the nature of our existence.
I think too many pure atheists, particularly those who’ve emerged from and rejected a religious upbringing, have had a kneejerk reaction to being subjugated by organized religion and therefore let their logic be colored by resentment, such that some become as “evangelical” about their disbelief as the religious zealots are about their faith.
I’m not religious but Penn is an idiot. Just such a god damn idiot. And this argument is weeeaaak, you don’t have to be religious to believe in a “god” or whatever you wanna call it, and dont act like you understand the bible. niiuukkaaaa
If you can forego your bigotry, you can try the challenge of http://provethebible.net ..
If you’re up to it of course…
You will be curious to find that the Bible was in fact written by man. The stories in it are accounts simply passed down from generation to generation over time and beliefs derived from various human interpretations. Science is a concept created by man written tried and accepted and passed down in the form of education. Scienctists are constantly proving and disproving old principles on a regular basis and conventional wisdom dictates that these are all theories so we do not infact know the entire answer. Religious text is constantly being updated and doctorines revised as our human knowledge deepens. It is interesting to find that while atheist believe science holds the key they offer no better explanation for creationism than the idea of everything evolving from matter combusting in an empty vacum in a force we call the big bang. Men like Steve Hawkins are revered as deity yet if he knew so much about human evolvution he would resurrect himself from his degenarate state. I think it is safe to conclude that if there wasnt a God it would be necessary to invent one. The root of all evil isn’t religion but rather ignorant people who fail to understand it.
“You will be curious to find that the Bible was in fact written by man. The stories in it are accounts simply passed down from generation to generation over time and beliefs derived from various human interpretations.”
I already know this. Although many theists say it was written by their god or that god guided the authors so you will have to take this point up with your fellow theists, not me. It was written by deeply ignorant people and is no more valid or instructional than an astrology textbook. Your intergenerational game of Broken Telephone doesn’t carry knowledge, it carries myths and herd control. It is a strong meme which mutates quickly to survive each hammer blow of science delivers.
“Science is a concept created by man written tried and accepted and passed down in the form of education. Scienctists are constantly proving and disproving old principles on a regular basis and conventional wisdom dictates that these are all theories so we do not infact know the entire answer.”
Science is a method of sorting crap information like revealed religion from verifiable, testable data. Your education really is dreadfully lacking. Were you home schooled or did you go to a school run by a fundamentalist death cult?
“Religious text is constantly being updated and doctorines revised as our human knowledge deepens. ”
Revealed knowledge, not knowledge. How can man add something useful to the perfect word of an omniscient being? Religion rejects knowledge and all associated apples.
“It is interesting to find that while atheist believe science holds the key they offer no better explanation for creationism than the idea of everything evolving from matter combusting in an empty vacum in a force we call the big bang.”
Science doesn’t offer that explanation, theists offer this drivel as a straw man argument. Whoever gifted you this is seeking to keep you ignorant to hold you in their death cult. If you want to talk about the Big Bang you could at least learn what the competing hypotheses state… even if only to be polite.
“Men like Steve Hawkins are revered as deity yet if he knew so much about human evolvution he would resurrect himself from his degenarate state.”
Hawkins? The evolvutionist?
Dawkins has written some excellent books on evolution. I suggest you read them and learn something about the science you are seeking to discredit with your child-like statements.
Hawking, the theoretical physicist, would know a ridiculous straw man argument when he sees one – even when it is outside of his area of expertise.
Hawking is a highly respected leader in his field. That you say we treat him as a deity says more about your thought patterns than mine. I don’t expect him to act as a deity replete with supernatural powers. I expect him to be a theoretical physicist, in this he meets my every expectation. He talks and writes about theoretical physics. This one man has done more to explain the workings of our universe than all religions put together.
Evolution theory does not comment on cosmology or abiogenesis. Evolution theory does not say that magic cures can be summoned by people who accept current scientific theories. You are superimposing your magical world view onto others. I do not see the world or think about reality the way you do. Maybe you need to learn about theory of mind too… but that would be technical reading and when it gets a bit difficult you will throw your hands in the air and say: “God did it” because that’s easy and comfortable.
“I think it is safe to conclude that if there wasnt a God it would be necessary to invent one. The root of all evil isn’t religion but rather ignorant people who fail to understand it.”
I don’t think your “conclusions” is safe at all. They are based on ignorance of topics, not knowledge. Ignorance both of my world view and your own. I have no use at all for your invented god/s. I don’t fail to understand your religion, I find it hilarious.
To get a joke one has to understand the topic. The joke’s on you and you don’t see it.
I am sick of people denouncing there is a god simply because science exists. Science and religion are two completely separate fields of study or concepts. Science deals with quantitative and qualitative experiments using observations and creating something called a “hypothesis” to ask questions about the physical world. It doesn’t say God doesn’t exist since we can’t scientifically prove it so stop integrating the two and confusing people. Shamanism has been around for thousands of years since the emergence of man. Shamans communicate with the spirit world or “nature” through the ingestion of sacred plants which produce profound psychoactive sensations and visuals. Read the “Spirit Molecule” by Rick Strassman M.D. and learn a little bit more before admiring some American pop culture celebrity.
I am sick of people denouncing there is a god simply because science exists.
Should everyone stop talking about this because it hurts your feelings and you don’t fully understand the conversation?
Science and religion are two completely separate fields of study or concepts.
Your going to go with non-overlapping magisteria? This defense of religion is dead. Religions make testable claims then get cross when those claims are tested.
Science deals with quantitative and qualitative experiments using observations and creating something called a “hypothesis” to ask questions about the physical world.
“Theists” love those “quotation marks”.
It doesn’t say God doesn’t exist since we can’t scientifically prove it so stop integrating the two and confusing people.
Science doesn’t say anything. It is a methodology. You are using “Science says…” (see how the use of quotation marks there is appropriate) in the same way as theists use “the Bible says…”. Under scientific methodology your hypothesis that there is a god fails because you fail to offer evidence. Theists make a positive claim but have no positive evidence for their claim. You have the burden of proof, not me.
Shamanism has been around for thousands of years since the emergence of man.
Geocentricism was around for thousands of years. Should we get back to this? Arguments from Antiquity aren’t given weight here.
Shamans communicate with the spirit world or “nature” through the ingestion of sacred plants which produce profound psychoactive sensations and visuals.
If I write these replies high will you believe me? By this logic drink driving should be required because people who are off their face are better at things.
Read the “Spirit Molecule” by Rick Strassman M.D. and…
Argument from Authority. Just because he’s an M.D. it doesn’t mean Shamanism is real. I’m not interested in reading every pseudo-scientific book in the world. Life’s too short for air-fairy nonsense like this. If he was a Muslim he would have found Muslim answers for the questions raised by his experiments. He likes the idea of an afterlife so he has shoehorned data into the mould of his beliefs.
… learn a little bit more before admiring some American pop culture celebrity.
False dichotomy. Just because I’m not interested in religion and banging on about the after-life I found in a drug stupor it doesn’t mean that I am interested in pop culture. I have not substituted god/s with celebrities. Religion and obsession with celebrity are two sides of the same ridiculous coin. Penn’s statement is here because he is well respected in the skeptical community. Magicians are valuable to skepticism because they make a living from fooling people, like religious leaders. They can pull back the curtain and show us how it’s done.
If a God does exist as theist claim and is just, perfect, and unconditionally loves all of his creation then you have to ask yourself the question when reading the bible. how could this god entertain the thoughts and feelings of anger, hate, jealousy, vengeance, wrath, judgement, indifference, racism, war, to name just a few? there are thousands of children that suffer from starvation, disease, and abuse every day and yet he sits on his throne and does nothing! He is either incapable of doing anything or does not care. Who in their right mind would believe and worship a god of this nature! I’ll tell you. A lunatic! I am a spiritual human being as Sam Harris not a lunatic. The truth will set you free religious fanatics.
Really now, it is my understanding that physics comes closer and closer all the time to find that there is a consciousness that exists in the universe. If all Math and science were wiped away, it might not be the same. Science is changing there mind about things and what their so called Gods are every day. Even a bloody electron acting differently depending on if it is observed or not. This does not mean that man’s view of God is not filtered by the beliefs that one is brought up with. What one believes definitely not only effects what one sees–many psych studies about this, but there is an energetic component similar to the proven studies that if you make several cuttings and start several plants in a house, it has been found if one plant gets sick the others will. The God of the Atheists is no God this creates also a belief system that attracts certain things and filters what one notices. Science my friend is constantly changing day after day what their Gods are and there drugs of choice!
I’m sure you’re a well-meaning person, and I’m also sure you truly believe everything you say. However, you are, regrettably, wrong.
“Really now, it is my understanding that physics comes closer and closer all the time to find that there is a consciousness that exists in the universe.”
I’d love to see the research or proofs that you’re inferring here. I’m always interested in new and challenging information. However, I doubt that you have them available, as I also doubt that they exist. But show me your proof and we’ll talk.
” If all Math and science were wiped away, it might not be the same. Science is changing there mind about things and what their so called Gods are every day.”
Okay, so you obviously don’t understand much about the way science works – so I’ll give you an example. Back in 1911 (over a hundred years ago) A man by the name of Ernest B. Rutherford published a paper that detailed the results of a fascinating experiment into the nature of atoms. This experiment (detailed here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger-Marsden_experiment if you’d like to look into it) proved that atoms had a dense core at their center, a topic which had been the subject of much debate until that paper was released. After this experiment, a new model of the atom was created: the Bohr model. This is the atomic model you’ve seen in logos and movies and such. it’s a pretty neat image, with a cluster of protons and neutrons in the center of a ring of electrons rotating in orbits like moons around a planet.
Over the century since, many other experiments have been performed, refining our understanding of the nature of the atom. We understand now that the model Bohr created for how atoms are structured works well at explaining some things about atoms, but fails at others. After much experimentation and a hell of a lot of hard work, scientists figured out that electrons are found in areas around each atom known as orbitals (after the Bohr model) which have a very different shape than the orbit pattern we think of in classical physics.(you can find some information on it here: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/atomic-structure-the-quantum-mechanical-model.html).
But my point is this: A hundred years later, the nucleus of an atom is still a dense, positively charged area filled with protons and neutrons, and electrons still orbit that nucleus; and if you bothered to recreate Rutherford’s experiment (assuming you know how to handle alpha particles, of course), you’d still get the exact same results he did.
Facts are facts, and untruth is untruth. The fun part about science is that we get to try and figure out which is which. And the reason I feel true compassion for people who can’t bother to learn about it is that they will never feel the incomparable joy of being surprised by what they learn about the world around them.
Life is amazing, and awe-inspiring, and complex, and undeniably strange. I’m sorry if you can’t allow yourself to not have all the answers yet. It’s like being a kid in a surprise factory – constant wonder and amazement at …just…everything. I’m in school to be a biochemist, and every day I learn something new that knocks my socks off and makes me want to grab someone off the street and blow their mind with it. Like Volvox. Volvox are this tiny little blob in the water. They look like tiny green translucent drops of oil to the naked eye. When you put them in a microscope you can see that they’re little spherical colonies of plant cells – a type of algae. But they move. Like animals, they move around in the water. They spin and dance and ballet… and its all explainable with science. Science is the only thing that allowed us to even look at them up close and see how beautiful these little spots of green stuff are.
I don’t personally believe in a god, for a host of reasons unrelated to my field. And I don’t understand what you mean when you equate knowledge, curiosity, investigation, and education (which is all that science has ever been) with any deity.
The fact remains that all I really want to do is show you some of the stuff I’ve seen, and grab your shoulder and whisper, ‘Isn’t that cool? Isn’t that the most awesome thing you’ve ever seen? Wow!’
More! More! (Applauding) :D
“When one person suffers from a delusion, it’s called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion” – Robert Pirsig
This is more or less just stating Penn’s views. It’s not a “point” at all, really. If there is a God, then He would share His Special Revelation again with the new humanity. Penn, however, obviously doesn’t think there’s a God, so He says this.
First of all, God (if there is such a person) did not write the Bible. It was written by a number of human men.
Secondly, over the years I have had a lot of conversations with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists…etc, and have asked a lot of questions. To date not one of them has been able to prove any of the things that they apparently believe in.
Premise 1: If all religions are wiped out they would not be created the same again.
Premise 2: All religions are wiped out
Conclusion: There is no God.
^Not a logical argument.
Simply because religions aren’t 100% accurate in their description of whatever ultimate truth or reality underlies this one as it’s creator doesn’t mean there is no God.
There might be no God, but this argument doesn’t prove that, nor does it really even offer a decent argument. I love Penn, but this time I am disappoint.
Premise 1: Inventions require an inventor.
Premise 2: X is an invention.
Conclusion: X required an inventor.
The inventor may not be God (though I’m sure that’s one of it’s many names) however for something to be created it requires a stimuli. That may be some form of great science, it may be some form of extra-dimensional energy or Hell we might be stuck in a Matrix-like computer system.
The only thing we know for sure is that we Can’t know for sure.
Is your: “Inventions require an inventor” pseudo-logic supposed to show that there is a god? Read Krauss’ Universe from Nothing. What we know about the universe does not require a creator. Who invents your inventor? You are stuck in an infinite regression.
“… we Can’t know for sure.” I don’t know that there is nothing in the vastness of the universe closely fitting the description of the god of the Abrahamic faiths. I don’t have to go and look everywhere in the universe throughout the whole of time to prove that the god hypothesis is not true. It is not my hypothesis so I don’t have to do anything but ask for evidence. Where is the evidence for this hypothesis? Anything tangible will do.
The wishy washy god you are describing is not the god Christians follow when they call for GLBTI rights to be curtailed or kill a doctor who performs medical procedures they claim to disagree with (read: “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion” http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html )
I believe in God, but I don’t believe the bible is 100% accurate, and not because we’re human and flawed and all that mumbo, but because in religion and spirituality, stories and examples are used to teach lessons regarding how one should live. I’m not even saying you should follow it, or believe it. The reason I make this point is to say to ‘ALifeInChrist’, an Atheist who lives a kind, compassionate, loving life is more christlike than someone who goes around criticizing, judging, and looking down on people who don’t believe in God. Something to think about if you believe in God/Jesus: Did Jesus ever look down on someone? …nope… so why should you have the right to, again? Hmmm…
I hate to burst all of your atheist bubbles but, like the bible, science was also written by man. I think that Penn is certainly making a valid and well articulated argument, however, the faith that science is infallible might be as irrational as the belief that a god created our universe. Let’s picture for a moment if what Penn presents us with actually happened, and all human knowledge was wiped out, language, technology, social organization, culture, etc. Slowly but surely, inquisitive minds would reshape and “create” knowledge once again, but science itself tells us that it is perfectly impossible to determine the way in which this new history would develop and evolve. Different circumstances would lead to different social priorities, which would breed appropriately different social organizations and ideological discourses. The answers that we create for ourselves would be completely different, and the significance they hold in our lives would also be completely different. Objectivity (i.e. science) is an illusory discourse that Western culture has created for itself to serve certain purposes, just as Religion was created in the past to serve certain purposes. Science is only legitimate within in its own manmade terms (just like religion), and even with it’s supposed ‘accuracy,’ science is being written and rewritten year after year. Scientists use “proof” where religious folks use “faith.” What is the true difference between the two? If they mean the same thing for different people, then who is to say that one is right over the other? Ethics? Religion has led to genocide, persecution, oppression, and all sorts of shitty shit, while science has brought us nuclear threat, global warming, social darwinism, and chemical warfare. I would like to bring forward some cliche bumper sticker wisdom and change it a little bit for the sake of this argument. Knowledge doesn’t kill people, people kill people.
What I’m trying to say, is that knowledge is never dangerous, regardless of how wrong or right you or other people think it is. It is the way in which you choose to share and use this knowledge that hurts others. Science can be an incredibly dangerous tool, just as religion can be, but if we approach both with a genuine sense of humility and doubt we leave our minds open to the endless possibilities of human creativity and intelligence. We can observe things that we don’t have to explain or prove to others because they too will find their own valid meaning for it.
Question yourself before you question others.
Nice Gish Gallop.
Science doesn’t say it is infallible. Science embraces human fallibility and tries to work out how to overcome it.
Theists say that their various texts were written by god/s, not man.
Scientific theories would re-establish themselves because they are a reflection of a working reality, not human immortality fantasy.
The rewriting of science is its strength, not a weakness. New information is encouraged. Only a mind befuddled by religion could make your “.. illusory discourse that Western culture ..” statement. Science is legitimate because it works. For example: medical science works and prayer does nothing.
The difference between proof and faith: evidence. Show me the evidence for your faith claims.
Science brought us global warming? Human activity brought us global warming. Science has identified a threat. What is religion doing? Denying it because of their funny old books.
Social Darwinism is a spinoff of religious mindset of god/s supporting one group over another. Once we are able to think without the encumbrance of the religious mindset, trying to kill off the other will become less attractive to humans.
Anyway, I’m sick of your post. You have just brought the same tired justifications for your religious fantasies. Do you cut and paste this shit into every forum?
“Science doesn’t say it is infallible. Science embraces human fallibility and tries to work out how to overcome it.”
–Really? Is that ALL science does? I guess nuclear weapons are the ultimate in overcoming human fallibility then. Or would it be genetically modified corn?
“Theists say that their various texts were written by god/s, not man.”
–No. Most say they were written by men who were inspired by god. The Buddhist texts were supposedly written by the Buddha, who apparently made no claims about god/s. The Koran was supposedly written by a prophet inspired by an angel. Pay attention to detail, would ya?
“For example: medical science works and prayer does nothing.”
–Apparently there is evidence that prayer and other spiritual practices have health benefits. It’s not exactly curing cancer, but hey, it’s something. You can find scholarly articles about it on the “Internet.” I don’t know if its true, but the placebo effect is nearly universally accepted by the scientific community, and this seems like pretty much the same thing, really.
“The difference between proof and faith: evidence. Show me the evidence for your faith claims.”
–Faith by definition requires no evidence. For example, I have faith that the entire universe sprang from nothing in a single instant. I believe this because I’ve had direct revelation. I don’t need to prove it to you because I don’t care if you believe it. The burden of proof lies with the person who wants to convince the other of their claim.
“Science brought us global warming? Human activity brought us global warming. ”
–Yes. Science brought us CFCs, gasoline, and internal combustion engines. These things have supposedly caused global warming. Incidentally, science is a human activity.
“Science has identified a threat. What is religion doing? Denying it because of their funny old books.”
–Yes. Science is the cause and the cure for global warming. But is religion really denying it? All of religion? All religious believers? You might want to think that through a bit more and do some research before making such a claim. Unless it’s based on faith, in which case more power to ya.
“Social Darwinism is a spinoff of religious mindset of god/s supporting one group over another. Once we are able to think without the encumbrance of the religious mindset, trying to kill off the other will become less attractive to humans.”
— I guess. Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao Zedong didn’t get the memo. And I have my suspicions that most religious “leaders” who have led people into war were not spiritually guided at all but were simply sociopaths who knew that they needed to appear to believe in order to manipulate the masses. And what do you mean by “the religious mindset” — Is there just one?
science is not written by men, they simply report what they found out and tell you how you can experience / see the same thing
How true. . .Those who just can’t accept that we live and die and are no more just HAVE to create a scenario whereby they will live forever in some “better place.” And, I suppose, it will always be that way. Sigh. . . .
The sad truth is… that statement completely ignores the idea that God had any say in ‘religion’, and that they are the exact same thing. If the statement was changed by one word, I would agree with it completely. Instead of ‘God’, put in ‘True Religion’. Frankly if Penn never made another statement, or hid in his house for the rest of his life, no one saw him, and he was taken off TV, does that mean Penn never existed, or has ceased to exist since we don’t see him?
If your god doesn’t have any say in religion why do you call it omnipotent?
With your hiding Penn in his house idea: I think you should go and read what he said again. If you stand by your statement then you are making a straw man argument. Save those for your church group.
I actually don’t go to church. I believe Religion is something people stick to in order to separate themselves from others by hiding behind a book. Now, back to your statement. If you have nuclear weapons, do you use them immediately? Just because God is all-powerful (omnipotent) doesn’t mean he HAS to stick his nose into every little nook and cranny of our lives. You are making the assumption that God doesn’t want us to make up our own minds about Him. It’s not Penn’s fault that I don’t believe in Penn if he’s hiding in his house… doesn’t make him any less real.
If your god is not a god that sticks its nose into everyone’s business over every little thing then we probably don’t have quarrel. But that’s not the god that most people follow and would, if they still could, force others to follow by threatening to kill them in hideous ways. Most people follow the god that says every transgression, including making up our own minds about whether he exists or not, results in an eternity in hell. Threatening someone with eternal torture is hardly allowing them free will.
Your Penn analogy still isn’t working. We can produce Penn. Believing in Penn is not equal to believing in a fantastic creature despite the complete lack of evidence. Penn doesn’t threaten us with hell. Penn doesn’t tell us to hate GLBTI people. Penn doesn’t command us to kill people who like Teller.
You must be logged in to post a comment.