The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know…

Have you noticed how the more you learn, the more you realize how little you know. This amazing piece of literary genius has been attributed to Socrates, by Plato, but that needs to be confirmed. It doesn’t really matter who said it, it’s just important that it was said, and needs to be understood.

For those who are not afraid to explore and learn, this paradox will become apparent soon enough. Your quest and thirst for knowledge will leave you extremely frustrated. Each new thing you learn will lead you to another new thing, and another, and so on. The more you uncover, the more remains hidden, that needs to be sought out and exposed. It is ultimately impossible to know everything. That is what makes life so fascinating, and also what will be my greatest regret on my deathbed; not knowing what new things I could have learned if I’d lived longer. For me, there can be nothing sadder than this, but if it’s true what they say about your life flashing before your eyes on your deathbed, then I’m sure to have one heck of a long flashback, crammed with all the things I’ve learned.

It’s no coincidence then, that this should lead me to criticise religion for the part it has played over the years, and still does in advocating closed thinking, and discouraging the pursuit of knowledge. It is well known that knowledge leads one to question, and awkward questions are anathema to religion. Religious texts such as the Bible, even advocated that knowledge is forbidden; only the Gods are supposed to possess it. For years (happily gone by), the religious establishment preached that all knowledge was already revealed within the context of “religious” doctrine, and that there was no need for the individual to pursue it on his or her own. For this reason, the scientific and academic community were harassed and vilified. It is still happening today. Bigoted, religious communities still refuse to believe scientific discoveries; evolution being one.

Luckily, for most of us, the thirst for knowledge is greater than the fear of Gods…

About these ads

318 thoughts on “The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know…

  1. i agree with the saying, the more you learn, the more you realize how little you know. i agree that knowledge is something we must always strive for. that’s why ‘life-long learning’ is the way to go. but i disagree with you if you say all religion discourages knowledge gaining. its definitely not in Islam.

    in a hadith, the messenger of God, Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) said: “To gain knowledge is a duty of every Muslim, male or female”. i also quote someone who once said, “Knowledge precedes faith. How can one have faith without knowing what it is that one has faith in?” just like converts..they enter the religion voluntarily..and thus must have sought knowledge to reach an understanding of that religion, to want to be leading that religious life.

    in my humble opinion, our thirst for knowledge is best when it is in the way of God. some things you can learn by reading. but some things you learn by going through life. He IS the Creator after all. He knows what’s good for you. and you’re only ONE out of how many people on this planet?? yet, every one of us has our paths..and we get to make decisions. He has guided us, through His books. it’s just up to us to read and embrace His words. but at the end of it…you still have a choice. and whatever the choice you make..He will see you get things fair. He is Most Fair. at the same time, He is Merciful, Most Kind.

    try the Qur’an..the book of Allah. try Islam, the way of life.

      • Sure you would; you’ve grasped onto something that offered you a lifeline (an escape), and now you think it is the whole world, and nothing else matters as much. Hard drugs does much the same thing, but I’m glad you didn’t opt for that route. Consider this quote from Byron Danelius “Religion provides the solace for the turmoil it creates.”

        Correction: Knowledge worth having applies to atheists…

        • Where you are confused Lenny is that religion is merely a human understanding of God – NO man can ever understand the thinking of God. In my view religion does more damage to the name of God than any atheist could possibly hope to achieve. And in my humble opinion the world has reversed; it is no longer religion that holds back knowledge, it is the religious defence of scientific theory in the face of so much evidence that science actually knows so very little. Sir I suggest you open your mind, there is no such thing as an honest atheist, at best they can be an angry agnostic – we simply don’t know enough to make absolute statements. As an x angry agnostic(ignorance of God) I had the privilege of needing miracles to survive, and a need greater than my ego to ask God for help; and miracles happened in ways no mere mortal can explain. By the way I genuinely thank ‘atheists’, because I have learnt more about God through them than men of religion. They do ask the questions the religious fear, and because of those questions I researched (all doctrines) and have always found great answers and enjoyed so many aha! moments. If, like me, you have a problem with religious doctrines then secretly go for a walk and have a chat with God – don’t get hung up on doctrines, they are not as important as a personal relationship with God – I promise you that you wont fear death and you will know everything you need to know, and very importantly your life was not an accident and totally without purpose after all. I considered the quote of Byron – not to be too obvious, but tell those hundreds of millions butchered in atheist regimes, or even the millions killed by weapons of mass destruction – didn’t science create them! Or do you want to blame God for that too?

          • Hi Graham,

            Yes, it must be pretty hard to understand something that has no evidence for its existence. If you really have an “open” mind, why not read Carl Sagan’s Demon Haunted World. Look it up.

            He is much more eloquent than I am in explaining the problems with your reasoning.

            • Sorry Lenny, but you have immediately revealed you have a ‘closed’ mind. Using absolutes like “NO EVIDENCE” means you know personally everything there is to know and exists in the whole universe – not possible – in fact even Edison said something like “we know 1 millionth of a % of 1% of nothing.’ Maybe you should stick to “In my very limited knowledge of the universe I have not as yet come across any evidence that convinces me there is a God,” – try that, you won’t be shot down so easily (someone got me on that once haha). Lenny, I have read Carl Sagan’s work and others and I have listened open minded to many debates between believers and atheists – all I wanted was the truth. Too often the conversation is between intellectuals and causes people like me even greater confusion. I am always in awe of clever and persuasive text, and for a while I am sold, but none of the speakers cover my real life experiences, but the Bible always does. I have always been too cynical to accept theories from any side – I have to experience first-hand to believe anything, which has caused me lots of trouble and the need for miracles.
              As an x angry agnostic (I would have claimed atheist) I am far better at debating theory on the side of atheists than I am for believers, and it always amuses me how well read many atheists are in the Bible – they know so many Bible scriptures (many more than me), and yet totally miss the point. Core beliefs are hard to let go of and in my case it took a nightmare for me to open my mind too.
              Unfortunately, most people read the Bible in the wrong way. It’s NOT a life style book or a marketing script – in fact the Bible begins with a story that I as a salesman would delete if I was asked to sell religion. Or maybe change the word day to billions of years. Most believers have their favourite stories, and avoid the ones that cause them difficulties or doubt, or encourage difficult questions. As a salesman I would re-write the Bible and chuck out anything controversial or too obvious that causes me difficulty in persuading a buyer. I would have to re-write the Bible with stories more fitting to man’s limited human understanding and to fit more comfortably with our belief system. Let’s face it the Bible is easy meat for atheists to critique, and I know I’ve done it.
              However, having survived a nightmare I now understand the truth is the only constant, whether people like to hear it or not the truth remains the same. We as people are keen to promote our strengths, our generous natures, but less keen to expose our failings. We all have moments that make us look bad (often our own judgment); we rather give the good bits and leave out the bits that make us look bad. Some of these events are not bad at all, but without evidence others may not see the truth and make us look bad. You see my friend the Bible is the truth, warts and all. Read it with that in mind and much will become clear. It’s funny though, the best-selling book in the world is probably the worst as far as marketing and promotion of its message – but hey God tells the truth – He doesn’t need to lie to impress anyone. Many preachers will tell us what we want to hear not what we need to hear, but God will always tell us what is most important to us, whether we like it of not, because he loves and cares fro us (I know!! Most of us we think only a mother could love). When I was in my darkest times an reporter once said, “In your case the truth is a curse.” Why he said that was the truth was so bizarre it was outside of most peoples belief system and therefore most preferred NOT to believe the truth – that does change the truth – it’s just initially less saleable.
              It took me a long time to realise the Bible is a historical book of the relationship between man and God, and when read with that in mind (and open) we can begin to understand God better, and through that a personal relationship can grow. Try reading the prodigal son parable or the Good Samaritan parable with an open mind and it will blow your mind. They seem simple, but think about the consequences to our world if we lived those lessons – wow!
              Don’t get caught up in doctrine; first know the most important messages ‘love God and love your neighbour as yourself – definition of neighbour taught by Christ is ‘anyone that needs help.’ The greatest sins are FEAR and UNBELEIF; all other sins come from them. And through Christ all sins are forgiven. It’s not hard to knock over a few believers, for they are guilty of one of the most serious sins of all – OMMISSION – doing nothing to help someone they know they should help. And religion doesn’t have a great history – anything to do with man is vulnerable to abuse. Remember more people have died at the hands of Atheist regimes since 1920’s than all the wars and diseases, natural disasters put together – IS Atheism really a good alternative. I laugh at atheist scientists who say science is for the betterment of mankind – haha – science has excelled in bombs and weapons of mass destruction. Lenny read some stuff from Believer scientists – by the way the theories of evolution and big bang were first penned by Christians – even Christians get it wrong.
              The book is easy to criticise and believing or not believing is a personal decision. I was the hypocrite atheist, angry that others could believe when shit happened to me, but when life hit an all-time low, like the cliché – no atheists in a crashing plane – I asked and I received, big time and in ways even the most brilliant atheist barrister could not come up with a human explanation and had to concede, “You have an unfair advantage.” I have had all the evidence even a cynical man like me needed to KNOW, not just believe in the existence of God. Since my mind was freed and opened to all possibilities, not limited by human impossibilities every moment became evidence to His existence. I am not an evangelist, I’m not part of any church, I’m just a beneficiary, and I upset atheists and the self righteous both with my unintellectual logic drawn from my own personal real life experiences of the lining God. Woops I sound like a preacher – sorry.

              • Hi Graham,

                If there is any evidence that can satisfy scientific scrutiny, please submit it. You obviously are the only person in the world who is in possession of such. Well, kudos to you.

                Did you read Demon Haunted World, specifically, yes or No?

                Don’t you think it’s just a little arrogant to claim the bible and Jesus to be the only/sole correct renderings of a supposed God’s teachings/Inspiration? So in your world view every other religion is False?

                The thing is, only one religion can be true/correct, or none at all. You have claimed the Christian one, and on your word alone, I am supposed to accept/Believe? And you’re all making the same claims, each for his chosen religion.

                Unfortunately, I have to remain skeptical and believe only when one of you produces scientifically rigorous evidence.

                • Okay – Yes – No – Wrong – actually you are wrong – NO religion has to be right. I think they are all incorrect in their own way and that’s fine; it’s human nature. In fact ONLY God is right and we will never understand His mind. No – the central verse says trust in God not in man, so please don’t take my word. I can only give my opinion of the practical experience I have had. My opinion is as wrong as everyone else’s’, and that’s okay, it would take many many life times to even get close to understanding God, but I have an open mind and happy to keep learning.
                  I am repeating myself, but religion is just man’s interpretation; religion is NOT God, which is where I think you get confused. Doctrines and dogma are not as important as a personal relationship with God, which means no one has to be involved in any religion – we can go direct.
                  I don’t evangelise for any religion, I don’t judge people, I don’t go out to convert atheists and I am not trying to convert you, but a side effect for me of knowing God has been understanding why He loves man; and so for that reason I do strongly recommend you keep an open mind – and you can keep that a secret. As an x unbeliever when the shit hit the fan and I was told by the very best experts in many fields, including science, the law and even religion that I had NO hope – my situation was impossible! I gave God a go and wow! The impossible happened in ways that can not be denied. So the only kudos here has to go to God not me.
                  I have learnt from lots of different religions and from the non-religious, but Jesus is a good starting point.The reason I say that is He is universally accepted by all religions, if not as God, certainly as a great man of God. Jesus was actually not a Christian, which surprises a lot of Christians and atheists and His name has been damaged most by the actions of Christians that claim His name. Ghandi said “I like Jesus I don’t like Christians.” He also said, “If Christians lived the way they are taught in the Bible all of India would now be Christian,” I think the world.
                  Jesus is mentioned five times more often than Mohammed in Qur’an; Hindu’s are permitted to pray to Him as a God; and although Jews may deny Him, the Messiah is important in their faith too.
                  Remember there is only 2% of the world that are atheists, another 10% are non-religious. Western atheists may claim their ranks are increasing, but considering the vast majority of atheists and non-religious are in East Asia and Russia, which is not surprising as they are from countries with atheist regimes that did all they could to wipe out faith and hope to control their people. In fact the atheist regimes killed more people than all the wars and natural disasters in the 20th century. Of course (except for North Korea, another prime example of atheist regimes) most of the countries now turn a blind eye to faith and now have the fastest growing churches in the world (and economies) – argue that one if you can!? If you want to talk arrogance here, it is incredibly arrogant of such a tiny little minority of people to call the vast majority closed minded fools.
                  Gosh years ago I actually wrote your last sentence in a letter to a spooky Christian that drove me nuts with his religious enthusiasm. I had a shocking time, but the nightmare opened my heart and my mind and I accepted God and the miracles kept rolling – I know it’s cliché, but sometimes the greatest gifts really do come wrapped in the worst nightmares – Praise Him!
                  By the way the most closed minded people I have ever met have mostly been the intellectuals and scientists you so admire, and I am happy to explain my reasons to you another day.

                • For a guy who insists he’s not evangelising, you’re sure pushing Jesus and the bible. Which is but one of many interpretations of the God hypotheses. Which brings us back to square one.

                  You need to be careful that your mind is not so open, the grey matter falls out 😊

      • Teaching non-existing is existing = existing is non-existing and it’s illegal to lie to the law. Terrorism needs to know Atheism is illegal (we’re the ¨great Satan¨, Bin Laden despised Atheism, they are instigating terrorism). Hidden Priority Factor-congress.org was posted on google (as well as hiddenpriorityfactoroutlook.com which is explained on facebook). Get involved (for your own well being!).

    • With all due respect, you are just saying this because you are on jihad.
      Honestly, you’re just counterpointing the guy who made that awesome post
      Please do not make any religious posts. I am a pure Christian and I know God made the Big Bang, the monkeys and everything. If you say Islam is the only way to be, then you just make yourself sound stupid. I don’t know who you are nor what is your damn point, but I tell you, you are not welcome in this discussion. Please leave now you and your god
      Thank-you

        • thank you for your replies.
          it’s been about 2 years since i made that comment…and i realize that i’m not exactly cut out to share the beauty of Islam, because i guess i tend to sound preachy or imposing and that’s a huge turn off.
          what i do want to say is…i too know about judaism, christianity and islam. and i love my righteous brothers and sisters no matter what your religion.
          all i know is we all came from Adam and Eve. our prophets since Abraham, Noah, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad are the same! you want to talk about Joseph, Lot, Ishmael, Solomon, and the many others?
          there’s a long story to history…and i figured that i had only spent the last 3 years trying to dig out ‘the truth’…so yeah you can call me stupid. and i am sorry for coming here to put up my two cents of an opinion which i guess did sound lame.
          i hope you know, that JIHAD does not mean the same to one Muslim to the other. take chapter 9 verse 33 of the qur’an if you want to talk about JIHAD. to sacrifice the want of smoking cigarettes, taking drugs and drinking alcohol for me, is JIHAD. spending my money to build a school instead of shopping for clothes is JIHAD. that’s my JIHAD/sacrifice. it doesn’t have to be the suicides and bombings if that’s what you meant.
          and i don’t understand what you mean about the big-bang and monkey stuff. i though judaism, christianity and islam are not believers of the evolution theory? hmm, if i may, there’s a song by The Arrows – In The Words of Satan. i think it’s a great song.
          welp. thanks for reading. and i apologize for making you feel so disgusted by my comments.

          • Hi Dayana,

            It’s been awhile. Allow me to apologise for the pure Christian who called you stupid. Unfortunately, I have to allow all comments [that don’t infringe on the policy outlined under About Lenny] in the interests of free speech.

            BTW: The Arrows are a Gospel band from South Africa, my home country. Glad to see they’re popular over in the Far East too. Take care…

          • consuming cig . alcohol , etc is haram… so it is already forbiden , it cant be jihad. if theres something not haram and you sacrifice it then its jihad.
            So … that not haram? killing non muslims???
            you sound like a terrorist… like if you are fightinh for something…you are trying to influence people over here…. you act like google adsense…. please go away….;)

          • You say you KNOW we all came from Adam and Eve. More correct to say you believe. Belief is not verifiable. Belief is not logical thinking, it’s emotional. Reasoning can have stability, emotions can be violent. Have the courage of your convictions and admit that they are beliefs not knowledge. Emotions not intellect.

        • hey lenny, it’s okay…am not offended. gives me more reason to better myself :)
          and yeah, i love the arrows…caught them on youtube :)
          thank God for the internet :)

      • You do know that your Jesus also makes it quite clear that only through him can a person get to heaven. Here’s just one example of this, out many others in the New Testament: John 14:6- I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
        And you do know that the god of Islam is the same as your god, right? That’s why the god of Judiasm, Christianity and Islam are refered to as the god of Abraham.All religion is based on mythology and just down right bull shit and hopefully the human race will someday continue evolving to a point where we outgrow this childish need for belief in the invisible skydaddy.

    • I have liked your post a lot and pray that you practice what you preach.

      Kindly get back to me on this one as I have been trying to search for truth long and hard and one road has led me to one discovery and then yet to another till many days gone past I had gotten out of the boundaries of conventional religions.

      Probably truth may exist beyond the confines that have traditionally been established by the “Big Three” of religion.

      So please help me out on this one, who is Yaldabaoth please get back to me on this one.

      • Hi Lenny-long time! Dear Robert – great to see you have finally realized truth is outside of religion-I am not a fan of religion or tradition either- And definitely not in Islam, but don’t get me started on that.
        You don’t need a middle man to base your confidence in God – go direct. Go for a walk and chat with Him. Good idea to have a dog then people won’t think you are nuts talking to yourself. Relax and just chat – don’t repeat same prayers over and over just speak as you would to someone YOU know loves you-
        When I got passed needing a medium between me and God I had revelation after revelation and things are starting to make real sense and its all GOOD news.
        Words taken OUT of context or read with an agenda can mean many different things. For example years ago I had a hang up over two passages which I assumed meant Jesus was advocating violence towards children – Until He pointed out I had parents and I am in my 50’s- not a kid. Do you see what I mean- each time parents were mentioned I made the wrong assumption He was talking about kids-not true. In fact one of the passages says ‘drunkards’ – hardly kids I think.
        Go out and chat personally with God – much less confusing and I promise you He is waiting for you to chat to Him on a personal level – He will teach you all you need to know.
        Just a tip- forgive everyone that has ever hurt or angered you- this anger or hate is often a blockage to hearing God – okay ENJOY!
        PS Take this tip too Lenny – denial of anger won’t fix your anger issues

        • Graham

          You still seem obsessed with this crazy idea that I’m angry about something that occurred to me which makes me deny a deity. Unfortunately your obsession does not alter the reality.

  2. Spoken like one who has a captured mind; captured and hitched to the yolk of religion that is. Religion is not concerned with disseminating any knowledge; any meaningful knowledge at any rate. Religion is concerned with subjugation of the mind. Religion (abetted by the clerics of course) only allows you to learn what religion wants you to learn, so that you (and your mind) remains chained to it in perpetuity.

    I care not an ounce for your religion and your holy book. I want to learn reality; not superstitious dogma compiled by men ignorant of a great many realities which their writings endeniably reveal.

    • Lenny, there is no such thing as an honest atheist.
      The very best you can be is a angry agnostic and agnostic just means ignorant of God. Open your mind for a second and think about this. We are a tiny tiny tiny part of the huge huge huge universe – with me so far? – excellent. How much of the whole universe do we know? – I think Edison said “a millionth of one percent of nothing” and that was referring only to Earth. Then how much of the universe do we know?? If it were possible – less than nothing. Are you still with me? Probably not (or not want to be). So saying an absolute such as “There is no evidence of God,” implies you know everything about the universe personally.
      Or you have to be more honest less egotistical and say with the miniscule little bit I know I have not personally seen anything so far that I have accepted as evidence, which doesn’t mean in the vastness of all I don’t know there may be some evidence I will accept.

      One more little thing for you to learn now is you are confused. There is only One God, but there are lots of religions. You keep getting upset over dogma – it says in the Bible don’t get upset by man made dogma – so you have a little in common with God here.

      However, there is only one way to God and that is through Jesus because Jesus is God. Of course man is limited to three dimensional thinking and thus it is hard to understand,but so was the world being round once. Not having proof that you understand does not prove something doesn’t exist. History is full of things science did NOT believe existed and then after a little advance in understanding discovered it did – its a timing issue.
      I think in 1927 they were about to close the patent office because a scientist in charge said, “everything that is going to be invented has been invented so there is no more need for the patent office” – do you get my point or is it pricking your core beliefs and shutting your mind down?

      Your high priest of the anti-theist religion Dawkins has admitted Jesus existed – which means he admits God existed – He only struggles really with if He still exists and whether he wants to believe His teachings – CASE PROVEN SIR!

      • Hi Graham,

        “Lenny, there is no such thing as an honest atheist.”

        I could just as easily assert that there is no such thing as an honest theist. What does it gain you?

        “There is no evidence of God.”

        This statement is universally recognized as meaning within the parameters of what we know of the universe. To assert otherwise is disingenuous. I could easily assert that there is a teapot flaoting around the fourth sun in the Andromeda Galaxy and demand that you believe it. Since neither you nor anyone else has been to this location, there is no way of proving that my statement is false. The same applies to the assertion about the existence of a deity. Assertions without proof are of no value.

        “…it says in the Bible don’t get upset by man made dogma.”

        Once again, I don’t care what the bible (or any other religious text) says. The onus is on you to first prove that it’s the word of god, before using quotations to back up your ideology. This is a common logical fallacy known as circular reasoning. ergo “the bible is the word of god because the bible says so.” See the circle?

        “Not having proof that you understand does not prove something doesn’t exist.”

        Hogwash! How is it that the proof you have, that only you and your fellow ideologues seem to understand, is not understood by every mainstream well-recognised scientist in the world? DOn;t you find it just a little strange that the only people who seem to understand this proof, are those with pre-conceived notions of the exitence of a deity?

        “…do you get my point or is it pricking your core beliefs and shutting your mind down?”

        “History is full of things science did NOT believe existed and then after a little advance in understanding discovered it did – its a timing issue.”

        Science does not believe anything exists and then goes trying to find it. Science finds things by experiment (and the scientific process). No (true) scientist asserts that goblins exist, and then goes in search of proof. Theists on the other hand do the exact opposite. This is not science. If you think it is, you really don’t have a clue what science is all about.

        Lastly, that ad-hominem attack on Dawkins is truly lame, not to mention untrue.

        No, I don’t get your point. This little anecdote is irrelevent to what constitutes proof.

        • Oh you are joking – who found the big bang? Actually a man of God first came up with the theory, oh and a man of God came up with the theory of evolution too, but they are just theories from men who really don’t know much at all about the Universe – we have already established hat haven’t we? At least the Gospels were written by eye witnesses. Since the big bang theory was first guessed science has desperately tried to purely confirm it and shot themselves in the foot many times, but they always call that progress, they never say WE were wrong. I love it when they say they are accurate to a 1000th of a second then correct their estimates of the rapid expansion from singularity by 19 billion years. Oh by the way the change of name was to get over from the fact the satellite pictures showed our galaxy broke every LAW of physics for expansion after an explosion. And that’s one area science has excelled – WMDs. But like science believed the world was flat the galaxy turned out to be an egg shape not round = at least science answered one burning question of mine – which was first the chicken or the egg haha – it seems the egg.
          I am not attacking Dawkins – I am not attacking anyone, I don’t have to and I don’t judge either, but if you research him he admits the existence of Jesus and under pressure of logic he even agreed he was really agnostic – not an atheist. My High Priest is consistent, but the truth is always easier to remember. Amen

          • Graham,

            “…theory of evolution too, but they are just theories…”

            Please go look up what a scientific theory is. You obviously don’t understand it.

            And I really would like to know what “a man of of god” is. Many scientists had religious backgrounds. So what? Their religious beliefs has got zero to do with their scientific work, and any attempt to create a correlation or causation even, between the two is patently dishonest.

            I have already responded to you about Dawkins.

            • Being a scientist I know exactly what a scientific theory is – it is still a guess, but backed up by the majority of the scientific body that specialises in that particular field. So what? It still doesn’t alter we know nothing about the Universe. As one colleague commented, “The more you investigate science the more you know there is definitely an intelligence behind it.” He used to be an atheist just like me. Anti-theist scientists depend on the public not too look to closely and blindly follow their unprovable theories. Spend some time really researching for yourself, don’t follow like a sheep.

        • The major difference here, is that you constantly allege that through faith believers have closed minds. On the contrary, faith opened my mind to what you and I would have thought impossible. You gave an example “there is a teapot floating around the fourth sun in the Andromeda Galaxy.” My answer is not an absolute – NO WAY! As yours would be. Mine is “Sounds highly unlikely, but I haven’t been to the fourth sun in the Andromeda Galaxy so how would I know.” So putting aside for a moment scripture, human opinions, theories and ego I became a man of God because of actual real life events. I was an atheist before and now a ABSOLUTE – no doubts no question on His existence, lots on religion and man’s interpretations – hence I am not religious and not a member of any church.
          I did not get influenced by a human teacher or expert in mind control. I didn’t turn to God out of fear of death. I simply had a situation every expert said I had no hope and my situation was impossible. As an atheist there is limited options when all the experts agree you are screwed. I had a choice of going down or looking up – and bingo. Good choice and here to tell the story. I pray you will have a similar event (not quite as horrid as mine of course) and you will drop the ego for a second and give God a go – logical or not – we can then have a beer and laugh after.

          • Graham,

            When I look up all I see is a beautiful, yet hostile universe. For all the problems I’ve had, I did not need to turn to an invisible friend for help. And I got through really bad moments in life by applying reason and logic.

            If you believe that some supernatural force is helping you through life, that’s fine, so long as it does not harm others.

            We’re never going to be on the same page though.

            • No, that’s not what I said. I did exactly the same as you. I never asked for help from anyone, my pride would never allow me. I have overcome enormous odds and did it my way (just as in the song). However, I had two situation no one could assist and the only reason I got over my pride was this time it was my children’s lives in danger. For them I gave God a go because there was no logical answer in my mind not the experts. I don’t ‘believe’ some supernatural force baled me out, I watched it in action.
              There was no other explanations and I guarantee you I am far more sceptical than you. I search for logical reasons on everything and find it hard to let go until I find it. Still I saw things – anyway it doesn’t matter – you’d have to have been there. A very smart atheist barrister (top attorney) even had to concede things happened beyond human experience. And by the way you keep thinking in the same box – I am as anti religion controlling people as you are. Religion has done more damage to the name of God than any atheist could ever hope to achieve – hence I have many atheist friends and most of my family are still atheists and that’s fine with me. I have talked to you, but I don’t evangelise. My faith is my own business, I don’t go to church and as much as the self-righteous like to confuse things the two most important are to love God and neighbours as yourself. It would be a better world – what is so bad about that?

            • And I agree, I know many people that breeze through life with nothing so challenging they would need to turn to God – and that’s great, be grateful. Even now I struggle asking anyone for help. I can be in agony and I won’t tell anyone – much to the ire of family and friends. I like being independent and I would claim I did it myself I had any hope of someone believing me.
              I differ with you in that I don’t see the universe as hostile and apart from pain of stubbing my little toe I fear NOTHING. I had a guy trying his very best to stab me with a 10 inch blade last month. The cops and the witnesses asked how I could be so cool. It was not because I know how to fight – I have never hit a person in my life, but I absolutely knew I would not die. I held the guy and kept talking to him until he tired and I forgave him five minutes later. I didn’t need revenge because I have learnt the power of forgiveness – there are two major things that happened to me since I became a man of God – 1 I love people with no regard for race, colour or creed, (even atheists) and 2 I forgive quickly. Now tell me where does that hurt people?

          • See, that’s the problem, having a mind that is so open, it becomes susceptible to baloney. There’s a difference between having an open mind with filters, and one that is just open.

  3. i agree with you, if you can see how ‘ignorant men’ have destroyed the beauty of religion. and by religion, i mean those that came from God and His books (Psalms, Torah, Bible and Qur’an) and His prophets. if we truly seek knowledge, we can find it in these books. the idea is: read and ask questions :)

    now, the problem is..i think, it’s when HUMANS try and interpret on their own what is written, and how it is applied to real life. THAT is when things become out of order. when God demands somethng..it really is for the greater good. the problem with human beings is..we take things to the extreme.

    that’s why we need to seek knowledge. say suicide bombings. Muslims call it jihad. first things first..suicide is something God HATES. and second, the killing of innocent people is condemned and will be regarded as MURDER. so what’s so jihad’ish about suicide bombers??

    even i condemned it..until i discovered something someone wrote. what if..you are attacked, say like Palestine. and yet, you have nothing..no fighter planes, no missile launchers, no bomb squad..nothing. and your people are dying, your country is blown up, wrecked. dead. your people are being wiped out. you send a jihadist to blow himself up..and you know, as a walking person..he can go right to target and blow up.

    now, the term ‘terrorist’. we’ve heard enough about Muslim terrorists. nobody supports suicide bombers who simply walks into an area full of innocent people just to blow themselves up for fun. there is always a target. in all wars there are targets. yet, when america invaded iraq..and so many lives were killed (not to mention not discovering ANYTHING), did they admit to being TERRORISTS themselves??

    we cannot rely on the media. WE have to discover the facts ourselves. that is thirst for knowledge. and WHY do people do what they do??? WHY are they so merciless?? WHY are we so selfish?? WHY is the world all about money?? WHY WHY WHY. isn’t this the reality that we are living in? yes..this world is reality now. but look at it…doesn’t it look like it’s coming to an end? and when it does..you reckon you will disappear into think air, and that this will all be forgotten..like in the movies?? are movies reality?? they depict reality?? to a certain extent..they show how humans are vulnerable..and we need a greater Power to save us. not only that..when we do something right, we want to be rewarded..just as we do wrong, we get punished.

    i apologize if this is a combination of all sorts..i know it’s a topic that is never-ending if we were to discuss it. it’s just that i do agree with the saying, THE MORE YOU LEARN, THE LESS YOU KNOW. that’s why we need to keep learning, seek knowledge…and never be proud of what you know. cause at the end of it all…the learning process is really the most fun in life :)

    happy learning :) cheers!

    • if theres is god.. HE NEEDS NOT TEACH US THROUGH A BOOK>>>
      A BOOK IS A MATERIAL MEANS>
      HE ONLY HAS TO COME IN TO OUR HEARTS TO DO SO>
      PLEASE SHUT UP AND DONT TRY TO PLAY THE WISE unoffended great religious sage.

      • The Bible was created to preserve the teachings and promises of God because a human brain is too tiny to hold them all. God has to use the Book – a “material means” because the recipient – the human being, is in material form, having a perishable flesh.

        • Hi flamedenise,

          The brain could store tens of thousands of bibles, easily. The size of the brain is immaterial; it’s how you use it that counts.

          The promises and teachings of god [as told in the bible] are neither promising, nor worthy of learning.

      • ak-47 – There is a misunderstanding – the Bible is not a marketing brochure for religion or just an instruction manual on right living, it is the truth and a book that helps us understand God and the history of His involvement with man. Who would have a personal relationship with a complete stranger? When I understood the purpose of the Bible I read it because I want to know more about God, not because I have been told to or I expected a personal message in every paragraph.Now I am even interested in the chapter on genealogy it all helps me put things in place and understand Him more – do you now understand?

    • Dayana,

      Thank you for your posts. You are right the Jewish faith, Christianity and Islam are all of the same God, the God of Abraham. I think if you check in the Qur’an you will find Jesus or the Messiah mentioned 5 times more often that Mohammed. Your faith believes Jesus was born of a virgin birth and will come to save the world. Please correct me if I am wrong.

      Jesus also came to unite the three Abrahamic religions and include the gentiles into one church. The Jews did not accept Jesus and killed Him (He knew that would happen and said so). They were expecting a Messiah that would be more like King David and put them into top spot by killing lots of other religions off. They were not expecting the Messiah to be preaching ”LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR” and pack in the eye for eye stuff.

      The Jewish leaders were not happy and for 300 years, with help of pagans tried to kill all followers of Jesus. Guess what – look it up – Islam had a big soft spot for Christians, and the same in reverse, which was only spoilt by the Christians forgetting the teachings of Christ and trying to wipe all other religions.

      God’s real plan, and it will happen, is we will all be brothers and I can’t wait. And when religions stop doing more damage to the name of God than any atheist could hope to achieve the world will be a far better place.

      • Graham,

        “Jesus also came to unite the three Abrahamic religions and include the gentiles into one church.”

        This is utter balderdash. Islam was born circa 610 CE. That was more that 600 years after the asserted existence of Christ.

        • Oh my – again you don’t get it. God is not restricted by time. The divide that caused the later division between Jewish and Moslem faith began when Abraham and Sarah got impatient and Abraham had a child with the Egyptian slave. Then a few years later Abraham and Sarah had the child promised to them by God. Isaac became the father of the Jewish faith and Ismael became the father of the Arab nation which later became the Islamic faith. Jesus came to bring the two nations and faiths together that had split in the time of Abraham. You have to take the whole context not pick out bits to suit your cause. And even the top atheist all agree Jesus lived – so what’s with the ‘asserted’ – come on, being wrong is good. All the answers are in the Bible.

          • Graham,

            It is you who do not get it. You cannot use the bible as a source of fact until you have proved that it is a source of facts. Go look up what circular reasoning is, please…

            “And even the top atheist all agree Jesus lived – so what’s with the ‘asserted’ – come on, being wrong is good.” Yet again, you are guilty of a fallacy knownb as quote mining. You take a quote from someone either out of context, or you totally obfuscate/distort what was actually said, to suit your own agenda. Yes, many atheists and even Dawkins agree that there may well be evidence for a “historical” Jesus, but none of them have ever agreed that this historical figure possessed the “magical” or divine powers attributed to him. There is a video on YouTube which is being used as a source for spreading these lies about Dawkins. PLease go watch it carefully and write down word for word what Dawkins actually says.

            Please do your homework properly and stop being disingenuous, facetious even.

            • Haha…you seem to want to ignore that the men that wrote the Gospels actually lived at the time and witnessed Jesus and His miracles. Their statements are all confirmed by other experts and have never changed – truth doesn’t have to change. Whilst theories do change and we call that progress, which is fine. It also necessarily means the truths of the Gospel and eye witnesses accounts are far more believable and acceptable in a court of law than men with agendas and personal opinions two thousand years later – what don’t you get here?
              Oh and do your home work – you obviously don’t have all his videos and publications – his truth changes all the time.
              I think it only fair to tell you I was an atheist and quite frankly can argue on the side of atheism better that on the side of faith. I am in awe of so many atheists knowing more about the Bible than me. However, all the dogma, theological theories (exactly the same as scientific theories) and human interpretations can never compete with personal experience and a personal relationship, and that is why I am a man of God – from eye witness experiences in my life.

                • Well – not quite. You are just in denial and that’s fine, but without an open mind there is little hope. If you can not accept eye witness accounts from separate people written at different times in different places that had no way of copying each other and recently the 5,000 discovered documents (more than any other historical event) compared and found to be 98.5% accurate (no other documents including Alexander the Great reached 50%).
                  Actually, I was about to attach a site link for you to read, but I’d be wasting my time. You are stuck where I used to be and I needed an event to budge me, not words. If you did see something that pointed to something you hadn’t realised you would close down. You believe in human experts, without realising those experts HAVE to believe their stuff more than us and defend it because if it is found wrong they feel it may indicate they are liars or fools – human ego is huge problem.
                  I am not an expert I only want to find the truth – I am independent of the outcome. And I found God, actually He found me.
                  Nice talking to you. I told a pastor once the reason I talked to atheists was they ask the questions the self-righteous rather avoid. I love the difficult questions because it forces me to dig deeper and I have always found great answers that have only strengthened my faith. When my miracles happened I didn’t even own a bible and apart from a few of the stories I knew nothing. And that’s a good thing too. I was not a member of a church or religion – I was helped without paying a tithe or knowing a single ritual. I actually piss off the self-righteous more than atheists. Anyway, got to go. Thanks for the thought provoking stuff.

                • Oh my god! Lenny you need to stop chatting, anyone with common sense knows there is a God- for goodness sake, just open your eyes, read a little and think deep.

  4. Hi again, Dayana, I sympathize with the Muslim cause in the Middle East; I however don’t condone the violence. And I also agree that America’s invasion was “terrorist” in nature. We all know that Bush was only concerned about stealing the oil.

    But apart from the American imperialism, think carefully about why the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are fighting over a barren piece of rock. What is the value of this rock? Is it worth all the fighting and killing?

    The reality is that your clerics have led you to believe that a useless piece of rock is worth dying for. What have you learned from centuries of hatred and bloodshed? Absolutely nothing!!!

    Please read my next posting later tonight, specifically about religion and hatred.

  5. israelis are the ones who are not satisfied with what they have. for heaven’s sake..it’s only land!! why should we fight for land that we do not own!! people are already living there so what’s the deal?? wipe them all out? that’s the answer??

    and that rock..i’m not sure about the rock but what i know is there’s the al-Aqsa mosque. our Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) ascended to Heaven from there. basically there’s a lot of special things that happened that night there and it was also the time God sent us the gift of prayer (salat). it is one of the most holiest site to Muslims. even as earth quakes shattered the mosque a few times it was rebuilt over and over. so israel’s taking over the whole of palestine’s land…it’s crazy..and if they get hold of the mosque..what will happen to it?

    if this is all out of hatred..isn’t it the israelis provoking the palestinians to react? this has been far too long and look at the outcome. and if you want to look at it at a religion’s perspective..look at what’s happening to the Muslims. and how they fought back.

    i will read your post when i can :) and thanks for your replies!

    • The Prophet Mohammed spoke against idolatry. Persons, places and things are of no importance. Whether in a Mosque, on a hill or plain or in a cave, prayers to god are heard. Man’s vanity tells him he can build a house more suitable for worship than that already provided by God. True humility will not allow the judging of others.

  6. Pingback: Hate Not the Believer… « Lenny Says

  7. Dayana, I most certainly do not condone what the Israeli’s are doing in Palestine, and like all decent people, am horrified at the death and destruction caused by them in Gaza.

    However, back to my discussion about an unnecesary fight over a piece of rock which religious clerics on all three sides claim to be of significance to their religion. You have to admit that if it wasn’t for a religious belief purpetuated by religious clerics, this piece of rock, would only be a stupid piece of rock.

    Take a moment to examine the history behind the piece of rock whereupon stands the al-Aqsa Mosque, Temple Mount, Dome of the Rock etc. Examine the history with no religious or emotional bias.

    The site is where the Jews built the first temple of Solomon. Around 20BCE King Herod expanded the site and built the second temple. The exact spot where the al-Aqsa Mosque now stands used to be the storehouse of the second temple built by King Herod. Roman Emperor Titus destryed the second temple, including the storehouse in 70CE. Around 530CE, Emperor Justinian built a Christian Church on the site called Church of our Lady. The church was destroyed by Emperor Khosrau II in the 7th century CE. The al-Aqsa Mosque was probably first constructed between 685CE and 705CE, using materials left over from the Church of our Lady. Several reconstructions occurred over the years due to earthquake damage, but was completely rebuilt around 1034 – 1036CE after a major earthquake. During the First Crusade in 1099CE, Jerusalem was captured and the Mosque was used as the headquarters for the Templar Knights. Saladin recaptured Jerusalem in 1187 and some repairs were done to the mosque. The Ottamans seized power in 1517 and undertook some renovations to the Temple Mount area.

    In 1969, an extremist evangelical christian called Michael Dennis Rohan tried to burn down the mosque. Apparently the sect he belonged to, Worldwide Church of God believed that they needed to hasten the second coming of Christ, and the rebuilding of the second temple. in the 80’s two Jews tried to blow up the mosque and the Dome of the Rock, hoping that the third temple of Jerusalem could then be built at this site.

    So you see, this piece of rock has a long, troubled history of occupation by Jews, Christians and Moslems. All believe that the site has major religious significance to them. It is also evident that there exists a distinct campaigne by some, if not all of these groups to commit horrifying atrocities against their fellow man, which they believe will fulfull scriptural prophesies.

    Now after examining the history of the area, any impartial observer can only conclude that were it not for religion, this piece of rock would be as barren as when it was first formed, billions of years ago, many lives could have been spared and much suffering averted. When one looks at this entire saga, critically, the total lack of sound reasoning (also morality and inteligence) by many religious men becomes all too apparent…

    Now tell me again why there is so much hatred in the Middle East, and the rest of the crazy religious world. Can you honestly point fingers at who is provoking who? Everyone who practises religion like their scriptures and clerics demand, are guilty and damned. If you fall in this group, you are part of that invidious blot on humanity which has cursed us from the time the first scoundrel dreamt up religion.

    • Not to be criticizing, but most of your examples about the bad things about religion can also be reflected to atheism. For instance,

      “However, back to my discussion about an unnecesary fight over a piece of rock which religious clerics on all three sides claim to be of significance to their religion. You have to admit that if it wasn’t for a religious belief purpetuated by religious clerics, this piece of rock, would only be a stupid piece of rock.”

      If we take something, say, the twin towers, we can also replace a few words in that paragraph.

      “However, back to my discussion about an unnecesary fight over a bombed tower which the Bush administration claims to be attacked by terrorists. You have to admit that if it wasn’t for the media ” purpetuated by the so called “US Leaders”, this building, would only be a fallen building like any other.”

      And referring to your quote in the first post, if it is impossible to attain all knowledge, then what is the use of attaining further knowledge? If religion didn’t exist it would still be the same; eventually people would find something else to blame for limiting their knowledge. Besides, look at our world right now; stem cells, nanotechnology, biotechnology, it seems like that humans are learning a lot right now. Doesn’t seem to me that religion is doing anything to stop it.

      • Hi Openspeaker,

        The difference between the Twin Towers and the Rock, is that the TT was not worshipped as holy by three competing religions. Also the TT did not cause untold misery and suffering by instigating endless fueds, for thousands of years. Yes, Bush used it as an excuse to wage a war for narrow self-interests(for oil), but it is not the same as the rock.

        “…then what is the use of attaining further knowledge?”

        Strangely, I heard this exact same thing from someone else at work today, and it’s still the most ridiculous thing I’ve probably ever heard. Further knowledge leads to further discoveries in science and technology- the things you take for granted, like being able to use the internet. If we had allowed religion to have sway, then we’d still be stuck back in the stone age, living in caves, hunting for flesh. You cannot have technological progress without scientific method of crutiny, examination, exhaustive experimentation, new learning, trial and error. Without learning you have nothing. A mind full of god only, might as well be totally empty – a zombie.

  8. Actually, you’ve got a point…that the site is a holistic site for all three religions. On the other hand, it paints a picture to me, that whenever a site was destroyed, the next religion rose…and the last was Islam. Though they believe in a God…the Jews reject the thought of Prophet Jesus and thus Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w), therefore Christianity and Islam and the Bible and the Qur’an altogether would mean nothing to them. I cannot say for every Jew, but would they read the Books of God just to find out?

    “And God has perfected your religion for you”

    As for the Dome of Rock…what makes you think that all this is merely for a piece of rock? Even if it was, don’t you think there is a bigger and hidden agenda behind all of this? If we talk about religion, it is between the Jews and Muslims right? But I won’t say that all Jews and Muslims think the same. There are extremists and they are those who are lost and have gone astray. I mean, in any religion, they do not oppose for war and killing of innocent people. It is even stated in the Qur’an, that the war/battle is against the disbelievers (and this is when THEY attack first!). Even narrated in a hadith, that when they were at war, and this dude spat at this person’s face, he left him.

    What Michael Dennis Rohan did, was touch on something so similar between the Christians’ and the Muslims’ beliefs – the second coming of Christ (a.k.a Prophet Jesus). The difference is, to Christians, Christ comes back when the world ends. So Mr. Rohan was hastening the world to come to an end! Muslims believe that he comes back to guide everyone back to Islam (when the world is at its severe corrupted mode…which doesn’t look like it’s too far from now!). On the other hand, I just think that the Jews want to wipe out the Muslims. End of story. And you think the Muslims should just give up and die and give in to what their enemies want? If we want change, we stand up for what’s right, right? That’s how Black Power came right? Out of oppression from the Whites.

    Btw, is that acceptable as human rights? We fight for human rights all the time, about all sorts of matters. Heck, even whales have rights and people just cannot stop condemning Japan for their activities. But have you really heard it from Japan’s side of the story?? No. The media is so good at being bad I tell you. But when these things happen, where is the human rights? Sad, isn’t it 

    I can go about this all day and from every side. The thing is, I am starting to sound like I know everything, when I don’t. This actually gives me an opportunity to discover more about the Jews to be honest with you. I really appreciate your feedbacks, and thank you for all that you’ve shared with me. And I apologize for any negativity I’ve created. But truly, I cannot flood your comments page all the time, and truly, I admit that I need to learn more myself ;) Nevertheless, it has been an exciting discovery for me…and I’m glad I found your blog  Will hope to revisit often and maybe leave you some URLs instead! Hehehe ;)

    • “What Michael Dennis Rohan did, was touch on something so similar between the Christians’ and the Muslims’ beliefs – the second coming of Christ (a.k.a Prophet Jesus). The difference is, to Christians, Christ comes back when the world ends. So Mr. Rohan was hastening the world to come to an end!”

      Hey looks like when you said:

      (when the world is at its severe corrupted mode…which doesn’t look like it’s too far from now!).

      It sounds like you are actually hastening the corruption of the world?…I can’t see alot of difference between you and Mr. Rohan.

      But I agree with you on human rights. Human do have rights. All humans have rights. Christians, Muslims, atheists, all of us have rights. And we could talk about this for days and days. Perhaps that’s what makes religion so interesting, that it stirs up arguments and such. Heck, I can even say now that if there wasn’t religion there won’t be atheists!

      • Everyone on this planet is born atheist and then raised into different religions. So basically without religion we would all be atheists.

        Sorry for the late comment. I just found this thread!
        /M

          • Actually its really quite a silly comment. You are still confusing religion with God. Man was created by God and babies are born without knowledge of religion. Do you see the difference?

          • Hi zai,

            No, the reality is that everyone is born an atheist, and then indoctrinated into the faith of the parents or minders. If you could be bothered to think about this truth without blinkers, you’ll admit to what a mind-blowing revelation it is.

            • Hi Lenny
              No, the TRUE reality is everyone is born a Discordian, and then led asunder from the path of our goddess, by the influences of those around them, Scientists, teachers, parents, and the media and so forth.
              Even though humanity’s has a natural predisposition towards divinity, well before religion was used for political purposes.
              This comes down to a few factors
              • The comfort of a there being god’s or goddess’s(so what you’re saying is through life sucks god has a plan for me and I’m going to life forever in paradise, and I have nothing to fear from death. sign me up!)
              • Lack of understanding (what causes lighting ? Zeus)
              The idea has matured over the years from a god for every element to a more centralized model, largely due to political factors and the rise of alchemy and then later science.
              If as you say everyone is born an atheist who would have indoctrinated the first people, unless you believe another species did the first round of indoctrination
              Also you have to take into the account that more forceful methods of indoctrination will cause people to rebel and reject most or all religious teachings, and then try indoctrinating those around them.
              The indoctrination they perform will be more selfish than those of a religions disposition, just trying to make sure there friends and family don’t have to endure everlasting torment.
              They may not even be aware they are indoctrinating those around them by telling them their opinions such as; “religions is just some coping mechanism for the weak” or “that to truly see the wonder of the world you need to see it without these religious beliefs”.
              This may seem harmless debate to those people but to a child this will be very influential to their development even especially, if they look up to this person as you would a parent.

              • Hahaha! Spoken like a true Discordian.

                “If as you say everyone is born an atheist who would have indoctrinated the first people, unless you believe another species did the first round of indoctrination.”

                Contemplating that, I would have to acknowledge that the first people may possibly be the only people who were capable of thinking for themselves, without any influences whatsoever.

  9. First of all, we would like to tell you that war is decreed in Islam in self defense. This indicates that aim behind war is to ward off aggression not to impose Islam as a religion. Referring to this, Allah Almighty says: “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily God is most powerful for their aid.” (Al-Hajj:39)

    link: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545840

    and i apologize, it’s not hadith, it is a story..

    Caliph Ali was once fighting in a war imposed on Muslims, and the chief of the Unbelievers confronted him. During the fight, the Ali was able to overcome him, who fell down on the ground and Ali was about to kill him. This person, knowing his fate now, had no choice so he spit on the face of Ali. Ali immediately got up and left him alone. The man came running to him and asked, “You had a chance to kill me since I was defeated; how come you didn’t use your sword?” Ali said, “I have no personal animosity toward you. I was fighting you because of your disbelief, on behalf of God. If I had killed you after you spat on my face, then it would have become my personal revenge which I do not wish to take.” That Unbeliever chief became a Muslim immediately.

    http://www.islam-usa.com/e80.htm
    :)

  10. Hmmm…

    Do you believe that everything that happens in life is pre-ordained? That is do you believe that god allows everything that happens for a reason. Take for example, natural disastors such as volcanic eruptions and tsunamis etc. If you do believe this, then consider what I have to say next.

    If god ordains that these things must occur (for reasons only he knows) then isn’t it logical that his creation must accept these things as the will of god and allow it to happen? Is this not so? So, if an aggessor makes war on your nation/country, is this not the will of god, and should you not succumb to the aggressor as it is the will of god? Is this not logical? Resisting the aggressor is an act of defiance against the will of god. Is this not so?

    I am not implying that an invasion by one country over another (as in the case of America in Iraq) are to be condoned. I make this point simply to show that if you take religious teachings to its natural conclusion, how dumb it really is. Religion was created by man as the effective tool in his arsenal to gain and hold onto power; simply because the basis of all religious teaching is submission. Yes, man wants you to be submissive so that he can control you; this is why he created religion. What better way to acive total control than to make you believe that there is an invisible man in the sky who will punish you upon death, for not submitting to his will. When in reality that will is not the will of god, but the will of devious men. It’s as simple as that. Think about it….

    • I indeed believe life is pre-ordained; and in a way it WAS logical. But as we can see in Christianity, (I don’t know about Islam though) God gave man a CHOICE of FREE WILL. His creations had the free choice of accepting his will/commands.

      In your example of the aggressor and defiance, the resistance is there so the aggressor can realize they can not particularly win without God’s help. If the resistance is eliminated as of God’s will everytime, won’t humans eventually think that they can do it without God’s help and go away from God? They will, and that was particularly why God might have gave us free will in the first place.

      An to your last paragraph, you are assuming that the people who first created religion (and therefore that it was created by PEOPLE, not GOD) had no intention of worshipping the religion that they created themselves. But as we can see so often that isn’t the case, the people who “created” their religion indeed followed it as if they didn’t create it at all.

      • Hi Openspeaker,

        There is no free will in submission. According to the bible if you don’t submit to the will of god, then you are dammned. What is the point of giving someone the choice and then condemning them for making one that is not popular with you. It’s like saying choose any colour, so long as it’s black.

        Don’t you think that every army that ever went into battle, prayed to god to win. But there is only one winner; why did god forsake the other side? History is kind only to the victorius. Why? Think about sports? Both teams (if they are religious) usually make a big show on the sportsfield of praying for divine intervention and hoping that a god (their god) will make them win. Why does god choose one side over the other, both of the same religious persuasion?

        My hypothesis: In stone age times, when the original priests (shamans) began to hallucinate and “see” supernatural beings, and then realyed this to ordinary people, the people were terrified. Unsrupulous people saw this as a unique opportunity to use these spirit creatures as a way of controlling ordinary people through fear. These people are the predecessors of modern-day priests and the clergy who have merely taken this one step further by organizing this fear system into religions. They didn’t have to follow it themselves, but had to make it look credible by doing so. Think about it?

  11. Pingback: Why do so many religious people hate themselves so much? « Lenny Says

  12. I’m curious. You state that it is impossible to know everything. Totally agree. Yet, if we don’t possess all knowledge then how do we know that a God does not exist? Wouldn’t we have to know everything there is to know in the universe to be sure God isn’t there? It’s almost a contradiction in a sense. I’m not trying to prod or poke fun, but to understand your reasoning. Please let me know. : )

    • Hi Amanda,

      That is a perfectly valid question. The truth is, we don’t know whether a god or gods exist or not. But don’t you think that it is highly arrogant for a man to propose what he believes a god or gods to be like, and then compound his arrogance with gross dishonesty through coercing the world to accept his version on pain of certain unprovable punishments, or lure of unprovable rewards.

      The probability of existence of a god or gods are practically zero, because no proof has ever been scientifically validated for such an existence. Having said that, I don’t think that science can be used to find proof for the existence of a god or gods, but science can be used to evaluate any hypothesis that is offered. Until such proof is found, there is no point in making yourself go nuts over what you visualize a god is, or even worse, what others think.

      • Well yes, i think it’s arrogant for man to force his beliefs on others through dishonesty or coercion. It’s not exactly fun for someone to come up and say to you that you’re going to hell because you don’t believe in Jesus. And from what I got out of your comments, i think you’ve had to deal with that A LOT. But it is inevitable. Either side you look at it, people are going to get beat up for what they believe. Those who believe in God get mocked by unbelievers and are called fools. Those who don’t believe in God get mocked by the believers and are called fools.

        I’m coming to understand what I believe and why I believe it. With each question i study and analyze i come closer to understanding more concretely what I believe. You encourage critical thinking, so is it okay to continue asking questions from someone like yourself with a different perspective who has done extensive research? I have of course, my own thoughts and opinions but i don’t want to continue questioning if it offends you or pressures you.

        • Hi Amanda,

          My only intention is to expose uncritical thinking by providing an alternative based on sound principles of logic and reasoning. Because I think it’s dishonest to mislead people through emotional blackmail. COnsider it a free service, if you will.

          I am not in any way on a crusade to win “converts” to any non-religious or other cause. I think this is the impression most people get, because of my passion for speaking out against dishonesty in all areas of life, not just religion.

          I think you’re on the right track though: believe whatever you want, practice whatever rituals “float your boat,” but keep it private and out of the public sphere. If’s it gets into the public sphere, then expect criticism.

        • Greetings all,

          I read Amanda’s posts and it basically sums all my opinions up; what an unbeliever says has also another side, just as potent and just as valid. In the end, it come to be neutral. I can’t make you believe in something, you can’t make me. We can try, but in the end it’s the persons own free will and choice. We can’t force someone to do something. And when it does, it often violates both sides of the argument. So I guess I can just end this conversation as of now, and rest peacefully. I hope you all do as well.

  13. After interesting lecture of “two camps” I am very eager to sum things up, with respect to both sides. I have very specific opinion of just a reason of religion as a whole, I’m not even sure if someone postulated such theory.

    I think religious people tend to have a higher level of oxytocin. This hormone balance basically brings people to be subdued by dogma inculcated during growth and depending on levels of serotonin or octopamine to project these dogma on other people or quietly live their lives without much hassle.

    This is very simplistic view of a reasoning behind religion but with current knowledge of medicine it is clearly understandable people born to be religious will not change and people born without a need for dogma in their lives will also not change (considering lack of any kind of genetic and/or hormonal therapy – a good story for sci-fi movie I suppose).

    Historically, all current dominant religions have their roots in at least Zoroastrianism, and Zarathushtra had to have an inspiration based on earlier beliefs, at least partially. God, heaven, hell was already invented BC, then and in the following centuries the idea branched many times and has to had it’s believers, with vast numbers I may add, because of biological factors.

    As simple as that and as hopeless as that.

  14. Actually this discussion is interesting, at least there are still people that can expose their point of view, their beliefs without to fall in ordinary insults, and Ad Hominen fallacies.

    I would like a lot people could read this, maybe they could learn there is something called critical thinking, maybe they could ask themselves: Why do I believe what I believe? I’m sure most believers even thought about it once. I know it for my own experience. To them: Does it has any sense to live a whole life without use the logic, without analize facts?

    I don’t think I have the absolute truth, maybe there is something bigger that human beings, something we can even understand, who knows? But what I know is that everything we can see has a reason to be, how could I blindly believe in a book if I know it was written by men? why I should say and believe that an institution governed by people like me (just a little more well-off) has all the truth?

    Sorry about my english, I’m learning.

    And, by the way Lenny, I would like to copy-translate-paste part of this post on my blog.

    • Hi JD

      Your english is not too bad.

      “But what I know is that everything we can see has a reason to be…”

      Everything we see (or think we see) does not necessarily have to have a reason. It’s a natural inclination for the human mind to find order in everything, and when the mind cannot find this order (or pattern) it tends to create one, based on the limited knowledge at its disposal.

      By all means, “copy-translate-paste” whatever you want to; knowledge should be free…

  15. Hi Lenny,
    Just got onto this site by chance, and just couldn’t stop reading, it’s nice to know there are more people at the same level of consciousness, and you are know doubt one of them. Peoples minds are really starting to speed up. Exciting times ahead.

    Love and peace to all

    • Hi Darren,

      Thanks for the kind words. It makes me so glad to see the ranks of the critical thinkers swelling. There is hope yet for the future of mankind…

      Peace and love…

  16. Before you go lambasting something of which you have no understanding you should at least get your facts straight, so i will explain somethings to you.
    1. the bible does not say it is the source of all knowledge but that it is the source of all truth and of all knowledge about God.
    2. God is omniscient which means that he knows everything, and because we are not gods of course we cannot know everything.
    3. Christianity does not reveal everything but it does tell you that there are things to be discovered and to discover them. without Christianity science would have stagnated such as in the middle ages, a misnomer but that’s a different argument, the Christian era had an explosion of scientific discoveries without which nothing in the “modern age” would have been possible.
    two examples, Sir Isaac Newton, and Galileo.
    4. Evolution has been SCIENTIFICALLY dis-proven it has been shown by thousands of scientists, Logic, and hundreds of discoveries in archaeology.

    So not including the massive amounts of evidence for God in human nature and other “non-sciences” there are all the evidence in science.
    so before you attack something try to learn about.

    • Hi Josiah,

      Seems to me you’re the one who needs to get his “facts” straight:
      1. I did not state that the bible was the source of all knowledge. I said “the religious establishment preached that all knowledge was already revealed within the context of “religious” doctrine.” I was referring to the clergy, not the bible itself. The bible is not the source of all truth, and the fact that you and millions of others say so, does not make it true. A simple example: Leviticus, Chapter 11, verses 13 – 19 states that the bat is a bird. The bat is not a bird; it’s a mammal. Source of all truth? Obviously written by people ignorant about biology, not a god. And don’t you think it’s highly arrogant to claim that the bible is the source of all knowledge about god? What about the holy books of the other religions? Oh, off course, silly me, only Christianity is the one true religion!!! How can anyone forget that; Christians have killed so many people making that “fact” clear.
      2. Prove that god is omniscient. And since you state that you don’t know everything because you are not a god, how do you know that god is omniscient? Don’t make fantastic claims that you can’t substantiate.
      3. Christianity tells you that there are things to be discovered? Big deal. Fortune cookies also tell me there are things to be discovered. Does that mean I should start revering fortune cookies as the “word of god.” I don’t know which Christian apologetic and pseudo-scientific literature you have been reading, but I think you really need to visit a real library sometime, or buy some decent scientific books. The crap being fobbed off by AIG, The Templeton Foundation etc. is peurile nonsense. Off course you need to have a seriously open and critical mind to tackle real scientific literature. By the way, Sir Issac Newton and Galileo are not scientific discoveries. They are historical persons who have contributed to the field of science. And unlike the many bible characters, there is contemporary, corroborating evidence for them having existed.
      4. Evolution can never be SCIENTIFICALLY dis-proven through the study of, or dscoveries made in archaeology, no matter how many thousands of “scientists” try to. Archaeology is the study of “human cultures through the recovery, documentation, analysis, and interpretation of material culture and environmental data, including architecture, artifacts, biofacts, and landscapes. Archaeology aims to understand humankind through these humanistic endeavors.” [wikipaedia definition, but you can google definitions from other sources and they will tell you basically the same thing]. Evolution is the study of much more than simple humans. Not only have you got your sciences all mixed up, you obviously haven’t the slightest clue what evolution is all about. Never mind, it was to be expected. There is no evidence for god in human nature whatsoever; there is evidence for human nature in human nature. There is no evidence for a god in any science or non-science, and you can shout out loud as many times as you like that there is; it won’t change a thing.

      I think you first need to learn what facts are, and then try again…

  17. hi :) i’ve been receiving all comments through email, but i’m not here to comment. however, i would love to share a video with all, if you have the time.. there’s a wonderful series that opened my eyes to our human nature.. and our differences. hmm, maybe you could check it out if you haven’t :) it’s a YouTube video, titled “Phase 3: Overcoming Religious Intolerance”. or here’s the link – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpbbkD9iCFI
    just thought of sharing :) have a nice day!

    • Hi dayana,

      Welcome back. Thanks for the video link. I hope you will also use the video link I am leaving for Josiah, below.

      Although I support the sentiments in that video, I find they could have been made without the need to align them with religion.

      • Thank you very much for sharing that video! it’s EXACTLY what’s happening today and THIS is exactly the problem.

        to link this to the video i posted, it’s to say..”we only know what we know.” and the problem is when people want to impose what they know onto others and it becomes a debate, escalates into an argument and then the more we feel we’re right and they’re wrong and the end of the story is just that.

        but God is Great. and the video i shared with you proves that..there’s no limit to knowledge..but one’s knowledge is limited. we will keep learning if we so wish. and at times i myself have to step back to allow new knowledge to come in. erase the old one so that i can see better, God willing.

        the video i shared with you however, had to be in line with religion. hehe, it’s only one series i shared with you which happened to be the last! if you are interested, you can watch the other series of Phase 3 on YouTube. they were the creators of The Arrivals..which is an isightful series as well.

        if you realized, i hadn’t commented any more after the first time i did, was because i realized, i was indeed lacking knowledge and that i wasn’t going anywhere but down if i even tried to prove anything. goes to show that “The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know” ;D i decided i still have lots to learn, and that’s very true. i’m enjoying the journey..and it helps me to learn to see others and their viewpoint..i mean, at the end of the day, how can one be attracted to religion if there’s a constant debate about it amongst those who claim to believe?

        with regards to the Books of God, i believe in all. because that’s what God asks us to do in the Qur’an. it’s like Harry Potter series, there has to be the final book right? Qur’an was that.

        but as to the ongoing debate whether there is or isn’t a God? i pray that we all keep gaining in knowledge (the good kind) so that we die with a smile on our faces knowing that we have lived for a reason no matter what the belief.
        :)

        • Hi dayana,

          I’m so glad you’re on the only worthwhile journey in life – the pursuit of knowledge. I hope you will find the natural world as fascinating and enthralling as I have. There is so much in the natural world to be in awe off, that I constantly wonder why people are consumed with, and in awe of the supernatural world.

          I hope you will coach others to join you.

  18. 1. I did not say that is what you said, i said that most of the clergy did not believe that all knowledge was in the bible. of course me and millions of other people do not make something true, however it is true so i believe it, there is such a thing as absolute truth and believing or not believing in it does not affect it’s veracity.

    The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see. In other words, it makes generic categorizations. In this case, the bat is categorized as a bird because like birds, it flies and is similar in size to most birds. If we did not know that it was a mammal, it would be natural to call it a bird. To the Hebrew of ancient times, calling it a bird was perfectly logical. But, in modern times we categorize animal species more specifically, and have categorized the bat as a mammal and not a bird.

    Also, we must be aware that it is modern science that has a different classification system than ancient times. To the ancients, creatures such as a bat were considered birds since they categorized all flying animals as birds. If that is the category that they used, then they were correct. It is not an error. It is a difference of categorization procedures.

    and yes the bible was written by people but God divinely inspired them to write what he would have them write.
    yes i believe christianity is the true religion because it fits best with reality.
    what examples do you have of christians killing others to make that clear?

    2. I don’t need to prove that God is omniscient because he could not be God without being so,
    so that whole argument is about whether God exists.

    3. I did not say that they were discoveries, i’m sorry if it came across that way i’m not the best of typists. they are great christian scientists without which we would not be where we are today.
    Yes there is contemporary corroborating evidence for almost every one in the bible.

    4. I’m sorry about that, i did not mean archaeology, i meant paleontology and fossil finds.
    I do know exactly what evolution is about i also know the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution, micro evolution has been observed and is only small differences in species, macro evolution has never been observed and is large changes between species. one problem with this is that it has been calculated that to change a fish into a land animal, such as an amphibian or something of that sort, it would take 50,000 changes for that to happen and currently we have only 1 or 2 “intermediate” forms, where are the other 49,998?

    another problem with evolution is that it assumes that life can come from non-life – spontaneous generation – which is an aristotelian theory which has been exploded.

    So i think that the most important and fundamental question is whether God exists, for this i have two arguments that depend on what you believe.

    1. what do you believe about the origins of the universe?

    2. do you believe in a standard of morality, or in other words a standard of decent behavior?

    • Hi Josiah,

      1. This is what you said “the bible does not say it is the source of all knowledge but that it is the source of all truth and of all knowledge about God.” Nowhere do you mention anything about clergy. You made a blanket unsubstantiated statement – admit it.
      “…however it is true so i believe it,…” This is one of the most ridiculous statements I have heard, but you’re not the first theist who I’ve heard it from. How is it true? Where is the proof for it being true. You cannot believe something without there being proof for it’s veracity, unless you’re monumentally gullible.

      There is no such thing as absolute truth. Even in science, there is always doubt. That’s what science is all about – doubt.

      Obviously god did not inspire people enough to write the facts. What a lazy-ass inspiration he must have been? The fact is that those who inpsired the bible were bronze age herdsman, and the reason it is so full of non-facts is because it reflects their ignorance about scientific matters.

      Christianity fits the best with reality? That must be the joke of the millenium. You obviously think your religious fantasy world is reality. Talk about being delusional?

      2. “I don’t need to prove that God is omniscient because he could not be God without being so, so that whole argument is about whether God exists.”
      That makes no sense at all. Allow me to restate what you said using another example: I don’t need to prove that water is wet, because it would not be water without being wet.

      3. Provide the proof for “contemporary corroborating evidence for almost every one in the bible”

      4. “…i also know the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution..” No, actually you know only what you have picked up from a pseudo-scientific resource. The above statements about micr and macro-evolution tells me so in no uncertain terms. You obviously don’t know the truth about evolution because of your indoctrination.

      Evolution does not “assume that life can come from non-life.” In fact evolution does not postulate anything about the start of life; that field of study is known as abiogenesis. Evolution can be defined “a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.” [The TalkOrigins Archive]. Evolution does not explain how life started. More proof that you know nothing about evolution.

      My belief in the origins of the universe is dependent on the proof that is supplied. My opinion will change whenever new evidence is produced. That is what science is all about, not dogmatic belief.
      I do not require a cosmic policeman to guide and watch over my moral behaviour. I can do this all on my own. That’s because I have a strong mind and strong character – I can think for myself, thanks. Does that sound like a novel idea to the religuous?

  19. Dayana, that video would be true if God had not revealed himself to us, however he has through his holy word. there are other religions i respect their right to religious freedom, but i do believe there is an objective truth that God has revealed to us and deviation from that warrants condemnation, except that there is the possibility of Grace.

    • Put simply, you’re saying that you respect the right of others to believe in their own religions, but your god doesn’t. Nice one. I hope you can explain that one when you two meet – how you disrespected your god’s disrespect.

  20. 1. Okay i admit i did make an unsubstantiated and blanket statement but you set the precedent for that.
    Your statement that there is no absolute truth is in itself an absolute truth so there for your argument defeats itself.
    You provided no examples of non-facts so until you do there is no substance in that argument,
    the bible uses phenomenological ways of speaking, which means that it describes it the way it appears not the way it is scientifically categorized, because as you pointed out the people in those times were not versed that well in science.
    You insist on using the ad hominem fallacy, which means that you attack the man instead of the argument, trying to disprove my arguments by attacking me, that won’t be good enough, for someone of your intellect.

    2. I agree your analogy makes better sense to the common man.

    3. I will when you provide anything that says a part of the Bible is not true.

    4. It may not postulate anything about the origins of life, it’s basic assumption of evolution, here is the definition: “premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn” spontaneous generation is assumed to be true because that is what makes the theory of evolution possible.

    Science has limitations, it is not about doubt it is about using experiments to find out how things work and what they are made of, it is impossible for science to ever discover why something works the way it does, so when some scientist makes a statement about the why of anything they are going beyond the realm of science into the realm of the metaphysical. also the origins of life can never be tested scientifically, that is with repeatable experiments, which means that it is only your faith that allows you to believe what you do about the why of the universe.
    some examples of your faith, you have faith that the universe is ordered if it wasn’t science would be impossible, your faith in science, and your faith in man.
    Also your continued harping on religious dogma is counterproductive when you are doing the same thing with “non-religious” dogma.

    one of the most popular theories is that of the big bang it has been endorsed by some prominent scientists one being Stephen Dawkins. So since the evidence sways that way that must be what you believe. But the problem with that is, where did the matter come from in the first place, that is a common problem with all atheistic theories, unless your belief is the same as Carl Sagan: “the Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” but that is making the universe god, much too close to religion for you.

    I did not say that there was a cosmic policeman, but you said you can watch over your moral behavior, does this mean you accept that there is such a thing as morality?
    and no that is not a novel idea to the religious, every religion except Christianity believes that you have to fix yourself to get to where ever they believe you go.

    • Hi there Josiah,

      1. I responded to your blanket statement by making a statement you think is a blanket statement in return. So how is it possible that I set a precedent, when you were the one who made the first unsubstantiated statement? Do you understand what a precedent means? Anyway, my statement has merit, because nothing is 100% certain. There is always an element of doubt associated with everything. There are ranges of probability with everything. You’ve heard how death is certain. Well, that is a position that science could one day change, so it is not a certainty. Absolutism is not good, because there are always shades of grey. Moral absolutism is worse, because your moral choices will always have consequences. About those non-facts; since you ask I will point you to one resource which I found amusing. You can Google others at your own leisure. Incidently, since I am not the one making fantastical claims, as religious books do, the onus is on these books or the proponenst of this literature to come up with proofs. I merely point out that one cannot make such claims without providing proof for such. The rule of thumb is “the more fantastic the claim, the heavier the burden is to provide the proof”

      I know what an ad hominem fallacy is. Kindly point out where I attack your character personally. I found to instances which you could perhaps have construed as a personal attack; the sections where I mention “delusional” and “gullible” If you care to read carefully, you will find that the statements do not refer to you personally; they are indirect references to a patterns of behaviour which could apply to you, as much as to anyone else.

      2. Once again I need to refer you to my earleir statement: Incidently, since I am not the one making fantastical claims, as religious books do, the onus is on these books or the proponenst of this literature to come up with proofs. I merely point out that one cannot make such claims without providing proof for such. The rule of thumb is “the more fantastic the claim, the heavier the burden is to provide the proof”

      3. “spontaneous generation is assumed to be true because that is what makes the theory of evolution possible” No it does not!!! Anyone who understands evolution, which once again, I must repeat, you absolutley do not, would shudder to even think about such antiquated beliefs. Although I don’t like Wikipaedia definitions of anything, I’ll give you the Wiki definition anyway; you can Google other resources which will tell you basically the same thing: “Spontaneous generation or Equivocal generation is an obsolete theory regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s). The theory was synthesized by Aristotle[1], who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. It is generally accepted to have been ultimately disproven in the 19th Century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, expanding upon the experiments of other scientists before him (such as Francesco Redi who had performed similar experiments in the 17th century). Ultimately, it was succeeded by germ theory and cell theory.”

      I did not mention this in my earlier responses, but the theory of evolution does not require any fossil evidence to be proved true. The proof for evolution can be found entirely in genetic mutation (variation). The study of genes provides all the proof required; fossils just make things more interesting by providing actual samples. You can find the resources that backs this up yourself; it’s not hard at all because there is tons of information available online.

      To my mind, the only limitations of science is the tools currently at our disposal to carry out experiments, and those set by the mind itself. Off course, true scientists don’t set limitations to their thinking; only psedo-scientists and those brainwashed into thinking in a particular single-minded” direction (not surprisingly, theists feature strongly here).

      I’m not even going to entertain that hogwash about science requiring faith. I’ve dealt with it extensively elsewhere on this blog. That statement about scientists going into the realm of the metaphysical, is outrageous. You’re once again confusing true scientists with pseudo-scientists. Please learn the difference.

      I’ve never heard of Stephen Dawkins. I think you’re referring to Stephen Hawking, but a combination of Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins in one person would be a truly wondrous sight to behold – the masters of physics and biology combined. I suggest you do a little research on the experiments being carried out in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, and the possibilities that the Higgs Boson particle may answer some of these questions about matter. I prefer to keep an open mind, and not pronounce prematurely on anything. Remember that little thing I mentioned earlier about certainty and the probems with absolutism?

      Off course there is morality. But how I choose to live my life is based on decisions I make personally based on my value systems, character, knowledge etc. I don’t need someone to police me, nor do I need someone to dicate to me. I was not referring to morality as being a novel idea; please read carefully before jumping to conclusions. I was referring to the idea of thinking for yourself as being a novel idea to those used to being told what to do, as is common with theists.

  21. No my God respects the right of people to believe what they want, why else do you think he gave them free will? it’s just that if they do not believe the truth they will have to suffer the consequences. It’s called responsibility.

    • Josiah,

      You’re really not thinking things through. If god knows everything you are going to do before you do, and everything that is going to happen before you do, how is it possible for you to have free will. The omniscient property of god would mean that your will would be bent to what god already had in store for you. Don’t you think that it would be a really cruel trick for a god to play on someone. Do you understand this conundrum?

  22. Dayana,
    Apparently you are not a practicing Muslim or you would not posting videos like that when the Qu’ran says this “War is enjoined you against the infidels” sura 2:216
    “O true believers, take not my enemy and your enemy for your friends, shewing kindness toward them; since they believe not in the truth which hath come unto you, having expelled the apostle and yourselves from your native city, because ye believe in God, your Lord. If ye go forth to fight in defence of my religion, and out of a desire to please me, and privately shew friendship unto them; verily I well know that which ye conceal, and that which ye discover: And whoever of you doth this, hath already erred from the strait path.” sura 60:1
    islam is not a tolerant religion.

    • Hi Josiah,

      thank you for the reminder. yes, i had only begun practicing Islam and studying the Qur’an about a year ago. i have a lot to learn. but from what i have thus far, 1) we must read the scriptures as it is. like the verse 2:216. most of the translation i found did not say against whom war is enjoined as you put “war is enjoined you against the infidels”. in the Qur’an translations i have and have looked up, i’ve come across these:

      “Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful to you” or “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it” ..

      even the translations in my own language does not mention war against whom. what i want to point out here is (please don’t mind the diversion!), we must be careful not to add or leave out what God has said in his books. that is why, 1) it’s best if we knew Arabic..so that in matters such as this, we can refer to the original text of the Qur’an (or any books of God for that matter) whether or not he mentioned as you said, or as what i found in other translations.

      2) as i have been studying the qur’an..WAR to me may not mean the same WAR to you. for verse 2:216, i take it at current to be war against myself. my past belief/disbelief. my will to sin. my selfishness. i am at war against myself (if you read the whole of that verse you can roughly see what i mean). and that’s the beauty of the Qur’an. the verses will give different meaning to one person to the other. and not only that, even for myself, reading the same verses of the qur’an at different times always gives me new meaning and insights…God willing.

      for the 2nd verse, yes…i can see how this relates. yet, if we look back at history, Prophet Abraham’s father did not believe in God, and Prophet Muhammad’s (s.a.w) beloved uncle did not embrace Islam.. and yet, these Prophets, and as many other cases did not abandon their family and waged war against them SO LONG as they did not wage war against Islam.

      i feel that we are here merely to discuss. and i have not felt attacked by lenny, but actually welcomed :) i guess.. that’s what i feel when you mention that verse. it’s a good reminder, but there are other people, whom i would need to adhere to the verse for. like some of my friends who are Muslims, but when it comes to practicing the daily prayers and fasting, abstaining from sex before marriage, drinking/drugging etc, they do not do it, and actually play a major role in INFLUENCING others to do the same.

      so when reading the Qur’an, i really cannot say there is only one way to read it. and even if God says something like “don’t take them as friends”.. doesn’t mean that i have to be all mean and cruel right? how can it be in line with God’s instructions to be kind towards others…and most of all practice patience?

      i thank you though, for this opportunity to reflect. i’m sorry if this was mighty long. just got me rolling! :)

  23. As someone who has spent a great deal of time in search for the “truth”, I can say one thing is certain and true: If you were to ask 6 billion people to define truth you would get just as many different answers. The “truth” that we all seek must truly come from within ourselves by acknowledging that we are all interconnected to one single phenomenon- Love. I don’t want to get all that into depth about the subject but I will say that it is the one force that drives people to do extraordinary things…..”good” or “bad” and that is indisputable. For the record, I do believe in God our Creator who out of unconditional love gave us free will to do as we like in the time we are given here on this place we call planet Earth. Knowledge was given to us from God though not directly, but instead by those who have become “inspired” by God to “guide” humanity from all which we will never know.
    It would be unrealistic for us to ever know all there is to know, however we have been given the gift to seek for knowledge on an individual basis. “Religion” has a tendency to rears it’s ugly head by using certain scriptures, whether inaccurately translated or a matter of interpretation to enslave those who are too lazy or unable to discover their own “truth”.
    I feel we have all been lied to and deceived by those who know that mankind, in general would rather feel safe and secure with their “own” realities and dismiss finding “themselves” out of fear. No, I don’t believe in the devil although I know many…….lol. The devil, hell and all the Zoroastrian beliefs of dualistic religions that began some 5000 years ago were manifested strictly out of fear. This very fear was used by those seeking control and power over others on this Earth.
    When I myself researched religions of the world and ancient belief systems beyond that of ANY one holy book or writings, I was truly amazed how they all came from the same “apple” yet through time have “evolved” to fit the criteria of those in power to suit their own selfish and greedy agenda’s just to live the life of luxury at the expense of others, all in the name of a God or like in the earliest writings and tablets of ancient “advanced” civilizations – Gods.
    It’s not too far fetched to take into serious considerations the possibility of extraterrestrial life. It certainly mentions more than one God in all the Abrahamic Religious Texts as well as those religions in other parts of the world and their sacred texts. Some, if not most excuse these instances as what the belief practices of these people had during this time. If we could imagine living some 7000 years ago-long before The Egyptians and seen individuals arriving from the sky that told us how to farm with complex irrigation systems, map the heavens with unbelievable accuracy, complex mathematics, and construct unfathomable permanent structures, I would no question to believe anything other than they were Gods. We are talking about people out of the stone age entering into the bronze age-very simple people.
    Some may say what a fantastic story or that is just crazy talk. Is it really? Well there is such a story to be told not only by the ancient Sumerians but like-wise with civilizations throughout the entire world during the SAME time period. There are artifacts littering the entire Earth that all tell the same story. I’m not going to get into all this either, check it out for yourself while the information is available and free.
    The point here is if we refuse to look at the world outside from how we interpret it from within or from our own reality then we are destined to be the problem and not the solution for generations to come. If we can serve others before ourselves and respect the truths of others with love and compassion, only then can we collectively make a difference in the world. “We must BE the change we want to see in the World”. Energy is neither created nor destroyed and that is scientific fact. We are all given something greater than what we have and perceive to be real in this temporary spacesuit of a body because we all have a soul or consciousness that lives on. How you choose to live your life here will depict were you will be. We reap what we sow.
    In the meanwhile follow your beliefs and do so out of love and compassion to others. The Holy Bible, Koran, Torre and even the Vedas all have very important meaning to them as long as we can consciously weed out those parts taught to us out of control because control is the farthest thing apart from love and look at the big-over-all picture and not just that which we observe with our own eyes.
    I enjoyed reading all your responses and look forward to reading more. Thank You

    • Hi Paul,

      You have a pretty good way of viewing things; a pity you seem to need a Creator to keep it all together. But as long as you are also a seeker of knowledge; you’re doing OK in my books.

  24. paul,
    you should at least decide what you believe before you post, that was one crap load of garbled nonsense. as far as i can tell you are a theistic pantheistic ufo believing eastern meditation advocate. or something like that.
    those religions are exclusive, it’s people like you coming along and not knowing anything about any of those religions just making up your own “truth”, and that’s nonsense too, you can not find your own truth, truth is defined as “conformity to fact or actuality” that is definitely not what you have.

  25. Well all muslims must look to Muhammad as an example, but when you look at what he did it is terrible, after he went to medina he started slaughtering all who did not conform with him, and maybe you do not know sharia law which imposes a 25% income tax on all infidels, the fact is that muhammed was a brutal, vicious, and perverted man.
    what drew you to islam anyway?
    that is the religion of persecution for women.

  26. Lenny,
    In response to your saying that i must be delusional, actually you are the delusional one for these reasons: the universe is an effect and it is a scientific law that all effects must have a cause so there must be something higher than the universe, someone or something, but it is deluding yourself to believe there is no god when you wouldn’t be here without one.
    My next point is one that you brought up yourself, you said that you have a strong mind and a strong character, that’s ridiculous in your world with no God, because where then did you get them? in world where you evolved from lower life forms you would not have them because the animals you supposedly came from do not, you never see a grizzly bear using algebra, and natural selection can never add information it can only destroy it.

    • Hi Josiah,

      Ah yes, that old nugget again – the infinite regress or Cosmological Argument. Call me delusional, but if all effects must have a cause, then that higher cause you speak of (god?) must also have a cause. I take it you’re expecting me to accept without question that your god is the only uncaused cause? Really?

  27. Май для россиян — это особенный месяц, отмеченный двумя очень важными весенними праздниками. День Победы и Праздник весны и труда — это дни, когда мы в очередной раз благодарим старшее поколение за мир и блага, ради которых они трудились и сражались.
    Спраздничком Вас lennymaysay.wordpress.com

    • Hi

      Actually today is Workers Day in South Africa. And yes, I am grateful to any of the older generations who fought for peace, particularly if if didn’t involve violence as well.

  28. Interesting views, however no matter how much you learn of how life came to be. There will always be an outside force(God) to cause any explosion(big bang) to occur, other wise the life would have never started because no body would have started something. No matter how far you count backwards or forward you will only run into the beginning and the end “God”. Therefore god or religion are not only faith which I have a strong christian/catholic faith, it is also logical and necessary for any law and theory to even count as valid one. Matter can not be created or destroyed. So there is a fixed amount, right? So if we start with limited materials, then guess who put them there, thats right it was god. Any way you look at it you can’t deny gods existence. Now with evolution, even if we derive from fishes and those fishes from bacteria and those bacteria from chemical reactions, then who put the chemicals in the first place. Lol, anyway scientist deny god they will count to infinity to still run in the question who placed the previous thing, but in the end if you count to infinity you god is still before all that a after all that.

    • Hi JoseCruz,

      You’ve obviously missed the whole point of my post. It’s also obvious that you don’t want to learn anything, because you seem content to accept that all knowledge is contained within your faith. How sad.

      And BTW, making sweeping statements about how an “outside force” put things in place, does not make it true, no matter how many religious holy books tell you so.

      And finally, laws and theories are not predicated on faith and religion or worse still, a thing called a god…

      • I’m basing myself not on faith, far from it I’m thinking logically and with reason if you read . I’m thinking like a scientist, for it is that I know that anything that exists in any form of matter or thought has to have a beginning. And if you take life like you are and deny god, you will find yourself in an endless paradox. You will learn and discover things in time that effect that of today, but how far does that go? Now your whole topic the infinity of learning makes realize how little you know, so if this an arithmetic quantity that never ends, then who ultimately knows all. However things exist whether you know them or not. So there is a finite quantity of how much you can discover for there is only one who knows the beginning and how far we will get to know(the end). Also anything that base your self on will always lead you to god. Even if you go to the hard core of atoms charges and energy, they are based on movement, that is what energy is. Where does energy come from in a fixed amount? well many will say that it started from that such big bang. So if there is an inert state of no motion and nothingness, who then gave the initial push to this thing I like to call creation. Even your laws contradict your position, matter can not be created or destroyed, energy can not be created or destroyed. That fix amount only proves that there is a god who gave us all that to be forever changing shape and form. I am religious, but trust me I like science just as much. and in my universe there is a beginning and an end. So that infinite paradox that science can’t explain I call to a justification by god and I believe in him in two forms first faithfully and secondly backed up logically. Where does a circle begins? where ever god tells me it does.

        • Hi JoseCruz

          Sorry for the late response; I’ve been away for a bereavement in the family, my father actually.

          May I suggest that you read up on the experiments that are being conducted at CERN, in the Large Hadron Collider, and about the so-called God Particle. If you’re interested in science, it may help you understand that these scientists are trying to unravel the mysteries of matter – how particles can exist in fleeting states, etc. Just saying that matter cannot be created or destroyed is too simplistic – we don’t understand enough yet, but maybe these experimemenst will provide some answers.

          A question for you: If everything has a beginning, what or who created god? Endless paradox?

  29. Jose: matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed so far as we know. I’m prepared to keep an open mind on this one, as I suspect is Lenny. If a god created matter, or energy, then it seems from my limited understanding that many religions are asking us to believe that only god is ‘begotten not made’. I’m not saying this is impossible, but it seems logical to me that believing that a god can be begotten, whereas matter/energy can’t, is a matter (pardon the pun) of faith not reason. Again, I have no problem with those who choose to have faith in this way, but please don’t expect the rest of us to accept your faith as proof.

    Lenny: forgive me if there’s a reference to it somewhere but I think you would enjoy Theodore Zeldin’s Intimate History of Humanity. See also my nascent blog (shameless plug)

    • I don’t expect anyone to take my “interpretation” as a given; however, I believe god exists yes faithfully. But my human thought of reason also leads me to believe that there is a possibility for a god. However, remember even the theory of big bang cannot be proven as a singular expanding universe or a multiple expanding and contracting universe. This theory is based on laws and some logical interpretations. If there are two possible spheres of interpretation it is also logical to assume the possibility of a god and that of non existing one. So in my choice with reason I understand that there is possibility of a god and then faithfully I chose the option that god exists. By the way that I got some emotional attitude from you when you said “but please don’t expect the rest of us to accept your faith as proof.” makes me think that you are bother by my proposed idea. If you don’t believe don’t but do not tell me to negate my thoughts. Finally so you can understand my logic these are my conclusions: there can be one of two universes, one with a never ending paradox and another were everything is set up by an omnipotent outside force that decided to begin something from nothing. I like to think that god is the catalyst of existence. And denial of god in reality is pessimistic view of the events after death, one doesn’t lose anything by optimistically awaiting the presence of god after death. So the question should be, are optimistically enough to believe in something beyond your comprehension, or are you content with the end in you death bed. I mean its a lot easier to believe nothing and be content with it.

  30. My apologies for the emotional attitude Jose which by the way was absolutely deliberate. I must have misinterpreted your posts. When you said:

    ‘There will always be an outside force (God) to cause any explosion (big bang) to occur, other wise the life would have never started because no body would have started something. No matter how far you count backwards or forward you will only run into the beginning and the end “God”.’

    and later

    ‘Any way you look at it you can’t deny gods existence.’

    and later still

    ‘Also anything that base your self on will always lead you to god.’

    I took these statements to mean that in your view the existence of God is self-evident and therefore can be proven. I’m glad to read that for you the existence of God is firstly a possibility and secondly your belief – if I’ve understood you correctly this time. My only problem is with those who attempt to show that the existence of God is necessary or can be proven, and extrapolate from this to make pronouncements about how we should behave.

    Thank you for clarifying that (so far as I can make out) you are not like them. I won’t go into whether one possibility is more optimistic than another. I would just say that Pascal’s Wager is not for me (nor you I suspect): that for me seems like the real easy option.

    • Based on what I have said what you have said, I have come to a realization or conclusion. Scientists cannot deny god because there is lack of evidence to do so, and so every time you deny god things MAY point out the necessity for one. Now if you look it at the religious stand point, you can’t fully prove god, for faith is a necessary aspect of religion. where is your faith if you must first see? Ultimately this discussions are pointless to an extent because people have their own opinions and will never agree; but at the same time it allows us to see and compare ourselves to other people’s views. So in the end to me personally, it would be a reasonable for god to be involve in everything that is knowledge and science, the only thing missing would be god’s testimony: “it is so” infront of crowds, but then we might be all damned for not believing in him, so it won’t happen. This is how I feel science can possibly include a god, but yes it is not a given. If anything is unclear I apologies, since I require years of experience and I lack more education to stand a point stronger. As I’m barely 17 I believe my trance of thought and deducing skills are in good progress. I have enjoyed this discussion because I now understand that it will take a miracle (no pun intended) for all of us to ever agree. And the biggest lesson learned here is to propose a view to someone, but never try to force it.

      thank you

      • Hi JoseCruz,

        Science and religion are quite fortunately forever irreconciliable. There will never be a god in science because faith does not belong in science, nor will it ever belong. Science is based on empiricle evidence, not faith.

        As Chuck has just mentioned, it’s a cop-out to just believe in something because it is “safer” to do so. Science demands explanations that are beyond all doubt; it does not mould answers that are comfortable to digest or makes us feel secure.

        • science, means knowledge. No where has it been proven that god doesn’t exists; therefore the chance logically exists. Theories are part of science and they do not have the “evidence” you call to make them into givens. And so there is a chance that it might be or might not be. You cannot deny the probable without any proof, therefore even science fails you to justify your PERSONAL opinion. It might help it but it doesn’t clearly deny the possibilities, how can you prove or disprove god’s existence, you can’t. One may have religious knowledge or scientia as expressed in latin and also from the word conscientia meaning conscience. I am religious and yet I have knowledge/science. I respect your OPINION but I do not accept it as FACT.

          • Hi JoseCruz,

            Nowhere has it been proven that a god or gods do exist. The chance logically exists for goblins and space monsters, and the tooth fairy, but nobody takes them seriously because there is no proof either way. Why take a god seriously then? Fear? That’s it, right?

            Probability demands that there must be at least some inkling of proof. There exists none when it comes to religion, except the writings of bronze age men who were high up on the scale of ignorance.

            Remember that science does not set out to prove or disprove the existence of god. That is not what science is about. Religion disproves itself, by demanding faith based reason. It also disingenuously tries to annex the tenets of science to make it seem acceptable. In the absemce of proof, one cannot just assign an arbitrary answer to perplexing questions because it makes one comfortable, or because some authority figure deems it so.

            I cannot accept your OPINION, because it is not based in pure scientific reasoning, even if you THINK it is.

  31. Hi lenny

    you don’t have to accept my opinion that is why its MY opinion! Now that is logic. Religion does not make you think on reason. I have done this myself because I am a human that can think reasonably as well, that is apart from a religious aspect. I suspect your not making sense at times. I’m not following any doctrines in my answers, for as I said I’m seventeen, meaning I like to be rebellious and my own person. I can’t believe I, seventeen year old can think outside the box and not you an adult. Now if you can keep up, goblins and fairies aren’t believed to be creators. God is different because he is a possible start for a dimensional universe. When have fairies and goblins thought to be in any way part of religion, they were meant to be a FAIRYTALE from the start. Your response on fiction book creatures is irrelevant.

    • Hi JoseCruz

      I’m glad you agree that your beliefs are just your opinion. I did not state that fairies and goblins are part of religion. It’s obvious analagy is lost on you. Be rebellious; that’s your prerogative at 17. There’s time enough for you to learn more…

      • If you didn’t mean to include fairies and goblins as part of religion then why bring them up, it is completely irrelevant. They’re two opposite subjects, you contradict yourself. My prerogative, yes perhaps. However, teens, we are not affected by a habitual lifestyle, like most adults are, for we barely start to experiment on our own at this time. We like to be independent, and by doing so we ignore other established thoughts. At least most of us do. Yes there is time for me to learn more, that is why religion is so cool, by making us imperfect, lesser than god, humans can never reach the complete essence of knowledge but a never ending incomprehension, so I can learn forever because I’ll never be perfect. I’m also glad that you understand your OPINION not to be fact. You cannot deny existence of god for a fact, its just your PREROGATIVE. By the way I think you can only approve something if you can see it or explain it “scientifically”. You don’t think outside the box, and that lowers your creativity. And its horrible since creativity is necessary for any art or anything enjoyable for that matter.

        • Hi lenny

          I think you misunderstood my opinion to be that there is possibility for a god. No, my opinion is that I believe in a god. Probability is not my opinion, until you have not proven that god doesn’t exist, the probability exists. That is not OPINION but reasonable thought. Just like the two possible big bang theories. One or the other is probable and that’s not an opinion. So there is probable room for gods existence, its your prerogative if you believe in one or not.

        • JoseCruz,

          You’re obviously a bright young lad, but it seems that your school has not started teaching you lessons about analogy yet. The reference to goblins is a common analogy used to show how ridiculous it is to believe in one instance of something no one has seen, and discard another instance of what no one has seen.

          It’s great that you believe that you can “think out the box.” Having an open mind is great. Ever heard the saying that if you have too open a mind, your brains will fall out? Now don’t start another argument by taking that literally. Contrary to your opinion, I do think out the box, which is why I have an atheist belief system which is non-dogmatic.

          Having said that, I’m quite impressed that unlike other kids who may in all probability be playing some video game right now, you’re taking an interest in the more meaningful things in life; questioning, arguing…

          You say “…humans can never reach the complete essence of knowledge but a never ending incomprehension…” You have just paraphrased the title of my blog. However, even if we attain a neverending incomprehension, that does not mean we have to stop trying to aquire knowledge. That’s the problem I have with religion; it advocates that all knowledge is contained in scripture.

          Could you perhaps tell me which particular god you believe in, and why you discard all the others?

  32. Lenny: I’m sure you know Christopher Hitchens but if not you’d enjoy his discussions of the existence or otherwise of God, in particular the burden of proof. If there were a God, it would seem odd that he’d made the best debater on the planet an atheist!

    • Hi Chuck,

      I have read some of his books, and watched him debating online. He’s mean alright. I’m actually about to start reading Hitch 22…

      I did not favor his in-your-face attitude (some describe as fundamental) initially, but he’s changed my opinion over a period of time…

  33. Hi Lenny

    I just want to point out that Goblins were meant to be fiction from the start. Goblins are a possibility in already existing universe , hardly anyways since they’re a tale. However, god is different for it he can be a possibility before the creation of matter, a non-existing world scenario. This also leads to my analogy our comprehension of things is in a different dimension that will always direct us opposite to another, And so you can never see that dimension because it is unreachable by your means. That you can’t see that dimension or reach it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I mean it might not, but you can’t prove it. And so my analogy might fit a bit better, that’s why I have a problem with your goblin theory, and I consider it a different sphere of interpretation. Religion, is a virtue it is what separates me from a animal, that’s what we naturally are by the way, and it gives me the spirituality what makes me man. Scientifically we are related to apes meaning that it makes us beasts, what makes us man than. Not that we can think, all animals do we simply think a lot more. What make us man is god’s creation and preference to the soul or spirit over his other creations. I need not tell you which god I pick over, because it is a different subject and unnecessary for the possibility of a creator(s). The god I believe in, I credit to faith. Religion, also makes learn things without end, because I know I’ll always be imperfect I can always improve, there will always be a step up. Religion, is similar to an asymptote, god is 0(no need to learn or improve, he’s perfect) Humans we are the never ending sequence of decimal values that get closer and closer to zero. Value changes to get closer but never reaches zero, perfection. Knowledge is not contained in scripture, because scriptures themselves state that man will never have god’s knowledge or perfection.

    • Hi JoseCruz,

      What makes you think that god and religion were not meant to be fiction from the start? It’s just that goblins just didn’t catch on like religion did!!!

      Ever heard of the giant teapot circling above? Google it. Actually, here’s a fun link: teapot

      If you think that it’s religion that separates humans from animals, then you really have a lot to learn. Religion is not a virtue by the way; it is anything but!!!

      Why are you evading revealing which version of god you believe in? It is extremely pertinent to any discussion on religion. You’re not the only one who credits the god he believes in, to faith; so does everyone else, since none of you have any proof of such an existence whatsoever.

      I just love that math angle you have on god. Which pseudo-scientific rag did you pick that up from?

      • Finally

        by your own words “What makes you think that god and religion were not meant to be fiction from the start?” Well What makes you think that it was? You cannot disagree that this is an impasse, you cannot disprove and I cannot prove. Left is just probability. Again God is an animus that can be the catalyst for existence. Goblins were made in an already existing planet, they’re not a probable explanation for creation of matter, just probable that they’re real, which most likely they aren’t. If you don’t get the difference in those two probability still, I don’t know how to explain it better. The reason I don’t want to tell you which god I believe in, is because the moment I do, you’ll take a bias stand point, besides this argument is whether religion in general can be a probability; I’m not trying to convert you, I just want to state the flaw in your goblin theory, and denying god as a FACT. The rag you call is the analogy I myself made after you said that schools need to teach us more of that. I didn’t borrow that analogy, i made it myself. What you don’t get is the probability of a beginning to existence, a creator. Goblins whether they exist or don’t or a teapot for that matter do not explain the beginning of existence as a probability. You cannot base yourself on science if you deny god without proof, therefore if you want to deny god and be a scientific, you have to back it up as your interpretation of probability not as a fact. Otherwise were is your solid proof? Another thing could goblins have created matter, created elements, or created light? Or the materials and space necessary to sustain life. Even at that it is just mere probability that god put earth at the exact distance from the sun or that it just randomly happened. However; you cannot prove which is right, just take your pick on the probabilities. And if you do that, it is your prerogative not fact.

        The problem I have with the teapot philosophy, is that it is a different scenario than god. The teapot would be something probable that does not effect the world whether it is real or not. It is just and a probable idea, but of little importance since it doesn’t affect anything. God however directly affects life in its probability by proposing an explanation on the beginning of life and a post biological existence.

        My final, point is that the teapot theory holds some relevance, but it is still different than god’s probable existence, way different.

        • Hi JoseCruz,

          I admire your tenacity. I therefore feel an obligation to guide your learning along.

          First you need to understand what probability means. You seem to think that probability only applies to religion. Therefore anything that is probable in the religious world must be accepted as true, since we cant’ prove otherwise.

          That’s the reason why you discard any other probability which does not fit in with your religious belief system. It’s also why you are selective when using it to further your argument.

          By your logic, if something is probable, then it must be true if we can’t prove otherwise. An example: it’s probable that tiolet paper can be turned into gold. Since we have not found a means of proving that it is not probable, then it must be true that toilet paper can be turned into gold.

          You need to learn about common fallacies in reasoning. We all make these mistakes. here is a link to a site which lists and describes with examples some of the more common fallacies: Fallacies. Maybe it will help you to identify the one you are currently making.

          Forget about the goblins and the teapot. I see they have you in a tiff, and leading you further into faulty logic. God is not a fact as you state; stating that it is a FACT also contradicts your earlier position that god is a probability. Understand that a probability is not a FACT.

          Just to show you how dangerous it is to fool around with probability: it is probable that that there are many gods. It is also probable that the true god is Thor, or even Zeus, or Osirus. But you dont’ believe in any of these, do you? Why? That’s the reason I asked about which particular variety of god you personally accept as TRUE/FACT. Don’t you think it just a little bit arrogant to believe that your flavor of god is right, and the billions of others who believe in a different flavor are wrong?

          I’ll leave to consider these thoughts, and don’t forget to check the link about fallacious thinking. One more thing; it might help if you did a bit more reading about the scientific origins and development/evolution of man. Also read up on the history of man prior to the first great revolution which was agriculture/domestication, and subsequent development after this.

  34. HI Lenny,

    I’m sorry to hear about your dad, my condolences. Hope you and your family are holding up ok.

    I’ve got to say that I still don’t know how you find the patience and poise to answer each post in your firm but respectful manner, even as the trot out the same tired old arguments. I have only skimmed through, but the pro-god arguments are filled with enough circular arguments, non-sequiturs, and good old-fashioned nonsense to keep a Logic 101 class busy for a while. (By the way JoseCruz, god might be perfect in theory, but if you are talking about the god of the Christian or related faiths, then he’s absolutely vile, and if you don’t believe that then you obviously haven’t read whatever book it is that you claim to believe).

    I see you’re reading Hitch-22 – I just finished it and enjoyed it very much. I used not to like the “in your face” school of athiesm either, although I have also just finished Sam Harris’ “End of Faith” and I am now a convert.

    He makes a very persuasive case that reglious faith is a very great evil, and unless the human race can free itself from its shackles (in this age of nuclear proliferation) our future is very bleak indeed. Unless you are one of the faithful, of course, in which case you are probably looking forward to the destruction of life on earth, and the chance to meet your god. Sadly, it’s at once the most thought-provoking and the most depressing book I’ve read in a long time. If you’ve read it, I’d be interested in your views.

    Cheers,
    Pog

    • Hi Pog,

      Good to hear from you again. Thanks for the condolences.

      I actually quite enjoy a good argument, so I relish the opportunity to respond to comments. Strangely, I also learn a great deal from them, even if they are fallacious. There always seems to be a new spin on the same tired old arguments.

      I was about to start Hitch 22, but came across The History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell, which has grabbed my attention. I’ll get back to Hitch 22 in a little while.

      Cheers

  35. Hi Lenny

    Finally, you have comprehended my whole point. God is a probability not a fact, existing or not it is probability. In science god exists as probability and so does religion, you can’t scientifically prove it real or not real. That is my logic. Now I can move on to faith, to me god’s probability is irrelevant to whether I believe in him or not. I believe in him because I have faith that he exists, nothing more! However I have to disagree when people say that science disproves god, because it doesn’t.

    In a scientific view god is a probability, therefore his absence is not fact; science does not disprove god, people’s interpretation do for themselves at least. I never remember saying that if god is probable, then he is real. I have said that if god is probable he cannot be proven unreal( this section is the FACT part I’m trying to disprove scientifically, without any religious aspect). For a moment forget that I’m religious and believe that I’m atheist as well( I’m not). Science can fit into religion because it doesn’t disprove god. I’m not saying god is scientifically proven, but don’t say “There will never be a god in science” because you have just accepted god’s absence as probability not FACT. This discussion is not which faith is more favorable, I could be hindi, muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Jewish, my thought that science could be believed in by a person who is religious as well would still hold in any religious case. The reason I know this is because I like the study of science while being of a religion. If you say that science for a fact doesn’t fit in religion, you are directly attacking my participation in science.

    This is not a theology discussion, until we start talking about why I prefer the religion I’m in then it will be relevant that I tell you which god I believe in. The argument was whether science MIGHT fit in ANY religion.

    • Hi JoseCruz,

      So you have chosen to ignore my efforts to show you the errors in your reasoning. Never mind…I’ll try again.

      Religion exists, yes, because we have evidence that it does. I don’t need science to tell me that it does, because it is a cognitive reality. The probability that god exists is not a scientific phenomenon. It is just a statement, not of fact, but of expectation. In science, scientists postulate something based on certain indicators, and then set out to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that said hypothesis stands up to repeated experiment. If the hypothesis does not stand up to experiment and rigorous scrutiny, the hypothesis is discarded.

      Not so with religion. Religion postulates (hypothesizes/speculates) about something, and then demands that it should be accepted as fact, without any experiment or scrutiny. Religion demands faith. That is not scientific, and never will be. Religion and science don’t mix, period.

      Science does not have to disprove god. God disproves god by its very nature. If you think that you can use science to either prove or disprove god, then you’re wasting your time. Off course this has not stopped many religious apologists from trying. They indulge in what is known as pseudo-science, and they invariably get found out. It is a dishonest and ignoble endeavour. These rascals tend to twist the facts to fit in with their dogmatic beliefs.

      You may think you are participating in science, but it is actually pseudo-science. You need to honestly question what you believe in using the principles I pointed out to you. Remember that if you engage in any form of fallacious thinking, then you defeat the principles of science.

      I hope you’ll do some self-seaching, and if you really want to be involved in the pursuit of true science, you wont sully its principles with the kind of thinking you’re indulging in.

  36. Hi Lenny

    You are avoiding the issue, quite arrogantly to be honest. I’ve been trying to disprove your false statement “There will never be a god in science” Well according to who, you? That is your prerogative not scientific fact. So do you recant, did you make a mistake? Yes or no? I need nothing else. If I want a theology lesson I’ll ask if not keep your atheistic views out. Lets keep this a scientific discussion, your stand point seems to always come out.

    My point is logic: Science does not disprove god. Apart from science I can have a religion and still be scientific or I can be Atheist and be scientific. Atheism is not the only scientific view. Please! You think you own science, that only atheism fits into science. Logically that’s not even a FACT. You are wrong to assume that to be a given.

    Please answer this question and don’t give me a scientific lesson, you seem to think I don’t know what science is. Does science disprove God? If it doesn’t, did you make a mistake in your statement “There will never be a god in science”?

    • *** Science does not prove or disprove god. Therefore I can be relgious and still be scientific or I can be atheist and still be scientific.

    • Hi JoseCruz,

      Let me re-iterate, religion has no place in science. If that’s arrogant, so be it, since it’s a logical truth. At best, religion has a place in philosopy, but definitely not science. God being a product of religion can perhaps be discussed philosophically, not scientifically. Science makes no claim to prove or disprove god’s existence. However, the empiricle evidence for a god is simply non-existent currently, so science cannot test the veracity of such an existence.

      Logic is used extensively in the field of philosophy. So use your logic, but don’t claim that it has any scientific basis. You can be religious and philosophical, not scientific. Please don’t confuse these terms. Atheism is not a scientific view, nor have I ever claimed as much. Atheism is simply an expression of non-belief in a deity or deities. However, atheists base their beliefs and views on the scientific method, as opposed to faith.

      I’m going to try one last time to show you why your reasoning is fallacious. How do you define god? Is there a universally accepted definition for god? Science require’s something to be adequately defined, before it can be subjected to enquiry. If you can’t define what you’re talking about, how do you propose we subject it to scientific scrutiny?

      For these types of situations, we use philosophy to examine the subject matter.

      • again you gave me a dictionary definition. Yes or no is all I want, after that I don’t care, I know religion is not part of science, but you claimed Never will god exist in science. Never is a pretty definite conclusion, so that was your fallacy. since god is probably not in real then he is a never.(false) By the way god is a possible origin to creation lets call it a variable x if you will, someone decided to call it god long ago, but now lets call it x. Manipulating x then you get dependent result, y or big bang. even if the probability of x being real is .1 out of 10000000000000 it is still a probability and since you can’t disprove him don’t go on making claims based on fact(never, what you said).

        • Yes religion has no place in science, but science can have a place in religion because it doesn’t disprove god. Many scientist have been religious, in fact guess did you know, that who was first to experiment on genetics? It was Gregor Mendel. He is called the FATHER of genetics. And what was he? He was a PRIEST. Get the pun? Science proves or disproves nothing about religion. Do not rely on science to deny god, you deny god because that is your opinion.

  37. JoseCruz,

    Lenny’s been very clear, but let me try to summarise. I think his main point is that dogmatic beliefs have no part to play in science, since in science evidence is all that matters. If you have a belief, and you can’t think of any evidence that would disprove it (e.g. because you have “faith”), then by definition, you aren’t doing science. Belief in god is the grandaddy of all dogmatic beliefs.

    Part of your argument seems to be that science can’t disprove god. Well, the problem with this is that apart from logical contradictions, science, by definition, can’t rule *anything* out with certainty (including, god, zeus, goblins and flying teapots) because it is always possible that new evidence will emerge. But just because something can’t be disproven, doesn’t mean that it has a part to play in science.

    You also seem to be hung up on the idea that someone can be both religious and scientific. Sure they can, sort of. You could also be a surfer, or an alcoholic, or a Nazi and still do some pretty good science. But again, it is twisting words beyond breaking point to claim on the basis of this that (for example) “there is a role for Nazism in science”.

    By the way, the way that both of you guys are using the word “probable” seems a little unusual to me. I would normally define probable as “more likely than not”. In this sense, the existence of god is absolutely not probable. I think it is less confusing to say that the existence of god is *possible*, i.e. it is highly unlikely, and about as disproven as any hypothesis can be, bounded only by the inherent limitations of human knowledge (“congratulations god – just take a seat over there next to the flying teapot”).

    Hope this helps somehow.

    Cheers,
    Pog

    • Hi Pog,

      Thanks for chipping in.

      I tried to clear up the use of the word probable, by mentioning that in science it is prefarable to talk about “hypothesis” and “postulate.”

      This kid has his mind set quite dogamtically. I’m going to give it one more shot…

  38. I’ve suspected for a while that Jose’s “probable” and “probability” have been lost in translation and actually mean “possible” and “possibility”. At least I hope they do. Arguing for the possibility of the existence of God is one thing; arguing for the probability of his/her existence is quite another…

  39. Lenny one question. The statement: God does not exist. Is it scientific fact or is it your opinion? If that is your opinion I respect it, it might be true. I cannot accept it as fact in a scientific stand point and I don’t accept that science proves god. If you can agree with this thought, I would be grateful. If the whole world could think of this, science would not be feared, discredited or ignored because it wouldn’t attack religion, that is what I’m getting at. Some people think they can disprove god scientifically and ruin science for the rest. People can have a scientific aspiration very apart from their religions. I know science to be real and I BELIEVE in religion, but I believe in religion due to different causes that I will not discuss because they aren’t scientific.

    Lenny let me tell you something, I disagree with you because I agree with you. I agree that religion doesn’t fit into science, that would be chaos; do you know how many religions are out there? that would be a mad show if religion fits into science. However, I know science can fit into religion, that is fact because I know many that have done that. And so for this reason I must disagree that science states there can never to be a god. Finally I disagree with you because I agree that you said science doesn’t prove or disprove god, and I use that to disagree with this statement: god will NEVER exist in science.

    Another thought since religion can’t fit into science, views on religion and god should be kept away from science, that includes any religion and atheism. If someone believes in god or not it is they’re opinion, we have to respect that but not consider it fact. And for the last time, to be a scientist it is not a prerequisite that I deny god, so I can believe in a bible or Koran and still believe what my science texts say.

    • Hi Jose,

      Sorry I didn’t resposnd sooner; I’ve been away. I’m going to respond to all three of your comments here.

      You’re right, I was incorrect to state that god will “never” exist in science. However, currently there is no scientific eveidence for the existence of a god, and the prognosis for such evidence being found scientifically is not good. As a matter of fact, all the scientific evidence available currently, casts great doubt on the existence of any supernatural being. That does not mean to say that science will not come up with some evidence some day, but like I said, the prognosis does not look good. Also, science has not definitively proved the non-existence of said supernatural entity, but science was not developed with such pursuits in mind.

      One more thing, I erred when saying that religion could be accomodated in the field of philosophy; I was stretching things by saying “at best.” Religion is accomodated under theology. Philosophy was created to explore answers to questions that neither theology or science could adequately address. However, religion does not belong under science, period.

      I agree that one could be involved in science and still be religious; I never stated otherwise. However, I find it quite hard to understand the sort of mental gymnastics it must require to accomodate both. It’s perhaps one reason that religion has endured for so long; adherents have the disconcerting ability to discard tenets of their faith that does not fit in with their particular belief systems, and quite happily discard tenets that seem to contradict, negate or challenge those that don’t fit in with their belief systems.

      You don’t have to respond. Thus far you have been quite adept at vaccilating and avoiding some of the uncomfortable questions I posed. This argument has become pointless; I accept that you will hang onto your dogmatic beliefs no matter what I say. You need to find out these things on your own. By all accounts, your tenacity and rebellious nature will ensure that you do. Good luck…

  40. Oh dear my :)
    I red some of the posts here and find them quite hilarious. I find it hilarious when people use reasoning as a means to show they are right and others are wrong. But what else can we do :)… We fight with words. In fact, the biggest fallacy of the human nature is directly connected to the fact that we have to use words in order to express what’s not only beyond words but also cannot be comprehended by logic. And through words we reduce everything to concepts. Then we use those concepts to show our “knowledge”.
    Words in themselves are nothing but a poor abstract reflection of what they point to. Logic is a way of juggling with ideas, and these ideas are most of the time limited by the word-concepts that we’re striving to put them into, even if they start as non-words initially.
    So here is why I say that words are the most limiting factor for humanity: when people talk about God they talk based on words that have been spoken to them by others or red in books. Then they automatically take the God concept (abstraction) and start playing logic with it. Then they reach one of 2 conclusions: a) God exists, or b) God doesn’t exist.
    The stupidity of all this is intrinsically the fact that when they do this, people also automatically separate themselves from “God”. So they think of God as an abstraction, as a “thing”, and of themselves as some other “thing”, a.k.a. the “human being”, the “Me”, or “I”, the thinker. So in fact the grounds of this whole thinking process is flawed from the start. God is not a “thing” that exists separate from the world, somewhere in a mystery land.
    What humans call God is some “thing” that they were able to express in words so other people can grab it and take it further, communicate about it (spread knowledge), create philosophies, religions based on doctrine (God said this, God said that) etc.
    Isn’t this what all religions do? They surround the conceptual abstraction of the word “God” with dogma. And they strive to convince people to believe their ways no matter what. Well my friend, God (whatever you understand by this word) has nothing to do with that. It’s all a human mind’s clever and selfish concoction. That, and any dogma or rule that you have to follow. And any rock stupid people are fighting over, and for any reason. It’s just human idiocy and mediocracy to its brightest, shiniest form.
    God is the existence itself. Including all the rules and the breakings of the rules that will ever be invented by whoever cares about rules and dogmas. God is what all of us, and everything else, visible or not, *in essence*, really are. In essence, not in all. God is not me an you. But me and you are facets of the same God. Everything is the manifestation of whatever people call God. God is not a thing, he is not a separate part of existence that we can prove or disprove to exist. The Universe itself is your palpable proof – based on your senses.
    And when the Universe, or us, or a civilization, or another, or dinosaurs, or aliens, or planets etc. you name it… will cease to exist, well, God, which is in fact this Universal Intelligence manifesting itself in infinite forms of condensed energy known as “things”, or more scientifically “particles”, or “waves”, will still exist, because God *is* existence, beyond all the temporary and changing forms that it takes in its manifestation. So stop condensing God into a “thing” that can be “analyzed” by science and contacted by some futuristic communication equipment that humans could invent in this stupid scientific quest to prove or disprove that God exists.
    So stop limiting yourself with words and logic. THAT is why knowledge in the form of words or logical comprehension is irrelevant for knowing God. Because all this knowledge can only grasp what belongs to the manifested world, the world of forms, where universal laws apply in order to keep the forms condensed as forms. Everything beyond that, the unmanifested part of existence, can not be “known” in the way our logic can grasp it.
    I think this is the evilmost deed of religions: the fact that most of them personify God and try to impose rules of conduit built on a flawed understanding of the existence itself and God’s role in it. Just one way to make sure peace will never exist in the world, since people will never all agree with a concept or another.

    • Hi dogmanot,

      Interesting “concept,” but seriously flawed. If all of what you say is true, why don;t you find a way to communicate/express it to me without “words” and the internet. You cannot use what you are arguing against as the means of presenting your argument.

  41. It must be exhausting to respond to every perplexing religious, apologetic comments here and I wonder where you get your energy to do so. I saw some of them come up with the idea of trying to making sense their dogmatic with science, but I think they failed miserably.

    I must agree that their clerics or whatever you call it were so successful in brainwashing them since they’re so comfortable with the idea that their holy book/god has all the answers even with the absence of any natural phenomenon or scientific evidences so far… how sad. And even sadder… about 90% of us think that way (there is wizard behind the curtain watching us). If this is our future, I’m afraid we’ll long gone before be able to find any solution of the graving crisis here on earth. Large portion of precious resources has been wasted into religious mean that certainly more beneficial if spent in scientific research, I must say. But apparently it still happened until now and getting larger and larger I think.

    Now, I myself only believe to something if there is compelling (scientific) evidence available which I’m struggled with almost 15 years to come up with this level of consciousness considering my country taught sub-standard science (filtering anything from science text books/books that they think don’t fits to religion point of view) which makes science subjects really hard to study and understand here. But luckily I realize that science is lot more easier to understand when their sources came from more civilized countries like Europe or U.S. Thanks to the internet though.

    .Well, I still can rant more, but time didn’t allow me to do so. Last but not least, thank you for your good effort telling the truth even it always not easy to do, but that is the hard truth. And thanks once again for using wisdom and logic that what it should be, and thank you for being human. I wish there will be more people like you here on earth but it will take a rather longer period, I guess. Good blog anyway.

    p.s. Sorry for my bad English, and sorry for the long comment.

    • Hi Bayou,

      Actually it’s quite fun drilling holes in pathetic arguments…I look forward to it.

      Glad to see you’re one of a growing number of people who embrace skepticism and demand proof for every claim. It means the battle to teach science and skepticism is slowly being won. It’s only a matter of time before it becomes as natural as laughing…which is what people who make absurd claims that they can’t back up adequately [scientifically?] can expect.

      And by the way; your English is rather good, and please feel free to rant on my blog any time.

  42. From what I have read so far, I’ll just assume that you’re all learning from each other and that this blog doesn’t bring anyone against each other.Good.Keep it up but remember we’re all in this toghether.

    Also, bringing my comment to the topic, what is the aim of not being able to reach an end? I mean I’m the kind of person that like to do things thinking that there will eventually be a finishing line.

    • Hi IshimweeeF,

      I’m hoping everyone’s learning…

      There’s a finishing line in most things yes, but not in learning. If you reach that finishing line it implies you know everything; and there is not a man born or dead who can lay claim to that feat…not now, and perhaps not ever.

  43. I read this article and enjoyed as I did it. All was great and so far true up until the third paragraph, made me laugh a little, but laughing is good makes you know your alive. There is a few things wrong in that paragraph, that is blaming religion for close mindedness. Religion is a tool to express faith as science is a tool to express reason. Now these tools can be manipulated to cause fear in people, the ones to be blamed are the people for using these means to control others. Do know that in some cases religion has helped to make great contributions. One of these contributions is bringing forth great minds such as plato and socrates. These thinkers were from the city state of Athens, and Athens was created in honor of Athena, goddess of wisdom. With no religion, there is no Athena. With no Athena, there is no Athens, a place dedicated for wisdom and knowledge. With no Athens, there is no plato, socrates, aristotle, democracy, romans being taught by the greek thinkers, the romans never invent republicanism as they modeled themselves after the greeks, and our lives forever different.

    • Hi Gerar4o,

      Thanks for reading.

      Following your reasoning, guns are also great tools in the hands of man, but one cannot deny that they cause death and destruction. Yes, man is to blame for inventing it, like he is to blame for inventing religion. I don’t deny that religion made great contributions to the development of mankind, but perhaps like the gun, it has served its usefulness.

      Religion demands faith. Faith is the abrogation of the need to think independently.

      The classical philosophers though about many things, religion among them. To insinuate that their being stemmed from the very existence of religion is stretching things a bit too far; don’t you think? There is absolutely no way of testing this assertion.

  44. Perhaps there is no way to test this fully, but it is no lie that Athena had great influence and importance in the development of Athens. Athens was like a haven for thinkers, without it many would not be the same. Best example is socrates, who chose death over being cast out of Athens. But if you don’t like it. Here look at this, religion plays a great part in providing morals and a little hope. Without expecting anything after death or having morals mankind falls into anarchy, and perhaps would have already destroyed itself. Furthermore, no one (well a few do) blames science for the atomic bomb, which already claimed plenty of lives. My point is that blaming religion for close mindedness is stretching reality too far. Rememeber greedy humans are the reason for close mindedness. I have a hindi friend, in his case religion does not make him close minded in the aspect that anything can fit into hinduism, heck even jesus fits in it somehow. Just trying to point out the problem I’m having with such claims, but I respect your opinion because you’re allowed to think, isn’t what the article is about? Learning and thus thinking.

    • Hi again Gerar4o,

      Once again, I’m not denying that religion made its contribution to our development. Yes, it was a useful tool in the hands of primitive man to explain some of the things that perplexed him. The great philosophers however did not use religion per se as a tool to explain things that perplexed them; they subjected religion itself to critical scruntiny.

      Classical philosophy marked a point in the history of man’s development when they looked elsewhere for answers; not in religion itself. Therefore religion came under critical scrutiny for the first time. They dealt the death blow for religious thinking – it’s just such a pity that religion refuses to die but hangs on like a diseased scavenger.

      Athena inspired once – no more. Why? Because man learns and discovers new things. He also learns that previous things that inspired become irrelevent, lose their validity or usefulness.

      Religion is not an adequate tool for the saerch for true knowledge, never was, never will be. Religion restricts the process of learning by setting narrrow parameters which require faith. Science on the other hand encourages true critical thinking, by leading on onto new things all the time. Religion is a closed system – which contains only the limited knowledge of primitive man. Science has no limitations on thinking, and thinking can be tested through experiment.

      Religion has never allowed anyone to test whether the Norse gods or the Roman gods or the Greek gods or the Hindu gods or the Christian gods or the Islamic gods, are real or which indeed are the true gods. Epic fail…

  45. Hi,

    You seem to think that religion is closed minded. I’m not telling you whether or not it is the way to go or to get one or not. I’m simply telling you that you are incorrect at claiming religion to leave close parameters in thinking. In fact it is the opposite. Here is another example in Judaism and christianity. Their god is perfect and only he has absolute knowledge, but human is imperfect and will never achieve absolute knowledge. That alone means that man can never stop learning since he does not have absolute knowledge and will never reach it. I will not deny religion has been used to manipulate others and keep others in fear from learning, but that was the way human leaders interpret it. However it is incorrect to blame religion alone, when there are many factors e.g. religion, law, goverment, leadership etc. why don’t you tell us how communism limits learning?

    • Hi Gerar4o,

      Thanks for keeping the debate alive.

      “You seem to think that religion is closed minded.”
      Actually, I’m not saying religion is close minded; I’m saying that religion inspires close-minded thinking. As such it is in conflict with science which does the opposite – inspire broad-minded thinking which is tempered by rationalism, skepticism and the need for testable empirical evidence to back up assertions. Religion only requires blind faith in the teachings of primitive man…who stand in for invisible sky creatures.

      “Their god is perfect and only he has absolute knowledge…”
      By whose authority? God’s? Where’s the proof? Scripture? Where’s the proof that scripture is the word of some supernatural entity? We come back to faith, don’t we?

      “why don’t you tell us how communism limits learning?”
      Communism, like all political systems is quite flawed; even the much vaunted democracy is flawed. As a libertarian, I have no liking for any political system, much less politicians. If you intimate that communism limits learning, I would tend to agree with you, but then so does every other political system to some degree or other.

      Only true science encourages true learning…

  46. The Bible doesn’t say knowledge is forbidden. In fact, it says to seek out knowledge. The text states that if you seek knowledge it will you lead you to Christ. No one or I can confirm if that part is true. However, you are wrong when you say the Bible forbides knowledge. It’s the opposite.

    • Hi Bob,

      Perhaps the Bible does say that knowledge is to be sought out. But if that knowledge only leads to Christ, then it’s a rather wasted effort. Perhaps you could be so kind as to enlighten me, how learning about physics and chemistry, biology or geology or any science, leads to Christ? The pursuit of scientific knowledge in fact leads to skepticism about the existence of the Christ, who at best can be described as just another mythological figure. In any event, I cannot remember specifically stating that the bible forbids knowledge. I have on many occasions said however, that the clergy, those holy charlatans, are the ones who forbid knowledge because it leads man to question their authority and power.

  47. Lenny you said “Religious texts such as the Bible, even advocated that knowledge is forbidden; only the Gods are supposed to possess it.” when it clearly says in Mathews 18:15 The mind of the prudent acquires knowledge, And the ear of the wise seeks knowledge. Right from the bible it speaks quite the contrary to your claim. Now you said that we never stop learning, learn from your mistake. Correct it and move on. Also claiming religion aspires closed thinking is wrong again, see religion is so powerful and at the same time dangerous because it is so opened as oposed to closed, there are so many different flavors of it like hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Chirstianity etc. Any religion in itself is not closed minded, it is the individuals being stupid in closing their thinking. I’ll give you another example Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian Monk and the father of genetics. He was a priest, how more religious can you get? And he discover something really important, how could he do that if you say religion inspires closed thinking.

    • Hi Gerar4o,

      “Religious texts such as the Bible, even advocated that knowledge is forbidden; only the Gods are supposed to possess it.”
      Thanks for pointing that out. I admit I had forgotten about it, but I now remember why I made that statement. In Genesis 2:17 god prevents man from acquiring knowledge by prohibiting them from eating of the tree of good and evil [also referred to as the tree of [knowledge]. In Genesis 3:22 god bemoans the fact that man ate of the tree of knowledge and the fact that man “…has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” This clearly demonstrates that knowledge was meant for the gods only. Off course you would have to accept that the bible is the word of god to believe this. That’s a fairly significant occurance of the prohibition of knowledge seeking, don’t you think, seeing as it condemmned man as being born a sinner ever since, and many people believe this bit of nonsense implicitly. I don’t need to remind you what misery this belief has caused through the ages. A nice little conundrum, right? BTW, it never ceases to amaze me how Christians pick and choose which verses of the bible to accept as fact and which to accept as allegory.

      I use the word INSPIRED with due thought. Could you demonstrate any instances of anyone jumping up and declaring after reading the bible [or any religious text for that matter] “Hey, that’s so cool. Today I’m going to to discover the Higgs Boson particle.” or “Today, I’m going to find the cure for polio because of that inspiring verse I just read.”

      “I’ll give you another example Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian Monk and the father of genetics. He was a priest, how more religious can you get? And he discover something really important, how could he do that if you say religion inspires closed thinking.”
      This is a logical fallacy; I come across it quite often. Your conclusion is a monstrous leap from the initial premise. I think it’s known also by its latin phraseology as “post hoc, ergo propter hoc.” The fact that Mendel was a monk, has nothing whatsoever to do with his scientific work. You cannot possibly demonstrate that religion was the inspiration for his scientific discoveries. As a matter of fact, Mendel was interetsted in and studied physics long before he ever became acquainted with the clergy. His physics teacher Friedrich Franz, inspired him to enter the Augustinian Abbey. Possibly because of the advantages it offered in terms of sponsorship of his future studies and the free time that people in such positions have at their disposal. If anything, Mendel took advantage of a convenient opportunity to pursue his real love – that of science. In his book “A Short History of Nearly Everything” by Bill Bryson documents many men who chose to join the clergy but pursued lives of scientific enquiry. For them the clergy offered many bebefits such as free time and the access to resources, especially money, denied to ordinary people.

  48. The passage in genesis was before man made his choice(free will) whether to poses knowledge or not. So in the context you use that passage “even advocated that knowledge is forbidden” is incorrect, because that was true until man made his choice. Now if you used “was” instead of “is”, it would be a valid claim. Now that man has knowledge, the bible proceeds into saying man should seek knowledge, since he already chose to have intelligence by his own acts. If you look at it from a christian stand point.

    “I use the word INSPIRED with due thought. Could you demonstrate any instances of anyone jumping up and declaring after reading the bible [or any religious text for that matter] “Hey, that’s so cool. Today I’m going to…” Isn’t this a logical fallacy (posthoc). Similar to I’ve never had or met anyone to have billion dollars, therefore no one can possibly have that much. So you really don’t know if anyone has been inspired by the bible(or any other religious book) into something magnificent. Also I can vaguely provide the fact that religious text such as the bible provided stability and control after the fall of the Roman empire.

    Let’s say Mendel actually became a monk for the benefits of scientific study the clergy provided. Why would the church, a religious establishment, provide such benefits to scientific study. If you say “the religious establishment preached that all knowledge was already revealed within the context of “religious” doctrine, and that there was no need for the individual to pursue it on his or her own.” If the church didn’t want to seek knowledge or learn, than sponsoring scientists would hurt the church a lot more than benefit it from scientific study and discovery of any of their sponsored monks like Mendel. Why waste money on something they, by your words, don’t need.

    Furthermore you can’t say religion INSPIRED with due thought closed thinking, since its obvious religion inspires you, me, and everyone else differently. Unless you meant something else, yet again! I mean first you say religion sets narrow parameters to learning, then you say you meant it inspires closed thinking, then you say it inspires closed thinking with due thought. I Wonder what you would say that you meant next.

    • Hi Gerar4o,

      “The passage in genesis was before man made his choice(free will) whether to poses knowledge or not.”
      Ah yes, that old nugget again – free will. Has it occurred to you that an omniscient god and free will contradicts each other. If god already knows what you’re going to do before you do it, why bother to give you free will. It’s like a sick joke. He’s saying “humour me.” Nice guy, your god! Anyway, you have not at all iexplained why a god would see the need the keep his supposed creation in ignorance in the first instance. Even if god were real, it’s not deserving of respect. It’s far more plausible that this is another one primitive man’s idea of what a god would do, rather than an actual all powerful, all-good supernatural entity. It doesn’t matter from which point of view you look at it; it just does not compute logically.

      “Isn’t this a logical fallacy (posthoc).”
      No its not! You suggested that the bible inspires scientific contemplation and exploration by the example you provided of Mendel. I asked you to demonstrate or provide proof of an instance of this example which I consider implausable. Instead you accuse me of a type of fallacy which does not apply in to my question, and worse – you respond with another fallacy viz. the weak analogy. In any event, I don’t need to meet anyone who has a billion dollars to know that people do, simply from readily available evidence such as the print media etc. Providing evidence for your claims about inspiration however are not only not readily available, the probability of producing such evidence is dismal, hence my request. The problem you have is that such a claim is not tangible or measurable. It relies on anecdotal evidence at best and subjective and emotional posturing at the worst.

      “Let’s say Mendel actually became a monk for the benefits of scientific study the clergy provided. Why would the church, a religious establishment, provide such benefits to scientific study.”
      I could go wild postulating why the Church does anything it does that is not directly connected to theological pursuits. It’s kinda hard to refute that religion [and by extension] the organs of religion such as the Church establishment pursue financial gain [for many reasons]. The Catholic Church in Rome runs huge business empires which have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. They also persue politics and meddle in the affairs of state [in times gone by]. The Church is always doing things which have no thelogical/religious benefits, but other benefits which are financial, social, political, goodwill etc. Can you honestly say with absolute certainty that the Monastary furthered Mendel’s scientific education purely because it’s a theological imperative?

      “…since its obvious religion inspires you, me, and everyone else differently.”
      The truth is religion causes or drives me to be inspired by science. There’s a big difference between being inspired by something and being revolted by it. Due thought just simply means that I put in a lot of thought into my arguments; there’s no point in attributing false meaning to what I said.

  49. Yet another logical fallacy “Has it occurred to you that an omniscient god and free will contradicts each other. If god already knows what you’re going to do before you do it, why bother to give you free will. It’s like a sick joke.” God knowing what you chose is quite different to forcing you what to chose. God doesn’t hold a gun to your head and say “chose this” he just knows what you chose, and so knowing your choice before you make it, doesn’t meddle in free will. The person still has a fair free choice. Omniscience and free will aren’t contradictory as you claim. “The old nugget” argument still doesn’t justify your false claim.“Religious texts such as the Bible, even advocated that knowledge is forbidden; only the Gods are supposed to possess it.” knowledge IS not forbidden, it WAS forbidden. Move on.

    “Anyway, you have not at all iexplained why a god would see the need the keep his supposed creation in ignorance in the first instance.” Haven’t you heard that ignorance is bliss. What you don’t know can’t hurt you. Man had the choice to live the easy life in ignorance, or have the hard life in knowledge. Man chose intelligence, and so now it is pointless not to seek knowledge.

    Perhaps my analogy was weak and i accept unlike you who clearly doesn’t make any mistakes. I am human and I do learn from my error. Since it is not possible to measure that religious text could inspire one to science. That doesn’t mean it can’t for sure since is not measurable, and choosing that it doesn’t is jumping to a conclusion without any evidence as well.

    “Can you honestly say with absolute certainty that the Monastary furthered Mendel’s scientific education purely because it’s a theological imperative?” No it didn’t, but the fact that the monastery and the church put money aside so there could be scientific work means that religion doesn’t restrict or forbids science or individual pursuit of knowledge as you have said “the religious establishment preached that all knowledge was already revealed within the context of “religious” doctrine, and that there was no need for the individual to pursue it on his or her own.”
    This is my argument originally, and stop turning the attention from your false claims by stretching your words into something else. Quite a contradiction when you say the religious establishment discourages pursuit of knowledge when it promoted scientific studies(for whatever purpose).

    Oh also you said this “clergy, those holy charlatans, are the ones who forbid knowledge because it leads man to question their authority and power.” why in the world would they fund scientific study even for any other purpose(financial, social, political etc.) if it puts their authority in danger? You contradict yourself.

    You say also “It’s no coincidence then, that this should lead me to criticise religion… in advocating closed thinking, and discouraging the pursuit of knowledge.” speak for yourself, it sure is not stopping many religious people from learning science.

    Your statements are quite biased and I see no basis for the argument to go on. If you so claim you follow logic, first fix your third paragraph as it is full of biased claims. True logic is unbiased.

    • Hi Gerar4o,

      I sense a touch of exasperation in the tone of your response, but that’s to be expected. I’m challenging everything you’ve been taught, accepted and took for granted. But to your credit, you have not resorted to damning me to hell or threatening me with hellfire which I’m pretty accustomed to from those in the religious fraternity who become frustrated with debate. I may be guilty of not explaining certain things in more depth.

      My response on free will is not an example of any type of logical fallacy. Free will cannot be free if one’s choice is already known to the the bestower of choice. It’s like saying “choose any colour as long as it’s black.” It’s totally dishonest and unbecoming of an entity claiming to be the be-all, know-all and end-all of everything. Why give anyone a choice of you know what they’re going to choose. Is it make yourself appear to be fair when in fact you’re being deceitful? This episode in the bible is more indicative of the whims and fancies of man, than a god. It’s one of the clues that points to the bible being written by primitive, emotional men, rather than all-powerful deities.

      The original prohibition of knowledge to man makes no sense at all. Why would an all-powerful entity make such a prohibition in the first place? What is he/she/it afraid off? However if you look at the biblical story being written from the perspective of an ordinary man, who is afflicted with human frailties, emotions and weaknesses, it makes perfect sense. This is but one of many stories in the bible which points to a human hand, rather than a deities’. For this reason it is logical to conclude that the bible is the work of man. All the inconsistencies and blatant contradictions then make perfect sense. An all-powerful, all-knowing entity would not have made that many screw-ups. In esence then, religion being a tool invented by man, to control man makes perfect sense. So when I say religion does not inspire the pursuit of knowledge, I am actually saying the tool invented by man does not inspire the pursuit of knowledge which in effect means that men who use the tool of religion, do not inspire the pursuit of knowledge.

      At this point, you’re thinking, “WTF, he’s confused things even more.” Yes perhaps it doesen’t make sense now, but take some time to digest it all and think….really think. In all my responses to you I made mention of that fact that I believe religion to be a tool devised by man. I therefore don’t accept any religious text as being the work of any divine entity, but rather the work of common, ignorant men. When you read scripture, it’s easy to see the base characteristics of humans evident in the characteristics attributed to gods.

      So when I say that religion/bible and by extension the gods prohibit the pursuit of knowledge, I’m in effect saying that man who devised the tool of religion/bible prevents the pursuit of knowledge, since I don’t accept the existence of gods or other supernatural creatures. So to cut a long story short, yes you are perhaps correct in saying that I may seem to contradict myself. However, there is no contradiction; the religious establishment originally tried to prevent the pursuit of knowledge and still does so today, by advocating a form of closed thinking which is not scientific but faith based. The continued denial of evolution and promotion of creationism is adequate proof of this.

      I don’t deny that religious people pursue science; I’m saying that religion does not prescribe or promore science as a platform for the attainment of knowledge. Religion maintains that faith is the only requirement for man’s slavation which is anathema to reality.

      Let me close by referring to an assertion you made earlier that the religious texts [bible] provided stability after the fall of the Roman Empire. If the Dark Ages, the Inquisition and the systematic decimation of entire civilizations, that followed that fall of the RE, is your idea of stability then, I’m sure you’re going to enjoy the stability that the new kid on the religious block is trying to impose on the world since the destruction of the Twin Towers…

      BTW: In case you think I don’t admit to anything; I admit that perhaps I don’t explain things as adequately as neatly as they should be. I therefore urge you to get your hands on this book: How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science by Michael Shermer.

  50. I’ve not told you what I believe, nor will I ever. My goal in posting is in pointing out the error I find in your writing in a generic point of view regardless of religion, creed, or occupation. Enough said.

    “My response on free will is not an example of any type of logical fallacy. Free will cannot be free if one’s choice is already known to the the bestower of choice.” Sure it can. If science found the way for man to time travel, and I tell you (following your logic) chose a color. Then I travel to the future to see the choice you already made, I come back to the moment you will give me your answer even though I already know. In no way did I interfere in your free will if you chose black. Omniscience is all knowing, literally, it doesn’t mean interfering with choices or free will. Therefore it is a logical fallacy to say free will is not free if god has omniscience. Plus I suspect this argument was to drive the attention on the error I pointed out which you said the bible/genesis says knowledge IS forbidden, when i’ve told you it WAS. As it is no longer, like the rest of the bible proceeds on saying in Mathews that man should seek knowledge.

    “The original prohibition of knowledge to man makes no sense at all.” Why does it matter you don’t believe in God any ways. But if you were to believe in one, it has not been revealed for sure yet. Some say because man was too primitive and he was not ready for it, some say because it was not in god’s plan. For what ever the reason it doesn’t change the fact that Knowledge is no longer forbidden but promoted instead by the bible. Don’t make a counter argument by saying you can’t seek true knowledge with the bible, because it is obvious you can’t. Bible does say you should be educated in things of the world, that include science. Religion is not the proper tool to dissect science nor science dissect religion. They shouldn’t interfere with each other is what I’m getting act. The moment you mix them is the moment you will start to fail.

    “When you read scripture, it’s easy to see the base characteristics of humans evident in the characteristics attributed to gods.” This is a theory not fact. There is no evidence whether man has made contact with god or not. This is really a weak and pointless argument to bring up because, is open to interpretation. The quote above your opinion not fact.

    THIS”the religious establishment originally tried to prevent the pursuit of knowledge and still does so today, by advocating a form of closed thinking which is not scientific but faith based.The continued denial of evolution and promotion of creationism is adequate proof of this.” IS NOT THE SAME AS “the religious establishment preached that all knowledge was already revealed within the context of “religious” doctrine, and that there was no need for the individual to pursue it on his or her own. For this reason, the scientific and academic community were harassed and vilified. It is still happening today.” Lol, this just helps my case further. I told you, you change/stretch your words into something else. We are not jumping the page no matter how badly you want. Will talk about evolution if or when we get there. “However, there is no contradiction” Really?
    let me add this “Can you honestly say with absolute certainty that the Monastary furthered Mendel’s scientific education purely because it’s a theological imperative?”
    Huh?!The monastery furthered mendel’s scientific eduction(for whatever reason, but still you wrote that) when you also wrote “clergy, those holy charlatans, are the ones who forbid knowledge because it leads man to question their authority and power.” why in the world would they fund scientific study even for any other purpose(financial, social, political etc.) if it puts their authority in danger? Not a contradiction?!

    THIS “It’s no coincidence then, that this should lead me to criticise religion… in advocating closed thinking, and discouraging the pursuit of knowledge.” DOESN’T MEAN THIS “I’m saying that religion does not prescribe or promore science as a platform for the attainment of knowledge.” First it discourages, now you say it doesn’t promote science. You are quite a master at bending your words to mean something else. And how the heck does salvation by faith relate to seeking knowledge?

    The bible/Christianity provided stability i after the fall of the RE in the sense that it maintained nations unified and under morals instead of leaving people in anarchy with no government. The rest you speak of is politics, which happened after the church merged into the state as well. Christianity effects on people and governing effects on people are quite different.

    Let me reiterate you claim to think logically when it is obvious that you are quite biased in your article third paragraph. There is no basis on your argument, just your freaking opinion what ever that’s worth. Where is the logic in that? Please dont use science to justify your opinions it is quite pathetic. Religion and science are two different things neither one forbids the other. Consequently the bible doesn’t forbid science(Latin:knowledge). Okay.

    • Hi Gerar4o,

      My my, you’re getting a tad touchy aren’t you? Is it because I’ve been saying the same thing in many different ways and you’ve not been able to figure it out yet? I leave that up to the other readers…

      Back to free will: You cannot answer a direct question with IF. It’s either this answer or that answer or no answer, but you cannot answer with speculation about something not yet possible in reality. It’s typical of religion – its not not based on reality. If I already know what you’re going to do, why bother forcing you or interfering with your choice. How can you not see that your response makes no sense?

      The fact that knowledge was initially forbidden and is not any more in the bible is of no consequence. The initial prohibition is not characteristic of an all-powerful being. You have not explained satisfactorily yet why this was so. Your proposition that man was too primitive and not ready for it also makes no sense when you consider that the being who is prohibiting knowledge was the one who designed/created [according to the bible/religion] man in the first place. Again, it does not compute that an all-powerful being creates an imperfect [primitive] being [in his image according to the bible/religion] and then prohibits the being from having knowldege. Again, it’s like a sick joke…

      “….This is a theory not fact. There is no evidence whether man has made contact with god or not.”
      I did not say that man made contact with god. I said man visualised god in his own image when he created him. His [man’s] writings about god is therefore a mirror reflection of his [man’s] own shortcomings with a whole lot of magical abilities thrown in to make this vision appear more powerful than man. If you do not understand this concept [and the previous one], then you will continue to argue with me fruitlessly.

      “…The continued denial of evolution and promotion of creationism is adequate proof of this.” IS NOT THE SAME AS “the religious establishment preached that all knowledge was already revealed within the context of “religious” doctrine, and that there was no need for the individual to pursue it on his or her own. For this reason, the scientific and academic community were harassed and vilified. It is still happening today.” Lol, this just helps my case further.”
      Really? How? Evolution contradicts the pitiful creation tale proposed in the bible. The bible expects man to believe the creation nonsense [even that snakes talk. sic!] Fundamentalist YECS (Young Earth Creationists] and Intelligent Design proposers vilify the scientific theory of evolution [and please don’t give me crap about evolution being just a theory] because they insist the truth is revealed in the bible.

      I don’t undertand the rest of what you’re saying. It makes little or no sense. Perhaps someone else can assist here to help me understand it.

      As to your second to last paragraph: So when the Church interefered in State and it became politics, that’s supposed to make the Dark Ages and everyhting that followed okay, huh? Europe was ruled with an iron fist that was orchestrated by the Church hierarchy. The Inquisition was politics? The Spanish conquests in South America to bring god to the heathens was politics too, right? If you don’t know even this, then you have no hope of engaging in constructive debate.

      You don’t have to reveal ideology to me. It really doesn’t matter – they’re all the same. You’ve revealed though that you’re a religious apologist.

      • It is very clear you do not want to learn. I don’t need to waste my time with someone who doesn’t want to learn. I’ve said all I need to say, quite unbiased if I may add. You however are quite biased, and you have failed at logic. At any rate what you have is fool’s logic.

        I cannot make it more crystal clear how omniscience does not meddle in free will, but oh well. You don’t want to learn.

        You are not saying things in different ways, you are saying completely different things. At times even contradicting yourself. And if you so think you are saying things in different ways, than I pity you. Learn English the correct way before you want to teach anyone anything.

        “The fact that knowledge was initially forbidden and is not any more in the bible is of no consequence.” yes it is, it makes your article a joke.

        BTW the IF was an analogy. But all I can say is that the quality of omniscience in god allows him to know everything in past, present, and future tense. But you fail to understand yet again.

        Man’s original ignorance was to protect him from harm, however man suffered in his choice. Also that God made man in his image is quite different in making man in his image and mentality. Failure of an argument you brought up and yet another logical fallacy.

        “In all my responses to you I made mention of that fact that I believe religion to be a tool devised by man. I therefore don’t accept any religious text as being the work of any divine entity, but rather the work of common, ignorant men.” Then you said “I did not say that man made contact with god.” True, but you have to assume that man has not made contact with a supernatural entity, before you can say man devised religion and religious text alone by his ignorant self. So you proposed it even if you didn’t say it.

        I will give you the “theory crap” because is true. Do you really follow science? Any scientist knows the theory of evolution is nothing more than theory, so jumping from theory to fact, is very unscientific of you. Furthermore, the creation tale is not to be taken literally ask any religious christian, man is very limited and imperfect in ways to express itself in words. According to jews and christians, god created man period. They don’t say if it was a devolved or underdeveloped creation. So the evolution theory doesn’t really contradict creation “tale”. And finally Your argument about evolution has nothing to do with your claim of religion discouraging the pursuit of knowledge.

        “I don’t undertand the rest of what you’re saying. It makes little or no sense.” Really? I’ve been quite clear. No one can help a man see, if the man doesn’t want to see.

        Sadly for you I do know all you are saying. And still it doesn’t fail to amaze me how you don’t understand the difference between the stability a religion gave versus the destruction an organization(s), politics, and government gave.

        “You don’t have to reveal ideology to me. It really doesn’t matter – they’re all the same. You’ve revealed though that you’re a religious apologist.” Hahaha! is that what you call a person who gives an unbiased argument. Science doesn’t justify any personal beliefs whether you believe in god or no god. Science helps a person learn about the natural world not about theology, its goal is never to prove whether to god exists or not. And it will never because as you claim in your article man never stops learning, to prove the existence of god right or wrong, man would have reach absolute knowledge, which is impossible, since god precedes all things discovered and undiscovered. This is a cruel reality whether you are atheist or a believer in god.

        At this rate you are wasting my time and making fool of yourself. I suggest you stop, a biased argument cannot beat an unbiased one.

        Have a nice day Lenny! And perhaps good bye!

        • Hello Gerar4o,

          You’re right. I am quite biased…in favour of skeptical, rational thinking. You on the other hand seem to favour emotion based thinking. And I do want to learn….what is correct and rational only. I don’t want to clutter my mind with pseudo-scientific and superstitious junk.

          You have not made anything clear about free will. Free will in the biblical context is a monumental lie, like just about everything else; written by stone-age man who knew next to nothing of the world.

          “Learn English the correct way before you want to teach anyone anything.”
          So you think my English is crap. Really now? That’s low.

          You have still not explained why knowledge was INITIALLY forbidden in the bible. I guess you never will…because you don’t have a clue and it doesn’t fit in with your belief system.

          IF pigs could fly….Try relating an analogy to reality; it would make your explanations easier to fathom. It’s just a tip….but you don’t have to accept it; especially from someone who “hasn’t learnt English the correct way.”

          “Man’s original ignorance was to protect him from harm..”
          Really. You know this? How? The bible says so? Your preacher/teacher said so? Explain why the god thing created a man incapable of taking care of himself? Perhaps he wanted something to keep him busy and amuse him during those times when he got bored. You know how fickle gods are, right? So god made man with an inferior mentality to his own. It makes sense – we all lnow hoe VAIN gods are, right? Wouldn’t want someone challenging him mentally, right? That just would not do, right?

          “…True, but you have to assume that man has not made contact with a supernatural entity, before you can say man devised religion and religious text alone by his ignorant self. So you proposed it even if you didn’t say it….”
          I said primitive man devised religion to explain certain occurances which he could not understand, not having the tools of science at the time. Occurances such as thunder and lightning. Today with the help of scientific tools, we know that these are natural occurances which do not need to be explained away with supernatural answers. I did not propose that man met god.

          “Any scientist knows the theory of evolution is nothing more than theory, so jumping from theory to fact, is very unscientific of you.”
          Give me the name of one scientist who said this and I’ll show that he’s no scientist, but rather a pseudo-scientist who is probably on the payroll of Answers in Genises, or The Templeton Foundation or the Discovery Institute or some other pseudo-scientific body or apologist organization. Mabe it’s time you learnt the difference between a hypothesis and scientific theory. I suggest you visit REAL SCIENTIFIC websites such as The Panda’s Thumb to find out. The mental gymnastics you’re trying to perform to make creation fit with evolution must be really painfull.

          “Sadly for you I do know all you are saying.”
          Unfortunately you haven’t proved you have with the responses you’ve ventured.

          “At this rate you are wasting my time and making fool of yourself. I suggest you stop, a biased argument cannot beat an unbiased one.”
          You’ve left me in no doubt that I have wasted your time. But I have not wasted mine. And perhaps you don’t realise this now, but you have vindicated what I have stated in my blog: Religion does not promote broad-minded thinking [open-minded to you, in case you think I’m changing my words again]. I wish you a blissful life, since it was you who reminded me that “ignorance is bliss.” I, on the other hand am going to lead a non-blissfull life because I’m intent on diminishing my ignorance.

  51. Here is my thought……. life is a journey and with a journey comes a path … eventually you’re gonna get to a fork in the road….. now God cant tell you which way to go but he gave you a mind didnt he? you need to be able to decide which way you’re gonna go to get to the end result.

    • Hi IndianEsse,

      The end result to life’s journey is death. How you choose to live your life is important, not the end result. You can choose to live in fear of the eventual result and what MAY come after, or you can choose to live free and not concern yourself about what you can’t possibly know about the end. I’ve decided to choose the latter. I’ve reached my fork…have you reached yours’?

  52. u mak a gud point ther lemy, now im not eglish born so i can’t speak it to you well, i sort of mean like, you see instead of a fork I reached a spoon. this link may help you to understand

  53. “You can choose to live in fear of the eventual result and what MAY come after, or you can choose to live free and not concern yourself about what you can’t possibly know about the end.” if you have no concerns what the heck is the point of living life… with no concerns you’re implying that there is no fear behind everyday actions. your emphasis on may can upset some people buddy, in that regard if there is no afterlife then whats to stop people from just blowing their heads out everyday…. they are suppose to live their life to its fullest until their time comes….. well if there is nothing afterward…. why limit life to what it is. and jack you didnt post a link buddy…… and i dont understand what the heck you reaching a spoon means.

    • Hi IndianEsse,

      I’m referring to fear of the afterlife, not to fear on normal day to day living. It’s natural to fear things in reality but silly to worry about you don;t know about the afterlife…except of course if you allow yourself to be mesmerised by religious beliefs about the the afterlife. Incidently, life has no meaning or purpose other than what you render to it. If fear of the afterlife is the only thing stopping people from “offing” themselves, then I personally wish more people would “off” themselves. That’s a really sick, deprived way to live.Ther’s absolutely no reason why one cannot live a normal life without having to worrry about what’s coming after.

      I removed Jack’s link because it seems to point to an obscene website that could possibly contain child pornography. I didn’t bother testing it, because of the threat of viruses.

  54. Sigh! You have failed me Lenny. You have just confirmed that I indeed wasted my time with you, since you have not seen your mistakes. I’ve favored no side. If you say I may sound emotional, perhaps because I’m human after all. However is not because i’m not thinking rationally, but rather due to your stubbornness in not wanting to see fact. But at no point in my argument have I favored or promoted one side over the other. You however want to justify a side (your belief in atheism) by backing it up with science, which is unfortunately incorrect since science doesn’t prove atheism wrong or right. As we all know science is not about beliefs(which atheism is one), but rather measurable and testable data on natural topics and providing conclusions for such. Science can never meddle in the realm of theology for one obvious fact: science can only measure and evaluate the physical and tangible data. And so in any case science will never be able to test the absence or existence of a god, since we all know a god would not be tangible but rather something outside the realm of matter or particles.

    You suggest I am cluttering your mind with “pseudo scientific superstitious junk” at no point have I told you what to believe because I simply DON’T CARE. I’m simply just bringing you the facts on the beliefs of the religions we have been discussing. I’m not promoting none of these BTW.

    As for free will in biblical context it is not affected by the omniscient property of god which transcend a perspective limited by time(because the jewish/christian god knows past, present,and future) hence he is only to know the end of times(by biblical context).

    Sorry about the English claim, I do apologize. With all due respect you are not saying the same thing in different ways when you respond to me. And it is true at times you are in fact contradicting yourself.

    “You have still not explained why knowledge was INITIALLY forbidden in the bible. I guess you never will…because you don’t have a clue and it doesn’t fit in with your belief system.” I can’t tell you for two reasons. First, I did not write the bible. Second of all it is open to interpretation(a point for religion in the sense that is not closed minded) as opposed to a closed agreed conclusion. So if I explain to you what I believe about the original prohibition of knowledge, then my stand point will stop being unbiased. This is really not important to our debate, because my argument originally was that you are incorrect in saying the bible advocates that knowledge IS forbidden and only gods are supposed to posses it. Instead I proposed the correction to be the bible WAS forbidden as it is no longer, since the bible itself says that a man should also be educated in things of the world by urging the wise and prudent to seek knowledge.

    The only reason I was forced to make a hypothetical IF analogy was because you brought up the first IF hypothetical statement, and therefore I can only respond the same way since is hypothetical any ways. You said god was a contradiction by proposing this hypothesis: IF god exists, then he must be sick in giving free will when his omniscience contradicts it. My response was that omniscience and free will aren’t contradictory, in the form of a hypothesis: IF I could time travel, you know the rest… But in any case neither are testable since(and I will reiterate) god cannot be proven scientifically. About the other analogy you proposed I can only say that if our hypothetical discussion were to be relevant to flying pigs, then we could use it. Otherwise leave the flying pigs for another day.

    “‘Man’s original ignorance was to protect him from harm..’
    Really. You know this? How? The bible says so? Your preacher/teacher said so?” I remember saying “some say… and others say… ” not “I said or my preacher/teacher said.”
    “Explain why the god thing created a man incapable of taking care of himself?” It’s open to interpretation, I can’t give you an opinion as response.

    “Wouldn’t want someone challenging him mentally, right? That just would not do, right?” Well according to the bible it would be a mistake to give a creation equal mentality to a creator, as there are to occasions in the bible were god has been attempted to be overthrown. One by Satan/lucifer/devil, and another by man with the Babel tower. Tell me would you do any different? Hypothetically of course.

    “I said primitive man devised religion to explain certain occurances which he could not understand, not having the tools of science at the time.” True and not true. Science still can explain resurrection, and to say man devise that tale by himself is assuming no contact with god. As related from biblical occurrences.

    “Mabe it’s time you learnt the difference between a hypothesis and scientific theory.” ??? When did I propose evolution to be a hypothesis?The evolution theory still lacks data(e.g. missing links) in order to become law/fact so in order for it to challenge the creation it will have to be a law/fact and is not so. So when you say it challenges the “creation tale” you are jumping from theory to fact. And in any case I’ve told you the “creation tale” is not to taken literally in most jewish and christian religions. And no it’s not painfull mental gymnastics, since unlike yourself(since you try to see it from that point of view) I don’t mix science and theology nor am I making them fit together. Science and theology are like water and oil they just don’t mix, however doesn’t the human body deal with them in separate ways, well the human mind is the same way as long as it doesn’t mix/fit them together they don’t interfere or contradict each other. “Mental gymnastics” sheeesh!

    “‘Sadly for you I do know all you are saying.”
    Unfortunately you haven’t proved you have with the responses you’ve ventured.’ The things(which I knew all about) you proposed were pointless because they were of no relevance to Christianity but rather Christian organizations. Which are quite two different things.

    You have indeed wasted my time if you do not comprehend my unbiased message. I do hope I’ve not wasted your time and you at least have taken something out of this discussion however little that may be since your mentality is quite biased when you claim to pursue true knowledge and logic.

    “And perhaps you don’t realise this now, but you have vindicated what I have stated in my blog: Religion does not promote broad-minded thinking [open-minded to you, in case you think I’m changing my words again].” Wrong! This your opinion not fact. The fact of the matter is that it does, my proof is in the many religions of the world and in those religions the many different sects. Oh and I just remembered the Deist philosophical religion acknowledges all science and a creator on the other hand (another point for religion not inspiring a closed minded approach). Might Wanna get some Ice for that burn!

    “I wish you a blissful life, since it was you who reminded me that “ignorance is bliss.” If I stay in this blog forever I will. At this rate you have not taught me anything of value, just the typical biased arguments I can find anywhere from people who try to use science to prove their personal beliefs.

    Which brings me to my purpose in blogging here, might as well tell up front. My purpose is to bring science back to the neutral ground where it belongs. It’s faulty logic to pair it conveniently with atheism, and I invite everyone of any race, religion,creed, or social stand point to learn it and not be afraid that it will contradict your beliefs as you suggest, as science doesn’t tell you what to believe, a person makes his or her own choice on what to believe.

    Oh and if you want to diminish your ignorance you got a long way to go if you keep on holding to your biased mentality on views in science and logic.

    You won’t win logical debate with a sided/biased argument when I hold a neutral stand point. Perhaps if I try a scientific approach you may understand better (if your interested).

        • It was a correction on a typo. And that wasn’t the point.The Point(even if is not based on reality) was that it challenges what you claimed about man devising the bible by himself. Otherwise prove to me scientifically that there is no resurrection. Furthermore, making a claim that man devised the bible to explain natural occurances(storms, lightning) holds no ground. Where is your proof that man devised the bible/religioustexts by himself, am I supposed to take your word for it?

          • Hi Gerar4o,

            I realised that it was a correction of a typo; but you were trying to make a point…and failing yet again. What has resurrection got to do with man writing the bible. The concept of resurrection motif was annexed [plagiarised, if you will] by the bible authors from earlier religious writings by man about gogs such as Attis, Cybele, Osirus, Mithra, Adonis, Thrace, Dionysis etc. who were also believed to have died and then rose again [mostly within 3 days…nice coincidence huh?]. If you really want to learn as you claim, you’ll do some research on this…quite fascinating how Jesus was styled after these other mythological gods.

            But, I digress: Have you ever heard or read that the onus is on the person making the claims gto furnish the proof. I suspect not…Since you brought up the resurrection, it’s up to you to provide the proof for its validiity or truth.

            Based on the manner in which the bible is written, it is not inconceivable that it was written by man. This hypothesisis is more reasonable than a blanket claim that it was written by a god, becauase that’s hardly likely to be proven. Anyway, am I to accept your word on the many matters you have proposed?

    • Hello Gerar4o,

      You have this impression that if an argument favors a certain side or position, it can’t be relevent or truthful. I have news for you…your claimed unbiased arguments are anything but. You continue indicating that you have “wasted” yout ime with me, but keep coming back with more so-called unbiased arguments. You have avoided answering all my direct questions especially with regard to the claims you make about the bible, because you have this unfathomable notion that answering would negate your percieved position on non-bias. Its a dishonest approach because it menas that you can make any wild claim wthout having to provide proof of substantiating evidence. Example: I say “pigs fly at night when everyone is fast asleep.” You ask how do I know this. I say “if I told you that, you would think I’m biased towards flying pigs.” Geddit?

      Atheism is not a belief. It is merely a statement of non-belief or skepticism. I have never claimed that science can prove atheism or even religion to be wrong or right. I claimed that science is a tool for understanding reality. Your assumptions about me and my writing are flawed. Whether you’re promoting a religion or not, is of no consequence; the arguments still need to be factual and logical and most important – based on reality.

      “As for free will in biblical context it is not affected by the omniscient property of god which transcend a perspective limited by time(because the jewish/christian god knows past, present,and future) hence he is only to know the end of times(by biblical context).”
      Here is your problem quite simply. You state this as if it is a fact. it is not a fact that “the omniscient property of god which transcend a perspective limited by time(because the jewish/christian god knows past, present,and future) hence…” You first need to prove this claim before using it in an argument.

      The theory of evolution is a fact. It’s called a theory because the hypothesis presented by Charles Darwin has since been corroborated on so many different levels/different fields of science as fact. As I said, you can do the research yourself…if as you claim you are scientifically minded.

      “Well according to the bible it would be a mistake to give a creation equal mentality to a creator, as there are to occasions in the bible were god has been attempted to be overthrown…”
      This statement is contingent on one believing what the bible says is true and can be proven to be true. Provide your proof that the bible is true?

      “It’s open to interpretation, I can’t give you an opinion as response.”
      Why make a factual-like statement about which you cannot posit any proof or further opinion?

      “…the Deist philosophical religion acknowledges all science and a creator…”
      That’s the nature of philosophy. To acknowledge and examine all things. That’s not to say that any of it is true or real. The nature of theology on the other hand to examine that which cannot be explained by philosophy and science, ie. the supernatural world…which is a much more limited/blinkered field of examination. The nature of science is to examine reality.

      I’m currently listening to an Audiobook by Michael Shermer which is his latest work, called “The Believing Brain.” In it he explains a concept known as “belief dependent reality” where everyone’s beliefs are biased to some degree or the other by various circumstances, which includes their upbringing, schooling, and immediate environment among other things. People form beliefs and then are in the habit of protecting those beliefs, sometimes with the most compelling arguments. He discusses Francis Collins, head of the National Institute of Health in the USA, who is highly respected for his work in the field of genetics etc. Collins is a Christian who defends his faith with passion, yet he argues against Creationism and Intelligent Design [Creation theories] and defends Evolution as a fact. Even highly intelligent people, which Collins most certainly is, are susceptible to faulty logic and partaking of mental gymnastics. He even acknowledges it, but finds the comfort value that religion provides to be to his liking. The point is it’s something that we can learn from and try to avoid becoming victims off.

      The thing is to always question. I only accept those things for which adequate proof can be furnished. I distrust and tend to be skeptical about everything else. If you believe that you have unbiased beliefs, then I’m afraid you’re deluding yourself…

  55. “You have this impression that if an argument favors a certain side or position, it can’t be relevent or truthful.” Correction, Im saying it’s not truly logical. You say I’m not being unbiased. Ok, what are your grounds for that claim?

    I’m only bringing you examples on what religious doctrines teach, I’m not stating them to be fact. The only fact i’m stating is what in fact they actually teach otherwise tell me any christian doctrine that concurs with what you claim the bible to teach: “knowledge to be forbidden” and “Omniscience and freewill bein a contradiction”

    Therefore don’t say that i’m avoiding your questions, because I’m not the one teaching those things i’m simply the one bringing the message and correcting you when you say religious text to teach something that isn’t true. And so since i’m not the originator of what christianity teaches, I really can’t go making wild statements, but rather what already has been said by someone else. you on the other hand can’t compare it to your analogy of the flying pigs at night, since you would be the originator of that tale and therefore you would know every detail. Besides tell me any doctrine that teaches about flying pigs at night( which not all ppl sleep at night, I know several people that work all night). Do you GET IT?

    “the arguments still need to be factual and logical and most important – based on reality.” That is asking for the impossible when you are the one to propose a hypothetical premise that can’t be tested and is not based on reality in the first place. So it is like if you proposed a hypothetical discussion about a contradiction found in superman: where he catches a victim at free fall from a building and you say that’s not possible since a person at free fall from a building about to hit the ground should be split in half when supermans arms intercepts the fall. then I say it is in fact possible in the comical world. Then you say those are wild claims since they’re not based in reality and contradict the laws of physics. Dude, the discussion from the start is not based on reality, since you cannot provide me with a superman in the first place. So don’t bring that trash i here, when you are no better. It is all hypothetical and can’t be tested from the start, that includes testing the omniscience n free will contradiction. Which in christianity isn’t just like the intercepted free fall not being a contradiction in the superman comics. In the natural world both are contradictions, but not in the comical and biblical world with their respective cases.

    The theory of evolution is mostly proven, it is not completely proven because there are missing links to the evolution of man. (However I’m proposing to leave it on hold, since I plan to read the article as you suggested) But for the lack of time right now, I will suppose it is a fact. In any case the creation tale is not taken litteral in many religious teachings, I’m not saying i said or made this up, but rather what is already being taught. So evolution unfortunately can’t completely discard a creator since it is still possible for a creator, who made and underdeveloped creation, to exist.

    Yes it is true we all have a bias of some kind. However, the way i’m presenting my argument, doesn’t give it one since my goal is to bring science neutrally. As for the case of Francis Collins you have pretty much said the same thing when I said not to mix science and faith/religion. they do not compute together, these are two different tools that do not interchange with each other. As I said I don’t perform mental gymnastics, because of what I said before “Religion is a tool to express faith as science is a tool to express reason.” So I don’t know what your argument is getting at anymore.

    “This statement is contingent on one believing what the bible says is true and can be proven to be true.” This was following your logic when you proposed god made man to amuse himself, and not wanting man to challenge him mentally(You made the first statement contingent to believing the bible). Don’t expect anything else when you start a discussion with “Perhaps he wanted something to keep him busy and amuse him during those times when he got bored.” PERHAPS? Whats so true and realistic about “PERHAPS”?!

    “That’s the nature of philosophy. To acknowledge and examine all things. That’s not to say that any of it is true or real. The nature of theology on the other hand to examine that which cannot be explained by philosophy and science, ie. the supernatural world…” You’re pretty much just said what I’ve been getting at in different words. Neither meddle in the realm of the other. I’m beginning to question this debate even more?

    “Atheism is not a belief.” Read definition number please http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism. A disbelief is a belief in doubting something. Its the same or similar to a belief, other wise what is the logical proof of your disbelief.

    “I claimed that science is a tool for understanding reality.” this is pretty much the same as when I said science was a tool to evaluate and test data of the natural physical world. huhmm … interesting.

    “I only accept those things for which adequate proof can be furnished.” What is your proof for atheism? “If you believe that you have unbiased beliefs, then I’m afraid you’re deluding yourself…” Im really interested, what is my biased? If I remember well we started going back and forth because your article is seriously flawed and incorrect. If you say it isn’t then your seriously in denile.

    At any rate I thing you’ve prolonged this argument really far my bringing more subjects into this discussion, and at times subjects in which it is evident we both concur on. So I suspect this whole thing was to divert the attention from your article’s errors. If your doubt your article has errors, I can provide a list where it shows your claims are biased(without Logic so you can understand) and uneducated.

    • typo **** read definition number 1 on the link. clearly it says its belief(even if it is a disbelief, it is still the belief in disbelieving.)

      • Really, I merely responded to the many subjects you introduced to the discussion by providing pertinent corroborating information. For someone who claims a passion for furthering the aims of science, you do grow weary very quickly, don’t you. What’s the matter…you still think you have the monopoly on truth?

        • In the end we concurred to most of those subjects you proposed, so no I’m not growing weary. Keep on bringing them I’m not bothered, although I do think its rather pointless in reiterating ourselves when we both pretty much agree.

          However, we can argue endlessly but its not going to change the fact your article( the third paragraph and your conclusion) is seriously flawed. The biggest mistake is this statement: “Religious texts such as the Bible, even advocated that knowledge is forbidden; only the Gods are supposed to possess it.” I don’t need to be a religious nut to understand this, as I can easily pick up a bible and see what is written there is not what have stated(knowledge to be forbidden). second of all Judaism and Christianity are a monotheistic religion so there are no “gods”. Third of all where in the bible does it say knowledge was only for the god/creator? The snake definitely had knowledge since it tempted man into it, otherwise how could it. Whats more(I had to check in the bible) god said to the angels that man had eaten from the fruit of knowledge… and therefore they had to guard the tree of life(eternal). How could the angels know what god was talking about, if they themselves did not have knowledge? Don’t go saying how that is not a testable reality, because that’s not the point. the point is that what you state the bible to say is incorrect. “Geddit”?

          As for this “Luckily, for most of us, the thirst for knowledge is greater than the fear of Gods…” That’s obviously referring to your incorrect bible tale, which the same tale says that mans curiosity proved greater than the fear/obedience he had in his creator/god. huhmm…interesting. So which ever stand point you look at it atheist or religious, man’s nature always has thirst for knowledge. So it’s not most of us, but rather all of us.

          “you still think you have the monopoly on truth?” Lol, this one really made me laugh. I can only say this “All I know is that I know nothing”. I simply reiterate what has already been said or stated by someone or everyone else.

          • Hi Gerar4o,

            “In the end we concurred to most of those subjects you proposed…”
            Huh? No we didn’t. And NO, we do not agree on practicallly everything. Do you practice being dishonest, or does it come to you naturally?

            “…second of all Judaism and Christianity are a monotheistic religion so there are no “gods.”
            Hmmm, Judaism and Christianity are separate religions. It’s grammatically incorrect to say “…are a monotheistic religion…” Rather say “J and C are monotheistic religions…” [:-)]. I use the term gods generally. Interestingly, there are two references in the bible which point to there being other gods: One is from the ten commandments: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.” The other is from Exodus: “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God”. What do you make of these references. Clearly the god of the bible is a megalomaniacal tyrant. It’s clear also that these are human traits…hence more proof that man wrote the bible.

            “So which ever stand point you look at it atheist or religious, man’s nature always has thirst for knowledge.”
            And who designed/created man with this thirst for knowledge? And why forbid him to have it in Genesis? It doesn’t add up. But I vouch that for you it does, right?

            “I can only say this “All I know is that I know nothing”. I simply reiterate what has already been said or stated by someone or everyone else.”
            And finally, after all these arguments back and forth, you reveal that you are incapable of thinking for yourself. Thanks for that admission. Please let me know who you are “quoting” so that I may argue with them first hand.

    • Hi Gerar4o,

      Having read your previous arguments again, it would appear that you are mostly contesting a certain statement I made in paragraph 3, in which there is no logical error as far as I can see. You seem to think that I stated that the bible CONTINUES to advocate that knowledge is forbidden. Also you seem to think I stated that the religious establishment STILL PREACHES that all knowledge in contained within doctrine an that there is no need for the individual to seek it on their own. I couldn’t understand why kept insisting on making this claim, usually addding other illogical statements to your arguments along the way. I now realise that you either mis-read or mis-understood what I actually did say, or you have a limited grasp of English [plausible due to the huge number of grammatical errors in your writing]. Here is what I wrote again; read it carefully:

      “Religious texts such as the Bible, even advocated that knowledge is forbidden; only the Gods are supposed to possess it. For years (happily gone by), the religious establishment preached that all knowledge was already revealed within the context of “religious” doctrine, and that there was no need for the individual to pursue it on his or her own.”

      You will notice that I clearly used the word ADVOCATED which is past tense; meaning that the claim is no longer being made in the bible since the initial instances where knowledge was prohibited in Genesis. At that time following the biblical account of Adam and Eve, clearly knowledge was meant only for the gods since they prohibited Adam and Eve from eating the apple. [Please note that I do not for one momemt believe any of this nonsense about apples and Adams and Eves and talking snakes]. For some reason you seem to think that I should have said “…”advocated that knowledge WAS forbidden..” which is grammatically incorrect. To be grammatically correct I could also have said “…ADVOCATES that knowledge WAS forbidden. So clearly your claim about what I said is either false and dishonest, or you made an honest mistake about what you read. [I’m sorry about having to give you a grammer lesson].

      Again, I clearly stated that FOR YEARS (HAPPILY GONE BY) the religious establishment PREACHED [past tense]….My statement is quite clear. I said this is what happened in the past but is still happening to a degree today because fundamentalists still insist on using these outdated biblical themes to push their narrow religious and political agendas. Again, you either made an honest mistake or you were being dishonest by ascribing a false meaning to what I said.

      As a result of this discovery, I’m really not going to bother responding to the rest of your arguments which I’ve read through and find to be as flacid as your previous arguments. I still stand by everything I’ve already said; I have answered all your arguments using reason and honesty. I’d just like to mention that if you enter into a debate with someone, always base your arguments on reality…not on assumptions about reality or anything that is already in dispute as part of the argument, such as the bible being factual. I also suggest you expand your knowledge resources.

      I’m only sorry I did not pick up the error in your claims about paragraph 3 earlier.

      • The bible never advocated knowledge to be forbidden, never has never will. Is Genesis the bible? Because as far as I know Genesis is part of the bible. And really, genesis doesn’t prohibit knowledge, just a part of it says man was originally forbidden. You would be better of in saying at one point a part in Genesis(not even saying Genesis advocated) told(not even advocated) that knowledge is forbidden, which is only reading genesis half way. Epic fail. After man already had acquire knowledge(still in Genesis), did god still prohibit knowledge for him and his future descendants? So has the bible ever advocated prohibition of knowledge, I tell you where it says otherwise. So you are still in error in saying the bible advocated prohibition of knowledge. Does Genesis, prohibit knowledge? did the Jews(has anyone) ever stop seeking knowledge after reading genesis? Grammatical Lesson? I can read by myself!

        Just before I leave, out of curiosity. Are you male or female? I can’t tell from your low resolution picture or your unisex name. I don’t want to live in the doubt of who I had farce of a discussion with. man or woman?

        • Hi Gerar4o,

          Appears you’ve finally had enoough. Never mind, let’s wrap up then…

          “The bible never advocated knowledge to be forbidden, never has never will. Is Genesis the bible? Because as far as I know Genesis is part of the bible. And really, genesis doesn’t prohibit knowledge, just a part of it says man was originally forbidden.”
          Since you can read by yourself, explain this contradiction in your two statements. Has the bible NEVER advocated that knowledge is forbidden, or does JUST A PART OF IT SAYS MAN WAS FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE. While you dream up another confounding response, can I ask what does it matter whether a part of the bible mentions something or the whole bible mentions something. The fact is the bible mentions something whetehr it be in Genesis of Revelations…the fact is, it is mentioned…or alluded to as the case may be. By your reasoning, I could pick out individual verses from the bible and show them to be false just by intimating that “ONLY A PART OF THE BIBLE” mentions it. If you can read by yourself, please do everyone a favour and read how to formulate logical arguments.

          Gerar4o is totally genderless to me as well, and I don’t even have a LR picture to help me guage whether you are male or female or genderless. But I haven’t had the indecency to ask. Why should it matter? If I were a women, would it boost your patriarchal ego? Incidently this “farce of a discussion” is recorded publicly for others to read and make up their own minds. If you want to persist in arguing hypothetically about things [because it somehow bestows you with this this false sensation of being unbiased], perhaps you should join one of the pseudo-scientific organizations I mentioned earlier such AIG. Your brand of “science” belongs there…

  56. People should live life in hope of what comes afterward…. having faith it what comes gives people reason to live their lives…. someone living their life out of fear that something bad may happen or something may not happen at all (ATHEISM) has a skewed point of view and they have a lifetime to figure it out.

    • Hi IndianEsse,

      So you do agree that people living their lives in fear of a judgement from a god have a skewed point of view, right?

      Personally, I prefer to live in hope of making a new discovery about LIFE, NATURE, THE UNIVERSE every day. It’s so much better than having hope about something for which there is no evidence. I have NO fear of what comes at the end…

  57. Hi,

    Alright let’s wrap this up.You say this “Gerar4o is totally genderless to me as well, and I don’t even have a LR picture to help me guage whether you are male or female or genderless.” then you say this “would it boost your patriarchal ego?” who are you trying to convince, you already came to the conclusion of male(patriarchal) by yourself. But in any case, the 4 is a D backwards or a misshapen d, but it was in the sense of humor. As for your gender it makes no difference to my ego. I just find it difficult to address you as Ma’am or sir, but I’ll keep on using the Lenny although it is improper since we are not acquainted. I try to mind my manners as best as I can in that regard, that’s why I hardly address you like I’m used to at the beginning of most my entries and simply limit myself to Hi.

    “Since you can read by yourself, explain this contradiction in your two statements. Has the bible NEVER advocated that knowledge is forbidden, or does JUST A PART OF IT SAYS MAN WAS FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE.” I do apologize if I have to educate you when you are my elder, but fine. To ADVOCATE is to promote or to urge. To relate, which is what genesis does, is to give and account of:Tell. And Tell is synonymous to SAY. So to ADVOCATE is not the same as to SAY. Thus there is no contradiction. Sorry I had to give you a vocabulary lesson.

    Back to your previous grammar not “grammer” lesson, “Religious texts such as the Bible, even advocated that knowledge is forbidden” and “Religious texts such as the Bible, even advocated that knowledge [was] forbidden” are both grammatically correct and express two different thoughts. However revisiting this made me realize I gave you an incorrect correction. I apologize, but the truth the bible has never advocated/promoted that Knowledge is or was forbidden, but rather related(not advocated) to the original prohibition of knowledge. Unfortunately, your claim is still incorrect. But to your credit, I gave an incorrect proposition to correct it with, which is still grammatically correct.

    “can I ask what does it matter whether a part of the bible mentions something or the whole bible mentions something. The fact is the bible mentions something whetehr it be in Genesis of Revelations…the fact is, it is mentioned…or alluded to as the case may be.” Mentioning and Advocating are two different things. To say the bible advocated, advocates, or will advocate you have to conclude/promotes as a whole and not partially. Genesis by itself is not the bible. The bible is multiple books, with one or more missing it is no longer the bible. Genesis means origins it relates a story and advocates(advocated) nothing. At any rate Genesis doesn’t even advocate prohibition of knowledge, but rather it relates that god advocated prohibition of knowledge.

    I do hope everyone reads this thread.

    “If you want to persist in arguing hypothetically about things” You started the hypothetical discussions. I can show you many instances if you want.

    Have a nice day sir/ma’am.

    • Hi Gerar4o,

      “But in any case, the 4 is a D backwards or a misshapen d, but it was in the sense of humor.”

      That’s cute. I’d never think of using something like that…so now you know how old I am. Incidently, I have no hang-ups about how I’m addressed – I can easily tolerate racial slurs…but I do have this intense revulsion for wilful faulty thinking.

      To ADVOCATE is to promote or to urge. To relate, which is what genesis does, is to give and account of:Tell. And Tell is synonymous to SAY. So to ADVOCATE is not the same as to SAY. Thus there is no contradiction. Sorry I had to give you a vocabulary lesson.
      Ah, so you’ve graduated to teaching semantics now? Unfortunately you’re not very good at it. Saying or relating is intrinsically related to the act of advocating, and promoting [even encouraging] something. Advocate – “To speak, plead, or argue in favor of..” Promote – “To urge the adoption of; advocate..” So, would you say that “speak” is not the same as to “say”? Thanks for the vocabulary lesson – it has added more nails to your argument coffin.

      By your argument, the bible is supposed to be a meaningless jumble of fancy stories and fables being RELATED for no useful purpose…and which are not supposed to ALLUDE to anything. So what’s the big fuss about the bible all about if god is just another dime-novel storeyteller?

      “At any rate Genesis doesn’t even advocate prohibition of knowledge, but rather it relates that god advocated prohibition of knowledge.”

      Huh? It RELATES that god ADVOCATED prohibition of knowledge? So did god ADVOCATE prohibition or not? Why do you keep contradicting yourself?

      It’s blatantly obvious that you are grasping for straws as your argument (?) proceeds. From non-sequiturs to semantics, you are not really going anywhere. You are trying desperatelly to find fault with anything and everyhting I wrote in the original blog post – but at every turn you have not demonstrated that you actually grasp key concepts such as reality, hypothesis and the scientific process itself. Your constant contradictions have damaged your argument beyond repair, and you have bordered on ad-hominem attacks at various stages.

      I respectfully request that you argue about reality and demonstrate more honesty, or cease this exercise in futility.

  58. Hi Lenny,

    I don’t know exactly how old you are, but I can easily tell(from the picture) you are considerably older than me since I’m still in my (late)teens. Thanks for clarifying to me that you don’t particularly mind how address you.

    Back to topic. I’m not going to bother about arguing unrealistic hypothetical inflated arguments, but I’ll stick to the literal realistic stuff. In my defense you were the one who forced/tempted me into unrealistic hypothetical conversations. In many occasions you started topics contingent to believing(Not saying you personally do) in the bible e.g. “Perhaps, god made man to amuse himself.”, questioning why god prohibited knowledge(contingent on believing that god prohibited knowledge), saying omniscience contradicts free will etc. All this topics open/set up to a hypothetical untestable debate, Whats realistic about that? So is not fair for you to accuse me of unrealistic discussions when all I did was follow your unrealistic premises.

    “Ah, so you’ve graduated to teaching semantics now? Unfortunately you’re not very good at it.” to advocate or promote is to speak/say/mention in a certain way: in favor of. To say and speak in general doesn’t mean it supports what the message is. If I speak/say that Hitler advocated/promoted Nazism, am I saying that I advocated/promoted Nazism? No i’m just saying generally with no favor for or against that Hitler promoted Nazism. Also if you use Advocate as a noun, it means a person who speaks and defends in favor of someone or something, not just speaking or saying in general. To advocate means and is a result of saying, speaking and relating in favor of Hope this clears things up. To relate/say in general is not to advocate. So still, advocate doesn’t mean the same as saying/mentioning in general. Sorry for the lesson, yet again.

    And whether the bible is fiction or not it is of no consequence to your claim being correct or incorrect.

    ““At any rate Genesis doesn’t even advocate prohibition of knowledge, but rather it relates that god advocated prohibition of knowledge.”
    Huh? It RELATES that god ADVOCATED prohibition of knowledge? So did god ADVOCATE prohibition or not? Why do you keep contradicting yourself?”
    I’m not contradicting myself, relating and advocating are not the same thing. Advocating is the result of relating something with favor. Advocating is not a result of relating(your still missing a piece: with favor). I don’t know how to make it more clear. Or is it that you refuse to understand. Oh well…

    Guess you don’t want to see your faults. I’ll do you a kindness and I’ll cease to argue with you. You can say,believe, and do what ever you want since you are free to do what ever you please.

    I repeat all that has been previously said since “All I know is that I know nothing, and therefore I’m the smartest man in the world!” – Socrates

    Lenny have a nice day and…

    “Live long and prosper!” – Spock/Leonard Nimoy

    • Hi Gerar4o,

      I’m no spring-chicken, but it’s nice to know that you can “easily” tell from my “low resolution” picture that I’m old but indeterminate of gender.

      “In my defense you were the one who forced/tempted me into unrealistic hypothetical conversations…”
      So you admit that you indulged in “unrealistic hypothetical” arguments. That’s sporting of you. As for me, I’ll admit that I was once a talking snake, who was condemned by an imaginary sky creature to live life as an old geyser who gives young men a hard time arguing with them. Haha! I’m just kidding man…

      “Perhaps, god made man to amuse himself.”
      This technique of arguing is known as musing about something to demonstrate how ridiculous it is. Everything you considered as “hypothetical argument” coming from me were just musings. It’s used quite effectively to ridicule…but off course the other person needs to identify as ridicule..which I think you didn’t.

      “If I speak/say that Hitler advocated/promoted Nazism, am I saying that I advocated/promoted Nazism?”
      This argument makes no sense. I’m specifically saying the bible advocated something, not you. The object of our discussion was the BIBLE, not YOU. I actually come across this quite a lot. Religious people take everything so personally.

      “If I speak/say that Hitler advocated/promoted Nazism, am I saying that I advocated/promoted Nazism?”
      Actually, if the bible were indeed true, then it would make my claims about it even more horrific. It would mean that there is a supernatural force in the world, hell-bent on making man into a slave.

      “I’m not contradicting myself, relating and advocating are not the same thing. Advocating is the result of relating something with favor.”

      Oh yes you are! Again, your argument indicates that the bible just relates things willy-nilly with no objective in mind. I think most Christians will disagree with you. They believe the bible was written to GUIDE them into a particular way of life. That’s ADVOCATING. Personally, I believe the bible was written to make men mental slaves.

      “All I know is that I know nothing, and therefore I’m the smartest man in the world!” – Socrates
      That’s not meant to be taken literally. Yiu need to read much more about Socrates and the context that he made that statement in.

      Gerardo, you’re a reasonably smart young man. You’ve got spunk, so you’ll go far. I envy your exuberance of youth; but like you I made the same mistakes. I sincerely hope you intend to pursue further studies. I challenge you to re-read and re-consider your arguments again with more education and life experience under your hat. I’d like to hear from you then…if I’m still around.

  59. Fear brings with it hope in many cases. a woman afraid that her husband will die of a disease will put hope and faith in gods hands. you lenny are afraid yet you think you have figured it all out and you have this quest for hope over powering your fear… your fear of the reality of it. and you say hope of discovering something…. well WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT SOMETHING EXISTS TO BE DISCOVERED…… Thats right….. God gives us the evidence.

    • Hi IndianEsse,

      No, women afraid that their husbands will die of disease will put their faith in the hands of good doctors….

      I am afraid, very afraid, of ever going back to a life of superstition and irrational fear of the unknown.

      If it wasn’t for new discoveries man would still be living in the stone age in a cave somewhere. The evidence is all around you, the marvels of scientific discovery enables you to communicate with me over the internet. Gods have given man nothing; how can they when they don’t exist except in an enslaved mind.

  60. One of the very first discoveries and more of a realization actually was that of faith. and no you aren’t afraid of that, you’re afraid of finding out something you dont want to hear.

    • Hi IndianEsse,

      Faith is a cop-out. It’s the abdication of responsibility for thinking for yourself.

      I’m open to hearing about anything, but unlike you I’m not open to accepting anything on blind faith. I’m one of those “strange” people who require evidence before accepting anything. Faith is not a virtue; it’s an abomination, an insult to all that man has discovered since the dawn of time.

  61. Thats just honky ponky nonsense. Do you think the guy that discovered electricity needed evidence of its existence before he tried to discover it? lifes full of entanglements and well you’re living an awful miserable life if you need evidence to accept something, you’re throwing yourself into a rut, a rut you cant get out of, sadly you have no sense on what life truly is. its a journey, an experience, a challenge, everything you’re stopping it from being. alas i find Gerar4o to be a pure genius and would enjoy conversing with him.

    • Hi IndianEsse,

      For someone who claims to know so much about life, your ignorance about scientific discovery is amazing. No ONE GUY decided one day to set out to discover electricity, and then discovered it by “magic.” The discovery of electricity was as a result of many years of work by scientists such as Michael Faraday, Luigi Galvani, Alessandro Volta, Andre-Marie Ampere, and Greg Ohm whose research in the field of magnetism among others, laid the foundations. Nobody just wakes up one morning and decides to discover something, although that type of attitude helps.

      Like many of my critics, you indulge in speculations about my personal life and how I lead it. You think that insinuating that I lead a “sad” “miserable” life will give impetus to your feeble arguments? Well think again…I mean really THINK.

      Here’s a challenge for you and Gerar4o: invest all your money in finding the green goblin, the tooth fairy and the Ghost of Christmas Past. Surely, by your logic there does not need to be evidence of their existence, in order for you to try to find them…

  62. Well i see your miserable life makes you not want to find them eh? is that what you’re implying, clearly there is no excitement in your life if you dont believe in anything that isnt in your face and real, in all honestly its quite petty and ignorant.a majority of atheists are JUST like you, thinking that what you have to say is completely right and everyone else is wrong. i dont care about religion meaning i dont criticize those with different ones, believe what they want to believe. i hold true to mine. atheists however seperate themselves from society living a weak and fearful life whether or not they decide to show that fear. I have thought lenny and “although that type of attitude helps” well that type of attitude was there.

    • Hi IndianEsse,

      Hahahaha!!! True to form, when my critics of the religious persuasion run out of constructive criticism, they resort to ad hominems and babbling. You guys never fail to make me less and less impressed with your reasoning abilities.

      There is so much REAL in life to see, admire, savour, taste, experience, touch, dabble with, it always bewilders me that people resort to speculation about things UNREAL, UNSEEN, UNKNOWABLE. You could live ten lifetimes and never get to experience everything REAL that life provides, and yet people insist on wasting their one chance at LIFE on things UNREAL, UNSEEN, UNKNOWABLE. Go figure…

  63. Hello Lenny,

    I am overly impressed by your skills manifested in critical thinking as mine is still along the way towards maturity.
    Anyway, one argument that I find disconcertingly presented regularly by theists, is the idea that everything is balanced in precision. The problem here is can actually be distinctively associated with the problem of our common perception of time.
    Please be reminded that the argument is purely speculative, more of a thought experiment than anything.
    A common problem arises when we assume that this universe of the now, is the only very singular occurrence that would only happen during and after. If that makes the case, it definitely sounds proper to say that everything is extremely precise, down to the very last degree and measurement. This is associable from the very idea that time just HAVE to start at a finite value at the beginning, where t=0 and the upper limit there onwards does not exist.

    However, suppose that the lower limit too does not exist?

    Suppose then, if I had a spherical structure with finite but many edges irregularly cut into it (like a dice with multiple faces) and with one particular corner cut so that it’s surface area is smaller than the rest. If I were to roll it for an infinity, the chances however arbitrarily small, would land face at least once onto the smallest surface, even if I had 2 or more of the same dice; The time where I begin rolling it does not matter, if it has been, and always have been rolling ever since an unspecified infinity, why would you want to ask if it came from infinity? That is like asking what time does an infinite sine or cos graph REALLY start from, or any other graph for that matter. After all, how are we even sure if time isn’t a product of our (reductive) rationalization? For instance t=0 through t=4 only matters if you associate something else with it, like distance(space), to derive speed. This could trigger a dispute about space too, but that isn’t important because it is not within my current interests.

    My final proposal, is that if ‘time’ as we labeled it, never had the expression t=0 in the first place? We always have a bad habit of quantizing things it sometimes feel like an impairment to me. Therefore I shall conclude by drawing an implication from the multi-faced dice scenario. I am not alleging that I know it is true mind you, is that if we allow that the bang has an eventual collapse, and another bang and collapse in a random configuration within an infinite loop, there is always a chance that at least once, it will land on it’s smallest side of the dice. It could be a matter of chance.

    Of course, theists could always sidestep that by asking “well then, surely it is God who started the loop?”, which I tried to place a preventive mechanism by providing time, t is never, or ever 0 or any finite number, to which will obviously be missed. And of course, it’ll obviously end with “God is never within the confinement of our dimensions to begin with” which always sidestep every issue ever pointed out in this scenario, case closed.

    So anyway if anyone views this with extreme bias, instead of reading it through and through, you could always just read that last part and save yourself some trouble.

    • Hi Recon,

      Thanks for the compliment. However, I posses some critical thinking skills, yes, but I’m fallable like every human and will succumb to errors in reasoning from time to time – as much as I try not to.

      And even though I have a fair undertanding of mathematics and physics, I also can’t pretend to have understood everything you have stated above, as I ‘m still trying to picture what type of spherical structure you’re referring to among other things. However, if you’re referring to the theory that time cannot exist without space [universe] and that the universe and time started together, then I get it. I also get that if a god started time, he/she/it would have to have existed outside of the universe and it is therefore impossible and pointless to contemplate such a creature.

      One thing that I always find comfort in, is that even though science does not have all the answers, it is the only tool that tries to provide answers [and does quite often], as opposed to scripture and religious dogmatism which proposes only that “goddidit.”

      Let me know how I fared.

      • Hello Lenny,

        That was quick. Yes, reasoning is its own weapon of choice; however, I still believe that you’re faring better than me :) See, my discussion was too redundantly long and so I still need to learn to be more straightforward.

        The spherical structure is actually just a dice with irregular surfaces cut into it, with one face particularly cut smaller than the others. Likening it to the chances of the universe being perfectly measured being arbitrarily small, it is similar to the chance for this small surface to lie face down on its surface: very, very, …(etc).., very small.

        But if you roll it from infinity to infinity, there is always at least ONE time, the universe would end up under perfect conditions.

        Therefore, I think it is possible to end at “the universe is” in the infinite regression, if we realize that there wasn’t a “at the beginning of time” (t=0) to begin with. It could be just a continuously random flux of bang and collapse from its non-existent end to end.

        I do as well, only posses a humble background in physics and mathematics, I can’t pretend what I said didn’t contain any rubbish rubbish; The previous argument was long-winded and presumptive to drive its point home, and I apologize for that.

        Now in turn, let me know how I fared too.

        • Hi again Recon,

          I can now picture the spherical structure you mentioned, but it had to take breaking down into further detail for me to get it. Thanks. Yes, you’re quite right about the permutations that can be achieved. Michael Shermer tallks about these “chances” in a few of his books on Skepticism.

          I think you have a particular talent for explaining in technical/mathematical terms and you would be comfortable discussing with some of our brightest scientists. I envy that ability. And you do underestimate your own ability. I however tend to break things down plainly so that lay people can understand what I’m talking about, and I think it’s important to communicate on basic terms or run the risk of losing your audience.

          I hope you’ll read some of my less intense posts which have nothing to do with religion or politics. I’d like to think I’m a budding comedian…

  64. Pingback: De kennisparadox | Linda J. de Wit

  65. Pingback: De kennisparadox | Linda J. de Wit

  66. To lenny,

    Spirituality is my walk, “talk” (and interpretations of) with The Creator, religion is someone elses interpretations. The very first chapter of the bible describes the big bang, “..and God said let there be light and there was light..”. Alot of what is said in the bible is taken too literally and out of proper metaphorical context. Many reading it need to remember the time, and the language, it was written in and the scope of knowledge of that era. I do consider myself a Christian and also know of the warning in Revelation concerning adding to or subtracting from the text, which means it is possible.

    It is true the more you know, the more you learn you know little. It is not the amount of knowledge anyone has that is most important, it is the drive to know more and in the end happiness comes from being successful at what you like to do, harmony and peace with family and friends and being a part of something that is larger than yourself. One possible definition to the question: “What is the meaning of life is ‘to contribute in a positive way to the world in which you live.”

    sincerely,
    Miki Ria

    • Hi Miki Ria,

      How do you decide which parts of the bible to take seriosuly, and which not (metaphorically)? Most scholars have determined that that’s impossible to do.

      I take it that by “scope of knowledge” you acknowledge that the bible was written by men and not a god or gods. For how could a divinely inspired work be limited by lack of knowledge, right?

      Like most modern Christians [and religious apologists], you’re attempting to make the bible fit in with common scientific knowledge available today. It doesn’t. The first chapter of the bible does not describe the big bang. It describes the ideas of primitive men who had limited or zero knowledge of how the world functioned. Basically it describes acts of magic and imaginative musings, which is far removed from science.

      However, your definition of the meaning of life has much merit. But religion and spirituality are not requirements for contributing positively to the world.

      Thanks for taking the time out to comment…

  67. Hi Lennymaysay,

    I’ve read a lot of your posts and I find your views very interesting. I was just wondering whether you’ve read the book ‘Faust’? If so, what is your opinion or take on the book. I ask this because central themes of the book are knowledge and religion, which you seem to know a lot about.

    Thanks.

    • Hi student,

      I know off Faust; haven’t read the book though. I assume you’re referring to the classic by Goethe. I’m very interested in gathering knowledge, but no, I have have not “sold my soul to the devil,” in exchange for it. A nice enough tale, but I’m not into fantasy. Reality is my game.

  68. What Lenny is saying is that religion is a formula for closed thinking. It lays down the rules, has all the answers. All of them do. LOL. Openmindedness is what leads to learning and strong beliefs can limit your questioning. I think atheism is just as narrow minded, by the way. What about accepting that none of us know and leaving it at that. An open-ended life……

    • Hi Bubbles,

      Granted; atheism has been accused of that, and with good reason too. Accepting that none of us know? But we do eventually know, when science unravels the mysteries, even if very slowly.

  69. Basically if everyone concentrated on just being happy and helping one another there would be no need to follow any religion.. just enjoy everything you do and dont think too much, no religion is the ‘religion’ its just your own way of thinking which has led you to follow that certain belief! Be happy, kind, and courteous and you wont go far wrong.. its that simple.. really!!

    Peace and love

    • “This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness. My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness. Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible.”
      “Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive.”
      “If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.”
      – Dalai Lama

  70. islam has caused more death, destruction and misery than all other religions combined.
    How can any human be a member of an organization causing so much death, destruction and misery?
    “8 minutes that will make you leave Islam”

    • Hi wrong,

      There is no doubt that religion in general is responsible for massive human misery and suffering, but the statement that Islam is responsible for more misery than all the other’s combined, may be a bit far-fetched. However, current world trends seem to indicate that they may very well earn that ignominious distinction at some point in the future…

  71. Wow, from 2009 till this year and you’re still on the same topic. I’ve only read a few and I won’t be surprised if somebody shoos me because I am a Muslim. It hurts that people discriminate many Muslims in the world, you are generalizing us all. We’re not all extremists and we have brains, too. We choose to follow what is good and what won’t harm other people. All in the same way that I’d like offenders here to stop being mean to us. If you have nothing good to say, then please just stop!

  72. Also, I noticed some started reacting when Dayana offered what our religion teaches. Someone here told her to go away because he wanted nothing from our religion and yet some here explained what their opinion about religion is, doesn’t that sound like imposing, too? And that video posted here about Islam, don’t tell me other religions and even aetheists never committed anything worse than that? We hear fathers raping their kids and stuff like that. It almost seems like you’re putting a whole lot of the blames to the Muslims, as if you yourselves are very “pure” and better than us. Like we have the lion’s share of everything evil in this world. Maybe some of those who were victims of the extremists’ Jihad can never recover from what happened, I totally understand that. My point is, do not hate ALL the Muslims for that. I live in a world where everybody looks at me like a terrorist, I can’t hail a cab when I wear garments that identify me as Muslim. Some restaurants do not allow us inside their place, and just recently, when my friends and i were to break our fast (Ramadhan), the waiters told us none of those we ordered are available when we’ve asked for like ten different meals. When I take the bus, people stare at me and snicker and say people like us should die, or be raped, etc. Try living a life like that everyday!

    • Hi LHRM,

      I have treated Islam with the same disdain as every other religion. It’s unfortunate that Islam is singled out for criticism due to the misdeeds of its more zealous adherents worldwide. It also has its share of crackpot clerics who just attract more condemnation upon your religion all over the world. I have no doubt that you’re a kind, decent person who tries to follow your religion in a manner that is in-offensive to others.

      It’s an unfortunate characteristic of human nature to condemn the whole for the indiscretions of the few. I allow freedom of expression on my blog, but not outright racism and hate speech. If you follow the comment threads you will notice I have chided those who have gone overboard. You can read my comments policy under “About Lenny.” I won’t censor any comments that don’t transgress this policy.

    • LHRM,

      While I sympathise with the treatment you are receiving from ignorant idiots, I have no doubt that the’re not atheists. Atheists in general would not behave like that, but off course there could be a few exceptions.

      No, those treating you in this manner are of people from competing religions. You also need to seriously question the actions and behavior of the clerics and fundamentalists within your own faith, who are responsible for this reaction. While I know, this will be of little comfort to you, I cannot help you further.

      I got out of the whole religion charade for some of the same reasons.

    • If Moslems want better treatment then they should stand up and stop the fundamentalist from committing the atrocities. Sharia law allows brutality and murder. And please don’t make the excuse that it is only a ‘few.’ The Germans said the same about Hitler and the Nazis after the war. Fact is only 5% of Germans tried to stop Hitler – which leaves 95% that either supported or stood by and watched and did nothing.

  73. i agree with all but your last paragraph, ive think that if i want to live forever it is to know everything, thats why i want to live longer, that is the pursuit of knowledge. your last paragraph i feel it is with a bit of anger, but from one knowledge seeker to another, i think you should not, for me it was religion that pushed me to know more, to know how everything works, if one is equitative enough you should not go for one side just because, but to investigate the points and read about the arguments. in the end i guess knowledge is my religion, not necesarily to not believe in god. Greetings from Mexico.

    • Hi Hugo,

      While there are quests for knowledge that fall outside of the parameters of science, these areas are arguably of lesser impact to the development of man and the world around him. My argument is therefore based on the quest for scientific knowledge, and the feeling that science and religion are irrevocably un-reconcilable. I will use the creationism vs evolution battle that is being fought in schools in the USA right now as an example. There are off course many other examples from history; the persecution of Galileo being one.

      Greetings from South Africa… :-)

  74. i sanjay sohoni is in need of some finance and ready to convert islam
    waiting for your reply at earliest.
    Regards,
    sanjay sohoni
    mo no 9850727592

  75. Simply wish to say your article is as surprising. The clarity in your post is simply spectacular and i could assume you are an expert on this
    subject. Well with your permission allow me to grab your feed to keep up to date with forthcoming
    post. Thanks a million and please keep up the enjoyable work.

  76. Way cool! Some very valid points! I appreciate you writing
    this article plus the rest of the site is also really good.

  77. I find it very anooying to see dayana’s posts here! Why do muslim people always try to drag everyone in their religious topics!!!!!!!!!!!

  78. ak-47,
    It is really interesting dialog. I am a Muslim. To answer ak-47 “Why do muslim people always try to drag everyone in their religious topics?” I would say sorry that you understood it this way. The answer simply is Islam for us is a framework for our lives. We live and act though it’s principles. I traveled around the world. Thus, I assume that many people in the west understand Islam in (distorted picture) the same way that some Muslims understand others with. Therefore, my travels helped me to open my eyes wide to see humanity and how we act in hostility against any thing different of us.
    I am a Muslim and I have a Qur’an and a Bible at home. Food is a nutrition for the body and religion is a a nutrition for the soul. If I don’t like your food and I’m talking in passion about main, it doesn’t mean I’m your enemy! However, if you said that Muslims try to convert you to Islam, I would say sometimes yes. We want you to taste our food (religion). Sorry that you felt annoyed. You can simply say NO thank you I’m good I don’t want to taste your food.
    Also, I want you to know that we (Muslims) by God words in Qur’an cannot force any one to accept Islam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yky2HCTQsy0) nor punish him. God is the only one who have this right (http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/nora/html/18-29.html).
    Finally I encourage my self and others to read, read, and read about other religions independently from its original sources without being driving by the media, culture, childhood ..etc. Just read for the sack of knowledge with a clean white mind. Also, we should distinguish between realign and traditions. Every realign, culture, tribe, country, and nation has a bad people and a good people. People with less education tend to Generalize and that is wrong.

    To show some of my hospitality : ), If you want, you can testes my food : )
    1. http://www.quranexplorer.com/Quran/Default.aspx
    2. http://ar.islamway.net/SF/quran/download.php?lang=en (Qur’an pdf) Size: 29.5 MB
    Thank you,

    Mr. lennymaysay,
    You show me a good example how an educated gentleman should run a dialog. So thank you.

    Ms. Dayana,
    Assalamo Alikom
    I’m really jealous that you have such a pure Islamic soul. God bless you.

    Abdullah Suliman
    abdulsul7@gmail.com

  79. Hi Lenny,
    Thank you for your compliment. I love the fruits of science from the bottom of my heard. The core of my food infarct is fruits. The problem is that many Muslims does not know that to tell others due to their different disciplines or because they believed in God but this faith didn’t entered into their hearts fully yet. God said in the Qur’an: “The wandering Arabs say: We believe. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Ye believe not, but rather say “We submit,” for the faith hath not yet entered into your hearts. Yet, if ye obey Allah and His messenger, He will not withhold from you aught of (the reward of) your deeds. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (14)”
    it.
    Regard the fruits, the first word of Qur’an that God taught the prophet Muhammad -peace be upon him and other prophets- and asked him to teach it to us (humidity) is “READ”. God said: “Read: In the name of thy Lord Who create, (1) Create man from a clot. (2) Read: And thy Lord is the Most Bounteous, (3) Who teach by the pen, (4) Teach man that which he knew not. (5) Nay, but verily man is rebellious (6) That he think himself independent! (7) Lo! unto thy Lord is the return. (8)”

    Regardless the last words, if you want to read more, remember God phrases are different some of them we cannot cut form their historical concept like if God said these phrases for specific situation. However, others we can. Also, do not look at how some Muslims act; look at the Islam it self. Ex. some doctors may smoking but this doesn’t make it good for your body. However, we respect their professions regardless their personal acts.

    Also, God throw Qur’an elevated (scientists and scholars) more than (worshipers with out knowledge). God said: “…. Allah will exalt those who believe among you, and those who have knowledge, to high ranks. Allah is Informed of what ye do. (11)” Also he said in another place “Those who have been given knowledge see that what is revealed unto thee from thy Lord is the truth and lead unto the path of the Mighty, the Owner of Praise. (6)”.

    Moreover, because the first generations after the prophet Muhammad -peace be upon him- was really trying to be a (real Muslims) and follow the principles of Qur’an, they create the fist seeds of science (algebra, chemistry (read its history) … etc). However, nowadays generation of Muslims (we are) does not represent the real picture of Islam because simply we left its core principles to run after money not knowledge.

    To see how Islam encourage science, please read, listen and watch these links:

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

    http://www.scienceislam.com/

    Also, because I don’t want you to think that I’m guiding you to specific links, please google “science Islam” and look at what ever you want.

    Finally, I really enjoy this intelligent discussion with you. Thank you very much. However, due to my overwhelming life schedule (father and a science graduate student), I may be away for a while. Hopefully when I get back (if you accept me as a discussion friend) we can discuss some scientific facts that God told us in the Qur’an and we didn’t discover them yet! (you will find them in the second link I think). Now I need to go back to eat some high quality fruits. “: )

    Ms. Dayana,
    Assalamo Alikom
    The Expanding Universe and the Big Bang Theory is in the Qur’an for more than 1400 year ago! Please read this scientific article http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1560/
    PS: some translations in the internet are old and does not follow the new explorations. Generally everything is in the Qur’an but we don’t see it because we (humanity) didn’t get to the level of science to understand it. As more as we scientifically learn as more as we understand why God said that in the Qur’an. We should READ and learn as God asked us.

    I ask God to guide us all to the right path.

    Abdullah Suliman
    Friday, March 15th 2013 USA
    abdulsul7@gmail.com

  80. I still don’t really understand why so many are so fearful of thinking for themselves and asking some difficult questions of long-standing beliefs they hold.

    Are they not the ones who feed little children nonsense about Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, and then so maliciously disillusion them with the truth when they’re older just because, as parents, they don’t want to be ‘embarrassed’ to be seen with mature children still believing in fairy tales?

    Wow! There’s a contradiction there…if only I could put my finger on it….

  81. I am just curious why so many non-believers feel it necessary to persuade believers and let them know they are “wrong”. It seems that you don’t like it when other groups do the same things to you. This is the problem I have with some liberals and “open-minded” people because I have experienced first-hand that they can be the most judgmental when others don’t share the same views. How about another saying: “To each his own”. Why can’t we just accept our differences and respect one another. Yes I am a Christian but I expect the same respect about my beliefs that I try to give other people. I don’t care if people disagree with me as long as it is based out of respect. I think a lot of the problem is that the small extremist Christian groups give all Christians a bad name in a similar way to jihadists giving all Muslims a bad name. I could go on a long religious debate but I will spare you. Oh, and knowledge is not a bad thing. I finish my Master’s this summer. YAY : )

    • Hi Lynnyjo,

      Firstly, congratulations with getting this far with your Master’s and all the best for completing it. Now to the point…

      I respect people, not beliefs. Beliefs are not deserving of respect, especially if they are flawed. Pointing out the errors in thinking is not the same as proselytizing, which people who hold religious beliefs, tend to do. Sure, not everyone, but enough to annoy those who prefer to be secular. I don’t expect anyone to respect my beliefs and I don’t demand it either. If you prove that my reasoning is wrong, I will accept it and move on.

      You are quite right thoigh, about the extremist minority within a faith giving a bad name to the majority. I would also like to point out that I wrote this post a long time ago, and have since (over the years) toned down my objections to religious belief, unless said belief causes harm to others, in which case I am within my rights to speak out. I hope you’ll read some of my later posts and notice the change.

  82. Thank you for your perspective. This is something I have always wanted to understand and will continue to investigate. It’s nice to have a safe place on the Internet. It can be a scary place. Nice job : )

  83. Pingback: The more you travel, the more you know | The Labyrinth of PhD Studies

  84. One day, a woman I worked with kept remarking how smart I was and how I must have a high I.Q. Well, I really had to laugh, couldn’t help it – and said – Yep, my I.Q. is SO HIGH that I know EXACTLY how stupid I am.

  85. How do you know, that the Bible has not been tainted by man to a degree, many Bible have taken his personal name out(fact)maybe God doesn’t approve of the hypocrisy in religion, maybe God understand why some people are atheist, does he have good reason to allow wickedness, does he have a plan to end rebellion? Mabey you & we don’t know it all

    • Hi Mark,

      Off course we don’t know it all. But don’t you find it absurd how religious people speak with such conviction. And yes, the bible has been tainted by centuries of fiddling – interpretation from one language to another, but still, where’s the proof that it was written by some supernatural being in the first instance? None whatsoever!

      On the contrary, scholars now conclude that it was the work of men with inferior knowledge of the natural world.

      • Lenny – which scholars? Are saying all scholars? I expected better from you. You are not qualified to make such a comment

          • Lenny, is there another Google? Are you so stuck you never read the opposing arguments and think about it.

            • Graham, you asked if I meant all scholars. Clearly I did not or I would have said ALL scholars. Seems my response was over your head. The fact that I responded means that I read your argument, and all my responses to comments demonstrates that I don’t take comments lightly.

  86. I was not a creationist – but wow now science says the WHOLE universe was ‘created’ in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second it makes creating our tiny little earth in six days easy. Why did God take His time – long siestas, tea breaks or maybe He just enjoyed creating His masterpiece. I love it when science proves the Bible. This is even better than the time science discovered the world was round 3,000 years after it was written in Isaiah. I predict in another 500 years the Big Bang and origin of species theories will be amalgamated into a new theory and it will be called GENESIS! AMEN

    • Science proves the bible? Really? Your’re following the wrong science dude. It’s called pseudo-science.

      Written in Isiah? So why did the Church suppress this information and hound the scientists who discovered it? Could it be because Isiah say something that could be interpreted to mean anything, but in hindsight means just what you want it to mean to suit your agenda?

      • Well Lenny Lenny Lenny!
        Maybe read your own replies to me again and think about them. Maybe you had a bad day. You used to write informed responses not school boy banter – maybe you are running a little dry. The catholic church suppressed the whole Bible – not just one little bit dear boy. I think you are guilty of exactly what you accuse everyone else of doing – ‘means just what you want it to mean to suit your agenda.’ As I said before, you jump from one religion to another and one point to another in a futile attempt to defame something you can’t. The fact is Lenny you get confused (too much GMO fruits maybe) between religion and God. And that’s okay. God gave us free will, and if you could break free from the cloud of propaganda and bullshit of the big corps and media you could think freely too.
        By the way – do a little more research on GMO (this is my area of expertise). Man you got to open your mind dear boy. Here’s a thought – throughout history man has moved on, often doing things thought impossible years before. Those things were thought impossible until man caught up with understanding the science that could make them possible.
        Absence of evidence does not mean something does not exist. It just means we are ignorant of its existence. The word Agnostic comes from the word ignorant – ignorant of God. Now a thinking man, and I am sure you are one, knows absolute terms such as ‘God does not exist’ cannot be used unless all the evidence is available.Saying God does not exist would mean you know everything there is to know about the whole universe (we know so little – even you agree on that). All you can say is, “with the negligible knowledge I have there is nothing I have seen that convinces me there is a God,” which means you are an Agnostic – and that’s okay.

        • Graham,

          Clearly you are one of those who think that Catholicism is somehow different from Christianity. That’s pretty disingenuous. You should be the last talking about own agendas.

          I really don’t know what you have against GMO’s. Seems that you’re not only a Creationist, pseudo-scientist and anti-skeptic, but a conspiracy theorist as well. You did not respond to my question about whether you’re an anti-vaxxer – are you a climate change denialist as well? Are you also one of those who accept the science when it conforms to your personal world view, and reject it when it is in conflict? But hey, that’s cool.

          Absence of evidence means just that. Does not mean that evidence will NEVER be found. Unlike you, I’m a doubter and quite prepared to wait until evidence is found. Until then, I prefer to remain skeptical, insread of making absurd claims which have no basis in evidence, or twisting available evidence to suite own world views like pseudo-scientists [read Creationists] do.

          I prefer to restate your assertion “All you can say is, “with the negligible knowledge I have there is nothing I have seen that convinces me there is a God,” as “All you can say is, “with the knowledge AVAILABLE I am NOT CONVINCED there is a God.” Big difference!

          • Lenny, you have made massive assumptions once again without evidence! – Interesting. You state I am a Creationist, pseudo-scientist and anti-skeptic, and a anti-vaxxer (whatever that is) and a conspiracy theorist.
            More (angry) absolute statements without evidence. Why are you trying to either insult, discredit or antagonize me? Your school boy tactics wont work. I am none of the above. Clearly you know far more than me on the subjects above – which is interesting in itself.
            I sense a tiny bit of minority sensitivity in your writing – So if it helps – SORRY! (God knows what for, but it seems to be the fad today).
            Anyone genuinely wanting to debate subjects and learn something wont behave in such a way. Clearly it is you way or the highway – so why not just be honest and rename your blog _ LENNY”S WORLD – HOW I SEE IT(from the next to nothing I actually know and a little bitter).
            Actually, I am a life-time sceptic, but now I am an OPEN minded,and tough skeptic. And not afraid to tell the truth – oh and I don’t patronise to sound like a goody goody hippie love all.
            Up to 8 years ago I was an atheist that believed scientists were totally trustworthy and only interested in benefitting man and freeing us from superstition; and natural medicines were snake oil and nothing would grow without chemicals and genetic engineering. Oh and governments were incorruptible, and only whites control slavery and……. Bloody hell was I wrong hahaha!
            But experience is a greater teacher than sitting in a home and reading propaganda and media guff. You should try it!
            You are like a bad theist to the theist movement. You make ridiculous egocentric statements with heavy tinges of emotion – hate and anger without thought or evidence.
            Unlike you, I have no interest in flying any flag except the truth.
            Can we then agree on this “with the ‘next to nothing’ knowledge AVAILABLE at this time YOU, having read a little of what is available, are NOT AS CONVINCED as the other 90% of the population of the world that there IS a god.’
            Considering your argument always seems to end up with something like ‘the weight of scientists opinions being.’ Which means not all scientists would agree with YOU, and quite frankly Newton, Einstein and of course heaps of notable scientists today disagree with YOU. I would have thought this was in line with your original statement ‘the more YOU learn the more….and most scientist of the universe agree they know bugger all. So making any decision based on bugger all means your opinion is hardly valid.
            The stats however are better with Theologians; who are also intellectuals and study their subjects for years and have far more actual written evidence from eye witnesses to help make their decisions – guess what almost 100% agree there is a God.
            You see your confusion is because of religion – not God. Religion is man’s expression of God. God is GOD – and of course knows everything and we can hardly compete on an intellectual basis – agree?? I have said this many times before, but you wont go there – and that’s okay.
            However, I believe everyone is entitled to an opinion, I make no judgment on who they are, where they come from or their beliefs. What I find ridiculous is people so adamant about spreading someone else’s pseudo-knowledge without any personal knowledge themselves.
            Another comment you made is quite absurd. I made a statement – Catholic church supressed the Bible – which is true, no one disputes that. You constantly claim you want to deal in facts not hearsay, yet you seem not to like me stating a fact. You bring in an emotional assumption. And that’s okay too. I am in no way being disingenuous I am merely stating a fact.

            • Hey Graham

              You’re the only skeptic I know who believes that the big corporations are out to get us with GMO products. Congratulations!

              God is GOD – and of course knows everything and we can hardly compete on an intellectual basis – agree?? Sure, how can I compete with a made-up being who knows everything? And how do you know he/she/it knows everything? Wait, don’t tell me…

              100% of theologians believe that there is a god? What a revelation? Is the sun hot?

              Oh, amd keep stating your facts; who knows, some day an actual skeptic might believe you.

              • You are NOT a true skeptic – if you were you would be willing to question all sides of debates. I know many skeptics that question the science of GMO’s and pharmaceuticals etc – I did. If you don’t know a non-religious skeptic that questions GMO you are living in a very small world – Lenny’s world.
                True skeptics question everything – I do – yes even God.
                You are involved in the religion of science. It’s no difference to being a devotee of false religions and cults. Your high priests are ant-theists scientists.
                In the Bible it says, “they have ears but cannot listen; eyes but cannot see, (and my bit) brains but cannot think. I’m sorry, but I really don’t care whether a skeptic believes me or not – ONLY GOD is right.
                Look around you – mankind is doing a great job of this world. Not even you can deny the world is in chaos. In your own country Mandela offered so much hope – 20 years later, apart from the leaders, the blacks are just as poor and living in slums with open sewers in the streets. We are the only species on earth on self destruct and science is giving us the ability to do it quick.
                Actually, I said almost 100% of theologians believe there is a god, not 100%. I have met theologians who don’t, but use it to take advantage of others.
                And here is a revelation for you – I have employed agricultural scientists as consultants that have admitted they know their science is flawed, but have to follow their bosses line or lose their jobs.
                Lenny mankind is flawed. There is good and bad on both sides – all sides. Keep you mind (ears and eyes) open – the truth is in no man’s land.

                • Graham,

                  Sigh! Here’s a definition of a skeptic:

                  1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
                  2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.

                  It is NOT a person who accepts anything, the evidence for which is in question. I question the claims made about GMO’s. I do not accept the multitude of claims that theya re harmful. You do. You accept the existence of supernatural beings (god/s) when there is no scientifically acceptable evidence for it. All claims which purport to be scientific that indicate an existence of such beings are not verifiable by the generally accepted scientific method and are thus pseudo-scientific in nature, not to mention spurious.

                  There is no such thing as the religion of science or cults dedicated to science That’s a straw man argument.

                  I don’t give a hoot about what the bible says. The evidence for it being written by ignorant bronze-age men is more convincing that it being written or even inspired by some supernatural being. Neither you nor anyonr else has ANY proof whatsoever that it was written or inspired by a supernatural being. don’t bother convincving me otherwise; just provide the proof.

                  I do agree that the world is in a shambles, but it is not the scientists who have made it thus. Science may be used for destructive purposes, so what? Do you deny that religion and belief are also used for destructive purposes? The overall good that science achieves, outweights and negative consequences.

                  So there are scientists who believe that their science is flawed. Off course it is. That’s the nature of science. It grows and changes as new evidence/findings is/are brought forward. Science changes; that’s the beauty of it. Unlike religion and belief, no?

                  You keep asking me to keep my mind open. It is, but I’m careful not to keep my mind so open that my brains fall out.

                  One last thing. I wrote this blog a long time ago, when I still cared enough about mundane things like religion, gods and belief. I don’t give a hoot about such things any more. I’ve moved on to more important things; things that are REAL. Were it to be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a god or gods do in fact exist, I couldn’t care less. You see, I will never prostrate myself before such a miserable creature. The best you could say about a god is that he/she/it is incompetent. There are much worse things I could say. I will NEVER worship such a being, not ever.

                • Hahaha – you have got to be joking? Man you really need to go a lot more into the detail than just the propaganda. I have had the practical experience; the couch potato theories and falsified bottom line scientific for profit research results broke me. You are on your back foot brother – and that’s okay. I was once blind, deaf and ……too. I also remember I wouldn’t change my core beliefs even when faced with absolute facts either (I am talking about real life situations here not theory).
                  It took a nightmare and a massive threat to my children’s lives before I realised as an atheist (yes I was one) there are no choices left when all the earthly experts say you are screwed. It still took years before my pride was so shattered and the risk to my kids was so real that I finally had no alternative than to give God a go (not religion – GOD!) and PRESTO – miracles do happen.
                  It is none of my business what you believe or don’t believe and I don’t push my beliefs on anyone. I don’t wish anything like what happened to me to happen to you, but man I agree it sounds weird to say thank God a group of psychos afraid their lies would be exposed tried so hard to destroy me or I would be like you and never have found the truth.
                  I hate the cliché, but their really is HOPE and GOOD NEWS. It just makes NO logical sense to me either why such an intelligence that could create billions of galaxies would love every single human being – and especially someone like me. I will pray for you – I know! But this is not to antagonise you. I only know the basics of faith and I have learnt I have no right to judge anyone and I believe totally in loving thy neighbour as thyself – without regard for race, colour, creed, belief, gender or any other suggestions that might separate mankind.

                • Graham,

                  “Man you really need to go a lot more into the detail than just the propaganda.” The same detail that you went into. You’re asking me to just take your word for it; and I’m supposed to roll over and say “oh wow!” Works in Sunday School, not in the real world, I’m afraid.

                  “It just makes NO logical sense to me either why such an intelligence that could create billions of galaxies…” You did say that you were not a creationist right; that I was making assumptions? Guess what this is?

                  “I will pray for you.” Jeez! Commenters on this blog are queuing up to pray for me. Why does every believer assume that he can and should pray for someone else? Is that not presumptious, arrogant even? I’ll accept $10, 000 instead, much better and infinitely more useful. Will your prayers return to life all the people killed in suicide car bombs, earthquakes and other natural disasters? Will your prayers feed all the hungry children in Africa? What good has prayer ever done? Give me proof.

                  You’re right. I am blind and deaf – to your proselytizing.

                • Great word – proselytizing – I had to look it up….hahaha.
                  You are right.
                  Praying for others is a waste of time. It is hard for me to accept that if it did work then we are in fact hoping God removes a person’s free will. God won’t do that – he keeps His promises.
                  I had a lady sent to my clinic once by a religious daughter. The daughter asked me why God was not healing her mother of cancer. She and her whole church were praying for God to heal her mother and it wasn’t working.
                  I was the wrong person to ask at the time – (at the time I was an atheist).
                  Anyway, the daughter was losing her faith rapidly and ask me to try something else to help her mother – like I was supposed to do something God couldn’t!!!! – amused me heaps as an atheist.
                  Anyway, we tried some different treatments and her health started to improve. I was pissed because the daughter gave all the glory to God – nothing to me.
                  Then the mother’s health deteriorated again – thankfully the daughter blamed God not me – (that happens a lot when prayers are not answered).
                  Anyway, under pressure from the religious daughter I spoke to the mother and offered to try something different again. But the mother suddenly told me the original treatment was working, but she stopped taking it.
                  I was gobsmacked and blurted out, “But you were getting better?”
                  She told me she didn’t want to get better. She had been very lonely until she got cancer and then she had automatic attention and love from everyone and that included her daughter who had stopped visiting before the big C.
                  It is tough for us believers to see people we care for choose to die.
                  By the way I have had answers to prayers in impossible situations. I had to have miracles that not even I – super cynic could come up with plausible alternative for the outcome. Being a cynic and no allegiance to any particular ‘religion’ has meant I have not been influenced by traditions and dogmas and quite frankly now on the inside I think religion does more damage to the name of God than any atheist or silly theory has ever done. The simple message of God is love your neighbour as yourself. And neighbour is defined in the Bible as anyone that needs help. And love God. That’s it! The rest of the doctrines are minor details and subject to mankind’s misunderstandings and manipulations to control.
                  I have a personal relationship with God – I don’t go to church, I am not involved with religion – but I absolutely KNOW God exists.
                  Unfortunately, religion paints a weird picture. We want to humanise Him. We don’t have the intelligence of an ant in comparison to God (maybe a bacteria would be a closer analogy) so of course we cannot truly understand Him.
                  Yes I believe God created the Universe and everything in it – so do many great scientists and even Antony Flew finally agreed there was intelligence behind the universe – who are we to argue with him. Or are we just being prideful? I know I was.
                  when I say I am not a creationist I am merely referring to the guys that say the world has only been in existence of 6,000 years.
                  I don’t know how long the world has existed and how God chose to create it was up to Him – so nothing that comes out of a science ever concerns me. In fact the two main theories used to
                  prove’ god does not exist amuse the hell out of me. When you look at them in detail you will only crack up – they are bordering on the insane. Still, I went 40 something years quoting them as fact and didn’t see the joke was on me.

                • Graham,

                  “free will.” How do you reconcile free will with an omniscient god? It’s a serious contradiction. Neuroscientists have carried out experiments that lead them to conclude that free will is an illusion. Read this: http://io9.com/5975778/scientific-evidence-that-you-probably-dont-have-free-will
                  Oh wait, I forget – you don’t care too much for science except when it provides you with all the comforts that make life easier.

                  Touching story but still doesn’t prove that prayer works. BTW, what field of health care are you in? Hope it’s not naturopathy or homeopathy or one of the miriad other BS fields that do stuff-all for people except take their money.

                  The fact that YOU couldn’t explain your apparent “mirical” doesn’t mean that it can’t be explained by natural means.

                  Almost every commenter on this blog claims that he/she has a personal relationship with a god. What exactly does that entail? How often do you meet and where? Must be a secret society, closed to us mere mortals. Also many have told me that they believe in god but don’t follow any religion. Seems kinda strange to me then when they quote from “holy” books and practice archaic rituals which are the foundations of organised religion.

                  Who are we to argue with Flew? So what if Flew said that. Doesn’t change anything, nor make it true. This is a fallacious argument known as appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate). Anyway, what makes Flew an authority on the “intelligence behind the universe?”

                  “In fact the two main theories used to prove’ god does not exist amuse the hell out of me.” Which two theories are these? Don’t you know that you can never use science to prove the existence of god. The scientific method involves investigating and quantifying tangible things.

                  I know you mean well, but unfortunately it’s misplaced on me. Far too many of the things you mention are evidence of knowledge you have gleaned from sources which are psuedo-scientific or apologist in nature. And I’ve dealt with all of them countless times before.

                • Thanks Lenny, but my reasons for talking to you is not that altruistic. I am not trying to convert you.
                  I am a cynic and since becoming a believer (actually a knower), and in no religious organisation (I don’t do any of the rituals), I can’t help myself – I question everything and dig deep. Often atheists will ask questions or make comments I have not thought of myself and don’t have an answer; and if religious people don’t like to answer I do my own research across all boundaries of the religions (there is only One God) until I find an answer that makes sense to me and it helps deepen my faith.
                  By the way God is a spirit – not a person – He is not tangible – what do you think He is a Santa or an Easter bunny haha. Come on, you don’t buy the little old man with the beard concept do you?
                  I did the same cynical approach to health. By the way I had a clinic with traditional doctors (we needed a license to kill just in case), naturopaths, Chinese trad, Ayurveda, energy, – anything that worked. As I was not flying any flag if something didn’t work I would try something else until something did.
                  I have seen so many sent home from hospitals to die – Aids, cancer Hep etc and are perfectly healthy now.
                  Lenny, even your gods of medicine will admit we are all biologically different, so even their medicines will work for only 10-15% of the population. I like higher percentages. If you look at controlled experimental research data you will see the pharma medicine will have say 17% (well they are doing the experiment so they will be a little influenced – Natural medicine (which may be as simple as food) 15% and the one I love – the sugar pill placebo 13%. Think about it Lenny; especially as the pharma has the worst side effects – which would be best to try first and it’s cheap?
                  In my clinic if there were NO signs of massive improvement in 14 days we tried something else (we had no choice really – when a patient is told they only 6 weeks to live you can’t sell them monthly prescriptive medicines – you only sell two boxes tops) until we cracked it. I don’t believe in monthly prescriptions for life….there is a CURE for everything. Chronic illnesses are an money making con brother.
                  All you have to do is find the cause NOT manage the symptoms.
                  Oh and before you get on your high horse – my religious friends wanted me to stop using Ayurveda because it is trad Hindu – I told them where to go to. If it works do it.
                  Oh and your neurologist god – I think you may be guilty of what you accused me of – argumentum ab auctoritate. One of the top neurologists in the world (and an atheist) said when asked by an admiring interviewer that she must know everything about the brain and how it all works answered (laughing) “No way. If the knowledge of the brain and how it works was represented by Mount Everest we are only fairly confident about the top snowflake – the rest is a mystery.”
                  How much do they know Lenny? Exactly – so quoting one of them as an expert is not in your favour, but that’s okay.
                  Finally, I have travelled to countries where people live to over 100 and have never had an illness, there are NO chronic illnesses – no cancer, no heart disease, no diabetes, alzh. etc etc. Oh and no suicide pandemics.
                  What do they all have in common – they cannot afford western medicine, cannot afford western agricultural chemicals, preserved food, or GMO’s. They grow natural food and have little industrial pollution, and flood irrigate their farms with water from mountains heavy in minerals – NOT heavy in transitional metals (heavy metals – lead, mercury, cadmium, etc etc – environmental pollution – toxins). The WHO even stated this strange phenomena. Real science with real people on large scale (not in a lab with non-real people and influential funders) – hey one of the places was North Korea – yes NORTH KOREA. Another was China – hey atheist regimes – man I’m working for you here hahahaha.
                  I was as stuck as you once, so I don’t judge you, but man if you want to know the truth see it in action (real life) not in ‘writing’ on the internet brother. Man is corrupted – we are all easily influenced by a few bucks. I love to see results.

                • Graham,

                  You may think you’re a cynic, but you’re actually more dangerous. You believe intensely in everything you say, and that’s pretty dangerous.

                  I don’t care if god is a fart in the wind. I’m having none if it. No, I don’t buy the little man with a beard, no more than you buy the big man in the sky with a beard, no? If it can’t be quantified, it’s not worth wasting time over.

                  I’m sorry to have to be blunt, but your clinic was dispensing bullshit. There is enough evidence available in the skeptic community to debunk all that crap. There is no scientific basis for any of it. The jury was out on acupuncture for a while, but even that is shown to be only effective for mild pain relief and nothing else, as more scientific evidence comes in.

                  Modern medicine is the reason why more people live longer, better lives. NOT because of alternative remedies. A treatment that works is called medicine, simple. Placebos have been known to work in some instances, but not for their medicinal properties. Here neuroscientists are still studying the effects that the mind has on healing the body. Ayurvedhic “medication” is not FDA approved and for good reason. It’s mostly bullshit. And oh guess what, I grew up as a Hindu.

                  “Oh and your neurologist god – I think you may be guilty of what you accused me of – argumentum ab auctoritate.” Seems that in your haste to get one up on me, you may have missed what the article actually said, if you did read it at all. Also you don’t understand what the appeal to authority fallacy actually means. When you name one person and use them as an authority on a subject, despite a whole host of other subject matter experts being skeptical about the subject matter, you are appealing to authority. I did not do that. I referenced and article where a team of neuroscientists are investigating a claim, and conlcude that the claim is dubious based on scientific findings. They also make it clear in the artical that further research is required to acquire conclusive evidence. But thus far, all their findings point in the opposite direction to the claim being made. That’s how science works. But you’re not involved in REAL science are you?

                  “Finally, I have travelled to countries where people live to over 100 and have never had an illness, there are NO chronic illnesses – no cancer, no heart disease, no diabetes, alzh. etc etc. Oh and no suicide pandemics.” Another serious logical fallacy here. Could be cherry picking, confirmation bias or even confusion of correlation and causation. You don’t have all the circumstantial evidence for why these people have never had an illness (which I find hard to believe by the way, but never mind), yet you choose one which you have either cherry picked or confirms your bias, or you are correlating the reason for good health to absence of your favorite boogey-man products.

                  There’s one more thing I need to clear up. Scientists study claims made by people to see if they can replicate it through experiment, If the results don’t confirm the claim or it cannot be replicated successfully, they say so. The process never ends of course because at some stage it COULD be proven to be true by other scientists. Until such time off course, the claim is NEVER accepted as fact.

                • Lenny my clinic dealt with people that had been failed by the so called medical science and mostly completely broke – hence told to go home and die.
                  You keep missing the important point here and that is because you have a massive impenetrable pair of blinkers. Now I get it though. I guessed you were an x religious guy – you guys are like many x smokers – bitter and twisted, felt let down, full of blame and anger and looking for any new cause to oppose or take revenge on your lost dependency.
                  (And I don’t judge Hindus either – religion is a ‘free will’ choice. Actually my Hindu Indian mate told me they too can worship Jesus – correct me if he was just joshing me).
                  I agree with Gandhi when he said, “If Christians lived the way they are taught in the Bible all of India would now be Christians.”
                  I agree with him – since the crusades so called Christians have either done exactly the opposite they were taught by Christ or just as bad turned their backs. Don’t judge God on the religious – or cows and the other animals – sorry don’t know much about Hinduism.
                  What I am saying is that medical science knows next to nothing and yet they tell patients they will die based on that lack of knowledge (read again the interview with the neurologist – her comment was not based on her personal knowledge she was commenting on the known science of the brain of her industry – okay?).
                  The blinkered doctors make time judgments on what they know (bugger all) and based purely on how long a patient survives their treatment. If you don’t know bugger all about a disease you can only base a time judgment on the patients you have treated and how long they survive. Do you get it? Probably NOT!
                  I know doctors struck off for refusing to send cancer patients to oncologists for chemo and radiation.
                  I am not concerned with WHY something works I am more interested in SOMETHING WORKING!
                  Here’s an example – a man was discharged from hospital to die. He was gay (I only put that in so you get over another fallacy that God doesn’t love gays – He came and died for sinners) and this poor guy sent home to die without his $2,000 a day pharma aids medicines (thank God – beginning of his recovery)he had Hep C, Hep B and full blown AIDS – puss and soars all over his body. His blood was so chockers with bacteria, fungus and virus they could no longer extract blood from his veins. He stank – he was rotting alive and told he only had two weeks to live.
                  This guy wanted to live.
                  A man (not named for legal reasons) hit him with everything (except YOUR so called medicines – they had already totally failed and completely destroyed his immune system). All the things you judge as fake and unscientific were applied. Six weeks later he was CURED – not symptoms managed – CURED! He now teaches martial arts. This is NOT a one off case (your next excuse to avoid focussing on the truth).
                  You see Lenny – just because science can’t prove why something works is because science knows a snow flake on top of mount Everest. To not try something to save a man because of pride and arrogance is pathetic.
                  I have absolutely NO problem with being proven wrong. I welcome it because I know how little mankind knows. I am never uncomfortable when something I believed is proven wrong. You see for me right or wrong teaches me and I get closer to the truth.
                  By the way the countries I went to were not to prove any particular belief of mine.
                  I went because I wanted to know (see for myself – such a cynic) what was happening; especially as the reports were from sources (WHO etc.) that I normally disagree with and find totally biased to the pharma medicine and chemical (GMO) agricultural industries. The research was from your guys Lenny – not mine ahahahaha.
                  Reality is for once they were right – I know wow that was uncomfortable for me to even say, but their conclusion was correct. The extraordinary healthy life spans with NO chronic illnesses for millions of people were because they did NOT have Western Medicines or Western Agricultural chemicals and limited polluting industries. It wasn’t me saying it – I just had to agree they were right,
                  You see Lenny most chronic illness are caused by heavy metal toxins and your science don’t like preventative medicines – they are cheap and not sexy enough for big profits.
                  The trouble is Lenny – not even the science for testing and evaluating disease are very effective. But that’s a huge subject. Diagnosis by local doctors is mostly from what a patient tells them – think about it!
                  So to really ram this home – I DON’T GIVE A DAMN how a human being is cured – I just love to see them walk out of a death sentence and live happy fulfilled lives (sorry that sounded religious).
                  I won’t NOT try something in treating people because it tickles my core sensitivities (pride arrogance). And because of my forced open mindedness (yes forced – I almost died because of my stubborn arrogance and hatred of religion and all things outside of my limited knowledge) I have seen amazing bloody things that reg doctors stand with open mouths in awe.
                  Take you blinkers off man and see the light. Who really cares if we don’t know HOW something works if a kid survives a death sentence and hugs his mum and she bursts out in tears of joy – who cares when the mum says, “How did that happen – they said he had no hope?”
                  By the way this is from a real story and I replied, “I have NO idea, but who cares – it worked!”
                  You will hate this but this kid went from grey skin and yellow eyes to bright red cheeks in minutes because a dog in the clinic licked his face – I know what a shocker.
                  I think that dog was responsible for 50% of the healing process – but prove that hahaha.
                  Smell the roses Lenny – don’t live a limited life – don’t miss out of the joy of miracles.
                  Science is not in a good position to say what is possible or not possible – what can be cured and what can’t – simply because mankind knows jack at the present moment. To say you believe something when the source KNOWS jack is insanity brother.

                • Graham,

                  “You keep missing the important point here and that is because you have a massive impenetrable pair of blinkers.” No, I have massive filters which don;t allow me to accept anything unless the evidence is convincing. So far, your evidence (or lack of it) has been far off the mark.

                  You’re not the first to accuse me of being bitter and twisted, nor will you be the last. It comes with the territory I guess off being a skeptic. What you see as bitter and twisted is anything but. Actually I’m pretty concerned about the well being off human beings which is why I write about the bullshit that takes advantage of their credulous nature every day.

                  You quote a few examples where you see psuedo-science working (without providing any corroborating evidence or proof, I might add), but in the scientific world this is known as anecdotal evidence. Go look it up. It does not explain the anomoly you are trying so hard to convince your detractors off. It is just another logical fallacy.

                  Your problem is not with the scientists, but with the swamped doctors and administrators of an unjust system. I guess it’s just easy to blame those at the front end.

                  “Take you blinkers off man and see the light.” Yeah, did that years ago. Maybe you should try it too.

                  I just read something today by a guy (Chuck Lasker – he’s a nobody so don’t even dare attempt accusing me again of appealing to authority) who used to be anti-GMO. He used to forward all those anti-GMO memes on his Facebook timeline because he thought it was hurting the big corporations. Then he heard about intellectual dishonesty from a friend, and decided to actually do some research about GMO’s. He’s now a changed man. He now understands the bullshit being unfairly and ignorantly preached about GMO’s. I hope you do the same.

                  Mankind may indded know jack, but that’s no fault of the scientists who do try their best to disseminate their findings.

                  “To say you believe something when the source KNOWS jack is insanity brother.” You’ve not been paying attention. I’m not the one who believes implicitly. In fact, I’ve just been questioning every one of your beliefs. If that’s insane, I’m happy to be a part of the insane minority.

                • No – you are making ridiculous assumptions again. I quoted a few cases where people that were sent home to die with no hope were CURED of something your ‘experts’ stated as “Incurable.”
                  Yes I quoted only a few, but my friend I was involved in a clinic that existed for over 40 years – Only God knows how many thousands have been cured of the incurable – hardly anecdotal dear boy. Oh and by the way, the original owner of the clinic was always broke – he rarely charged a cent for saving lives – oh and he was NOT a believer either. more an agnostic haha.
                  When I say mankind knows jack, I AM talking about the SCIENTISTS, not the mere mortals. You are in awe of a clever confidence trick dear boy.
                  Clearly you still have not understood the neurologist’s Mount Everest and snowflake analogy. I am saying Science knows jack. Why on earth would anyone take the advice of a doctor that they are incurable and going to die on that basis – it is just a theory.
                  I don’t count my own curing from the incurable as one of the big miracles of my life, but I have others that I can’t argue against – nor could any of the atheist experts at the time, hence my switch to an open minded believer (but don’t worry about it for now). In fact one coined the phrase “You have an unfair advantage.” As he (the most cynical and brilliant of all atheists I have met) looked up hahaha.
                  Your whole argument is based on pure armchair theory – mine on the other hand is based on eye witness events. I don’t believe anything unless I see it for myself – just reading the internet doesn’t work for me – shocking cynic hey!
                  By the way the reason you don’t know more of the ‘anecdotal’ thousands of cured incurables is that the media WON”T publish the stories.
                  And the farmers I know who made the mistake of trying GMO are bankrupt and under threat of imprisonment if they go public.
                  You talk as if you have sympathy for the poor little ‘scientists’ of the pharma and agri businesses. You are so naïve. Anyone that dares to question them face the jack boots. They are no better than the gestapo. Try to be a ‘cynic’ against them brother and you will learn a few things hahaha.
                  I know personally a doctor (mainstream) who diagnosed a girl with cancer. He did exactly what he is supposed to do. He sent her to an oncologist for treatment.
                  Before the chemo started the parents took her to a naturopath – not because they expected much, but they wanted her to be as healthy as possible to survive the chemo – harmless treatment.
                  Hey presto when the doctor tested again she was clear – NO cancer. Yes he was shocked – way out of his experience, wisdom and expertise. This doctor obviously tried to cancel the chemo treatment – why NOT – it is evasive, painful and she did not have cancer?
                  The oncologist who still receives cards from people every year to remind him how he killed a child did not believe cancer was curable (I am serious) went to court and the courts took the girl away from the parents for daring to disagree with the ‘expert.’ The judge made her a ward of court and forced treatment on her – the chemo killed her – fact not fiction – she had NO cancer.
                  The doctor that tried to stop the chemo treatments was struck off for questioning the treatment. One dead girl; a family devastated and a good doctor’s career ended – WHY?
                  Arrogance, pride and greed.
                  When my brother’s wife died of cancer he was angry with me because he did not take her to my clinic. I never asked him to, I never claimed I could help her. When the oncologist said she had only a few months to live he asked if he should take her to my clinic, but the oncologist told him it may negatively affect his treatment of her cancer. SHE WAS DYING in agony – what is more negative hahaha.
                  Anyway my brother took the oncologist’s expert advice and she died.
                  I said nothing, but my brother said angrily the day after the funeral, “I suppose you think you could have done better – if you are so smart why don’t you tell the oncologist?”
                  I understood he was emotional so I didn’t punch him on the nose – I love my ignorant atheist cynic brother – we used to have so much in common haha.
                  He was a little surprised though with my answer.
                  “Bro I don’t have to tell the oncologist – when he had cancer he came to our clinic!”
                  True story Lenny – true story.
                  When my mother got cancer she ignored the oncologist my brother forcefully (still in ignorant fear)recommended she went to – the one that successfully treated his own dead wife – thankfully 15 years later my mum now in her 80’s is still fit and well with all her marbles – and alive.
                  I used to be like my brother ( and you ), but love for me is greater than pride and arrogance. Who cares if I am wrong – I just want something that works.
                  By the way the little lady I told you about (with the angry believer daughter) who stopped taking the treatments that were improving her health because she wanted to have cancer – do you remember? She survived cancer (in fact she had three cancers – all very nasty). The oncologists said it was a miracle, not me. Neither the oncologist or I could claim a hand in that one – everyone had stopped treating her. Obviously God wanted a different outcome.
                  Smell the roses Lenny. The impossible is possible.

                • Graham,

                  “Yes I quoted only a few, but my friend I was involved in a clinic that existed for over 40 years – Only God knows how many thousands have been cured of the incurable – hardly anecdotal dear boy.” This is worse than anecdotal. Can you provide exact figures… and need I say proof. Otherwise it’s useless information. How about the many thousands that were not cured? This is another cognitive bias – the good news syndrome.

                  “… it is just a theory.” Clearly like creationists, you don’t understand what a theory is.

                  “Your whole argument is based on pure armchair theory – mine on the other hand is based on eye witness events. I don’t believe anything unless I see it for myself – just reading the internet doesn’t work for me – shocking cynic hey!” Eyewitness accounts for which you can provide no proof. You’d be shocked at the number of things the eye sees, but the brain interprets wrongly. Plenty of research done in this area, if you’d care to go look it up. Oh wait, you don’t trust the internet.

                  “And the farmers I know who made the mistake of trying GMO are bankrupt and under threat of imprisonment if they go public.” Yeah right, the farmers YOU know. What about the farmers you don’t know. I strongly suggest you read up on the all the logical fallacies that should be avoided when making an argument. Your arguments are littered with them.

                  “Obviously God wanted a different outcome.” Yeah what a nice god. Must be pretty busy deciding who to save and who to let go. So busy in fact deciding on who should survive cancer tht he/she/it doesn’t have time to save others from all those other mishaps and disasters etc. Oh wait, all those others MUST surely have been BAD people, right?

                  “By the way the reason you don’t know more of the ‘anecdotal’ thousands of cured incurables is that the media WON”T publish the stories.” Oh please, stop with the conspiracy theories already.

                  “When I say mankind knows jack, I AM talking about the SCIENTISTS, not the mere mortals. You are in awe of a clever confidence trick dear boy.” Mankind knows much much more than we did in the stone age. It’s because of people who bothered to find out things rather than accept blindly what they were told by ignorant, superstitios men who attributed everything to divine intervention. Yes, I am in awe of scientists because they are leading the way in knowledge gathering.

                • Your comment “Oh wait, I forget – you don’t care too much for science except when it provides you with all the comforts that make life easier.”
                  Wrong again! You are such a judgmental fellow (and maybe you believe you are clairvoyant – I don’t believe in clairvoyants).
                  Why do you keep making up stuff about me, and adding massive assumptions?
                  I am a scientist. I don’t play around with armchair theories, I test them out in the real world. I am a practical scientist interested in the science that benefits mankind and the environment.
                  I agree I am not a supporter of the science that makes weapons of mass destruction or industries that are destroying our world. And I don’t like the hypocrites of science that produce false results to mislead people and patronise their funders. I don’t like the sciences that kill and damage the lives of innocent people – do you?
                  I admit I love the sciences that provide people with comfort and an easier healthier life style – I thought that was the mission statement of scientists?
                  I think you have been mislead. Do you believe men of faith don’t like science – how wrong can you be? Even the theories of evolution and big bang were first penned by Christians – don’t you know that? Look it up!

                • Graham,

                  There is no destructive or constructive science. There is just science. Another one of your straw men?

                  Scientists are in the business of making discoveries. How those discoveries are eventually used, is not always up to the scientists who make the discoveries. Sure, you get evil scientists like you would get evil anything. Don’t judge all of science by the actions of a few errant scienists.

                  Men of faith are generally not comfortable with anything that is at odds with their ideological beliefs. It’s that simple.

                  I don’t care if any theory is/was dicovered by believers or satanists or homosexuals or whatever. They are scientists first, and everything else is immaterial to their discoveries. No scientist makes a discovery for the express purpose of illuminating his religious, cutural, sexual, political or social orientation. To claim this is extremely insulting to the scientist, not to mention disingenuous.

  87. Howdy! Would you mind if I share your blog with my myspace group?

    There’s a lot of people that I think would really appreciate your content.
    Please let me know. Thank you

    • Of course Lenny, and if I had a blog I would be happy for that to occur (whatever your reasons for asking may be – doesn’t bother me). As I told you before I actually don’t evangelise.
      By the way, the clinic I referred to had over 80% of its clients in the NO HOPE incurable category – sent home to die. Many referred by mainstream doctors when nothing they did worked (some doctors themselves came too). The clinic always ran at a loss simply because most clients had already burnt their money on mainstream medicines.
      The main practitioner was not a religious man; he was damn fool. Most of his treatments were free. He saved hundreds of lives; some of his clients bought houses with their life insurance payouts and now live lives they only dreamed of; and he didn’t even own a house, and his car was a heap.
      He was such a fool he put people before money, pride, arrogance, and definitely himself and spent years just managing to survive.
      He treated anyone who came in the door irrespective of race, colour, creed, (atheist or theist)sexual orientation, even legal standing. I will never forget he had Coffin Cheaters (Bikies) come in the morning and Mongrels in the afternoon to stop them fighting outside his clinic.
      Most of the staff were unpaid
      The reality is that everyone dies in the end (at least their human bodies). I am more than happy to talk about the ones that died; most of them were wonderful people (they were definitely not bad as you seem to assume I would think) and I often thought it was unfair.
      However, all had a far better quality of life in their last few months than their previous months or years on chemo and radiation. The clinic was always full of laughter.
      If 80% were sent home to die and only 1 survived it would be a good result for the person and their families and loved ones (I hope you would agree on that).
      In fact, over 50% of those sent home to die survived and were cured of the terminal disease. And there were records of his success. Of course for a clinic treating people for over 40 years many of the clients eventually die – mostly of old age.
      So what happened? Simple, he was shut down. No one disputed his successful outcomes – no one disputed the amazing results. He had mainstream records for 90% of the ‘no hope clients’ – all the records of their treatments and the final prognosis of mainstream medicine. Most had stated life expectancies. 3,6,12,18 months to live.
      This clinic had over 50% success rate of curing clients that were told they were going to die and had mainstream tests to prove the before and after health of the clients.
      Funny hearing some doctors when told the client THEY said would be dead in a few months were happier saying it was a MIRACLE – rather than admit it was because of a treatment at the clinic – but that’s an aside.
      Now here is the interesting part that made me look seriously at my cynical scientific view of the world. He was shut down because he could NOT prove how or why his treatments worked.
      Let me repeat – NO one disputed his success – he was shut down because their was no scientific evidence of why his treatments worked – they just worked!
      Why didn’t the medical scientists take these fantastic (real – provable) results and carry out the scientific experiments to discover why they worked so they too could become mainstream medications and save lives?
      I will tell you and this has been confirmed many times over – They could not patent the medicines to recoup their investment for the research and development. They KNEW they worked, but proving why so that they could be licensed to sell as mainstream medicines would cost lots of money and their competitors would just copy (Do you get my point?).
      Not a conspiracy theory. A perfectly honest business reason. I repeat the people I approached said if they spent the money necessary to get the license they would have NO protection to be able to recoup their investment. As a business man I could totally understand. They can not patent a medicine that has been used for hundreds, maybe thousands of years.
      One example you may like to research – GINKGO. I choose this one because it has been researched by mainstream pharmaceutical industry and found to WORK! Yes work. Trouble is the active ingredients can not be synthesised in a lab – damn it. The pharma companies would have to pay a farmer to grow it. Lot more expensive than mixing a few chemicals together.
      As you know most painkillers are extracted from another natural medicine – opium. Did you know Heroin was first made by a pharmaceutical company as cough mixture for kids – they still own the brand name.
      Did you know most mainstream medicines are based on natural medicines?
      It is not a conspiracy theory – it’s business!
      I would never sacrifice the life of a human being for money or ego. And that is not because of my faith in the existence of God. I believe Theologians and religion do more damage to the name of God than any atheist individual or organisation could ever hope to achieve. The message of God is Love God and your neighbour as yourself. The rest is subject to human interpretation.

      • Graham,

        “The reality is that everyone dies in the end (at least their human bodies). I am more than happy to talk about the ones that died; most of them were wonderful people (they were definitely not bad as you seem to assume I would think) and I often thought it was unfair.” No, I didn’t assume they were bad. Off course it’s unfair. But hey, it’s all part of the master plan, right?

        “If 80% were sent home to die and only 1 survived it would be a good result for the person and their families and loved ones (I hope you would agree on that).” Off course it would. But you cannot assume that they survived because of your alternative treatment. In the absence of scientific examination of the reason for survival, it’s arraogant to assume that your treatment was the reason.

        “In fact, over 50% of those sent home to die survived and were cured of the terminal disease. And there were records of his success.” Where are these records, and have they been subjected to scientific scrutiny?

        “Let me repeat – NO one disputed his success – he was shut down because their was no scientific evidence of why his treatments worked – they just worked!” I’ll have to take your word for it I suppose?

        “I will tell you and this has been confirmed many times over – They could not patent the medicines to recoup their investment for the research and development. They KNEW they worked, but proving why so that they could be licensed to sell as mainstream medicines would cost lots of money and their competitors would just copy (Do you get my point?).”
        Do you even understand what a conspiracy theory is?

        “Did you know most mainstream medicines are based on natural medicines?” The ones that work, yes. That’s why we have the FDA and trials – to weed out the quackery. If it works it’s known as medicine.

        “The message of God is Love God…” Yes, you just missed out the OR ELSE part.

  88. Lenny – I have commented before that the beginnings of science and the architects of the atheists favourite theories were all from men of God. You know that – don’t you?
    Many modern scientists too are men of God – stop thinking scientists are all atheists. I understand you must struggle with modern scientists still being men of faith – think about that for a moment. They have more understanding of the science than you or I and yet they remain men of faith. Some were atheists and have become men of faith – explain that!
    I won’t mention names because that seems to incite you. However, even you must accept then that science does NOT prove the absence of God. WHERE is your scientific evidence God does NOT exist?
    Of course you will say it is not for you to prove the existence of God – but you seem very keen to prove His non existence. Is that a true sceptic approach? – or just an angry x-hindu with a grudge against anything supernatural.
    By the way – why don’t all your replies appear on your blog? Are you guilty of selecting what you want your interested parties to see – are you censoring?
    I am not judging, I am just interested – maybe I should do a blog and it would be good to know how! haha

    • Graham,

      “Lenny – I have commented before that the beginnings of science and the architects of the atheists favourite theories were all from men of God. You know that – don’t you?”

      Atheists don’t have favorite theories. Stop making shit up.

      “Many modern scientists too are men of God – stop thinking scientists are all atheists. I understand you must struggle with modern scientists still being men of faith – think about that for a moment. They have more understanding of the science than you or I and yet they remain men of faith. Some were atheists and have become men of faith – explain that!”

      I never said all scientists were atheists. Do you actually know how FEW scientists are religious comparitively? I’d give you the link to the stats, but you’d just ignore it like before. They have more understanding? Who the religious ones or the atheist ones? You really need to get a grip. So some became atheists, so what. Some became satanists, homosexual, murderers, thieves, charlatans, politicians; still doesn’t change anything? What point exactly are you trying to make? That people change?

      “WHERE is your scientific evidence God does NOT exist?” You still don’t seem to understand the purpose of science. Science can only tackle claims made and investigate those claims. So far all claims made for the existence of a supernatural being have not stood up to scrutiny. Scientists are not the ones making the claims, religious people are. Science just examines the claims. Science is not there to prove the existence or non-existence of a god or gods. It just examines the claims made about them (gods). Why won’t you accept the disctinction? Because it does not fit in with your accepted world view, or what you have been sold?

      “By the way – why don’t all your replies appear on your blog? Are you guilty of selecting what you want your interested parties to see – are you censoring?” If you read my About Page, you will realise that I don’t censor comments; never have, never will, unless it borders on hate speeech or sexual or gender discrimination. All your comments and my replies are still there below the original post. Are you having trouble following the comment threads?

  89. Hiya very nice web site!! Guy .. Excellent .. Amazing ..

    I will bookmark your blog and take the feeds additionally?
    I am satisfied to find a lot of helpful info
    right here in the publish, we want work out more techniques on this regard, thanks for sharing.
    . . . . .

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